Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1299

I'm sure this has been answered already many times, but I was reading the WP:RS policy page and I'm still unsure: is it possible to use a video essay from a youtube channel as a source? And if so, how do I have to cite it? I was thinking about videos that summarize the biography of someone or that explain something about an animal that would be difficult to find elsewhere. MiniFeather (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, MiniFeather. The way to think about this is that YouTube isn't a source but rather a host site. A video posted to YouTube by a reputable news broadcaster with a reputation for factchecking, such as the BBC, is treated the same way as any of their other output - i.e. as reliable - whereas a video posted there by user Bob1234 or Sue5678 is user-generated content and therefore not reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. And what if I wanted to cite a video from an independent science communicator channel? I should ponder each case and verify if he or she is reliable? MiniFeather (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That probably shouldn't be considered reliable, unless their work in the field has previously been published in reliable outlets. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you MiniFeather (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

To add onto this, most good science communicators will usually provide a list of sources they used in the video description. Those might be useful reliable sources! --rchard2scout (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This is very useful! I haven't really thought about it. Thanks! MiniFeather (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it would also be useful to ask yourself whether the person in question would actually qualify as a SCIENTIST themselves, with appropriate credentials and who is respected by peers in their field, or just a "communicator" who rephrases scientific work done by others to make it easier for laypeople to understand. Someone who is a scientist would likely not only cite sources, but publish any of their original work through professional channels and just explain those on YouTube, in which case that original publication should be sourced for articles instead. If they clarify something specific in the video that you think benefits the article you might cite both, but that should be done cautiously since publications are peer-reviewed and YouTube is not. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Anna Keyes Knowlton, Wife of Thomas Knowlton, is a great example of what women could do by themselves with no man but she has no books because most of her documents and records are kept private in Ashford, they are really hard to find, or they were destroyed/lost.

I have found many primary sources, books (on her family and her husband), and websites to help me cite but I have no idea if it is enough.

I view her at more than just a wife of a hero. She was a person like all of her sons, brothers, and her father.

Any help will be appreciated!

(P.S. One of my declines says somethong about me using AI, I deleted all of that verison from the one I have right now.) Lily Weed (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You might want to see WP:RS and WP:RS/Perennial sources. Find A Grave and FamilySearch are not considered reliable sources as they are user-generated. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

If all the good documents are in private hands, then a Wikipedia article can't be written. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

A long-term project would be to involve a museum or scholarly society. I owned what might be the only surviving copies of the newsletters from a national chess championship held many years ago: those could not be used as a source on Wikipedia. But at a journalist's request I gifted them to a chess museum, and if the museum published them, they would be a usable source. If you want the information preserved for future generations, I recommend going this route--whether you end up with a Wikipedia source or not, it will be good for scholarship. M kuhner (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically speaking a source doesn't need to be publicly accessible to be usable, only verifiable to anyone who does have access to it. That's admittedly difficult if they are indeed the only copies, but in theory anyone who saw your copies would have been able to verify the contents. If they're now held by a museum and viewable by the public they should certainly qualify. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I have looked at the CT documentation and I simply can't see how to bring to the attention of the relevant people the behaviour of an editor who I believe is breaching contentious topic editing restrictions. Pointers welcome please. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket I'd go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to log into desktop but it insists I have the wrong password or username. I know everything is correct, as I used the password and username I have saved on my phone (which works). It isn't saying anything else and no article I have found helps with this issue. If it helps, I am using Firefox ~2026-38533-64 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The most likely answer is some type of keyboard error. (For example, caps lock might be activated, a different language selected on the computer, or a mistake between similar-looking symbols like I l 1.)

Note that your username must be exact, with the same capitals. On Wikipedia, "Robert" and "robert" are completely different names for different people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read my comment <3 i DID check, it is not a keyboard error. I am not stupid. ~2026-38672-92 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You in fact didn't say you had checked for that, but that's OK. (You did say you used the one on your phone, which means you were probably typing by hand and didn't copy & paste.) Is there anything special about this computer or this browser that would make them seem not average? (Having a firewall that your phone doesn't have to go through, being quite old, having scripts disabled, anything else?) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification. The first character of a username is assumed to be normally capitalized, but if it is not, it still points to the same user. Later characters in the username are case-sensitive but the first character is not. This first-character-capitalized feature is true of other Wikipedia pages, including articles and drafts.

As to why you're experiencing a login failure, I can't account for it if you truly are using the same credentials on desktop as on your phone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the first-character exception - I never knew. It's inconsistent, but in a useful way. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it work if you manually type the username and password on the phone? I wonder whether you may rely on a saved password which is not visible and not what you think. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new editor. I was improving the article about Praxis Business School by adding independent references from The Telegraph, Times of India, and Higher Education Digest, but the page was deleted. Could someone please explain what is still missing regarding notability or sourcing before I recreate it? We want to make a page for institute not doing any promotion or marketing. dont whats wrong i am doing please help me to complete this.

below added some refference https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02YeEXVQTqxUQb7JruMxNDz9bLH5ML3JN3zMrH7qnMuAPRoDxbWyik4avRCGsKJBzEl&id=100064454961870&mibextid=2JQ9oc

https://www.facebook.com/AnandabazarSocial/posts/pfbid0wQ2yoWwNLcRhHUMovh71ZMW1DDKdNksVF7oTLQEBqjTKsQeyH3v6TjPftSCaEjJWl

https://www.telegraphindia.com/brand-studio/the-dilemma-of-indias-tech-skills-adoption-of-data-drives-layoffs-or-creates-jobs/cid/1989917?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tt_daily_twit

https://www.telegraphindia.com/edugraph/campus/praxis-business-school-kolkata-gears-up-for-edge-2026-and-startup-clinic-and-pitch-event/cid/2156060

https://www.telegraphindia.com/edugraph/campus/praxis-business-school-to-host-its-inter-college-fest-spardha-2026-from-february-6-to-7/cid/2145771

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/managerial-skills-for-a-digital-world/cid/1922134

https://www.telegraphindia.com/brand-studio/emerging-cybersecurity-careers-beckon-aspiring-data-defenders/cid/1994893

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/how-digital-technologies-and-fintech-impact-indias-financial-landscape/cid/1919723?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tt_daily_twit

https://analyticsindiamag.com/continued-relentless-focus-on-the-desired-outcome-praxis-rise-to-being-the-best-data-science-institute-in-india/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/praxis-pgp-in-data-science-receives-50-placement-within-3-months-of-course-start/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/top-postgraduate-data-science-programmes-in-india-aim-ranking-2021/

https://analyticsindiamag.com/behind-the-scenes-of-praxis-business-schools-successful-data-science-placements/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/become-a-data-engineer-the-fastest-growing-tech-career-in-the-world-join-the-industry-supported-praxis-post-graduate-program-in-data-engineering/

https://analyticsindiamag.com/praxis-launches-its-full-time-data-engineering-program-with-knowledge-support-from-genpact-and-latentview/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/not-everyone-can-become-a-data-scientist-says-prof-charanpreet-singh-of-praxis-business-school/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/praxis-places-65-of-the-pgp-in-data-science-batch-on-day-zero/

https://analyticsindiamag.com/join-this-masterclass-how-to-start-your-career-in-data-science/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/register-for-this-webinar-solving-the-hunger-for-data-science-skills-in-the-post-covid-world/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/analytics-data-science-industry-in-india-study-2019-by-aim-praxis-business-school/

https://analyticsindiamag.com/join-this-masterclass-how-to-start-your-career-in-data-science/ https://analyticsindiamag.com/dr-prithwis-mukerjees-chrono-series-a-heady-mix-of-advaita-philosophy-time-travel-anthropomorphism-of-ai/

https://www.telegraphindia.com/edugraph/campus/praxis-business-school-conducted-its-15th-convocation-for-pgdm-class-of-2023-photogallery/cid/1929361 Biswajitmondal wiki (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

For starters, Facebook and The Times of India are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Understood the reason of the Facebook which is not support but times of india a news paper where the published content about our details. so please help us to make our page with content that will be followed wikipedia guidelines. if you allow we can share our content you can remove which you think are not suitable except will publish Biswajitmondal wiki (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see there ever was a page at Praxis Business School, and you have no deleted contributions. Nor did Draft:Praxis Business School ever exist. Note also Praxis Business Schoo never had any useful content. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praxis Business School, Kolkata applies for Praxis Business School, Kolkata. Also if you are user:Biswajit Kol who was blocked for spamming, best to just leave this alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, Yes Biswajit Kol was a user tried to improve Praxis Business School Page, but the id was blocked. i agree with you Praxis Business School was never had any usefull content, so i want to improve that. and thats why request for support to make this. Also if you check the history there was some minimum content in praxis business school.

Its will be very helpfull if we can make a page in wikipedia. Biswajitmondal wiki (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

User blocked for sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I think there should be a page for The Cosmic Shambles Network (cosmicshambles.com). They are a significant UK based network that has been instrumental in shaping the scientific communication landscape in the UK and have kickstarted careers of many people included on Wikipedia and produced shows for Brian Cox, Robin Ince, Hannah Fry etc. Their new documentary series was covered by The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/jun/25/for-the-record-an-incomplete-history-of-music-review-youtube-documentary)

I have some affiliation to them so cannot create the article, also I don't know how! I thought here might be a place to ask? CharleyD59 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

First, it's not true that you can't create the article; people with conflicts of interest can create articles, they just need to do so by submitting it as a draft for review and they need to declare their COI. If you're interested in pursuing that, you can read Help:Your first article

That said, you're falling into the common pitfall of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, which is that you're listing the "significant achievements" of this network in the assumption that this is the sort of thing we look for in article subjects; it generally isn't. For a subject like this, you'd need to provide indication that it meets the notability guidelines for companies and organisations. Notably, the fact that they have kickstarted careers of many people included on Wikipedia and produced shows for Brian Cox, Robin Ince, Hannah Fry etc is totally irrelevant, because notability is not inherited by association with other notable subjects. Athanelar (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I woukd like to ask if there is a specific format when trying to reach consensus in Wikipedia for exmaple a specific template and if there are any specific "beaurecratic" proceses not listed in Wikipedia:Consensus.

Also any other suggetions about this process will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance! Mant08 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

People mainly write about consensus when it's not quite happening, at which point you may find WP:Dispute resolution helpful. It has options such as requesting a third opinion and requesting mediation, as well as the process for escalating if the problem can't be solved locally. M kuhner (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, in practice, consensus in editing means very exactly "working it out between yourselves without help and without fighting" - in practice, there's no policy or procedure behind it. When that plan fails, as it will sometimes, then I agree with M kuhner's advice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I wrote an article last october or so, was told it sounded AI generated in december, so updated it. Then I was told the previous version sounded AI generated (?) and it was declined again in March. I tried to figure out what that meant and made more edits immediately and still haven't heard back. I feel like this article -- which I will vouch for every single word of -- is being stonewalled because of the original concern. Should I just delete it and give up? Here's my user:talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddphen to see the history. (This is my first attempt at providing an article.) Toddphen (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't give up! Leave the reviewer a message on their talk page asking them what signs they saw. If you haven't used AI, let them know too. The two of you should reach some sort of mutual understanding about the article if you truly haven't used AI and there are no tell-tale indicators. Assuming good faith is important here on Wikipedia. jolielover♥talk 14:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Toddphen You didn't resubmit the draft Draft:State_space_model for review, so no reviewer has seen it since the last review in March. qcne (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If the reviewer wants a second opinion, you could ask them to post to WP:AI noticeboard or post there yourself. Editors there have a lot of experience with deciding this issue.

Looking over the draft, you need to work hard on sourcing (and I see why the reviewer was concerned). You have citations to other Wikipedia articles and to user-supplied blog posts. Please read WP:Reliable sources and check each source for reliability. The high reliance on arxiv might be unavoidable in this field--it's outside my area--but published papers would be much better if available.

Also look for words of praise--significant, key, etc. It's not our job to praise or disparage, only to report. And maybe reconsider the structure, which feels to me like disconnected chunks of information on separate topics rather than an overview of the subject as a whole. You have a "History" section but it just describes a bunch of different pieces of software, rather than actually talking about the history of the idea. There are no connections.

Finally, a word of advice: I'm not going to ask if you used LLMs. But if you did, from bitter experience it's better to start over from scratch. Fixing such articles is much harder than writing a new one.

M kuhner (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Just for added clarity: Where M kuhner wrote this - Also look for words of praise--significant, key, etc. - it means look in your work for words or phrases that praise the company, and when you find the praise, delete it. (They did not mean looking in the sources to find words of praise, though it could accidentally get misinterpreted that way.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, yes. The article should not praise or disparage the topic but only describe it in neutral terms. M kuhner (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it up to their target, or redirected to the actual account, or a doppelganger tag be placed, or left blank? -- Least Action (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"impersonator accounts" is quite a weird heading given the question itself. Impersonator accounts are globally b(locked). But if someone has created a doppleganger or any sort of alternate account, to fight impersonation, they're free to add a tag, or a text, or just redirect according to their own will :) _signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 15:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Least Action: Are you referring to accounts that someone created to impersonate another person? Or are you referring to doppelganger accounts that they created to prevent others from impersonating them? Impersonators usually get blocked and globally locked, and their userpage either gets blanked, deleted or tagged with {{blocked impersonator|(ACCOUNT NAME)}}. Doppelgangers usually get tagged as doppelganger accounts by the account owner. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 15:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Least Action Wikipedia uses the word doppelganger in a positive or approving way, to mean an account that was created to prevent the problem you're describing. This "positive" use of a word that's normally taken as a bad or disturbing thing might have surprised you.

Wikipedia's occasional but noticeable habit of giving [special/different/surprising/false] meanings to ordinary words irritates me sometimes. I think it probably came from people's desire to avoid sounding bureaucratic; if it did, they failed to realize that repurposing or redefining words is itself a profoundly bureaucratic thing to do, arguably more bureaucratic than the thing they avoided and certainly more confusing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

As a rule, "impersonator" refers to accounts made by someone other than the target as a means of harassment, while "doppelganger" refers to (non-editing) accounts created by the "victim" as a shield against being impersonated (the latter of which is a legitimate reason to have multiple accounts). The usual response is to just blank the userpages if they're copypasta'd from the victim and otherwise leave them be; there's little point in tagging them as sockpuppets even if most impersonators are such about 90% of the time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 20:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

My draft, Wars fought by the East India Company and Administration of the east india company-- these 2 articles were put into drafts today even though they both ere accepted as articles Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel: I've just explained the first of those on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• '''Keep''': As the creator of this article, I have worked hard to add reliable historical context and textbook references to this page. The administration structure of the EIC is a major historical topic that deserves a focused, dedicated article for students looking for quick summaries, rather than being buried in the massive main article. I am highly willing to continue improving the prose and formatting based on community feedback. Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  You only need to 'vote' (!vote) at the AfD discussion, not also here or on the article talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  When and if you are unblocked, please understand that we do not chat to AI Chatbots. We only talk to real people. Please use your own voice, and stop using AI. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The templates i'm talking are:

• {{user US-Military-maybe-not-here}}
• and {{user Canada-military-maybe-not-here}}

Both templates does not have {{WPBS}}, and doesn't have a talk page created yet.

Those templates are related to WikiProject Military History, and wont have a rating due to them being templates. That1ElioFan ( talk | userboxes ) 14:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages are not created automatically. I don't know if they apply to WikiProject Military History. Templates can still be part of Wikiprojects (Template:War of 1812?). I changed the title of this section because it breaks things to format templates in section titles this way. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I suspect projects may not apply since these are userbox templates unrelated to article content. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I see your Zebra Puzzle article is mostly silent on computational solving of the riddle. The Polish article has a whole section about algorithms used to solve this puzzle. Do you perhaps want a translation?

Best wishes Kaworu1992 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't hurt, might help. Remember to cite your sources, and to credit the authors of the section on pl.wiki. DS (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course :) I will see what I can do about it :)

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi people!

I did the translation. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaworu1992/Zebra_Puzzle

One problem is, I realized way too late, the Polish version is full of information pieces, but it seems low on actual references. And I am not very good at researching references :/ Could somebody maybe help me out? ;-)

Best wishes!

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Researching references is a large part of the work involved with making useful contributions on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia sites in other languages may be more lax, but for English Wikipedia all additions or changes must be well supported by either existing or new sources. If there's no citation given for the information on the Polish article, we have no way to know where the information came from or if it's true. If you have experience in this subject you're more likely to be able to find and confirm the original source (if it exists) than most people here. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

I think the PL Wikipedia used English academic resources as base for it's claims (also the ones with no refs?) if that's what you are asking about. I tried to do some Google Scholar query, but with no big success, I think. I think it would be best to begin with reading the sources that were cited, but... they aren't open access, I believe?

So you see what's problematic for me? Does anybody has any advice?

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking the edit history on the Polish article and reaching out to the editor(s) who added that information, to see whether they can grant you access to the material or have recommendations for other sources that can confirm the validity. Also, many authors of scholarly papers are happy to provide copies for free on request - they don't get paid for subscriptions, only the publishing journal does - so if you're hitting paywalls there you can try contacting the listed authors. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I want to become better at editing before I begin making significant contributions.

In addition to understanding policies and guidelines, I'm curious about practical editing tips. Some habits or techniques that you have found particularly useful for editing are as follows:

• How do you plan edits prior to actually performing them?
• When do you use the sandbox rather than edit the article itself?
• How do you know whether to perform a single large edit or multiple smaller ones?
• Are there any mistakes that new editors often make but are not obvious right away?
• Do you have any other editing tips, tricks, tools, etc., that you use frequently?

Any advice that you feel should have been shared with you when you first began editing would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Golollygoivergangthistime (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I use the sandbox when performing very large-scale edits, like revamping a whole page or a large section, which may take time and can't just be left on the main page incomplete. For example, changing the formatting of a table. I also use the sandbox for when I am beginning a new article (over draftspace if I'm not certain it can be a mainspace page/don't want other people editing for whatever reason, eg edit conflict). Edit size... that's a preference. But people do typically frown upon making a hundred consecutive edits in a short time frame which are all relatively small. It can also be seen as gaming the system to receive permissions without actually earning them, especially if you're a new user, so beware.

Look at other pages (preferably featured or good articles) to see how they look like, what templates they use, etc etc to get a feel of the quality expected on Wikipedia. The thing that helps me the most are scripts and gadgets. Twinkle, ultraviolet, and many more are very useful and makes repetitive and slow tasks so much easier. There are many more, too. The scripts I use are at User:Jolielover/common.js. Take a look to see if any of them interest you. jolielover♥talk 08:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Golollygoivergangthistime, I think you're approaching your new adventure as a Wiki editor in just the right way, like asking those who've been in a foreign country for awhile to help you get some idea of what it's like there. I'm sure other editors will quickly give you a list of important documentation you should get familiar with and helpful tutorials you can use, so I'll just share a few tips that as a not-too-long-ago fellow newbie I've found of much value.

