The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).
However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
Hello! I submitted my draft article more than a month ago and it is still waiting for review.
The draft has independent coverage in reliable sources (BBC Radio, SoulTracks, Paris Jazz Club, Remix Japan, etc.), and I believe it now meets the notability and sourcing requirements.
@AriaKeys Your original decline notice pointed out that there is little evidence that he is notable as Wikipedia defines that for musicians. Many of your sources are just links to his work and evidence they have been played somewhere by someone e.g. on BBC Radio Solent, which you mention twice in different citations, where using a named reference would be better but still hardly evidence of a significant coverage of the artist. Focus if you can on finding sources meeting our golden rules and mention the three best ones as a comment at the top of the draft to help a future reviewer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your feedback, Mike. I understand that many of my current sources may not fully demonstrate significant coverage of the artist as required by Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. I will rework the draft by focusing on independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage rather than just mentions or playlists. I will also add a short comment at the top of the draft highlighting the three strongest sources to make the review process clearer for future reviewers. AriaKeys (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the previous feedback, Mike. I have revised the draft to focus on independent editorial coverage as requested. The three strongest sources are now highlighted at the top of the draft (SoulTracks 2014, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2015, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2020). Additional reliable sources such as Trax, Remix Japan, Marseille l’Hebdo, Paris Jazz Club and Radio Africa Paris have also been included to demonstrate broader coverage. The draft should now meet the notability and sourcing requirements for musicians. AriaKeys (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Music isn't a reliable secondary source and I would delete all of those sources. I think you're going to struggle with this to be frank. Most of the sources that you mention above aren't really reliable, except BBC Radio. Think Le Parisien, Figaro, Arte, FranceInfo, or Telerama. For sig cov, you're looking for discussion of about 250 words or more. I think you may need to leave this in draft until he gets more coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I completely agree that Apple Music (and similar databases) are not acceptable as secondary sources, so I will remove those.
However, the draft is not based only on those listings. There is significant independent coverage in professional print magazines such as Coda (France, Issue 12, 2001, p. 50 – feature article by Y2M: “Neo – la touche (Néo)classique”), Trax (France, 2002), Remix (Japan, 2003), and Jazz Hot, which include 1–2 full-page feature articles and reviews. These are published by recognized editorial teams, archived in the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the National Diet Library of Japan, and meet the criteria of reliable, independent sources.
One important point is the time period: Neo’s main coverage took place in the early 2000s, when most professional music magazines were still published in print only. That is why these sources are not easily found online today, but they are preserved in national libraries and remain fully valid under Wikipedia guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV).
The guidelines do not require only Le Parisien or Télérama; specialized international magazines are explicitly valid when they provide substantial analysis. In this case, the coverage is more than passing mentions—it includes critical discussion of Neo’s albums and career across several pages.
BBC Radio coverage is indeed strong, but it is complemented by these multiple print sources, which I will now highlight more clearly with author names and page numbers.
I hope this clarifies that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable, independent publications, well beyond simple database entries. AriaKeys (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy Mabbett, Thank you for your advice. I understand, and I will work on improving my draft based on the feedback received, then resubmit it for review. Best regard. AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David 10244,Thank you for your comment. I understand that print sources are accepted on Wikipedia, and I provide full citations for each reference (title, issue number, date, pages, and author when available).
Most of the magazines I cite date back to the early 2000s and were never published online. I have the physical copies and am currently contacting the publishers to provide verifiable evidence for my claims. Best regard AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the physical copies then that should be all you need to cite them, which I note you have done on your draft. I can't think of any reason to contact the publishers. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike Turnbull, Thanks for your feedback. I will focus on the strongest sources and list the top three in a comment at the top of my draft. I’ll also make sure to use named references to keep the citations clear.Best regard, AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<The reason it is a worthy post is that the companies have split and formed separate entities.>
The company TP-Link Systems (US-owned) and TP-Link Technologies (Chinese-owned) formally separated into two wholly distinct entities in 2024. So, I disagree with the assertion that "Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies" is not relevant. For TP-Link Technologies, which has a wiki page, to be the only landing page for the companies creates confusion not only amongst consumers, but policymakers. That creates risk because there is a strong anti-China sentiment in the US and companies are being targeted. TP-Link Systems needs to make certain that policymakers and consumers are aware that it is not affiliated in any way with the Chinese-owned TP-Link, which only sells its products in China, and has for decades.
