Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1289

Hi guys, I’ve been working on an article lately, as seen in:

Draft:Mobile Guardian

I previously used too much AI to generate the entire article for me, and it therefore get rejected, so I changed almost everything in the article, and added some new information that I found myself. Please note that I did still use AI but only to turn the sources I found myself into Wikipedia compatible citations. I tried my best to match the correct tone of Wikipedia. I submitted it already, but I wanted to get some quick feedback before it gets reviewed. I especially want to know whether this topic is notable enough or not, so that I know whether I should even keep working on this draft.

Before anybody asks, I believe that the Top 3 sources for notability in this article are:

• The Straits Times
• CNA
• TechCrunch

Thanks for your feedback, and if you didn’t leave any, thanks for doing nothing! 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 13:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gileselig, and welcome to the Teahouse!

I looked over your article and it seems pretty good to me. This may be a hot take, but I think it's generally less problematic to use LLMs (AI) to help with the creation of an article, as long as a human (you!) reviews the output carefully to avoid use of an unencyclopedic tone or hallucinations, as well as avoiding the risk of copyright violations.

I haven't written a full article for mainspace yet, but I can understand that writing the citations can be tedious, and thus a good monitored use of an LLM.

To address your question about notability, the significant coverage on the cyberattack on the platform in 2024 from reliable, independent sources as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability would, in my view, justify the creation of this article.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

When you write enough content for Wikipedia, writing citations becomes second nature, it's easy.

The proper way to use AI is to work like a Supreme Court judge, who has assistants to search case histories and write legal briefs, but in the end the judge writes the opinion, not the assistants. In the same way, you can use an AI to find and summarize sources (you must check what it gives you because AIs can also synthesize information that isn't in the sources), but in the end you write the article, not the AI.

The only article I've written using AI is Star of Pure Land. The first thing I did is ask the AI for sources, and it found a bunch. I went through them all with the AI, telling it that certain sources are unreliable, and asked it about others that seemed to be identical. The AI eventually admitted that there were only two sources that were independent of the topic, reliable, gave significant coverage, and not re-publishing of some other source. I wrote the body of the article based on that, and wrote the lead when it was done. Then I asked the AI to suggest what to add using a primary source, and it suggested replacing a paragraph with better details about the gem from that source.

In the end I had a short article with two WP:Golden Rule sources and one primary source. Two good sources are the absolute minimum one should have. There are probably more sources now, but at the time those were the ones available because it was a recent event.

Basically, I used the AI as an assistant or collaborator, but not as an author. This was almost as much work as me writing the article from scratch, but the AI made finding sources more efficient, and its suggestions were useful. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for replying 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 05:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! It’s good to know that at least 1 other person believes that my subject has notability that is significant enough to justify a Wikipedia article for it. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 04:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the notability of the app seems to come from discussion of the cyberattack; so why so much WP:CORPTRIV fluff? You've got a line in the History section which says According to a press release, in August 2020 Mobile Guardian announced a $1 million COVID-19 software grant. This was intended to support K‑12 schools in implementing mobile device management and distance learning during the pandemic. Who cares? I mean that not in a passive-aggressive insulting way, but in a literal way: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. There's pretty much no reason to include anything the company's own press releases say about them, certainly not something as mundane (and borderline promotional) as them giving a software grant to schools 6 years ago.

In the 'operations' section, you begin with Mobile Guardian has tools that help parents manage... again, this article should not be promoting the company's services to us in any way. Language like This helps administrators to enforce security policies. belongs on the company's website, where they're trying to sell this product to school administrators. If you're going to include information about the app's functionality; that's all we need to know about, the functionality. You don't need to tell us how this would benefit a school administration.

It's generally faux pas to use other articles as an example of what to do, but look at Google Drive#Features for example. At no point does it say something like "Google Drive's cloud functionality helps to increase workplace productivity." It just tells us what it does, not why it does it. Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise for doing that, I think I was just kind of paraphrasing the promotional info directly from the source. That is my bad, other than all of that unnecessary primary stuff issue, is there any other issue with notability, tone in any other places, any other particular issues with the “Security Incidents” segment? Also thanks for reviewing it, I will try to improve on it 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 23:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I made some changes with regards to the problems you addressed. If someone could check out the article now, that’ll be great! 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 05:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi again,

I think you've properly adressed the issues brought up here. Good work! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 08:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gileselig, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A look at WP:RSP will tell you that CNA is "a generally reliable source", that Straits Times is generally reliable but with some concerns, and that TechCrunch requires "careful consideration".

But this shows that just mentioning the name of the publication does not tell you whether or not a citation is useful. There's also the consideration of independence, and significant coverage. The most reliable sources in the world sometimes print articles based on press releases (CORPTRIV items are almost of necessity based on press releases), and these are completely worthless for establishing notability.

So if you are going to list your "top three sources" (as editors are often encouraged to do) they need to be three specific cited articles, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying!

I see, the reason why I did so, is because I use multiple sources from Straits Times and CNA, so I’m not too sure which one to link. You can check out the article yourself and see for yourself. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 05:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This is what I believe are the Top 3 sources (Without duplicate websites) (Also I found some new sources, but they are mostly from the same websites, except for Bernama)

1. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/mobile-guardian-hacking-singapore-cybersecurity-moe-secondary-schools-ipad-4536331
2. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/moe-to-remove-mobile-guardian-app-from-all-students-devices-after-cybersecurity-breach
3. https://bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2325735 There are some other independent, reliable sources that I use, I feel like these are the most important ones.

𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 08:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are good sources for establishing notability for the security breach incident, because that's what the coverage is about. I am not seeing that they establish Mobile Guardian as a notable company that merits an article in its own right. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Should I continue writing the article? 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 13:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You could recast it to be about the breach. I've done that before. I once wrote a draft about an author of a bestselling book, and a reviewer told me it would be better to write about the book because that's what the sources covered, and he was right. If the company is known primarily for one event, then it's more likely the event is notable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright sure, I’ll try doing that. Do you think I should make it solely about the Aug 2024 incident, or also include all the other relatively minor incidents (which still got some coverage by secondary sources)? Also what should I rename the article’s title to? 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 01:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Getting "some coverage" isn't the same as "significant coverage". You could call it "Mobile Guardian security breach" or something similar. However, you could mention those other incidents in a short subsection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much for replying! :)))))))) 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 03:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have just made some major changes to my draft to completely shift the focus of the draft from the company Mobile Guardian, to the cyberattack. However, I am not really finished yet, and I believe more still has to be done. If anyone can provide any feedback or suggestions on what I can do from this point onwards, that would be great. Pls don’t expect it to be good since this is my first article, and therefore my first time doing this kind of thing. Thanks again everyone! 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 13:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Also btw, it is still very much in a state of WIP, I believe that there is a need to summarise the “Previous incidents” section, as it is too long for an article which is not focused on them. Also, if anyone would like to suggest some new names for my sections and sub-sections pls don’t hesitate to tell me, ok thx bye 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 14:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I just summarised that sub-section, it would be great if someone could give me some feedback on it. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 06:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I think your rewrite looks pretty good. The draft about the security breach reads way better than the earlier draft about the company. @Athanelar Do you agree?

Go ahead and submit it for review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will submit rn 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 06:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have some nitpicks about MOS-type stuff, but I think NEVENT is substantiated for this and so the article should certainly exist at least. I've gone ahead and published it. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting the article :) 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 14:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You have accomplished the most difficult task on Wikipedia: writing an acceptable article. Congratulations! I hope you stick around to improve the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey I've been editing the page on Yoshiko Kawashima for a bit and am not really sure what to do since it's just been back and forth on Kawashima's pronouns. I do believe that as per MOS:GENDERID Kawashima should be referred to with masc pronouns since what I believe to be their most recent self-id (published in the Asahi Shinbun articles Tokyo morning edition 27th November 1925 and Tokyo evening edition 29th November 1925) asserts masc self-id. However it is also true that an overwhelming majority of sources refer to Kawashima with fem pronouns and Kawashima appears to have had little consistency in gender presentation. I would appreciate any assistance in resolving this dispute.

I do have access to the articles I mentioned if any would be willing to make a full translation. Blobhaj (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Blobhaj, how in a century-old Japanese-language newspaper would somebody have asserted masculine or feminine self-id? (I can hardly believe that it would have been by commenting on the use of this or that pronominal.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

According to the translation provided in book ‘Manchu Princess, Japanese Spy,’ by Phyllis Birnbaum, a translated title of the first articles is "Kawashima Yoshiko's Beautiful Black Hair Completely Cut Off - Because of Unfounded 'Rumors,' Makes Firm Decision to Become a Man - Touching Secret Tale of Her Shooting Herself"

Since Birnbaum neglects to provide a full translation of the aforementioned articles, I have below pasted 3 paragraphs from the book to include her commentary on the articles.

Blobhaj (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

An experienced wikipedian created a username subpage for me to work on an article I had drafted in text file offline per the recommendation of other wikipedians. I am making major changes to the article because I am condensing it significantly, among other things. But, because I wrote the entire article, it seems inappropriate to label any of the changes "major", yet the wiki definition when publishing to save any change requires it. I didn't use my sandbox because this article is to turn an existing few sentence stub article into a full article, and there was some concern about maintaining the history of that stub article even though it is only a few sentences with a redirect link. So far, I haven't gotten a message from an administrator about my characterization of the changes but all of them are going to show up eventually when the draft is moved from my userpage subpage to the namespace of the subject. Any suggestions about what is essentially a lot of worthless history and continuing drafting this way? Thanks. Emanresu0 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Emanresu0 and welcome to the Teahouse. Do not label the changes you are making as "minor". See Help:minor edit. There is a very specific meaning in Wikipedia rather than the usual meaning of not a major change: Any edit that alters the meaning of an article, even slightly, is not minor. That means any addition to an article is not minor. Leave the "minor" tag for correcting typos, etc. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Emanresu0 I think you may be overthinking this. A minor edit is a typo that you fix or a source that you add the author's name to. Of your 82 edits, I only see about 11 that might count as minor edits where you've changed 1-20 characters. If in doubt, don't mark them minor. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

you understood that I wrote the entire article and I made all the changes because the article is still a draft? Of course i saw the definitions, but they seem meaningless in this situation. Apparently, the only way to avoid all the meaningless history is to draft offline and then post to a user page or sandbox when ready for comments before moving to the article namespace. Thx Emanresu0 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Emanresu0 It doesn't matter in this case; there's nothing wrong with not marking your edits as "minor". David10244 (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Whew! Your reply is a meaningful response to my question. Thank you. I could not figure out why I had not gotten a message from an administrator about labelling my edits as minor based on the definitions alone creating a violation. Logic made me question the applicability of the definitions for major and minor edits when drafting an entire article from scratch, with all the work and edits mine alone.

I plan to finish this draft soon and then ask the Teahouse for comments and include a link to the userpage. Thereafter, I will need help moving the article to the article namespace so the stub article becomes a full article. If you can help me with that, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, I have done everything to comply with the copyright requirements for images of the architecture relevant to this article. They are still inaccessible even though the wiki commons process was completed by the copyright owner unltimately. Therefore, I've deleted references in the text to those images so that this article can be posted without them. But, it would be a great improvement to this article about architecture to include the images at some point. If you can help me with the images, that would be much appreciated. Emanresu0 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Glossary has an entry for move.

