Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1292

Greetings, fellows of the Teahouse. This is my first time paying a visit.

I've only recently rewritten the opening section for the U.S. Route 101 in California article in the hopes that it would meet the GA criteria. But there is an editor, whose name I can't reveal, who is removing wikilinks for the U.S. states in the opener. I thought perhaps they were simply uninformed and undid their edits, but they removed the wikilinks again, pushing the dilemma to the brink of edit warring. The user explained that they are just trying to avoid overlinking, but I've seen state names wikilinked on other highway-related articles, such as U.S. 23 in Michigan and U.S. Route 131, and those two examples are featured articles. I feel the necessity to do the same in the US 101 article. How should I explain this to the user? Is there a rule requiring this, or even a guideline on Wikipedia in such regards? I look forward to anyone's reply. Nebulous2357 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a similar vaguely related problem. I wrote a section "Left behind. Forgotten. Invisible." If as described there, you slowly go further back to see how it started, you might find some vague resemblance to the problem described here in this section. A lot of my contributions were getting removed. I'm already doing my one tiny little part. I can'd anymore like take in and make sense of the underlying rules behind your claim. I'm trying to get the system changed eventually. We each have our tiny little seed. Then slowly, problems combine into one. People need to be able to break in and compete. They need to be able to squeeze in their tiny little bit that are are a good hard worker for. Sometimes, their strategy will turn out highly successful. It stops just short of an edit war being like "I've got to have that." Some people might be like that. We need a very secure system. Those who know how to organize it have something to look forward to 1000 years in advance and never give up and will do their small part that looks at what's been getting attacked and guards it and not how we got there. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nebulous2357, welcome to the Teahouse!

Sometimes editors have differing opinions on how to improve an article. For a matter like this, I think you should go to the user's talk page and start a section explaining why you think that having the links on that particular article is a good idea. Though, try to have an open mind; they might have a good reason why they think the version without the links is better.

Best of luck! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 19:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of that. Those who know how to organize it have something to look forward to 1000 years in advance and never give up and will get it done and do their small part that looks at what's been getting attacked and guards it with their very secure system and not how we got there. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Blackbombchu, your recent contributions to the Teahouse have been confusing and incoherent. This response especially so.

If you have a concrete question about how to contribute to Wikipedia, you may ask it here, but otherwise I'd like to suggest you take this matter elsewhere besides Wikipedia. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 and I have reached a consensus and have decided to not add wikilinks in the header. This dispute is now at an end. Nebulous2357 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nebulous2357,

As a professional writer I learned many years ago the importance of introducing the subject of an article. Your readers can only understand the article if they understand the things you have written about. I see big value in wikilinking the introduction. Take U.S._Route_23_in_Michigan for example. The introduction mentions Lambertville. I've never heard of that place. Mousing over the wikilink I see a brief description. If there's something in the introduction I really NEED to understand, I can click the wikilink, prepare myself, then return to the article I wanted to read. So, I reckon you're on the right track wikilinking your introduction. I agree with User:MEN_KISSING's advice. Kbwc56 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Nebulous2357, in a recent edit summary, you wrote it's obligatory to wikilink California and say that it's a U.S. state, rather than a nation. I am sorry but that is not obligatory. The vast majority of literate English language readers are aware that California is one of the states in the United States, and California is so well known that it is not at all obvious let alone mandatory to wikilink it. It is well established that we do not routinely wikilink world famous cities such as London, Tokyo, Rome and Cairo. California seems to have a similar level of fame. As for whether or not to explicitly mention that California is a state, contrast California in this regard to Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri, which are also the names of rivers, or New York, which is both a state and a city. California is so well known, it is rarely necessary to mention that it is a state, with the obvious exception of the article California itself. In the end, this is a matter of style decided though consensus among interested editors rather than a matter of policy or anything obligatory. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Kbwc56. Your statement has given me an idea on how to justify my wikilinks, and, per MEN KISSING's advice, I'll write to the user on their talk page. I'll keep everyone posted as to what their perception of the matter is. I might even consider inviting them to the Teahouse. Nebulous2357 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I've learned that guidelines, flexibly applied, are almost always superior to hard and fast rules. (Almost always, usually) Kbwc56 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm back, @Kbwc56.

I just wrote to the editor, and was unable to convince them. They were unconditionally devoted to the Manual of Style, which they believe discourages wikilinking of well-known geographical locations like California. I was hoping that, as a professional writer, you could chime in and help us settle the matter. I'm also coming to the belief that the issue has exposed a gray area in MOS:GEOLINK which might be resolved through a vote. Nebulous2357 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have been having a "discussion" with another editor who takes a very narrow view of Wikipedia guidelines. People don't change simply because they are presented with rational arguments. Looking at the article, I think it may be more interesting to people who don't know that particular highway. I think many of your readers do not live in California. I live in New Zealand. Not long ago I recall pointing out to someone that there is a Washington State, and it's a very long way from Washington DC. How does this relate to your introduction? I would definitely wikilink "Oregon" (I know people who probably think "Oregon" is a company that makes chainsaw parts.) California? Washington? You have wikilinked Los Angeles and Tumwater. I suspect it's not the end of the world if some people prevent you from wikilinking California and Washington. Readers can find out about those states by clicking the links you already have. Do you really want to make an issue out of all three states? Perhaps it would be better to insist on wikilinking Oregon because the paragraph has no wikilink to anywhere in Oregon. I can see you've improved readability a lot. (I'd like to see more citations, multiple sources if poss). You can be proud of what you've achieved. I'll support your position. I do think you'll get wider agreement to a compromise position: Go for wikilinking Oregon. If you can acheive that, pat yourself on the back and do something IRL that brings you joy. I have your back Kbwc56 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your support, Kbwc56. It just brings a smile to my face. The compromise seems to be the wisest course of action to take. Yet I'm worried that the editor will just undo my changes again, thus fomenting the scenario I seek to eschew.

To any Teahouse hosts reading this, can you show me how to vote on the matter? Drop me a link and a suggestion or two, and I'll take it from here. Oh, and I'll have that herbal tea, please. Nebulous2357 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how to get a vote going I'm afraid. I feel very much like a newbie here. One tip, however. One of the articles I'm currently editing sometimes gets reverted by another editor. They might disagree with one word, or one citation, but their response is always to revert the work. That can be quite soul-destroying. I regularly copy the wikitext into notepad. If the work gets reverted, I can try to figure out how what that editor disagrees with, make what is usually a tiny change, and paste from notepad. Time-wasting but I lose nothing and try very hard to keep my serenity. Kbwc56 (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Kbwc56 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If it's just a debate over whether to have a word wikilinked, then I don't think that DRN is necessary.

As GrinningIodize pointed out, if it is a must to resolve this matter, then WP:3O would be more appropriate. But even then, it's a bit much. If you fellows give me an hour or two to wait for my morning grogginess to fade, I could weigh in myself. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, you and said editor may benefit from reading up on Wikipedia:Third opinion. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nebulous2357 If they're removing the links but otherwise leaving the lead you enlarged alone, let it go. Some people need drama. You got the revised text; let them have that "win". Mme Maigret (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Mme Maigret. You may not have intended to, but suggesting someone needs drama is casting aspersions. The other editor is not trying to cause drama; in fact they clearly explained why they were removing the link in their edit summary. They were then very polite and helpful when Nebulous2357 reached out on their talk page, and pointed to the guidelines and manual of style they were following. That's exemplary communication, not causing drama or trying to "win". Meadowlark (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark I'd simply note that the same good faith doesn't seem to have been extended to me. I didn't know who Nebulous2357's disagreement was with so I wasn't casting aspersions on anyone. My comment was about perspective. An internal wiki link, no matter how important it might seem at the time, doesn't not seem worth the energy or going to DR over. Mme Maigret (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your words of encouragement, Mme Maigret, but Meadowlark is correct, that kind of rhetoric is inadvisable. By comparison, I unwittingly worsened the debate when I raised the issue with the DRN, without first notifying the user I'm trying to reconcile with. I thank MEN KISSING for talking me out of it. If we perpetuate this "drama" on our part, we could probably kiss our Wikipedia hobbies goodbye. We must show courtesy, and earn it in return. Nebulous2357 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the fifth pillar in WP:Five_pillars

It's possible to be polite and helpful while creating drama. User:Nebulous2357 has already been given a third opinion. No-one is perfect. Kbwc56 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

Do I literally just make templates without any review or like what

JanManisijun (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

i mean sure but please read the guidelines on templates, how to code templates, and (optionally) technical limits of templates nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 01:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tennessee government

How does this look? JanManisijun (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

that actually looks pretty solid like... i'd say i have no problems with this template content-wise nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 02:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I am currently writing Draft:Tennessee School Board of Education and realized that I am using the wrong name for the article (it should actually be Tennessee State Board of Education instead). Do I basically just have to outright delete that page and make a new draft or is there an easier way?

JanManisijun (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Just use that name in the first sentence of the draft and when it is published, the person who does that should do so at the correct name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks ! JanManisijun (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've retitled it. With a title like that, JanManisijun, I thought that this draft might have something to do with the Scopes trial. But the latter article doesn't mention the TSBE. (Perhaps it only came into existence later.) What has the TSBE achieved (or failed to achieve)? How do independent, reliable sources rate the efforts the TSBE has made for education in Tennessee? The draft tells the reader: The current members of the Tennessee State Board of Education are as follows; is it likely that the list will be scrupulously kept up to date? -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, for reasons of historic interest (I was a fisheries scientist some 30 years ago), I was interested to seek out coverage of a particular type of water sampling gear for zooplankton, namely multiple net samplers (a frame is dropped into the water containing multiple nets in a closed state, which can then be opened on electronic request to sample individual levels in the water column). From a description of zooplankton sampling methods e.g. as available at https://www.pismin.com/10.1016/B978-012327645-2/50004-9, we read (p.63): "There are a number of commonly used multiple net samplers, the Multiple Plankton Sampler (MPS) (Bé 1962), the HYDRO-BIOS Multinet (Weikert and John 1981), the RMT 1+8 (Baker et al. 1973), MOCNESS (Wiebe et al. 1985), and the BIONESS (Sameoto et al. 1980). All use square mouth-opening nets and come in a variety of sizes." (etc.). Currently, Wikipedia has an article on one instance (see MOCNESS) but not the others; I started adding some detail about another (BIONESS) to the MOCNESS article but am thinking that is not really the way to go; another way would be to start an article on each method, but that seems a bit like overkill. My current thought is to move (rename) the current MOCNESS information to a new title that is more generic (e.g. "Multiple net plankton sampler" or similar), then create sub-sections within this to hold information on each particular named instance, as appropriate. I seek advice as to whether other experienced editors think this would be a good way to go, or maybe not... An answer here can then be invoked on the present MOCNESS talk page, or the issue could of course be discussed there if felt more appropriate. Thanks in advance - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, having pondered my own question for a bit longer, I think it comes down to a mix of notability (for individual multiple net sampler designs) and granularity (going through a notional hierarchy from top down, where to stop for entire articles). I now think that arguably, the MOCNESS design is sufficiently notable to have its own article (or at least, it has been treated as such in the past), so following that logic, the BIONESS (and possibly others according to individual notability) could have the same (provided that notability criteria are satisfied); then there should be a new, "parent" article created e.g. "Multiple net sampler (plankton)" which could cover the general field of such devices and wikicite these instances as needed (and the list could grow or not depending on the notability of the individual examples). How does this sound? Tony 1212 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I just did a few searches on Google Scholar, MOCNESS (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22mocness%22+zooplankton) yields about 3,020 results as at today while BIONESS (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22bioness%22+zooplankton) yields 578 hits, so both are probably sufficiently notable to have their own articles by WP criteria. BIONESS has also been marketed as the "EZ Net" which yields a further 84 hits via the same approach. I have not checked the other methods mentioned but would expect them to be less notable and if so, maybe not merit more than a mention in the notional "parent" article... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Another option - add a new section "sampling methods" to the existing page Zooplankton, similar to the existing Ichthyoplankton#Sampling_methods, and use that as a "jump off point" to go to particular equipment instances. Whether or not an intermediate page for "multinet systems" or similar would be appropriate would still be a question, though... Tony 1212 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, following what seems to be the best solution to my initial question, I have decided to go with the last option floated above, which is to add a new section "sampling methods" to the existing page Zooplankton and link items from there, including a planned new article for the BIONESS system in parallel to the existing one for MOCNESS, which will remain unchanged and unmoved. I will provide an update (for archive purposes) when this is done. Tony 1212 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Done now, see BIONESS, also relevant addition to Zooplankton article. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I am a newbie and have just created my user page. I want to put some userboxes on it but I have no idea where to put them. Can you tell me or point me to some examples? Thank you. Hello Kitty 🐱 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You can look at my userpage, but they go wherever you want on your userpage! They automatically appear on the right-hand side of your screen. GGOTCC 21:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Hello Kitty, and welcome to the Teahouse™.

It largely depends on how you want it presented. Usually, while placing userbox templates directly, it would appear on the right side. If you place it in a user infobox using the | userboxes = parameter, it would appear in its own section in the infobox. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

How does the chechen wikipedia have 800 thousand articles but few active and registered users? I tried researching but got nothing.

iask the same question about the Wikipedia in Tatar, wara, Ladin and Minangkabau. DinkaLWP (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I do come from the Minangkabau version. Sure, I may have only just started editing, but I know a thing or two.

• The majority of the Wikipedia editions you mentioned (Chechen/Tatar/Waray/Minangkabau; not Ladin) have a ton of articles because of bots, machines that edit and create short Wikipedia articles to mimic human editors. The most notable example is the Cebuano Wikipedia.
• And for Ladin, it's a bit different. Most of its 150K articles (mainly short) come from a user called Asenoner. I don't know how they do it, but that is a lot of articles!

Hope I helped! Bahaim001 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm a new editor and I recently submitted my first draft about a traditional Thai herbal product for AfC review. I've already addressed concerns from a previous reviewer by removing unsupported claims, fixed citation formats, neutralized language. I would really appreciate any general advice for where I might overlook, or anything. Thank you so much for your time!

Piyapat Lochingchairit (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hong Thai (inhaler)

Reviewers will review the article, so you can wait until the draft gets reviewed. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It's still very weakly sourced; only one of the four sources has even an argument for being independent, reliable, and about the product. There are also some clear signs of LLM writing remaining, such as notorious LLM language usage, especially towards the end of the article, and text in the article not being supported by the cited source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I’ve revised the draft and improved the sourcing and wording. If you have time to look again, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you for your patience and for helping a new editor like me. Piyapat Lochingchairit (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It was really a mistake to instantly submit it again. AFC is not a slot machine where you can keep pulling the handle for as long as you put coins in. It's now a nearly empty draft that says more about the founder than the company, yet you resubmitted it for the third time in a day. That's a formula to get the draft rejected rather than declined, which is the end of the road; what's the rush? It's better to submit a draft when it's in good shape even if it takes longer.

If you want to try and make a notable draft out of this, find three good sources that are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about the company. These sources should not be pseudo-interviews like the current sources are. And then write an article based only on the information in those sources (and not information provided by the founder).

The Khaosod article is almost empty once you clear out all the direct quotes from their found and information that obviously came directly from Keng about his life. And I'm really confused by the second source, which is primarily about a recall crisis over product contamination, but you only use it to source light background material which ignores the actual reporting. That selective editing makes me a bit worried; is there a WP:COI or WP:PAID relationship that you need to disclose? The sooner, the better for that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

HiCoffeeCrumbs,

thank you for your honest feedback. I really apologize for hasty resubmissions and any confusion from my selective use of source. As a new editor, I misunderstood the process, I thought Resubmit worked similarly to Publish changes to save my progress, and I intended to keep adding more data after each save. I also wanted to get some initial feedback while I was still working on other sections like safety and ingredients.

I'm also sorry for not studying the AFC guidelines thoroughly before starting. I now realize I shouldn't submit until the draft is fully ready. I honestly had no intention of hiding the negative information. I've pulled the draft back to fix the issue that you mentioned, specifically the recall safety information part. I'll make sure it's in better shape before sending it again.

Thank you again for pointing this out and for your patience with a newcomer. Piyapat Lochingchairit (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries, best of luck in your continued efforts! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

the difference between good writing and unsupported conclusions CharlesHBennett (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Presumably you are asking about Wikipedia:Synthesis, and not something else called Syn?

For anything that is, there are an infinite number of things that it is not. Can you be a little more specific? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to state information which is contained in reliable sources. Any "conclusion", supported or otherwise, is inappropriate, because it is not our job to draw conclusions. That's the point of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.

SYNTH specifically is the idea of combining information in two or more sources to reach a new conclusion not supported individually by either source. Athanelar (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia if one reads an article - at the beginning of the article one gets this "Table of content"-section, which shows all the sections of the article in an overview, so that you can jump to the part that interests you... i've looked up English articles on cities, but i do not see a table of content there at the beginning of an article? Don't you find that useful? And if so, how do i manage to get such a table of content shown? Maybe i do something wrong? Naomi Hennig (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

okay i found it, it is hidden at this "burger-menue" at the left. Does every user of the English Wikipedia know this?

Naomi Hennig (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably not (the regulars probably do), and I don't know if the default setting is expanded on the the left side (that's where I have mine). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

And how would i format it so that i can also have it visible all the time? I'm sorry i have to ask so many questions. Kind regards,

Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig When you click the "burger", do you see a "move to sidebar" button? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

When I read an article logged-out, I get the TOC menu on the left, the appearance menu on the right of the screen. So I assume that's the default view. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig: The current default skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering is Vector 2022 which has a hideable table of contents in the left pane. The former defaults Vector legacy and MonoBook have it fixed before the first section heading. It's omitted if there are less than four sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info, PrimeHunter, i'm sorry, i'm so much work for you, but i promise i store every info in my vademecum so that i don't have to ask that specific question again :-) Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

As an aviation enthusiast, I find it a bit odd that when searching for individual aircraft, only fatal aviation incidents seem to be mentioned as seperate articles. Searching for indiviual aircraft registrations either yields nothing or an incident (eg: VT-ANB → Air India 171 (redirected) ) .

While I do agree that most (if not the vast marjority of) airframes may have a relatively unremarkable lifespan (and creating numerous articles will only clog up the wiki!), perhaps the more interesting ones could be their own articles. The purpose would not be to replace sites such as planespotters.net or ch-aviation, but rather to provide information on more interesting airframes.

Another alternative is to include a 'special' aircraft section on the page of the airline and/or plane type, featuring airframes such as first deliveries or retrofits(of the type), special liveries/colors/stickers, or other unique features of certain airframes.

Looking forward to hear any suggestions, senior editor advice or wiki guidelines regarding page or section creation. Username203 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Username203. The chief criterion for whether or not there can be an article about a particular subject is whether or not that subject meets Wikipedia's conditions for notability - which come down mostly to whether there is significant material about the subject, written and published entirely independently of anybody connected with the subject, and published in a reliable source: see WP:42.

Most individual aircraft simply have not excited anybody's interest to write in depth about them.