So, I can correct the internal reference to Wikipedia and find an alternate source for the market share information as that was pulled from an independent source. That would seem to address the errors. But the relevance of the page to distinguish it from the Chinese-owned entity is clear.
I appreciate your help and look forward to engaging on this matter. I apologize for not being more responsive on the last thread. It was over the weekend. I will actively monitor it this time. Gguice (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gguice What you describe is a promotional purpose, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We do not care about spreading awareness or defending companies from "being targeted"; we only care about reflecting what has been written about the companies in independent reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that there are now two entities instead of one and that is not "promotional" that is fact. Letting the TP-Link Technologies wiki remain as the only one, presents an inaccurate page that I am not able to revise. My explanation was to provide some context on why it matters, not to be promotional. In fact, on the draft page, I have added third party information about the new entity and issues in this space. I find it a little hard to understand why preservation of dated and inaccurate information matters more than updating the record to reflect current circumstances. Gguice (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do support adding updated information as long as it complies with core content policies such as neutral point of view. Broadly, your draft Draft:TP-Link Systems is written to defend the company from various accusations rather than summarizing what independent sources have written about the accusations.
Nobody wants to preserve dated information. However, replacing it with information from a biased source is worse than doing nothing. We do trust a company to give information about itself when that information is plain neutral facts with no potential for controversy and no business advantage to be gained, but as soon as there's the slightest hint of a company trying to influence a reader's opinion about anything, it's not acceptable. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have previously tried to make a change to the main page and it was also not taken because of my disclosed COI. This is quite the loop. I will try again for a neutral, facts-only tone on a new page and then make a redirect from the old page. Gguice (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the tone as the content. We reject content that seems to be for promotional purposes, even if it has a neutral tone. And clearing your company's name is a promotional purpose.
People don't decline to make a change just because of your COI. The real reason was that you requested something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any advice for helping to speed up a review
Hello, I submitted a revised draft of an article almost 2 months ago and have not received any feedback. Previous submissions were declined within several days. I have been advised that the fact that I have disclosed that I am a paid editor and the article is about the company I work for, that this could be causing the delay, as these types of articles could take more time to review. My concern is that it may never be reviewed for this reason. I am curious to know if the article has a 'black mark' against it and if there is a possibility it will never be reviewed. I was also advised by an editor "it looks pretty good - that is, you haven't done anything that would make it harder for reviewers to review."
Is it just a case of waiting it out? Or is there anything I could do to improve the submission? I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have. Many thanks in advance. Sinead RAU (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft (Draft:Reddy Architecture + Urbanism) is submitted and pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,840 pending submissions waiting for review." That you are a paid company representative is not relevant to this(we want you submitting drafts). This is an entirely volunteer driven process, with people doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been declined many times, always for the same reason. It makes me wonder why you have continued submitting it for review without really dealing with the problem.
I wonder if the word "advertising" is being misunderstood. Advertising is ANY material that is intended to make people want to do business with you. It does not help if you word the advertising in a neutral-sounding tone; it's necessary to delete every sentence that might have been put there to attract business. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My page's length
Guys can my user page be long like 50,000 bytes? I read that articles size can't be too long or short but can MY user page be pretty long? I believe not much people will see my user page tho. My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of length. WP:UPNO says clearly that one of the things you may not have on your user page(s) is Content, discussions, or activities that are not directly related to Wikipedia's goals.