Emanresu0, may I assume you are talking about your user subpage, User:Emanresu0/C.W. Kim Expansion/Condensed? There is already an existing article about the topic, C.W. Kim, and Wikipedia understands the word move in a very particular sense, which means 'renaming your page', and if that is what you meant, please do not attempt to move your page to the current article title. (You probably won't be able to anyway, as you are still new.) If you meant, move the *content* of your user page *into* the existing article, that is permitted. In that case, you could have dispensed with your user subpage entirely and simply edited the existing article directly, step by step, just as you have been doing on your subpage. But given where you are now, if you mean to move content into the existing article, you already have permissions to do that, and you won't have to ask for anybody's help to do it. Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for another very helpful reply. You correctly surmised that I want to "add" all of my draft to the existing namespace stub article on C.W. Kim. I was originally told to use a subpage to make all of my changes, so I did. I thought I needed to have an administrator add my draft to an existing article. I also want to be sure adding such a large amount of text and references does not get reverted because someone thinks I used LLM or feels the tone is too promotional (not neutral enough). Do you know if there is a way for the "right" person to add my draft to the existing article when I am finished with the draft? Emanresu0 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Emanresu0, Tl;dr: you are the right person if anyone is (i.e., not someone else), but doing so is not the best approach, in my opinion. Here's why.

There is a practical aspect here that may make it possible for you to do what you wish (i.e., merge your entire subpage into the article) perhaps without objection, that in the general case might cause some strife and result in frustration on your part, but that might work in this particular situation by accident of circumstance. Let me explain.

The Wikipedia Glossary has an entry for watcher.

Because there are few watchers of this page, and it is neither contententious, nor, frankly, a page that is of wide public interest (about 4 page views/day), it may be that you can merge your content into the article without objection, on the theory that no one is watching/no one cares. That doesn't mean it is the best strategy or a good idea; it just means you might get away with cutting corners and taking an inadvisable approach *in this case*. (No guarantees, though.)

However, I would strongly advise against this in the general case, and recommend you not try it again. At the C.W. Kim article, I see that you tried it once before with a 32kb addition last month which was reverted for cause by NicheSports. What I would do if I were you, is one (or more) of three things:

• ask NicheSports directly if they wouldn't mind having a quick look at your user subpage, User:Emanresu0/C.W. Kim Expansion/Condensed, and give their opinion about whether it is now ready to be merged/copied into the live article;
• write a message on the Talk page, Talk:C.W. Kim, asking for review of your Draft (it might not be seen by many, but see WP:APPNOTE);
• submit your draft to WP:Afc for review by a team of specially trained editors, and wait for a response. This likely will take some time, but in the meantime, you could work on other things.

If I were you, I would probably go with #3, and I have added an Afc draft submission header to your subpage for your convenience, should you wish to use it. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinged here. I likely do not have time to perform an adequate review of the proposed expansion so I agree with Mathglot's suggestion. I want to note that after discussion with Emanresu0 I no longer believe that the non-neutral language in the original article expansion was caused by LLM involvement. Emanresu0 and I subsequently had a good conversation at User Talk:Emanresu0 § Suggestions for edits to C.W. Kim about how to improve the article and I tried to help them as best as I could. Wishing the best for a positive experience at AfC. NicheSports (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will follow your recommendation when I am ready to submit the draft. This entire process has been incredibly challenging with few helpful comments so yours are much appreciated. For some reason your last comment about Afc was deleted from my messages icon and I only stumbled across it here when I went to your old message to thank you. If you know any way to get the images I that both I and the copyright holder uploaded to wiki commons via its vrt link and email, please let me know. Emanresu0 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Before finishing and submitting my draft article for Afc review, I am wondering whether I should copy and paste it to a new subpage so that it does not have all the irrelevant history about my changes while drafting. If so, I would need you to insert the same box for me to submit the new draft to Afc for review. I read somewhere that the copy and paste approach was not acceptable because all the history of edits to an article is lost in that process, but in this case, I would think that objection does not apply. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and again thank you for your help either way. Emanresu0 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it's completely unnecessary. First, in the normal course of events, when you publish a draft article it includes that very history of editing the page that you've called irrelevant - wikipedia records the edit history precisely because we do not think it's irrelevant and no one cares if you edited the page 50 times. However, because the article already exists, your subpage is not going to be published - someone will have to decide how to incorporate that material into the main article. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I've been working on some tables recently, but on some sections, enters have not been showing up after I add them in the edits. When checking the (visual) editor, I see a left arrow (shaped like the enter symbol) but no line break. Why does this happen and how can I prevent it?

Thanks,

WalnutBloom (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi WalnutBloom. A single newline doesn't cause a line break in the rendered text. That's just how our MediaWiki software works, also outside tables. If you want a line break to appear then you have to do something else. Make an empty line to start a new paragraph. This gives more than normal linespacing before it. You can write <br> to start a new line without a new paragraph but we rarely do that. See more at Help:Line-break handling. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia stub link for me under this page List of presidents of the American Psychiatric Association the specific link is here - Paul Summergrad Can someone assist in creating this - i have a lot of the background material organized in wikipedia format but it would be unethical for me to submit this myself - Paulsumm (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Paulsumm, (i) no article titled Paul Summergrad exists and none has ever existed; (ii) please read and digest "Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing". -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You are of course right - I meant a red link but misremembered the term. Will read the article you posted thank you for your assistance Paulsumm (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Paulsumm,

To clarify, what you've encountered is known as a "red link", not a stub.

I'm glad you recognize that submitting an article about yourself isn't a good idea. Indeed it is not, as outlined at the link WP:AUTOBIO. However, as a former president of a major academic institution, you likely satisfy our notability standards for academics, meaning an article about you is certainly warranted.

I'm sure the folks over at WikiProject Biography/Science and academia would be happy to help you out. They have a talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia where you could request creation of the article be put on their to-do list. The best way to help them create the article would be to provide a set of resources the article can use as citations. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I placed a request on the WikiProject Biography/Science page that you linked. As I mentioned there I have a list of externally referenced materials about aspects of my career from public sources as well as other material I could provide. I didnt post it at this juncture as I felt that would be inappropriate at this juncture. If you think I should or if you have additional suggestions I would appreciate it. Paulsumm (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, Paulsumm, please be mindful that now that you've expressed interest in having a Wikipedia article about yourself, you may be contacted by someone claiming to be affiliated with Wikipedia or with some kind of Wikipedia editing agency offering you professional editing services in exchange for payment. These offers are scams, and should be dealt with as per the instructions at WP:SCAM. Athanelar (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - I have already been on the receiving end of some of these and will be on the lookout. I really dont want to violate any of the Wikipedia standards as I greatly appreciate it as a highly valuable source and enterprise. Paulsumm (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Once an artile is created (or even before, in some respects) WP:About you may be helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction to the article. I also reponded directly to your Talk to Andy link Paulsumm (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just corrected a page written for me by the software AI engineer Devin. How can I determine if it fits the requirements for publication? It's located in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hbreiter123/sandbox Hbreiter123 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hbreiter123, and welcome to the Teahouse. Possibly you do. The requirements to have an article about a professor are given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). They rely on showing impact on one's field of study and it has been hard for those whose contributions have been in teaching in one's field to find evidence to support that. You were awrded the Paul Erdős Award in 2002 which awards having "played a significant role in the development of mathematical challenges at the national or international level and which have been a stimulus for the enrichment of mathematics learning." There may also be reviews of your books in the mathematics teaching literature.

The second issue is whether the article is ready to be in Wikipedia. There are no inline citations, which are needed to support everything in the article. The tone of the article is of a university web page, emphasizing wonderfulness, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. And before proceeding it is helpful to read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hbreiter123 In addition to all of this, be aware of the fact that we do not allow AI generated content, so if by the "software AI engineer Devin" you mean some kind of AI agent, this is not permitted.

As for general guidance, see Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hbreiter123

Looking at your sandbox, it seems you copied it from some former or older existing WP-Page "Harold Reiter", categories and all, "Last editet ~2024". So, where did you copy it from? (Maybe admins could locate this "old" article)? Maresa63 ^Talk 04:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a draft biography of Prof. M. Tanveer (IIT Indore, link - https://mtanveer.profiles.iiti.ac.in) and would like an independent editor to review and help submit it. ~2026-19432-32 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You might wanna visit WP:AFC, where you can submit a draft and have someone review it. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

No independent editor is likely to create an article on demand. (However, some scammer or incompetent might promise to do so.) Read WP:GNG and WP:PROF and ensure that M. Tanveer satisfies either the one or the other. (He doesn't need to satisfy both.) If so, you can embark on the task in Draft:M. Tanveer. (It's not going to be easy.) But are you perhaps related to M. Tanveer in some way? -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, when I logged in today, it looks like my account has been reset somehow. All my previous edits are gone as well as messages I've exchanged with other editors. Did I do something wrong? CanelaQuill (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@CanelaQuill From where I'm sitting, User talk:CanelaQuill has several messages and seems fine too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Now it's back to normal. I panicked there for a moment. Thanks for confirming all is well. CanelaQuill (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hiya! I'm trying to add sources to an article, and I was wondering if Britannica was alright to cite as a source. I realise that citing an encyclopaedia on an encyclopaedia might not be wise, hence the ask. Thanks, and sorry if this is a silly question! :) PlanetaryLuna :) (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a silly question at all: it's hardly intuitive. See WP:BRITANNICA(!) and adjacent sources in that Project page table. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

PlanetaryLuna, depending which version you cite (online; or print—which one?) there are some templates that may make it a lot easier. For example, template {{Cite EB15}} makes it easy to cite the 15th edition (covering print years 1974–2012). Template {{EB1911}} makes it easy to cite the 11th edition (from 1911) which is still suitable for some things, and has the advantage that it is now in the public domain, meaning you can copy text word for word without worrying about copyright infringement. You can find examples of articles that cite the 1911 edition here. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Should suspected LLM usage be reverted? I can't 100% tell, in this case should it still be reverted? (The information is very slightly biased, see link) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That particular edit was completely unsourced so could be reverted for that reason, whether or not it was LLM-generated. I see @CoffeeCrumbs already reverted it for that reason. I agree it's likely AI slop as well. Lijil (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've been a Wikipedia editor for 4 days now, and I have 30-ish edits. Anything I'm misunderstanding about the process?

- Powerplay11 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

As long as it's been a full four days(96 hours) you should be. What makes you think you aren't? 331dot (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

According to Xtools, you are already an autoconfirmed user. Jolly1253 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You are part of the autoconfirmed users group so you are autoconfirmed. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

For the past day, when I make an edit to a page, then click on the blue "Publish changes" button, nothing happens, and the edit is not saved. I tried two different browsers with the same result. Will this bug be fixed soon? ~2026-12086-96 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Which page? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

This is in response to the query just above from User:Starlet! It happens with every page, including this one. I am able to successfully click "Add topic" (and this button works), but, for the past day, "Publish changes" does not. That is why I was not able to add this response to User:Starlet! under the previous heading. ~2026-12086-96 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-12086-96: We have thousands of edits every hour and I haven't seen other reports of this so it sounds specific to you or rare circumstances. Do you have any anti-malware which might interfere with both browsers? Can you try another computer or device? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I was prepared to tell you about protected pages, but if it’s every page, then I have no clue. (Also I am user starlet147, but my signature says starlet) Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 13:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. The "Publish changes" button works for me again today. ~2026-12086-96 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello there. Is it possible that someone could add a translated Japanese version of this page please?: Carl Randall. The content is relevant to Japan. Thank you very much for your assistance, hope someone can help! Kabuki-obake (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Kabuki-obake. Please read WP:TRANSLATEUS for guidance on how to translate an English Wikipedia article into another language. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Kabuki-obake, you may be able to find an editor with the skills and interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you Kabuki-obake (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to create a second noteslist (with the same content) further down an article, without having to move the template to the very bottom. I've tried adding name and group (probably wrongly) and it will not display. I hope you can understand my explanation. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Fort esc. The named efn reference got "captured" by the {{notelist}} higher up in the article. The parser will only look for references defined below that notelist when you try to use it again. That's what lets there be more than one reflist or notelist in an article and not get confused. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Fort esc, agree with StarryGrandma. I have to ask, though: what is the article, and why would you want a duplicate reflist? There is a way to do this, but I can't think of a reason one would ever want to. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: This would've been for each British series of Gladiators. Fort esc (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be the notes from the "Contenders" section being reused in the Episodes subsection "Contenders progress" on each series' article. Hope that helps, Fort esc (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Fort esc, it seems you want three things, which may be in conflict with each other. Correct me if I am wrong, but you would like to have:

1. two (or more) notes with identical text in different sections
2. only write out the full text of a given note in one place on the page; other equivalent ones link to it somehow
3. resolve the notes within each section, so that the explanations for a, b, c, and so on appear after the table.

