Wikipedia:Teahouse

abundant sourcing in established publications, mostly offline print. Need experienced eyes.

Hi, I’m hoping to find an experienced editor willing to help shepherd a draft article through the AfC process.

The article is about Dirty Pictures, a Czech punk rock band formed in Prague in 1992. The draft was submitted recently and declined on notability grounds, but the sourcing is genuinely strong — the band received coverage in major Czech national newspapers (Lidové Noviny, Blesk, Český Deník), cover stories and features in Czech music magazines Bang! and Rock & Pop, as well as coverage outside the ČR: Badische Zeitung, NME (a 1994 piece covering Joe Strummer’s appearance at a benefit concert the band organized in Prague), and MTV.

The core challenge is that most of these sources are pre-internet print publications with no online presence. The sources are all cited in the draft & I have scans of every clipping but the initial reviewer appears to have been unfamiliar with the Czech music press of the era.

Would any experienced editor be willing to take a look at the draft and advise, or potentially help with resubmission? Happy to provide all source material.

Full disclosure: I created this draft on behalf of a founding member of the band, who provided all the sources.

Draft:Dirty Pictures. Griffinbunny (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hellom I fixed your link to the draft, the whole url is not needed.

Please review the conflict of interest rules to learn how to formally disclose your conflict of interest.

Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are reliable sources and they are publicly available; books or magazines available in a library are fine. Documents purely in private hands, however, are not. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for fixing the link and for the guidance on sources. Regarding verifiability, these are all published journalism from established Czech publications including major national newspapers and the leading music magazines of the era. I would expect all of them to be available in Czech library archives, though I haven't personally confirmed this. Griffinbunny (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fine, sources do not need to be free or easy to access. Any reader is free to travel to Czechia to go to a library there to verify information.. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Griffinbunny. To add to what 331dot says: the sources also have to be independent of the subject. I have not attempted to look at your sources, but very often newspaper pieces on bands turn out to be mostly based on an interview with the band or their associates, and such sources do not contribute to establishing notability.

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) 09:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Noted on source independence. The vast majority of citations are reviews, news coverage, and feature journalism, not interview-based pieces. The sources speak about the band independently rather than quoting the band about themselves. Griffinbunny (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Griffinbunny To help reviewers verify your sources, you could complete the citations, add translated titles, and try to find links (at the very least) for the sig cov sources that you want to rely on, refer WP:42. Is there an article for this band on Czech Wikipedia? MmeMaigret (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much — this is very helpful. I can add translated titles to the citations. Regarding links, whatever links exist are already built into the citations. Almost all sources are pre-internet print -- I have access to the actual clippings for all of them, and they are all published journalism from established publications but they do not, to my knowledge, exist online (maybe they're on microfilm at a library somewhere?). Re Czech Wikipedia — no article exists yet, though the band is referenced on the Lukáš Vincour and Joe Strummer pages. I feel like a big part of the problem is that I am a 100% newbie here on Wikipedia. I am hoping to find an experienced editor to help shepherd the re-submission. Griffinbunny (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Griffinbunny You might find it hard to find an editor to help you because everyones has got their own list of articles they want to write. Plus you're looking for someone who speaks Czech, has an interest in music etc. I would suggest:

1. Pause and try to create the page on Czech Wikipedia first. Their criteria for inclusion are likely to be different from English Wikpedia but a lot more people will assist you and/or edit the page.
2. Meanwhile on English Wikipedia:
   • you can try asking your mentor;
   • you might ask someone in your local WP Embassy for help.

cc:@Itsyoungrapper @Mormegil

- Mme Maigret (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is exactly the kind of guidance I was hoping for. I'll look into Czech Wikipedia seriously and also explore the Embassy route. I'm also going to check on the mentor option for my account. I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with this so carefully, it means a lot. I see you tagged a couple of people -- should I reach out to them? Griffinbunny (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Griffinbunny:

• Itsyoungrapper is the Czech ambassador on English Wikipedia; and
• Mormegil is an ambassador on Czech Wikipedia (who also edits on English Wikipedia).

Mme Maigret (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much, once again. I will reach out to both and circle back if needed 🙏 Griffinbunny (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I updated the Wikipedia page by expanding history/background and adding citations. In the process, I used Grammarly to restate 2 sentences and now I can't publish. Please help. I am a new user and have put many hours into this and inadvertently used Grammarly not knowing it would knock out my submission. It was a very minor edit. What can I do?? Thank you in advance. Sparksperl (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a +2,767 bytes edit can be considered as a minor edit. And about Grammarly, Don’t worry, this is a pretty common situation, especially for new editors.

If you ask me, You can use tools like Grammarly to correct spelling errors and minor grammar mistakes. But, It's better to avoid Grammarly to rewrite sentences. Because, even small rewordings can sometimes be flagged as AI generated. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sparksperl Grammarly incorporates AI functionality now. If you used Grammarly to restate 2 sentences, that means you had AI write two sentences for you; and AI-generated content is not allowed in Wikipedia articles nowadays. Athanelar (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please advise what I can do to rectify. Here are the changes made by Grammarly: 1) first paragraph under BACKGROUND, second sentence, "She was inspired to become politically active and was deeply affected.....". The word "was" was removed. 2) second paragraph under BACKGROUND, second sentence, "In late 1969, she was picked to become one of the first women trainees at Saul Alinsky's School of Community Organizing in Chicago." The word "picked" was replaced by the word "selected" and the apostrophe "s" was removed from "Alinsky".

Please help me with this. Thank you. Sparksperl (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What can I do to get this approved? I am sorry that I have trouble understanding what I must do to be published.

thank you in advance for your help on my behalf. Sparksperl (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make the edits that you're trying to make in smaller chunks rather than all at once, that way if there's any further issues it's easier to remove small pieces at a time. Athanelar (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So do I start from scratch by using the existing page and "edit"? Maybe just do the Background section first? How long do I wait until doing another chunk? Thank you! ~2026-22344-85 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is normally how editing articles works; you work from what's already there, adding missing information etc.

There's no hard limit on how long you should wait; provided you're making constructive edits and providing reliable sources for any factual information you add, you'll be fine. Athanelar (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sparksperl I would:

• put the first "was" back in
• actually check if it's "Saul Alinsky's School" or the "Saul Alinsky School" but Saul Alinskys School doesn't make sense
• go back to picked.

Honestly, Grammarly was of questionable help to you. (But I'm also surprised that was enough to get you flagged.) However, if that's the level of language mistakes you're worried about, don't. Your article isn't going to get declined for that and there are editors on Wikipedia who would love nothing more than to fix your grammatical mistakes. So let them. Mme Maigret (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

im really new to wikipedia and 3 of my articles have been rejected and only 1 accepted. i feel really discouraged since if i try to write about a more common thing, the article already exists. if i try to write about something obscure, theres almost no info anywhere. is this common or is wikipedia not for me. ive spent days researching things and still found only a few things to cite. BabyJerryISking (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There are numerous ways to contribute to Wikipedia except creating articles. Athanelar (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

other than Polygnotus (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Please don't get discouraged.

I think you've fallen into the same mindset that I did when I started twenty years ago: "I've got to make new articles! That's how to make my mark!"

But now, I realise that creating new articles is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to made Wikipedia better. I have only ever created about a dozen articles.

We have seven million articles: how many of those do you think cannot be improved? Ten? A hundred? Maybe even a thousand, but I doubt it.