Ok I will limit myself and won't have like 10 things unrelated to Wikipedia. My star system,My YouTube channel Omniplanets and "I think". That's it I won't have anymore than that My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My planet is Homlos, consider reducing that number by ten. (After you've made a couple of thousand constructive edits to articles, perhaps bring the number back up to a concise one or two.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@My planet is Homlos, all of the stuff about your fictional star system is of no value to Wikipedia and does not belong on your user page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. You should remove everything below the table of contents. If you don't, your whole user page may be deleted. CodeTalker (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible,I will try to make a web outside of Wikipedia and put all the things there, and put the link of the web inside of my user page so if the viewers of my page are interested. They can click into the link and get the whole information of my star system. So I didn't really put all the information of my star system in Wikipedia. I technically stored it outside of Wikipedia. Then will I get banned? Can I do that? All put a"further reading" under and put the link there. Is that possible? Will my whole user page be deleted? At least now I removed 13,000 bytes. More than half than before, having the peak of 21,400 bytes. It's now only 6000 bytes My planet is Homlos (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When people have been so definite and specific with you, why are you saying things like "technically..."?
There was never going to be a ban. It's just please delete every trace of your star system from every page that has 'wikipedia' anywhere in its address. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can I even avoid mentioning something in my Star system. Even If I deleted my user page. My user name is still"My planet is Homlos" Which is a planet in my system. My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I really want to put my things back. Don't be concerned because I just want to do that,I won't revert all my edit and bring back all the things. My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, what is the proper protocol? Is a reversion considered edit warring even though I've attempted to reach out? Obviously a non-response can't put on hold an edit indefinitely, but is there an amount of time people typically give for responses? WinstonDewey (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, the second amendment you made:
(i) added a middle initial for Stern
(ii) put in two brackets }} that weren't out of place.
(iii) made a minor description change about the book
(iv) moved a date in a sentence
(v) change a source, deleting the access date and archive page
(vi) added one category (Musicals by Stephen Schwartz).
If I had to guess @SanAnMan's reasoning, the changes you made to (ii) and (v) made the article worse and he didn't think the additions to (i) and (vi) justified it and (iii) and (iv) are neither here nor there.
He should have explained this to you but a lot of people revert instead of discussing (and they don't think about how the notification of a reversion feels). Also if you look, he created the page and amends it a lot.
Suggest you just make changes (i) and (vi) again. You could made (iii) and (iv) again if you feel strongly about them. Just make sure not to do (ii) and (v) again.
Regarding (v), the source linked was the main page for the theater company and didn't mention the Geppetto musical at all. I changed the link to the specific page that did. (iii) was changed because it is incorrect. Stern didn't write a book, he wrote the screenplay for the movie and then adapted it into the musical book, but what's written is that Stern wrote a book which the film was based on. I corrected that info on the film page and have had no issues with that.
I'll just note in general that I feel like I am running into this a fair bit, beyond this particular edit. Very experienced editors who revert changes with no explanation and will not engage or do so passive aggressively, expecting me to read their minds. It's particularly frustrating when there's an edit like this one where there is at least some obvious improvement being made, but it seems to be judged along the lines of if it is more bad than good or if it has anything they disagree with at all. It's very odd to me. WinstonDewey (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of editors revert and it's rude. There is an essay on reversion that says you should fix a good faith edit rather than revert if any part of the edit is useful but some editors will argue it's not policy. At the end of the day, people are people. I've already told you what I suggest: make changes (i) and (vi) again, make change (iii) and (iv) if you want to. You don't need anyone's permission. If he reverts it again, he reverts it. You'll have to decide at that point if you want to escalate it or if you're going to walk away. About (v), the archived page isn't about Pinnochio and neither is the page you linked so there's no reason to keep it.MmeMaigret (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is very out of date. I have drafted a new version in my sandbox here: User:Detox22/sandbox. It is neutrally written, fully referenced, and includes ISBNs for my books.
I posted a request on the article’s Talk page on 19 September, but I haven’t had any response yet.