First of all, is that an accurate reading of what you are asking?

If so, it is #3 that doesn't play well with the others, as StarryGrandma explained. If you want just 1 & 2, you can use named notes or list-defined notes. Just 1 & 3: write out the text twice. Just 2 & 3, some tricky-ass stuff involving transclusion that would make other editors tear their hair out and probably get you reverted with dirty looks; ditto for all three.

Practically speaking, your best approach given mediawiki restrictions is drop #2 or #3; i.e., either duplicate the note text, or just resolve everything in a single notes section in one reference section at the bottom of the page, as the MOS:Layout guideline recommends. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Fort esc (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to put "mentor away" templates on my talk page, because I'm going away on Wednesday. Thank you for your time.   ~ polski chomik (chat)  17:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolishHamster, the correct procedure is to mark yourself away on the Mentor Dashboard, which will pause the assignment of new mentees to you. I don't believe there is a specific "mentor away" template but you can place a wikibreak notice with one of the {{Wikibreak templates}}. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 20:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Sarika Sanjot and Mukesh Modi

i dont think both is standard for Wikipedia ~2026-19613-43 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing it out. I’ll start an AfD for both. FactStructure (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm requesting to edit this page to add a gallery section, but it says it is not a protected page and I should be able to edit it myself. But when trying to edit it, it says I can't. How should I proceed? Thank you for your help Artful Historian (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Artful Historian If I'm reading correctly, it seems @Asilvering has blocked you from editing any WP-articles at all, so I'm guessing that's it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You're currently blocked from the article space, so you're expected to make edit requests on talk pages. You can use the {{edit partially-blocked}} template to do this. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 08:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look into it Artful Historian (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I am unable to edit. Santhon (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries. You can request deletion under WP:G7 (author request)..tag it for deletion so you can start fresh. FactStructure (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Santhon (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Why not just blank the contents of the page and start over? Athanelar (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Santhon I have restored Draft:Raku da to the last version which had text on it. Has that solved your issue? Athanelar (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Jordan Silk

Wanting to add an image to a short article on a cricketer, can't figure out sequence to upload. Any tips? (I'm VERY new, sorry for the trouble :|) Ladderus (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ladderus Welcome! This kind of question is what this page is for. Details matters immensely. The rule of thumb is that any random pic you find online is under copyright and can't be used on WP or Commons, which is where we keep most of our "free" pictures. More at Wikipedia:Uploading images.

So, which pic and what cricketer? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The cricketer is Jordan Silk, and I've had a look now and can't find any copyright free images, so I'll let this one alone. Thanks though for the help and info 👍 Ladderus (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ladderus That is very often the case, and also a reason that many of WP:s pics of living people are low quality, we use what we can use. If you want, you can try to contact him and point him to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Perhaps he likes the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This story is closely related to Canada before it was named Canada. This brave woman took down this Viking and was known as the Strong Woman that became famous for it. Could anyone create this article? I am sure I have read this story in a Blog before on the Internet. ~2026-19572-77 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you create the article using Article wizard. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

One reason for this person not to do so any time soon, TheGreatEditor024, is that they mention no source other than some "story in a Blog". That would be utterly inadequate, as WP:42 points out. -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm legitimately amused that they're not even suggesting that they write an article based on a story they vaguely remember reading somewhere on the internet but for someone else to write an article based on the former's vague memory. It's a bit like me asking you to draw a picture of my dinner from last Tuesday, but not telling you what I ate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes. I didn't notice the word "Blog". He or She would have to find independent, reliable sources that gives significant coverage to the topic. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

When adding a series of tv series cast do you need to put a reference beside the actors name even with the casting in production section and already has a source of the casting? Miamiwin (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

If the casting is already clearly supported by a reliable source in the production section you usually don’t need to repeat the same reference next to every actor in the cast list. However if any casting is not explicitly covered by that source then it should be cited separately. The key is that every piece of information must be verifiable from a reliable source. FactStructure (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:DJ DOC MARTIN

DJ DOC MARTIN would like his wiki page created. I need help on how to get started. I am a close friend. Fatunicorn2020 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fatunicorn2020 See WP:BACKWARD and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a conflict of interest (COI) with us then. It sounds scary, but it just means that you have a close connection the article you want written. When you're begin writing the article about them, you have to disclose that you have a COI between you and said article; your guide to doing that is WP:DCOI, and a simpler explanation can be seen at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Generally speaking, you do want to get used to the basics of Wikipedia editing first (see Help:Introduction), before writing your first article, as writing articles first off is way harder than if you have prior experience in editing (if you're confident enough, see Help:Your first article).

Make sure your friend satisfies our guidelines for notability (see also the guide for notability of people in general), alongside other checks at WP:Everything you need to know, and then make a submission of the article at Articles for Creation. LS8 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes (especially the last few months), I have been editing Wikipedia to correct minor issues as an IP and then I get something like we have to reject your edit because you're a bot or something and I'm like what the hell. This is really annoying. I have been considering making a permanent account but I have no idea what I'd even name my account. Often when I do it I just write some kind of random username, make the edits I need, and then abandon the account just to get around the "sorry you're an IP" problem. This is frustrating.

I'm really tempted to make a permanent username. Problem is I don't even know what username I'd have. It's a bit overwhelming. ~2026-18429-40 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a same problem. They think i am the same person as the other one that got blocked. ~2026-18291-17 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not in this situation. I think in my case it's something to do with you cannot make X accounts in Y time or something? ~2026-18429-40 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see the throttle limits mentioned at WP:TA. You may want to hang on to your TAs for longer. The key to holding on to a TA is to not clear the cookie. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

IP editing was discontinued a few months ago; now we have temporary accounts. Don't worry so much about choosing a permanent username; you can go through the process to change it later. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That's what I mean about temporary accounts. I make an edit and then I get some kind of sorry you're a bot you cannot edit and so I just make an account to get around it and when I'm done, I abandon the account. This is frustrating. ~2026-18429-40 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you don't want to create a permanent account? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Overwhelmed by choosing a username. ~2026-18429-40 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, earlier, you can change it later (I did; my original username was JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333). I think WP:Username policy has some examples of that helps. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-18429-40 Try using a random word generator on the web? David10244 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Kindly see User talk:Grizun25, he is deleting the AFC notice template created by me from his talk page and adding his draft copy. I think it's not allowed. Any experience may take appropriate steps. Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@VortexPhantom @DoubleGrazing I think that's quite allowed per WP:BLANKING. A few notices are not allowed to be removed, but yours is not one of those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed, but this is part of a bigger mess. There are a couple of registered users and at least one TA who are creating drafts on someone (presumably their boss), some in English, some not, some in the draft space, some on user talk pages. I'm going around trying to clean things up, but it feels a bit like Whack-a-Mole at the mo... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm seeking some third opinions here 'cause I can't get a answer on the WikiProject.

Recently, there's a disagreement (or maybe) on using "Filipino language" and "Tagalog language" on the OPM songs. Although, The Commission on the Filipino Language said that "Filipino" and "Tagalog" are the same language. Check here: Filipino language § Comparison of Filipino and Tagalog. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

According to MOS:PHILIPPINES, "Filipino is also the name of the national language. Examples: She speaks Filipino, Filipino-speakers." Don't know if it helps. You'd think this is something that has been settled by one or more rfc:s by now, possibly with "follow the sources." Consider trying to search the archives at the WikiProject or Talk:Philippines if you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to determine whether Nigerian playwright Toyin Abiodun is likely to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before attempting a draft.

He is a Nigerian playwright, author, producer, actor, director, and scholar with multiple published plays, including ‘‘Thunder in an Ancient Savannah’’ (1997), ‘‘The Marriage of Arike’’ (2010), ‘‘The Trials of Afonja’’ (2012), and ‘‘Princess Ruka and the Bachelor Kings’’ (2014). His work has also been staged multiple times, including university-linked productions, and ‘‘The Trials of Afonja’’ was a finalist for the 2014 Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature in Africa.

I am gathering sources including reviews, interviews, university production pages, scholarly commentary, and other coverage. Before drafting anything, I would be grateful for advice on whether this seems potentially notable enough for a standalone article, and which types of sources would matter most.

In particular, would independent reviews, interviews, and academic discussion be enough if there is limited mainstream press coverage, or would stronger secondary coverage still be needed?

Thank you for any guidance. Moiracat1122 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NCREATIVE has relevant guidance for the notability of creative professionals.

Please do not use AI to communicate on Wikipedia as you seem to have done here; we would much prefer to hear from you in your own words. Definitely do not use AI to assist in drafting your article, as that is not permitted. Athanelar (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Interviews by their very nature are not independent, so can't really establish notability in the vast majority of cases. The Wole Soyinka prize does have a Wikipedia page, so it can be argued that it's a notable prize that establishes that Abiodun is likely notable.

Rather than simply ask if someone is notable, your best approach would be to link the three best sources that you believe demonstrate notability, meaning that they're independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of Abiodun. Asking a bunch of people to do a whole bunch of work to duplicate your effort to find sources is not likely to have many takers. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for replying.

Yes, I used AI to help me phrase my question. I’m new to Wikipedia, and I found the tone here a bit intimidating.

But to be clear, I did not ask anyone to decide whether Toyin Abiodun is notable for me, and I did not ask anyone to do the research for me. I asked what kinds of sources would be needed so I could do the work properly.

The point about finding the three strongest independent sources is useful, and I will follow that advice.

What I did not find useful was the assumption that I was trying to offload the work, because that was not what I asked. I am new, not lazy. Moiracat1122 (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wishing to cite a New York Times newspaper on the subject of Human-AI interaction § Human-AI romantic relationship, but it uses multiple authors, and I wish to cite the physical paper newspaper rather than the online article to prevent the hassle of offers of subscriptions. How can I do this?

Thanks, KneeHallHawk (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @KneeHallHawk, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are using one of the citation templates such as {{cite news}}, then most of them have parameters first1=, last1= for the first author, first2=, last2= for the second, and so on.

If you are not using that method, I'm not sure how you would do it, but I'm sure there is a way. See WP:Citing sources.

A citation is to a source, not to a particular medium in which that source is available. Sources do not have to be online; and even if they are, a URL is in most cases only a convenience for the reader, not an essential part of the citation. So your citation should always include bibliographic information like title, author, publication, date, publisher, even if in practise every reader is just going to follow a link.

Even if a source is behind a paywall, you can still provide the URL: some readers may have access, or be able to get access. See WP:URLACCESS. ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. KneeHallHawk (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I've submitted a draft for Md Lutfor Rahman(army officer) also known as Shaheed Lt Col Md Lutfor Rahman, psc. Could someone take a quick look to see if I'm missing any critical formatting? Draft:Md_Lutfor_Rahman_(army_officer) Truthseeker20092502 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Truthseeker20092502 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. The reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted.

How did you obtain the picture of him? If I had to guess, I'd say you took a picture of picture. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The picture is from the available photos of him on the internet and social media and on newspapers where the official list of the 57 martyr army officers including him are found. Truthseeker20092502 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Truthseeker20092502, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that in that case, the picture must be assumed to be copyright, and you should not have uploaded it, or claimed it as "own work". I have nominated it for deletion.