That leaves millions and millions of articles which aren't as good as they might be if somebody chose to spend some time and effort improving them. There are probably also millions of articles that are really really bad - usually because they are inadquately sourced. Some of those should certainly be deleted, because satisfactory sources don't exist; others could be improved and turned into decent articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Writing an article is the hardest job on Wikipedia, and nearly impossible for a new editor to do successfully until becoming intimately familiar with all of the linked policies and guidelines found in WP:Golden rule. You get that knowledge by improving existing articles and engaging with the community on talk pages. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much.

i guess i got caught up in trying to be immediately great at everything that i thought i could make a bunch of articles.

ill just sdit and help till i get better. :D BabyJerryISking (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! i attempted editing articles and found it much easier. thanks! BabyJerryISking (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The page on Shannon Denton has existed since 2005 and is completely unsourced - would this be grounds for removal? If so, how would one begin that process? MissRedwood (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you want to have the article deleted? We would usually rather see it improved. I did a quick search and turned up several good sources, I think it would be kept in a deletion discussion personally. MediaKyle (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope! Just seemed like an issue that it's been up so long without sourcing. Was also just curious for future reference. Thanks! MissRedwood (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@MissRedwood If it fails GNG, there's no reason to retain it. The normal course is to propose it be deleted first, and if someone objects, you can nominate it for deletion. Although if you think someone will likely object, you should skip PROD as PROD is only for deletions you think are uncontroversial. Mme Maigret (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What would one do about a deletion they thought might be controversial? Discuss on the talk page first? Edit: Never mind, didn't realize there was a difference between proposing and nominating. Thanks for the info! MissRedwood (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

MediaKyle, could you share those sources? I stubified the page and adding some more sources would be good. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of an overreaction... Would have been better to just prod it than have an article that insults the subject through brevity. Yet another victim of the Teahouse I suppose. I have no interest in the subject matter personally. MediaKyle (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I was planning on expanding it a bit further, and was asking for those sources for the purpose of expanding it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

....Betelgeuse. When will this star blow up, and can anything found on this star be used in the article about this star? I have seen all manner of rumors on this all over the place, and I have heard that IF one of its poles is facing Earth, Earth will be destroyed by a Gamma Ray Burst when it blows up. ~2026-16963-29 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I assume you read Betelgeuse#2019–2020_fading. If you want to suggest sources and content for the article. go to Talk:Betelgeuse. If you want to ask "When will this star blow up", you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16963-29 It may already have blown up. As it is over 400 light-years away, we wouldn't know until the "burst" arrives here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've seen various discussions on whether Betelgeuse will destroy Earth and what it will do.

From what I've seen, most scientists appear to agree that it is not close enough to destroy Earth (it's about 450 light years away, as Mike mentioned above), but it is close enough to be very bright. Estimates range from the explosion's brightness to be greater than that of Sirius (the current brightest star in the sky) at the low end and that of the sun during the day at the high end.

In conclusion, Betelgeuse probably won't destroy Earth, but it might destroy our sleep schedules. Remember that this is all speculative, and that we won't know what will happen until it happens, but it's fun to think about.--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 13:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

What will the explosion of Betelgeuse look like from Earth, and if it blew up now, can that and any illustrations be used in any articles? This is all over the place like YouTube. ~2026-16963-29 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources have something you find interesting:

If you find a WP:RS, like, say, NASA, that says the star just blew up, that can probably be used on WP somewhere. The rule of thumb is that any random pic/vid you find online is under copyright and can't be used on WP or Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

IF one of its poles is facing Earth, will it destroy the planet in some kind of "Gamma Ray Burst, as shown on YouTube, TikTok, other places?~2026-16963-29 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Or, you know, google. See if you find answers you think plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! @Shoot for the Stars seems to have a habit of uploading very low quality images of celebrities to replace reasonably high-quality infobox pictures, and then edit warring to make sure that their version stays on the page. See:

• Talk:Trippie_Redd#Photo
• Eric Trump
• Cardi B
• Talk:Jason Bateman

Their favorite technique seems to be to upload a new, low quality image, and then force other people to "start an RFC" if they want to change it back. I am not familiar with every nook and cranny of Wikipedia's consensus policy, but I don't think this is how things work.

They also make unnecessarily threatening comments to random people who bring up that the pictures are bad ("If you change the photo one more time without a consensus then I will report you for starting an edit war."), and also have a history of extreme incivility/edit warring on other topics (for example Talk:Elliot_Rodger/Archive_1#Images).

What is the best move here? I am not clear on whether WP:ANI is appropriate here, but it would be nice for someone to gently tell this person that this is not how things work. Thanks! ~2026-16034-49 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to second what @~2026-16034-49 says, and incur my chat with a noted admin (User talk:Black Kite#Appealing to you for advice). Also, @Shoot for the Stars is attempting to delete the other (which is unlikely to succeed for reasons provided on the previously cited chat also), better, Trippie Redd photo in order to upload their low-quality one. Scientelensia (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to add this has been a problem on more pages, including Karen Fukuhara. Scientelensia (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

How bizzare. I would say this is appropriate for WP:ANI since it's happening over many pages and wont get resolved on any one article's talk page. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This is very strange and seems like basic trolling to me. Sentimental Dork (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently, an editor has been adding animated illustrations, possibly self-drawn, to the infoboxes of articles on historical figures from WP:MYANMAR (for example, this, this, and this). Although MOS:LEADIMAGE says that lead images should be natural, I also believe this may go against MOS:IMAGEREL, which says that images should be encyclopedic in nature. First, I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that these animated illustrations should be removed from infoboxes. Second, if this editor’s actions do go against the guidelines, where should I ask for help to prevent further additions of this kind, given that they have already added them to more than ten articles? TIA. Htanaungg (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Those don't look animated to me, they just look hand-drawn. They are jpg files, which don't support animation (if they did, they'd have an extension ajpg or mjpg).

If no other illustration is available under an acceptable free license, then it's fair game to use a user-generated portrait of the article subject. We show user-created artwork as lead images in many other articles, particularly ones about sexual practices. Whether these particular drawings are appropriate is something to be determined on the talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Demographics of Sudan - Wikipedia

I am bringing this awareness to this page because as a Sudanese, I found something wrong. Check the page because it showed that the sections of Migration and Emigration are empty which is not good for Wikipedia pages.

I wanted to bring this to Teahouse for awareness. Talk:Demographics of Sudan - Wikipedia

Sudanese Diaspora Populations Around the World - The Sudanist ~2026-81618-8 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-81618-8 Thanks for finding a reliable source on migration. There are only 44 editors who watch that article, so it may be some time before anyone works to put the numbers into the article. I would encourage you to be bold and update the article yourself, as it is open for editing by everyone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

...failing that, you might want to lave a note at WT:WikiProject Sudan or WT:WikiProject Africa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Good thinking! ~2026-81618-8 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I received a request on my talkpage here to replace the image on the Leading Company article with a higher resolution one found on internet archive. I don't think this is permitted but double-checking, please advise, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306,

Since the cover art is a copyrighted work of art, its inclusion in the article would be subject to point 3b of WP:NFCCP. So, no, the higher resolution picture should not be uploaded. I would explain this to the user by saying that lower resolution images are often preferred so as to comply with copyright law. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

but there is already a redirect with the title of the document.

In this case, is it correct to remove the redirect and create a document, or is it correct to keep it by adding (horse racing)?

The document I want to create is Korean Derby. This is a document related to Korean horse racing, but it overlaps with the redirect. Usually, when we say Korean derby in Korea, we mean a match between Korean soccer players (like Son Heung-min vs. Kim Min-jae) and not South Korea vs. North Korea (in Korea, we call it the North-South Korean Derby, not the Korean Derby), so it's surprising that it was redirected. Coperacchio (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's likely that some people (especially non-Koreans) will still search on "Korean Derby" looking for the football topic, and some will search on it for the horse race. You could turn the redirect into a WP:Disambiguation page, though that's not usual for only 2 alternatives, when a WP:Hatnote on each article is preferred.

If you create your proposed new article as a WP:Draft, and submit it for review, it will be the job of the reviewer, if they accept it as an article, to choose the most suitable name, WP:Move the draft to that, and also resolve any other naming conflicts (which you can alert them to on the Draft's Talk page). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

On this page, you will notice that I've bundled many citations using an "efn" template. However, on this page that system will not work, because "efn" notes end up in an existing note list under a table, instead of at the end of the article. If you look at my last few edits on that page, you'll see that I tried another system, but I couldn't figure out how to put named references into that type of bundle. If someone could show me the best way to bundle citations on the second page, that would be very helpful. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter I think that you can achieve what you want by using the grouping feature described at {{efn}}. You could create a new group with {{efn|group=lower-roman|Footnote 1}} and then {{notelist|group=lower-roman}} where you want your new notes to appear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Realised I now have two registrations, under 2 email accounts, plus an email account for donations. Perhaps I should combine them? If so how?

Can I change the user name as it appears publicly? Norrette (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse!