Could an experienced editor please take a look at the sandbox draft and consider replacing the outdated version? I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance.
When people are talking about "tone issues" and "reads like a resume", those things overlap but are different. "Reads like a resume" seems to me mainly an issue of content; it means we're reading what the person wants to have said about themselves, instead of reading what publicly-available independent reporting has already said.
It will really help a lot when you delete all material that the public wouldn't have known until you told them, and stick to only sources that are independent from you - avoid "filling in the blanks" with what you know to be true. If the public record has been incomplete or flawed, we need to intentionally keep the flawed incomplete version, without setting the record straight. (Serious legal issues excepted.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have a question about the archive box. I saw that some editors have an archive box on their page. I put the template on my page too, but I do not know how to make it work. Is it possible to make it automatically archive every week? I made some more edits and it has become confusing looking for new messages on my talk page because of all the old posts. I have to scroll all the way down. Thank you in advance for suggestions. Maybe you can recommend an archive template that works. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've set that up for you. It will archive threads that have not been replied to for 7 days. It will always leave at least 4 threads, so you will always have a table of contents. Both settings are configurable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Kenneally (Irish karate instructor)
Hello, and thanks in advance for your help.
I’ve been working on a draft article about myself, Aaron Kenneally, an Irish Shotokan karate instructor. I understand there are conflict of interest concerns, which is why I am building the draft in my sandbox rather than resubmitting straight away.
The draft is here: User:Aaronkenneally/sandbox
I believe I meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because there is significant independent coverage of me in reliable sources, including:
Multiple articles in the Evening Echo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023)
A feature in Irish Fighters magazine (2011)
A profile in the Cork Independent (2011)
Mention on the SKIF Yudansha-Kai executive committee website
These are all independent publications with full articles and features, not just passing mentions.
I’ve tried to keep the draft strictly neutral and source-based, avoiding promotional wording. Some self-published sources (my club website and personal photography website) are only used for non-controversial details like official sites and occupation.
Before I submit this draft for review at AfC, could an experienced editor please look over it to confirm whether the tone and sourcing are appropriate, and suggest any changes needed to give it the best chance of being accepted?
Thank you for your time and guidance.
–– Aaronkenneally Aaronkenneally (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph in the draft seems like it was taken by someone else other than you, however you claim that this is your own work. Is this the case? Also, it might be best to stick to using #th Dan rather than using Sho/San/Yondan given that's generally the common verbiage I believe when referring to Dan as opposed to Kata. The main issue I see is that a large amount of the newspapers you link to on your website are only you talking about the club or the paper talking about the club, not talking about you. The references that you have that would contribute to the general notability guideline (all articles must be notable in some way, by this guideline or another) is the Evening News paper from 04 Nov 2013 and the Irish Fighters paper from 01 Jun 2011. Is there any other sources which talk about you in detail and not as a passing mention? Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, reading the draft, I'm struggling to see how you're notable. I don't think your dojo or level are particularly special. Suggest your best angles are: representing your country, being on an exec board for the sport, being an international judge. The draft say you received judge, referee, kansa credentials but have you actually refereed? Note (1) You can't link to your own website for the different sources - you need to link to publications themselves or to an independent source of them. (2) The Evening Echo counts as one source no matter how many articles there are. (3) No one is interested in the personal interests of a living person. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the message we received for a page I submitted that was not approved. Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing
Please address these issues. The best approach is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, rather of using a large laLguage model. SePlease reviewur help page on large language models. Are there editors that have success with helping out? Raisedconsciousness (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main help is these two things: Please read the sources with your own eyes. Please write everything by hand without ever allowing AI to touch it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this is my first time ever chatting on wiki so bear with me lol. i made a wiki account last weekend after using wiki for so long in my life, i didnt even know you could make an account! however it seems like i got hacked almost immediately within the next few days, and ive been extremely confused ever since. i genuinely have no idea what is going on with my account. i put in a request for help or something like that a few days ago, because i suddenly have so many languages and posts and it’s just so wierd. i tried to make a talk page but it got immediately taken down. i tried to connect to libera but it disconnected me, and then when i tried to connect to it again it just banned me for “harassment” i literally do not know what is going on, can someone at least TELL me what is going on at least because there’s soooo many articles and words and processes and i’m extremely confused. thanks! Myteethhurtman (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ohhh i just saw jamies message on EFFPR. no no no ive never been blocked before. Im fairly certain I was hacked and i was put in a user group, and then I contacted wiki and they helped. i mean it cant be anything else. otherwise you are telling me that ive spent hours and hours on wiki thinking my account was in trouble for no reason, in which case i should probably go to the psych ward.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myteethhurtman The account you're logged into (and posting from) was created this week (30 September). When you say I made a wiki account last weekend, what name was that account under? Nil🥝02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was the exact same name with the same email. i am extremely confused. I was never told my account was banned. In fact its the same one with the same password. unless I am somehow tripping all of this man i am so confused. in fact i will go look in my search history and see what was going on to retrace the steps tbh. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh. I just checked my screenshots. looks like I made my account in the early hours of sept 30, was sleep deprived, and went on to a public library when that hacking stuff showed up, like 12 hours later... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the earliest screenshot I have with the user logged in to wikipedia is 4:11am at sep 30. and sept 30 I had a login fail at 1:28pm, and the issues started from there. im ngl....i hope I havent wasted 10+ hours of my life thinking my wiki account is hacked....thats embarrassing. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh my oh my it looks like i did a hotcat for something, and I didnt even know what it was. i thought the plus and minus buttons were for me, kind of like how you tell social media you want more recommended like this. I think that is definitely one of the reasons my account got in trouble, but hold on let me see everything else Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes some sense now. It's possible that the IP address of the public library was blocked due to people using it disruptively, and not your account itself – that's why you've been able to access your account now as you're not at the library / on a different IP address, I assume.
In terms of the times, Wikipedia uses UTC for all of its logs – unless you're in the UK or Portugal, that means times shown will be different to the time of your local time zone. Nil🥝03:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok so i just want to/oh my god make sure, ive spent hours and hours in the past few days thinking my account is hacked by people with chinese characters, and uploading a variety of wierd things, and in reality it was the IP address of the library, which I still have a screenshot of (it starts with 2A09, not sure if its safe to post here) and in reality my account is actually fine (The IP I use the most starts with 45, again not going to post the rest lol)? I know sleep deprivations cause hallucinations but dang i hope this dosent mean i am in the early stages of a schizophrenia diagnosis.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Myteethhurtman and welcome to the teahouse! among the stuff I can answer:
due to single user login, user accounts for other Wikimedia wikis, including other language wikis, are automatically created when you access these wikis at least once while logged in with your current account. it could be that someone is accessing your account in another wiki, but it is more likely that you just viewed one article in say, the Arabic wiki after being linked to it or even by accident and such an Arabic-language account for you was automatically generated.
it seems you have tripped an edit filter recently which disallowed an edit of yours here and an admin has posted your post here for you. unfortunately as I am not also an admin and this is a private filter, I am unable to determine why this has occured but as this was posted here it could be to be a false positive. these filters are here to prevent constant vandalism from new users, which unfortunately does cause issues with false positives from genuine new users
the HotCat edit you did in Commons removed a category from the category list. I have reversed this edit, but as long as you are now aware what it does, such accidents can always be easily undone and forgiven.
wait so does this mean that anyone who signs into wikipedia in that library has access to my account? that is extremely scary. there were accounts from many years ago and it didn't look good lol. Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Special:Preferences and in the user profile "Basic information" section there's a setting called "two-factor authentication" (this is what "2fa" means). You will need to download the Google Authenticator app to your phone (Android or iOS), and follow the steps to set it up.