Your suggestion of adding them to the article about the airline or aircraft model has more merit, but it still depends on independent sources. Also note WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to request that two recent events be added in that area on the main page (specifically the 2026 Mali attacks and the 2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting, especially the latter), though I am unfortunately a bit confused as to how exactly the process for that works. If someone could give a step-by-step explanation as to where to go, what buttons to press, what the correct template looks like, etc, that would be greatly appreciated! QuisEstJoe (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@QuisEstJoe See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It's doubtful that the correspondents dinner would obtain consensus to post- an event where one person had a minor injury. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems both events are already under discussion there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

hello i want to know where the heck is the userbox AutumnHornet (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@AutumnHornet Do you mean Wikipedia:Userboxes? There are thousands of userboxes. Are you lookibg for a specific one? Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! There are thousands of userboxes that you can display on your Userpage that you can find at Wikipedia:Userboxes, which also has more info :) Rooney!^chatter 16:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have submitted my article twice for review and it was rejected twice. I've reviewed the criteria and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Can you advise what I need to do to get my article approved? Gisellemm (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

We don’t typically provide ‘pre-review reviews’ here at the Teahouse, but it seems like the reviewer told you to find sources that make sure this series meets the notability criteria for films. You should probably read WP:Notability (films) if you’re confused, and a look through WP:42 could also help. Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 18:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried an edit putting the old standby expand {{}} tag at the top of the bio article Fred Turner (author) and got automatic red-sentence feedback, to the effect that this is now a disused tag.

In relation to technology and society, Turner (a university prof) is a notable critical thinker and author. The article deserves expansion. How can I tag the article and/or otherwise draw attention to it? Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse!

You can use this template: Template:Expand section. If you're using the Visual Editor (plaintext), simply type two curly braces "{{" and search for "Expand" in the template list that pops up. If you're using the Source Editor (wikitext markup), you can add the template from the linked template page normally.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Paolo Roland Self. Okay, I used the expand section template. Is that a thorough way to stimulate more development of the article?Joel Russ (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The proper way to mark that this article needs expansion is to use a stub template indicating that the article is a WP:Stub. I have done this for you. There are millions of stubs on Wikipedia, so it is unlikely to focus attention on the article. This is cliche, but the best way to ensure the article is developed is to do it yourself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the template, I'd recommend reaching out to relevant WikiProjects - communities of editors focused on specific disciplines. For this article, WikiProject Academics, Biography, Communication, and Technology would all be worth contacting. A short post on each project's talk page noting the article exists and could use expansion (especially around Turner's contributions to communication studies and tech history) might be enough to get eyes on it.

Also worth adding the WikiProject banners to the article's talk page so those communities can track it, and leaving a note there outlining the specific gaps - gives potential editors something concrete to work toward.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Another way to do that in the Visual editor is to click on the Insert (+) icon across the top of the screen, and then on Template. But I'm glad to know about this short cut ... thanks, @Paolo Roland Self. Augnablik (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! There's another similar shortcut: typing two square brackets ( [[ ) will open a Wikilink popup. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

A surfeit of treasures for someone who often wonders if there are others of us who favor (or at least use) the Visual editor in a clearly Source editor world! Doubled thanks, Paolo Roland Self. Augnablik (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome @Augnablik! I'm glad I could help :) Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For a more complete list of keyboard shortcuts, you can also check here: Help:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts. I just found this page, I found the other shortcuts by accidentally using Source Editor formatting when I first tried the Visual Editor. Hope this helps! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For me, this is gold! Augnablik (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad I could help! :) Paolo Roland Self (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Greetings again!

Now that I've settled the dispute on the U.S. Route 101 in California article, I wanted to nominate it for the Good Articles list. This is my first time nominating an article for an elevated position on the webspace, so I need guidance from experienced editors.

One of the rules is that I need to be a significant contributor to the article I wish to submit. I rewrote the History section on that article, and quietly put some touchups afterwards. Does that make me a significant contributor? What other hugely important tips must I know before submitting the nomination? Nebulous2357 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to ask one more question. I live along a section of US 101 in the San Francisco Bay Area. Would that stand in the way of nominating the article? Would the nomination fail insofar as personal interest on the topic is involved? Nebulous2357 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think living along the route would prevent you from nominating it; people aren't generally biased towards roads. I hope. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 23:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Lol, your fine. The main issues with Conflict of interest is if you being paid to write the article or directly benefit from how an article is worded. GGOTCC 05:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have done a Good Article review on a road before, and do not see any critical issues from my first look. Great job! You could ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads as they would have better information on these sorts of things. Since you already had a peer review done (great idea), you can nominate the article now. It may take a bit for someone to start the review, so you have plenty of time to make tweaks. GGOTCC 05:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @GGOTCC! I'll check back later for more responses, but you've certainly boosted my confidence. Nebulous2357 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I did it! I've officially nominated the article for a GA listing. I'll keep this thread open so that it will serve as a go-to room for reviewers to ask questions or share concerns with the Teahouse hosts and visitors. Meanwhile, any suggestions for changes in article content should be posted in the talk page for the article. Excited to see that green icon adoring the page! Nebulous2357 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Apparently, the presentation of my edits is being thrown under the bus. Almost immediately after I nominated the US 101 in California article for GA listing, someone stepped in and applied heavy copy-editing on the Route Description section of the page. The editor said in the Talk Page that it wasn't an official GA review, but they summarized numerous flaws they spotted in the article that they believe was worth correcting straight away and posted a banner on the article. I'm worried that they threw off the whole GA review process, because they published the changes while there were still no reviews. Don't get me wrong, they had every right to call out any problems with the article, but do you think that their direct intervention was impulsed and merits a cause for concern about the GA nomination? What does the policy say about this unique circumstance, if any? Nebulous2357 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Gb321 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks @JohnLaurens333:. I am the editor in question. My editing was in lieu of quick failing the article, as it had numerous issues that in my opinion precluded it from GA status. My understanding is that nominating an article for GA does not mean editing/improvement of the article ceases; rather, an article achieves GA status when it is stably at that level (as determined by someone not involved in writing the article). My edits are intended to improve the article to GA quality, then I'll stop editing so it can be stable and someone else can review it.

Perhaps I should have quickfailed the nomination before performing my numerous edits? I am aware that my edits do preclude me from reviewing the nomination, which I originally intended to do but decided not to as I believe I could do the article better by improving it such that it can pass a GA review performed by someone else. Wikipedia says WP:BEBOLD and so that's what I was doing; I generally am not shy about that, although I do always attempt to do it with WP:CIVILITY, which I believe I was doing here. Gb321 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

How can I find out my IP Address? When I put in 2026-25707-05 onto the IP geolocator and getting nonsense. Is it because IP moved to IPv6 or something and all the geolocators run on v4? ~2026-25707-05 (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you ask a search engine to look for "what is my IP address", or similar, it will present you with links to web pages offering to tell you just that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

"2026-25707-05" is not your IP address, but rather the name of your temporary account. If you haven't been up to date, Wikipedia rolled out an update last year that hides everyone's IP address for logged out users and replaced it with these numbers instead. HyperAnd [talk] 07:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

HyperAnd is correct. It is not your IP address. In 2025, most Wikimedia projects chose to get temporary accounts instead of IPs. Bahaim001 (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

In 2025, most Wikimedia projects chose to get temporary accounts instead of IPs. It was a foundation decision, rather than something individual Wikis chose. See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 12#Temporary accounts rollout. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you want to find your IP? ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Get my IP address. OutsideNormality (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

hello i want to know how do i edit my home page AutumnHornet (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

you mean your user page? if so click the red link and create your user page PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 16:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@AutumnHornet: If you mean Special:Homepage then it's generated automatically by our software and you cannot edit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you mean your user page, go to User:AutumnHornet and edit it like most other pages. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 22:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I am a new editor. I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure: I work for the company that provided the lighting for a mural in the POW! WOW! Worcester festival. I would like to add an image I took of the Ivy Corset Building smokestack to the article, as this specific project is mentioned in the text but currently lacks a photo. I have already uploaded the high-resolution image to Commons as:

File:Illuminated_Smokestack_Mural_POW_WOW_-_Worcester_Access_Fixtures.jpg

I submitted a request on the article Talk page on April 9th, but since the page hasn't been edited since 2024, I haven't received a response. Could a neutral editor please help me place this image in the Worcester section? Thank you! Jason at AccessFixtures (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Happy editing. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 23:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I am really trying to publish an article, I'm having trouble with making a simple Early life. Please Mercuredior (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you may want to look at WP:Referencing for beginners; you have several empty citations (citations without any information in them) and a citation with only the author's name, but no link to the record you're citing. Make sure you don't write your draft backwards.

Link: Draft:Mercure Tchabong🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but can I have just one citation? Mercuredior (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I just fixed my draft I added more citations. Mercuredior (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP: NOTABILITY; the subject of your article needs to have significant, independent coverage. And I'd advise not submitting your article until you've properly formatted your citations.🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I filled them all out? Can and resubmitted. ~2026-25647-68 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Look at your references section--the text in red means there are errors. Also, have you read the notability guidelines? You need independent coverage; for instance, an article from a reliable source like NBC would be helpful. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok I resubmitted ~2026-25647-68 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mercure Tchabong has now been rejected, Mercuredior; so please stop working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

So what do I do? ~2026-25563-23 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

With your draft? Nothing. You can contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 02:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I imagine that you are Mercuredior. If you'd like to write about Mercure Tchabong, please do so somewhere other than Wikipedia. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, please contribute to any article, or to any draft whose subject isn't Mercure Tchabong. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well I added about the Mercure Tchabong figure. I figured out how to, add another source. Please let me know. Mercuredior (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've replied to you here too, but you need to stop trying to force your article into Wikipedia. The artist is not eligible for an encyclopedia article. You can't force an article on here, they just do not qualify right now.

You've been told that the article cannot be resubmitted, please accept that and move on to something else because you could get blocked by an administrator for the amount of time you're taking up from other volunteers. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I previously shared my draft article for review and have made a few new updates adding new sources and improving the wording. Here is the updated draft: T._S._Nandakumar Kindly take a look and please let me know if the sources, structure, and tone meet Wikipedia standards? I would also appreciate any guidance, opinion or suggestions on what more improvements can be done in the article before I submit it for review.

Thank You, Music Article Creator (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This article was previously deleted after a deletion discussion, and your subsequent attempt at creating a new draft of the article was deleted as entirely AI generated. Your new draft still has indications of being AI generated.

At some point you need to drop the stick and move on to editing something else. What is the nature of the conflict of interest you've disclosed on your userpage? Are you being paid to create this article? Athanelar (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback @Athanelar.

I have a conflict of interest as I am a student of this subject also I am not paid to create this article. I understand the concerns regarding prior deletion of this article (which i am not aware of as i cannot view the history of prior deletion created by some one else) and it is the first time i am creating this article on this person and while submitting it last time ,yes i used some help from AI to create this article to speed up the process but this time i have researched and found good sources and have spent my time and effort writing it in my own words (summarizing based on the sources) and i focused on improving this draft using some strong sources. If possible, I would appreciate any specific guidance on which sources or areas need improvement so that i can improve this article further. Any help, any guidance is much appreciated.

Thank You! Music Article Creator (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ongezellig

So what do I need to do to get the Ongezellig article approved, I'm still a beginner at this Wikipedia stuff. 9004805a (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You appear to requesting a redirect from Ongezelligheid to Gezelligheid. I have now created that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @9004805a, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's a bit tricky looking through the history of Draft:Ongezellig, but I think that you (like @UnserKrieg before you) have been trying to create a draft about an unreleased film.

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.

For most unreleased films, there simply isn't enough independent material published about them, and no article is possible: see TOOSOON.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@9004805a You might want to have a look at WP:BFDI, as I suspect that Ongezellig is largely in the same situation BFDI was once in; being massively popular with a particular niche audience, but not receiving much significant coverage from outside that audience (which therefore makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia)

In short, Popularity does not guarantee notability. Athanelar (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess it does have that in common with BFDI, but both have impacts 9004805a (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

With BFDI, even though it was massively popular it took a while for reliable sources to report on it in sufficient quantity for an encyclopedia article to be created, so this could be a similar situation - it's popular but we haven't got the right building blocks to create an article.

That doesn't mean it won't happen, just that it hasn't happened yet.

Or it could wane in popularity and something else takes over before we get to that stage, you can never tell with online phenomena like this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah, all we have are the 5 parts (or 6 deels but 1+2 and in one so 5 deels), and it also has a relation with the soysphere (which include sites like Soyjak(st)and Soyzellig(party) and many other related sites, but it also has a big community on reddit and X/Twitter/xitter).

I'm also a huge Ongezellig fan, so I love making sure thing is a notable fact in history 9004805a (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Previously, I split Polyad into Polyad (mathematics) and Polyad (spectroscopy), but it seems that Polyad (spectroscopy) has been draftify. Should polyad be changed from a Dab page to a redirect to Polyad (mathematics)? Polyad (spectroscopy) is outside the scope of WP:WPMATH, so I will post it to TH.--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with Polyad (spectroscopy) is that there is only one improperly cited source. From a brief search, the topic is likely notable. I would recomend adding more sources using the citation template, and then submitting the draft to AFC using the submit button on the template at the top of the draft. I would help you more, but the topic is beyond my understanding. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond: Thank you for your reply. I only suggested splitting the article, so I can't improve Polyad (spectroscopy). sorry.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

im confused i just googled and your supposed to add a code another question that i have to awnser is where do i put the code??? AutumnHornet (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Autumnhornet To add userboxes to your Userpage, you add the provided template on the userboxes template page. You copy and paste the template (which looks like this: {{Userbox :D}} ) onto your Userpage in the source editor! Rooney!^chatter 16:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@AutumnHornet I added a userbox to your user page to demonstrate it; feel free to remove it. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @AutumnHornet, and welcome to the Teahouse.^{There's tea here, if you'd like.}

First, go to the userbox template gallery and find a userbox you like. Then, paste the code into your userpage which typically appears on the right side. You can also paste it into a Wikipedia user infobox via the parameter | userboxes =. There are more methods for adding userboxes to your page, but these are just the most used examples.

Happy editing! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 03:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello -

I recently submitted (~5 days ago) a new page for Jim Lowe (record producer) - today, I was forwarded this email from wikisubmissions.com, offering "consultancy", which after doing some research seems to be a targeted scam/spam for exactly this type of thing. I thought you might like to be aware of it.

The forwarded email from them I include in the text below.

I can provide any additional details that you might want.

Thanks, Ron

Forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 19:14 Subject: Jim Lowe (record producer) - wiki Page Publish

Hello Jim Lowe (record producer), This is Asher from the Wiki Submissions, I assume you or someone else on your behalf tried to have a Wikipedia page with your name. If you attempted to have a Wikipedia article, I'm writing to inform you that your request has been Refused, Published, or is "Pending." We assist people and organizations who were facing difficulties creating their own Wikipedia pages. If you are still interested in having your own Wikipedia page you can get Complimentary consultancy from experts.

Please get back to me so I can provide more information if you're interested.

Warm regards, Asher

Consultant

Expatriot22 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Scam warning: Don't fall victim to scammers offering Wikipedia "assistance" or "services" in exchange for payment!

Scammers may pretend to be Wikipedia volunteers or a "professional" public relations firm, and will contact you and ask for payment in exchange for their "services" - such as writing and publishing an article for you, getting a draft article accepted quickly, preventing or reversing deletion of an article, or protecting an article from changes. These paid "services" are scams.

• Help from real Wikipedia volunteers is always free. They will never ask for money or any other compensation.
• No one can guarantee that an article will be accepted or "protected"; any "guarantees" that are offered are complete lies.

If someone contacts you with paid offers:

• Do not respond to them. Immediately stop all contact and block them from contacting you further.
• Do not share any personal information, and never share your Wikipedia account password.
• Do not click on any links or download and open any files that they send to you.
• Do not send any money or follow any of their instructions.

What to do instead:

• Forward the whole conversation, including email headers, to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org.
• If you shared your Wikipedia account password, or if you clicked on any links or opened any files that they sent to you, change your Wikipedia password immediately. Consider enabling two-factor authentication and running a full malware scan on your device.

Please forward the whole conversation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org

BSH (talk) - (they/them) 19:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Above: your request has been Refused, Published, or is "Pending." This brings to mind advance-fee scams, more specifically: According to Cormac Herley, a Microsoft researcher, "By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible, the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select." -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I did find that line quite funny too. "Your request has either been refused or accepted or neither. Pay us and we'll fix it." Athanelar (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Methinks they were supposed to delete some of it as applicable but didn't know/couldn't be bothered! Interestingly, the Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies shows this company as defunct, so I wonder if another scammer has taken over the URL/name...

Hi @Expatriot22, you might find the Wikipedia:Scam warning page has more useful information for you. They seem to go through the declined submissions to look for marks, then contact them to try to solicit payment. Unfortunately that's what happens with publicly-accessible sites like this one. I'm glad you realised it was a scam, a lot of people don't and they lose thousands as a result. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I suspect they're hoping to bait people that respond to check which one is the case - anyone who does so instead of looking up the real status here is gullible enough to be a potential mark. They might even manage to hook people who aren't aware theirs WAS accepted, though likely not many. Better chance of drumming up an excuse for any that are still pending, which they can of course "solve" along with denials. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but I'll suggest that anybody who is interested in seeing the details of how these scams work should look at the article I wrote in The Signpost titled How paid editors squeeze you dry. I'll also note that I created the Scam warning way back in 2017 that was quoted above. It's been rewritten since, but it still applies quite well. (Do also note that I have a minor COI in plugging my own Signpost article here).

Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Hi, I need help uploading 2 pages from New Growth magazine (2010) for Draft:Elizabeth Marie Camacho. My account isn't autoconfirmed so I can't use the File Upload Wizard.

The reviewer User:Tacyarg declined my draft because "None of the sources even mentions her name." This 2-page feature article is titled "Carolina's Own Elíz Camacho" and is specifically about providing the significant coverage needed per WP:GNG.

I have permission from New Growth Hair Magazine to use these scans on Wikipedia for verification.

Can someone please upload these for me with a non-free fair use rationale?

I can email the JPGs to whoever helps. Thank you! R3adyWrit3s (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@R3adyWrit3s Wikipedia does not accept scans of copyrighted text just for verification purposes. And a single piece in a hyperlocal magazine is not enough for notability; at the very least multiple sources with significant coverage are required. (Hyperlocal magazine pieces also tend to be interviews with the subject, which generally do not count as independent sources). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon: Thank you for the guidance on WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:RSPYT. The draft doesn’t meet notability guidelines yet due to lack of multiple independent secondary sources and proof of national radio play. Additional coverage will be sought before resubmitting. R3adyWrit3s (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it wasn't me who declined that draft with that comment, but @Bonadea:, if they want to add anything. My decline followed that and was on the basis of the sources being three deadlinks without archives, two passing mentions, one source that didn't look reliable and one blocked for me on the grounds of "offensive content". Tacyarg (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The draft version I declined was this one, which had four sources none of which mentioned her. I agree that the sources added later aren't sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 06:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll also add here that it generally isn't necessary to upload offline sources to prove their existence - standard policy is to accept them as true unless there's substantial reason to believe they may be fabricated. You just add them like any other source using the appropriate formatting (magazine, in this case). The issue here is that the source itself isn't sufficient to prove notability, not that it hasn't been verified. If it meets standards for reliability you can still add it, but would need more before the article itself passes review. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been doing some RC Patrol lately and have come across this scenario a few times:

1. User vandalizes a page.
   
2. Edit is reverted and {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} is inserted on their talk page.
   
3. User attempts vandalism and is blocked by an edit filter.

In this scenario, should I put {{subst:Uw-attempt1}} or {{subst:Uw-attempt2}} on their talk page? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This question can also be applied to any two warning categories, I just used vandalism and attempt because they are by far the most common type of message I leave.