Unfortunately, you cannot combine accounts, nor can you change your username. However you can make one of those accounts the main, and make the other one your alternate account, you can do this by publicly displaying it on your user page. If you really want to change your username consider creating a new account for it. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 09:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Norrette. Balintkaistryingediting is correct that you can't combine the accounts, but wrong about changing your username, which can be done by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. For transparency purposes, I suggest picking one of your accounts, abandoning the other, and placing a note on the user page of the account you'll continue to use, telling people what your other account was. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that, I didn't search deeply, since another official Wikipedia page said that i couldn't (maybe I just understood it wrong🤔) Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 09:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that the donation process is completely separate from Wikipedia accounts and editing; the donation process is conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and donation records are not linked to accounts for privacy reasons(it's also not required to have a Wikipedia account to donate to the Foundation). The only way we know that a Wikipedia editor/user has donated is if they say so, there's no way by third parties to confirm or deny it. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Balintkaistryingediting Perhaps you read WP:SOCK, which deals with the incorrect use of alternate accounts, not WP:VALIDALT, which deals with the correct use of alternate accounts. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! The Username violations part made me think that i needed a new account to change my username. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 10:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Norrette You have only made two edits globally with your "Norette" account. That means it would be a waste of time to change its name. Just abandon it and use your other account from now on, unless, of course, that other account has even fewer edits, or for some reason you prefer to be known as "Norette". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Tamanpreet Kaur (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, you can't trust anything but Wikipedia is checked constantly by editors. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 13:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You follow the references and see if they support what the article is saying and then decide if the publisher of said reference is reliable. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee its reader with absolute truth, it just makes the offer of the best volunteered effort to aggregate all the trusted sources. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Tamanpreet Kaur You don't, see WP:TRUTH. You need to examine the sources provided in an article and decide for yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, SomeRandomGuy3523 here, i need some advice and possibly some assistance regarding the article I've made about the 1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry, to see what i got wrong, would be of great help, Thanks. (i use Visual editor btw) SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would be inclined to expand the caption of your image to explain that it is a painting from 1911, (and thus not contemporary). Your "Battle of Independence" link is to a disambiguation page; please fix that.

You should add categories to the page. I have added relevant WikiProject templates to the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

but the process seems too complicated

I started reading about AfD, but wow, there's a lot there. This article is short, poorly written, and could be merged into the author's article: The Mighty and the Almighty by Madeleine Albright. I wouldn't think this would be controversial but you never know. Any thought? Start with talk page and come back in a week if no one responds? Regards, Seananony (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Deletion is not cleanup is worth reading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"short and poorly written" are not necessarily reasons to delete an article. Have a read through WP:DELREASON and see if any apply.

If AfD does end up being appropriate, you may want to enable WP:TWINKLE which, among many other things, makes creating AfD nominations a two-click process. Athanelar (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Seananony You shouldn't do AfD manually, just use WP:TWINKLE instead.

Also note that merging articles is a different (and somewhat easier) procedure from proposing deletion. See WP:MERGE. 🍅 fx (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon Actually, last month it was decided that page mergers should go through AfD. HurricaneZeta^C 15:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta oh nice, I didn't know that, thanks for telling! Do you have rhe RFC link by any chance? 🍅 fx (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merging merge discussions with AfD HurricaneZeta^C 15:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta Thanks for that link. It appears that WP:MERGE is completely out-of-date and needs extensive work to explain the new process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

hello how to write an article about an artist so that it doesn't get rejected? thanks Chungquanh (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

First review WP:NMUSIC and make sure the article subject meets that requirement before you go any further, and that you have sources to demonstrate that fact. Then you can read and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Further to the above, you need to cite sources that meet the requrements noted at WP:42. You can use the WP:AfC process to draft it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Spiderone declined my Draft,Draft:Razer Phone 2. How will I fix it? Computerchocolate (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Computerchocolate: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Main source: Computerchocolate (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's simply basic information from a database. Why is the Razer Phone 2 notable? It may very well be, but you've just shown that it exists, and Wikipedia is not simply an indiscriminate collection of information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Main source: Computerchocolate (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the comments in the box at the top of the draft? They give the precise answer to your question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Computerchocolate,

The "draft declined" notice that Spiderone put at the top of your draft explains to you why your draft was declined, and what you will need to fix in order for the draft to be accepted. There's also plenty of helpful links listed in the same notice for how you can improve your draft. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 23:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote an article about Latvian watercolor painter Zigmunds Šnore and I need help publishing it. My account is too new to create pages. Can someone help me submit it? Snorerenars (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like your draft is in Latvian; the English Wikipedia doesn't publish articles in languages other than English. You can try on the the Latvian Wikipedia if you like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

In addition, you may wish to review WP:COI; by your username I assume you have a connection to this person. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

(btw, external links are only separated with a space, not a pipe |, else they won't work) HyperAnd [talk] 00:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 00:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Snorerenars You can create Draft:Zigmunds Šnore and then submit that for review. However it will be an instant fail as it's not in English. Also it needs to be supported by WP:Reliable sources which is doesn't currently have. Have a read of Help:Your first article to find out what the minimum standards are. Nthep (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

how can add videos ? Yoginiswatijain (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you, Yoginiswatijain, asking about how to add videos (either in the public domain or acceptably copyleft) to Wikimedia Commons, or about how to add videos that are already at Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia articles? -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Please how to get access to an article that was deleted but a part of it included in another article? I need the part that is now absent altogether. Or is it impossible? Ev292 (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ask the deleting administrator if they'll email you a copy of the article text as it was at the last revision before deletion. (Note that it's highly unlikely they will give you the text of articles deleted as patent nonsense, vandalism, attack pages, plagiarism, straight chatbot output, non-sequiturs, or effectively blank.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But, I see, I'll have too few chances after many attempts to get to know things I don't know now and trying to find out who that administrator is. By the way, the part I need was the list of the NYMR diesel locomotives. Maybe Google search will appear more easy and efficient. Ev292 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ev292: Please always be specific and name pages you want help with. I guess it's List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. It wasn't actually deleted but just redirected when some of the content was merged. If you click "(Redirected from List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway)" at top of the page then you get to the redirect page where you can click the "View history" tab and find the old content in former revisions like . PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Ev292 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ev292, one last note, if you are merging or copying within Wikipedia, the edit summary should include something like, "Merged content from List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (10 March 2026); see that page's history for attribution." to credit the original authors. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not so good at editing to merge or do any big work here. Commas, spelling, a bit of stylistics - those are my editing, and not in the English Wikipedia. Ev292 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to make an article about Ownage pranks, you know the prank channel But the problem is that i dont know what credbile soruces are there and the ones i see is facebook fandom some website named fabcelelife Dommer simpson (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's unlikely that anyone else is going to look for sources. If you can't cite sources that are independent of the subject and each other, that go into depth on the subject, and that are reliable, then no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi I noticed the “Advanced mode” option in my settings but I m not sure what its benefits are or how it helps with editing. Could someone please explain what it does and when I should use it? Mexico's Claudia (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

i dont know 😂 ~2026-22456-78 (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mexico's Claudia, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Like the TA, I didn't know, but I used the useful trick of searching for the phrase with "WP:" in front of it, and it showed me WP:advanced mode, which actually redirects to mw:Reading/Web/Advanced mobile contributions, which explains the mode. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mexico's Claudia. It has a link on "Learn more". You use the mobile version of the site which has a reduced interface due to small mobile screens. "Advanced mode" adds some of the features from the desktop version. You can get the desktop version by clicking "Desktop view" at the bottom of a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

cool thanks both of you🤍 Mexico's Claudia (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

if she never said she has identical or fraternal or ever dna tested how Wikipedia know she has identical twin sister. Is Wikipedia use guessing if that true should i do not use Wikipedia for research? ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

okay so can we not invade their privacy by demanding a DNA test or something? and I doubt that DNA tests are supposed to be cited if Hyo-young and Hwa-young just say they're twins. In fact, per this Seoul Economic Daily article, Ryu Hyo-young, who recently displayed endless evil deeds driven by an obsession with love and honor in the TV Chosun drama ‘Grand Prince: Drawing Love’ [...], spoke about the differences between herself and her twin sister, Ryu Hwa-young. Of course, she continued speaking while jokingly adding, “Both our appearances and personalities are completely different.” nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

But also, per this Daum article, Ryu Hwa-young is an identical twin sister and the younger sister of Ryu Hyo-young (whose stage name at the time was Hanbit Hyo-young), a former member of the groups Coed School and Five Dolls. Ryu Hwa-young was born one minute later, and the older sister is Ryu Hyo-young, who has a mole under her right eye. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

yea just say they are twin sister and appearances and personality doesn't scientific and accurate I hope Wikipedia have accurate information ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

that's like saying that you're disregarding Eminem was born from his mom just because no source would talk about the journey of getting the exact sperm that creates Eminem into his momma's womb

not every single citation in Wikipedia has to be scientific or biological dude nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-22560-62, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The information is not cited to a source in the article Ryu Hyo-young. But in Ryu Hwa-young, it is cited to an article in Naver.