1. Having a User page—which it seems you don't yet—is very helpful to give other editors a bit of insight into you. This can be helpful when they want to leave a message on your Talk page, as it may help them feel a little more able to connect with you in a comment about an edit you made or if they want to pick up on a post of yours they noticed here in the Teahouse and take it further. What editors often put on their User pages includes things like a few of their special interests, languages they know and to what extent, and perhaps how they came to Wikipedia. By the same token, you might find it helpful to check out someone else's User page before you leave a message on his or her Talk page.

2. The Teahouse is a wonderful resource, but do connect with your mentor often to ask questions, especially if they're a little complex. And a mentor's Talk page, where you will usually connect for you to get your questions answered, is a much less public place to ask questions (and not feel awkward about your just not being able to quite "get" something). Or occasionally, your mentor might want to connect with you on your own Talk page, also out of most public view.

3. You'll soon want to have ways to easily get around to locations in Wikipedia that you've found helpful or that others suggest, because there'll soon be a lot of them. To avoid feeling overwhelmed, you just need a little organization plan. Here are two I rely on, though I've also done what @Jolielover does and stash some locations on my User page.

• Your browser's Bookmark feature is one helpful tool.
• So too a Tab Groups feature—if your browser has one.

Augnablik (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

My way of deciding between one large edit and several small ones: If someone later reverts an edit, I don't want them to accidentally revert good material, so I'd suggest breaking down a bigger edit to one idea at a time.

I treat it differently for edits where there's nothing that could legitimately be reverted, such as going through a whole article at once to change the punctuation to conform to the Manual of Style, or to correct uncontroversial spelling mistakes and typos. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know if I count as an ‘experienced’ Wikipedia editor, but a few things I wish I’d known about earlier are the pipe trick (very helpful when linking to policy pages and such), the fact that you can just go to the copyediting backlog when you’re in the mood to copyedit an article instead of having to manually hunt for articles that look like they could use some work, and, the thing that took me the longest to learn, that although it was my first instinct to be intimidated by the more experienced editors just because they had edit counts orders of magnitude higher than mine, they’re actually quite nice and are almost always willing and able to help you with whatever issue you’re encountering. (As evidenced by the rather peaceful conduct here at the Teahouse.)

Something I also had to get the hang of was how to balance constructively informing people when they’re wrong and sounding WP:BITEy. I got the balance wrong (in both directions) a few times when I was starting out, but eventually I learned how to walk the line correctly. Basically, as long as you’re really trying to get it right and you’re open to constructive criticism, it’s okay if you get it wrong a few times. It’s not the end of the world. Every editor learns how to do that at one point or another, and you’re sure to get the hang of it eventually. I think that’s one of the most important pieces of advice for newer editors just dipping their toes in having discussions on talk pages and things like that. (obviously do try to get it right as best you can, though!)

Good luck, and happy editing! :D Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 20:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found it extremely helpful to hang out here in the Teahouse (and on other discussion boards) so I can read questions that other people ask and learn from them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with you 100%, Chompy. And to pick up on that, sometimes I even try to guess what seasoned editors might have said in reply before I look … sort of like a little quiz. Fun as well as enlightening! Augnablik (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I started answering some things myself too once I'd learned my way around a bit and could source relevant guidelines - it's helped me gain experience with wikitext out of mainspace in addition to reading about whatever I was looking up. I always defer to more experienced editors if they have a better answer. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, the Related pages algorithm is flawed on Wikipedia. For example, the Jodie Resther page has the following as related pages as she was in Winx Club (2004):

• Winx Club
• World of Winx
• Winx Club: The Magic Is Back

(Michael Yarmush page does the same but instead of Winx Club there are Arthur-related pages. For Eleanor Noble The Bellflower Bunnies appears as recommended pages instead.).

As she was also in Arthur, how would I get the Related pages to be other Canadian voice actors, like on Holly Gauthier-Frankel?

An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR. See mw:Extension:RelatedArticles#Usage. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft in question had been created a while ago, but the article must have been created recently - what's procedure? LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy Unsubmit your draft for review, and feel free to edit and improve the new article at PROMISE_(rover). qcne (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

How much of the article text am I allowed to change? Unsure if this sounds biased, but I feel like the draft has a better tone LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

As much as you want. No one owns an article on Wikipedia. Other editors will come along and tweak and add and change the text you've added as part of the iterative process. qcne (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

In pragmatic terms, avoiding any methods that seem likely to elicit angry reactions may lead to a better result for what you're trying to do. For example, replacing the whole thing may appear efficient but is likely to backfire. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy In general, see WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss which describes the usual procedure by which changes both small and large are made, challenged and debated on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and create Draft:Agaricus deardorffensis as a stub, since neither I nor anyone else has gotten around to writing a full article yet. There's ample information available, I just haven't found the time, and this seems better than nothing to take it out of redlink status and provide a jumping off point either for readers to look it up via the references or for other editors to expand. I know the citations need to be formatted correctly in the long run, but is this acceptable in its current form to submit to AfC? Anything obvious I'm missing? I reviewed WP:PSA and based the species template and categories on Agaricus buckmacadooi, which is a very closely related species. Luckily Commons already had an image from a source that I trust. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat: I tweaked the URL in ref 2, since what you had was giving me a "Page Not Found" error, and did some reference formatting; and it looks OK to me. I'd say go ahead and submit it. Deor (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a peek to see whether there are any other categories/projects I should have added to the submission? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat: I'm terrible at categorization and Wikiproject tagging, as I rarely pay attention to such things. When the article is accepted (as I assume it will be, since species are presumed notable), you or other editors will no doubt fill in gaps and otherwise add to the article. Deor (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I meant for the submission itself, since it appears those are relevant to getting eyes on it and hopefully being approved. No worries if that's not your thing.

Thanks for the mention of species being notable - I was wondering about that, since countless new ones are being identified with the advances in sequencing. It seems the minimum requirement for a stub is simply having at least one reliable source (accepted by the academic community) supporting its existence? I've seen some upheld against the opinions of others experienced in those fields, when they were little more than a brief description taken nearly verbatim from said source. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Biological species are very much a special case. See WP:Notability (species) for details, but the short form is that, in contrast to most other things, species are inherently notable. This leads to a lot of very, very short species articles, but someday biologists will presumably let us fill them out. (As a biologist myself, I predict that every single one will turn out to be weird and interesting. Life is like that.)

The main reason for categories on a submission is to catch the attention of reviewers who are interested in the topic, thus getting a quicker review. If you type "Category:Fungi" into the Wikipedia search bar you will get an eyeful of fungus categories. But I think the three you already have are pretty good. Anyone browsing the queue looking for fungi will surely notice those. M kuhner (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

They did, and it just got published!

I don't plan to go out of my way looking for obscure species to add - lord knows that would easily be a lifetime project - but I'll try to drop in a stub whenever I stumble across one that's needed, to make it easier for others to flesh out over time. I'm mildly surprised this wasn't already created at the same time as A. buckmacadooi, considering they're nearly identical and common enough that they're some of the most frequent ID requests during peak season. I'll try to work on expanding this one to be on par with that. It's simple enough since it's straightforward and well sourced; mostly just slow going because I have to learn basics as I go (such as figuring out citation tools to avoid having to enter them all manually). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on the article! And if you keep any poor soul from eating one of these it will be work very well done.M kuhner (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully! Species in that section typically aren't fatal, but they can definitely give you a very bad time. Many Agaricus species are edible so it's not unusual for newbies to mistake them for others. I'd never recommend Wikipedia for ID purposes, but it's a great resource for learning more once they are identified, and I've found it increasingly helpful with all the taxonomical changes in recent years because the crowdsourcing allows it to be updated faster then conventional sites. Now I'm part of that crowd! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

If I want to link external link which best suits the paragraph. How do I know that this site is worthy to be added there? MeasuredEdits (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@MeasuredEdits With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Does WP:EL help? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@MeasuredEdits, I think you're trying to add a citation, but I'm not sure. Could you show us the article (and paragraph) you want to add a link to, as well as the link you think might be suitable there? Meadowlark (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is referenced with the article for Procore (construction software), yet it doesn't exist on Wikipedia? Either the Christian NGO should be credibly defined, or it should be removed IMO. ~2026-38746-74 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines on this are at WP:Red link. If there is likely to be an article on that topic someday, policy is to keep the red link, both to draw attention to an article that needs to be written, and to preserve the connection for when the article does get written.

If you have done a search for sources and are fairly sure that Christian NGO is not notable enough for an article, it would be appropriate to remove the red link: otherwise I'd recommend leaving it.

Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia! M kuhner (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ~2026-38746-74. The mention of a Christian NGO at Procore#Philanthropy is a reference to Habitat for Humanity, mentioned earlier in the sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

What method is appropriate to move a draft to mainspace when the draft is intended as a new version of an already existing article? Is there a way to do this such that the edit history and talk page of the old article (and also, if possible, those of the draft) are preserved? Algebra-de-Borel (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Which article are you planning to replace? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Algebra-de-Borel, see WP:ROBIN for the details about doing a round-robin swap. This will keep both versions intact. Hope this helps. Hemmingweigh (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Algebra-de-Borel, are you perhaps asking about this fait accompli (to Martin's axiom)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, no; is there an issue with that addition to that page? Algebra-de-Borel (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Not obviously so, Algebra-de-Borel. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Algebra-de-Borel: I assume you're referring to Filters in topology and Draft:Filters in topology?

I don't know if I'm looking this wrong, but my answer would be that you cannot move a draft into the main article space if it's on a subject that already exists there, because we can't have two articles on the exact same subject. If there's something seriously wrong with the existing article, eg. it's a clear copyright violation, then you may be able to get it deleted, after which you could (technically at least) publish a new version in its place. But that scenario is a bit hypothetical. And you almost certainly couldn't get the existing article deleted just because you have a 'better' or your preferred version to replace it with.

The usual paradigm is that existing articles are developed and improved – 'evolution rather than revolution' – by editing the live article. You can, of course, make offline edits and then copypaste them into the live article when ready, but if you're planning to copypaste an entire article in one go, you're quite likely to get pushback from others, especially if someone takes issue with any part of what you've written.

There's also an issue (assuming we're talking about the draft I linked above) in that there appear to have been somewhere in the region of 130 edits to that draft, after the most recent edit to the live article, and at least some of these are by two other editors besides you. Therefore to retain the provenance we would probably need to do a history merge of the two, although I can't recall ever having done one quite like this.

Does anyone who actually knows this stuff (!) have any thoughts on this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

My only way of "knowing this stuff" is to agree with you that removing and replacing an article is the wrong thing to do, and editing it to improve it is the right thing. It is true that these might eventually lead to the same result, but there's rarely any reason to use the wrong method.

@Algebra-de-Borel - I suggest that you take the material you have and use it as your guide for how you want to edit the existing article. Do your editing in small pieces; that way, if someone doesn't like one of the changes you make, they have an easy way to revert just the part they have a problem with instead of the whole thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to make clear that I have not asked for a merge to be performed at this time. I was trying to be proactive to understand if anything like the change that I and multiple other editors eventually intended would be possible. Perhaps it was premature to ask that question here. Algebra-de-Borel (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was saying that you have asked for a merge, nor is one being currently carried out AFAIK. And it wasn't premature to ask a question: it's better to ask if you have a question in mind, than not to ask.

All I was saying is that since the new content in the draft now incorporates the work of multiple editors, you couldn't (and I'm not even saying you were suggesting this, or at least I'm not sure) just copypaste the current version of the draft and overwrite the published article, we would need to merge the histories to keep a record of the entire provenance. That's all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! I created a draft (Draft:Khawli ibn Yazid al-Asbahi) and it should contains accessible references which other users can review, but I didn't find any accessible reference. What will happen to the draft? Thanks :) ألفريدو (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You will need to show everyone how to find the same pages you are reading. Can your references be found in public libraries? Can they be bought in a bookstore? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Good evening! I'm interested in writing and publishing a biographical article regarding Elisa Salas, a living Mexican calligram artist. In theory, I should have around 21 sources, 15 sources that meet WP:GNG, and 11 of those that meet WP:BASIC. She has had extensive coverage throughout her career by Milenio, an independent source, and has had national coverage from even more sources. Is this enough for her to be considered a "Notable" figure? Please keep in mind, this is my first time writing an article from scratch. Thanks in advance. PabloTamborrel (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are correctly describing these sources, that sounds like plenty. But we have to take your word on their quality. If you could pick out the best three and put them here, that would really help us make an evaluation. (Good on you for looking for sources first! That's the way to do it.) M kuhner (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner, I picked these three as my most notable:

A source by Reforma: Link to the article (This one covers the unveiling of a sculpture)

another by Milenio: Link to the article (This one covers the theft of said sculpture, which shows that this coverage was news-worthy)

And a last by an independent editorial: Link to the article (Note that this article is 5 years older than the others, showing long-time independent coverage)

All these are in Spanish. Thanks! PabloTamborrel (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The Reforma is an awful lot of "the artist says" (as best I can figure out with limited Spanish). The Milenio has very little about her. The Cascarita is better than either of those--I'd be inclined to count it toward notability. (Disclaimer: I am not a biography expert.) You will really need to dig through your sources and find ones that are not just quoting the artist. Best wishes for the article! M kuhner (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just noticed that in retrospect. I'll look into finding more that aren't just parroting. Here's another one I just found by Millenio:

https://www.milenio.com/cultura/milenio-arte/elisa-salas-homenajea-a-los-poetas-malditos PabloTamborrel (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This one also parrots, actually. I'd say it does so significantly less, though. Hard to find Mexican sources that aren't just quoting stuff word-by-word... PabloTamborrel (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@PabloTamborrel The gold standard for a source is aptly described at WP:Golden rule. In short, your sources need to be;

• Reliable - i.e., we have no reason to believe the information is false or published in return for payment or something. This one is usually the one people get caught up on, because it's an important one, but reliability alone does not make a source suitable for establishing notability.
• Independent - i.e., produced with no involvement from or cooperation with the subject whatsoever. People often cite interviews in "independent publications" and think that counts; it doesn't. It's not about whether the entity publishing the source is independent of the subject, it's about whether the coverage is independent of the subject. So interviews don't count, paid pieces don't count, bios published by museums/galleries the artist has worked with don't count, etc. The coverage needs to have no connection or affiliation whatsoever to the subject of the article.
• Significant - it must discuss the subject in-depth. Passing mentions in the context of "local artist unveils statue" or the likes don't count. The coverage needs to directly discuss the subject in some depth.

Athanelar (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like an impressive list of sources. How many of the sources contain quotations from Elisa Salas? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily a deal breaker, context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Quotations are certainly not a deal breaker. They're often useful. But I asked in case the answer turns out to be "almost all of these articles are interview-based" - which likely would be a deal breaker. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This could be an issue, but I still have a lot of sources that aren't "interview-based" as you describe them to be. PabloTamborrel (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Having some with interviews is fine, but only after there are enough in which the reporter is writing alone without assistance from Salas. The very best sources would be articles called "The career of Elisa Salas" that Salas herself never knew about, because the reporters worked alone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

An editor, Beatrack has removed sourced content from the Women in Islam article on the 6th and 7th of July, 2026. I am inexperienced, so please look at the sentences and sources that he has removed and restore what you deem fit (please look at what he removed on the 6th also).-~2026-38904-02 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38904-02 Seeing that some of those reverts were made in haste...? I'll see and discuss with Beatrack. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 10:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:USERNOCAT

Why does this exist? I get that sandboxes aren't main articles, but I added categories in my sandbox as a form of preparation, only for it to get deleted. Underdwarf58 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The categories are for finding actual articles. Sandboxes are intentionally not findable by that kind of method because the stuff in sandboxes is expected to be incomplete, and is also often wrong.

If you needed a repair shop, and your maps app directed you to where someone has been trying to build a repair shop but with no success, you wouldn't be satisfied. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you lost text which you wish to salvage, see instructions at WP:Requests for undeletion. M kuhner (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Underdwarf58. If you add a category in a page then the page is shown on the category page. After your page was listed in Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country) but that category is for readers of the encyclopedia and should not contain user pages. You can use {{Draft categories}} if you want the category to be linked on the page without listing the page in the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

where do i create a email to send at Ali1Smith (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ali1Smith,

The Wikipedia Teahouse is a place to ask questions about Wikipedia editing. Do you have such a question? Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 00:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ali1Smith. If you want to send an email to a Wikipedia user then look for a menu icon near the top right of their user page or use Special:EmailUser, but we usually communicate via talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have seen that the League of Fifth International had dissolved. But actually, in December 2025, L5I announced it had participated in the Third World Congress of the International Socialist League (LIS) and that they had agreed to join the LIS on the basis of a newly agreed common programme. The join had not happened so far. The website for the League of Fifth International is still active and dosen’t have a important text saying it had dissolved. And even if the Fifth International did joined the LIS, this dosen’t mean that the Fifth International had dissolved. The Fifth International can exist within LIS. ~2026-38877-71 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I have edited this article to reflect the available information and added this discussion in the talk page of this article. ~2026-38877-71 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat has edited the article to include only “is”, and they noted in the talk page of this article that “there’s no evidence for dissolution at this time”. ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: League for the Fifth International Probably the best place to make these points is at Talk:League for the Fifth International Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

update: I deleted my first question, as someone has fixed it. Sorry about that...

Second question: Someone found an image for the page File:Susie Pop image.jpg but the copyright says it can only be used for English Wikipedia. It wouldn't let me add it to the Spanish page. Does anyone know if that can be done? Thanks for your help! Slava570 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia has their own policies. You would have to convince the Spanish Wikipedia community to change their mind on that DS (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Slava570. File:Susie Pop image.jpg was uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale for the article Susie Pop. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't allow local uploads at all. It can only use files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at commons: but they only allow files with a free license so File:Susie Pop image.jpg cannot be used. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, got it. I appreciate the responses! Slava570 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I know there is probably a good reason as to not do this, so I'm more curious than anything about which policy prohibits links to or mentions of relevant video archives to a certain page. Specifically, this was sparked because I had initially thought to edit request some inclusion or brief mention to various video archival websites to Gaza Genocide (eg: ArchiveGenocide.com), because I facially thought it might be important confirmation for the authenticity of deaths, especially children's deaths, in the genocide. I hesitated and came here, my intuition told me it's hardly likely to get accepted, but I'm curious as to why specifically it wouldn't pass; disturbing? extraneous? un-encyclopedic? MagiTagi (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines for this are at WP:External links. Because this is a contentious topic, it would be a good idea to start a Talk page discussion before proceeding. M kuhner (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe the relevant pages' talk pages are edit request only, so this kind of thing is closed off to higher access levels (I Think (TM)). Or is there a different place for this? MagiTagi (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@MagiTagi, my first concern would be reliability. On the 'Sources' page I see the statement [t]hese accounts have been vetted by our community, which does not suggest strong editorial oversight. They also allow anyone to submit videos; they do say that the videos are reviewed by their team before being posted, but we know nothing about that team. Is there editorial oversight? Do reliable sources treat this source as reliable? Those things can make a big difference.