Normally, I put level 2 in this scenario, but I thought to reach out to see if I'm doing it right. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

level 2 seems right to me but I recommend installing Twinkle to help you add templates more efficiently and automatically at the correct level, you can install it in the gadgets section of your preferences page. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 00:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have installed twinkle. Is it supposed to automatically insert templates? All it does for me is open up the user's talk page. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 12:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

there is an option called "Warn" in the twinkle menu which will allow you to pick a warning template PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I see it! Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 13:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

okay okay so i know an article should rely on multiple sources no? but what if the 1 source is suffiecient for wikipedias standards and its pretty much the only source Dommer simpson (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be notable enough. Even if it contains all the information you need, that is not significant enough coverage. In general, an article should have at least three sources that meet WP:42. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There are many ways a subject can be notable enough with only one source. Take WP:NPOL for example, a politian elected to a national legistative body is presumed to be notable even without WP:SIGCOV. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

A few thoughts: DollarStoreBaal44, WP:42 is a essay. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. It contains generally good advice but nothing in policies or guidelines requires three sources. That may be best practice but is not mandatory. DandelionAndBurdock, WP:NPOL creates a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Some obscure member of the rubber stamp parliament of some dictatorship 50 or 100 years ago may technically meet WP:NPOL but there is no point having a freestanding article if all we know is a name and the office they held. A list article with multiple names is probably a better solution in such a case. Dommer simpson, guidelines do speak of references and sources in the plural. So, in almost all cases, more than one source will be expected. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this a theoretical question or do you have a specific article or subject in mind? If you're thinking about something specific, we might be more helpful with that information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

practical Dommer simpson (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

So what's the article and what's the source? Don't keep us guessing. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Its about 6 new species of fungi (i guess) in china but the problem is theres only one source Dommer simpson (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to arrange my userboxes on my user page so they look nice on both wide and narrow screens, specifically, if your screen is wide enough, I'd like them to display like this in columns:

(I have no idea where to post this question (perhaps WT:Userboxes, but that gave me a warning message: This Project page is watched by very few users, any questions or suggestions posted here may be left unanswered for long periods of time.), so if you know of a better place, please let me know!) — Isaac Oscar 07:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

One way is wrapping each column with a table styled with "display:inline-table"

Using {{Col-float}} (with {{Col-float-break}} and {{Col-float-end}}) can also work, but leaves less of a gap — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Add the demo for {{Col-float}} and friends

Perhaps "better", because you are just using standard templates, but it with no gap unless you add some style to the Userboxtop. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! The inline-table seems to have better padding. There are two problems though:

1. I want the entire thing inside a {{Userboxtop}} (i.e. so the border draws over everything, not around each column). But trying to do that just makes everything vertical.
2. I want everything to be horizontally centred, e.g. when one column is placed below the first two, it should have them centered. And the whole group should be centered relative to the whole page.

— Isaac Oscar 10:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Isaac Oscar if you're willing to write a bit of HTML, this should be doable with flexboxes. 🍅 fx (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I couldn't work it out, I managed to get it to either always be vertical:

Or always horizontal (the same as above but with "flex-flow: row nowrap" instead of "flex-flow: row wrap"):

— Isaac Oscar 14:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

hi im trying to add a userbox to my user page where is the thing where u insert a userbox?? AutumnHornet (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the userboxes in your userpage you are asking about either the Wikipedia user infobox or the userbox-box. You can insert a wikipedia user info box by inserting the template (there are so many variables I'm not listing them). Alternatively you could enter

{{Userboxtop}}

[Insert userboxes here]

{{Userboxbottom}}

into your userpage. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@AutumnHornet Did you not see the answers you were given yesterday (above)? Is there anything there you don't understand? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

User infobox or userbox-box? For the infobox, add that via the | userboxes = parameter in the source code.

If you need any more questions on userboxes, go to WP:Userboxes, pick a template from the gallery and place it on your userpage. Cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

hi how do you add a userbox that lets them know that he or her is autstic AutumnHornet (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental; there's a section titled Autism with lots of different userboxes to choose from. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AutumnHornet! You can find mental health related userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental! Rooney!^chatter 16:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

How do I write my own article? I have been trying to write a certain document for a topic that has not been discussed very much on Wikipedia. I know this because I could not find anything on this topic on the website. Her Wilhelm (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Her Wilhelm: First, you find sources with editorial oversight that discuss your topic at length. If you can't find any, then a Wikipedia article has nothing to summarise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have always wondered how they directly upload non-free files by using templates like {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}, such as this file: File:The Kid Laroi and Justin Bieber - Stay.png. I still have no idea how. Babin Mew (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Babin Mew. Use the "Upload file" link in the left menu (you may have to click a ≡ icon to see it) and select carefully from the options. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. But whenever I upload a non free file it assigns the default rationale template, not the one I said. Babin Mew (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

hi where is a userbox to see where he or her hails from ( for example nc etc) AutumnHornet (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@AutumnHornet, I would recommend looking for these specific Userboxes using the search in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. I would also say that you do not need to be making a new topic for every new userbox you would like to find, as was said above :) Rooney!^chatter 17:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you rooney can we be frineds AutumnHornet (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

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

While it's fair enough to spend some time getting your user page right, so far you have made 35 edits, and not one of them to an article in the encyclopaedia - which is what we are here for. Can I suggest that you have a go at actually contributing to Wikipedia? See the Task Center for suggestions, or perhaps find a WikiProject relating to somethign that interests you (perhaps, whichever sport it is that you evidently are keen on) and see what articles they suggest there could do with improvement. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Error: John S. Armstrong cannot be both Prather's great grandfather and his father-in-law as has been written by the writer of Prather's bio. Please correct. Martha S. Lyon (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Martha S. Lyon Hello and welcome. This should be raised on the relevant article talk page(I'm not clear on which article you are referring to); but could it not be two different people of the same name? (Like Angus King and Angus King III) 331dot (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hugh Prather#Family, early life, and_education says: "With his father-in-law John S. Armstrong and Armstrong's other son-in-law Edgar Flippen, Prather, Sr., helped plan and build the town". It's a convoluted formulation and I think the comma after "Prather, Sr." should be removed. The sentence is apparently about Prather, Sr. (Hugh Prather's grandfather), so "his father-in-law" refers to the father in law of Prather, Sr., but this is only reavealed much later in the sentence so readers are likely to think "his" refers to the article subject Hugh Prather. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Martha S. Lyon@PrimeHunter@331dot I've made some changes to the article which should clarify this. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

hi where is a userbox that i can tell if he or her is a cathlotic AutumnHornet (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Userboxes/Religion/Catholicism. Please don't create a new topic every time you'd like a new userbox; you can easily find userboxes yourself with WP:Userboxes/Galleries. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

See Template:Userbox PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want a userbox that doesn't exist yet, head to Wikiproject Userboxes/Ideas Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

....How can I State in the Tornado article about the use of goggles, like those used in machine and woodworking, lab work for preventing shrapnel generated by tornadoes from causing blindness? I have seen a article on a sister site called WikiHow that in the reader tips on surviving a tornado, that 🥽 s are to be used, along with a 🪖 to prevent injury in a tornado. The Tornado article appears to be protected due to repeated protection requests due to vandalism at the timestamp shown here, so I had to come here. Also, I am expecting two more severe storm/ tornado outbreaks. I had one real recently in which the Dominator and the TIVs were in my area. The Dominator was in Kirksville, MO. Can this be used in any articles?~2026-16963-29 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If you're saying that WikiHow is a "sister site" of this one, then what do you mean by "sister site"? In order to add material to an article here, you have to cite the reliable, published source(s) from which you've derived the material: your (or my) personal observation counts for nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! I hope you stay safe from any tornadoes.

On Wikipedia, every claim (should) be supported by a reliable source (you can read more at WP:Golden rule). Do you know of any sources which mention people using goggles as protection against debris or a risk of being blinded by such storms? GGOTCC 07:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The Weather Channel mentions 🪖 s and other safety aids, during their tornado/ storm explanations on how to survive these storms,so 🥽 s are implied if not stated. Imagine flying debris in "your" house when a tornado and/ or severe storm hits it. I just had to deal with that in general nearly a week ago when my area had two 🌪️s in the area and multiple severe 🌩️s, and found out we are expecting more of this. Luckily my place did not get hit at all. A safety official said that I had the right idea to handle this kind of thing. ~2026-16963-29 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hory, WikiHow is similar to this one in that one can contribute "How To" articles on that site and readers can contribute tips of all kinds that, once verified by their people, will appear on the article, such as how to make a paper plane, or , in this case, how to survive a tornado.~2026-16963-29 (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We can't include things in our articles that are "implied [but] not stated," that contravenes our policy on original research.

In general, our article on tornadoes should not include advice on surviving a tornado; we're an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide; that's precisely what WikiHow is for. Athanelar (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, wikiHow isn’t Wikipedia’s sister site. However, it uses a forked version of MediaWiki. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Did not know that.~2026-16963-29 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-16963-29, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah wiki just means "...a collaborative website that allows users to easily create, edit, and link pages directly from a web browser" Goetia (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16963-29 "Can this be used in any article?". Can what be used? If you mean the fact that you are expecting two more tornados in your area, no, that is not encyclopedic. You wouldn't see that printed in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. David10244 (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel is an article that is semi-protected, however the edit rules say you must be extended confirmed. Is this intentional, or not? Xboxfan38 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say it's semi-protected? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the log, its semi-protected. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The notice on the talk page (and the edit notice) say that parts of the page relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Non extended confirmed editors are not allowed to edit in relation to that topic area, but other parts of the article are fine. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: Only articles that are strictly about aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict are XCP'd on discovery. Articles about other topics that have Arab-Israeli conflict related content don't get XCP unless it would ordinarily be warranted (such as an escalation if semi-protection isn't working). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on some languages for my user page, and I would put cpi-1, but it seems the template isn't there. what do I do? do I just give up? AtTheTownHouse (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Presumably you could make the template yourself. But if I were you, I wouldn't bother. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Instead of making a new template, you can force it by not using the local {{Babel}} template, but rather MediaWiki's Babel extension, like this: {{#babel:en-4|zh|cpi-1}}. HyperAnd [talk] 01:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks! AtTheTownHouse (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit my Signature for a black background and a light blue text and i tried using WP:SIGTUT to start and as you can see it's not working <span style="background-color: maroon">[[User:The Ars Goetia|<span style="color: khaki">Goetia</span>]] [[User talk:The Ars Goetia|<span style="color: khaki">(talk)</span>]]</span> (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Please help I feel so exposed with my signature broken like this [[User:The Ars Goetia|<span style="color:blue;">Goetia</span>]] (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi The Ars Goetia. Enable "Treat the above as wiki markup" below the Signature field at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey im looking at the Bjelke Petersen article (specifically Bjelkemander section), and im curious how i do those "for the main article on this subject, go to x" thingies. Mormissen (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

template:for and template:main? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 08:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where to suggest an article so I ask here. After the sleeping hit of Jane! we should probably cover the band itself. ~2026-26084-02 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-26084-02 and welcome to the Teahouse!

To create an article on this band, it must meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To briefly summarize this policy, multiple reliable independent sources must cover the subject. After a quick search on Google, I failed to find any independent sources reviewing this band.

Before creating an article, make sure to find enough independent reliable sources covering the topic, otherwise you'll end up creating the article backwards.

Other more experienced editors in the field of creating articles may be able to give you other suggestions as well.

Happy editing!

✓ Courtesy link to the existing article on Jane!: Jane! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Jane! doesn't even start to describe its subject. Where the song was used, and its popularity: yes, these are described -- but not its lyrics (if any), its instrumentation (if any), its genre(s) (if any), comments on it (if any) by music journalists, et cetera. How about attempting to improve the article Jane!? -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been working on Draft:Mike Rowe (musician), a British session keyboardist who was a member of Oasis, Sheryl Crow's touring band, and Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds. The draft has been declined three times for insufficient independent sourcing.

My strongest source is a dedicated artist profile in Keyboard magazine (Vol. 35, No. 4, April 2009, p. 13, ISSN 0730-0158), titled "Mikey Rowe: Retro Rock with Sheryl Crow" by Jon Regen. Rowe is the sole subject, with a photograph of him with Sheryl Crowe, biographical detail, and extended quotes about his career and playing approach. It's a full-page profile in the magazine's "Keyspace: Artists" section.

I also have 19 page-specific citations in Paolo Hewitt's Forever the People (Boxtree, 2000), a published book documenting the Oasis Be Here Now tour, plus mentions in Vanity Fair, NME, Music Week, and two published biographies of Noel Gallagher himself.

My questions:

Does the Keyboard profile satisfy WP:NMUSIC criterion 1 (subject of a non-trivial work in a notable publication)?

Would criterion 9 (prominent member of multiple independently notable ensembles) apply here, given his credited roles in Oasis, Sheryl Crow's band, and NGHFB? Is there anything else I should be doing with the sources I have?

Thank you for any guidance. Fax&Figures (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC) Fax&Figures (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I create a page about my ancestor? This is a family member but one who died before I was born. TulsaExplainsEverything (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Here are some more details. I would like to create an article about Russell Cobb (1898-1962). He was son of Henry Ives Cobb, architect, who has a Wikipedia page. Russell was part of the Soviet Famine relief project, Police and Fire Commissioner of Tulsa (1940-1942), and later a charter member of the CIA (1949). He was also a noted oilman.

I am Russell Cobb IV (1974--) TulsaExplainsEverything (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

If they meet our notability criteria, you can do, but you should create a draft for independent editors to review, and declare your conflict of interest when you do so.

It is vital that you only write what is substantiated by reliable sources; not what you know from family lore.

You may find WP:Your first article helpful.; and we strongly recommend you get some experience editing existing articles before you start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and was just interested in putting some sources in a page I thought were important to include concerning the Baptist denomination of Christianity. In time however, a user came to dispute it on the grounds of schism (this is an on-going dispute and they have yet to define exactly what each group is by which they might be determined in their relation). This user has not only been uncivil (on their own talk page primarily, but it also exists on the page for the article proper; and of course this is not to say I am free from error), but has prior to the engagement failed to follow normal protocol as an experienced user. When I openly expressed openness to correction for anything I might have done wrong, the user proceeded to suggest I was insincere in my comment rather than allowing any genuine correction to take place. Based on the descriptions of each area for dispute resolution what I am looking to handle doesn't appear to match any of the requirements/advice exactly on how to handle the situation. Most importantly of all for the dispute itself, the user has failed to address the central point of contention and any of the points relating to it I brought up (in which definition of groups play utmost significance). What I speak here only addresses my perspective of the shape of a situation, please review Talk:List of Baptist confessions of faith - Wikipedia if that will help establish what is occurring.

What approach would you suggest to resolve the dispute? Shadowkindred (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Follow WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

​"Hi, I am Reuben. I have finished a draft for a new article about Jurayj, an Islamic figure,in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rubendx/sandbox . Could a mentor please help me move this to the mainspace? I have multiple included scholarly sources of my article. Rubendx (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rubendx, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have added a header to your sandbox which will allow you to submit it for review. That is the recommended way to get a draft moved to mainspace, or to get feedback if the reviewer thinks it is not ready for that. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

hi its me agian i need to sort my userboxes for example ( personal info etc ) how do i sort them i know rooney has them AutumnHornet (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

To sort your userboxes, use Template:Userboxtop and Template:Userboxbottom. It wraps the userboxes in a horizontal box.

Example code:

{{Userboxtop}}

{{User Human}}

{{Userboxbottom}}

Versions111 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

For my newly created article R.V. Soela I need the word "Soela" (only) to be italicized on display, since it is the name of a vessel (ship), but I cannot find how to do it... I tried inserting "//Italic title prefixed|5//" (curly quotes replaced with slashes for purposes of this message) but got an error message "Warning: Display title "R.V. Soela" overrides earlier display title "R.V. Soela" " which I presume is a property of the infobox, however without that there is no italicization by default. If anyone could fix this where it needs to be done (maybe somewhere in or around the infobox??) I would be grateful... Thanks in advance. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed you should see the proper R.V. Soela styling now. it comes from the |display_title= param of template:infobox ship nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 06:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Tony 1212 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 06:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tony 1212: You should remove the full stops from "RV" (and "FRV") the text of the article and move the article accordingly. See WP:PREFIXSHIP—"Do not use punctuation within the ship prefix"—and compare the other article titles in Category:Research vessels of Australia. Deor (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

OK thanks, will do. I was following the literature - in part at least - which is not very consistent. Thanks - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I create and edit Wikipedia articles properly using only a mobile phone?.Will I get the same functions/features that are available on PC like Move, Twinkle, HotCat Categories, etc.? Or are some advanced tools only available on desktop? AS025 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

You can use the full desktop version in a browser on your device/phone. If it comes up as the mobile version, scroll to the bottom and click "desktop" to switch. The mobile and app versions are not fully functional; not all talk page content is displayed(mostly templates). I'm sure there are other differences- but many people successfully edit that way. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That’s why I asked — I travel a lot and cant carry a PC everywhere 🥲😅 AS025 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AS025, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I hardly ever edit on a phone myself, but you might find User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing helpful. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks(: I’ll check that guide. Mobile editing is really important for me🤍 AS025 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the recommendation of my essay. Thank you. (This edit was made on a smartphone). Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@AS025, I am editing with a smartphone. it contains all features from Desktop, you don't need to change to desktop mode seperately, the mobile web version is fine. you can enable hotcat, Move etc from preference menu. However, you cannot run Twinkle directly, you have to put some code in your common.js page to run Twinkle. Everything else is smooth as butter. Once mobile editing becomes comfortable, you won't be able to let it go.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 07:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Cool Thanks 😊 AS025 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I edit almost exclusively on mobile. If you enable "advanced mobile editing" in your preferences, the functionality is pretty much the same. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar please note that AS025 has now been blocked so they won't reply Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to create a 'See also...' hatnote from Mikkel Rønnow to da:Mikkel Rønnow and vice versa. I tried using {{See also | :da:Mikkel Rønnow}} near the top of the article, and when I click Show Preview, a live :da: link appears that branches to the Danish equivalent of the article. However, when I click Publish changes, the text vanishes. I also tried {{See also | da:Mikkel Rønnow}} which did not work either. How can I make the hatnote remain visible after saving? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's normal for there to be an article in two or more languages on a given subject. And there's a standard way to inform the reader using "desktop view" of these other-language alternatives. (The enterprising user of "mobile view" will know how to switch to "desktop" and view such links, if they exist.) Why does an article on this "theatrical producer and musical director" warrant a supplement to this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and clarifying. It occurred to me that someone, perhaps a bilingual person or a polyglot reading the article in one language might benefit from knowing it was available in another, since I have made contributions to both the English and Danish versions of the article. It was more my curiously at to why 'See also' as a hatnote works in preview mode, but disappears when published. This has been explained by PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) below. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chrisdevelop: The Danish article is already correctly linked under "1 language" at the top right (assuming you have the default skin Vector 2022). {{See also}} omits links to non-existing pages. Apparently the language prefix is treated differently in preview where it thinks the page eixsts and the saved page where it thinks it doesn't exist. You could force display in the saved page with |ifexists=false which omits the test and always displays the link, but don't do that. We don't make hatnotes to other languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Many tbanks for getting back, and for the information. I'll go back and have a look at all of this. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Good day. I was browsing the sources cited in the article for real life and noticed that current citation #4 (linking to here) has the linked option to redirect you to another page (this one) which completely copies the real life article (I don't think it's vice versa, since at the top it does say "Wikipedia Encyclopedia").