So this information appears to be supported by three different sources (I don't know which if any of these are reliable sources). It would be a good idea if somebody would add one of these citations to the article. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

if it's citing namu (basically Naver's version of Wikipedia/Fandom) then replace it with other sources per WP:UGC

anyways the citation about the twin in the Ryu Hwa-young article is linked to OSEN tho, the Naver one is for her birth date and place nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

agree if we have solid proof then use the original statement and i believe that Wikipedia is pure information for spreading. ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

but if not just lets use twin sister and when we get the right information that we need we will just add identical or faternal on the article ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

we'd rather keep it as just "twins" ... nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

yea if they if there statement or we get any solid proof we will change the statement again so our information will stay accurate ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

so if you guys give me permission may i change the article identical twin to twin ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

go ahead. oh and remember to cite sources regarding their twinhood (the Daum article i gave above is one) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

do i need to add that article? ~2026-22560-62 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You should not be using Wikipedia for research purposes. Some of the cites in an article may be useful for research, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor. I've come across what appears to be a factual discrepancy. A current Wikipedia article attributes the title of "first Pakistani female drifter" to a person whose first documented drift event was in November 2025. However, multiple independent reliable sources identify a different person, Laiba Khan Lodhi, as holding that title, with coverage dating back to March 2024:

• Social Diary Pakistan (March 2024)
• Pakistan Observer
• Sunday Times Pakistan (January 2026)
• UAE Stories (January 2026)

What is the proper way to address this? Should I raise it on the article's Talk page, or is there another process for correcting factual claims in biographies of living persons? I want to make sure I follow the right steps. Thank you. Motorsports1337 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy article: Dina Patel (note that I'm going to bed so you're gonna wait a bit for another editor to assist u ;;} nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm also a new editor, but I believe especially when it comes to biographies of living persons, if you come across a discrepancy, you should be bold and make the changes yourself. Do take care and be sure that the sources are indeed reliable, properly cite them, and if you deem necessary, explain your reasoning for the change in the edit summary! Squitor (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Motorsports1337, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have sources that say incompatible things about the subject, and they all appear to be reliable sources, then the article should say so: "source A says X and source B says Y". What you should not do is try to resolve the disagreement, as that would be original research. (If you have a third reliable source that discusses the disagreement, and tries to resolve it, you can of course say what that source concludes). ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Motorsports1337, this appears to be a case where specific claims in separate articles contradict each other, or at least, cannot both be true at the same time. If the claims in the article are specific and occur at a particular sentence (or sentences) in the article, then you can tag them with template {{Contradictory inline}} in each article, linking the other. If it is more the whole outlook or view of the article contradicts another one, then place template {{Contradicts others}} at the top of the articles. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I want to add an image of Akira Otani to the Development section of the video game series article Mario & Luigi, of which he is currently the producer, but I'm worried that there isn't a way of doing so that complies with fair-use, in particular the possibility of a free equivalent.

Would I be able to argue that the image I currently have in mind came from an interview that took place just before the release of the latest (2024) game in the series, hence no free equivalent is available since the interview already took place, and the game has already been released? Thanks! Squitor (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If no free image is available, then in order for it to be fair use you also need to argue that the image is necessary to further the understanding of the subject in some way. A photo of one of the developers isn't really necessary to help us understand the video game series, so I doubt you'll get away with that one. Athanelar (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar That makes sense, I assumed it would be fine since The Last of Us uses many images of the people behind it, but I'm now realising they aren't non-free. Forgot to consider that, whoops. Appreciate the quick help! Squitor (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Squitor Sorry, but we can't use fair use images of living people. The replaceability criterion also applies for works that could be taken, so someone could theoretically take a free image of him right now. Fair use is only permitted for deceased people, or people that have disappeared/unknown whereabouts and the like. HurricaneZeta^C 17:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, this is what I feared. Oh well, thanks for the quick response and help! Squitor (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

hi I want to add cover page photo of Humare Ram page pls guide Hindiedits (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hindiedits Refer to Help:Creation and usage of media files. The page has an image section which should hopefully have the information you need, or otherwise will link to another page that does. If you have any further questions about the process, use the "Ask a question" button at the top of this page, as I personally don't have the experience to guide you effectively on specifics. In case you didn't realise, you left your question as a reply to mine, which may not get as much attention from other (more experienced) editors compared to a standalone topic. Good luck! Squitor (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Correction: I don't believe you did reply to my question, but nevertheless using the button at the top of this page, along with an appropriate query title, will be more helpful in the future. Squitor (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hindiedits.

I have added a header to separate your question from the preceding discussion. Please use "Add topic" to ask new questions here.

You may only add a picture if you have one that meets Wikipedia's copyright rules - specifically, that it is licensed in a way that anybody may reuse for any purpose. Most pictures that you find on the internet (and elsewhere) do not meet this criterion.

If you have a picture that you took yourself, you may upload it to Commons using the Upload wizard, and then add it to an article.

But if you did not take the picture yourself, you probably cannot use it, unless the copyright owner (who is usually the photographer, not the subject) agrees to license it appropriately: see WP:donating copyright materials. More generally, see image use policy. ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see Help:Introduction to images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

hello , when I try to translate pages from a language to another the bots give me a starter paragraph that only needs couple of words to change maybe spelling mistakes but all of the info is correct , my problem is I can't publish It because it says "88% not changed"for example , do I have to word everything differently? Deffozendaya1 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Deffozendaya1 You can click on "Mark as resolved" and the error message goes away for you to publish, and it's not necessarily a 'reword-everything' case. ^^ nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 05:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse. I'm looking at Blake (band) and wondering if there is a guideline about the amount of BLP information that is appropriate to include in a band article for the band's members. Four members / ex-members of Blake have fairly detailed biographical information not related to their time in the band in this article. What is the consensus about what is useful to readers and what is WP:UNDUE? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I would guess that for a band article, it should probably just say details about their time in the band, like when they joined or left. The rest is probably unnecessary. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 21:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tacyarg The information on the Baines and Berney are an okay length. I would suggest you cut Bowman in half and see if you can reduce Tighe by about 3 lines. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tacyarg I've gone ahead and trimmed them. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Crystal is also called "crystal ball". I understand it to mean that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball speculating the future. However, I believe if there are reliable sources reporting about the future, this is not really crystal ball. By the English language, it is a crystal ball, sort of, but by Wikipedia standards, the Wikipedia editors are not the crystal ball, rather the Wikipedia editors are reporters of reliable sources.

I quote the WP:Crystal: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

This got my attention because several sources are writing that a car company is going to make an updated model of a car. While it is predictive of the future, I am not the one making the prediction. The reports are that the car will be released next year so it is not so far into the future that it is speculative. In fact, if the company headquarters were ransanked (and I urge Wikipedians to AVOID criminal activity), then I wouldn't be surprised that contracts have already been signed with suppliers and suppliers have already developed components for the car, like the windshield, wheels, brake lines, etc.

What do you think of the interpretation of WP:Crystal ball? I ask for your general interpretation, not a specific opinion of an edit or article. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanguard10 - IMHO it almost totally depends how you phrase the inclusion - if you state "X will be released on Y", that contravenes WP:Crystal. If you state "the company has announced that X is due to be released on Y", and cite a reference, that is not WP:Crystal, it is fair reportage of a companies statement. - Arjayay (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The crux of WP:CRYSTAL is "what information is appropriate to include in an encyclopedia?" Note the key line which comes right before the quote you gave; the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

Point 1 repeats this; Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Emphasis mine.

So, that immediately eliminates a lot of future events - and for good reason. We're an encyclopedia, not, for example, a car magazine; so we don't need to exhaustively report on future car models, to use your example. Even if that information is reliably sourced, it might not be appropriate to include.

Certainly, though, an encyclopedia is not the place to engage in speculation and gossip; and that's really what CRYSTAL is about; even if an event would be notable were it to happen, unless it's definitely going to happen we shouldn't write about it. Athanelar (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, it applies to anything in the future, even to tomorrow. You cannot say that a sports match will take place on 15 April if it is 14 April when you save your edit, but you can always write, the sports match is scheduled to take place on 15 April" because the scheduling itself took place in the past and you can report that today. Maybe the arena will burn down an hour before the match and it gets canceled, but that doesn't affect the fact that it was scheduled, whether the match actually happens or not. There is a kind of exception where uncertainty is essentially zero and humans are not involved, such as for cosmological events which depend on physical laws not on human activity, so at Solar eclipse of August 12, 2026 you can safely say for example:

A total solar eclipse will occur at the Moon's descending node of orbit on Wednesday, August 12, 2026

So the general trick is to avoid future tense, and wherever you see "will occur on <date>", just change it to read, "is scheduled for <date>", and then you are fine. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As a follow up, Vanguard interpreted this as agreeing with him re-adding magazine speculation (based on back door reports from undisclosed company insiders). He declared this at Talk:Chevrolet_Camaro#7th_Generation.