Given that Rahman is no longer alive, it is likely that if your draft is accepted and becomes an article then the image can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) as non-free media and used in the article. But one of the conditions for that non-free use is that it may only be used in an article, not a draft; and another is that it must be used in at least one article. So wait until your draft is accepted before pursuing that.

In any case, an image is irrelevant to getting a draft accepted. (Please note, @KneeHallHawk. Nor is the name of his wife.)

The References section is indeed garbled. Some of the citations (<ref>....</ref>) are at the end of sentences and paragraphs where they should be, but the last six appear to be in the References section itself. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I had a brief look at your draft, here's a few things I'd change:

1. Put the photo inside the infobox

2. There seems to be an error in the References part of the article

3. In personal life, list the full name of his wife, if known. KneeHallHawk (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to publish the english page of Draft:Atelier Chardon Savard But I got 3 refusal; the last one said:

his draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for schools. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like sports results, league tables, government inspection reports, and listings in databases or listicles; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content. Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Individual faculties, departments, and student clubs are rarely notable on their own. You could add this content to the main educational institution article if one exists instead.

I'm not sure how to improve it furtherly. I have plenty of links on its alumni where either the articles explicity say that they come from that school, or it is posisble to see on the school website that the designer is its alumni.

Can you help me? Cleliak1234 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Cleliak1234, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and practices. English Wikipedia is one of the strictest about sources; so it often happens that a translation of an article from another Wikipedia is not acceptable in English Wikipedia.

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

In other words, nothing published or written by the school, its staff, or its alumni, is of any help in establishing that the school meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and without meeting those criteria, no article is possible.

Most schools (like most people, most companies, most bands, most charities) are not notable by English Wikipedia's standards, and articles about them are not possible. ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your explanation ~2026-19792-99 (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. That a whole bunch of notable people went to a school does not establish notability for the school, by Wikipedia's definition. Having a lot of notable people attend a school might lead to more coverage of the school, but it is that coverage that would demonstrate notability, not the alumni list. Given that this is short, and quite obviously written by an LLM/chatbot, it would be best to blow it up and start over, with a focus only on prose and independent, reliable sources that cover information about the school directly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make joke nominations on April Fools provided I'm following WP:FOOLS, given that ITN is in the Wikipedia namespace? There doesn't seem to be any archived joke nominations from what I could find nor anything on WP:APRIL2025. ~2026-19793-12 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

is there an admin noticeboard to report stuff for admins to deal with? 72011copperfan2 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about vandalism, that would be WP:AIV. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

how do i download an image from wikimedia commons site? Seanoconn7 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Every file page on Commons has a "download" button at the top. Alternatively, just right click (or hold down on mobile) the image and select "Download". I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Seanoconn7 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ddf Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

np i found the article wizard Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I accidentally put this awful Username, how can I Change it? This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:Changing username. I'd be lying if I said that username didn't make me laugh though :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

You can also just abandon this account and start a new one, since you only have a few edits. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 Thanks for ur suggestions... whay if in the end i keep this username? lol This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to open another account, whilst keeping this one with the original username just This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Btw, is there a way to tag @everyone or @admin so you tag like all users who are here or all admins? This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Qcdwojnjof: I certainly hope there isn't a way to do that. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to do that, no. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 This is my New account Quizeyahu (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

btw i don't even like this fucking username because it sounds like netanyahu so this account is going to shit too Quizeyahu (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

i didn't give a fuck about thinking of a serious username so I just mashed some random shit on the keyboard Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way to nest two CSS templates in such a way that they don't wrap, except where they are explicitly told with <br>?

e.g. the appearance of some text in a sentence is determined with template 1, and the appearance of all the other text is determined with template 2. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 13:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi DollarStoreBaal44. It's unclear what you want. Please post the nested code and say what you would like to look different. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The text wants to wrap around when the style changes. I'm asking if it is possible to nest templates in such a way that the change in style doesn't also create a new line, so it looks like this:

Beginning middle end.

Currently, attempting to do this with the templates does this:

Beginning

middle

end.

This happens even when every template uses <span> instead of <div>. On top of this, the text that comes after the link occasionally comes out looking like code within a black box, like this:

Beginning

middle

end.

This doesn't always happen, but it's quite annoying.

This is for a project I'm doing on another wiki. In this project, the 'middle' template always contains a link, and the other template never does. Is this the problem? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 16:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is an image of what is showing up. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 16:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Please close the discussion. Turns out what you need to do is {{Template1|beginning [https://en.wikipedia.org {{Template2|middle] {{Template1|end}}}}}}. This is really slow and stupid, and makes each line end with 15 curly brackets, but it works and only uses templates, so I don't care. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: Your post was hopelessly vague without knowing the code you were trying to use but after seeing your screenshot and doing some detective work, I found https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:DollarStoreBa%27al/Snadbocks. Please link the page you want help with another time. The problem is that https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Template:Header_link has a newline before noinclude and this newline is included when the template is transcluded. It has nothing to do with nesting. This Teahouse is for help with the English Wikipedia. explainxkcd isn't a Wikimedia wiki and we are not affiliated with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

See also XY problem for the error you made by concealing the broken code, even after I asked for it. It made it impossible to give meaningful help. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

AT HOW MANY EDITS U BECOME ADMIN? Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Qcdwojnjof. It's not determined by edits although you need a lot of them to have a chance. You have to request it and be approved. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter ok Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter could u review my article Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Qcdwojnjof.

You have submitted Draft:Rumble Stars Soccer, and it has been declined.

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.

Writing a draft of an article before finding the necessary independent reliable sources is like building a house without first surveying the site to see whether it is suitable for building on: at best, you're going to have to go back and underpin the whole thing, and more likely it will fall down. Either way, most of your work will be wasted.

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) 18:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine ok ok but i thought this was not a controversial topic Qcdwojnjof (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

It may or may not be a controversial topic in the sense of people having different views (though I doubt whether it is).

But Wikipedia has robust standards for what we can have articles about, which mostly come down to, Has there enough been published about the subject, in reliable sources, by people completely unconnected with the subject, to base an article on? In that sense there is disagreement between you who want to write an article about your game, and me, who generally understands Wikipedia's policies, and would be surprised if your game meets those requirements. I may be wrong, but if I am, it is up to you (the one who wants the article) to demonstrate that it does.

(I note in passing that @Pythoncoder declined your draft, and didn't reject it, which would be the end of the road. That may mean that Pythoncoder believes that there could be an article on the subject, or it may mean that they didn't care to spend the time determining whether there seemed to be adequate sources, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. But you'll still need the sources to go any further with that particular draft.) ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Is {{Excerpt}} supposed to transclude AfD templates?

Specific example is that I encountered an AfD template in 2025–2026 Iranian protests § 8 January 2, transcluded from 2026 Fardis massacre. Given that Module:Excerpt/config does not contain AfD templates as an exception, such transclusion could be deliberate, but I'm not so sure about that given that said module and config are in beta.

Thanks in advance :) —Midnightsky7 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Midnightsky7. The template itself is configurable and can leave out such things. Use {{Excerpt|2026 Fardis massacre|templates=0}} or see Template:Excerpt/doc#Details for how to not include a given template. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I submitted a article for the habitat institute and the comments were "Comment: Primary sources do not establish notability per WP:ORG. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)??" Can anyone see the draft and provide any assistance? Thank you in advance. EcoLaw101 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are referring to Draft:The Habitat Institute. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of an organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary by people wholly unconnected to the organization. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi :)

AS i had recently joined merge project i descovered that in some cases people come to the wrong conclusion and agree to merge articles that the only connection they have is purely by name. Is it costomary to appeal somewhere on a bad merge conclusion? I can give an example but i dont want to embarrass anyone. Happypenguins82 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Happypenguins82. See WP:MERGEREVIEW. If it was decided to merge then I suspect "the only connection they have is purely by name" doesn't give the whole picture. You can link an example here but don't rehash the arguments. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I need to create an account so i an get a mentor. im unsure haw to do this. im doing this via kindle. so i need help pls ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there not a "log in"/"sign up" link at the top right of each page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-19693-86: I don't have a Kindle but if it has its own way to access Wikipedia then try to instead click a menu icon ☰ and look for "Experimental Browser". Accounts are created at Special:CreateAccount. The Kindle browser may have limitations and I don't know what it can do. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ahh ok. ill try and do that. thanks!! ive never made an account yet and a i use Wikipedia alot so i thought it would make it easier. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

not for me apparenty. i can try and create one but it just sat there loading for an hour. ¬.¬ ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-19693-86: Try creating it on another device when it's convenient, but if the Kindle cannot create an account then its limitations as a browser may be so severe that it's also unable to log in to an account. Unregistered users can submit a draft article for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I don't know whether the Kindle can do enough editing for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

oh ok!!! Thank you so much. this is confusing me lol. Thanks for answering all my questions! :) ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Like do they review your drafts or something? I want to find one but im unsure what they do...not to sound stupid because i know mentors help you. But what do the ones on here help you with?-the queer hobit girl ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

What do the mentors on here help you with? Like do they review your drafts or what???-the trans hobit girl ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi temporary account user! Mentors are editors who have volunteered to answer editing questions. There are also other editors who review drafts. You can read more about mentorship at Mentorship. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Perfecf4th!!!! That helps ALOT. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a relatively new editor, and I recently created List of NBA career personal fouls leaders, which was moved from my userspace draft to mainspace. The article is modeled closely on List of NBA career turnovers leaders and includes a career leaders table and a progressive all-time record table (for both career and single-season records), all sourced from Basketball Reference.

I'd appreciate any feedback on the following:

• Formatting and style – Does the article meet Wikipedia's standards for list articles? Are there any obvious MOS issues?
• References – Are the citations structured correctly?
• Content – Is there anything missing or any concerns about the tables or lead section?

Any general feedback is also very welcome. Thank you! Gumpy24 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any policy on this? I cant find one, please it would be helpful if anyone direct me. Dead astrologer (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "backward referencing"? Athanelar (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

What? It means writing article and then adding sources by searching for them deliberately. I thought this was a common term. Dead astrologer (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BACKWARDS is probably what you're looking for nil ^nz 11:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, backwards referencing is one of our jargon terms. While we don't have a policy on it, but we do have an essay located at Wikipedia:BACKWARDS. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

We call that "writing an article backwards," not "backward referencing"; but yes, the relevant information is at the link the other two have given. Athanelar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dead astrologer The policy is WP:Verifiability. You seem to be in a content dispute with User:Hmm123india regarding Begampur, India and should take that to the talk page of the article and follow our WP:dispute resolution processes. I note that some WP:COPYVIO and WP:NEWLLM may be involved but I don't have time to get into that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no such policy. While it is possible to write an article that way, and end up with something that is properly sourced, it is a particularly inefficient way to proceed, and is more likely to result in an article with unsourced or improperly sourced statements, which either get removed from the article, or cause it to be deleted (or, if a draft, declined).

The relevant policies are WP:N and WP:V, supported by the guideline WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Astronomer is deleting all content when he finds anything unrefenceed, or when he deletes references so it becomes unreferenced and then he deletes all content, instead of placing ^{[citation needed]} where it is needed (not everywhere, but where needed). --~2026-18843-54 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Your dispute with User:Dead astrologer (not "Astronomer") appears to be on Gaheris. See advice above regarding WP:dispute resolution.

I do take issue with User:Dead astrologer's claim (in an edit summary) that "Britannica is not allowed as citing article inside Wikipedia", which is contrary to WP:BRITANNICA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I was focused into removing their deprecated sources. WP:BRITANNICA does say we can allow it as source for citation if they are written by subject matter expert, so my apologies. Dead astrologer (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If a fact has been added and referenced with what is judged to be an inadequately reliable source, a better course than swift deletion is first to look for a better source. That way a positive rather than a negative contribution may be made to the article, and fellow editors are being collaborated with rather than combatted.