Although I have not viewed any of these videos, I also suspect many if not all are likely to be WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources whenever possible, especially in a contentious topic. I'd be shocked if a primary source video stayed in an article about Gaza for more than a few seconds, honestly. I think your intuition was spot-on. Meadowlark (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really get the doubt over the editorial oversight, primary sources for coverage like this ends up being the only coverage a lot of the time, though I understand it as a policy MagiTagi (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the coverage is important, we expect that reliable sources will pick it up - newspapers or books, for example - and those sources will have strong editorial oversight that means we can be pretty confident that what they report is correct. This often means it takes them longer to produce their reporting, because they need to take time to do fact-checking and cross-referencing, but that's fine for Wikipedia's purposes. There's a lot more about why we want reliable sources and editorial oversight at WP:RS, if you want to read up on it. Meadowlark (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

that's a lot of weight put on a "we expect" for a historically, extraordinarily undercovered, or impartially covered, topic.

I obviously understand why Wikipedia has RS, and I've read the page before, but the reasons cited for AG.com having unreliable editorial oversight I just don't get.

How does the community disclaimer lead you to believing it has weak EO? or no EO just because they don't have a publicly listed EO team? MagiTagi (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The community disclaimer suggests the possibility of user-generated content and also a possible lack of a dedicated, experienced editorial team (Wikipedia relies on community review too, and we're not reliable; if their process is the same as ours, that's a problem). Usually places with strong EO tend to, well, name their editorial team. Of course, I can also see why these guys may not wish to. That's why the other things I mentioned included whether other reliable sources treat the site as a reliable source - if they trust it, then we usually lean towards doing the same.

All I'm doing is telling you what I've seen applied before; I'm not at all invested in this source being reliable or otherwise. If you raise it at WP:RSN, you'll get more opinions and probably people interested enough to dig into the situation and see whether they can find more information about how reliable the source is. Meadowlark (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that recommendation and your explanation, I might. MagiTagi (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Editorial oversight by the community means no person's job is on the line, and no publisher's good reputation is at stake. Wikipedia relies on exactly those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

9th July 2026 in Zlín, Czech Republic, fire occured, causing two sections to collapse, firefigthers expected the collapse to happen during fire, building cannot be saved, these are the following sources used in the Czech Wikipedia:

• https://www.idnes.cz/zlin/zpravy/zlin-pozar-areal-svit-hasici-zasah-izs.A260709_085425_zlin-zpravy_slv
• https://zlinsky.denik.cz/nehody/zlin-hasici-pozar-budova-cream-areal-svit-zasahuje-pres-tricet-jednotek/
• https://www.novinky.cz/clanek/krimi-v-centru-zlina-hori-vyskova-budova-v-arealu-byvaleho-svitu-hasici-vyhlasili-3-stupen-poplachu-40587234
• https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/ve-zline-hori-jedna-z-budov-byvaleho-batovskeho-tovarniho-arealu-na-miste-nejsou_2607090921_kma
• https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/clanek/regiony/ve-zline-hori-budova-v-byvalem-arealu-batovych-zavodu-375391

-- ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

5.5 magnitude earthquake with a depth of 10 km hit Czech Republic and Slovakia, and a 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit near Vanuatu

Sources for Wikipedia:

• https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2026/07/09/earthquake-of-magnitude-55-strikes-czech-republic-and-slovakia
• https://www.ynetnews.com/article/zrq60vrab
• https://breakingthenews.net/Article/5.5-magnitude-earthquake-shakes-Czechia/66668929
• https://news.az/news/55-magnitude-quake-hits-czech-republic-and-slovakia https://news.az/news/magnitude-58-quake-hits-near-vanuatu

-- ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

https://gdacs.org/report.aspx?eventid=1550772&episodeid=1716973&eventtype=EQ ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

https://earthquaketoday.org/vanuatu/isangel-vanuatu-M5.8-us6000tawe https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000tawe ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. If an editor deems this earthquake notable, they will make an article. You do not need to report on every news item. qcne (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne The breakingthenews.net article has more information than the rest, i’m finding a good source on the Vanuatu Earthquake. ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but you don't have to post this here. If you want to work on developing an article, feel free to start a draft. qcne (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@QcneIt dosen’t have to be a new article, but on a existing article. ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to edit an existing article if you wish to- you do not have to keep cluttering up this board. qcne (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Im on mobile so i added this text but i cant source editing below the lead section, so i had to use the visual editor and put the text in. But its obviously incorrect. ~2026-38997-79 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I want the source editing below the lead section to be allowed on mobile. Tell it to people that work on the mobile version. ~2026-38997-79 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is what another editor told me (I don't edit on mobile myself): If you click the normal edit button you will only edit the lead, but if you open Options and choose "Edit full page" you can edit the whole article. I learned this while we were cleaning up after someone with the same problem as you, so I agree, this is annoying.

If you want to get this issue in front of people who could fix it, you could post at WP:Village pump under the Technical tab. M kuhner (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhnerBut this only works for visual editing, and not source editing. In the source editing, there is not a option for this. ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Phooey. I am sorry to hear it. Have you been able to fix the problems in this article, or do you need specific help? M kuhner (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It works for both. There are options to edit the full page and switch from Visual to Source once you start editing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit But when i switch to Full page on visual editing, and switch back to source editing, it goes back to only the lead section, and the source editing dosen’t have a button for full page. ~2026-38776-98 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have the menu with three dots next to the "edit" button, does it have this "edit full page" icon? You have to start there. I haven't tried it while logged out yet. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon seems fine now. I am not interested in this other thing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Fortek67/userbox

My subpage has categories, how do I suppress them so they're only displayed at the parent page? Fortek67 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Fortek67, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The userbox templates all add the page to appropriate categories.

If you want to suppress that, at least some of them implement a parameter |nocat=true (quite likely all of them, but I haven't checked).

I don't think there's any way to make them add the parent page to the category instead, so if you want that, you'll have to edit the parent page to add the categories manually. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I know how it works, but I just at least want to remove them from the subpage. Seems I cant do that then? Fortek67 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If I'm reading the documentation aright, you add |nocat=true to each Userbox on the subpage that you don't want to add the subpage to the corresponding category. ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Well I'll do that and add every cat manually Fortek67 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67: If a userbox supports |nocat=true then you can write {{User Wikipedia/Autopatrolled|nocat={{Subpage other|true}}}} to only omit the category on the subpage. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That works exactly how I want it to! Thank you! {{User WP AI Cleanup}} doesn't seem to support it. What can I add to the template code to fix that? Fortek67 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67: I have added nocat support to {{User WP AI Cleanup}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:MLC 2026 the redirect isn't working CricketPlayer233 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

One would have to remove the stuff that's at the top of it, CricketPlayer233. But when shorn of that, it's a redirect to 2026 Major League Cricket Season ... which doesn't exist. Why redirect to a non-existent page? If you meant to redirect it elsewhere, then where? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

the word "Season" I accidentally capitalizef CricketPlayer233 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@CricketPlayer233 Fixed. If you're going to continue creating redirects in the future, please read WP:redirect, If you're unable to create a redirect, you can use WP:WIZR. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks CricketPlayer233 (Want to chat?) 02:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

i also made a mlc 2025 draft CricketPlayer233 (Want to chat?) 02:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi CricketPlayer233. This is not really related to your question per se but rather has to do with your WP:SIGNATURE. You might want to take a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P because it states that image files shouldn't be included in Wikipedia signatures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

dont get what that means CricketPlayer233 (Want to chat?) 03:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It means you need to remove the photo of a cricket bat you've added next to your username. Athanelar (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I make a new image CricketPlayer233 (Want to chat?) 15:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@CricketPlayer233 Do you mean, how do you upload an image to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? Please also remove the cricket bat image from your username signature. qcne (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@CricketPlayer233 It's not the bat that's the problem - you can't have an image in your signature at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No I mean just a picture not a photo or an image CricketPlayer233 (Want to chat?) 19:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, CricketPlayer233, for having removed the photo from your signature. Perhaps you're now asking how you might add a picture to your signature but not invite complaints about use of an image file. An example of this would be the 👍︎ that appears within my current signature. You'll find many more examples in Emoticons, Miscellaneous Symbols, Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A and Transport and Map Symbols. (NB there's no guarantee that a particular example would be properly displayed by your, my, or anyone's computer or phone.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

i want to make my signature to have blue gradient background background and green text with a speech bubble emoji next to "talk to the sixes". What is the code for that Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 22:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The easiest way for that type of thing is probably to find someone else's that you like, and copy their method. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/CricketPlayer233 shows, CricketPlayer233, that you have made 29 edits, many of them to this page. Maybe improve some articles before bothering to prettify your signature? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right, but in the bigger picture of Wikipedia, wanting a pretty signature is one of the smallest and most innocuous wastes of time we have. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

.nhals8 has a nifty one that I mistook for an image earlier, because I didn't realize CSS could be used to create something like that! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

i just can't find stuff that need improving Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 22:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

On all of Wikipedia?

Your homepage should have suggested newcomer tasks available. This link ought to take you there. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this edit on the page Shinji Kagawa and am unsure whether I should revert it or if it just needs copy editing. It clearly has promotional language and, for a page already tagged as having an excessive amount of detail, seems too detailed. Freddieh9 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to read, or at least machine-translate, the Japanese source? That might clarify matters, though even if there is good agreement with the source, I agree that this sounds overly promotional and subjective. Also I do not like "reportedly" attached to a speculation like that: for the expression of a specific source's subjective opinion, that source should be called out in the text. The example usually given: "Roger Ebert said that this was a terrific movie" cannot be replaced by "This was a terrific movie" with an inline citation to Roger Ebert.

I recommend boldly reverting or rewriting, once, and then discussing on the talk page if this is contested. M kuhner (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I will revert the edit. My main qualm with it was that it went into too much detail. Also along the lines of translating it, this edit appears to be a translation (whether machine or user I can't tell) of the Japanese Wikipedia which the user has also contributed to (the edits there are roughly the same number of bytes). Freddieh9 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What citation template should for this report? In general, how should I go about finding the right template for my purposes, citation or otherwise? Gebble (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble This is a bit odd, IMO. The link you provided goes to what is probably a copyright violation, since there is a section which says: Suggested citation: Whitehead, B. & Pearson, M. (2006). Making a Love Connection: Teen Relationships, Pregnancy, and Marriage. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen and unplanned Pregnancy. Design: Nancy Bratton Design, www.nancybrattondesign.com Copyright 2006 by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and unplanned Pregnancy. All rights reserved. ISBN: 1-58671-063-X. That makes it look like a book but I can't find that title or ISBN at Google books or Amazon. Nevertheless the template {{cite book}} is probably best: just don't link that URL. For the general case, see Help: referencing for beginners Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm planning on citing it because it seems to be the origin of the phrase "success sequence" in reference to an influential anti-poverty "formula." The author of this article about the formula points to a dead, unarchived link which nonetheless seems to suggest that same pdf was available for public consumption. Is it a copyright violation to link the pdf if it's publicly hosted by the publisher for public consumption? I doubt the publisher would ever be interested in enforcing their copyright against a use case like this, but I suppose that's beside the point. Gebble (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The URL you supplied was hosted by healthymarriageinfo.org, which I'm not convinced is the same as "The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and unplanned Pregnancy". The fact that the URL also includes "wp-content" makes me even more suspicious that someone is ignoring copyright law, which Wikipedia tries hard not to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

So let's say I cite that source. The National Campaign, now Power To Decide, no longer provides legitimate access to that publication. How could someone verify my well-justified reference without violating copyright law? Gebble (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble By going to a library or paying to purchase it, whether from Amazon or elsewhere. Wikipedia doesn't insist that it be easy or cheap to verify sources: see WP:OFFLINE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think The Dibble Institute is the publisher, or related to it in any other capacity. As far as I can tell it's just another organization with similar goals who may or may not have had permission to host the PDF at one point in time. Regardless, you can still use the information as long as it meets general requirements for reliable sourcing, and the safest thing to do would be to cite it as a book, as it suggests. WP:GOODFAITH applies to sources too, and there's no reason for anyone to question the validity of your edits unless they access the source themselves (one way or another) and are unable to verify the information. There's plenty of excellent information that isn't available online - or is paywalled, if it is - and it's still perfectly acceptable to use as long as the person making the additions has access. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: I did not think The Dibble Institute was the publisher, I was imagining perhaps that Power To Decide may have an unindexed link to their old publication. WP:OFFLINE irks my OCD and I want to provide a link whenever possible. I'm satisfied that there does, in fact, seem to be at least two extant print copies in the US. Gebble (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think if it's publicly hosted by the publisher for public consumption is a good assertion to make, in that case. It's entirely possible they have a PDF form for internal use or that they allow other nonprofits to use within their organizations, but that it was never intended for public hosting in any space. If they wanted it to be freely available I suspect they would in fact have done so on their own site. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I found it at Amazon here with a better ISBN Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm looking for advice on the appropriate process rather than requesting that anyone make edits.

I work for Dover Corporation and submitted a conflict of interest (COI) edit request on the Talk page for the Dover Corporation article several months ago. I disclosed my COI, proposed the edits on the Talk page rather than editing directly, and supported the request with reliable sources, including Dover's SEC Form 10-K and Fortune's 2025 Fortune 500 listing.

The request primarily seeks to update routine factual information, including FY2025 financial data in the infobox and the company's 2025 Fortune 500 ranking. The request has not received any comments or review despite being open for several months. I have also posted a request at WikiProject Companies and contacted one editor who had recently worked on the article, but I don't want to continue reaching out to individual editors if that would be inappropriate.

Is there another venue or maintenance process that is recommended for obtaining review of a long-pending COI edit request, or is the best course simply to continue waiting?

Thank you for any guidance. SVeatch (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@SVeatch In short, Wikipedia is not a business directory and keeping your financial figures up-to-date is not high on the priority list of most of our volunteer editors. Please advise whichever manager is bugging you about this that you have no way to speed up this process and it will get done when it gets done. Athanelar (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Thanks for the perspective. I understand that Wikipedia relies on volunteer editors and that requests are handled based on availability and priorities. I was mainly looking for guidance on the appropriate process for a long-pending COI request and wanted to make sure I was following Wikipedia guidelines rather than seeking special treatment. Appreciate the advice. SVeatch (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no process for expediting long-pending requests, I'm afraid. Every one of the 400-something people waiting for their COI edit request to be handled no doubt thinks it's been too long and that they have very good reason to want their request handled ASAP. It's just as you said; we are volunteers working on building this encyclopedia with our own time, and there are simply not all that many people who want to dedicate their limited number of editing-hours (which is thankless, unpaid work at the best of times) to helping companies maintain their public image (the type of thing which normally carries a sizeable paycheck).

There are a million websites out there which are business directories whose entire service is maintaining pages for companies with up-to-date information like this. I would suggest your company seek out those sorts of services. Athanelar (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, long waits just kinda come with the territory of COI edit requests. My main advice would be to use the <nowiki>, <code>, <sub>, and <ins> tags to better highlight your changes see my reply, there's a better way. Though there's some good news, due to the composition of the editorbase, response times should get better once school starts back up. (I know I at least will be editing a lot more then) ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 21:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, using {{Text Diff}} is way better. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 21:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The backlog of COI requests is currently very high -- nearly 500 requests, as you can see on your request template. That means it may take 4 to 6 months to have the request responded to. You already pinged an editor when you made the request -- not a great idea and tends to alienate people; best to wait a while before trying to solicit a specific editor. Since you already posted a note at WikiProject Companies, I think your only option is to wait and be patient. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As someone who does COI edit requests, I don't mind when people tag me when they have new requests. So long as they're polite (which the vast majority of requesters are), it's usually a good way to know about what's probably going to be a high quality request. (As pinging editors who previously performed requests is generally an indicator of experience) ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 22:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to editing and wanted to ask about creating or expanding an article on ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software used in the palm oil industry, particularly in Indonesia. Is this a notable enough topic for its own standalone article, or would it fit better as a section within an existing article like Palm oil production or Enterprise resource planning? What kind of independent, reliable sources would I need to demonstrate notability? VijayLChavda (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You would need to find reliable published information about the ERP, but in public sources, not industry sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. Just to confirm - would something like coverage in a national business newspaper (e.g. Indonesian business press) or an academic paper on agribusiness digitization count as independent, or does it need to be specifically about ERP software rather than mentioning it as part of a broader industry trend? VijayLChavda (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's more about how much information is provided. It doesn't need to SOLELY be about that topic, but it does need to discuss it extensively as opposed to a brief mention. Academic papers (ideally with no conflicts of interest) are often excellent sources. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that what you mean is that you want to write an article about the company you work for, since your user page says you work for an ERP software company.

In short, please don't. Your company, like the vast majority of companies in the world, is probably not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. If it were, then neither you nor anyone connected with the company would be the right person to write it anyway. See WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clear guidance — that makes sense. I'll drop the idea of creating or expanding an article related to my employer and focus on other ways to contribute to Wikipedia instead. VijayLChavda (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You should completely stop using an LLM to edit or communicate on Wikipedia like you appear to be doing now. It is not allowed per WP:LLMTALK and WP:LLM. Even if Wikipedia accepted a general article about the topic, it is extremely unlikely that it could even mention or cite the company ROCKEYE unless it has substantial coverage in independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you alerting me of the LLM policies. To be clear, I am not writing my comments or revisions using an LLM; rather, going forward, I will maintain a more organic and straightforward writing style to prevent any misunderstandings. VijayLChavda (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is obviously, flagrantly untrue. If you aren't directly using an AI chatbot, you're obviously using some kind of AI translation tool, or an AI "correction" tool like Grammarly. Athanelar (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am using Grammarly for grammar and spell-checking, but I write all the text myself. I wasn't aware that using basic writing assistants violated the policy. I will disable the tool for my Wikipedia edits and write purely unassisted from now on. VijayLChavda (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately the line between simple spellcheck tools and those utilizing AI to suggest changes has gotten extremely blurry, so it's best to err on the safe side unless it's one that explicitly states no AI is involved (and I've yet to find one that does). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I'll completely disable my spellcheck/grammar extensions whenever I'm editing here to be absolutely safe. Thank you for the clarification and the advice! VijayLChavda (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This really still seems AI to me. For example the above I will maintain a more organic and straightforward writing style to prevent any misunderstandings. is the kind of thing that AI chatbots tend to tell people to say when they're accused of AI use, it's not the type of thing people normally say of their own volition. See WP:STYLISTIC. Your writing style/grammar/spelling also hasn't noticeably changed at all in these two comments since you said you would stop using whatever assistance you're using.