I'm also disappointed that he had this discussion without inviting me (the primary opponent) or contacting me in any way whatsoever. Hardly an unbiased way to resolve things.  Stepho  talk  06:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse may reply. In fact, please do. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

When the question becomes one of source reliability rather than verb tense and wording, that is a different question and is source- and content-dependent. The proper venue for the content dispute is Talk:Chevrolet Camaro, at least for starters, and WP:RSNB if there are disagreements about sources. The WikiProject Automobiles should be notified to take part at the article TP. Even a section header like ==Seventh generation== is subject to WP:Verifiability, and a heading like that may well run afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL if it appears to be giving Wikipedia's imprimatur to something that is not fully sourced, or that it will be called that if/when it appears. (As a tangential issue: please use full citations to avoid the problems occasioned by WP:BAREURLs when adding content.)

This is beyond basic editing questions now, and the Teahouse is not really geared towards resolving content disputes. Imho further discussion should continue at article Talk. I'm involved, but would encourage hatting this with status=moved. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For what seems like several weeks now, many pages appear with empty rectangles where I normally expect to see image thumbnails. Captions under the rectangles look normal. Clicking in a rectangle takes me to a media page as expected. Refreshing the page sometimes brings some of the thumbnails into view; images I have clicked and viewed in the same session usually appear on the page after such a refresh. Device is an iPad Air 2 running IOS 15.8.7 that matters. Is this a known WP issue? Should I be asking my ISP or Apple support about it? cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's more likely to be a browser issue, not a Wikipedia issue. Older iOS/WebKit browsers can sometimes struggle with loading thumbnails properly. So, I think you should seek help from Apple Support. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Or you could install an alternative browser. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I am adding citations to the article Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria and came across a newspaper clipping which would be useful. However, I cant seem to find the original article, especially seeing as the actual title and name of newspaper have been cut out. The only information I am given is an annotation saying "1953 Nov. 13 Wash News". Is it acceptable to just reference this? and if so how? To make matters worse the address I got it from is https://ekonyvtar.sk-szeged.hu/JaDoX_Portlets/displayContent?docId=51033&secId=50828&cast=pdf which just immediately downloads the pdf. Freddieh9 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Freddieh9 probably not. You can't really verify the reliability of an anonymous PDF scan of an unmarked newspaper, so I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

I also spent some time myself trying to find the source through The Wikipedia Library, but unfortunately wasn't able to find anything. Searching for the author's name gave no clues either, because they wrote for a lot of different newspapers. 🍅 fx (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Freddieh9, give me just a bit, and I'll get you a working URL and full citation for this. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Freddieh9, okay how's this:

• Byng, Edward J. (13 November 1953). "Archduchess, 70, Last Link With 'Mayerling', Lives on in Tiny Vienna Bungalow". The Washington Daily News. Washington, D.C. p. 43. PDF scan.

• <ref name=Byng-1953>{{cite news |last=Byng |first=Edward J. |title=Archduchess, 70, Last Link With 'Mayerling', Lives on in Tiny Vienna Bungalow |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-washington-daily-news-archduchess-7/195450502/ |work=The Washington Daily News |date=13 November 1953 |pages=43 |location=Washington, D.C.}} [https://ekonyvtar.sk-szeged.hu/JaDoX_Portlets/displayContent?docId=51033&secId=50828&cast=pdf PDF scan].</ref>
  

That low resolution is all Newspapers.com allows for a public clipping, but if it's too blurry, I can clip a specific column of text, just let me know, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii how did you find this? I tried searching on newspapers.com for the first sentence of the article and it found no results. 🍅 fx (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you that's amazing! Freddieh9 (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad it helped. Also, a staircase thought but if you run into this kind of issue in the future, you might check out WP:RX. Other editors have found some really obscure sources for me on there before. @Flexagoon, I searched for the date with "Archduchess", and then ctrl+F for "Washington". When it's a print source, the text can get scrambled from columns, punctuation, hyphenation, bad OCR, limited OCR, etc., so you can sometimes use a single uncommon keyword and then narrow it down with other factors. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSBIAS mentions Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate. What is an example where a source being biased would make attribution necessary where an source identical except unbiased would not? Whonting (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whonting I'd imagine, for example, it can be useful to know if a statement in an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict comes from Times of Israel or Al Jazeera rather than something more neutral on the topic. 🍅 fx (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Is the point of attribution there being that the statement should be taken with a pinch of salt for coming from a biased source? Whonting (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Whonting yeah, essentially. WP:RSBIAS also includes a few examples:

"The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."

A Marxist economist is more likely to say something that supports Marxist theories. That doesn't necessarily make their statement wrong or unreliable, but mentioning their beliefs can provide useful context for interpreting the statement. 🍅 fx (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Ta - this arose after an editor stated bias isn't a relevant factor in reliability citing WP:RSBIAS. While I agree that just because a source is biased it doesn't automatically render it unreliable, it does seem quite straightforward that for the example you gave, all else equal a sources being biased may mean we need to take it's opinion with a pinch of salt. To me, that's the same thing as saying bias is a relevant factor in reliability. Does that seem fair to you? Whonting (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Whonting, not necessarily, no. Reliability is one thing, and applies to one, individual source. Neutral point of view is another, and applies to the balance of the article's statements on the article topic (or on subtopics within the body of the article). An article which summarizes all significant viewpoints in due proportion to their appearance in reliable, secondary sources is neutral, even if every single reliable source in the article is biased (but presented in the correct proportion). Does that help? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In my understanding of WP:RSCONTEXT, we can draw a distinction between a source being relying for attribution, and reliable for wikivoice: e.g. "Tim denied the claims" vs "Tim didn't do it". In the example you give of a biased source being used, it seems to me you are saying it is being treated as reliable for expressing a viewpoint but not putting for putting its claims in wikivoice. Does that sound about right? Whonting (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Mostly, yes, but it is hard to talk about entirely in the abstract. Have a look at an article about some contentious topic like Abortion debate and see how they do it. That is a topic with so many sources that it is easy to find unbiased secondary sources that report on the biased ones at the extremes, so we obviously choose the former. You might have to find an example where there are widely divergent views due to bias, but not a whole lot of views altogether, perhaps because it's a very niche topic with little coverage. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The abortion debate article is a good example of biased sources being reliable for their attributed views, but not wikivoice. I see discussion of mainly the latter at WP:RSN. Maybe a concrete example: Reason is a libertarian magazine that RSP has rated GUNREL. If they were to publish an article discussing the political dynamics of marijuana legalisation legislation and it gave some facts as background, we may consider this as framing and analysis in need of attribution, in a way we would may not if it were the NYT reporting on the legislation and giving facts as background. Whonting (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Whonting, you're doing a great job of taking a serious look at different policies and guidelines, and there are a lot of subtleties involved and even apparent conflicts or tensions between different ones. In the case of your last comment, be careful to distinguish between an unreliable source, which we do not use in Wikipedia, and a biased source, which we do. Note that the unstated or missing word in the expression, biased source is biased reliable source (as opposed to biased unreliable source). The point being, that if Reason is unreliable, then we would not use it at all, rather than use it with attribution.

You raise a lot of great points, but I think we are bumping up against the boundaries of what the Teahouse is for, as these are more than just basic questions about editing Wikipedia. If you want to just finish up a last question or two, that's probably fine, but if you would like to continue more in depth along these lines, then imho it would be better to move the discussion to the WP:Help desk which is generally (but not always) for more in-depth questions, or perhaps better to the Talk page of a relevant policy/guideline, such as WT:Reliable sources (which includes WP:RSBIASED), WP:Citing sources (which includes WP:INTEXT), WT:Neutral point of view or wherever you think the most appropriate venue would be. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot. Wasn't sure if this was the right place but had it recommended for such questions. And thanks for your clarification above on reliable, I realise I wrote Reason was classified as GUNREL when I meant to write GREL. Whonting (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

On the article ekuser gaan, there is a lyrics section with the lyrics, phonetic lyrics and translation. The problem with this is that all three of these lyrics are side by side so that the table actually overflows on the wikipedia sidebar (problem only on desktop). How to fix this problem, anyone know? Nextrin (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed This is caused by the white-space:nowrap; tag, and is removed. though it does have the unintended side effect of being sorta shoved inwards, unfortunately. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 05:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is the correct place for discussion about Wikipedia per se? I tried to find it myself but got lost in the web of ten bajillion "Wikipedia:____" pages. I'm an avid reader and occasional typo editor and I'm very interested in the perspectives of contributors on topics like who, in their opinion, is Wikipedia for (also I have some unanswered questions as a long-time spectator of the Great Composer Infobox War). Idaresay (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say the village pump is the best place for that sort of thing.