After that, you log in as usual with your username and password, and input the 6-digit number shown in the app on your phone. If you have the checkbox ticked to save your login, it'll save for a year before you have to worry about 2FA again.
Just be sure also to verify your email address further down the user profile tab. That way if you forget your password, you can get email instructions to reset it. You may need this if you don't have to log in for a year. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, this only works for members of specific user groups (like administrators). @Myteethhurtman, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:2FA instead. But you don't need to do this - you're totally fine, you're not banned or blocked, I'm 99% confident you just saw an IP block at the library and got spooked. Don't post that IP address unless you want us all to know which local public library you go to. -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the 2FA setting in user preferences isn't available to all accounts. I wonder why?
It was only enabled to a small group at first for testing purposes, I imagine. I suspect they want to maintain a slightly higher barrier to entry than just "press this button on your preferences" either for testing scale reasons or because they don't want to deal with a deluge of "locked out, what do??" -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned that your account is compromised, you may abandon it (it only has 12 edits, and none are to articles), and create a new one under a different name; then set up 2FA immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editor and templates as a text editor
Using wikipedia's editor and templates as a text editor for personal use
Is there a way to use the wikieditor and the templates to write, say, an essay or a thesis? I find it very convenient, especially when citing is easy as a click and a link, and the ref list is automatically updated. However, I am very sure making a personal work in draftspace will end up with it getting deleted, so, it there any way i can run it locally? Thanks in advance.
@Mint Keyphase You could use the source editor in your personal sandbox but never "publish changes": just use "preview". As Harold says, you can copy/paste the source code into a local PC editor and save it locally. When you are finished, you can "preview" the result in Wikipedia and copy/paste out the rendered text (or even save it as a .pdf). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could use User:Mint Keyphase/sandbox in your own user space, but that really shouldn't be used for maintaining things for personal use off-wiki. You could do as Mike Turnbull suggested, using your sandbox for preview and saving the markup in a text editor so you can continue working on it later in your sandbox. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theres this myth about a talking baby named Quarcoo Bah-Boni and in the myth he beats up some animals and cause them to run to different parts of the world to explain why they live there. Its a very cool story that I think belongs on wikipedia but im not sure if it should be its own article or be part of a bigger article. Its a story from somewhere in west Africa. ShiningVictory (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any articles on Wikipedia that already say something about this story? Wikipedia search (and any other web search) will help you to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was unaware that my username could not be the name of my company, so it has been changed. However, I submitted an article for review under the previous username ChessUp. Now I cannot figure out how to get back to my unaccepted article to make the edits and resubmit it.
Thank you ChessMasterKS (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ChessMasterKS. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without the issue of conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
adding books to pages
Hi,
I am trying to add books to the 'In popular culture' section of the Yves Saint Laurent page but whenever I use the template it just turns into a subscript number when i want it to look like this: Rawsthorn, Alice (1996). Yves Saint Laurent: A Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-385-47645-0.
I honestly cant figure it out so any help would be appreciated. Cocodrilo018 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit on the Blues page was incorrectly marked as a 'minor edit'. I have warned the user through Twinkle.
My concern is - the edit itself seems to be WP:OR without any citations. Should I also be reverting the edit? Or will that be overstepping? Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues not withstanding, the inclusion of "As David Evans explains in “Blues” (Burnim & Maultsby, eds.)" means it was not uncited. Of course, a more complete citation, better formatted, would be preferred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated page for our architecture firm (since 2015)
Hello, I am new to this but want to learn how to request updates to the wikipedia page for 1100 Architect.
It looks to be outdated as of 2015. I understand as an employee, I am not participating in the edit. But I can provide a list of resources to support many updates. We are a well-established firm, with federal contracts, awards, publications, etc. Please advise. Much appreciated!