Are you certain that you are now communicating with us entirely in your own words, without the use of Grammarly or any AI tool whatsoever? Athanelar (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Athanelar, I will use my own words to write anything in future, English is not my first language so make mistake thats why i used some tools but now i will not use any tools and need your help to grow here. I want to add my fitst article here related any news or something will you help me? again thanks for your support and correction. VijayLChavda (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Your English is perfectly fine and easy to understand, and everyone here is much happier to communicate with you in your own words rather than through the words of a chatbot.

Writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, especially for someone who's not confident in their ability with English. If you want to participate here on the English Wikipedia, I would suggest you start smaller. You can read Help:Contributing to Wikipedia for some ideas.

You might also like to contribute to the version of Wikipedia in your primary language. There are other Wikipedia projects in many other languages, which are usually much smaller than the English Wikipedia and more in need of contributors. Since you're based in Indonesia, maybe the Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia or Javanese Wikipedia might suit you. Based on your name I suppose you might also be of Indian origin: there are Wikipedia projects in Hindi, Punjabi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada... whatever language you speak, there's probably a Wikipedia for it which could use your help. Athanelar (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind of support, My first language is not English but i speak very well but got mistake on grammar that's why. I have good experience to write a blog on my website also i listen some where Wikipedia is very strict they not publish your content that's why i fear and use Grammarly to send msg here. If you give me one chance to write something here or publish my any 1 blog its inspire me here also increase my writing style. again thanks for your kind of support and guide. VijayLChavda (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have useful information to contribute and understand how sourcing works, there are plenty of people who would be happy to review your work and clean up the grammar before it's submitted. Your sandbox is a great place to get started - I've gone ahead and created it for you. Feel free to come back here and ask people to look things over or ask for help with specific things you don't understand. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @VijayLChavda for writing normally. I appreciate it too. I compare these two ways of writing to making dinner: your own writing is like food that may need a little salt sometimes, while your AI writing is like food made of plastic. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Or Soylent Green ;) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Ha Ha, Well said, Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate the laugh. VijayLChavda (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Im new to editing. I saw something that really bothered me in this article. It was a bad citation (3) which was related to potentially bad medical advice. I'm hoping someone can help me. ~2026-38906-91 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to Chamomile? The third citation for ...commonly used to make herbal infusions for beverages links to Drugs.com, which is generally considered a reliable source for medical information. The statement here is not phrased as advice, merely an observation - just because something is commonly done does not necessarily mean it is recommended.

If you're referring to something else, please link to it directly so we can see what you're talking about. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have a concern about an article or its referencing, and don't know how to proceed, it's generally best to post your question or request on the talkpage of that article. Citation number 3 seems to be a reliable independent source, so your best bet is to take up your concern on the talkpage of the article. Or, alternatively, just make up your own mind about your own health choices, preferably with the aid of a medical professional -- your own personal life choices are outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

We do have some responsibility to remove potentially dangerous medical advice, ideally in an expedient manner - but I don't see any of that here. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

.....Is the following material shown here article worthy?: As of 7-8-2026, Youtube has been grossly malfunctioning, and I have seen some of this on Google, and have seen the malfunctions myself, such as it freezing, black screens, videos being lost, videos refusing to play, the site timing out prematurely. Is this related to Increased Solar Activities? Or is Youtube doing something that could be really interesting? You would not believe what is on Google regarding this matter. IF this is article worthy, can the sources shown on Google be used IF there is really anything going on? Since I am a newbie, the article itself may be protected (Seen the little lock next to the pencil icon). Appreciate the assistance. ~2026-39150-63 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If something is happening, we are not the place to break that news. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If major reliable news outlets are reporting major problems with YouTube, well beyond routine glitches, then it may be worth mentioning in the article. Many things that pop up in a Google search are not fit for Wikipedia, especially rumors and speculation. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

See also: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. As Cullen said, lots of news DOES make it onto Wikipedia sooner or later, but not immediately - usually it's at least a few days (depending on how major something is and how many editors are interested in contributing to it) so that reliable secondary sources can be published, compiled, and evaluated, to determine what DID actually happen and whether it's truly notable. For situations like this if it turned out to be something like a major foreign hacking incident (purely an example, not a suggestion), that would most likely be added, but a simple technical glitch within their servers probably wouldn't. Think about whether people will still remember or care about it a year from now, or five, or a decade. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a French user and I have just completed a partial English translation of an existing French Wikipedia page: “Définitoire de l’abbaye de Cîteaux”. I published the translation, but it is indicated that it has been published “as a personal draft” and is therefore not available online. Does anyone know what steps I need to follow to have this translated page published? Do I need to translate the entire French version first, or does it require a review by another contributor? Many thanks in advance for your help! Cistel (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I will shortly move the draft to draft space(the preferred location for drafts, which can be accessed via the Article Wizard) and add the information needed to submit it for a review. The French Wikipedia has its own policies which differ from ours, so a review is needed. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It is now at Draft:Definitoire and may be submitted. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't find this info anywhere, sorry! zoʊnd.beɪsɚ (approxximately) *They/Them/Themself* tɑk 08:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:Drafts says Anyone, including users who are not logged in, can create and edit drafts. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

are you sure the edit portion of that sentence covers drafts created by others? I interpreted it as referring to the user's own draft, but I could be wrong. zoʊnd.beɪsɚ (approxximately) *They/Them/Themself* tɑk 08:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why DRAFT space exists, as opposed to a user's personal sandbox. Anyone can edit any draft in draft-space on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks! zoʊnd.beɪsɚ (approxximately) *They/Them/Themself* tɑk 09:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Zonedbaser A little advice: check if the creator is active, and if so, ask them on their talkpage if they are ok with you editing it. You don't have to, but it can be appreciated and avoid dispute. If they haven't edited in weeks or months, go ahead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically you can edit in other user spaces too, including their sandbox, but aside from the TP you ought to have a pretty good reason for doing so. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

My draft page, Draft:Vidya Bhavani Suresh has been pending for review for almost 3 weeks now. I just wanted to check if there is any issue or anything I can do to expedite the review. This is not the first review, I have resubmitted after resolving the comments noted by the earlier reviewers. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Salutations!

while improving and editing the article is encouraged, you don’t have to. On AfC usually the obviously bad or good articles are accepted or rejected first, while those in the middle take usually longer times for review.

I don’t see much to improve on in your article after a cursory inspection, however you’re free to expand and edit it to your heart’s content.

Happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 02:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Last time around, Mahithasuresh1, it was failed for inadequate referencing. After its lead, the draft's first assertion is: Vidya Bhavani Suresh began training in Bharatanatyam at the age of five under the gurus The Dhananjayans and subsequently K. J. Sarasa, completing twelve years of formal study before her arangetram (debut public performance) at the age of sixteen. This comes with two references. Each is to a source that's merely an interview with the subject of the draft. Not at all a good start. I suggest that you remove references to sources that aren't independent of VBS, and that you then remove material that is unreferenced. ¶ Is it just a coincidence that your username contains "suresh"? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Strike-out Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary The user declared COI on their userpage - so no coincidence. -- Maresa63 ^Talk 04:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Maresa63, I should have looked at the user page. (And apologies to Mahithasuresh1.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary No problem. Thank you for your inputs. I have updated the draft.Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mahithasuresh1 It appears to me that you still don't have legitimate sources. You in fact have far too many sources - but when I look at them I can't find even a single one that's good quality. Maybe there's a good one buried among the nearly-useless ones.

If you take away all sources where they have interviewed her or her husband (or where the article was written with any kind of input from them), and you take away all sources where she is only mentioned (such as syllabus entries showing her material), then what sources remain? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TooManyFingers , after removing the university syllabus prescriptions and the interviews, the following independent book reviews in reputed sources remain:

1. The Hindu

i. How to identify the Shuddha Madhyama ragas by T.R. Sudha (July 2022) - review of Melakarthas Part 1

ii. Understanding the finer nuances of Prati Madhyama ragas by T. R. Sudha (April 2023) - review of Melakarthas Part 2

iii. A handbook on the nuances of Bharatanatyam (May 2024) - review of A Comprehensive Dictionary of Bharatanatyam

2. Deccan Chronicle

i. Time for some Karnataka Shuddha Saveri by M.R.Venkatesh (Feb 2018) - review of 50 Rare Ragas of Carnatic Music

ii. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Bharatanatyam by R. Mohan (April 2024) - review of A Comprehensive Dictionary of Bharatanatyam

iii. Appreciating Bharatanatyam: A primer on multiple facets of the art form by Aarti Mohan (Apr 2025) - review of Appreciating Bharatanatyam

iv. Compositions important for listening experience of Carnatic Music (Apr 2026) - review of 30 Timeless Compositions of Carnatic Music

3. The Week

i. Poses of Life (Aug 2019) - review of What is Bharatanatyam?

ii. A dance dictionary for the uninitiated (May 2024) - review of A Comprehensive Dictionary of Bharatanatyam

4. Dinamalar

Melakarthas review (2022)

Appreciating Bharatanatyam review (2025)

30 Timeless Compositions review (2026)

5. Kumudam

30 Timeless Compositions review (Apr 2026)

6. The Hindu Tamizh Thisai

Melakarthas review (2022)

These represent 12+ critical independent reviews written independently by journalists and critics across 2018-2026 without any interview with the subject. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - this is a good step - now from these, which ones go into detail on the topic of Vidhya Bhavani Suresh herself? Ideally they would use her name in the title so that the article is all about her, but the title is not the point. It's about having her herself (not one of her works, but her as a person) being the primary topic of long detailed articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This draft aims to establish notability under WP:NAUTHOR, the guideline for authors, which requires significant coverage of their work rather than the person themselves. My understanding was that independent book reviews were the primary source of notability in this case.

For coverage of her as a person, The Better India, has a detailed write-up on her life and journey. While there are some quotes from her, the article primarily features independent third-party opinions from people influenced by Vidya and her work. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mahithasuresh1 Are you using a WP:LLM to write your responses? TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 13:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

No, these are my own words. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

There is not a single source shared for Articles for deletion/Trump Towers Istanbul why it's marked as Keep. Can you please explain? I thought AFD works on logic+ votes, but it seems I am not able to understand the logic here. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Does the combination of deletion reason 7, this and this help, Lordofhunter? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Here are the "rules" for notability, which AFD assesses: WP:GNG. If you disagree with the non-admin close, you are free to take it to WP:DRV. However, the fact that you made the bad-faith (non-neutral) nomination, and the fact that the article is seemingly already well-cited and substantial reliable independent coverage is so easy to find (see Hoary's examples above), tends to weigh against any change in result, in my opinion. It behooves the nominator of an article to do WP:DILIGENCE prior to making an AFD nomination. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC); edited 08:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

-- but note, Lordofhunter, that disagreement with the close of an AfD (whoever closed it) is not sufficient reason to take the matter to "deletion review". Please see WP:Deletion review#Purpose for reasons that are acceptable and reasons that aren't. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hoary makes a good point. WP:DRV would not be appropriate, however you are free to renominate the article at AFD after a reasonable period. But the fact that your first nomination was clearly non-neutral and therefore in apparent bad faith, and the fact that you failed to do WP:DILIGENCE before that nomination, and the fact that the topic meets the standards set forth in WP:GNG, would likely mean that such a renomination would get you into wiki-trouble and boomerang on you. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hoary & Softlavender, I assure you I am operating in complete good faith, my purpose in the nomination was not disruption, but rather a genuine attempt to understand and apply the guidelines correctly. I accept the Admin's decision to close this as a "Keep," but I am hoping to learn from your experience so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. If the standard response to a nomination can simply be "just Google it, it's notable" it makes it difficult to understand where the threshold for WP:BURDEN actually lies.

My core confusion is this: Just having many mentions in reliable sources due to massive global branding, is that alone enough to qualify for WP:GNG, or should we also focus on the depth and nature of that coverage to ensure it actually discusses the physical structure itself in detail (its architecture, construction, and local impact) rather than just focusing on the licensing deal? Lordofhunter (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

AFD isn't about WP:BURDEN, it's about notability. which is covered in WP:GNG. Since you failed to do any WP:DILIGENCE and still don't seem to have done any on this subject or even read through the dozens of news articles Hoary posted, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on, especially since your (inaccurate) AFD rationale was "Everything is only an announcement due to the World Leader, Mr Trump." You don't even seem to have read GNG, which explains what substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and independent of each other means. If you don't understand GNG and don't wish to search for or read sources, you have no business nominating anything for AFD. If you want to improve the article in question or ask questions about what it should contain, the appropriate place to do that is the talkpage of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an AFD rationale. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lordofhunter Your core confusion on this topic is understandable, but you have a faulty understanding of what's making you confused. The links already provided are the true solution to your confusion if you would fully read them and understand them; unfortunately all of the misdirection and obfuscation on this subject is coming from you, not others. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers Thanks for helping me out. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Who is willing to volunteer and make a complete new wikipedia page for the organisation. ~2026-39108-88 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You can post on WP:Requested articles, but it is unlikely to be created from there. Generally, if the organisation is notable enough, someone will eventually create an article for it without being asked. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly decent article at pl:Polska_Macierz_Szkolna, so you might be better off seeking help for a translation. See WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. My account (Syedhashimpak) was created on 3 July 2026 at 11:31 UTC and has more than 10 edits on English Wikipedia. However, I still receive the error "You do not have permission to move pages" when trying to move my sandbox article to the main namespace. Could someone please check whether my account has become autoconfirmed or if there is another restriction? Syedhashimpak (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity as a new editor how did you know about the page move feature? Most new editors aren't aware of it—I only learned about it much later myself. Since the move option only becomes available after four days and ten edits, I m interested in how you came to know about it. BriefLaw (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your question. I actually learned about the page move feature while reading Wikipedia's help pages and by asking questions at the Teahouse during the process of creating my first article. I also received guidance from experienced editors, which helped me understand that autoconfirmed users can move pages from userspace or draft space to the main namespace. I'm still learning Wikipedia's policies and editing practices, so I appreciate the help from the community. Thanks again for your interest. Syedhashimpak (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

OMG, OMG! It seems like everyone is using ChatGPT to write their replies. Don't admins ever notice this? Even the last user Waft Creator who commented on talk page used AI to write their response. This is so unfair and just feels wrong. I want to hear your own words not something generated by AI. BriefLaw (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@BriefLaw In short; yes, we notice. See WP:AITALK which is our current official position on the matter. You might like to join WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup if this is something you're passionate about, and you can get involved with helping at the WP:AI noticeboard. Athanelar (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for considering this but i m actually more interested in reviewing articles, checking sources and add work. If there are any WikiProjects or groups focused on article review, sourcing, or reference improvement where extra help is needed, I’d be happy to contribute. Please do let me know if you think there’s a suitable place for me. BriefLaw (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@BriefLaw: that's what the WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup does. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Syedhashimpak.

I'm not a reviewer, but on a quick look at Draft:Abdul Samad (archaeologist), it looks to me as if you have made the mistakes that new editors nearly always make when they try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time acquiring the necessary skills and understanding.

It doesn't look to me as if many - probably none at all - of your sources meet the requirements of WP:42.

While it is not necessary for all sources to meet all of those requirements, the majority of cited sources should do so.

If you try to write an article without finding several such sources, and without basing the text wholly on what your sources say, then the draft will appear to be either promotional (if it says what the subject or their associates want people to know about them) or original research (if it says anything which is not found in at least one of the sources), or both. Neither of these is acceptable.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Syedhashimpak I note you appear to have removed the AfC banners and moved this not ready article to mainspace. The article also seems to show signs of AI use. Mme Maigret (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am seeking guidance regarding drafting the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Foundation article.

I am the chairman of the Foundation, so I have a conflict of interest, which I am disclosing. The draft has been declined because reviewers did not believe the available sources demonstrated organizational notability. Before making another submission, could an experienced editor please review the sources and advise: Which sources, if any, qualify as significant independent coverage? What material appears promotional or should be removed? Whether the Foundation currently meets Wikipedia’s organizational notability requirements? What specific changes would be necessary before resubmission? I am not asking for guaranteed approval. I would appreciate a candid assessment so that I do not repeatedly resubmit an inadequate draft.

Draft:Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Foundation Ryfi1992 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are operating under a fundamental- but common(so don't feel bad) misunderstanding about Wikipedia and what we do here. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself, its routine activities, and its offerings. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling of the activities of the organization and offers critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the organization, not what it views as its own importance.

Most of your sources are related to organizations that your organization gifted to. These are not independent sources, and just tell of the activities of your organization. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Ryfi1992, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. The Cantor's art collection, donations of Rodin sculptures and charitable foundation are already covered at B. Gerald Cantor and Iris Cantor. In order to create a separate article about the foundation, what is required are references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant, in depth coverage to the foundation itself. In this case, the word "independent" is all important. Coverage published by Museum A or University B verifying that the Cantors donated a Rodin sculpture or money for something else are not independent. The independence requirement is taken very seriously in general, but especially when a draft article is written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi all! I've noticed that a user has probably used machine translation on a bunch of wiki like here on the finnish wikipedia or here on the spanish wikipedia. The edit summaries seem to be copy-pasted and the text seems to go through something like Google translate, as it's a close match. For example, here's the (probably original) text and the french version which is an awkward translation of the english wiki version

Where should I report this? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Translating from other Wikipedias is allowed as long as acknowledgment is given, either in the edit summary or on the article Talk page. The message should say "Translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article such-and-such." If the editor is not giving that acknowledgment, please leave a message on their Talk page asking them to do so. If that doesn't solve the problem we can suggest ways to continue, but warn first. M kuhner (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner I'm talking about English to other language wikis without review, I only speak 2 languages so I cannot see if the other wikis' rules were respected ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I mistook the direction.

Two places you could look for help: WP:Local Embassy if the other-language Wikipedia has an embassy, and the WikiProject for that language or country, if there is one. M kuhner (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you kuhner for introducing me to that corner of wiki ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

actually, how do i use WP:Local Embassy? do i individually contact ambassadors for the language wiki in which that user has google translated text? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Scroll down to the second half of the Embassy page where individual ambassadors are listed, and, yes, contact one of them. I've seen it used successfully a few times, though there are no guarantees. M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It sits here... User:OVGreg/sandbox

I think it's ready for publish. User:OVGreg/sandbox What do you think? OVGreg (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Greg, and welcome to the Teahouse! It is rare that unelected political candidates meet our inclusion criteria for politicians, especially ones who haven't won a primary race yet. Autobiographies are also strongly discouraged (see WP:YOURSELF). My sincerest advice would be to wait for somebody else to create an article when the inclusion criteria is met. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I've moved your draft to Draft:Greg Guithues and added a submission template, so you can submit it, but I would definitely advise you not to. In addition to what Nil said, most of your sources link to your website, which is not acceptable. The majority of your sources should be independent (not connected to you). See WP:RS. The article also has a promotional tone.