On the other hand, it is unwise to add significant unreferenced content and only then to seek to add references, whether they are already to hand or need to be searched for. This can lead to unreferenced material remaining on a page for an extended period, or even (by oversight) permanently. It would be better to put the new material in a sandbox, find and add reliable sources to it, and only then put it into the article. There is no deadline. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

For your first point, maybe or maybe not. It depends. If you cannot find sources for your claims, and even if you do they are just dead links or unreliable, that means you are not writing an article, you are just trying to prove your claim with some tricks. If you are on Wikipedia for a longer time, you will see people doing this often. It is an all right method, but I believe that this is a form of writing that degrades article quality. People tend to write out of their memory or use LLMs, then somehow spend their time finding a specific word or sentence that is equal to the claim and then cite it. Sometimes that same source does not make sense with the context, or sometimes the whole source is just a blog or manipulated content. The best method before writing your article is to be honest with yourself and do thorough research as much as possible with mostly high-quality sources. This ensures that when you write an article, it uses high-quality prose and is reliable enough to be tested again. Also, I do not have a personal problem (just in case) with you or anyone; all I want is good quality of information because I use Wiki in my personal life way more than I edit. Dead astrologer (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Also your deadline stuff don't make your sense here. The "no deadline" is for sandbox article, which you are editing alone, while you are actively referencing or editing downgraded quality prose on public facing articles. At some instance somebody will read your unreliable prose and going to believe its true. So it was not a good excuse on your side. Dead astrologer (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have confused me with the editor you have been in disagreement with on the article. I was offering general advice to both parties, and not laying down ironclad rules.

My first point was given with you in mind, Dead astrologer, to suggest that you should first check for better sources before deleting something with what you think is a poor one. I was not suggesting that the material should be kept if no better sources are found. I have seen a Guideline regarding this, but I cannot remember what the link is.

My second point was given with 2026-18843-54 in mind, suggesting that, indeed, they should properly source new material in a sandbox or other draft space before adding it to the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry. But I am mostly a copy editor or I check citations, so I leave the work of finding citation on others. Source will always be there and you could once again write stuffs I deleted but with better sources or it will be deleted nonetheless. The "guideline" you must be thinking of is WP:V. Dead astrologer (take to me) 11:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dead astrologer Adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag is a better idea than deleting the unreferenced info. Then, someone else may come along and find a citation. However, that doesn't always happen. David10244 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That guideline sounds like WP:BEFORE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I dont think he is talking about deleting article, maybe he is asking specifically for citation related guidelines. Dead astrologer (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

i need help publishing the article on ABSENT FINDINGS that is in the draft mode Raviwrites1969 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I have deleted it as AI generated. The decline message was added by the AI. Please see WP:NEWLLM; you may use the Article Wizard to create a draft, but you need to do the work yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@331dot There us still a draft at Draft:Absent Findings, did you mean to leave that? David10244 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It was recreated. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! When I placed a referendum infobox at the very bottom of this page, it connected with the references and categories boxes. I tried to do it again to see if I made an error the first time, but I don't believe I connected them myself. Delcoan (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a {{col-end}} template to match the {{col-begin}}. Seemed to fix it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Delcoan (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. im new to this :) Im here to practise my journalism. id like some pointers please! ¬_¬ ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

If you create an account, one of the things you'll be able to do is get assigned a mentor through the mentorship system. Athanelar (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Journalism isn't what we do on Wikipedia. We create and maintain articles that cite what journalists have already published. We don't perform original research or do our own reporting, which is what journalists do.

That said, I echo Athanelar's suggestion to create an account and find a mentor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ahhhhh. ok! thanks.btw how do you make articles? i cant figure out how... ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Check out WP:FIRST, but I'm pretty sure you need to register before you can create an article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ahhh ok. im doing this via Kindle. soooo im unsure how to create a account. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is much easier with a laptop or chromebook, but I know one admin who always uses a mobile device. Somewhere at the top of the page there should be a login link, and from there you can create an account. 23:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC) ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

oh i see. hmm ok. kindles are prettyyyy hard to do stuff like this on lol. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm working on a Wiki page on Matt Levine and his impact on in professional sports marketing. Could someone please review my draft in my Sandbox: Acedog1514. Here is the url:

Draft:Matt Levine - I'm looking for feedback on how we can make it better, formatting insights and general thoughts. Appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks in advance. Acedog1514 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Acedog1514, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read the notes, and follow the links, in the decline notice at the top of the draft.

Given that the primary reason for decline was that the text appears to be generated by a LLM, your best course is probably to throw the entire text away and start again.

Go through your sources, checking each one against all the criteria in the golden rule. (For example, the first citation is to effectively an interview, and so is not independent, and is of limited use, and no use at all for establishing notability).

Then, assuming you have several sources which do meet the criteria, write a summary of what those sources say about Matt Levine, and nothing else. Given your status as a paid editor (thank you for complying with the policy and declaring this), it is particularly important (and possibly particularly difficult) that you effectively forget everything that Levine has told you, and work only from the independent sources.

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) 18:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the initial reference regarding notability. I have redrafted from scratch and checked for an AI in several different tools to ensure consistency; it comes back AI-free. I think I've followed the golden rule (previously reviewed), but I didn't understand the nuance of using an interview first. I was under the impression that Sports Illustrated is an acceptable reference, as it is known for its editor-led fact-checking. Also, I have read all the references cited and have written this draft based on them. My writing style may be the issue causing concern. Earlier comments of unacceptable drafts supported its notability. So my question is, if you read this draft without reading Pythoncoders ' justified review, would you still feel the same way? Acedog1514 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you refer to? Are there multiple people accessing this account, or working on the draft?

I had a look at your sources. Some seem to be quoting Levine, but aren't actually about him, but are about sports teams. Other sources don't even mention him. What would you say are your top three WP:Golden rule sources? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, no, I am the only person accessing this account, the reference to 'we' was inclusive of folks like yourself who provide feedback. My top three Golden Rule sources: NAME: Matt Levine". Sport Marketing Quarterly. 5 (3): 5–12. September 1996. Kennedy, Ray (1980-04-28). "More Victories Equals More Fans Equals More Profits, Right? Wrong, Wrong, Wrong". "New Edition Videos To Air During N.B.A. Playoffs" (PDF). Cash Box. Vol. 48, no. 50. Cash Box Publishing Co., Inc. 1985-05-25. p. 38. Retrieved 2026-02-16 and I would add the academic text - Lee, Don; Pearson, Demetrius W.; Cottingham, Michael; Lee, Myungwoo; Yu, Ho Yeol; Pitts, Brenda G.; Zhang, James J. (2021). "Management and marketing of sports in the U.S.: an introduction". In Pitts, Brenda G.; Zhang, James J. (eds.). Sport Business in the United States: Contemporary Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-0-367-52840-9. Regarding your comment, "Some seem to be quoting Levine, but aren't actually about him, but are about sports teams. I don't think this is true. Can you provide a specific quote?" I've been quite careful not to say anything that cannot be supported by reference, but I may be presenting content in an unsatisfactory manner. I have studied other Wiki bios and am in line with them and with the WP:BLP guidelines. Acedog1514 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Your first source is an interview. The preamble also has no byline, and could have been provided by Levine himself. This is basically a primary source.

The second source quotes Levine's opinions extensively, but the topic of the article isn't actually about him.

The third source doesn't even mention him.

While he does seem influential, possibly a path to notability might be WP:ANYBIO criterion #2, but you need more sources actually asserting that. Of the three you listed, only the first one says this, and the second one just implies it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, very helpful - back to the drawing board:) Acedog1514 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to see which users are online? Qcdwojnjof (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

No, there isn't. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

oh shit Qcdwojnjof (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a social media site. Why would you need to know if another user is online? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

One way is to look at the recent changes log Special:RecentChanges and see who is editing. There will be a lot of edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

So i saw a notice for him about people repeatedly putting notices about abuse on his page even though its ben taken down MULTIPLE times. So. It said editors need to keep watch on him and the other one. So arejust deleting the words about him abusing? because ive already deleted the one on Al-Flayed. Im just not sure what to do now. i didnt understand the notice very much. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-19693-86 We don't have an article by that name. Do you perhaps mean Mohamed Al-Fayed? It's not clear what notice you are referring to. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

yes thats who i ment. I saw it on the Signpost. It said editors needed to fix it? ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to the notice you're referring to? Athanelar (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

ummm. im not sure how to give links. can you tell me? ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Just copy the URL from the top of your screen on whichever signpost article you're referring to and then paste it here, or at least give us the title of the signpost piece so we can find it. Athanelar (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

ok. let me look real quick. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Cleaning up after Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Nygard, and Mohamed Al-Fayed. ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about the line in the Signpost piece which says the WMF appears to have asked volunteer administrators or OTRS volunteers to keep an eye on the affected articles.? That's not a call to action, it's just explaining what happened in the past. Athanelar (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-31/Disinformation report Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

oh ok. I must have read it wrong lol. ty ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

User:FullYellow/sandbox. FullYellow (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

What help do you need? Athanelar (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I used to have an old account but can’t get any page accepted, can you give good reviews on my page and how I can improve it FullYellow (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you read the advice in the decline notice and the comment the reviewer left at the top of the page? That appears to be the best advice for the situation. Athanelar (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The decline note is very simple and doesn’t includes details. FullYellow (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Click all of the blue links in the decline notice. Those pages have all the information you need. Athanelar (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The notice and the comment are more than enough information; it doesn't require a lot of space to explain that this article has no sources relevant to its subject.

The first two sources aren't usable to cite for anything really: you have a computer-generated SEO site and a list of archived files. The third is a forum post by the developer (so not independent or significant coverage), that doesn't say anything about the company. The last one is the only source that seems usable, but the significant coverage is about Geometry Dash, not the company, which is only mentioned in Topala's job title.

Notability is not inherited; Geometry Dash being notable doesn't automatically make parties involved with Geometry Dash notable. You need independent, reliable sources that are providing significant coverage of RobTop Games specifically. Right now, this article is basically unsourced, so this was a good decline. It wasn't rejected, since it's at least plausible you could find sourcing for RobTop Games, but after a search, I'm unconvinced it's likely that this company is notable apart from Geometry Dash. But you still have the opportunity to find those sources, should they exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't post the same question to multiple noticeboards. It's one thing if days went by without any reply, but you posted to here and the AFC help desk just four minutes apart. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a stub under "Confined liquid", subheading: confined to nanometer dimensions. There is only a stub, and the subject of confined water has become much more important based on recent (last ten years) work. I would like to change this stub to a full article (I have an article draft with 32 references (at this point--I cut it down from a longer book chapter in my book on "Water in Biology", which is three years old, plus some new references; I could easily extend it--it is rewritten, so there would be no copyright problems). The article is not controversial as far as I can tell, but it would replace the stub that is now all there is on the subject. How do I proceed? I tried just adding it to the top of the stub (which is not incorrect, just insufficient), but the automated filter rejected it as "disruptive". My article contains nothing political. I could extend it, with additional detail, but then it might become too technical for a general audience. Please advise M.E. Green T333678 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't say what happened with the automated filter you mentioned, but perhaps your text, which can be found here, contains words or sentences which triggered it. As to the text, you have said it's taken from your book..which means that you probably have a conflict of interest. As I am absolutely not knowledgeable about confined liquids...others might have more to say about that. But what we will probably need is an evaluation of the sources you used, and if they can be considered reliable sources. As you already started a thread on article talk...expand it for the time being is my suggestion. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

1) I have no idea how any of the sentences I used would have triggered the AI filter, but I also do not know how the filter is programmed; I do not believe anything in the text concerning Confined Water could be found "disruptive" by a human.