I cannot tell if this is a breach of Wikipedia's attribution rule as per our CC-BY-SA 4.0 or not. Obviously it doesn't seem like a good citation to have around, but I'm unsure of next steps, i.e. if we need to contact the website or something since I'm not sure how explicitly they are stating that Wikipedia is the source (I missed the header the first time and thought real life was about to be WP:G12...).

Could someone with a wider knowledge of this assist, please? Tiny Toast (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

At a minimum the cite to the mirror needs to be removed. As to the website, it does state that it is copied from, and links to, the original article, but fails to link to the history of that article as required by the CC-By-SA licence, so it's technically in noncompliance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the citation (it likely doesn't need replacement since "not on the internet", as per the article, is already colloquially accepted as the meaning of "IRL").

I'm not sure how to resolve the copyright problem myself, but thanks for the help with the citation itself! Tiny Toast (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I have recently been working on the article "Chrysojasminum fruticans" and during said work, I found that there are a lot of other pages under an old name of the species, Jasminum fruticans. It is my first time adding pages in other languages.

I get the following error when trying to add the French page:

"Could not save due to an error.

• The save has failed.
• The link frwiki:Jasminum fruticans is already used by Item Q872077. You may remove it from Q872077 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic. If the situation is more complex, please see Help:Sitelinks."

How can I solve this issue?

Thank you in advance. MGatta (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MGatta, and welcome to the Teahouse of English Wikipedia.

Normally you should ask questions about the French Wikipedia there, not at the English one.

But in this case, I can help you.

If you go to the Wikidata item d:Q872077, you'll see (down the bottom) that it currently links to fr:Jasminum fruticans (and the same in several other Wikipedias).

You could simply edit that section to remove the link, create your new article, and make the Wikidata item point to your new article fr:Chrysojasminum fruticans instead.

However, there are a number of other issues that arise.

• I wonder why you are creating a new article, rather than simply editing and moving the existing article? That would be the normal way to handle it, and moving the article would leave a redirect pointing to the new article, which is helpful in case people search for the old name.
• If the botanical name has been changed, then the Wikidata article should be updated to reflect that. Since I'm sure you are not familiar with editing Wikidata items, I suggest you ask for help at d:WD:Project chat: explain that the botanical name has changed, cite a reference, and ask if somebody will edit d:Q872077 accordingly.

ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine

Thanks for your help.

I am not creating a new article at all. I'm just trying to "link" the 14 existing articles in other languages (starting with French) to the existing English language article (which currently has 4 other languages too) - aka: edit interlanguage links.

I'm not quite sure how to edit or remove the wikidata item in question . There is a lot of data attached to it. How do I know which ones to remove? And what does the removal entail? Is there a help page that explains how it works?

I'll try for now asking in a project chat and see how it goes. MGatta

Oh, I see, MGatta. It looks as if the Wikidata items D:Q872077 and D:Q91408337 refer to the same thing, and should be merged. See D:Help:Merge. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine, thanks for your help. It seems for merging I need to create an account with Wikidata & I don't really have the bandwidth for that right now. So I'll let the issue rest for now. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGatta (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Zuber K. Khan

i see this article very day there have tag of red but still not deletion ~2026-26093-66 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That tag isn't a deletion tag; it's an {{undisclosed paid}} tag. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

hello! i was editing the Marisela wiki and noticed there is a wiki for her album Porque tengo ganas, but only the Spanish version. my 2 q's are:

1. is it appropriate to link a wiki pg in english to one in spanish?
2. if the above is "yes", then how do i do that?

tysm! Spindella000 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

this is in fact allowed and can be done using Template:Interlanguage link, for more info see Help:Interlanguage links PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 19:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Teahouse hosts. Hoping this is an easy one for someone - I've just declined Draft:Myint Myint Khin, and something about my decline has produced odd code on the page,

[[Category:AfC submissions by date/<0030Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000202641 2026-04-28T13:08:00+00:00Tuesdaypm0000=error>EpTue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000UTC00000820264 UTCTue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +00002026Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000: 17773816804Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000UTC2026-04-28T13:08:00+00:0020261408117UTC28 pu42026-04-28T13:08:00+00:0030upm300820264 2026-04-28T13:08:00+00:0001pmTue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000pm2026-04-28T13:08:00+00:0030UTCTue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000 &qu202630;:&qu202630;.</0030Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:08:00 +0000202641>April 2026|Myint Myint Khin]]

The submitter is a new editor, and I don't want to confuse them by leaving this on the draft, but can't see why it is there or how to remove it. Any ideas? Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Have seen you commented that the draft is written by Ai, it merits for speedy deletion I think. Bugie123 (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I have cleared the draft @Tacyarg. Bugie123 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tacyarg. The problem started in the page creation where the edit summary shows the user wrote {{AFC submission|t||ts=~~~~~}}. I don't know where they got that code from but it's wrong. It caused problems when you declined the draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

In the description of the cite web Template there is an item |quote page= but when i try to use it to give the page of a longer Pdf, it just doesn't display it. Where is my mistake? Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig The documentation at Template:Cite_web#csdoc_quote is a bit complicated. You have to have a |quote= parameter as well as the quote page one. Did you do that? Note that you can usually open a link to a .pdf at a specific page by putting #page=x at the end of its URL, which may be a better solution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Mike Turnbull. I will try the #page-thing tomorrow! Kind regards,

Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey fellow Wikipedians. I have been hanging around Wikipedia for over a year now, but my activity is so far, and especially recently, mostly patrolling changes. So reverting and thanking. It is valuable work for keeping Wikipedia clean. It does, however, drive my edit count up quickly. I have been wondering whether this ends up conflicting with WP:PGAME. While reverting vandalism is constructive, is it also non-trivial? Making trivial edits can be considered gaming and these edits could be seen as trivial, because they do not expand or concretely fix wikipedia. They just restore it. At some point this WP:WCAT behavior will make me extendedconfrimed. Should I feel I in some way unfairly reach it if it's all recent changes patrolling, or is it a fair genuine way to contribute to Wikipedia if one feels it is what they are best suited for? I in ways do feel so. I have some areas where I want to work on articles when I have time, but they are limited and in generally good condition. Motivation comes in passionate spurts, but I want to keep helping between the occasional writing booms. I find myself most usefull this way, but it doesn't stop me from thinking I might be unintentionally gaming the system. So what say the more experienced Wikipedians? Finfixer (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Gaming is determined entirely by intent. It's the act of deliberately gaining advanced permissions by rapidly making edits with the primary purpose of gaining those permissions, usually with the intent to then use those permissions to edit in, for example, a contentious topic area.

Simply passively gaining those permissions through natural, small-scale editing isn't gaming.

Besides, if you intend to continue editing in the manner you have been, then having the perms won't make any difference to you. Athanelar (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Well it should not be understated that I do intent to gain those permissions at some point, since my knowledge and interest lies in politics and law, areas often under restrictions. I want to reach a point where I can constructively contribute freely if I ever encounter a strongly protected page that is of interest to me. But on the other hand I do not want to agressively seek those permits. Even though I want them, I want to earn them by being helpfull and learning the policies of Wikipedia. I do that by my described method. I feel it is helpfull to Wikipedia. I definetly don't have a particular current cpntentious topic that I aim to make edits to. Even if I wanted to, my method would be too slow. My intentions are to improve Wikipedia, but they could still qualify as unintentional gaming, which apparently is a concept that exists. Finfixer (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Not all contentious topics are under the extended confirmed restriction, just the most problematic. You can find the list of contentious topics here (and the related general sanctions list here), meanwhile topics under the extended confirmed restriction can be found here. I don't think counter vandalism patrolling really counts as PGAMEing, or at least not in the context of your edits. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Athanelar – you're fine. You're legitimately trying to improve Wikipedia and you're doing actual work in doing so. I'm pretty sure I got extended confirmed largely through RC patrolling too, it's pretty common. Based on ANI reports I've seen, trivial edits that are counted as gaming often are more like removing or adding/readding spaces or links or individual letters in individual edits. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is Bob Marley's wikipedia page not mentioning he raped his wife. She, Rita Marley, came out about it in 2004. Her book is "No Woman no cry, my life with Bob Marley", she states he raped her. Citing googleable facts of her book, "In No Woman, No Cry: My Life with Bob Marley, she detailed incidents where, after refusing sex, Bob would force her, leading her to describe the acts as rape because she did not give consent", and furthermore "In her book No Woman, No Cry: My Life with Bob Marley, Rita Marley revealed that Bob Marley forced himself on her sexually when she refused his advances, stating, "Bob wouldn't take no for an answer... So he forced himself on me, and I call that rape". She described this as a recurring, painful aspect of their marriage, noting he believed that as his wife, she was obligated". These are clearly indicating her book states he raped her, which is a furthering of formal "coming out about" situations of rape. She is 79 now, she wrote this in her 50's, she may have mentioned it prior, I don't know the whole story on that because I am not her close friend, but as a third-party civilian of the United States and consumer of media and music and academia, as well as a former sexual assault victim, so I am a living sexual assault and domestic violence survivor, I find it upsetting or negligent to not have included the update in Bob Marley's wikipedia page that he raped her. Bob Marley is not a quality of paint that people get to have their own private interpretations of and flaws be nothing to do with the quality or color of, regarding he's a celebrity and I'm largely assuming that's why it wasn't mentioned as to not damage not only the reputation of but the idolatry of him of what it would mean for the general public, no, it is that he is a human and a celebrity and that movement he was a part of the reggae and rastafarian movement was much larger than him, and fortunately there's so much access to such alternatives to him now if his image was kept pristine for sake of retaining the opportunity for rastafarian and reggae to come up in modern culture without stifle from his offenses. IF that is true, it still is very rude that was done, I'm just trying to have some logistic understanding of what was thought to avoid it rather than agreeing with it, basically spelling out what I imagined happened to arrive at this remaining negligence to labor of keeping up to date on things. Change the information of Bob Marley's wikipedia page for afformentioned reasons. Sincerely, Samantha Carroll Leigh Samanthacarrollleigh (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I added the allegations here. Thank you for letting us know. jolielover♥talk 04:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to bring issues like this up at the specific article's talk page instead of here. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 16:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Somebody did and nothing happened. At least here, they get editors who understand that new editors don't understand the nuances of Wikipedia. jolielover♥talk 17:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

What kind of nothinghappenedness is this, Jolielover? As I view the talk page's history, it took AndyTheGrump's response just three minutes to happen. (He tersely requested, or asked about, a source. That could have prompted "What do you mean?", or of course a source. It didn't.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

"nothinghappenedness" as in, nothing happened to the page. jolielover♥talk 23:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

And without a source, nothing should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Help please — I'm lost and don't know what I'm doing 😊

Dear Wikipedia Reviewer,

I hope you don't mind me writing to you like this. My name is Lulee and I am 75 years old. I am not very good with computers — I think that's pretty obvious because the first time I tried to submit my draft, I accidentally submitted it completely blank. I didn't even know how that happened. My grandkids would have a good laugh at that one.

I wrote a page about a character I created called Cristina Lard. She came from a little pink pig bathing sponge my daughter gave me, and she turned into something much bigger — a whole series of children's books about kids with disabilities. It's my life's work, and it means the world to me to share it.

The problem is, I honestly cannot figure out where to look to see if my draft has been reviewed, or if it was declined, or if I need to resubmit it. I've been clicking around and staring at the screen, but everything looks the same to me. I don't know where the buttons are or what the notices mean. I feel silly asking, but I really do need a little help.

If my draft was declined, I completely understand — I'm still learning how all of this works. I would just appreciate it so much if someone could point me in the right direction so I know what to fix and how to try again. I promise I'll do my very best.

Thank you so much for your time and your patience with me. I know you're a volunteer and you don't have to help, which makes it even more special that you do.

With gratitude, Lulee 🌸 StoriesOfBelonging (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Your draft is in your sandbox, you may click on User:StoriesOfBelonging/sandbox to access it. It has been reviewed, the reviewer left comments on the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

this is what I see

This draft appears to be blank. If you have not written your text yet, please add your content before resubmitting. If you did write the text, it may be hidden by a formatting error. Please check the "Edit" tab to ensure your text is not inside a comment tag. StoriesOfBelonging (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That has now been fixed. Please try the above link again.

However, before you resubmit it, you should know that articles are only published if they meet the guide at WP:42. We need evidence that people—independent of you—have written about the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've moved your draft to the page Draft:Cristina Lard. You may edit it from there. When you're ready to submit it, you may press the "Resubmit" button on this page. Cheers! BSH (talk) - (they/them) 19:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @StoriesOfBelonging, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that what I'm going to tell you is probably not very welcome.

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.

It follows that unless several people wholly unconnected with you have written at some length specifically about your character, (and been published in reliable sources), then there is no chance of a Wikipedia article about the character, and you are probably wasting your time trying to create one.

Furthermore, even if an article about Cristina Lard is possible (in Wikipedia jargon, that the character is notable), it is inadvisable, and incredibly difficult, for you to be the person who writes the article. Having found the required sources (which meet all of the conditions in the golden rule you would then need to effectively forget everything you knew about the books and the character (and yourself) and write a summary of what those independent sources said.

In any case, 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.

I'm guessing, from what you said above, that you want to write this article in order to bring your books to the notice of more people, specifically because of your noble aim of supporting children with disabilities. I'm afraid that Wikipedia regards that purpose as promotion, which is forbidden, irrespective of how noble the aim may be. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@StoriesOfBelonging As Andy has pointed you to the document with the link "42" (please click on that and read what's there), you'll see that what you write needs sources. Your draft has no sources. David10244 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I recently submitted Draft:Adams, Cameron & Co., Realtors and received a decline with the note "all local press." I don't disagree with the reviewer's statement that much of it is local press but that's what we have along with a citation by local city government. The local press in this case is the Daytona Beach News-Journal, the local paper since 1883, now a Gannett-owned publication, and the coverage includes three dedicated feature articles written by named staff reporters spanning 46 years, which I hope speaks to sustained independent interest rather than routine coverage.

The subject is a real estate brokerage founded in 1963 that has been the dominant firm in its market for over 40 years. My sources include: A 1977 news article from the Daytona Beach News-Journal (a Gannett publication) reporting the company's merger as a significant business event Dedicated feature articles about the company from the same paper in 2013 and 2023, written by named staff reporters An official government proclamation from the City of Ormond Beach issued in 2023 A 2017 feature focused on the company's community role

My question is whether coverage in a Gannett-owned regional newspaper — including three dedicated feature articles spanning 46 years — can satisfy the independent reliable source requirement for a regional business that has simply not attracted national trade press coverage. I want to understand whether the issue is the sources themselves or whether the article needs to be rewritten to better demonstrate notability.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my talk page. Any guidance is appreciated. JJA-93-Nole (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If your business is a regional business that has simply not attracted national trade press coverage, then it may simply be time to consider that your business, like the vast majority of businesses in the world, does not meet our notability requirements; in this case, WP:NCORP.

The notability requirements are designed to exclude, because we are neither a directory of companies nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Your job as an article creator is not to try to stretch and hammer whatever coverage you do have to technically meet the requirement, your job is to determine whether you can find the necessary coverage to meet our deliberately quite strict criteria for inclusion.

Local press is normally regarded as insufficiently independent to establish notability without being backed up by less regional coverage; why? Well, because local press obviously has a vested interest in covering locally 'notable' matters; like local businesses, local events etc; but if nobody from the rest of the country or world has taken interest in your company, that's generally a good indication that we don't need to take interest in it either.

I want to understand whether the issue is the sources themselves or whether the article needs to be rewritten to better demonstrate notability. Contrary to what the AI chatbot you seem to be asking questions to is telling you, (apologies if I'm wrong, but your question here follows a boilerplate formula we get from AI a lot) the problem is never how the article is written. If you have provided sources that demonstrate sufficient notability, then the reviewer will know that. If your draft has been declined on notability grounds, it means the sources you have provided are not sufficient. Athanelar (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@JJA-93-Nole I don't see how a real-estate brokerage is important enough (or notable enough) to warrant publishing in an encyclopedia. How many real-estate brokerages appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica? David10244 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that no brokerage is in Encyclopedia Britannica. I use Wikipedia everyday precisely because it has information that I would never have found as a kid looking in the Encyclopedia for book report content. So much more is available today.

More importantly, I also have to agree that it may not be sufficiently notable for inclusion. I saw similar companies and thought I would include this one as much for the legacy and the impartance to the local community. However, I certainly wouldn't think it is important to everyone. Only those who might be looking for this type of information.

That being said, I disclosed my impartial information, did my best to present it in the format that I read up on, and thought it was relevant considering the local market. However, I'm fine to concede defeat and accept that the community doesn't think it warrants the page. JJA-93-Nole (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@JJA-93-Nole I understand what you are saying. However, there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be here, and second, if I were looking for a realtor, I would use a search engine (or ask friends) instead of an encyclopedia. The "yellow pages" were a good resource for that kind of thing, but I think those are mostly gone... David10244 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

🙃 ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems never to have had that (miscapitalized) article, but nevertheless tries to help, wondering: Did you mean: kennedy family abandoning woman to their face -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It would indeed be noteworthy if the Kennedys were unconcerned about a woman's face but the word in the quote was actually "fate" ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Mike Turnbull. I know. (Such countersuggestions often use words that the questioners could have misspelled.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotta love when the "suggestions" don't actually exist either. So very helpful. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

So we don't actually have a Kennedy family abandoning women to their fate page?

I mean surely we should redirect it at least? Jon Stewart asked us to after all. Serendi^podous 09:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You have over 78,000 edits; any particular reason you've posted to the Teahouse and not the Help Desk? You are free to try listening to Jon Stewart and see what happens. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Because they're replying to my tongue in cheek post and no one here is actually in need of any help? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If you can find sufficient reliable sources about the topic as a topic (not just about instances of it) to establish that the topic is notable, you're welcome to create an article about it. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the notability requirements for WP:Stand-alone lists would be easier to meet, but a humorous essay is probably more realistic, if anyone actually cares to attempt it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit I checked for it too... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Im so confused, why the MOS:SANDWICH when I put a picture in an article keeps happening? I did "[[File:image name|thumb|left|text]]" I copied how Makemake's article's image is placed, IvalTheBoneless suggested me to do that, but when I tried to fix that in Actaea's article it even made the whole image went into a whole different section, so I just used the "<gallery>" thing but images will be centered in an awkward way Homlos (Message me bro) 08:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And without saying the left or right part, the sandwich problems is still there, which should be why Thirtyfourninety reverted me in 174567 Varda's article Homlos (Message me bro) 08:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Seemingly about Actaea (moon) and 174567 Varda. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes Homlos (Message me bro) 08:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think there's two things happening here. One: because the infobox is on the right, any picture aligned to the right has to be below the infobox, so it's pushing them all into other sections. Two: because the infobox is tall, any images aligned to the left are going to sandwich text between them and the infobox. Basically the right half of the sandwich extends through most of the article so any images are either going to be the left half of the sandwich, or they're going to go below the infobox.