Are you saying you're a lurker, by the way? Before I decided to make an account, I was also a lurker for a good while, haha! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping: Idaresay

And if you're looking for a particular editor's perspective on Wikipedia, or even for some interesting Wikipedia community history, I'd be happy to share what I know! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Idaresay, for Infobox questions, you should probably start at WP:WikiProject Infoboxes. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, hoping someone can help or point me in the right direction.

I submitted a COI edit request on the talk page of Amadeus IT Group on 2 February 2026. I'm a PR professional and Amadeus is a paying client, so I've followed WP:COI and WP:PAID and requested the change via the talk page rather than editing directly.

The request is a factual update to the company's office locations and employee count, supported by four published sources (including the company's own 2024 Global Report and its public locations page).

The talk page notes there are 480 requests in the backlog, and it has now been two months without a response. I completely understand volunteers are stretched, but I wanted to ask:

• Is there anything I can do to improve the chances of the request being reviewed?
• Is the request formatted correctly, or is there anything that might be causing it to be deprioritised?
• Is there a more appropriate noticeboard or WikiProject I should flag it to?

The talk page request is here: Talk:Amadeus IT Group#c-DJMCwiki-20260202153400-Edit request: update employee count and key sites / regional offices

Thanks very much for any guidance. DJMCwiki (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Your request is open, visible, and pending. There really isn't anything that you can do to speed it up. To be very frank, for which I apologize, the rest of us who are here for free have little interest in helping you make money. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @331dot, thanks for taking the time to respond - and no need to apologise for the frankness, it's appreciated.

I completely understand the sentiment. I hope my following of WP:COI and WP:PAID protocols goes to show I am being fully transparent and following the process that brands and their representatives should.

I'll keep waiting. Thanks again. DJMCwiki (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll tell you a secret: the better formatted your request is, the quicker it will be answered. See, for example, Talk:Georges Elhedery. You need to make it as easy as possible for volunteers to evaluate your suggestions. Good luck, MediaKyle (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MediaKyle, thanks so much - that's really helpful. I've had a look at the Georges Elhedery talk page and can see exactly what you mean. I'm going to revise and resubmit my request in a cleaner format. I also have some follow-up feedback from Andy Mabbett to incorporate first. Much appreciated. DJMCwiki (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that a lot of changes were made to Helmut Krcmar by a temporary account, some of which was referenced but a lot wasn't. I've since added a template suggesting citations are needed through the BLP article and I think it could be helpful to ping them on the article talk page, to ask them if they could provide further sources. Am I doing it wrong, or is there no way to ping temporary accounts? Or should I instead contact them through the account's talk page?

As a side note, is this the right call/procedure (i.e. the template and pinging them)? Thanks! Squitor (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Squitor I'm able to ping TAs just fine by typing the @ symbol and then their temporary account name.

Note that since this article is a WP:BLP, the best option is just to remove all unsourced content on your own without asking, and maybe place a {{subst:uw-biog1}} on the contributor's User talk page. 🍅 fx (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Weird, I'll have to look into the TA pinging later. I've gone ahead and removed everything with poor citing and everything unreferenced, and I've contacted them with the template. Thanks for the advice! Squitor (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a new mentor, and my mentor dashboard says I have four mentees right now. I got a message on my talk page from someone who isn't one of those four, but it's formatted like a question from a mentee ("Question from Example, Timestamp"). If I'm this user's mentor, why do they not appear on my mentor dashboard? Thanks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 15:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! In my experience, that is because another mentor put themselves on pause (or was blocked), and mentee questions are redistributed to others. GGOTCC 19:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

JohnLaurens333, are you referring to Owlyguylol's message of 13:59, 13 April? When someone's mentor is away and you get a question forwarded to you by the system from one of their mentees, then their question will be topped with a hatnote showing the name of their mentor, not the case here. (You can see an example of that here.) In addition, if you do {{#mentor:Owlyguylol}} it yields ⟶ JohnLaurens333, so they *are* your mentee. The reason you may not have seen their name is that there is a delay filling the dashboard, that can be several hours long. I see that several hours have passed since you first wrote, and probably if you refresh the dashboard, you will see them listed now. See Wikipedia:Mentorship. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are listed now; sorry, I didn't see that page. Thank you! 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 12:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

JohnLaurens333, I have to thank you, for your question. Until you asked it, the Wikipedia:Mentorship page did not have a section dealing with this issue, and now it does. So, thanks! And if you ever run into other mentorship questions that don't seem to have answers there, please raise them; either here, or better, at Wikipedia talk:Mentorship; at both (one via wikilink to the other) is ideal. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded an iMac G3 advertisement, but I didn't realize it was POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Especially since I'm already (pretty) experienced already, I feel terrible. I need help Epicazowski (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Epicazowski. Don't worry about it. It'll be deleted soon. We all make mistakes. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 15:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - Epicazowski (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

After several days of vandalism - warring on the follow primary candidate page: David Pascoe I bring the issue here.

Several editors have had to revert unnecessary edits. I posted something on the talk page about it. I would advice page protection - see if that helps, if any administrators or editors here can make that happen.

ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You can request page protection via WP:RFPP. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I was just at the RFC closure request board and noticed there’s quite a backlog. I’m happy to assist with non-admin closures. In cases where participation is limited (for example, five or fewer participants), is there guidance on closing while suggesting alternatives like a third opinion? What are the recommended best practices in these situations? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If there's no clear consensus, then you close it as no consensus. Sometimes there just isn't enough participation in an RfC to establish a good consensus. Athanelar (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. When i click on "publish page", it doesn't respond, other than this button, all other works. Abhinavnotes (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Abhinavnotes. I'm not sure why this is happening. I just created a blank userpage for you, can you edit it now? Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking at the programming paradigms page and I was wondering if the citation superscript for the chart on the overview section is meant to be like that or if that's a formatting error? I would assume it should look like SENTENCE[5][6] instead of there being a :5 in there. PestoAstro (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That's using {{rp}} to indicate that it's page 5 of the attached reference. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

photos upload by me are taken by my friend and shared in WhatsApp how it ll get copyright violation ~2026-22837-71 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What photos do you mean? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 19:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have permission from your friend, you can upload them locally if you're able to give proof that your friend let you upload them.--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you uploaded any photos from this device. What photos are you talking about? 🍅 fx (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

(1) Are you saying that a friend of yours uploaded and shared photos on Whatsapp that you took and now you're being accused of copyright violation but you took the photos? (2) Where are you being accused of this, on Wikipedia? Mme Maigret (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi folks. I created an article recently on a, in my view, notable Bengali concept / emotional state / word called Lyadh (similar to concepts/words like niksen, dolce far niente, hygge, hiraeth, etc), which as far as I'm aware, is still in the New Pages Feed and remains unreviewed. I obviously understand that reviews are random and can take upto weeks or months, and that I can't and shouldn't request/rush reviews. However, I wanted to ask if someone could take a look at the article or review it? Any feedback too would be highly appreciated :) Thank you, Dissoxciate (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