2) The article is completely written for Wikipedia--it does contain any text from the book chapter that is given as one of 32 references. The topic is the same as the book chapter title, but the book chapter provides a convenient review for a reader interested in further reading on the topic, at a more technical level; the chapter has 107 references. I have no conflict of interest. The book title is "Water in Biology" and this topic is appreciably less than 10% of the book.

3) The citations (other than the book chapter) are peer reviewed articles from standard journals, like Journal of Physical Chemistry B, JPC C, Science, J. Physics: Condensed Matter, Biophysical Journal, for some examples. There are no references that come from journals have rigorous reviewing practices (when I act as a reviewer myself, I also adhere to appropriate practice for reviewers, although that is not really relevant here).

This comment is very similar to the comment to which I replied earlier, and necessarily this response is very similar to what I responded earlier. I am asking how to proceed, having answered the queries like this to which I have responded. The suggestion that I expand the thread seems to suggest that I expand the proposed article, which I could. However, the more I expand it, the less appropriate it will be for a general audience. ~2026-19723-53 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

correction" There are no references that come from journals lack rigorous reviewing practices ~2026-19723-53 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you're right that's an article that's crying out for improvement. It's quite hard to do, when you're a subject-expert, because you need to write it in an encyclopedic style appropriate for a normal intelligent person-in-the-street with no particular background knowledge; see WP:EX for advice. Also, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary-review, so it can require a rather different writing-style and approach to what academic authors normally do when reviewing the primary literature. In particular, it is better to summarise review articles that have already summarised/reviewed the primary literature, rather than write your own overview of primary literature! This can feel very odd! I'd suggest having a look at the style of good articles on similar subjects. I had a quick look at the text you've prepared in your sandbox; you've got a great set of facts sorted out, and citations, but at the moment it reads a bit like a lecture rather than an encyclopedia entry. It will also need formatting, but I assume you are correctly leaving that as a later detail. Please don't be put off. Finding the facts and finding citations is actually much harder than sorting out mere stylistic issues. It's a pity there isn't an equivalent of WP:AFC for major-expansions of an article rather than de novo creation. Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

AI filter, but I also do not know how the filter is programmed; the filter is 1233 and is just regex rather than any LLM driven filter. It was caused by having at least one "long string of characters with no punctuation or markup" as per the filter description. The text you tried to insert is here. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the other content. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I was just wondering why wikinews is closing I know this is a new change. Is it because of lack of demand? OwlLemons (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@OwlLemons Capacity, neutrality were too major issues amongst others. See a lengthier discussion on Meta project meta:Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I know that some articles have uniform style guidance. For instance whether the article uses British or American English, date formatting, citation style, etc. Where in the article and/or talk page is that info found?

PS - I do a lot of editing on mobile so there is a possibility I can't easily see the information on mobile.

Thank you! PositivelyUncertain (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@PositivelyUncertain sometimes there is an explicit template used at the top like {{Use English}}, but sometimes no template is used and you should stick with either the article's established English variation/dates, or stick with whatever was used already. The policy is MOS:ENGVAR ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, Colin. What about citation styles? Are there ever templates that designate those? I'm just curious. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any help -- I want to make sure that the page I created for Joe Philpott meets the Wikipedia standards for formatting and citations. Thanks in advance! WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Just noting for the sake of discussion that about a half hour after this message was posted, Joe Philpott was redirected by TheLongTone. I am expressing no opinion on whether that was the correct course of action. MediaKyle (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The page that I created for Joe Philpott has disappeared. Why? It was redirected to Rubyhorse, with everything that I wrote wiped out. WistahHoney508 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Note I restored the article as there was no reason to wipe it out. I was asking the community to make sure it was done properly -- not for its deletion, as Joe Philpott is a public figure and other members of his band have Wikipedia pages. Thank you. WistahHoney508 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

You Boldly created it; TheLongTone Reverted it (kind of) by redirection; you disagreed, so now you and they (and anyone else who wants to), should Discuss it and try to reach a consensus, preferably on the now restored Talk page of the article, which should stand for the time being to avoid descent into an Edit war.

This is the WP:BRD cycle that is a standard collaborative editing strategy on Wikipedia.

My own take (without checking the references) is that the article looks well constructed and written, but perhaps too great a proportion of it is about the band rather than Philpott specifically: this might be addressed by adding more about Philpott and his other work and summarising the Rubyhorse material more concisely. (And I presume all of it is in Rubyhorse: if not, it should be if referenced.)

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm open to learning more about page creation -- but seeing a page deleted took me by surprise! WistahHoney508 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to the article, but the main issue is that it is lacking sufficient soruces - see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on adding them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I will look into this. All about learning!! WistahHoney508 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

In the WP app, when the introductory infobox is condensed (as opposed to opened), it displays as the following example ("HonourableThe", i.e., omitting a space between words such that they run together):

The Right HonourableThe Lord De La Warr, Lord Governor and Captain General of the Virginia Colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_West%2C_3rd_Baron_De_La_Warr?wprov=sfla1

I am assuming this is more of a bug than an edit issue...? If so, where should I report/how can I fix things like this? Al Begamut (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Try the technical village pump or Phabricator. Toast1454_TC 19:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am hoping someone can assist me. I am the subject of a Wikipedia article (Marvin Singleton) and I am disclosing a conflict of interest per WP:COI. I have prepared a comprehensive expansion of the article in proper wikitext format, with citations to published, independent sources, and I would like a neutral editor to review it and consider adding it to the article.

The current article is essentially a stub — it contains only one sentence about my career. The draft expansion I have prepared covers the following sections, all supported by verifiable published sources:

• Early life and education
• Medical career (fellowships, board certifications, national leadership roles, peer-reviewed publications, book chapters)
• Political career (Missouri Senate, 32nd District, 1990–2003)
• Renewable energy (installed Missouri's first customer-owned grid-connected wind generator, 1979; sponsored legislation creating the MARET Center at Crowder College, 1992)
• Autobiography (Just a Poor Country Boy, Story Scribe Books, 2023; ISBN 979-8-9863597-1-7; LCCN 2023933458)
• Honors and recognition
• Civic involvement (Missouri, California, and Kansas)
• Kansas Silver Haired Legislature (elected Assistant Floor Leader, 2026)
• Arabian horse interests
• Genealogy (General Society of Mayflower Descendants)

Sources include the Kansas City Star, the Springfield News-Leader, the Joplin Globe, the Johnson County Area Agency on Aging newsletter, and a published autobiography with a Library of Congress Control Number.

I have tried to submit this via the Talk page but have had difficulty with the Wikipedia editing interface. I would be very grateful if an experienced editor could either:

1. Help me post the draft wikitext to the Talk page with the appropriate {{request edit}} template, or
2. Review the draft directly and, if it meets Wikipedia's standards, consider adding it to the article.

I am happy to share the full wikitext draft with anyone willing to assist. Thank you very much for your time and for your service to Wikipedia.

Marvin Singleton Marvinasingleton (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI generated text in asking for help in the Teahouse. If you want to write your own draft, and put it in as an edit request, that is fine; copy and paste the wikitext and we'll look at it.

However, please note that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is very difficult, since you have to forget everything you know about yourself and only write what is in published sources. For example, I'm very doubtful that reliable sources cover your "Arabian horse interests" and genealogy. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your insight and obviously need to study a wee bit more, thanks. ~2026-20044-00 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Here's the essay that gives instructions on how to submit a request with the templates you need to get started. Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

My advice would be to make edit requests, but to do so incrementally, one paragraph at a time, as long requests take a lot of time to review, reducing the chances a volunteer will want to invest their free time. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

If your proposed expansion is AI-generated like your comment here, scrap it and start over. AI generated content isn't allowed in articles. Athanelar (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Marvinasingleton, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the information and suggestions. I had no idea of the intent. ~2026-20044-00 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Id like to help write some articles or help fix some old ones or fixing errors or vandalism. Some links would be nice please.<3 Thank you ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia:Task Center...plenty of things to do which are linked from there. Lectonar (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you Lectonar!! ~2026-19693-86 (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:Maintenance, but the task center may be more useful for your topic. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a draft article on Norwegian Johannes Kr. Tornoe that you are welcome to work on. He believed Leif Eiriksson landed in Waquoit Bay, Cape Cod. Most academics do place 'Wineland' in southern New England, but it is a contentious topic for sure.

Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe - Wikipedia Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe I am the first elected mayor in AMO, Ontario and maybe Canada. How do I speak to someone about this. I have my records Thank You ~2026-20096-42 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If your question is related to Wikipedia, then please explain how; if it isn't, you're at the wrong place. If it is somehow related to Wikipedia, then NB Wikipedia is only concerned with what has been published by reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I would assume the reason you brought this here is because you'd like to see a Wikipedia article about yourself. I'm intrigued. Please tell me your name, and maybe provide a couple sources which discuss you (news articles and the like) and I will tell you if you qualify for an article here. If you do, I can probably create a short one. MediaKyle (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bernadette Taklit Bardot

We Are Green and Trembling - Wikipedia ]

Yes, I am trying to insert headers with a line underneath in my article, draft, I just want to know like the one above, that says premises, and then a line, how can I include early life in my article, and then put a line underneath it. StudentOne33 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@StudentOne33 welcome to Teahouse! This is the styling of h1 level headers Wikipedia:Headers, e.g

== Example header == which will cause a line underneath. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

However, that's not an h1-level header but instead an h2-level header. (Manually adding an h1-level header is never appropriate. Unless the software is suffering from some glitch, it will provide the h1-level header, and one of them is enough.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, a younger editor has posted personal information and I don't have a safe WiFi connection to my email, how do I report to oversight? 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 21:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire, I believe I know what editor you're talking about. I can email them for you. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby it's surpressed now, but I emailed them before you and wasn't sure if I should comment here about it or not. HurricaneZeta^C 22:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't matter. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 22:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire, you can email from Special:EmailUser/Oversight. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

G'Day,

i made an edit to the LMG article and i just want to ensure ive done everything correctly, whilst my account is a bit old i defo dont know what im doing too much lol

i feel like i probably should have made it a proper citation but im not sure how to complete that in a table.

and looking at one at the top of teahouse, it was not a minor edit. (im a bit used to github where if i modify one line thats a minor edit)

thanks!

- Cooper

PS forgot to give the link of the edit! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linus_Media_Group&oldid=1346495130 CooperDActor (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me, CooperDActor. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

So I edited Unofficial Football World Championship to fix a missing bracket. When I checked the history, my edit showed up as being done by someone else. What happened? ~2026-20169-68 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-20169-68: This can happen if they clicked edit on the same version as you but saved before you. If you try to make the same change then it doesn't actually change anything in the saved version and it becomes a null edit which isn't registered in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like I got caught up in the flurry of edits after the title changed hands. ~2026-20169-68 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

i want to make an article on this website, but it unfortunately would have one primary source (the website itself). other than that, the only sources that mention the website are fandoms and Reddit. would this fail the notability/sourcing standards? frankie★ 06:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It certainly would, Peachy1621. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Peachy1621 I'm afraid so. There's a lot of things in the world, and only ~7 million of them so far have been determined to be worthy of inclusion in the project.

Checking whether or not the website satisfies our notability guidelines was a good first step, though! It's better to know sooner, before you start working on the article, rather than later. If you're interested in writing about other websites, you should check WP:NWEB for an overview of our notability standards for websites.

Happy editing! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Em🐈ail me! 07:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the useful reply frankie★ 07:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Link: Lomer (village)

Hello! I'd like to represent the pre-decimalisation currency in the article linked above in a friendlier format. As the only record of the village's depopulation, they're key to understanding the article. There is a conversion template (Template:UK decimalisation) but I have no idea what year the conversion is to or from—the result is meaningless without taking inflation into account. What's the best way to represent these tax payments that will illustrate the point to a modern reader?