As far as fixing it, there's a couple things that might help. Personally, I don't think the image of the hubble is particularly necessary when it's not the subject of the article. The other images are much more relevant, so removing it wouldn't hurt the article. The comparison of object sizes is large, but even at that size it's not very readable. Reducing it to a more typical size would leave more room for text. And finally, expanding the content of the article would give more breathing room for the images and infobox. Because the infobox is so big, it really takes up a lot of the overall space, making formatting tricky. More (relevant) text would mean the sections start further down and the images don't have to compete with one another.

It's possible there's a way to arrange the current images and text in a pleasant way, but I couldn't figure it out. dylansan (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Homlos (Message me bro) 12:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hope it was helpful. Don't forget too that you can preview your changes before publishing them to see if it looks right. Because the arrangement of images and text depends on the size of your browser window, it's worth doing a preview and changing the size of your browser to see if anything breaks. There's also mobile, which is harder to test for, but is worth considering. dylansan (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I edit on mobile and on my phone regularly, that's why it's hard so I'm considering to use the desktop mode, but the things looked way too complex and I feel like an old man first time seeing a computer, on the phone everything looks perfectly fine Homlos (Message me bro) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: If you have problems with left-aligned images being pushed down then see Template:Stack and note you may have to place the code of right-aligned elements together for that method to work. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Formatting from mobile and not checking the results on desktop will bite you in the butt every time. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely a case of WP:INFOBOXTOOLARGE, and I agree that the telescope images feel crufty. I'd nix those, prune the boxes and drop most of the technical specs into new sections instead, and attempt to expand the ledes and/or history sections as you said. I think that would give a cleaner presentation than trying to force awkward formatting to cooperate. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have received an error message saying I am a bot. I am not a bot, but have downloaded several artworks for personal use only. I can not now download any more. Advice on how this could be resolved will be appreciated ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

About how many artworks have you downloaded? -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Over a period of a few months now, probably in the region of 30,000. ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been educating myself and want to be able to look through the works offline. ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's gonna be a problem. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

None of the works are in copyright, all deceased for over 100 years, sometimes several hundred. ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The volume is still an issue. Server load is a thing, if nothing else. Those protections exist for a reason. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it reset after some days, or would I be permanently unable to download anything else? ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If "several" may refer to "the region of 30,000", Wiktionary may need updating. Onomasiological matters aside, for what the limit is, and whether/how it might reset, etc, perhaps the place to ask is c:Commons:Village pump/Technical. -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

We'll also need to consult basic math re: the plausibility of manually downloading that kind of volume without using any kind of automation that would trip these safeguards. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I do have an account, just have not reset forgotten log in details ~2026-25842-44 (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

HI :)

I came across this New pages feed and im wondering if im allowed to work on the articles that show up in there? not to review them of course, but to add necessary templates, sources, content and general maintenance? Happypenguins82 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that.

Any guidelines i should pay attention to? I noticed this isn't a regular project page, there aren't many written instructions. Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Just the instructions on the page feed and the blue-linked articles in the instructions (e.g. Wikipedia:New pages patrol).

BTW I searched "WP:New pages patrol" & got a few hits that you might find useful, including Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide, so you might want to do the same? Blue-Sonnet 02:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, i'll do that :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not overly experienced in editing articles or Wikipedia edits in general, but I was advised to make post here to inform people that The Global hemispheres image (labeled File:Globalhemispheres.svg) on the Southern hemisphere page is missing the island of Cyprus, which I found a bit odd considering the file it links as being based on seems to have Cyprus (or at least blip representative of the island). Is there a way for me to replace it, or should I just leave it? Thank you so much! ~2026-26313-65 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The question is about File:Global hemispheres.svg (created by an editor last seen here in early '24). -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixing it is going to involve creating (or finding) a new image and adding that to the page instead as a replacement. I don't really have any experience editing maps for use on Wikipedia so I can't help much, but I'd add encouragement that we should replace that map, as in addition to missing Cyprus the whole hemispheres appear to be unequal thing is just sloppy, we could just as easily use an image that shows part of Antarctica and is evenly divided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-26313-65. You might ask at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

 ~2026-26342-42 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26342-42 Your Draft:Sarish has already been declined by an experienced reviewer. Please read their comments carefully. If you have more sources that meet our definition of the best type, then you can add content from them and re-submit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Self-explantory, using a temp account, and yet I need an "account" to make an user page FOR MYSELF. This is geninuely so dumb... ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

G'day @~2026-25032-90, and welcome to the Teahouse™.

Temporary accounts generally cannot create userpages, or anything in the "User" category. However, may I ask for your reason for not signing up in the first place? /genq

(Not to be harsh or condescending, of course.) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-25032-90 Stating just my opinion: 1.) TAs were primarely created to protect the privacy of "anonymous" IPs. IPs didn't have userpages either, so why should TAs?

2.) As TAs only last 90 days, what would be the benefit of having one? -- Maresa63 ^Talk 09:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

1. The TA's have a dedicated user page, but even then, we can't even edit it.

2. Would be a good place to put miscellaneous stuff instead of clogging up the talk page. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

IPs technically had user pages, but they weren't allowed to create them, either. It's a benefit that comes with a permanent account. As a TA only lasts 90 days, you'd be repeating the process every 90 days with a new account. If you would like a user page and the storage space that comes with it, you need to create a permanent account. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I am From a country where there is so much going on, it could from the J{Cruise Fiction} to an enforcment officer shooting a passerby to asset himself into the constitution of money laundering and i think i am having issues with my account.. ~2026-26402-75 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26402-75 Please specify the exact issues you are having logging in and the error messages you are seeing. Clearly there is no fundamental problem if you can contribute from this temporary account. WP:VPT may be a better venue to get technical help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-26402-75. Is it your Wikipedia account you are having trouble with, or something else? If it is not your Wikipedia account, we cannot help you here. ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello — I’ve submitted a draft biography at Draft:Philip R. Ford (filmmaker) through Articles for Creation. It relies entirely on independent secondary sources (major newspapers, film journals, and trade publications). Because I may have a conflict of interest, I’m not submitting it directly to mainspace and would appreciate any feedback or a neutral review if someone has time. Thank you. InherentWind (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi InherentWind, I just took a quick look, and there are a few issues I saw right away. First, there are zero links to any other articles on Wikipedia, you need to add some to avoid this being a dead end. Second, there are a few very short sections that are completely unsourced. Also, there seems to be a lot of content about the one film, and not as much actual biographical information, it seems there is a little undue weight for the one film versus the entire rest of his life and career. I added a couple maintenance tags to the article to show where it needed more, but did not make any actual changes. I'm sure others will have better notes, but this is at least a good starting point while waiting on further comments. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@InherentWind An experienced reviewer has declined your draft again and has left comments. The main issue is the need to comply with the policy on WP:Biographies of living people, especially the bit about providing inline citations throughout. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How do you upload images Public guava (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Please see WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Does anybody know why anonymous editors sometimes add AI image generation prompts on talk pages, like this? I can't imagine it accomplishes anything, but I see it a fair amount. Do that many people think Wikipedia is an AI chatbot? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's people accidentally copy-pasting their AI prompt into wikipedia, or just someone being disruptive. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 03:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Goetia [She/they/any] (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @The Ars Goetia, welcome to the Teahouse.

Aside from the fact they edited around a staggering 45 times to this article, It seems to not be. How about we get a response from @~2026-26507-73? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 04:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am still working hard on the NK-9's draft. I have managed, through a massive effort, to translate some of the Russian Wikipedia into English (they have a full article on it). Any feedback? Anything else I should add? AZenit3 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I found images of the NK-9's variants at , but I have no idea what the license is. Help please? AZenit3 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If the images do not have a license stated, they are usually presumed non-free and cannot be uploaded to be included in the article. However, there may or may not be a chance that it has fallen into the public domain, but I don't fully understand Russia's copyright rules, so ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. HyperAnd [talk] 08:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Kristie Kim

Hey, I created this draft stub page of illustrator Kristie Kim. And I was wondering if this needs an another ref that she is an illustrator?. As well with how can I improve this despite it being declined. Thanks. ~2026-25450-02 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No i think you have all of the things needed however is the blog that u used a credbile soruce? along with the other ones? if you dont know then check the article about sources or something Dommer simpson (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Dommer simpson, perhaps you could specify which "article about sources or something" you mean, and link to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliablesources/perennialsources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia here Dommer simpson (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Pace Dommer Simpson, but Draft:Kristie Kim does not have all of the things needed. The draft's subject is described as an illustrator. We read that "In 2014, Kim won as a first quarter of illustrators at the Writers and Illustrators of the Future". The source cited for this is peculiarly uninformative; however, Kristie Kim – Winning Illustrator of 2014!" (also cited) does say more. This is "L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future Volume 30" (an award series underwhelmingly described in Writers and Illustrators of the Future). BlueStaticHorse stuck atop your draft a template saying that The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis. Where are these sources? -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Soundsation

Hi, I’m looking for some guidance on a declined draft (Soundsation – UK progressive house, mid-late 1990s). The feedback says there isn’t enough significant independent coverage. I understand the requirement, but I’m unsure how it applies to electronic acts from that era. At the moment I have: – Multiple mentions and short reviews in Muzik magazine (1996–1997) – Chart listings and some BBC Radio 1 support – References to DJ support (e.g. Sasha, Digweed), although I understand that on its own may not count as a reliable source One difficulty I’ve run into is that a lot of mid-90s progressive house activity seems to have been documented mainly through short reviews, charts, and DJ coverage rather than full-length artist features. Given that, I’m unsure how notability is typically assessed for artists from scenes where in-depth coverage was relatively limited at the time. Would several independent reviews and recurring mentions in a publication like Muzik be enough to establish notability, or is more in-depth coverage (for example full articles specifically about the artist) generally required? Any advice on how to approach this properly would be really appreciated. Simon9191 (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Simon9191, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If such a house "seems to have been documented mainly through short reviews, charts, and DJ coverage rather than full-length artist features", that is an indication that it probably does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Notability is basically assessed the same way for all subjects: is there enough wholly independent, reliably published coverage to base an article on? The specific topic criteria for notability are nearly all "if one of these conditions is met, then it is likely that suitable sources exist to establish notability"; but the person creating the article still has the responsibility of finding those sources.

Unfortunately, some classes of subject are not typically written about sufficiently for Wikipedia's purposes. See no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine: - If such a house.... - for info, in this context "house" is referring to a genre of music. The editor isn't trying to write about an actual house..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @ChrisTheDude. Without looking at the draft, I assumed that it was talking about a company and that "house" was a term used in that industry. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone.

I have a disclosed conflict of interest with a nonprofit that I founded 7 years ago. I’ve put together a draft article based on independent sources and would welcome an uninvolved editor’s perspective on neutrality, sourcing, and readiness for Articles for Creation. I’m seeking advice only, not promotion.

Thanks very much. PGurtman10901222 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PGurtman10901222, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You haven't told us where to see the draft, and this is your only edit from this account, so we can't give you any advice specific to the draft.

Generally:

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.

For an inexperienced editor to create a new article is extremely hard, and I very strongly advise you to forget all about your draft for several weeks at least, while you acquire an understanding of Wikipedia's principles and processes by making improvements to existing articles.

When you have a good understanding of fundamental principles such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, referencing, and the BRD cycle, then I recommend you read your first article and see if you can find suitable sources (each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42).

If you can, then you may consider creating a draft.

• Make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor (even if you do and did not receive payment from the non-profit, as its founder you probably count as a paid editor).
• Forget absolutely everything you know about the non-profit. (Do you see why this is difficult for an editor with a COI?) Nothing that you or the nonprofit want to say about it belongs in the article, unless it is found in one of the wholly independent sources. If there is so much as one sentence of what you or the non-profit want people to know (and is not said by an independent source), that will be promotional.
• Write a neutral summary of what the indendent sources say about the non-profit. Even if they miss important things out. Even if they are unpleasantly critical about it. Even if they are wrong - the fundamental principle of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

This probably sounds negative. I'm afraid that it is. The chances of the founder of an organisation successfully creating a Wikipedia article about it are pretty low, and I'm trying to save you a lot of frustration, and probably a lot of wasted time and effort. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

i was trying to edit a page just to show something funny to my friends but i didnt think it would edit for everybody, im really sorry, how can i make it up ~2026-26617-82 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to make it up; your edits were easily reverted. Just please don't vandalize Wikipedia again in the future. Happy editing! Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Can anyone add a template to an article that fits within a series or is this only done by project members or administrators? I ask because I think the article Separate legal entity should be included in the series Corporate Law|US. Am I allowed to add the template or is there someplace I can go to make the suggestion? USnoozieULoozie (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi USnoozieULoozie. Please link a page with the template you refer to. I found {{Corporate law}} but it isn't US-specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The template I thought would be appropriate is the {{Corporate Law|USA}} one used on the Limited liability company article. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia App: no switching from one website from one to another language possible

yesterday I got the WikipediaApp. if you are on a special topic in German it’s not possible to switch to the analogue topic/article in English. i checked Websites and KI for help: they all said I should use the globe …. But the globe doesn’t show up at the different corners, nor at the recommended three dots nor at the three lines.

only when I go out and switch to the browser I can reach the article in English. when I get back to the App: the English articles pops up But 1 can’t be also then not be connected to the German topic 2. and it can’t be saved either.

would be happy for support, thx in advance! VanSuntum (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@VanSuntum What app and operating system are you on ? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 10:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear rchard2scout

and all the nice other ones

so wonderfully asking back:

First of all: it’s working now!

Right lower side:

The first sign of the 4 signs:

If I press at this first sign on the button on the pair of compasses combined with an „A“ I can choose on the next page in which language I want to switch. I choose the language: and it works wonderfully: >>>I am with the same topic in the world of another language.

I am an analaphabet in the digital world, so sorry about my not differentiated comments here.

Why does it work now?

1.Someone of you switched something.

2.may be wrong memory and I didn’t do it properly - but I see n o w as well that the 3 other buttons are n o w working ( save the article, checking for a combination of letters and the possibility of changing the size of the letter).

3.I had an update dot IOS 26.4.2 yesterday evening

Thanks a lot to everyone!

Sorry when I may have been causing problems because of not having the proper apprehension.

Hoping for much much better times for/to the country of origin of Wikipedia. Hope you manage to get this change soon.

Cheers

Van Suntum VanSuntum (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that different language Wikipedias are essentially separate websites entirely, not just translations, so if you're on English Wikipedia everything you see is part of this site, and you need to navigate back to German Wikipedia to reach other articles on that site - it's not like just using a browser translation tool. You certainly SHOULD be able to swap between them within the app, but I've been generally unimpressed by its functionality so it may be either a glitch or oversight. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi VanSuntum, are you using the iOS or Android app? I don't know about the iOS app, but in the Android app there's a set of buttons at the bottom of the screen, one of which says "Language" and has this icon: . Do you see that? --rchard2scout (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear rchard2scout

and all the nice other ones

so wonderfully asking back:

First of all: it’s working now!

Right lower side:

The first sign of the 4 signs:

If I press at this first sign on the button on the pair of compasses combined with an „A“ I can choose on the next page in which language I want to switch. I choose the language: and it works wonderfully: >>>I am with the same topic in the world of another language.

I am an analaphabet in the digital world, so sorry about my not differentiated comments here.

Why does it work now?

1.Someone of you switched something.

2.may be wrong memory and I didn’t do it properly - but I see n o w as well that the 3 other buttons are n o w working ( save the article, checking for a combination of letters and the possibility of changing the size of the letter).

3.I had an update dot IOS 26.4.2 yesterday evening

Thanks a lot to everyone!

Sorry when I may have been causing problems because of not having the proper apprehension.

Hoping for much much better times for/to the country of origin of Wikipedia. Hope you manage to get this change soon.

Cheers

Van Suntum VanSuntum (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused when I use the "Vandalism statistics" option on Ultraviolet, there are sometimes huge spikes at random times, at 7:00 AM today there was a spike to 3000 RPM randomly. What usually explains these spikes? User97104 (t•c•r) 15:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it went to 3000 (besides a bug or math error), but the spike in rollbacks is likely due to a mass rollback by ScottishFinnishRadish roughly here. Similar spikes at other times are likely due to a mass rollback occurring. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

i cant find a page Mew.org33 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Which page? 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am writing an article about a chessplayer born in Ukraine but now playing in US. Both the US and the international chess organizations transliterate her first name as Natalia. An article about her quotes her as saying that she prefers Natalya and it is her legal name. Publications about her sometimes show one spelling, sometimes the other. How do I decide which spelling the article should have as its title? What is an appropriate way to represent the name situation in the infobox?

This seems difficult to me. The name that is most strongly connected to her chess activities is not the name she states she prefers. Both answers are rather awkward as a result.

M kuhner (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @M kuhner, welcome to the Teahouse™.

If the majority of sources say "Natalia" then use "Natalia", If the majority of sources say "Natalya" then use "Natalya". It depends on what the majority of notable sources prefer.

Hopefully this gets the point across, cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The basis of that recommendation is our WP:COMMONNAME guideline to use what English-language third-party sources use. DMacks (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You mean the majority of notable sources that are actually cited, right? David10244 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I assume so, the WP:COMMON NAME guideline has this section: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 04:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Can new users also guide newer users? Dommer simpson (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If you mean becoming a Teahouse host, you need at least 500 mainspace edits and your account needs to be 30 days old. If you just mean in general, trying to help newer users, then sure, if you know how to help them.🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 06:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Please don't think I am discouraging you, but I would advice that it would be better if you just wait till you have at least 500 mainspace edits. Currently you have 47. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine, as long as you're sure you have the correct answer. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 15:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mxwllhe, @Dommer simpson But, some newer editors have given incorrect or unhelpful advice here in the past. If you find these pages interesting, it might be good to browse them for a long time before trying to answer any questions. Max, you don't have that many edits here yourself... Also, Max, replying to you is a bit confusing when your account name doesn't match your signature. It's not the end of the world, though. David10244 (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a draft for my company Green Agora GmbH on my user subpage: User:Green Agora/Green Agora GmbH. I have disclosed my COI on my user page. Could an experienced editor please review the draft and, if it meets the criteria, help me move it to the main article space? Thank you!Green Agora (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Green Agora, it looks like you might have used AI to generate the draft, which would be against the Wikipedia:LLM guideline.

Beyond this, the biggest issue with the draft is that your company doesn't appear to be notable (please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and you've not included any independent, reliable sources to indicate notability.