In addition, as you have a conflict of interest with the subject of your article, you are required to disclose this. See WP:COI for instructions. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to add: being connected to you, in Wikipedia terms, is a very broad category - anyone who interviews you or receives information from you is suddenly connected to you, along with the more obvious things like business associates, friends and family, staff etc. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes I encounter things (mostly mathematical objects or theorems) and am like 'It would be nice if there was a Wikipedia article on this topic and doing the required research seems interesting' but then actually writing a Wikipedia article about that seems very daunting and this mental mountain to climb. Could some of you give me pointers in how to overcome this mental hurdle a bit better. And give a few criteria on a if those theorems and objectives should be added to existing articles, be there own article or are too specific for Wikipedia.

Welcome, @~2026-39087-80. If you like doing the research but, not surprisingly, find writing whole articles from scratch difficult, then why not take some topics you like and expand an existing article? That's usually much easier to do and often more useful to readers: many of our articles are incomplete or out-of-date. You could start with articles on things that are close to you geographically, for example (Special:Nearby if you are on a smartphone). Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I would add: The full-article thing is not a hurdle, it's a long uphill climb that you do slowly, and only if you care that much about Wikipedia. (How much you care about one topic is usually not enough to get a person up this particular hill.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

These are good ideas. Adding one bite-sized piece of an existing article is much easier than making a whole article. If you are worried about whether an idea is too specific or esoteric, the general guideline is whether you can find several different reliable, independent sources (not the creator or their institution) talking about the theorem or mathematical object. If those exist, an article is likely possible. If they do not, it's not.

If you speak LaTeX (like many math folks do) you'd be a wonderful resource on articles whose formulae could use help. Wikipedia's math markup is LaTeX under the skin.

You could also chat with the folks at WP:Wikiproject Mathematics who may have specific advice for you. M kuhner (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I added a new version on Commons of Law Enforcement WikiProject.svg . I removed the British crown (see talk page discussion). But Wikipedia is still displaying the older SVG version with the British Crown . Do I need to upload a new version of the SVG onto Wikipedia as well? Melbguy05 (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The new version is now on Wikipedia . Please disregard my question. Regards Melbguy05 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm trying to edit an article by including an image. However, I'm using my phone to do this and it's not allowing me to add the image even after putting it through Wikipedia Commons. How can I add images to articles on my phone? Thank you for your time. Blankpedia (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

In the source editor, use the format [[File:Filename.ext|thumb|caption]]. I'm not very familiar with the visual editor, but the pages Help:Pictures and Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor may be helpful. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Blankpedia, the image that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Do not upload any copyright protected images to Commons. It is contrary to policy. Images must be either freely licensed appropriately, or in the public domain. And you must be able to prove it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I add links to an edit summary, like Emk9 did here? Thank you. Nulfjæs (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

In the exact same way as you do in articles, like [[page|text]], which produces text {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now how the user used the Special:Diff Wikipedia page to make their link. I was trying to use the Diff template, which was not the right approach. Nulfjæs (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nulfjæs. In your example the user clicked the "undo" link in the page history to revert an edit, and the edit summary was automatically added. But yes, you can make similar links manually with [[Special:Diff/...]]. You cannot use templates or make external links in edit summaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @PrimeHunter, that is very useful information. So for a simple revert of a recent edit using "undo", links are automatically created. But if it is an old edit that requires manual reversion, I can use Special:Diff if I want to link to that old edit. Nulfjæs (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was just looking through the old revisions of the Minnesota Timberwolves NBA team page just to see its previous logo. As you may know, the Timberwolves recently unveiled their logo this June 7, 2026, to replicate their older logo. But when I went to check for the old previous dark blue logo on an older revision, the picture of the logo and the infobox name box that says the team name itself, wouldn't change, even if it's from 2025. Why is that? Is it like the age of person where no matter what revision, their age on the Born parameter will still say their current age? But the former two didn't change, so I'm just asking why and how. SpiritEdit (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Since images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, they are separate from Wikipedia pages. If the new logo was uploaded as a replacement of the existing image file rather than creating a new file, anywhere that references it, even in old revisions, will still pull in the latest image because its revisions are separate. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 11:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

How about the infobox box color? The new one has a green outline and a brighter blue inside, whereas the previous one was both blue with the outline or inside being darker, from the best of my memory. Is it the same reason? Because before I wanted to try to change the color for fun but to not publish the edit, but I couldn't find where I could change the infobox color. SpiritEdit (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@SpiritEdit The answer from @GearsDatapacks is wrong in this case. Both the old logo and the current one were uploaded only to the English Wikipedia under our WP:NONFREE rules. The rules mean that the old logo is deleted when the new one takes its place in the article. If you look at an earlier version of the article, you can't see the old logo. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! But how about the infobox color? For most sports teams, college or professional, they have a color right? Why when I look at older revisions of the Timberwolves page, that doesn't change? SpiritEdit (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If i showed that i am the same person from other account because of password problem, does that avoid Sockspuppet? TBB (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thebaldball.

Using multiple accounts is not of itself forbidden, as long as you don't use them in forbidden ways (that would be "sockpuppeting").

If you've lost access to one account and create a new one, that's fine: it is recommended that you note the relationship on the User pages of both the old and the new account.

See WP:SOCKLEGIT. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Been there, done that, t-shirt on order! See User:Narky Blert (small box) and User:Narky Blert (alt) (big banner) for how I cross-linked those two accounts. Narky Blert (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone reveal themselves that some account they had abuse, it will encounter trouble? TBB (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Sourced content was removed by a new editor from the Women in Islam article and due to an edit war, it was locked for editing. Now that new editor and I (myself a new user) are unable to reach a consensus on the Talk page about how to edit and add the sourced content back. I request an experienced editor to take a look. Thank you.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39245-05 listing WP:Third opinion... ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 17:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 17:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

[this is also a question I asked a mentor, but I was advised this may be a more appropriate forum!] I'm considering drafting an article for creation about the YouTuber Chris Spargo, but I'm not sure if there's enough secondary sources about him to pass the notability requirement. NB: There are some secondary sources I have found, but I'd like help on what's a good number to aim for. In short, since around January 2025 he has produced a series of videos/created a format called 'the small questions' largely about mundane aspects of the UK, with a focus on local infrastructure and governance.

Since Spargo's G7 interview with outgoing Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer it seems appropriate that he has his own Wikipedia article, but the only evidence I've found of this is from his own YouTube video about it, which I think counts as a primary source. However, the video currently has 299,074 views as of today which does also suggest notability in of itself, so I am a bit stumped here. Any and all help much appreciated! Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis. I am a big fan of Chris Spargo. If you were drafting an article about him, I'd expect to see a minimum of three sources. Those sources would each have to be; from reliable mainstream outlets and publications; not be based wholly on an interview with Chris; provide some sort of critical transformational coverage of his Youtube career, going beyond just stating who he is and what he does. I'd be looking for a little bit of in-depth analysis. qcne (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

View count on a video doesn't contribute to notability at all, I'm afraid. Youtubers are very seldom notable for that exact reason. They generally need to meet the WP:GNG, which means you'd need, as a rule of thumb, 3 sources which meet the golden rule. Athanelar (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis, "seems appropriate" to you (or your personal fanship of the individual) does not equate to notability on Wikipedia. Youtubers generally do not get much (if any) significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't mean to be a downer, but a brief search on my part turned up nothing useable for WP:GNG, and I don't wish for you to get your hopes up too high only to possibly have them dashed. Softlavender (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder, it's absolutely not lost on me that my own appreciation for anyone/anything isn't enough grounds for creating a new Wikipedia article. I have found sources relating to Spargo's videos which have also become the ones he is most known for. Unfortunately because of how news syndication works in the UK (companies such as Reach operate the online versions of regional and national newspapers, with many news stories being written by a single author with some adjustments to title and contents per newspaper), it has been difficult to find sources appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

This has been a particular issue while finding sufficient coverage of Spargo's video on supermarket clock towers. Is there any specific guideline/policy I should be aware of here? I have already reviewed the list of deprecated sources.

Besides this, I have found at least three other independent sources relating to Spargo's The Small Questions format which do not appear to suffer from the issue with syndicated articles. Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

How many people died in the Hurricane? Did anyone die at all ~2026-39340-33 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You can just look up the article and see SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see List of storms named Fiona, and choose your Fiona. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I have come across the category Category:CIF Central Section. I believe that most of the articles listed here don't meet WP:GNG, e.g. West Sierra League. What is the best way to go about this? I would think they could all be merged into CIF Central Section. Should I go about an WP:AFD? My main thought with going about and AfD is that having 10 articles that people would need to review is a bit excessive. Thanks Freddieh9 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You can build a single AfD case that covers multiple articles to be merged. See WP:BUNDLE for the details. This is much better than making 10 separate cases for exactly the reason you gave. M kuhner (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi I am new to Wikipedia. I am creating an article about a well known sculptor. I notice that there is a format to Wikipedia sites about persons. There is a preamble There is a picture There is a box with their personal data eg DOB, spouse etc There is the main body of the article Is there a template to use to fit the data into this format? Cheltman (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anita Lafford SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It does not have any refrences SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are new you should not start making an article right away. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Cheltman. The things that you describe are nice to have but are not core necessities. Your very first step is to assemble a list of references to coverage of the artist in reliable published sources. These sources must be entirely independent of the artist and her galleries, collectors, schools and so on. They must devote significant, in depth coverage to the artist. Please read the notability guideline for creative artists. Anything that you write must be verified by such references. Writing what you personally know without references will be a waste of your time and reviewer's time. Please read and study Your first article to get on the right track. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful comments.This article is very much a WIP and will not be submitted for review until fully completed. I have a list of supporting references which i will add in due course. I have studied the help pages and also viewed Yan McAndrew's excellent Youtube video Cheltman (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cheltman As mentioned, the article should be a summary of what the sources say. Writing the draft and adding sources later is considered WP:BACKWARDS. Please read that link. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working on a draft for the video game RACCOIN. I need a logo for the infobox, and on the official website there is an official logo for the game. However, checking the website's ToS, it says clearly that all materials (including images) related to the game/website are copyrighted with all rights reserved. Checking WP:NFCC, I wasn't able to figure out what to do. So, I have a few questions:

1. Can the game logo be uploaded and used as a whole?
   1. If so, what are the specific practices I should do, and what should I put on the file's page?
2. Could I upload it and use it on the draft, or would I only be able to do so when/if the draft gets finished and accepted?

Help would be greatly appreciated! Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

A game's cover art or logo is a good example of NFCC justified. If you're using it as the representation of a game and there's no free equivalent, then yes an image of it for the infobox is entirely justifiable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Use the non-free upload wizard at Wikipedia:File upload wizard, and yes you can use it in a draft. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help! Side note: I don't know if it matters, but the law that applies (according to the terms) is UK copyright laws. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That'll be fine. English copyright law contains "fair dealing" (akin to "fair use" in the US) provisions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not correct--non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages or drafts), and only in the article namespace. You will have to wait until the article is accepted. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is what I thought might be, since the file upload wizard said drafts weren't acceptable. Thanks for the clarification. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Huh, how odd. Given we have stuff that gets sent back to draft all the time I’m surprised to hear that drafts are not valid. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that it's a fair use exception, the WMF's approach here is to minimize exposure by only allowing the fair use exception where it's necessary, and things in articles are necessary to a degree that drafts aren't. And with so many drafts languishing in semi-hibernation, it risks there being a poorly reviewed underground of unused copyrighted images on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Given drafts are meant to be deleted after six months of inactivity I think the policy is a bit overkill as a result given we are meant to have the presumptions drafts are on the way to becoming an article. Just feels counterproductive. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It is counterproductive in the way that you say it is, but preventing copyright violations is more important, and for copyright purposes six months is a very long time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess, but then I look at CCI and see for how many years those remain open and then a draft that gets deleted after six months of inactivity seems extremely fast by comparison.

I'm not saying I don't get why that's the policy, just feels like it's counterproductive for what it does and highlights the ways other copyright issues linger. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

All the more reason the content itself should be removed in the meantime whenever it's noticed. Theoretically, someone could keep editing the draft or hopping content to new drafts to keep it here, with far less oversight than if they try to push it to mainspace where it'll get patrolled. WP:NOTHOST becomes a much bigger problem if there's copyvio involved and legal action puts the entire site at risk, so guidelines typically err well on the side of caution. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Axolitl.

I'll just take issue with one thing you said: no, you don't need a logo in the infobox.

Images, logos, and infoboxes are all things which make article pretty, but not one of them is required for an article; and therefore they are all irrelevant to getting a draft accepted.

Concentrate on the things that matter (WP:42), and worry about decoration after the draft is accepted. ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! My first draft was rejected and while I made some edits, I'd love a second set of eyes on it before I resubmit as I have a COI: Draft:Gabrielle Lyon. Cicadatime (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Cicadatime, you have, very properly, noted your COI atop the draft. Once you resubmit the draft (and minutes, hours, or months have passed), a reviewer's pair of eyes will view the draft (and COI template) and consider it. In the meantime, one point. If She is known for her leadership of several nonprofit organizations focused on increasing equitable access for disenfranchised communities to STEM, urban planning, and the humanities then what has been said about this leadership by/from sources independent of her, and where has it been said? (Don't answer this here; instead, adjust the draft as required.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Tysm! Cicadatime (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Just an FYI - this was declined rather than rejected, which means you're welcome to keep working on it and submit again. At AfC rejecting a draft is a different result that means they don't think it should be on Wikipedia at all and that you should move on rather than wasting more time on it. It tends to be used for spam, non-notable people writing about themselves; that kind of thing. It's easy to mix them up, but the difference matters. You can read more about the process at WP:AFCREVIEW. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am an independent musical artist and singer based in Dubai, UAE. I am the owner of Pulse Media and the music record label Habibi Records. I have global music distribution, including my upcoming album project "No Turning Back". I am looking for an experienced Wikipedia editor who can help me properly draft and publish a biographical article according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please let me know if you can assist. Thank you! Attaullahchohanmusic (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Attaullahchohanmusic, the problem is that we unpaid volunteers are busy with articles on subjects that happen to interest us. But your appeal is likely to attract editors who'll offer to do it for payment. These editors will make promises they cannot keep. They're incompetent or (very often) worse. Ignore "offers" arriving by email. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Attaullahchohanmusic Please read Wikipedia:Scam warning and expect scammers to now contact you. qcne (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Attaullahchohanmusic: If one of the scammers mentioned by Hoary and Qcne contacts you, keep in mind that no legitimate Wikipedia editor would ask for payment to write an article. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 22:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 WP:Paid editing is still allowed at the time of writing, provided a declaration of COI, compliance with policy and guidelines, and WMF's paid editing disclosure/transparency process. But still, I strongly recommend OP to be aware and alert of scams, especially if the editor don't disclose any of these info:

Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor.
Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client.
Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Wikipedia. Neither the client nor the paid editor owns the article.
Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Wikipedia. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.

(Under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Solicitations by paid editors) ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 03:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that mostly refers to regular employees of the subject who are willing to follow COI rules, however. Cold contacts are virtually guaranteed to be scammers, because they'd never get an article through that was sufficiently promotional to warrant conditional payment. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Attaullahchohanmusic Please note that assistance from real Wikipedia volunteers is always free. We will never ask for money or any other compensation, and there's no « guarantee » that an article will be accepted and last on Wikipedia for a time. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 03:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I noticed today that most of the articles I visited using Special:Random were stubs. I'm curious to know why. Is this a policy to encourage users to edit? Shouldn't we balance it with high-quality articles too? Morris (talk with this worm) 09:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm A good chunk of those articles are made by automated or semi-automated bots in mass-created articles. For example, in 2002, User:Rambot created articles on 33,000 U.S. settlements from census data at rate of thousands per day on the English Wikipedia. As these bots are pulled from taxonomic and/or population census databases, they pretty much only include data from those databases, such as who discovered it, it's population, it's parent and child administrative divisions, local names, etc. There's also a group of users called WP:Stub makers who make these stubs. I'd disagree about the most of the articles [...] using Special:Random are stubs though, as roughly 32.1% of articles are stubs on the English Wikipedia. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 10:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Oh, sorry--I meant most of the articles I visited using Special:Random. If I visited 30-35 pages, at least 20-25 were stubs or poorly written small articles. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that one in three articles are stubs, it's not surprising you see a lot of them using the random article feature. Maybe so far you've seen more than that, but the more times you use that feature, the more the stub % should approach 32%, or whatever the figure is at that time. As for policy, I don't think there is one intended to skew this feature towards stubs, at least not as described in Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#random. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm What you have found is something that most newcomers don't realise. In my opinion, it would be much better for newbies to spend time improving stubs rather than diving in to create new articles. We have a WP:WikiProject Stub improvement, although it isn't very active. I personally have de-stubbified about 20 articles this month in an area that interests me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What? What do you mean "create new article"? When I said I am creating an article? I asked for a general thing that got me curious. Are you all right my friend? And what's up with "Newbie"? Morris (talk with this worm) 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Newbie is a perfectly good (slang) word and widely used on Wikipedia Talk Pages: see also WP:Don't bite the newbies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm they were obviously not referring to you creating a new article, they were speaking in a more general sense. qcne (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Michael D. Turnbull. I strongly agree.

I don't really understand why anybody would create a stub article in 2026.

The main work in writing an article is finding appropriate sources: writing (the first draft of) the article is pretty straightforward once you've got those sources. So why would people not do it? ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Another aspect of the stub issue is that many articles classified as stubs have since been expanded but have not been reclassified. I routinely upgrade stubs to start class if their current status is reasonably informative about the topic. But many editors are reluctant to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

For biological species in particular, any species is allowed to have an article, but for some there simply is not enough information to make a Start-class article. If you want to do that species (for example, because it needs to be mentioned somewhere else) you're stuck with a stub. M kuhner (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I did one that way recently because I didn't have the brainpower to flesh it out more, and no one else has bothered despite being a common species with plenty of well sourced information for at least Start class. Now it's available for me or anyone else to improve (and indeed several editors have helped with some basic cleanup already). There's a couple others I plan to do the same to and work on as my competence improves. I don't think it's particularly useful to go around creating stubs for obscure species when there's little more to say other than their existence, however. "This is a bug. Wanna know more? Idk, maybe try Google?" (Also, there's no need to create them just for the sake of other articles - redlinks exist for a reason.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The main reason is, most of those stub articles are about subjects that are automatically notable per our current guidelines (species, villages, geographic locations or features, judges, a certain class of professional athletes, etc.) and don't need expansion to remain on Wikipedia. And some of those (especially historic people, or minor geographic features or hamlets) do not have much if any clickable information about them available. So there are a lot of unexpanded stubs on Wikipedia and that's unlikely to change. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, I have been unsure on whether or not to mark an update edit as a minor edit. I have read both the pages WP:MINOR and Help:Minor edit thoroughly and would like to make sure that I interpreted the information correctly. I believe it would be helpful if there were clearer guidelines for update edits specifically and would therefore also like to ask if someone could edit these help pages, please!