Thank you! Gladdening (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gladdening there is a template {{Inflation/UK}} and you can look at its documentation for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull, thank you for your reply. I may be misunderstanding but the link you provided is the underlying function of Template:Inflation, which I went ahead and used instead. For 8s 10d in 1489 it produces £404 in 2023, which seems unusually low to me as the tax for a village of >50 inhabitants, but I may be mistaken. Could somebody give me a sense check please? Gladdening (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the underlying template is the inflation one. Your answer is correct based on the template and we'll have to await an expert to say whether this looks realistic! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I used the Bank of England's shillings to pounds converter which converts 8s 10d to £0.44 in decimal currency, and then I used their inflation calculator which calculates that £0.44 in 1489 would be £428.24 today; so the template's result is off, but not by much. Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, @Mike Turnbull and @Athanelar! I'll go ahead and add the conversions to the article. Gladdening (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gladdening: this is a good illustration of the issue with the {{inflation}} template: once you go back more than a few centuries, it rapidly becomes meaningless. The calculation the template is applying will be correct for whatever measure of inflation it is using (well, accepting the inevitable imprecisions due to medieval price data being much less systematic than today!), but simply applying inflation like that gets you unhelpful results.

To illustrate: an unskilled labourer in the fifteenth century might earn, say, £5 per year (this is a ballpark figure based off of the first reasonably plausible number I saw while googling; it doesn't have to be precisely accurate to make the point). That's a little under ten times your 8s/10d figure, so say it's the equivalent of £4,000 today. But an unskilled English labourer today does not earn £4000 pa, or even close to it; even working 35 hours per week they'll be making over £20,000 per annum pre-tax – and spending more than our 15th-century labourer's £4000 per year on housing alone. And quite possibly on food as well. On the other hand, our 15th-century labourer is spending a much higher proportion of his income on essentials to life; he doesn't have the equivalent of a phone contract, or a car to maintain, which even most minimum-wage earners in the UK today will be committed to, nor does he have anything close to the variety of discretionary spending available to him that we do today.

All this is to say: in history-related articles like this, it's worth considering whether the inflation-equivalent provided by the template really is helping the reader, or if it's misleading them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto, thanks for your input. What the conversions are demonstrating in this article is not monetary value, but proportion. Tax rolls are the only evidence of the village's decline in population, but the source doesn't offer exactly how many people fewer there were; it's up to the reader to interpret these figures themself, and £404 of £928 is easier to interpret than 8s 10d of 20s 2d. If you have a better way to make these figures clear without tipping into WP:SYNTH, I welcome you to amend the article. Thanks, Gladdening (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi i want to ask from you that i want to add this on article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahu_Hamari_Rajni_Kant

She is a highly advanced humanoid robot that is created with the intention of protecting and helping humans. She is also stronger than an ordinary human being, which enables her to stop moving vehicles and engage in combat with multiple enemies at once. She is also fast-moving. She is able to respond quickly due to her reflexes and agility, which is highly effective in situations where there is high pressure, especially in close combat situations. She is also effective in situations where there is high pressure since she is able to deal with danger in an effective manner.

She is created with the primary intention of protecting and helping humans. She is independent in the execution of her role but is also able to improve with time.

Is this okay? Also, I dont find trusted sites, only jiohotstar episodes is the way to prove these sentences are correct . can I add episodes nunber with link in refrence with each of the sentences? Is these evidence acceptable? I had edited and added this on that article but it was reverted after a few hours. Please reply me . 😊😁😉 Pratham31sinha (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pratham31sinha welcome to English Wikipedia. These are not suitable for Wikipedia, because they are lacking Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are some thoughtful essays for creative works, specifically Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Since Bahu Hamari Rajni Kant is a work of fiction, doesn't it serve as its own reference for plot and character content, so does not need separate reliable sources for such details? Of course, it can always be argued that a particular editor's description is incorrect, but that doesn't seem to be a great problem with other fictional works. {The poster former ly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Hi, I've created a draft for astrophysicist Elena Popova (Draft:Elena Popova). I've included several independent sources and media coverage. Could someone take a quick look to see if it meets notability requirements? Tmamedzadeh (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What you're asking for, Tmamedzadeh, is a review or perhaps something that might be called a "pre-review". We don't do pre-reviews. I took a quick look, and read Review waiting, please be patient. / This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. So please just wait, patiently. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You are also welcome to add further referenced material and/or make other improvements to the Draft while you're waiting. It's not now set in stone until a reviewer gets to it. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Myself and @Organhaver have been discussing this on my talk page (discussion can be found here), but we were both unsure on the answer, so I thought that it would be a good idea to bring it up here (sorry I know that I have been editing for a while but I didn't know where the best place to bring up this issue would be).

First, I was wondering if there is any way where you can filter short descriptions so that articles such as list articles and year articles are not put there. For context, I was recently (on Tuesday 17th March) banned from editing short descriptions due to me editing these sort of articles, and the fact that several had to be reverted. I edited the articles because I thought that there was a need for more shortdescs on Wikipedia and because I was editing on mobile, I couldn't see the invisible comments (hence why I was editing all of those short descriptions in the first place). But as I mentioned on my talk page, I personally think that you shouldn't have those sort of articles on the suggested edits if they don't need a short description.

Many thanks in advance! Roads4117 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine I have fixed the typo! Roads4117 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine do you know anywhere where I can raise this issue or is it not possible to? Roads4117 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

And my second question was that I was wondering if anyone knew how long I am going to be banned for? Roads4117 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Roads4117, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I cannot find any evidence that you are subject to a block or a ban. I'm not sure what is going on that you can't edit, but I suspect that you are hitting the throttle, that limits the number of edits in a certain time (I don't know the details).

There seems to be something missing in the first sentence of your second paragraph above (starting "First"). Perhaps you could clarify what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Well when I click I click on the suggestion edits section on the mobile Wikipedia app, I just get a message saying that Suggested edits is disabled. Sorry Roads4117, too many of your recent contributions have been reverted., and then a link to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Android_Suggested_edits -- Roads4117 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah. That explains why I did not recognise what you were talking about. Suggested Edits is a feature in the Android app only, not in the desktop system: I hardly ever edit in the app.

Clearly the restriction you are hitting is one within that Suggested Edits system (the page you linked to describes "Edit quality", but does not mention any consequence of a pattern of low-quality edits). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine Suggested Edits is a feature on all mobile versions of Wikipedia. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine It might be, but it is now 10 days on from when I first realised about it being disabled and is still the same. Any ideas on how I could fix this? Or much how longer I am banned for? Roads4117 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Roads4117. From the fact that I didn't even know what facility you were talking about, you may guess that I haven't got the slightest idea about how to fix your situation. You are not banned from editing Wikipedia - you appear to be subject to a restriction on the Wikipedia app, which is a different thing, and I know nothing about it. I suggest asking either at the talk page of the mediawiki page you linked to, or at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your help :-) Roads4117 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Trying to humourous afd Doki Doki literature club for April fools, with the reasoning of hoax article, How do I do that? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If what you're saying is that you are trying to create a humorous AfD for Doki Doki Literature Club!, with the reasoning that "Doki Doki Literature Club!" is a mere hoax, but that you don't know how to create such an AfD (which would be based on a known falsehood), then it's lucky that such a hurdle prevents you from wasting the time of other editors in that way. Please edit constructively. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

For April fools… Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 02:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hoary, humorous AfDs are allowed on April Fools, and please don't be so aggressive. I believe the links would be Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and everything that's linked on there. How specifically to make a humorous AfD I'm not sure though. Realtent (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I sit corrected and defanged, Realtent. Well, (i) think of something that would be humorous in an an original way (being stone-cold sober would help), (ii) read and digest "Joke deletion nominations", (iii) follow the recipe (as adjusted by "Joke deletion nominations"). Of these three, the first should be the most difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 11:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Host,

I hope you're doing well,

I have been trying since so long my article draft has been declined two times i want to add about my company Rotoris how can i make it please guide me.

I am waiting for your help and guidance

Regard Aditi Sharma Rotoris Aditii2516 (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that paid contribution is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Even if you do so, disclose COI for paid contribution on the draft main section at the top as per WP:COI as well as on the user page of your. Reviewers are concerned about:-

• Your article reads like a advertisement, so work on neutral tone
• There is possibility of usage of LLM. hence, you should summarise in your own words.

Work on neutral point of view, establishing notablity criteria for company and organization or general guidelines by providing independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage on the company, primary sources can't alone establish notablity. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Aditii2516, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Most companies in the world are not notable in the way Wikipedia uses that word, and there cannot be Wikipedia articles about them.

In order to create an article about your company, you would need to show that it does meet the criteria for notability - and the only sensible way to work is to do that first of all.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to get that draft accepted, except to find several places where people who have no connection with your company and have not been primed or fed information on behalf of your company have independent chosen to publish significant commentary, analysis, or criticism about your company.

If you cannot find at least three sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, you should stop wasting your own and other people's time in trying to get this impossible article accepted.

If you can find such sources, then you will need to effectively forget everything that you know about the company, and write a summary of what those independent sources say - even if you disagree with it.

What you or your company want people to know about it has no place in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you serve tea here? Can I get an Arnold Palmer? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 13:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44

Here you are! Courtesy from the kitchen... Oh, sorry, wrong order... Maresa63 ^Talk 13:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I've been working on a draft for Draft:Curtas Festival do Imaxinario and I was hoping someone could take a quick look at it.

I'll admit I struggled a bit with the Wikipedia system when I first started—it was a bit of a learning curve for me—but I've put a lot of effort into fixing the sources and making sure the tone is neutral.

I’d really appreciate it if an experienced editor could check if I’m on the right track or if there’s anything else I should polish before it goes live.

Thanks for the help! Carlos Dal (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Dal Hello. You had, probably inadvertently, coding in place to prevent your link from working, I fixed this. You have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. The process is volunteer driven, so may not occur quickly. The reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve resubmitted the draft through AfC following the previous comments, and I would appreciate any feedback on whether it now meets notability and sourcing guidelines. This is my first article, so apologies for any mistakes in advance. Carlos Dal (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Even though this place has good atmosphere, I've been waiting for 14 years for a cup of tea! Where is it? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 14:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone has poured you tea.

I just brewed a fresh pot. Enjoy! MediaKyle (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I've been lurking here since before Covid, and I've never been offered so much as a glass of water. Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. Well, this is a liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello all,

I'm responsible for the Wikipedia Page of Nader Faghihzadeh. He wrote all the information about him himself and then gave it to me to create his Wiki page. I entered all the info and it was live, after a while however, it got deleted. How can I ensure a sustainable Wikipedia entry for Nader without having other sources than himself? Thank you for your support and looking forward to hearing from you! Kinds, Cornelius Cornelius Engelmann (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Courtesy link: Nader Faghihzadeh. The short answer is, you can't. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what they say about themselves.

Since you are associated with him, you must formally disclose a conflict of interest, see WP:COI for how to do that. You should not be directly editing the article about him, but you may propose edits on the talk page as edit requests. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, this is valuable to know! Cornelius Engelmann (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the version that existed before your first edit to the page. If you did not write the text, you should not post it here, since you are not in a position to release copyright material by a third party under a open licence, as your "own work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm a relatively new editor and my article on Pulsar (social listening platform) has been nominated for deletion. The nominator's concern is WP:GNG and a lack of WP:SIGCOV.

I've found some high-quality, independent sources: a World Health Organization (WHO) report and a peer-reviewed study in Frontiers in Big Data. I've added these to the article, but as a new user, I’m worried about my "Source Editor" formatting and whether I've properly addressed the "Conflict of Interest" concerns raised (I'm a fan/user of the tool bit of a special interest, and using it to learn wiki editing...not as well as I'd hoped.). I have loads more than are on the page but didn't want to overload the page, I have like 13 academic references and 15 press references including New York Times and The Guardian.