It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia, so not every company is entitled to an article - very few do, actually, since Wikipedia isn't a business directory.

I'm afraid it's very unlikely that you'll be able to successfully write an article about your company that will be eligible for inclusion.

That said, if you really want to try again after reading this post, I'd like you to please read this essay that will explain things a bit further for you. Blue-Sonnet 21:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If this were tagged for WP:G11, I would have already deleted it as unambiguously promotional. BusterD (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's the one thing I didn't mention, in retrospect!

I think I might do that actually after looking at it a little more - I really don't think it's salvageable, there are too many issues. The editor has been blocked for a username violation so can't reply/edit the draft right now. Blue-Sonnet 21:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it's been edited by a TA during the block and one reference has been removed before it was submitted to AFC. Blue-Sonnet 21:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The TA actually made it substantially worse (though it did make some of it less obviously LLM). DMacks (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

but before i edit some pages im worried that my temporary account and if i click submit once i finished editing i will encounter a ip address block with red stop hands and im here to respect Wikipedia in sorry for the damage that i had done in some Wikipedia pages when i was in my Wikipedia account and it got indefinitely banned but please don't unblock "HelloIMEditingSometimes2026" (my main account) instead unblock my currently running temporary account my full apology is in talk page ~2026-26717-69 (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop block evasion and return to your regular account to request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This was posted on my talk page. Is it a warning? Is it something else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guz13/Archive_5#c-Newslinger-20260220005900-Contentious_topic_alert_(WP:CT/AP) Guz13 (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It is a contentious topic alert. You are on notice that you may be summarily sanctioned for misbehaviour in the post-1992 politics of the United States topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It incudes the wording (emphasis and link in original):

This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

I'm not sure that could be clearer, but if you have suggestions, please give them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm aware that all information I add to an article must be cited, however I'm not sure where to find the material to cite! I've read through the reliability article but exact places on the internet to find what I'm looking for are slim.

I want to work on an article about the comedian Ify Nwadiwe as it's a requested article on the internet and tech culture article, but I'm struggling with sourcing basic facts.

Like his birthday, I can't find any reputable articles that list it but he recently made an Instagram post celebrating it on the 26th of February and in the description stated he was turning 38. This gives me a birthday, but I'm unsure if this would be a proper source?

Any tips on how to source references (where, how, and the best places to look) would be great, as well as letting me know if the above post would be proper for citation would be amazing. Plasticponies (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Plasticponies!

If you're struggling to find sources, go to the Wikipedia:Reference desk and ask there. Usually, social media sources are not reliable, like Instagram.

Also, have you checked if Ify Nwadiwe is a notable topic or passes WP:42? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

When looking for sources about people, Google News can be a good place to start, as well as just a plain regular google search. You're looking for the kind of coverage that meets the golden rule. If nothing like that jumps out right away, it's highly likely the person simply isn't notable enough for inclusion, as stated above. Athanelar (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Can use Wikipedia to download music and movies ~2026-26443-81 (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has only little snippets of music and movies. But what there is, you can download. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Some, but there are more on the related Wikimedia Commons. See:

• c:Category:Films
• c:Category:Music

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Also WikiFlix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

like Microsoft Word's word-finding function?

I have to read fast, so when there is too much text I need to find key words in order to do my research faster. Can you help, please ? ~2026-26750-99 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a WP:EXTENDED here but CTRL + F is the thing you're looking for. Birthay boy (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a browser feature, not a Wikipedia feature. All the Web browsers I've ever seen had a standard Contr-F feature, which I used a few minutes ago in Catholic Monarchs of Spain to find "reyes". For phone browsers that don't have a keyboard, the ... menu at upper right has a text finder. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have a draft at Draft:Moonjuice about a Brisbane rock band. It has been declined for lack of sources. I have independent press coverage from The Courier-Mail (21 March 2003, Pulse section), TimeOff Magazine (two reviews, June and July 2003) and The Oracle (February 2003) but these are print publications with no online archive. Steven Bishop's Wikipedia article directly names the band. The German Wikipedia article on Daniel Jones (musician) also independently names them. Could someone advise how to properly format print-only citations and whether these sources satisfy WP:NBAND? Thank you. BrisbaneRock99 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

BrisbaneRock99, you can use {{cite newspaper}}, and just don't use the 'url' param. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

BrisbaneRock99, when citing paper sources that are not available online, it is a good idea to include a one or two sentence direct quotation. The 'quote' parameter can be used with any citation template. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BrisbaneRock99. Just to pick up one point in your post: notability is not inherited, which implies that being mentioned in a Wikipedia article (or even several articles) is completely irrelevant to establishing notability. I am mentioned in a Wikipedia article, but I am certainly not notable as Wikipedia uses the word, in that I haven't been written about in independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I created a draft BLP in userspace. I later discovered that someone else had created a draft in draftspace. I then submitted my userspace draft through AfC. It looks like the AfC process moved it to draftspace and replaced the original article that was in draftspace. Is my understanding correct, or is the original draftspace draft still accessible? Thanks. – Kekki1978 ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kekki1978. Drafts are not overwritten but if you click the "View history" tab on Draft:Frank MacKay and then "View logs for this page" at the top then you get which shows a draft was deleted 22 April. Your userspace page was moved 1 May. The content of deleted pages can only be seen by administrators. It doesn't matter whether another page was later created or moved there. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My name was flagged on a report.?I never lived in Prescott, Arizona I moved here from Chicago first Scottsdale then Phoenix. I never did open the report I didn’t want to pay for it.?what do I do to get my name off of this report? I’m 65 and on report age 85 it’s totally wrong. I’m so confused. I’m sorry 😔 hope you can help. ~2026-26837-05 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia help page; we regret that can only advise you on matters related to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I may need context, but this might be a scam if they want you to pay, please disengage and ignore. Cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning on writing an article about the Surrey sport and leisure complex and I'm not sure if it meets notability standards. Brady Ma (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Brady Ma, welcome to the Teahouse.

See The Golden Rule and the other rule on notability. Basically, If you can find many reliable, verifiable, and independent sources about it, there's a good chance it's notable.

Cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy links: User:Yubudirsi/sandbox2, Draft:Energy of Somalia

Hello, I had made a draft a few months ago titled "Natural resources of Somalia" in my sandbox, I was planning on posting it but I didn't quite know where or when.

Then I started improving the Economy of Somalia page recently, until I arrived at the Natural resources heading, and I was kinda stuck because I wanted to make a main article encompasing the whole topic, the page Mineral industry of Somalia seemed kinda empty and outdated so I proposed to change it into a "Natural resources of Somalia" article and add new content, other users didn't agree so I had to split everything to other pages (Wind, Solar, etc headings), but when it came to the newly added Oil and Gas heading I had made for the new article, there was nowhere to move it.

I had seen that multiple countries already have a page titled "Energy in.." so I decided it would be a good idea to make a new article titled "Energy in Somalia", however I couldn't just make the article because Energy in Somalia already redirected people to the Economy of Somalia article, so I chose to publish it as "Energy of Somalia" instead of "in Somalia" and I was planning on starting a RM to change the of into in.

This was just the backstory, now the problem I'm facing is that when I moved content from the old page to the new Energy of Somalia page, some citations weren't transfered along with it, and my page was flagged for being written by AI (missing sources), which I had clarified was not the case (in my talk page) and had fixed the missing sources problem.

It's been a couple of days, the user that had moved the page to Draft hasn't replied back since, and I'd really like to move my article to the mainspace, but at the same time I don't want to do something I shouldn't, I haven't removed the LLM template as you can see, and even if there were no problem with the article, I still wouldnt be able to move it as "Energy in," what's the proccess if I want to remove a redirect? I hope this wasn't too confusing for whoever will read this. Yubudirsi (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Added courtesy links. For your energy article, you don't need to resort to tricks with prepositions. You could request a round-robin move or move over redirect, but you already submitted it to AFC, so why not just let it proceed, and when it is accepted they will move it to main space for you, and you won't have to request any special handling. Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. How long is the wait usually for AFC? Yubudirsi (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not gonna lie this round robin thing seems complicated, can't really understand how it works. Yubudirsi (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a queue, so it can take anywhere from days to a couple of months to be reviewed. Mathglot (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of time, I'd rather not wait that long. Could I get your thoughts on the article anyways, if the LLM issue is cleared I would like to remove the template, but as I've said before I'd rather not touch it without other users reviewing it. Yubudirsi (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India

In the Demographics section, it says

"Multinational research firm Ipsos released report on LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey conducted between 23 April and 7 May 2022."

The Survey was conducted between April 23 and May 7, 2021. ~2026-26816-32 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26816-32: Well spotted. I have corrected it. Thanks for reporting it. You could also have clicked "edit" at the section and fixed it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Where in the world did this rule come from? If we can use any images that abide with the NFC guidelines that are in articles, then why can't we put the images that fall under NFC in our Userpages? ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-25032-90: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Rationale says: "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law".

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#9 says: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles".

Non-free content outside articles is not important to us as an encyclopedia. We don't want to spend time evaluating userspace use and risk legal issues if we get it wrong so we simply don't allow it. That seems like a clear rule to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but what if someone just uses an NFC image from an article, would that still be against NFC? I also don't think anybody is going to see Userpages if they aren't going more deeper into Wikipedia. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Still disallowed even if the image is already uploaded to Wikipedia. The overall point is that fair use images can only be used when they're necessary, and userpages don't really need fair use images.

Of course I don't think there's anyone who would sue Wikipedia for using a copyrighted image on a userpage, but the rules are there to make sure no one complains about Wikipedia allowing its users to use copyrighted images whenever they want. Bonus Person (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the criterion that states that every use of a non-free image must have a fair-use rationale associated with it that justifies its minimal use in an educational context. Using it as userspace decoration isn't defensible via a FUR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked by ‪Barkeep49‬ Bobybobby (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If this is intended as a question, Bobybobby, then what are you asking? -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

wait, if you're blocked, how are you writing this? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to ask a question. I want to create article '2016 MERNIS scandal' from translating the respective article in Turkish wikipedia, but I couldn't decide it would be notable enough or violate WP:N or not. So could you help me with deciding about its notabilitiness? Birthay boy (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Birthay boy, now that you have read WP:N, what do you think are the three best sources for 2016 MERNİS scandal? Its viability can probably be estimated from these three. -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think those are the best three ones:

• Sozeri, Efe Kerem (21 Şubat 2016). "Major 'Turkish police data dump' reveals an even bigger scandal". The Daily Dot (İngilizce). 7 Ekim 2020 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 25 Ocak 2024.
• Brinded, Lianna. "The entire Turkish citizenship database has allegedly been leaked online". Business Insider (İngilizce). 8 Kasım 2020 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 25 Ocak 2024.
• "Turkish authorities 'probing huge ID data leak'". BBC News (İngilizce). 6 Nisan 2016. 25 Kasım 2020 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 25 Ocak 2024.

Birthay boy (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This does appear to be a major incident, Birthay boy, very much worth writing up. But of course major-ness (importance) isn't directly related to what en:Wikipedia calls "notability", which is required.

Those three sources:

• "Major ‘Turkish police data dump’ reveals an even bigger scandal" (Daily Dot). "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot." I can't speak for the reliability of this news item, but it's signed and does appear to be informative and carefully written.
• "The entire Turkish citizenship database has allegedly been leaked online" (Business Insider). "[E]ditors determined that any LLM-generated writing disclosed as written using AI is generally unreliable. There is otherwise no consensus on the overall reliability of Business Insider." Again, I can't speak for the reliability of this news item, but it's signed and isn't obviously problematic.
• "Turkish authorities 'probing huge ID data leak'": BBC News, which "is considered generally reliable."

Unfortunately, WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources only lists dubious Turkish-language sources; it lists no Turkish-language sources of which it generally approves. But this of course doesn't mean that good (exiled?) Turkish-language sources don't exist.

As I read Google Translate's English translation of the Turkish-language article that you propose to translate, it doesn't seem at all sensationalist. I can't guarantee that you wouldn't encounter obstacles in creating an English-language version, but I doubt that these would be major. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Thank you so much for your suggestions on my Teahouse post from last week. You may recall that I'm trying to create my first Wikipedia article for Dr. Ramashish Singh. I have a COI because I'm a family member of Dr. Singh.

I've made an updated draft for my article - I made it more accurate, made the tone more Wikipedia-like, and changed the wording. We would like some more advice and answers to these questions.

• What final improvements can we make and what suggestions do you have for our draft? (User:Novel-shostakovich/sandbox)
• What steps do we need to take after finalizing this draft? We think the AfC process is best.
• How can we impact the article after it is posted on the main website?

Thanks again!
-Novel-shostakovich and family Novel-shostakovich (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Novel-shostakovich. Your draft relies heavily on coverage of Ramashish Singh in the Indian newspaper Dainik Jagran. Please read the Wikipedia article about that newspaper and also Paid news in India. Dainik Jagran is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia and therefore your draft has major problems. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Novel-shostakovich. You keep talking about "we". Who is "we"? Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if the language was unclear. "We" was referring to our family, but I'm the editor mainly working on this draft. Novel-shostakovich (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE: Thank you @Cullen328 for your feedback. An updated draft with more diverse sources is in the sandbox. I'd like feedback on the new draft, as well as answers to our remaining questions above. Novel-shostakovich (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Novel-shostakovich, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You get feedback on a draft by submitting it for review: that is what the review system is for. Yes, that can take a while, but asking somebody to review it before you submitt it for review is basically trying to jump the queue (though it isn't a queue - submissions are taken as a reviewer chooses, not in order).

Once you've submitted it, and a reviewer gets to it, they will either accept it and move it into mainspace (sorting out any naming issues or disambiguation as required); or else they will decline it and leave you feedback on what is needed; or they will decide that it has no chance of being made into an acceptable article, and reject it.

Once it is in mainspace, you and your family should not edit it at all (except to revert obvious vandalism (which means editing to damage Wikipedia. It does not mean "editing in a way that the subject's family do not like"). Instead, you should raise edit requests, so an uninvolved user can decide what changes are appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Novel-shostakovich, I told you that Dainik Jagran is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia and you then told us that you had revised your draft. But this draft still uses Dainik Jagran at least nine times. Why are you trying to write a Wikipedia article that is so heavily based on an unreliable source? Do you understand that this is a policy violation? If you disagree with my assessment of Dainik Jagran, please discuss the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I am considering writing a biographical article about a late musician who was a long-time member of the band that backed a well-known composer and lead singer. (The musician's name is David Brown and the composer and lead singer is Billy Joel.) I believe he is notable, and I found sources that are about him.

There is already an article in German Wikipedia, though. I read the English Information Page about translation. It says that a translated article must credit the source article. There are also cautions about using an LLM to translate.

Would it be a problem were I to create an article in English Wikipedia without trying to translate from the German first? Thank you. – Kekki1978 ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kekki1978 Yes. that would be fine. Often the main problem is finding good sources, not how to summarise them. So you could look at the sources in German and use them in your own words, or just find your own sources. Beware that en:Wikipedia has stricter rules about people who are members of a band, even when the band itself is notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. The German article doesn't have any sources, so I'd start from scratch. I appreciate the advice and the links. – Kekki1978 ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Kekki1978, a German Wikipedia article that lacks references to reliable sources is of no value whatsoever in writing an English Wikipedia article about that topic. You should proceed as if the German article did not exist. It is worthless here. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Any Yu-Gi-Oh! guys here? Help to work on this draft is very welcome! 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a yu-gi-oh guy, but will try my best to help. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!!! 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I asked this before, and it was archived rather promptly. How does Wikipedia enforce its rules? Are there administrators or ombudsmen or something?

How does it deal with very religious topics, like "Jesus?"

I have asked for a source for single sentence about five times under the "Talk" tab. No sources have been provided. I also provided evidence that the sentence is, at least in part, very disputable. Then, I made a 2-3 word change to the sentence, which was reverted without explanation. I again asked for sources, several times, under the "Talk" tab, and none were provided. I made a different change to the sentence, taking out the most clearly unsourced and disputable parts--about half a sentence. It was again reverted without an honest explanation (the given, false, explanation was that it had not been discussed). The basic tactic is to ignore most attempts to discuss, and then revert the change claiming there isn't a consensus. Mevsherd (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There are indeed "administrators", Mevsherd. Wikipedia deals with very religious topics just as it deals with religion-irrelevant topics: according to its policies. Wikipedia has extensive documentation of all of this, but you'll have to put a little effort into finding what you're after. What and where is this single, problematic sentence? - Hoary (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Jesus. On a more mundane note, why do I randomly get this message: "Preceding unsigned comment added by...." when usually (like above) it automatically appends my name after the comment? Mevsherd (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The thread is "Literal vs. notional". You attempt to discuss a matter; however unsatisfactory the response is -- I shan't pretend to have read the thread, and don't propose to read it -- you do get a response. As for your "more mundane" matter, perhaps you are clicking on "Reply" when replying; my imperfect memory tells me that yes, this automatically attributes and time-stamps the new comment. By contrast, I'm editing "source" and clicking not on "Reply" (which isn't even available to me) but instead on "Edit"; this does not attribute or time-stamp my comment. (I just hit ⟨~⟩ four times in a row -- or, on occasion, forget to do so, whereupon you might, but won't necessarily, get an additional little message, saying what I omitted to say.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Some feedback on your help: it isn't helping. Comments like "I shan't pretend to have read the thread, and don't propose to read it " don't help. There was no response. Typing stuff that doesn't address someone's concern is not responding to the concern. The request, made repeatedly, was for sources. None have been provided. I discussed everything in "Talk" first, was mostly ignored, and then my edits were reverted, also without truthful explanation. How do I get an administrator to enforce the rules on sourcing? Mevsherd (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Mevsherd, I am an administrator. Administrators have no special powers to resolve or adjudicate content disputes. If an adminstrator comments on a content matter, they are speaking as just another editor. There are various forms of Dispute resolution available for you to use. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As I've said a million times, or at least ten, the rules are being broken. I said: "enforce the rules on sourcing." Not a content dispute. The meaning of calling something a "rule" is that you "resolve or adjudicate" violations. If you're not going to do that, don't call them "rules." Call them "hopes."

Here is a summary of the "Talk" tab on the "Jesus" article, regarding a statement about what "most Christians" believe.

Me: "Is there a source for this?" An editor tells me to look in a different section. I say I looked and didn't find a source.

Me: I provide a source that contradicts the sentence in question. It is low-quality, but better than nothing, and I don't propose adding it to the article, only that it shows the statement is disputed. There are responses which provide no sources. I reply: "I wasn't actually proposing it as a source, I was asking for a source for what's already there." No source is provided.

Me: "I think the answer to my initial question is that there is no source for that statement." No source is provided.

Me: "I looked at the sources down in 'Religious Perspectives' and there is no source..." No response.

Me: "I propose changing the sentence to something like 'Most Christian denominations view...' or 'Christian doctrine states...'" No response.

Me: I make the change I proposed, and it is reverted.

Me: "A survey contradicting the article...." with a link. No source is provided.

Me: "I can't find a source for the statement." No response.

Me: "Can somebody provide sources for the sentence in question?" No response.