New page reviewing is more of a backend thing, there's no need to worry about it. Someone will get to it eventually, and it will be indexed automatically in 90 days anyways if it isn't reviewed by then. Best, MediaKyle (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know! Dissoxciate (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You seem to understand it may not be patrolled quickly, but are asking anyway. Do you have a particular need for the article to appear in search results quickly? 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @331dot, thanks for asking! No, of course not - there's no such need! I may seem occasionally impatient indeed, but that is because I just want to make sure the article is in good shape and meets notability and sourcing expectations, primarily since it's on a relatively niche concept (I have created several articles prior to this one, so I understand notability guidelines on Wikipedia quite well - however the subject of this is markedly removed from the kind of stuff I usually write about). If it does happen to get reviewed sooner, that'd of course be great; but no particular urgency as such from my end. Thanks for checking, Dissoxciate (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I glanced at it, Dissoxciate. A sample: In 2020, Lyaad, a musical short film based on the concept was released. It was directed by Pradipta Bhattacharyya and stars Ritwick Chakraborty. With four references, a surprisingly high number for backing such a simple assertion. One of the four is in a language that I cannot read; I shan't attempt to comment on it. One is The Times of India; please read WP:TIMESOFINDIA. One is IMDb; please read WP:IMDB. And one is in somewhat tortured English and appears on the website "Animation Xpress", which describes itself as "News Hub for Indian Animation VFX Comics Gaming Merchandising Applications. Ecosystem". How about removing from the article any material that can only be verified by dubious sources? -- Hoary (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, thanks for all the inputs. I read through the pages you linked. A few things that I'd like to mention: I removed the IMDb source, given it's user-generated (and frankly, even prior to this, I hadn't actually used it to "support" any claim — just link the IMDb page for the short film). There were also two blog-like sources that had been used, which I removed (albeit they hadn't been used to support any new claims/materials that the other sources weren't already supporting, hence didn't warrant removal of any such material). Animation Xpress has also been removed — there are 3 other sources that support the short-film claim anyway. As for The Times of India, I read the entry on it on the reliable sources page; while I understand the risks associated with using TOI as a source, I believe in this case, an exception can be made, given the (type of) subject. It isn't visibly political or controversial, and doesn't carry any undertones that could raise eyebrows. Hence, I've kept the TOI source still. As for the other source that has been used to support the short-film claim, it's in Bengali - Anandabazar Patrika, a Bengali daily. Another Bengali daily has been used as a source for the Etymology section, which is Ei Samay. Both these dailies are generally reliable (except for the former when it concerns Bangladesh, due to its perceived biased coverage of the country). Can you take a look now? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Qantas flight 943 was a scheduled domestic flight from Brisbane Airport to Perth. 13 minutes after takeoff Qantas flight 943 received a malfunction in the engine and a pilot error Crew:6 Aircraft:Boeing 737 Fatalities:0 Survivors:97 Injuries:14 This is real Ryanhagan1( (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Ryanhagan1(, The ATSB reports about 25 to 35 serious incidents in commercial aviation per year. This incident involved no passenger injuries, and is highly unlikely ever to become an article due to lack of WP:Notability. It might rate a brief bullet entry in a list article, like List of serious incidents in Australian aviation, if someone decides to writes such an article, but that's about it. You could start it. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Ryanhagan1 is referring to this flight. The article doesn't mention any injuries, and the plane landed safely. I don't know that it's worth even a mention anywhere. It's just a defective speed dial on the plane. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Is the NK-9 (rocket engine) even notable? I made a draft for it in user:AZenit3/sandbox, but I'm not sure if it's notable. AZenit3 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a look. Definitely not notable yet. Try to find a couple of strong, independent sources. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi I just want to know how can I become a draft reviewer and if I become one can review my own drafts? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, if you're interested in reviewing Articles for creation drafts, see the requirements at WP:AFC/P.

Articles for creation is (generally) an optional process for autoconfirmed editors, except for users with a WP:COI or other editing restriction. However, if drafts are getting declined, it's a good sign the reviewer thinks it would be deleted if it became a normal article as-is. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Okk thank you. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

And in this case, the drafts you're submitting, if you passed them through yourself, would almost certainly be deleted in the WP:AFD process, not just declined. Bypassing WP:AFC isn't an effective workaround for getting poor articles published on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I see so that means I can't review my own drafts right? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no point as you could just create the page without using a draft. To become a reviewer you would have to show the skill to recognize suitable pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright. So it is better for me to directly create articles right? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Only if you're trying to avoid them being reviewed before Article-space entry by another, doubtless more experienced reviewer. Why would you want to do that?

Draft reviewers offer helpful advice if a draft is not quite good enough yet; other editors, if you ask them or do not reject their help, can also collaborate on improving a draft; a draft can be resubmitted multiple times without penalty or rancour provided that incremental improvements are evident.

By contrast, directly created articles are judged far more stringently by the New Pages Patrol, and often deleted, though sometimes 'draftified'. Since, judging from your previous half-dozen declines, you aren't yet at the stage of being reliably able to create an acceptable en.Wikipedia article, it would be far better for you to continue with using AfC. It is likely to take you at least weeks or months of practice to be able to create an article that meets the standards here (which are more stringent than most if not all other Wikipedias).

In particular, note that use of an LLM or "chatbot" to directly write all or part of an article is a Big Red Flag here, which will completely disqalify a draft or new article – see Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Hope this helps, and good luck with your future editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Okk thank you so much for the advice ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried once, but I think I did it wrong because it didn't render. Any tips on how to do this? I had to revert it. Dandasohhhh (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dandasohhhh, welcome to the Teahouse! I just had a look in your edit history, and it looks like you tried to use the Visual Editor, which meant it was pasted in as text rather than a template. If you switch to source editor and try again it should work (noting that you won't need [[ ]] around the page name), or if you stay in Visual Editor, typing {{ should make a box pop up, that you can then search up templates in, including "Main". nil ^nz 06:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There is documentation at Template:Main. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi as my username suggests I am someone who is interested in Indian television shows, actors and actresses. So how can I explore more of them in Wikipedia? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Like for example how will I know which are the new television shows and actors and actresses whose pages I can create in Wikipedia? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this link might help you.

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Requested articles#Cinema TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

ITVStoryWeaver, a new television show, an actor, or an actress [old-fashioned term!] is just like just almost any other imaginable article subject (a car, a dish, a hairstyle, a political party, an earthquake, a letter, a video game, etc): if plenty of material has been published about it/him/her that's independent of the subject and comes from reliable sources, then the resulting draft can summarize and cite this, and thereby will be able to demonstrate the notability of the subject. And therefore an article will be possible. (Approval won't be automatic: the draft will also have to observe various other guidelines.) However, your user talk page shows that you have been repeatedly reminded (by template) of the need to demonstrate the notability of your subject. What does the template say that you do not understand? -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not like I don't understand but I find it weird that many actors' articles in wikipedia do not have enough resources like I have given in my drafts and many actors are not notable like the actors Draft:Abhishek Verma and Draft:Priyanshi Yadav because these two have done so many notable shows in prominent roles but still their drafts got declined for just one reason "Not enough reliable sources, not notable".

I am not saying Bonadea was wrong but I don't know I find some of the rules of wikipedia delusional. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Our criteria for actors are at WP:NACTOR, if you want to see what people are assessing against. Athanelar (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I already had a look at it which is why I was saying Abhishek Verma and Priyanshi Yadav are notable according to WP:NACTOR ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

A "notable movie" or "notable television show" means a movie or show which is itself worthy of a Wikipedia article; i.e., meets WP:NFILM. Is that the case for these actors? Athanelar (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Just check what I have given in the drafts and correct me if I am wrong ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The person to ask is @Bonadea since they most recently declined these. Athanelar (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

No it's okay. I don't want to drag anyone here and I believe they will say the same things which is why I said some of the Wikipedia rules are delusional. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's better for you to create the articles requested in Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Requested articles#Cinema TheGreatEditor024. You might find a lot of sources for them. (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 Requested articles are just articles somebody has asked for. It's not necessarily evidence they are more likely to be notable. Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I know, That is why I added "You might find a lot of sources for them." (might, not will) TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

hello I'm trying to make a page on the subject that I'm researching that I basically hold the most information on in the world. It's a very niche subject about a man who created this gallery of art and a canyon in Southeastern Colorado I've been researching him for 9 months now I have a plethora of articles I have US census I've immigration records I have ancestry records I don't know how to make my page not be declined. They said I need more secondary resources I don't know what secondary resources mean. I really need help doing this can somebody please help me? I have level three autism and I'm dyslexic and I am completely frustrated with this process but I gave a dead man an oath but I would bring him to the world and I am desperately trying to do so. Also I tried to take articles that I had found and take the words and rearrange them so that I wasn't plagiarizing the article and it says I'm using AI while I did use AI on some of it I spent hours writing these paragraphs and I don't know how to rearrange them to be acceptable. This is a really important subject to me and to the world I believe if somebody needs to find information on Martin Bowden I'm the one that has it. How do I get it into Wikipedia? Thank you in advance to anybody that can help me I really appreciate it TheBluflame (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello TheBluflame and thanks for asking at The Teahouse.

This is explained in more detail at WP:PSTS but in short, a primary source is created by the subject (it would include his marriage record, draft registration his own writings, posters for his shows). A secondary source is created about the subject by someone else. (it would include newspaper articles, journal articles, books). I can see that a couple of newspaper articles have already been suggested on your talk page. Remember that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, we only document what other people have already said. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I must disappoint you- I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do what it is that you are trying to do. That's best done on a personal website or social media. Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize someone.

Things like census records and draft cards are primary sources that don't establish that someone is a notable person or notable artist. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the topic.