Personally, I would differentiate between different types of update edits (feel free to add more):

1) Structural updates: The article already mentions something that will be or might be in the future, and this edit solely changes it to say that it is in the present or in the past. (I think this is minor?)

2) Count updates: A different user has already updated a list, but somewhere above this list, the respective count number is updated as well. (I think this is minor?)

3) Content updates: This edit actually adds new information. (I think this is major?)

As far as I know, the cases 1) and 3) might require citations, which would make them major edits.

I do know that you should just refrain from marking an edit as minor in case you are unsure, but I do think that clarification would ameliorate Wikipedia!

I am very, very new to Wikipedia and this is also my first time asking a question on here. Please let me know if I did anything incorrectly so that I can learn. I wish everyone reading this a wonderful day! Melek.sh19 (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I think most people don't pay much attention to minor edits anyway. Like you said, if in doubt, don't mark it as minor. Without seeing the exact contents of your edit it's difficult to tell which I'd do, but personally I only really mark an edit as minor if I'm fixing an obvious mistake or changing something that doesn't materially affect the contents of an article (like adding more information to citation templates).

Thank you for your attention to detail, but I would say don't stress too much about it, there are other things worth worrying more about. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 11:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You did fine with your question, no worries! The fundamental idea is that someone evaluating your edits should be able to skip the minor ones, knowing they are typos, formatting, etc. and non-controversial. If there is any serious chance of a challenge, it's not minor.

Honestly if you never mark as minor, no one will get upset. The only time "minor edit" is a real problem is when it's misused to hide a bad edit, like the 1000-character LLM-generated piece of text labeled "minor edit" that I found yesterday! (That was annoying, though luckily seeing that it was 1000 characters tipped me off.) M kuhner (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

For now, just don't mark anything other than adding a wikilink or fixing a typo as "minor". Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The general idea is that a minor edit shouldn't change the actual meaning of the content at all. As mentioned above - typos, formatting, etc. All of your examples do change the meaning in some way, even if it's a "minor" change by the normal definition of the word. There's a lot of things like that around here, where certain common words have very specific meanings in the context of editing, and I was similarly confused when I started out. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the template:emojus? They appear (at least on my PC) as squares. A.Cython(talk) 13:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython Check the documentation of the template. Does it just show as squares, or are there some emojis that render but come up as black and white ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 14:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The emojis show up normal for me ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 14:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok so the problem is me :). To answer your question, yes most of them are presented as squares except for a few of them, e.g., 👌 and 👽. A.Cython(talk) 14:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I tried a different web browser and the icons appear normally. Thank you. 14:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC) A.Cython(talk) 14:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

🤔👿✌️🦈 Weird. In Windows 11 (at least unmodified 25H2, Microsoft Edge) it shows up as normal to me. Are you using a mobile device incompatible with the Noto Emoji set, or a completely different device? Or is it because silly you uninstalled System32 and now emojis are showing up as squares? Are you still seeing them as 􏿾 or � in the previous PC? SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 15:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems more like a browser rendering issue ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 15:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeap it was my browser, it needed to perform an update after which the icons worked just fine. No idea why the pending update caused the rendering issues. FYI I used the Brave browser. A.Cython(talk) 15:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Another on my laundry list of pet peeves: breaking things that worked perfectly fine to force you to update. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

May I recommend Ungoogled Chromium, if you liked Brave's adblocks and its (self-claimed) privacy?

In ugChromium, you can implement adblocks with uBlock Origin; it'll stop trackers and ads more-or-less the same way as Brave, (that is to say, generally all of them).

Note: uBlock doesn't have an official website, and the only "right" place to get them other than the Chrome Web Store is from their own GitHub repo, namely here. After unpackaging the .zip file, you can install it in Chromium's extensions settings page, by clicking "Load unpackaged" and selecting the unpacked folder. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Why has the text size in "Edit source" suddenly become tiny, rather than the same size as "Edit"? Dough34 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dough34, I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to (since I never use Visual Editor), but the solution would probably be to use your Zoom function to enlarge the text to your liking, and stay on one type of usage (source or Visual Editor) for your edits. If you feel the issue is genuinely reportable, the place to do that would be WP:VPT. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You may scale a webpage's text size by holding down Ctrl and pressing - / + on your keyboard. The - / + are located between numeral key 0 and backspace.

If you're using a Mac, hold down Command and press - / + instead. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

On a PC, one usually uses the mouse scroll (assuming one is using a mouse) rather than clicking + or -. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops, yeah also the mouse scroll thing. I was typing on a Mac and didn't realize the mouse part. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Design with the help of wikidata teahouse ~2026-39484-83 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this a directive? Design what? What's the "wikidata teahouse"? What has this directive/request/question/whatever of yours got to do with Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

suppose yes, some general actions to add discussion fuctionality to "talk" and in future articles content. MashiraV (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

An article's talk page is for discussing possible improvements to the article. It's not for discussing the subject of the article. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 12:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

hello! I edit a lot on a phone / tablet but only small tweaks. I cannot find the Templates either, where you can find the infoboxes and other templates. All I see up top is an undo button, text formatting, and citations, etc. SpiritEdit (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Is WP:TM what you're looking for? Textboxer (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

sorry, I meant when I edit on mobile, it only shows me the Undo button, Text formatting, wikilink, inserting citations, and switching from source to visual editor. I can't find the button to add templates like infoboxes, etc. SpiritEdit (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Mobile mode is simplified to make it fit better on small screens. If you scroll down to the very bottom of your page you can toggle desktop mode to have the full range of tools available. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try it now. SpiritEdit (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to add the "Family Tree of David" in the Bible Geneology section in visual Editor Decraw3127 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Decraw3127 Do you mean subsection, or section under a section? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 05:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

Subsection I believe. Part of the Main article on Genealogies in the Bible Decraw3127 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Decraw3127 Copy paste this code to where you want to place it:

===Family tree of David===
[your text and family tree here]

You may want to see how to use WP:Family tree templates on Wikipedia, and if you have difficulties, feel free to let me know. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 14:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I lost access to my old account An Unexpected VCR,so this is my new one. Is it okay to let Wikipedia know? Unopened VHS tape (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say you've just done so.  :) You may post a message on your user page indicating you lost access to your prior account and have a new one. You may also post on your old account's user page that you now use a new account. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Unopened VHS tape.

The recommended action is to post a message on both user pages (User:An Unexpected VCR and User:Unopened VHS tape) explaining what has happened and that they are your old and new account. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

yes I did it on my User:An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR account thanks Unopened VHS tape (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to request a review of an edit I want to make, to make sure I'm making the right edits. In Czech-Slovak Protective Society, I want to make the word "Immigrant" in the lead a link to its article (the organization has to do with immigrants). Thanks in advance! Textboxer (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Textboxer, when wikilinking a plural noun, you put double brackets (straight brackets) around the single form, leaving the "s" outside the brackets but still touching them. That will look like this: immigrants, and will link to the article Immigration. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Textboxer (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: That particular noun has a redirect for its plural form as well, to the same article. But usually plural nouns do not have articles or redirects, so one excludes with "s" when wikilinking them. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A more general solution is this:

[[Hypocnemis|warbling antbird]]

which links to the Hypocnemis page but says "warbling antbird" instead, like so: warbling antbird. This lets you substitute any text you want for the page name you're linking, though please don't send people to pages they are not expecting! M kuhner (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not mean any offense but I ran across a page and an editor who is obviously suffering from some sort (not a diagnosis, I am not their doctor) of schizophasia. All of their edits are reverted so no damage is being done I guess but I don't think it's healthy for this person. What is the proper way to inform admin or... Well, I'm not entirely sure what to do about it and I'm not comfortable interacting directly. Any advice would be appreciated. I do not mean any of this as a personal attack or a value judgement, just someone with a mental health background seeing an obvious sign of struggle. -- on further searching the account in question hasn't posted in a couple months but I'd figure the advice would be useful in any future situation. Hooples (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that this individual will harm themselves or someone else, please see WP:EMERGENCY. If this is just a matter of this individual damaging Wikipedia due to their condition(whatever it may be), they should be blocked from editing to protect Wikipedia. If you don't want to make a public report, you may contact an admin(like me) via email. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your reply, I have looked and am unable to find a contact link for you. Could you please inform me on how to email you or other admins? I've read a lot of talk about being able to email editors who have that function enabled but I am not seeing it. Hooples (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hooples It's in the "Tools" drop-down menu if you are at 331dot's userpage, should work for you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Gråbergs. I admit I am not familiar with that diacritic, but it's a lovely name. Hooples (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

WP-article at Å. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks to you, @331dot and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång for the information and another new rabbit hole to go down, this time language. Have a good day and this can be considered answered. :) Hooples (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Manchesterism article in the section that has been marked for being unbalanced. At what point can someone remove the template warning readers a section is unbalanced? I didn't want to make the call myself as I don't have the experience and there are other sources in the talk page I'm yet to properly go through and figure out the best way to introduce them into the text. Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ifitis2bsaidSoitbSoitis You can WP:BOLDly remove it if you think you "fixed" it, or you can wait and see if anyone responds to your comment on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, on the page BALTOPS I was going to add a table to 2023 but see that other years a template was used. Can I copy and paste a template from an earlier entry and edit that or how can I identify the template that was used to make the formatting match? Thanks HeritageHuntress (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @HeritageHuntress, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can certainly copy and paste the whole "table" from a previous section, and then edit it appropriately.

I have no idea whether or not this is possible in the Visual Editor, as I've hardly ever used it; but in the Source Editor it is straightforward.

The sections only use basic formatting templates, such as {{collapse-top}} and {{collapse-bottom}}, and {{div}} ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You can, but if anything breaks in the process it's difficult to to fix in visual. Some ability to work with source code is necessary for much more than plain text. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Kabughoemma (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Heelo, I have came a cross an article that I wanted to come up with but it's already submitted for review and now I can't add much of it. I am requesting for any reviewers to review Draft:Uganda Freedom Front and Draft:Vincent Kikabi Thsnk you Kabughoemma (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kabughoemma. You are free to edit and improve the drafts at any time, even if they are awaiting review. You must be patient waiting for the articles to be reviewed, because there is a current backlog of more than 5,000 AFC article drafts waiting to be reviewed, as noted at the top of those two pages. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you for the information I thought it could damage information when I make edits to an already submitted draft. Kabughoemma (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Kabughoemma, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so it's OK to make edits to a draft created by somebody else, but it would be courteous to tell that creator what you are going to do (on their Talk page or on the draft's Talk page) in case they have objections (in which case you and they can discuss it (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) or even references that disprove yours.

It's also OK to edit and improve a Draft submitted for review; this does not interfere with the process in any way. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I found a page with an ambiguous title and I'd like to move to a different name. Where it is now, I think should be turned into a disambiguation page, though I'm not sure if I'm supposed to change the redirect to one, for obvious reasons. What do I do about that? Should I create a new one, the same but with "(disambiguation)" at the end, and add a hatnote to the original, or do I just change the original to one? OliviaRigby (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@OliviaRigby I found this a bit difficult to follow. Could you tell us what page you're referring to, what the name is that you propose, and why? Mme Maigret (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. The first page is Princess Louise of Orléans. I would like to move it to something like this: Princess Louise of Orléans (1882–1958), which I've just realized is now a redirect to that page, which is a whole other thing I don't know. But I'd like to move that first because there is another person (Louise d'Orléans (1869–1952)) with that name whose page is not at the correct name, which should be something like Princess Louise of Orléans (1869–1952), which I see there is also a redirect from. I want to make the original page (Princess Louise of Orléans) a disambiguation page, but I don't know if that is possible or should be done. OliviaRigby (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@OliviaRigby There has to be one person with the primary name Princess Louise of Orleans. It's usually the first person created with that name, rather than say the most important person. So you can't change the name so that there is no article occupying the page. Disambiguations exists specifically so you can find the other Princess Louises. Mme Maigret (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

So do I move the first one or not? Because if not I would still be moving the second and just be adding this template to the primary name. OliviaRigby (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We specifically reject deciding what is the right name; we go by the sources. If someone is usually called "Louise d'Orléans" in the reliable sources, we refuse to say she ought to be considered another "Louise of Orléans", even though logically those ought to mean the same thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly, TooManyFingers. Wikipedia exhibits a (to my mind) curiously antiquated deference to so-called "nobility". Few people called the late uncle of Britain's current king either "Antony Armstrong-Jones" or "1st Earl of Snowdon" (see Google Ngram viewer), let alone the concatenation; yet WP titles the article about him "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon". Also, while the lower orders have "children", the "nobility" have "issue". (Some years ago I questioned some of this, but was put in my place.) Happy forelock-tugging! -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@OliviaRigby Sorry, I should have been clearer. I think you shouldn't rename the page – it's as it should be. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think of what the sources referred to her as. My bad. At least I'll remember to do so now. OliviaRigby (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret: "It's usually the first person created with that name, rather than say the most important person" I don't think this is true, see WP:Primary topic. The primary topic is based on usage or long-term significance, not merely the first created Wikipedia change. If there's not a primary topic, then there should be a disambiguation page at the main page title.

@OliviaRigby: I think the best next step for you would be to post this at Requested moves as a potentially controversial move. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If you do so, you might like to indicate that there are at least 4 Princess Louises. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming "Created" as relates to noble titles is not the same as the first article created or changed on Wikipedia, in case you weren't aware. A person is "created" as the first Lord of Somewhere when he obtains the title. David10244 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

OH thank you I definitely wasn't aware! I thought the previous person meant the first article created on Wikipedia which didn't seem right, but first person with the title seems much more plausible--thanks for the clarification! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

(As an aside, does anyone know why my nested code here renders correctly in desktop mode but not mobile? Is there a better way to accomplish this?) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

What happens if you put the ending curly brackets inside the ending square brackets? The beginning curly brackets are inside the square brackets. OR: Maybe putting the curly brackets outside of all the square ones would be better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Whoops - I'd swapped the order because it wasn't working initially, but apparently forgot to swap the closing brackets too. Strangely, I couldn't replicate the correct rendering I was seeing anywhere else, with any ordering of the tq template, but swapping it out for green worked for whatever reason. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I take it back - correctly formed use of tq works in mobile but NOT desktop. Nothing but headaches! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A forceOverrideHeadaches template would be helpful. Except we know how it would turn out. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have invited participation from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation.

A relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).

As a onetime professional DABfixer, I loathe PTOPICs with a passion. They save readers one click, and attract bad links like there's no tomorrow, When I was active, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol used to fix several hundred bad links to PTOPICs every single day. I strongly recommend checking "What links here" to Louise d'Orléans/Louise of Orléans and Princess Louise d'Orléans/Princess Louise d'Orleans/Princess Louise of Orleans/Princess Louise of Orléans at least. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the number of links to a wrong person was in double figures. Narky Blert (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the assertion that there HAS to be a primary topic is inherently flawed - let alone that it's chronological. I think it needs to be abundantly clear that it's the most common interpretation; otherwise dab makes more sense. George Washington is obvious. Anyone looking for a different subject knows which one will come up first. John Smith? Dab it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

George Washington sails through all WP:PTOPIC tests. So does London, but I remember once falling across and fixing London. Ontario. Both have far too many in-links for easy checking. Washington, in contrast, is rightly a DAB page: there are several important topics, and we can't assume that readers know that the state and D.C. are on opposite sides of the continent. However, User:JaGa routinely scans for and reports bad links to DAB pages (link - if that looks horrendous, it is), making them relatively straightforward to fix. But, what about Krishna? That deity sails through the PTOPIC tests, but a colleague (now retired) used to specialise in links to movies he was said to have acted (as opposed to, been portrayed) in. Narky Blert (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I live in Washington state, so I've been disambiguating that in conversations most of my life. I can confirm that plenty of people are not conscious of the difference, or even that both exist - and many people in Western Australia are similarly unaware there's a US WA as well. I fully support maximum clarity!

(Also, I've just found the dab-orange preference and love it. That'll help ensure I don't link one by mistake.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That orange preference is a godsend. You no longer get those polite but world-weary messages from DPLbot on your TP telling you that you've linked to a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Already caught and fixed one! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Would removing the lead in list of tallest buildings in North Carolina, (mostly) introducing the two buildings at the top of the list, improve it? Does MOS:INTRO apply here? Textboxer (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

All articles need a lead, even list articles. You can propose changes to the lead on the article's talkpage, but never remove or delete the lead of any article. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Allright. Thank you! Textboxer (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How should I go about making sweeping changes to a section such that it is transparent and does not generate dispute? I encountered a section of an article that is fraught with issues. I believe it needs a complete rewrite. Because I can't do the whole thing at once, I plan to draft a new version in my sandbox until I believe the issues are resolved. Sort of like a development branch, which would have each step documented along the way. Then I would publish the rewritten section on the page, summarizing my changes in the Talk section. I know the dictum is to be WP:BOLD but the topic is adjacent to controversy and I'm worried that such a dramatic overhaul would be reverted. At the same time, I don't think the changes can be accomplished incrementally in "public" view (knowing of course that the draft in my userspace would be public the whole time.) Gebble (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

One way would be to write the new proposed section in a userspace draft, then make a post on the article's talk page linking to your draft and ask people to give feedback on the rewrite before updating the live article. If people have suggestions then you can change it and hopefully get it to a point where people are happy with it before you make the change to the real article. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 17:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed that several television series are particularly victim to WP:Fancruft and have a poorly-sourced glorified-plot-summary article for every single episode in the series. Would boldly merging every individual episode page to the corresponding season page for multiple seasons of multiple television series trigger any automated anti-vandalism systems? I have been nominating individual pages for merging, but it would be simpler and faster to just do it directly given the vast quantity of articles that need merging. Could I add the season page to WP:AFD instead of the individual episode pages to be redirected and specify that in the description? TPI81AF (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TPI81AF! Merging all episodes into the appropriate season article(s) probably will not be auto-reverted. As for how to do multiple nominations, if you wanted to propose all episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise season 3 be merged into that article, you can follow the instructions at WP:BUNDLE to avoid creating 24 separate nominations. You would first nominate one episode for merging and then tag all the others as being discussed for merging at the first thread. That way, you only have to a monitor a single thread and apply merge/deletion sorting tags once. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Though I do not think bold merging will get reverted by a bot, a human may reach out to discuss your choice. When doing such merges, keep in mind that if 23 of the episodes seem to fail WP:notability but one qualifies, then you should keep that one as a separate article, rather than feeling compelled to give them all the same treatment. Hope this helps! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thank you! TPI81AF (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I just started this draft and I would appreciate any advice on how to improve it. I am hoping it becomes a Wikipedia article, and I would appreciate any advice on what I can do to improve the draft. For example, if new sections are recommended, I’m willing to do that. ~2026-39489-92 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. We have no idea if his death has the kind of lasting significance necessary to warrant a standalone article right now, and we won't know for a long while. Athanelar (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39489-92 (e/c) There is already quite an extensive account of his (unremarkable) death at Lindsey_Graham#Death so I think you will struggle to argue that a separate article is necessary. Also parts of your draft are in the wrong tense. See MOS:TENSE. Also see WP:NOTNEWS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In general "Death of..." articles are only appropriate in the case of a) a notable person whose death was extremely controversial/complicated/impactful (e.g. assassinated heads of state) or b) a person whose primary claim to fame is notoriety associated with their death. I don't think Graham fits either of these cases. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

the article's first line mistakenly gives his birthdate wrong by attributing an extra year to the 'New Style's. The talk page is locked up so not possible to mention it there ~2026-31253-16 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The talk page says “

• How to render Washington's birth year has been previously discussed on this talk page, as seen in the Talk page Archives including Talk:George Washington/Archive 1#Birth date, Talk:George Washington/Archive 6#George Washington's birthday, Talk:George Washington/Archive 6#Founding Fathers' birthdates, Talk:George Washington/Archive 9#GW's birthday & calendar switch issue, Talk:George Washington/Archive 7#Birthdate, and Talk:George Washington/Archive 10#Dates for George Washington's birth. Editorial consensus is that he was born in "1731/Old Style" and in "1732/New Style" - this rendering is supported by reliable sources.
• The assertion that John Hanson was the first President of the United States has been previously discussed multiple times on this talk page, as seen in the Talk page Archivesincluding Talk:George Washington/Archive 9#John Hanson, Talk:George Washington/Archive 5#He wasn't the first president of the USA, and Talk:George Washington/Archive 1#First President and "under the Constitution" issues. Editorial consensus is that, according to reliable sources, George Washington is the first President of the United States and Hanson is considered to be among the Presidents of the United States in Congress assembled (he was the first President of Congress to serve a term as defined under the Articles of Confederation).”

SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 19:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I have written an article in which the person described in it is a person whose references are not reliable. What can I do now? --Datosyuentes (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Datosyuentes, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that this is a very common experience of editors who try this challenging task before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works.

It is the equivalent of saying "I have built a house, but I didn't know I needed to survey the land I built it on first: that is not stable, and it looks as if it is going to fall down".

Writing an article begins with finding the reliable independent secondary sources required to establish that the subject is notable - see 42 - so that if you can't find the sources you'll know there's no point spending time trying to write an article.

I think it is extremely unlikely that a Call of Duty player has been written about in a suitable way to establish notability. Your only hope of saving your draft is to find several sources that do meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you can, then you should probably delete all your text, and start from scratch writing a summary of what those sources say about Draft:Andrew Diaz and little else.

But in the more likely case that you can't, you should chalk this one up as a learning experience, and move onto something else.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. I thought that Wikipedia in Spanish had the same politics as this one. Datosyuentes (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello there. I recently overwrote File:Personal Data wikipedia ad gif.gif which is hosted on Commons but is copied over to Wikipedia for the purposes of Wikipedia ads. My question is, if it's already been five days since I made changes, why have the changes not transferred to the local version of the file?
I would appreciate any assistance with this, thank you. Tiny Toast (Talk • Guestbook) 17:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tiny Toast.

I don't believe that files on Commons are "copied over" to Wikipedia: they are in Commons and may be viewed from Wikipedia.

When I look at the page you link above, I see your a version with "it's" (I believe that's what your edit did).

I suspect you are seeing a cached version wherever you are looking. ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I did think of that... Forcing the cache to be cleared does nothing on my end. Does it display any differently on my user page? (You may need to clear its cache a few times to load the right ad). Tiny Toast (Talk • Guestbook) 20:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What was the name of the external tool again that allows you to see the most-clicked link in disambiguation pages? I've seen this used before to prove that said topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in RMs Fortek67 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikinav for click-through in general, not sure if there's something more specialized for disambiguation. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of the Wikipedia pages I've gone to lately use AD and BC. Is this the standard for Wikipedia? If so, how come? Ragby (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The standard is on a page-by-page basis. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

(Perhaps the most important part of that "Era style" section is the paragraph that prohibits changing an article from one style to the other except under special circumstances.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

So, I see that the talkpage layout that has existed for a few years at French Wikipedia is now being rolled out on English Wikipedia. I apologise if this is a silly question, but as I can see no way to change it, and I do have a strong dislike of it, is it an optional thing that individual users can disable for themselves, or is this a permanent change? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I came here to ask about this as well-- it's so cluttered and unnecessary. Was this discussed anywhere and is it seriously not reversible? I don't see anything at WP:VECTOR2022. Joko2468 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, if you go into preferences you can untick Show discussion activity under Editing. It'd be nice if they stopped fiddling with the icons. Joko2468 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And thank you Joko2468. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like some help with adding a logo for this company: Draft:Glow Recipe

How to avoid copyright issues?

Thanks! Aurroraric (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aurroraric - The only way to avoid copyright issues, is to wait. Unless they are extremely simple, logos are copyright, so must be added to en.wikipedia (not commons) under a claim of fair use. However, fair use images cannot be used in drafts. The presence, or lack of, a logo will not affect your draft being accepted, so concentrate on the text. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case their (Glow Recipe) logo is a {{PD-textlogo}} and can be uploaded to Commons. Not too sure about the company meeting WP:NCORP though. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello guys. I was wondering how to move pages? I wanted to make the Dreamcore page Dreamcore (video game) and make the Dreamcore page an actual full wiki on the aesthetic. But it got reverted so now I’m confused on what to do. CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CarbonatedMilk875: your page move was reverted as an undiscussed move, which means someone else disagrees with it. Anyone is free to make uncontroversial page moves, but if another person then comes along and reverts it you must open a requested move discussion, which you need to do here. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 22:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@CarbonatedMilk875: Please keep in mind that article creation is a difficult task that is especially difficult for inexperienced users. You would need to create an article about the dreamcore aesthetic based on reliable sources to pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. (The article title is not very important; it could be titled Dreamcore (aesthetic) to disambiguate it from the video game without needing to move the page). Your article was moved to a draft because it only cited a single source, a Fandom wiki, which is unreliable as it is user-generated. I suggest reading Help:Your first article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It was a legitimate page at one time for over 15 years, not a redirect. Our staff tells us that every time they try to create a new page it is removed automatically and returned to the redirect. I want to be able to recreate a page and not have it removed automatically. ~2026-39594-66 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Who are the "we" of "our staff"? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

She replied to the wrong discussion instead of the below post about the IEEE Sensors Council. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

IEEE Sensors Council is a full up technical Council of the IEEE. It had a Wiki page, but somewhere the page was changed from an informative page of the Council to a link to just one of it's publications "IEEE Sensors Letters". I cannot provide a link because it automatically redirects to "IEEE Sensors Letters"

For reference, the url showing the extent of pubs, conferences, standards etc is at ieee-sensors.org.

I am a past president of the Council and the current historian. I would like to make the IEEE Sensors Council page informative of the extent of the Council. And then link it to the other Wiki pages of Council activities "IEEE Sensors Journal", "IEEE Sensors Letters", "IEEE Sensors Council Technical Achievement Award" etc.

How can I get the permission to create the home page?

Chris Schober

Christina Schober IEEE past Division V & VIII Director (2024-2025 and 2021-2022 respectively) IEEE Sensors Council Historian, 2026, Sr MAL 2027-2028 ~2026-39594-66 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Not too sure about the council meeting WP:NCORP, which might be why the page got BLAR'd. The journal, however, does meet WP:NJOURNAL, which is why it was kept. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

True information that has not been the subject of publication by disinterested third parties is generally not accepted on Wikipedia, except as a small amount of supplementary material in an article that is mostly third-party-published facts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I have a COI edit request on the Gilead Sciences Talk page from 5/22. I understand the demand for COI requests is high but since it's been almost two months, I'm posting here to see if anyone could take a look and see if the edit is doable. Thanks for your help. GileadJeff (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's in the queue and can be seen by editors interested in handling COI edit requests. There's no way for you to expedite things any more than that; every one of the just over 500 people in the pool of COI edit requests thinks they've been waiting too long and would like it done as soon as possible. Athanelar (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(I'll also note, COI Edit Request is a really thankless job that most volunteer editors don't want to do. You're effectively editing on behalf of a paid employee, for free.) qcne (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

GileadJeff, as you can read on the template at the top of your edit request, the backlog is well over 500 requests. That usually means a wait of up to 4 to 6 months. That may be aggravating, but Wikipedia is run by volunteers so items in backlogged areas rarely get done soon. Please be patient. Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in editing Wikipedia, especially helping with things like style and copyediting, but the Manual of Style, including its subpages, is. Really, really long. Do I really have to read all of it to start making any substantial edits? That seems daunting! But I don't want to start editing if I might make something worse while trying to fix it!!! ✩ vinh in space (✉✦) 13:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @V1nh in spac3, welcome to Wikipedia! The MoS is certainly useful, but the best way to learn how to edit Wikipedia is to just do it - make small improvements to existing articles, and you'll soon pick up the style and format we want. If you make a mistake you can always self-revert, so don't worry about breaking anything. Then if you have any specific confusion, go check the MoS. I'm an editor with near 70,000 edits and still find myself checking the MoS and other help pages to remind myself how to do something or what something should look like.

The Special:Homepage and Wikipedia:Task_Center are useful page for recommended edits you can make at various levels of experience.

You can also join the active Wikipedia Discord for live help.

Let us know if you have any questions! qcne (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I doubt if many people read all of it before starting, but particularly early on they probably (as you likely will) find themselves frequently referring to it over points they're unsure of, and will find themselves referred to it by other editors who revert them for not having abided by it. This is all part of the learning process, and because this is a Wiki and correction by fellow editors is the norm (see WP:BRD), it's not a problem.

You might find it useful at least to skim over the section headings (and dip in where you want to) so you grasp the extent of its coverage: you will probably discover that it includes matters that would never have occurred to you were potential issues. For example, MOS:ENGVAR is something that catches a lot of new editors out. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@V1nh in spac3: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1299. There is a lot of content to sift through in the MOS, but as the temp account above said, be bold; you do not have to read everything. If someone takes issue with your edits, they will let you know through your user talk page or on the article's talk page.

My primary contribution to articles is also copyediting, and as a shameless plug, consider checking out the Guild of Copy Editors! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

There is simply too much material in the MOS to consider learning all of it first. In addition, a person who did learn all of it would be nowhere near ready to be a good editor. It might help to look at it this way: Wikipedia is like a foreign country, and the MOS is like a topographic map of that country. For both Wikipedia and a real foreign country, getting along successfully with the people is much more relevant than memorizing the entire map. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a great comparison, thank you! I barely remember the map of my own country... ✩ vinh in space (✉✦) 02:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

So I'm learning the ropes and it jumped from very simple: "Should a link to another article go here?" To decently complicated in deciding tone. I tried to make it as neutral as possible and the paragraph's already felt somewhat confusing. It's the article on the men's basketball club Cedevita,

Original:

Cedevita started 11–12 season's roster was especially strong with the best foreign player ever in Croatia, three times European Champion with CSKA and Bologna, Slovenian National Team player Matjaž Smodiš, fine Americans Chris Owens and Chris Warren, ex NBA and National Team player Dalibor Bagarić, new NT players Miro Bilan and Marko Car, along with Draper, Baždarić, Princ, Vukušić, Petrović, Opačak. In younger selections, juniors became Champions and cadets vice Champions of Croatia.

My edit:

Cedevita started 2011–12 season with the roster being three time European Champion with CSKA and Bologna, Slovenian National Team player Matjaž Smodiš, Americans Chris Owens and Chris Warren, former NBA and Croation National Team player Dalibor Bagarić, NT players Miro Bilan and Marko Car, and Draper, Baždarić, Princ, Vukušić, Petrović, Opačak. In younger selections, juniors became Champions and cadets vice Champions of Croatia. Toddjjackson (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're inviting comments, Toddjjackson, then "the best foreign player ever in Croatia" would have had to be "reliably sourced" and is rightly cut, "Croation" is misspelt. I don't know what "In younger selections" adds, I'd hyphenate "three-time", the inconsistent capitalization of "vice Champions" looks a bit odd, and it also seems odd to me to say that a roster is a champion (but this may be because the subject-matter is alien to me, or I am to it). HTH. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This is also very helpful! Thank you! Toddjjackson (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• all very helpful Toddjjackson (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there any tag to say that a page is in the wrong language? Nasdn2, alternate account of User97104 21:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nasdn2 (@User97104): is {{Cleanup lang}} what you're looking for? ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the page is completely in the language. Nasdn2, alternate account of User97104 22:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's a recent creation, draftification is probably a good choice. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Not recent, surprisingly lasted for a long time. Nasdn2, alternate account of User97104 23:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

An AfD nom is probably the right course of action then, per TNT. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

{{not English}} is a tag for pages written in a foreign language to this wiki. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A few editors have claimed that there is a rule that genre tags are unreliable. Genre tags are genres that are listed separately from an article's body. I know AllMusic and streaming platforms' genre tags are unreliable as they are auto-generated, but what if the genre tags are assigned by the writer? I am just curious where this so-called rule is. WP:EXPLICITGENRE does not seem to mention it. Lord Petrus Steele (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Genre tags are inherently unreliable - except in those cases where every sane person has no choice but to agree (and therefore the tag is hardly necessary). Example: Mozart's music is "classical" by every modern tagging system, and no one can seriously argue; his name often pops up in definitions of "classical music".

Wait ... Do you mean Wikipedia-reliable? I meant they are real-world day-to-day unreliable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I was going back through articles I created and I realised Tokatake might not be notable. There is almost nothing to say about him, specifically: the whole article is about his family. If it was an article that someone else created, I might have even AfD'd it. What do you think? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that he meets WP:NPOL, having held the highest position in government for those islands at the time. There are many figures who are notable and encyclopedic, even if there's not much that can be said about them. In solidarity, nil ^nz 05:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What should be done about an editor that unilaterally calls attention to a spelling error in a table that readily cannot be corrected in the article. The editor has called the two examples involving "seondary" blatant vandalism. It should be "secondary". Thank you.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this was a simple misunderstanding between @SiniyaEdita and yourself. I corrected the error you pointed you in the Jinja District navbox. If you want to correct spelling errors in templates in the future, you can press the E part of the V T E text on the top left of the navbox if you are on computer to edit the template. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess the other editor misunderstood twice; two different articles. Thank you for the direction. I was alarmed by the other editor's attitude. If there is special programing that has to be done when editing particular sections of an article i would think an experienced editor would understand that and point it out instead of becoming so alarming.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I eventually located what you referred to (VTE) and it appears the same table is used in two different articles so I assume it has been corrected for both? I do recall in one table in an article there was an edit button at the bottom when i went into edit mode. It is not usual for editors to include that mode in developing articles and leave it to VTE?~2026-32542-29 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Individual editors have no control over site format and functionality. Some areas of Wikipedia work differently than others, which can take some getting used to. Additionally, there's mobile vs desktop mode that changes the overall layout and available tools - you can toggle that at the very bottom of any page. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32542-29: I'm sure the other editor knew how to fix it but your post was too vague. You should have said "in the Jinja District table" or something like that (it's actually called a navbox or navigation template but it's OK to not know that). Most users either have to click a "show" link at one of the five navboxes to see the issue (which has now been fixed), or they don't see navboxes at all because they use the mobile version of the site. Our talk pages get many random posts which are unrelated to the article content and this looked like one of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Not to prolong this issue but I find these situations that generally are errors, in a string search. That is a search of the entire WP database. When someone provides coordinates which can be complicated. I disregard them and instead go to a string search based on what is the unique trait of the situation to eliminate all in the article that does not pertain. That can be done either in situ or editing phase. Its clearly more evident in situ as coding is not displayed but if the issue is coding then obviously that phase is the route. But to so unilaterally distinguish something is "blatant vandalism" is an attitude that earns other editors a reputation of being in appropriate and naive. Yes each anomaly should be described to the detail needed to locate it but this is presented as a sp situation in a table and you know the article. When you ask a child to get the wad of cash from the square cookie jar the child knows where is the cookie jar since they have probably been there for an occasional cookie. The editor did not have to act as if they prevented the atom bomb from going off. If it was not understood then that should have been said. There are many things i do not understand in WP. I do not then post that it is blatant vandalism. Other editors have completed other talk page posts so it is not so obscure and they did not approached it with an attitude that the lack of a War & Peace explanation is reason enough to disregard all logic, and escalate. The mushroom cloud still happened by deciding someone's effort to correct WP was disrespected. A few editors will not see it that way. I guess i do not fit expectations although an anomaly has been pointed out. It does not encourage the supposed collegiate atmosphere that is we are encouraged to function.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A simple reversion of an unclear comment is not a "mushroom cloud". The content in question is NOT that easy to find since the template is embedded from the source, and as mentioned above does not always display. I had to do a fair bit of digging to figure out what you meant. Don't assume that people will know what you mean from a few vague words. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to log in to this account on my mobile? RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep! You can either use a Web browser to access the website in the same way as you can on your computer, or download the mobile app. If you want to do complex editing on mobile though, I would suggest sticking to the website as the app has very limited editing functionality (only has the source editor, doesn't properly load user scripts most of the time, etc.). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 17:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks login done in mobile ✅️ RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I've never made an RFC before but I came across a long dispute that's been going on for over a week Talk:Women in Islam and I wanted to help set up either an RFC or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to help settle things. Three things 1) I don't know which is correct to use here 2) I am not involved in the dispute in any form whatsoever, is it still ok to me to setup the RFC or notice board? I mentioned the possibility and received interest by one user involved in the dispute and heard nothing from all the rest. This would be my first time doing this so I would be learning as I go along but I think if I follow instructions on RFC/dispute notice board carefully and make sure to inform all involved parties I can do it correctly. My goal is to help the parties come to a resolution. 3) I have next to no knowledge on the actual argument at hand. Is that a good reason for me to not create an RFC? (I planned to source a neutral summary from the editors involved in the dispute). Wik206 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have next to no knowledge on the actual argument at hand. Is that a good reason for me to not [get involved]? In short, yes. If you have no idea what the dispute is, please don't try to solve it.

The correct venue would almost definitely be DRN rather than an RfC; but the fact you aren't sure how to determine that and you don't even know the facts of the dispute is very good reason for you to not involve yourself.