Me: I take out the last part of the sentence, which doesn't even have a weak source and is probably factually false. It is instantly reverted with a not-very-honest explanation.

Me: "The request, made about 6 times now, is for sources on what most Christians believe. None have been provided, yet people are reverting the edits I made that I discussed first here, and claiming I didn't discuss them first here."

(One of the reverting editors posted some comments on my homepage as well.)

So, I ask for help here, and Hoary unhelpfully replies "I shan't pretend to have read the thread, and don't propose to read it " and you misrepresent everything I've said as a "content dispute."

If that depicts a "content dispute" and not a violation on the rules for sources and consensus, then help me understand why. Mevsherd (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no firm rules. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 23:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

So, if the consensus on an article is to break the rules, what happens? That page "Dispute resolution" does not help here. It is about discussion and resolving content disputes through an interactive process. I asked for a source a million times, and none was provided. I proposed a change under the "Talk" tab and nobody responded and then my edit was reverted with a demand I propose changes first. Do you enforce rules on sourcing and consensus, or not? Mevsherd (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd, I’m happy to walk you through the dispute resolution process. What few sentences do you find the most egregious? Dw31415 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

On the "Brett Kavanaugh": "Three other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, one of whom later recanted her story."

On "Jesus": "Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament."

To be honest, I've concluded the other editors have agendas and are not sincerely interacting, and the summary I gave above is a good indicator. So, I wonder if Wikipedia actually enforces rules on sourcing, and if not, why it calls them "rules" at all. Mevsherd (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are enforcement mechanisms, but they are slow, messy, and frequently disappointing like you might expect from any volunteer-driven effort. Please pick one of the two above that you’d like my help on. Dw31415 (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Jesus. Mevsherd (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Are administrators volunteers? Mevsherd (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, see WP:ADMIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary You actually reply by editing source? But the "reply" button is so handy! David10244 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Your previous query is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1291#Reverting without explanation, with a link to further discussion. The query was closed when that link was added, after you had taken the advice to start the additional discussion, and automatically archived three days later, which is the agreed standard for this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some other drafts. Most of them were declined, and some reasons were subjective, e.g. in the administrator's opinion, some criteria were not significant. I couldn't find a checklist, or anything to lend some objectivity to "significant."

My article: Draft:Henia Bryer

Mevsherd (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I assume you mean significant coverage; WP:SIGCOV says Significant coverage addresses the topic specifically and in detail. If that doesn’t sound objective enough to you, that’s because significant coverage is a case-by-case thing, and has no hard-and-fast rule as to what it actually is. Most experienced editors will agree on most cases whether or not a source has significant coverage of a topic; however, there are edge cases where not even the experienced editors can agree specifically. Technically, it is just subjective (though experienced editors tend to agree on most cases). Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 05:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is bludgeoning a thing anyways? Back in my older temp account (It expired and I used it before this temp account, don't worry), I had gotten a notice for "Bludgeoning". I already know what it means, but isn't this basically just anti-discussion? From my point of view, I feel like commenting a ton can help get your point across, and also to socialize as well. So I don't think warning/blocking people for "bludgeoning" should be a thing.. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning is when you try to force a subjective point of view into an article. This violates WP:NPOV and is frowned upon, as it can cause unneeded edit wars.

See WP:CONSENSUS, and cheers. Hopefully this gets the point across. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Isn't edit warring basically when someone is constantly reverting and undoing someone's edits in a time span of 24 hours? ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Precisely. Trying to force a point of view into an article can be a form of edit warring, which itself can be caused by bludgeoning.

I'll leave this discussion now, so cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 04:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

"Commenting a ton" risks giving the impression that you are a brainless bully. Maproom (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The link you posted clearly explains it: by posting so much, you risk crowding out others' opinions. A position stands or falls on its merits, not the volume and repetition of it. A point can get more consensus if you take a few minutes to think it through and write it concisely and clearly so others can easily understand it. If instead you appear to be trying to drown out others and have nothing new to say, that's what is disruptive. DMacks (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Glad to see that you are "assuming" instead of giving proof that I am this "brainless bully". How nice of you. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that would be WP:NPA if they called you that. They said that bludgeoning gives you the initial impression of a brainless bully.

Please try to WP:AGF next time, cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even know what bludgeoning was before this TA was made? They're not even telling me anything that relates to my question at all, that seems to be a Personal Attack in my opinion. That comment was unexpected and just felt rude to me. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That answer seemed to be rhetorical, it wasn't referring to you specifically but to a person who is theoretically bludgeoning/"commenting a ton". I can't see that anyone here is specifically saying that you are personally bludgeoning, they're just talking about it generally. Blue-Sonnet 21:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-25032-90 TA, given that your activity both here and on your self-identified previous TA seem to mostly be dedicated to discussing current events at the "In the News" section, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum, and if you are not intending to actually contribute to the encyclopedia then you are likely to be blocked from editing eventually. Athanelar (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

So... Opposing/Supporting a nomination in ITN/C is considered not to be a contribution? ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

When it's your only activity relating to the encyclopedia? Not really, no. And you're hardly just opposing/supporting; you do seem to enjoy arguing with other editors about the merits of the nominations, too. Athanelar (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The comment that you just linked was before I even knew what bludgeoning was. I didn't know it was a thing at first. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand. My main point still stands; I encourage you to start contributing more productively if you're planning to stick around. Athanelar (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning runs the risk of creating false consensus. Many discussions are trying to understand what the community as a whole believes/feels. When one individual dominates the conversation, it is harder to understand what the community as a whole believes/feels on a topic. While debate in community conversations is great, it isn't the main point of those conversations. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond Well said, thanks. It makes the reason for the policy much clearer. David10244 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I recently made the articles Yemen at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and Zimbabwe at the 2020 Summer Paralympics, since there seem to be several "nation at <multi-sport event>"-type articles missing despite the fact these nations competed. Another editor has raised concerns about them not being notable, and unfortunately neither of us are an expert on sports articles, so I wanted to ask here for further advice.

There's plenty of coverage on the 2020 Summer Paralympics themselves (it's definitely a notable event), but as for these specific countries' performances, there isn't very much. Neither one won a medal or had anything incredibly significant happen, they just competed as usual. This doesn't seem to be unusual for these sorts of articles, so I thought there was precedent - I brought up Liberia at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and Zimbabwe at the 2024 Summer Paralympics as examples, although the other editor (correctly) mentioned this was a case of WP:OTHER. I had thought WP:NOLYMPICS suggested these would be notable (Significant coverage is likely to exist for nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games), although it only says SIGCOV is likely to exist. There don't seem to be any other guidelines on these types of articles.

Unfortunately I'm not really sure what to do here. There's definitely secondary sources for the Games themselves, but for Yemen/Zimbabwe's specific performances (or any other country that didn't win a medal, for that matter), I'm not sure. There are probably news outlets covering the results of certain events, but I don't see much point in including those, as they're just going to be copies of the official results anyways without any relevant commentary (hence why I directly cited the official results books as a source).

My question is this: do "<nation> at the <year> <event>" articles (and also, "<sport> at the <year> <event>" articles, since they're also mentioned in WP:NOLYMPICS) generally count as notable, assuming the event they're a part of is also notable, or can they only be created if the country in question has done something significant (other than just competing) during the Games? This specific case is about the Paralympics, but I would also be interested in other multi-sport events like the World Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc... as I've been trying to fill in Wikipedia's coverage of those as well.

(If it helps, I've also made similar articles for the World Games - the participation of Aruba, Jordan, Kuwait, Montenegro, Nepal, and North Macedonia in 2022, Iceland in 2017, and the "sport at event" articles for gateball in 2001, aikido in 2001, and tug of war in 2005 and 2013.)

Thanks in advance. Tymewalk (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In my view (others may differ), the short answer is: even if such topics carry an assumption of Notability, they cannot actually be Notable unless sufficient material fully conforming with WP:42 can be cited and summarised to create an article. In Wikipedia's terminology, "notable" means "has been noted in multiple published Reliable sources".

Now, it may be that such sources simply don't exist. Or it may be that they do exist, but are difficult to find. Coverage of the topics you are interested in may have appeared in, for example, news or sports publications in the languages of the relevant countries, and those publication may or may not be available on the internet. Non-English and non-digital, printed, Reliable sources are perfectly acceptable in the absence of equally good English-language online ones. You may however have to go to considerable lengths to find them, perhaps via third parties in the countries concerned willing to help you. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I was at least able to find one non-primary source for Zimbabwe (which has since been added to the article), as well as a couple Spanish-language sources which I used to make Panama at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. Unfortunately, while there's plenty of information on the Games themselves (which usually mentions "X country competed in this event", although I'm not sure that's enough), I think there's not much in the way of non-primary sources going in detail about certain countries specifically (at least in English - I don't speak Arabic so I'm not really able to check deeper for Yemen). Tymewalk (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tymewalk In my opinion, it sounds like there's not enough that has been published about the countries' participation to support articles. David10244 (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Should something be done about the existing articles which only cite primary sources then? There are a lot of these articles - aside from the Liberia 2020 and Zimbabwe 2024 examples, there are articles for the Paralympics (Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Paralympics), World Games (China at the 2022 World Games, Mexico at the 2017 World Games), Commonweath Games (Anguilla at the 2022 Commonwealth Games), Asian Games (Kuwait at the 2014 Asian Games), and presumably the same applies for other multi-sport events like these. The Olympics themselves tend to be better, but there are still articles which only cite sources from the International Olympic Committee or other sporting federations (Oman at the 2024 Summer Olympics for example). I don't have an exact count, but I would not be surprised if there's at least a couple hundred, seeing as how this applies to nearly every recurring sporting event like this. Tymewalk (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tymewalk I haven't read those, but if things are as you say, then yes, those other articles should be proposed for deletion. David10244 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no clue how to add images into them. Tried in the sandbox, but cannot change the image, tried just yoinking the image off Commons, not working. Figured out how to do so.Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 02:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147: Please clarify what you want. You correctly added an image with a caption to the sandbox in . PrimeHunter (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't change the image from the typing cat to something else. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 13:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

See HELP:Images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

What are extremely advised to treat gut pain ~2026-26694-31 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general help desk for the internet, and Wikipedia cannot give medical advice, as Wikipedia is not licensed to practice medicine in your jurisdiction. Please consult a qualified medical professional in your area. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I wish to create an article on Ljubo Mlađenović, but I'm unsure if he meets the notability requirements. I've once before created a biography article that was taken down due to notability, (that I today completely agree doesn't meet the criteria) and I want to be completely sure.

Ljubo Mlađenović (born 9 July 1922, Yugoslavia) wrote Beisfjordtragedien and was a prisoner in a German prison camp in Norway.

Thank you in advance! LillaRis87 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @LillaRis87, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Have you seen WP:NOTE or its summary? If there are multiple reliable and verifiable sources on the topic over a long period of time, then it should probably pass. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LillaRis87, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As Campssitie indicates, whether a subject is notable or not cannot be determined just by asking what the subject is or was, or what they have done or produced: none of that is directly relevant. What matters is what has been indepedently published about them - see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I know what makes a subject notable, but based on what I could find I was unsure if they manage to reach the threshold, I was more asking if anyone could spare the time to look for themselves and see if they can find out if he would be considered notable. LillaRis87 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You are basically asking "Will someone duplicate all the research I have already done without me revealing what I have already found?" It is unlikely that anyone reading your request here will be willing to do that.

Can I suggest instead that you create a WP:Draft via that page or WP:AfC that cites the sources you are most confident about, and add on its Talk page a list with links and/or bibliographical details and/or descriptions of further sources you are unsure of?

That will give anyone willing to help something to assess, and avoid unnecessary duplicated effort for them.

When you've created the draft you can come back here and solicit advice on something that people can actually look at. You will also have at least the foundation of something you can in due course submit via for assessment via the normal route, and it will automatically contain the 'Submit' button with which to do that. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LillaRis87, here's a humorous article that might explain things: Wikipedia:User Somebody "Notme" Else

Wikipedia thrives on editors being bold and making edits themselves.

When it comes to drafts you can always ask questions here, but we're all volunteers so the chances of someone doing a blind search from scratch into a specific person is probably unlikely.

Please go ahead and make a draft, you can start in your personal sandbox if you want to work on it in peace, in your own time. You can then move it to a draft and submit it to AFC for review. Or you can link your sandbox here and see if anyone is happy to take a peek and see what they think - it's your sandbox so you can wipe it and start writing something else at any time if you feel like it.

You can also read these pages for help to get you started, I've included a few since you're probably already aware of some of these, but there could be something else that you find useful:

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:Golden rule
• Help:Introduction
• Help:Your first article
• Wikipedia:Can't break it

Blue-Sonnet 12:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand, sorry for the bother. LillaRis87 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You could create an automatic list consisting solely of thank-you logs, since the concept of temporary accounts already exists here. In internet sites. Bad jovian (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If, Bad jovian, you have a new idea for Wikipedia, can express it coherently, and can argue for it persuasively, then Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) is the place. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bad jovian, did you mean something like this? — DVRTed (Talk) 12:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

But list per articles about here. Bad jovian (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

yes I need my activity from 2017 to 2026 running.i working my home to satalight and Android google development by dark web.and I need government help with the My work payment 🙏 and i have a big information about the world population.thank you so much for the first time in a singing. ~2026-26901-06 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-26901-06. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? That is the only kind of question which can be answered here. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, i just wanted to know how to privatize my wiki draft on which i mad e a super ambicious project. i used copyrighted images and i got a deletion request. Please help

Thanks!

Guy Gaelledesma (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not the place for the sort of project you are doing. You'll need to do it elsewhere. Wikipedia does not host fan fiction or alternative history fiction. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gaelledesma

Nothing on WP is really private and you can't "privatize" it. Copyright material is nowhere allowed. In addition to that, you've got excellent advice on your TP already! --Maresa63 ^Talk 19:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Any Suggestion on what to do or where to do it?? I really dont want to lose this and specially because i would need to export the whole project Gaelledesma (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gaelledesma, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some suggestions. One possibility is https://althistory.fandom.com which I found from a brief search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Copy its "source", Gaelledesma, and save that to a text file on your computer's hard drive. And do it today, before it's speedily deleted. ("Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Small question, but what is it called when you create a "mini category" when you do something like this?

"==Example=="

~2026-25032-90 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• That's a section heading. See Help:Wikitext Polyamorph (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse.

That's a heading, specifically heading 2. To make smaller headings, add more equal signs. Like this:

===Heading 3===

====Heading 4====

=====Heading 5=====

======Heading 6====== (max size)

Hopefully this helps. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 00:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed HTTP 302 has been a redirect since December and content merged into List of HTTP status codes. A temp account reverted those 2 edits in March (over 2 months ago). Should this be reverted or is AfD more appropriate? Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I've also just noticed similar thing that has happened to HTTP 403 Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 01:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate any feedback on my draft article (Draft:Thích Trung Hiếu). This article is about a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and religious figure. I submitted this draft via AfC more than two months ago and would be grateful for any review or suggestions for improvement. Thank you for your time. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process, where people do what they can, when they can. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I will continue to be patient. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have revised this article to address the concerns raised by the maintenance tags on Jidex

The following improvements have been made:

• Removed promotional and interpretive language to ensure a neutral tone
• Eliminated duplicated content across sections
• Rewritten sentences to reflect verifiable, sourced information only
• Improved citation placement and consistency throughout the article

The article is now based on independent reliable sources and avoids subjective or promotional wording.

I would appreciate if an editor could review the current version and consider whether the neutrality dispute and LLM-related maintenance tags can be removed. Distrigency (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Distrigency. Whenever I see a claim that a living person is a "philanthropist", I look into that claim, because it is deeply promotional unless impeccably referenced. And the reference in this case is an interview with Jidex, which is not an independent source. Interviews are inherently self-promotional, and Jidex is discussing his business practices and does not claim to be a philanthropist. So, the very first thing in your draft that I looked at does not check out and is a big problem. The overall tone of the draft remains promotional. What is your relationship with Jidex? Cullen328 (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to review the draft so carefully.

I understand your concern regarding the use of the term “philanthropist,” especially given the sourcing. You’re right that interviews are not independent sources and can come across as self-promotional. I will remove or revise that claim unless I can find a strong, independent reference that clearly supports it.

Regarding the tone, I appreciate you pointing that out as well. I will work on making the article more neutral and ensure it aligns better with Wikipedia’s standards on notability and verifiability.

To clarify, I do not have any personal or professional relationship with Jidex. My intention was simply to contribute an article based on available information, but I understand the importance of maintaining strict neutrality and reliable sourcing. What other thing would you consider so i can make the changes in due time?

Thank you again for your guidance. I’ll make the necessary revisions accordingly.

Best regards,

Distrigency Distrigency (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop using AI/LLMs to communicate here. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Distrigency, I agree with Sarsenet. You must stop all use of artificial "intelligence" tools to converse with Wikipedia editors. We want to talk directly to genuine human beings, not to robots cranking out platitudes and drivel and hallucinations. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much for the correction. I am a real human not a robot. i assume that autocorrect features on my keyboard has aided the perfection of words. apologies for how it may have been received. i have also gone ahead to disable this feature. thank you once again Distrigency (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You know how Wikipedia can't feature copyrighted characters when having to illustrate a concept, so they have to resort to using the company's logo instead? (If that wording sounds confusing, there's an example of this in today's featured article.)

Someday, I want to make an article of a certain internet meme if it ever gets notable. I consider it plunderphonics, in a way. My question is: Can this genre of music be freely licensed if every single source in it is without copyright? —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TrademarkedTWOrantula, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What do you mean by "without copyright"?

The default assumption is that any creative work is copyright unless there is a definite reason to think otherwise: usually, either the copyright holder has explicitly put it in the public domain, or it is so by reason of its age (in which case the details depend on the country or jurisdiction).

I'm also confused about the direction of your question. notability has almost nothing to do with copyright: most of the sources we depend on for notability are copyright, but since we do not reproduce them (beyond limited quotation) but only cite them, the question of copyright doesn't arise. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Also: no. If an artform is a composite of components that are all individually copyrighted, that doesn't void the components' copyright. It's why we, for instance, don't have all of Neil Cicierega's music. DS (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

See c:Commons:Derivative works and c:Commons:Fan art. If you are referring to the copyright of media, you are right that a "derivative work" like plunderphonics and fan art can be freely-licensed only if the original works (e.g. the original song, the original character) is freely-licensed or public domain. It's also true that genres of music are generally not copyrightable (you can't copyright the concept of "jazz" or "plunderphonics"). However, very few music and characters are freely-licensed/public domain by the creator (some reasons are that the artist wants to keep copyright or doesn't know about free licensing). This is also partly why quick time event uses a mockup, because no game dev (yet) has stepped up to add a freely-licensed screenshot of their game that has a quick time event. HyperAnd [talk] 02:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I recently edited a draft article about a living person JIDEX and i have been working to improve it in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’ve revised the tone to remove promotional language, ensured claims are properly attributed, and adjusted sections to better comply with NPOV and BLP policies.

Before moving forward, I’d really appreciate if an experienced editor could review the draft and advise on the following:

• Does the article meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements based on the current sources?
• Is the tone now neutral enough, or are there still areas that read as promotional?
• Are there any structural or formatting issues that might affect acceptance or visibility?
• Based on the current improvements, would it be appropriate to remove any existing maintenance or error tags, or are further changes still needed first?