Thank you,
Betty Gonzalez Maxinik (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxinik. Firstly, please disclose your conflict of interest on your User Page at User:Maxinik by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then, you'll want to propose an Edit Request to the article. Use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard which will properly format it and allow interested uninvolved editors to evaluate the request. I would recommend starting with some small edit requests first before doing anything big. qcne(talk)23:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edit summary: I imagine this had been discussed before, but I don’t know how to search the history. So: should we really be showing the signatures of living persons? They’re a personal Sicilian, and in some cases, e.g. politicians, it seems irrelevant. It feels like a form of doxing to me. They may in many cases be available to autograph hunters. But, presumably their ready availability will facilitate forgeries on merchandise. Had this been discussed? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a TOL member: generally, it depends. If the subgenus is particularly noteworthy, then sure. If an article on the subgenus is purely going to be a list of species, then don't bother and redirect it to the genus. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for a bit of guidance here. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 14:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help with references error
Hey, please look at my sandbox here, I don’t understand why the references keep showing up in the middle of the article, even though there’s a reflist at the end. This is also happening on the main article once I publish it. Can someone help me fix it? I’m unable to figure out the reason behind it. 456legendtalk08:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason for having a standard naming protocol: Categories exist to help readers make sense of what's here, and to help them find the thing they're looking for. If all possible categories were included, even ones that are duplicates or near-duplicates of other ones, everything would make less sense and be harder to find. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made all corrections based on the previous reviewer’s suggestions for Draft:Neel Hurerzahan.
It has been waiting for quite some time without further review.
Could someone please take a look and let me know if it’s ready for publishing? Thank you! Saafayat (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2,931 pending submissions, or an approximate ~8 week wait. Reviewers are all volunteers, so it may take some time before your submission can be reviewed.
Hello, @Saafayat. You have not resubmitted it for review, so it was not even on the list of drafts for reviewers.
You had removed the decline notices, and along with them, the "resubmit" button.
I have restored these, and you can now resubmit it, if you believe you have addressed the issues in the notices.
Once you resubmit, it will go on the pile of drafts waiting for review, and there is no way of telling whether it will be reviewed quickly or not. Requests to review sooner achieve nothing except possibly irritating other editors. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help other editors understand what you've done: Several titles of your references are not in English, and I suggest that you also give a translation (of just the title, not the whole article). That makes it much faster to understand what each reference is about.
It seems to me that there might still be a problem, not with the number of references, but with what kind they are. We want to see independent writers who are not doing an interview, who go on and on writing a lot of analysis of her past work or why she is so important. If she has had many jobs and been mentioned many times, that's good for her but it doesn't help the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, @Nil and other reviewers — thanks very much for your guidance.
I have implemented the suggested corrections:
Replaced given-name usage with the subject's surname throughout the article (kept full name in the lead).
Removed IMDb as a reference (it was an incorrect link) — I will add a verified IMDb profile in External links if/when an official entry exists.
Provided English translations for Bengali reference titles to help non-Bengali reviewers understand sources more quickly.
Retained and cited independent, third-party coverage (for example, The Daily Star profile).
I have now resubmitted the draft for review. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Thank you again for your time and feedback. — @Saafayat (talk) Saafayat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The items in the Daily Star only mention the subject. Seeing her mentioned is not a bad thing, but it doesn't count as any coverage at all. We need to see things where she is the main topic of the report (and it's not an interview), not just saying she was in a band's video or hosting an awards ceremony. And we usually know that an awards host is not going to be getting any awards themselves, which somehow makes that reference seem even less encouraging. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it a different way: As the article stands now, a cynical reader could complain "Anyone with a pretty face could have replaced her, she's not important" - and you have no reliable sources to prove them wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally sent my article for review before I had finished
You have already resubmitted it; you may continue to edit it even after it is submitted, or you may reverse your submission. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created Draft:Hypertouch (ISP) submitted it, it was declined, and then you submitted it again after putting content in but nothing like what a Wikipedia article requires, and also removing the decline notice. Another user restored the decline notice. It is now waiting for review.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, demonstrating that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. Since the draft has no proper citations, it will, I am sure, be declined very soon. (You have included a couple of sources as "External links", but since they are not cited inline, it is not clear what information in the draft they are intended to verify. See WP:REFB).