If you still want to help, then familiarise yourself with the dispute first, since that will probably help clarify what the appropriate avenue for resolution would be. Athanelar (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think what they might mean is that they don't have any prior knowledge on the subject matter itself - the main requirement is being able to understand and adequately summarize the points made by the participants, correct? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the very very bare bones of what their arguing about but any specifics elude me. I'm trying to see if I can get the editors involved in the dispute to collectively agree upon a summary to use rather then attempt to make one myself. I'm optimistic about this succeeding since things still appear to be civil. I probably could understand more if I made an attempt to read the whole talk page, I've honestly barely skimmed it since it's a very long dispute. In all honesty though I have not made a good attempt to understand the issue (and I probably should), I was more optimistic that I could get the editors to collectively form a statement, then submit that to dispute and basically just handle the paperwork. Sorry if I'm going about things improperly I thought this would be a lot simpler/easier then it now appears since it's new to me. I may have to back out if I'm in over my head but I would still like to see my options for helping out.Wik206 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at DRN to see how the process is handled. Asking the editors involved to provide summaries of their positions is a good start. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Wik206 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

My draft Draft:Royale Jeunesse Arlonaise has been waiting for review for more than 3 months. The notice says the usual waiting time is around 3months. May I know if there is any reason for this? Belgbruss (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Note that the message is "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,028 pending submissions waiting for review." The only reason for this is the lack of volunteers reviewing drafts. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Belgbruss (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's all done by volunteers as a hobby. If your topic doesn't meet the interest of any of the reviewers, it has to wait for the attention of the people who are motivated by making sure that every draft gets reviewed eventually. DS (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Belgbruss (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Belgbruss: You created the draft three months ago, but you only submitted it a few weeks ago. Before you submitted the draft, it wasn't in the queue to be reviewed, so those months don't count. Your draft has only been pending since June 24. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize the review queue only starts after the draft is submitted. Belgbruss (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to continue polishing the draft while you wait. In general reviewers respond more quickly if the article is very good or very bad; intermediate cases take more time to review and are therefore unattractive to volunteer reviewers. So if you are aware of any possible improvements I recommend making them now. M kuhner (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Belgbruss (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Belgbruss, have you availed yourself of the references and sources and external links in the French wiki article ? The better and more authoritatively sourced a wiki draft is, the easier it is to approve. (It's OK to use non-English sources, especially since auto-translation is available on most browsers.) Also, to repeat what JohnLaurens333 said above, your draft has been pending review for only 2 weeks, not 3 months. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will review the French article to see if there are any additional good quality references that can be used. Also, I understand the clarification regarding the review timeline. Belgbruss (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to contribute and already I have experienced waves of vague rejections, accusations of COI (I am a librarian, hobbiest. No COI here). And hounding. This is why Wikipedia can't keep new editors. What is the point of trying to author articles and put them through AfC if you are just going to get treated this way? I assumed submitting through AfC was the ultimate sign of good faith. Dash8mama (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dash8mama Writing articles is one of the most challenging tasks to do on Wikipedia, and requires a very robust knowledge of a number of policies, norms, and our manual of style. You've essentially thrown yourself in the deep end without learning to swim and then gotten offended that the lifeguards are pulling you out.

We strongly suggest that you gain experience editing Wikipedia on a smaller scale before you dive into article creation. Athanelar (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar That's an excellent analogy. ~2026-38406-86 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Dash8mama, on your talk page is the comment/question Your editing gives the impression of a conflict of interest. Are you being paid to write any of the pages you have written so far? The combination of this comment and this question isn't at all unusual and I doubt that anyone is happy when it's addressed to them. (It hasn't been addressed to me, but I have been accused of being mentally defective and worse.) You've answered it above, but you haven't answered it on your talk page. I recommend that you answer it there. No explanation has been asked for, so your answer can be short and simple. And then follow Athanelar's prescription (above) for frustration-free wiki-natation. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll add to the above that moving articles to mainspace after they've failed AfC is really not a great look, and tends to make people inherently suspicious of your intentions. You can always re-submit drafts if you believe you've sufficiently addressed the reviewer's concerns. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

i want to change my user name RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Why my Yenugu Thondam Ghatikachalam article moved back to draft? RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Because it's not ready for mainspace due to the reasons listed. I recommend you follow the AfC process as you did with your other draft - I can add the template for you. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have already added more than five reliable sources including a Moneycontrol.. OTTPlay 10TV Telugu article along with two published reviews by Critics that include ratings for the film. Given these improvements i dontt understand how anyone can still claim that the draft is not ready for mainspace. RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple concerns, including use of sources that are not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Please take additional discussion to the talk page for the draft. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are not familiar with Indian source you need to read this Wikipedia:News sources/India RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to submit the draft - if you're correct about it being ready, I'm sure reviewers will agree. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah already submitted on AfC RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Any admin please note this @ChompyTheGogoat see..I don't know what this users problem with me is. Do I have to get their permission just to change my username now? RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No, but you do have to disclose conflicts of interest. I'm sure admins will be along to check it out at WP:COIN and make the appropriate determination. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You closed an ongoing discussion yourself, which shows that you don't even understand Wikipedia's guidelines and What proof do you have of a conflict of interest? Youre just targeting me based on my username—I know that. Give stronger evidence of a COI. I looked at your edit history too; youre not some senior editor. Youre still in the learning stage yourself so dont lecture me. It looks like youre just creating unnecessary issues to improve your own editing credibility. RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Once again - other experienced editors will review the issues. That is the purpose of processes like COIN and AfC. Teahouse is not the appropriate venue for dispute resolution and I will not respond here again. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about a reply. Go find some other innocent user to harass.. not me. I've studied more Wikipedia guidelines in the last three months than you probably have. RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any harassment by ChompyTheGoat. Raising a legitimate concern about a possible conflict of interest is not harassment, and RavishJagarlamudi is the one that mentioned the concern here. I do see personal attacks by RavishJagarlamudi. Meters (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I respect your explanation, and I promise that I won't do this again. RavishJagarlamudi (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I searched up my name in your Wikipedia. I am a well known person in town, because i do cause some trouble. Not for anything bad, but for the good of all families that have been here for long. Cutting the story short, I am very observant of everything that goes on in town. I do have some issues as to the propertys ~2026-39617-36 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

cont.... As I was mentioning my parents bought the property of 5292 Billings road. When we returned from Mexico we came to town and Tulare County was Demolishing the house. My dad never agreed to have his house taken down. He asked why this was happening, they said he would have to pay for the labor. During those times there was alot of racism going on. So my dad ended up leaving the situation at that. He didnt want to make the situation worse. He gave in because of course he didnt have the money to pay for something he didnt ask for in the first place.Tulare county, or god knows who said they would be keeping the property for not paying up. So years pass and I never fail to mention it to anybody but turns out 5292 Billings rd. is the church address. So there it is. I would love for the county to provide proof of all this. Maps included. Thank You, ~2026-39617-36 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is the help desk for Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. We can't help you with a dispute with the county. I suggest you try to contact Tulare county officials, perhaps using the contact information at the county website . Best wishes. M kuhner (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We also have no idea of which, if any, out of our 7.2 million Wikipedia articles might be relevant to the above. Our article Tulare County has links to 80 different other Wikipedia articles about cities, towns and unincorporated communities within it, and we do not appear to have any Wikipedia article containing the name you have titled your query with.

If you have an issue with some content in some Wikipedia article (perhaps about a specific church) then please tell us what that article is. We cannot read your mind. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to create a redirect (Menashe ben Porat of Ilya -> Manasseh of Ilya) but wound up getting it the wrong way around (so Manasseh of Ilya redirected to what I'd intended as a redirect page). I think I managed to mostly undo it, but I did so by moving the Menashe ben Porat of Ilya page to draftspace. I could use help deleting the draft and making the redirect actually work as intended. Ceratarges-etc (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ceratarges-etc: It appears that the redirect Menashe ben Porat of Ilya is working properly. I've gone ahead and deleted Draft:Menashe of Ilya. Deor (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Blac holes, time dilation, dark and light mater,

I wrote a 27 page article about how it all works together, based on our forefathers conclusions

how do I publish it so it is found before or after my death? THMCOOPER (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @THMCOOPER. Wikipediä is an enclyclopediä; articles are summaries of secondary, scholarly works. Original research and reporting belongs elsewhere on other sites, so you cannot publish your article here. toby ^(t)(rw) 14:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

See List of physics journals ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

why isn't a sitting US senator death included in the recent deaths on the front page? ~2026-39863-13 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39863-13 It usually takes a few days for it to get posted. Articles also must be fully cited to be posted (which is still pending for Graham's article). EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-39863-13. There is a current discussion here on whether his death should be featured. All entries go through this process. toby ^(t)(rw) 15:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

probably not left wing enough ~2026-39863-13 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's not open a second discussion here, please. It would be much more useful at toby's link. M kuhner (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39863-13 Nothing to do with his political ideology. Alan Greenspan got a blurb a few weeks ago and Bob Packwood was in recent deaths a few weeks ago as well.

This is the version of the article before Graham's death : In this version, several sentences of the military history section were uncited, the tenure section had multiple tags for needing verification and expansion, and the Israel-Palestine section had a tag to rewrite it in prose. All of these things needed to be fixed before the article could go in the recent deaths section. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

I wanted some help with my user page. I am trying to adjust my tables however, they are just crashing into each other. Could someone please help me?

Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You could add breaks (</br>) between the 2 tables. I'm not exactly sure what you're tables referring to. Nasdn2, alternate account of User97104 14:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Idr888. I have added the template "clear" which prevents templates from conflicting like this. toby ^(t)(rw) 14:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Idr888: Badges from The Wikipedia Adventure are not userboxes so {{userboxtop}} is not designed for them but it looks OK fo me, also without clear, if you say {{userboxtop|bordercolor=black|toptext=Badges|extra-css=width:25em}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That looks a little better to me on test, although it still scrunches them together oddly. Seems to be fine in desktop mode but doesn't play nice with mobile sizing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all. It looks a lot cleaner now. Is there any source, I can learn this coding? Idr888 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed an uncited quote from May of 2012 after finding no non-circular source mentioning it; though it seems that the edit wasn't marked as "probably good" (as all my edits usually are).

I'm concerned that I did something wrong, I'm not supposed to edit Wikipedia today so I logged out but now I'm afraid it looks like I'm evading vandalism detection. If you filter out probably good edits in my contributions you'll find it. Please revert it if I shouldn't have done that. ~2026-39790-89 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear; I'm not allowed to edit Wikipedia at summer camp by my parents; I'm not blocked. I told my parents I have 900 edits and they'll know if the count increases. ~2026-39790-89 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Edit filters are crude automated features there to make spotting vandalism easier, not a reliable means of discerning whether something is vandalism or not, they will always have many false positives and false negatives. I would urge you to enjoy your summer camp. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This does not involve edit filters. Hide probably good edits refers to ORES, which gives scores to edits to assist anti-vandalism patrollers in detecting vandalism. I wouldn't worry about it though, ~2026-39790-89. Scoring badly doesn't mean the edit was bad. The only way to determine if the edit was bad is to look at it, and the edit looks fine to me. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing on the page that needs citations. There is a page already on Wikipedia for an organization with the same name, Folkworks. That page has no citations. Stevegoldfield (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Other stuff exists. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Stevegoldfield, it wasn't rejected (which comes with a "STOP" sign); instead, it, in its current state, was declined (which doesn't). If Draft:Folkworks said nothing that needed citations, it would be vacuous. But let's consider a random example from within it: In January 2020, the website was totally overhauled to become a modern, responsive website featuring the same content that was the original content. According to which reliable source (independent of Folkworks) was the overhaul a total one? According to which is the result modern? According to which is it responsive? (As for the article Folkworks, yes, it's as bad as you say. We already have more than enough articles that are grossly inadequate and perhaps should be deleted.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Stevegoldfield, according to the core content policy Verifiability, every substantive assertion you make in an article needs a reference to a reliable, published source. According to the core content policy No orginal research, you cannot add your unreferenced personal knowledge to the encyclopedia. As for that other article about the other organization with a similar name, it is a piece of crap, and editors work constantly to either improve or delete such bad content. I hope that you do not intend to add more pieces of crap to this encyclopedia. We prefer high quality work that complies with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That policy seems much too rigid to me. The intent of creating this Wikipedia page is precisely to give more visibility to the organization and its work and to help interested people find it. The fact that not much has been published about it and thus there are no citations is precisely why I want to create this entry. That does not make it crap. It's like saying that undocumented people are not people. There is no way that I can add citations which do not exist. I would add that I have seen lots of Wikipedia pages with citations for statements that are ridiculous. Stevegoldfield (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In fact, that is precisely NOT what Wikipedia is for. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are also required under Wikipedia policy to disclose any conflict of interest you have with this (or any) subject. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Stevegoldfield, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Should I use the article talk page to rename and move articles? Fence127 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fence127 You can perform moves yourself if you want (now). More info at WP:MOVE. If you are unsure if it's a good move, you can try to discuss it first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fence127: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1299. The talk page is a great place to start discussions with other interested editors to determine if an article rename is needed. Until you have move permissions, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves if there is a consensus to rename the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Fence127 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please create an RfC for the draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#Draft_of_points_to_edit_or_raise_valid_objections_to -~2026-39629-36 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree told me to ask for help with it here, see this diff.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

TBF advised you to ask for help coming up with a suitable RfC question here, not to ask us to do the RfC for you - which would be inappropriate and impossible as we aren't familiar with the debate. Athanelar (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206, Plasticwonder, Athanelar, and .nhals8: Can we use simple wording for the RfC like, "Please comment on how to improve this draft"? How can I include the gender (women) or should the topic be just religion ({{rfc|reli}})?-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I told you that I don't want to participate anymore. ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 14:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not at all how an RfC works or what it's for. Please read WP:Requests for comment#What an RfC is. Athanelar (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206, Plasticwonder, and Athanelar: I have created an RfC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#RfC_on_draft - please correct any mistakes.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to create the "Support", "Oppose" or "Comment" boxes.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is jumping the gun a bit. I don't think we should create an RFC yet as some other editors have suggested we shouldn't. At any rate though and RFC should provide a brief and neutral summary of the issue and ask for feedback rather then linking to a long and length message and should also notify the involved participants. Please remove the RFC for now until we have proper time to discuss how to go about it and follow the proper procedure. Also please try not to notify PlasticWonder or .nhlas8 for future messages, I don't think either of them want to be involved. Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC as it was created improperly, please do not readd it without first talking to me and other editors. Also please see Wikipedia:RFCOPEN. Thank you. Wik206 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, Plasticwonder, and Athanelar: Wik206 has really removed that RfC and I don't know what to do now. Please create that RfC again at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#RfC_on_draft Thanks!-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review the policies on RFC me and other editors have linked to. In brief there are a couple reasons the RFC was removed. Mainly it didn't follow the RFC format and lacked an Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF, but it may have other issues was well. A couple editors have also already suggested we shouldn't use an RFC and we should follow their advice or see if we can find a way to follow the RFC Format. I have been trying to get a short summary of arguments from both you and @Beatrack which would be helpful for creating either an RFC or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which is an alternative to an RFC. Main point is even if we do create and RFC there are a number of steps we have to take first. Athanelar has also already stated they cannot create the RFC as they don't understand the argument at hand. Wik206 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39629-36 A good start would be to actually read the things people are saying to you. Athanelar (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I mostly gave up on that already. Thank you very much for dealing with this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and had a question about articles related to custom software development companies.

While researching the industry, I came across several companies, including Techanic Infotech UAE, and noticed that many software companies have Wikipedia pages while others don't.

How does Wikipedia determine whether a software development company is notable enough for its own article? Is having an official website and client portfolio sufficient, or are independent news coverage and reliable third-party sources the main requirement?

I'd appreciate any guidance on the best practices before attempting to create or improve an article in this area.

Thank you! ~2026-39864-57 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline.

Also, please be transparent. If you are affiliated with the company you're trying to write about, you need to tell us. Athanelar (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG apply. Beyond that, it's mostly a question or whether or not someone has taken the time to write one. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39864-57.

Please note that, while we talk informally about so-and-so "having" a Wikipedia article, this is inaccurate. Not one company (or person) in the universe "has" a Wikipedia article, in the sense of owning it, controlling it, or it being for their benefit.

The companies you mention are the subject of Wikipedia articles: they do not own or control them, they should not be editing them, and ideally they should not have created them (though I've no doubt many of them were created by paid editors).

Unfortunately we have many thousands of seriously inadequate articles, mostly created before we had the AFC system, and dealing with these is not something that many editors choose to spend time on - whether to improve them or to delete them. But new drafts are evaluated against our current policies, not against existing articles: see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've drafted an article about Morton Buildings in my sandbox. I believe the company meets WP:GNG, but I'm concerned the article may still read too much like a corporate profile. Before submitting through Articles for Creation, I'd appreciate feedback from experienced editors on areas that should be trimmed, restructured, or rewritten to better match Wikipedia expectations.

Sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rooster-James/sandbox/Morton_Buildings_Inc.&action=edit

I work with the company (agency) and have a conflict of interest, so I've drafted the article in my userspace rather than publishing directly. I'm looking for advice on neutrality before submitting through AfC. Rooster-James (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It is exceptionally hard to write an article about your own business (which is why we discourage it). This reads as a business directory, not an encyclopedia article. (It may help to look at WP:NOTPRICE.) The first paragraph has a definitely promotional tone and the Products section is even more so. The last couple of sections are of unclear value. Also, if you have used an LLM in writing this article, please be aware that this is not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:NOLLM). I'm sorry to be discouraging, and will note two positive points: you honorably declared your conflict of interest, and have avoided using the business itself as a source. M kuhner (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rooster-James The best advice I can give you is that which I've written at WP:PAIDADVICE, please heed it well. Athanelar (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Read it. Thank you. Rooster-James (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Obviously the artist is notable; but does that automatically give merit to their albums and warrant stand-alone articles? Grey DeLisle has released 10 albums, but clicking on the ones that have articles: Bootlegger, Vol. 1, The Graceful Ghost, Iron Flowers (Grey DeLisle album), I'm not finding any reason for inclusion at WP. No reviews, no charts, nothing. I can't even see where the artist is mentioned here: Loggerheads soundtrack. What grants them notability for individual articles? Maineartists (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To my eye, precisely nothing and they should all be nominated for deletion. They were all created by the same editor roughly 5 minutes after Wikipedia was founded, and probably only managed to fly under the radar this long because no one has even read them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Maineartists. The answer to your first question is a clear "No": notability is not inherited. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Great. Good to know on all accounts. Thanks, ChompyTheGogoat & ColinFine. I will place the appropriate AfDs accordingly. Maineartists (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

On the article on the Brazil-Uruguay football rivalry, it says that "some [Brazilian] fans in the stands decided to commit suicide" after the Maracanaço. This story is widespread in regard to the match (a common narrative stating that 2 fans jumped off the Maracana), however, it is a myth. Can somebody please correct this with sources? ~2026-39642-23 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The cited source mentions no such thing. Removed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please fix the citation error for citation no.9 in this draft.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit, @~2026-39629-36.

There were spaces in the URL, which are not allowed. I replaced them with the code %20. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)