I want to make sure the article is compliant and stands a good chance of being accepted without issues.

Thank you in advance for your guidance and help.

Cheers to the good work Distrigency (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

So, Distrigency, you want to have it reviewed before you have it reviewed? -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

go ahead and review it genius. I will be grateful to let you proceed from here.

Thanks so much for your help and prompt response. Community is truly a powerful tool. Distrigency (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Distrigency There are clear signs in both your comment and the article that you have used AI to generate the text, which is not allowed in articles. This includes sources that appear to be entirely hallucinated.

For example, your article cites reference 9 twice, claiming that it is evidence of him being covered as one of Nigeria's "top emerging creators", but the actual linked article says nothing of the sort. Not only that, but in your reflist you claim the article was written by "Emmanuel Okogba," but the byline on the actual article clearly says "Ekene Jimeba".

I'm going to move your article to draftspace because of these issues. Please submit it for review via Articles for Creation using the template I will place at the top of the draft, so that a reviewer can more thoroughly check it for signs of AI and any other issues before it goes back to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Jidex

Athanelar (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your time for taking the time to edit this and moving it to draft space because of the issues you found in it. I also want to clarify that the subject is a trending personality who i have no relationshop with, my intention was only to contribute an article by the use of available materials and sources but then i have taken note of your corrections and i will correct the mismatch especially in the referenced article by going through the draft carefully to verify all sources and correct any found error that may not look reliable i have also taken note of the wikipedia's guidelines to properly fit into them. Will make the necessary improvements. Would there be any more corrections and additions you will like me to effect? Distrigency (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you use any AI tool to generate any of the text in the draft? If so, it's important you rewrite the whole thing without any AI-generated text. Athanelar (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

oh athanelar, i did not write all with any ai tool but i am aware autocorrect may be active. I will rework the article to ensure it meets the tone and language for wikipedia. Would you be able to walk me through this to ensure perfection. Your comments and corrections have been really helpful Distrigency (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Distrigency Did you read the answers just above? David10244 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

yes i addressed it already. no affiliations Distrigency (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

what would you like me to do better david? the said article has been moved and i will have to rework it from start to finish. Distrigency (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi all — I'm working on Draft:Joseph Matick, a biography of an American poet based in Paris. The draft has been declined three times at AfC: twice on notability (User:Somepinkdude, December 2025; User:Nighfidelity, December 2025) and once on an AI-writing flag (User:Pythoncoder, March 2026). Pythoncoder later unlocked the draft in good faith.

I have a connected-contributor relationship with the subject and have declared it on Draft talk:Joseph Matick. I have rewritten the body around named third-party features by journalists at i-D, VICE, Billboard, HEROINE, Mundane Magazine, Dada Strain, and Boys By Girls, plus institutional sources (Alliance française, Institut français, American Library in Paris, Anne Waldman video archive).

I would be very grateful if an experienced, independent editor could look at the current draft and tell me honestly whether the sourcing now meets WP:GNG and whether the prose reads as neutral encyclopedic writing. I am not asking anyone to accept it — I am asking for a candid review before I resubmit.

Thank you. Acronymos (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just one note: we're told that the novelist David Polonoff wrote that Matick was "the latest exemplar" of Allen Ginsberg's "angel-headed hipsters". I suppose that by hipster Ginsberg meant "member of the Bohemian counterculture". But angel-headed isn't in Wiktionary and I for one can't guess what it might mean. If this is worth saying (twice!), it's worth making comprehensible. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Acronymos Okay, so after convincing me to unlock your draft after I’d rejected it for LLM use, you decided to keep using LLMs? The edit summary says that the LLM was only used as a “writing advisor for outline and copyedit suggestions”, but said edit summary is very likely LLM-generated, and I have doubts about whether you wrote the above comment entirely by yourself. I’m disappointed because I gave your draft a second chance, and it seems like you haven’t learned from your past missteps. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It was genuinely meant to be serious. And is not only the way i speak, albeit a bit floral, but also the way that Mr. Ginsberg speaks. Please accept my formal apology and understanding that I am a bit out of my depth and indeed, need help to finish mr maticks proper submission. Acronymos (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Acronymos, it's important to understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, so it's possible that you might not receive help - it'll depend on whether another editor finds the subject interesting enough to help and also thinks the article has enough of a chance of success to spend their personal spare time working on it.

I've just seen that the draft has been fully rejected and can't be resubmitted, so it looks like your partner doesn't currently qualify for an encyclopedia article. Blue-Sonnet 04:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I’ve placed an archiving template on my talk page calling lowercase sigmabot III, but it hasn’t been archived. Can someone help me? Thanks, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 02:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shadestar474. Looking at the page-history, you added the archiving tag at 02:31:41 and then wrote this comment here 11 minutes later. The bot does not act instantenously, neither "as soon as the tag is added" nor "as soon as the talk-page crosses the threshold to trigger archiving". Instead, it acts on some set schedule, checking all pages that are tagged. Patience! Check back in a day or so. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait, does it have to be at the top of the page to archive correctly? Because I added it at the bottom of the page a few days before and it hadn’t archived; I just moved to the top of the page after realizing that was the correct formatting, and then made this comment here while I was already thinking about my talk page archiving. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 04:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/config documentation says it needs to be "before the first ==second level header== on the page". DMacks (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the help! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 07:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! And just to wrap this thread here, the archiver has acted. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have submitted a draft article on the Lunar Gravitational-Wave Antenna (LGWA) through Articles for Creation. I am a member of the collaboration and have disclosed a conflict of interest on the talk page. I have aimed to follow Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines, and I would appreciate feedback from independent editors.

Draft: Draft:Lunar Gravitational-Wave Antenna

Thank you for any suggestions.

Nando Patat (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Giving it a quick look over, it's looking pretty good! There were a couple of places where you deviated from the manual of style, but I've cleaned those up for you. From what I've seen, the article is well written and neutrally worded, and the subject is notable.

The main issue at the moment is that there are quite a few unsourced statements or paragraphs. On Wikipedia, every claim must be backed up by a reliable source, which currently isn't the case. For example:

• The Background section
• The third paragraph of the Mission architecture section
• Several paragraphs in the Technology section

It's possible that the sources are cited elsewhere in the article, but the sources for a given sentence must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph. Good luck, seems like a promising article! {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm just wondering what happened with this edit. Everything looks fine, except when I view the changes in Wikitext, it looks like a ton of quote marks got added to one or more tables on the page. I didn't add those quote marks intentionally. Why did they get added, and are they supposed to be there? Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Looks like that's a quirk of the VisualEditor. While you are making changes to the article, it rewrites some of the source code in the background in the way that it sees fit. The quotes there are optional, so the page looks identical with or without them, but seems like the VisualEditor prefers to have them there. I would suggest just ignoring it. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Today I came across several standalone Pokémon articles on Wikipedia for iconic pokemons such as Pikachu, Charizard, and Mewtwo.

How does that look for iconic Yugioh cards? Was thinking to create standalone articles for: Blue-Eyes White Dragon, Dark Magician, and Exodia.

My thought is that some of these cards may have enough real-world coverage through cultural impact, competitive history, collector market attention, and long-term recognition, but I also understand that fan significance alone is not enough. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, there's a good chance these cards are notable. One would just have to be careful about what sources you're using... I imagine there's more than a few books about Yu-Gi-Oh cards that would be considered reliable sources. No need to self-censor yourself, if you want to write about something I say go ahead and do it. Worst thing that might happen is a merge. My gut tells me that Blue-Eyes White Dragon would be the best one to start with. MediaKyle (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @MediaKyle. There may be some risk of content bias if I start the article, since I’m a longtime fan myself. Mhhhh I will think about it 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

In fairness, there is precedent. The issue is separating sources for the anime and manga from sources specifically for the card game. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems it's a source thing.., it always is. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The Pokemon articles mentioned in the original question all appear to be about the characters and not just the cards, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on the cards for your proposed Yugioh articles. Yes, you would need to keep material about the anime and manga in separate sections from material about the card game, but the article would include all of them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To illustrate where in a work the quote comes into play. If I insert the quote as a standard image caption, the box's color and layout appear slightly different than they should be for a quote. Thanks in advance. Redacwiki (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some potential articles that I plan on writing up, but I probably won’t be able to come around to publishing them until later. Is there any way to watch redlinks to get notified if someone else writes the article before I do? Dantus21 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dantus21! You can add them to your watchlist, where you can see changes to pages you're paying attention to. It'll say there if they get created. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Dantus21 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dantus21 That's a good idea from Perfect4th but if your watchlist is already large and the potential redlinks are few, you might miss one popping up after creation. Another way to go would be to list the redlinks as WP:Wikilinks on, say, your userpage. Then these links will turn blue when created and you'll see them without being distracted by other items. You can also put links like Draft:Foo2 to be alerted to someone creating a new draft article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to add "Schrödinger's Strait" as a metaphorical phase related to Strait of Hormuz?

I know it may not be ideal in serious circumstances, but maybe as a heading called "Legacy" or "Popular culture" in this article about Strait of Hormuz to describe how this particular shipping strait is both open and closed at the same time. This is based on the popular scientific experiment Schrödinger's cat by scientist Erwin Schrödinger and how certain media outlets are depicting the current trajectory about the Strait of Hormuz in a satirical metaphorical phrase as "Schrödinger's Strait" with regards to how the movements of vessels, cargo is being determined and monitored in the Strait of Hormuz. I know this may sound like a typical pseudo intellectual science nerd stuff but from the point of view of commercial shipping, the phrase "Schrödinger's Strait" would probably suit the way how only selected vessels of Iranian allies would be permitted to transit the Strait of Hormuz basically meaning that the strait is open with conditions to be fulfilled, whereas the Strait of Hormuz would be closed for rest of the countries' vessels if they do not comply with Iranian law and order. Abishe (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Are multiple reliable sources calling it Schrödinger's Strait or is it just your idea? If the latter, then definitely not. If the former, well, maybe but I think it would require a lot of WP:SIGCOV for it not to be an example of WP:UNDUE weight to a joke. Lijil (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Even a cursory look in Google will show that "Schrödinger's Strait" isn't just Abishe's idea. Here are samples:

• "Schrödinger's Strait", Tehran Times, 19 March 2026
• "Schrödinger's Strait: Is It Open or Closed | Week 7 Strait of Hormuz Recap (April 12 to 19)" What's Going on With Shipping? Youtube.
• "US Navy vs. Iran: Inside the Brutal Week 7 Escalation in the Strait, Maritime Spotlight. Youtube.

Are these reliable sources? No. Do they need to be? No. Shall we collect more such nuggets? No. What we need instead is a description from a RS of how this is an apt or popular term. Such a description doesn't seem to have appeared in either The Guardian or BBC.co.uk; other editors may wish to look in other news websites. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Abishe Given that the term is now in the Financial Times, here, and also in a US newspaper here I would say you can indeed add it to the WP article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey all, figured this would be a good place to ask about this. Larry David has had a photo from 2009 for a long time, a press or red-carpet professional photograph (see here). Recently, the photo was changed to a screenshot of a video under CC that he did for YES network File:Larry says YES!.png. It's a bit... odd because it's a screenshot of a video where he's constantly in motion. I understand the desire for a more recent photo, but I'm wondering if screenshots during an ad or otherwise video would be appropriate under WP:BLPIMAGE saying that it's a "situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed" Yojo98 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yojo98 Larry was absolutely aware he was being filmed , so I don't see how "did not expect to be photographed" applies. Screenshots of "free license" YT-vids are fairly commonly used as a source for BLP leadimages, sometimes being the best we can get our hands on. See Talk:Larry_Sanger#WP:LEADIMAGE,_again for a similar situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose my question comes from the aesthetic differences of a professional red carpet photo / headshot (which it was previously), vs a screen grab from a video. Especially in this case (and the Larry Sanger one), where a old but very clean headshot was replaced with a screenshot from a Youtube video. I understand that both are fine for BLP, but just curious if getting a newer image outweighs the poorer quality of the capture. Yojo98 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no clear-cut rule (that I know of); this would be a matter of WP:Content dispute that you could discuss with the editor who changed the image under the WP:BRD process. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Yojo98, I agree with you that the old image is better. Some editors think recency is the most important, others think image quality is the most important. I personally would prefer a 15 year old professional headshot over a recent YouTube screenshot. That being said, you should really be talking about this at Talk:Larry David, which has 370 page watchers who may share your view. MediaKyle (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Started a thread over there! Yojo98 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. Recently I've encountered a fair number of issues using the Visual Editor's automatic reference system, with manual input being required for almost all of my citations. I'd be happy to provide a list of the sites used to see if they all simply happen to block trackers, but am curious if something has changed in standard site infrastructure that prevents the harvesting of that reference material. Any help is appreciated, my thanks in advance.

Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can give some more details of specifically what you tried to do and what the result was, post that over at WP:VPT. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

so I'm a newer user and I've been trying to learn how to add cover pages to different movie or comic books pages. if anyone could give any insist on how i would go upon this task would be greatly appreciated thank you. Staticspector (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Images you can use are in Wikimedia commons, one of wikipedia's sister projects. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 02:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As for other images, see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, read it, let it sink in, and then read it again and let it sink in some more. Yes, at its head, you'll read This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply; and you'll see that "exceptions" is linked enticingly to "Ignore all rules". But in practice, there will be no exceptions. You'll be expected to take the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline very seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

OK thank you both i appreciate the guidance. Staticspector (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Staticspector, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with all that Hoary says.

But you might also find it useful to read WP:Logos - that is about logos, not covers, but some of what it says is relevant. But note in particular that the use of cover or poster art in an article about the specific work can often be justified, but this is much harder to do for some other topic related to the work (eg an article about a character or about the author). ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article Pius Bigirimana from my sandbox and moved it to mainspace in February. It has been up for a few months now, but I’m not sure whether it fully meets Wikipedia’s expectations, especially in terms of sourcing and notability. I would really appreciate if someone could review the article and point out any issues or areas that may need improvement. Thank you. --BusyEditor (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you use any kind of AI tool to help you create this article in any way? There are signs of AI generated text, which is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar, thank you for the question.

Yes, at an earlier stage I used a rephrasing tool to assist with wording of my original draft. Following your feedback, and after reviewing Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, I carried out a full manual review of the article, removing peacock terms and revising all sections to ensure the content aligns with WP:NPOV and standard encyclopedic style.

This includes the recent edits made via the IP address while I was away, where I completed a comprehensive manual overhaul of the article.

The current version has been carefully checked to ensure it is neutral, factual, and supported by reliable sources. I would appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if any sections still need further improvement. --BusyEditor (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you edit the article as ~2026-26457-70? It looks like you're still using AI and you've introduced more un-encyclopaedic phrasing (e.g. "On a personal note"). Your edit summary is definitely AI-generated. Blue-Sonnet 21:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Edibiz, I noticed some extraneous subheadings and lists in your edits, along with more non-WP:NPOV phrasing (common with LLM text). This isn't present in the current revision, though.

I agree with Blue Sonnet, though. I think you may have used an LLM to assist you in your text, rather then generate it. ^{This is my subjective viewpoint, so feel free to object.}

Please see WP:AISIGNS and cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Sonnet and Campssite for the feedback. I’ve made some changes to improve the tone, remove non-encyclopaedic wording, and better align the article with WP:NPOV. I’d appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if anything still needs improvement.--BusyEditor (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Eeyup, i'll go ahead and take a look.

More information Collapsed for visibility ...

Collapsed for visibility

So, here is what I think about your last two revisions to your article: First, lets look at this sentence you changed from before and after: Before: [...] Beyond his career in the civil service, Bigirimana has written on governance, leadership, and social integrity. His books often draw from his professional experiences to address public administration challenges and family values. His published titles include: [...] After: [...] Bigirimana has written on governance, leadership, and social integrity. Some of his published titles include: From Tears to Cheers, Youth Livelihood, Corruption: A Tale of Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, Unchained: A Public Servant with a Private Sector Mindset, Abundance Mentality, Naked Truth, among others ↑ I would say this is an improvement, you're just stating the facts in the new revision and not about how he did them. Second off, lets look at other sentences you've changed: Before: [...] He is married to Elizabeth Bigirimana. In 2023, they marked their 25th wedding anniversary with a service at Christ the King Parish in Kampala. [...] After: [...] He is married to Elizabeth Bigirimana. In 2023, they marked their 25th wedding anniversary. ↑ I would say this is an improvement, you removed an unsourced, arguably unneeded fact from there.

Close

Overall, I would say this is better than the last revision, but I don't think this is a one-person job. See WP:PEACOCK or better yet WP:WIKIPUFF to find more and fix 'em in the future!

Cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 08:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Campssitie. I’ve made further revisions to improve neutrality and tone, and I believe the article is now more closely aligned with Wikipedia standards. I’d appreciate it if you could take another look and advise if any sections still need improvement.--BusyEditor (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Your welcome, right now I'm quite busy. ...so I can't give detailed advice using the collapse template..

I've taken a look at your recent edits, and I'd say I'm quite happy with the neutrality of the article. It has improved, in my case.

However, @BusyEditor. You may need to ask another experienced Wikipedian (I would recommend maybe an WP:EXTEND user?) for a second opinion. You can't just rely on a single person's feedback, after all. I'd say I'm still verily a newbie with all these policies.

So, cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 11:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not a highly experienced editor. However, I looked at your article and one thing really bothers me. At several points, there's the subject (Pius) and there's a concept or issue, but the words linking the two together are really vague and shifty. For example: He was associated with conceptualization and development. What did he do? While his time at the OPM involved public scrutiny regarding donor funds for Northern Uganda, Bigirimana sought to clear his name through the legal system. What was he accused of doing? By whom? He is associated with creating and launching the Youth Livelihood Programme. Did he create and launch it? If so, say so. Was he part of a group that created and launched it? If so, say that and identify the group. (Also, "created and launched"--what's the difference?) The article has a LOT of this. It is frustrating to read. The part about "public scrutiny" is particularly frustrating--it's impossible to figure out what actually happened, and it starts to feel like the text is trying to hide what happened rather than explain it. I suggest going through the article looking for vague connector words and trying to make all of them concrete. "Associated with" is really not a good term if what you mean is "created" or "was accused of." M kuhner (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm writing an article about a board game and can't find out how to put in a link to any other articles about board games. Also, I don't know if I should even publish this article because it's about a game that someone I know made, even if I'm writing it without bias. TheQuickBrownFox14!🏳‍🌈 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, and the Teahouse.

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

It is not likely that a game somebody you know made meets our threshold for notability, unless you have multiple sources where people completely unaffiliated with your friend or their game have reviewed or discussed the game in some depth. Athanelar (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

To answer the technical question: to link to an article, just put the name of the article you're linking to, with two open-brackets in front of it and two close-brackets after it. I'm linking one right here: Hypocnemis. Look at the source of this comment to see how I did it. M kuhner (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Does $LATEX$ work on Wikipedia? Is there a way to make it work? Wikipedian12512 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of LaTeX works: Help:Displaying a formula. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Test: ${\displaystyle LATEX}$ Wikipedian12512 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)