Mr. Bowden passed in 1958, surely your oath was not specifically to create a Wikipedia article? If you have a condition that affects how you perceive or use Wikipedia, perhaps you could work with someone on your end(who would need their own account) to help you? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@TheBluflame The first thing you need to establish is whether he is "Wikipedia notable". There are two ways to qualify: "presumed notability" or two or more pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources (which has its own Wikipedia definition). If you don't have two pieces of sig cov, you should write about him somewhere else, like Medium or Substack or Linkedin. Have a look at WP:42 and WP:GNG. (ps neurodivergents are more likely to be accused of writing like AI; don't worry about it.) Mme Maigret (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@331dot and Mmemaigret: I think TheBluflame is saying that they do have a number of newspaper articles already collected - but they didn't realise they have to cite them. Based on things like this I think there probably is a case for notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Martin Bowden. I was the decliner here and suggested the editor come to the Teahouse. I agree there is potential notability, but the Denver Gazette is geolocked to me and I didn't think of looking for an archive - thanks, DandelionAndBurdock. Tacyarg (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @DandelionAndBurdock. I agree, it seems like there's sig cov.

@TheBluflame I've cleaned up your article. You just need to insert more sources now. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe someone at WP:ART or WP:BIOG would be willing to co-edit here and get this draft into shape. Athanelar (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there - looking for some assistance formulating an edit request for Rathbones Investment Bank wiki page. Full disclosure that I am being paid to provide this edit (laid out on my own talk page), and therefore I am going through all appropriate channels (of which my next step is to submit an edit request!). This edits purpose is to provide a significant increase in breadth of current information and also to ensure that everything is 'up to date'.

Usually, as a volunteer editor, would go directly onto the "Edit source" page, however this edit is lengthy, and of course paid! I had a few questions which the Edit Requests page didn't explicitly clear up for me, so wanted to ask them here. Firstly, can I submit the entire edit in one edit request? I could potentially also upload it section by section but am aware that this would increase the feedback timeframe. Secondly, for my updated 'historical' section, I have primarily used two books (unavailable online, but available in libraries) that were written about the Rathbones history. I would assume that this is fine to reference as a legitimate secondary source. Moreover, the updated 'governance' section is not readily available with secondary references - but with primary (neutral) references. Would this also be acceptable?

Lastly, I would be very grateful if anyone could provide some feedback on my edit request before I submit it, primarily to ensure that I stick to all laid-out guidelines, or perhaps to idiot check my work! If not, then an answer to my questions above would be much appreciated.

Thanks. Kranken145 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

To your first question; you can, but you're more likely to have success by submitting multiple smaller requests. The COI edit request process ia, like everything else, entirely voluntary; and to be frank, the number of people who actually work on COI edit requests is quite small, because those of us who work on this for free out of passion are not eager to help paid editors make sure corporate articles are up to date so they can cash a paycheck. Smaller requests are easier for a volunteer to verify before implementation, so they're more likely to get done in a reasonable timeframe.

It is still entirely possible that your edit request could languish in the queue for weeks or months; both you and your employer should be aware of this.

For your second question; yes, offline sources are just fine, provided you give enough information in your citation that a person could theoretically locate the source to verify the information.

Also, please be aware that when people ask questions like this I have a tendency to double-check these articles for notability. Most companies in the world do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and a great many corporate articles on Wikipedia are based on routine business activity reporting which does not substantiate an article here. If my check comes up lacking, I may create a deletion discussion about the article. If that happens, please don't hold a grudge, nor take it as some kind of retaliatory action. of Athanelar (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to note right away that notability does seem to be present here; but all of the best sources for that are languishing in the "Further reading" section rather than actually being used to provide material to the article. Either way, disregard the point about deletion as it doesn't seem like it'll go that way. Athanelar (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, having never submitted an edit request before I'm not exactly sure how to help (it seems like Athanelar above has you covered). I just want to compliment you: most COI editors think they can just directly edit the page to turn it into an advertisement without any sources and expect it to be kept. They then get confused when the edit is inevitably reverted. Thanks for taking the time to go through all the procedures and do things the right way! If everybody did that, Wikipedia would be a much easier thing to moderate (you would not believe the amount of COI edits people make on here). --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Im fairly new to being an editor. I added a request in the page for "Chola empire" that they should change the language mentioned in a picture of a coin from tamil to sanskrit. I also added a proper citation. Yet, nothing has happened and the incorrect information remains. Can someone with a sufficient level of clearance fix this issue? It's been annoying me. TarvastOfParneth (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You didn't submit your edit request correctly, so nobody patrolling the edit request queue would see it. Use the Edit request wizard to help you. Athanelar (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

really? But I received a reply from a mod (I think) who said I needed to provide a source. I then provided an appropriate source. (This is all in the talk page of chola Empire) I also made another talk topic wherein I provided the source directly, using the format they asked me to. Can someone please check what I have already written and see if I had gone wrong? TarvastOfParneth (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Tbh, I kinda feel like the coin shows Sanskrit and not Tamil. But the source claims that its Tamil. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, the only people who can see your request are those who specifically go looking for it, because you did not submit it correctly, so people checking the edit request queue will not see it. Use the WP:Edit request wizard. Athanelar (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

hi, my Draft:EgonZippel/Lawson vanished ... i last worked on it on march 18, 2026 >> not even a month ago... why? what happend?

thank you, egon Egonwikinyc (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Diannaa removed some copyrighted content and replaced it with a redirect to an existing article. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

i mean it's a draft!? copyrighted content would have been removed/reformulated/modified according to guidelines by myself... why this early interference? Egonwikinyc (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Because copyright violations are removed on discovery, regardless of where it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Egonwikinyc it's illegal for Wikipedia to serve copyrighted content anywhere on the website, so it has to be removed even if it's in a draft 🍅 fx (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I need some help regarding citations. In my sandbox (User:Vicccqh7/sandbox) I have the table that Im planning to publish when its finished (its still lacking a lot of entries, Im planning for it to have around 24 rows), but I have an issue with citations. Thing is, source 1 explicitly describes fates of the dogs mentioned in the table ("recovered safely/survuved"), while source 2 uses a star system where star equals death, but it does not say that lack of star explicitly means "survived", it only implies it, but you have to assume it, its not stated. So my original plan was to just cite both at the end like it is now, since all other details like dates and names are consistent between the two, but it feels like Im extending one source slightly beyond its scope, so I added a note in the Summary column (and added some more notes when the 2 sources state different things). I feel like its kinda messy now and I dont know how to wrap my head around it... should I just use both at the end for the other details, and cite source 1 for the dogs survival? Id have to do it in almost every row, since source 1 is more detailed and source 2 only fully aligns when 2 dogs are dead. That sounds messy as well, I dont want to clutter the table. Maybe its okay to just cite both at the end and let source 1 "fill the gaps" in source 2? Should I leave the notes the way they are, change them or maybe remove them? I really dont know what to do, feedback would be very welcome. - Vicccqh7 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say that source 2 feels somewhat more ambiguous than source 1, which as you've said, source 1 explicitly describes fates of the dogs mentioned in the table [...] while source 2 uses a star system where star equals death, but it does not say that lack of star explicitly means "survived" nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

like lowkey which one looks better to u...

More information Seller name, Source 1 ...

Seller name	Source 1	Source 2
Daniel	Grapes
Marie	Bananas
Joe	Bananas
Car	Laptop
James	Apples
Alex	Bananas
Lina	Sells NOTHING

Close

nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's the issue, says banana but the lack of the symbol could be anything, I only know its apples etc. from source 1. So there's that, but how do I reflect it in the table? Both sources agree (unless otherwise notet) in the other details, same names, same date, it's just the survival that's ambiguous in source 2 specifically. Does my table reflect that or is it misleading as is? Vicccqh7 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would remove source 2, partially since source 2 is too ambiguous regarding the status of the dogs to draw conclusions from, and partially as I'm seeing that both Note 1 and Note 2 are assuming that both [1] and [2] are exhaustive and explicit enough to note such... ;-; nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The 2 references - [1][2] are the source 1 and 2 I was talking about. [2] is the ambiguous one. Maybe I can just stick to citing both when dogs are dead and citing only [1] when the dogs survived even if [2] supports the other cells except survival, and remove the note in the Summary column? Vicccqh7 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia can I ask whether some specific publications are reliable or not? And if they can be used for a future good article candidate? Babin Mew (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Try here for a list of sources, and here for sources not already in the list. Toast1454_TC 17:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try the latter as I am looking to see if a book is reliable and I already know about the former. Babin Mew (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)