Could someone please take a look at the new sources and the article's tone? I'd appreciate any advice on how to better present these to the community in the AfD discussion. Thank you! Constellationconvert (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You have made no edits to the article since it was nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have been working on a draft titled Draft:Basu Bati. I had created the draft a few days ago and I last edited it few hours back. But suddenly it has vanished and there are no traces of it, even in my edit history. Requesting someone to please guide me through this issue! Thanks. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It appears @Sphilbrick deleted your draft for being a a Wikipedia:G12 (unambiguous copyright) violation of a Telegraph India source. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way I can get back the draft and I'll clear every line written from that source? It would save a lot of my hardwork. Or do I need to start a fresh draft? BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@BhikhariInformer Admins won't restore a direct WP:COPYVIO, so you would be best to start again. In principle they could email you the content as Wikitext but I don't think that would be a good use of their time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I confess astonishment that an editor with 20,000+ edits would incorporate material which appeared to be fully subject to copyright. In some such situations it turns out that the underlying material, is actually acceptably licensed. If you want me to email you the text I will.

However, I am concerned about a different issue. Whenever I make an edit related to copyright, I send the editor an explanation, except in the case of a complete deletion because it is my impression that the system generated an automatic notification. I don't seem to see that notification on your talk page. Am I mistaken about my belief that article deletions automatically generate a notification to the editor? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Deletion itself does not automatically generate a talk page notification, no. Applications like Twinkle will, if you used Twinkle to delete the page, but if you just went to the standard Wikipedia interface, then no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I typically use twinkle but my recent deletion used the deletion link on the right sidebar. I will modify my approach S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I made some update on the Helix Sleep page but didn't see the request about my disclosure since it was my first time editing, and now I've made the disclosure, is it possible to get the banner taken down? Matbatts (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What warning, and where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This is at the top of the Helix Sleep page with the note:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.

I originally made edits without an account and wasn't aware someone would try to contact me to confirm whether I was paid to make the edits. I've tried writing in the talk section of the page but haven't gotten a response. Matbatts (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You've disclosed the payments on your user page, so I've removed the template. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Matbatts (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I love helping newcomers! However, I hate tea. Just can't stand the stuff. Can I have a soda instead? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Em🐈ail me! 16:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

*gives you a Coca-Cola* Here, help yourself. :) 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 19:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's one, I definitely didn't shake it up so it explodes and spills all over your keyboard, that would be very foolish of me... 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No tea, no soda chaos.. here’s a coffee instead. Strong, reliable, and won’t explode on your keyboard…😄 Coffeehouse ;) 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A few months ago, when I was newer, I edited and added some info to this article on Maria Cristina de' Medici, and I am now looking to fix these cite error messages on the Wayback Machine. However, I am not completely sure if the method in which "wrapping the parameter value" (as said here) would be appropriate. Thank you for your time, OliviaRigby (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

"Generic title" means that the title of your citation doesn't actually say the title of the source, but rather the name or status of the site that hosts said work (placeholder titles); in this case, it's "Wayback Machine". You can fix this by changing the |title= field to something of the actual source title.

I've done the changes for you. You can take a look in this diff comparison: (Wikitext view, Inline off) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 05:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be able to fix this problem if I come across it now. OliviaRigby (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

As for wraps, it is accepted to false positives, where you did put the correct title, but is still flagged as a generic title error. For exmaple: |title=History of Wayback Machine can get flagged as generic title, as it contains Wayback Machine. To make this false positive error report go away, use double paranthases wrap, for example: |title=((History of Wayback Machine)) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 05:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I read that, thank you for making it clearer. OliviaRigby (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

[EC] In what is currently the last reference, you've used "cite web" for what is instead a 161-page book that happens to be on the web; you've given the title of the page as "Wayback Machine" instead of the title of the book. Try this:

Lippi, Donatella (2006). Illacrimate sepolture: Curiosità e ricerca scientifica nella storia delle riesumazioni dei Medici (PDF) (in Italian). Florence: Firenze University Press. ISBN 978-88-8453-521-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-17. Retrieved 2016-09-17.

It's the result of {{Cite book | title=Illacrimate sepolture: Curiosità e ricerca scientifica nella storia delle riesumazioni dei Medici | first=Donatella | last=Lippi | location=Florence | publisher=Firenze University Press | year=2006 | isbn=978-88-8453-521-4 | language=it | url=http://www.fupress.com/Archivio/pdf%5C4415.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160917161000/http://www.fupress.com/Archivio/pdf%5C4415.pdf | archive-date=2016-09-17 | access-date=2016-09-17}} (See Template:Cite book.) The next problem: You cite two discrete matters from the book, but you don't specify the page numbers. Please investigate Template:Rp. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Scritture delle donne di casa Medici nei fondi dell'Archivio di Stato di Firenze is the size of a book (156 pages) but doesn't seem to be a book. So Template:Cite web is appropriate. But the current reference omits the author's name, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

What welcome template teaches all the basics of Wikipedia, while not overwhelming the user and not going into the advanced stuff ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I use welcome cookie,but I say all of them have the basics. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

On the template itself ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I use {{welcome}} or {{welcome-belated}} depending on how long they've been here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Or {{welcome-anon}}, for TAs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The basics have to be linked from the template and it can’t be too overwhelming and it shouldn’t go into the advanced stuff ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello? ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

These are the basics itself, nothing advanced TNM101 (chat) 09:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You know what, let me guess: it’s {{welcome to Wikipedia}} ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Because I already said the guideline pages explaining the basics have to be linked from the template, It can’t be too overwhelming, and it can’t go into the advanced stuff. ~2026-19771-29 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Bristol Cars
I have a particular problem with one family, who have four generations of 'Sir George', one of them qualifying for an article in his own right, whilst he and two others were involved in running the same company (and closely related offshoots). Previous editors have seemingly shied away from adding 1st, 2nd and 3rd Baronet, leaving casual readers somewhat befuddled as to which exact member of the family was responsible for taking the company in this or that direction. I assume there is guidance somewhere, but I cannot even work out what my search criteria should be. It certainly isn't 'Titles', although the guidance there (article titles) ironically, tries very hard to avoid using such paraphernalia as 'Sir Joshua Double-Barrelled'. How should I proceed? WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WendlingCrusader, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Does MOS:HONORIFIC help? ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine My initial gut reaction was "yes, thankyou", but having read through it, I'm not so sure. There appears to be some distinction between honorifics and hereditary titles, except in terms of MOS the distinction is blurred (or I'm not reading it correctly). There is talk of prefixes (Your Honour, Your Grace) and suffixes such as KBE, OBE, MBE, and a general discouragement from over use in an article. (I'm thinking along the lines of 'How many times did Sir David Beckham play for England? Answer; none, plain old David Beckham played for England, the knighthood came later')

Unfortunately almost none of the advice seems to cover a genuine hereditary title. The situation I am facing is more akin to separating George Walker Bush from George Herbert Walker Bush, except that as 41st and 43rd President of the United States respectively, there is plenty to differentiate between them. The same cannot be said for a lesser-known Baronetcy with a similar tendency towards near identical names. WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine I think I have found it for myself, at WP:NCBRITPEER, although again it seems mostly focussed on article titles.

1. The use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... Earl or Baron is a matter of convenience. It is often useful disambiguation...
2. ...if the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator from other people with that name, use the full style as the article title: (e.g.) Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet (with both prefix and postfix)

However, at Northwich (UK Parliament constituency) the Brunner family appear as MPs at various times, as follows;

• 1885 John Brunner (John Tomlinson Brunner in full)
• 1887 Sir John Brunner (J T Brunner after elevation to the peerage)
• 1910 Sir John Brunner II (JTs son, John F L Brunner, marked up with a totally fabricated title)

At this Talk page, I am finding that the whole issue is a something of a football that regularly gets kicked around. Ho-hum.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am a representative of Martinrea's digital marketing team requesting on behalf of my client updates made to their page. All edits being requested are to correct outdated information and based on factual updates. We have credible sources affiliated with each edit request. This is their page and all requests with sources are in the document linked below- Page: Martinrea. Edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-jOpMc2XJoJtpcCToCcjlq_RjuNKTJMjYNApQ8IwhEQ/edit?usp=sharing PSDMKileyMet (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not "their page", and you are obligated to FORMALLY DISCLOSE your relationship before any further edits. As for the document linked above, we won't be implementing any of those edits as they're marketing tripe that our readers would very quickly come here to complain about. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Did I not go about disclosing our relationship the proper way? Apologies if so, I was trying to follow the guidelines I found on the Internet. Before compiling the edits our client researched the pages of similar organizations to keep edit requests in line with those. We are not intending to add bias information, simply trying to make the Martinrea company page accurate as it is currently not accurate. Please advise. PSDMKileyMet (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

An exhaustive M&A list and list of random awards aren't something we should have in the article full stop (and if the former is presently in the article it needs to be trimmed to the most essential ones). Employee count is irrelevant (and should be removed if present). Founders won't be removed (as they're relevant to the subject's history). Anything sourced solely to Martinrea needs to get a third-party source or get out of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If I come back with third party sources for those specifically called out will those changes be eligible for updating? PSDMKileyMet (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@PSDMKileyMet: DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PSDMKileyMet, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, but not if the third party sources are simply reporting what your client has said.

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.

Effectively, almost nothing that your client wants the world to know about it belongs in the article. Almost the whole article should be what people unconnected with the company, and not prompted or fed information on behalf if it, have chosen to publish about it - including commentaries that are critical of it. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Your disclosure was fine; I am at a loss as to why User:Jéské Couriano replied in that manner to a post in which you did so.

Please make your request on the article talk page, disclosing there also. You may use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to do so; WP:COIER has further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A disclosure on the Teahouse is very easy to lose. A disclosure on their userpage is preferred since it's not likely to vanish to some sort of backstage area only Wikipedia-savvy power users would be arsed to find. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

How were they supposed to get that from disclose in all-caps bold italics linking to a decently long page that says that disclosing on a talk page accompanying any contribs is completely permissible? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to invent and impose such rules, contrary to what the community has decided is acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the help and insight! Sorry for the confusion - we have yet to manage a Wikipedia request on behalf of a client so I was trying to follow the guidelines I could find as best I could. Thanks! PSDMKileyMet (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, please be more diligent with regards to policy. Calling the contribs of someone (who has only been courteous so far) "marketing tripe" is incivil, "Anything sourced solely to Martinrea needs to get a third-party source or get out of the article." is simply not what wp:primary says, and there is a field in template:infobox company for number of employees. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for speedy under A7 and G11 anyway; it's a promotional stub for an unnotable R-of-the-M auto parts manufacturer. Athanelar (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It might be a candidate for AfD (once, and only if, WP:BEFORE is satisfied), but not for speedy deletion; it's been on Wikipedia for 17 years and has had multiple editors in that time, who clearly thought it belongs here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Speedy deletion says nothing about the age of a page or its number of editors being a disqualifying factor, at least not that I can see. I'm not sure if this is solid reasoning to remove a SD tag? Athanelar (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A high number of editors could be a credible claim of significance. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It being on Wikipedia for 17 years isn't a good argument for its appropriateness. AfC (and the consequential heightened enforcement of our standards) didn't exist in its present form until 2011, and many of those articles written before then were more or less abandoned after publication or otherwise left to languish. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone! I'll add the request to the article's talk page as noted above and appreciate any direction or insights you can give! PSDMKileyMet (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A7 definitely doesn't apply. "information written about the subject in reliable sources" shows significance. Within the article, there's the globe and mail + a press wire run by CTV news, and I found an opinion piece dedicated to them also in the globe and mail. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

And for g11 "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Maybe my sense of POV has been blown out of proportion but this article is npov as they come. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Press releases from the company itself are the archetype of "this doesn't count for notability, and if you can find literally anything else for content, do so" Sesquilinear (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about press releases. I'm talking about a news wire like the AP or Reuters. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)