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't intentionally removed the decline notice. I had published what it should look like after it was declined, but had started before. Thanks for assuming, very welcoming. Bobobebops (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bobobebops, please note that ColinFine did not say that you intentionally removed the decline notice. Only that you had done so, which was accurate. If you made an unintentional error, I would think that you would want a more experienced editor pointing out your mistake, so that you can learn from it and not repeat it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that neither of you considered that the deletion notice was added while i was editing. Once again I note that this was not a mistake but was not an intentionally done thing. Very welcoming. (I'm going to get another 'smart' comment, aren't I?) Bobobebops (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @Bobobebops. I'm sorry you found my reply unwelcoming: it was not intended to be. I did not make an assumption: I noticed that you had removed the decline notice, and pointed this out and that I had restored it. It is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to do this, and I have no idea whether they do so intentionally or not. There was no way I could tell that you were in process of editing, even if I had gone to look (which I didn't think to do, I admit): I see that you submitted your edit eleven minutes after Wikishovel declined the draft. I'm surprised that you didn't get a message about an editing confict in that case, and the invitation to resolve it.
I don't know if you found the rest of my message unwelcoming: again, it was not intended to be. I wish there was a I way I could get a message to new editors saying "STOP! If you try to create an article without first getting some experience, you are likely to have a frustrating time". ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move category?
Hi, I just created a category under the wrong demonym ... It's "Somalian" and not "Somali"... But I couldn't find where to move the category page as articles have... May anyone move that please? (Category:Somali football referees to Somalian...). Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking for guidance in creating a Wikipedia page for Johnson Rays (Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson), a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. I have a draft ready and would like to ensure it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, and neutral tone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicContributor78 (talk • contribs)
Draft of blatantly promotional article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About Johnson Rays
Blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Gospel Reggae
Key releases: Belief (2023, album), Motivate (2024, single), God Did (2024, EP)
Born 18 August 1978, Nigeria
Draft Summary
Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson (born 18 August 1978), known professionally as Johnson Rays, is a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. He blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Reggae Gospel to create uplifting music with messages of faith, perseverance, and motivation.
Career and Releases:
Belief (2023, Album): Combines Gospel Reggae and Gospel Afrobeats to deliver motivational messages rooted in faith.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/belief_johnson_rays
Motivate (2024, Single): Encourages listeners to persevere and stay motivated.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/motivate-johnson-rays
God Did (2024, EP): Celebrates triumphs over challenges and fuses Reggae Gospel with Afrobeats.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/god-did-johnson-rays
3. Shoplife Africa Magazine – shoplife.com.ng/2024/09/shoplife-africa-magazine-exclusive-interview-with-johnson-rays/
4. Lagos Jump Radio – lagosjumpradio.com/featured/johnson-rays-a-musical-journey-fueled-by-hope-and-inspiration/
Vision
Johnson Rays’ music aims to inspire, motivate, and uplift listeners while blending African rhythms with gospel messages. His work emphasizes faith, perseverance, and creative expression.
Hey there, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and welcome to the Teahouse! As another user mentioned, please don't post draft articles here, your sandbox page is a good place for doing that! For help with writing articles, check out this page, it's got heaps of info on how to write articles. You can also go here to start an article that will be reviewed by other editors before it's published live on the site (this is good for starting out!) Let us know if you have any further questions. SnowyRiver28(talk)
Hello, MusicContributor78, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine, thank you for the warm welcome and for your advice. I appreciate your guidance and understand the importance of learning more about Wikipedia’s policies before creating an article. I’ll take time to study and improve existing pages so I can better understand how everything works. Thanks again for your patience and support. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bazza 7, thank you for the reminder. I didn’t mean to remove anyone’s comments — that was a mistake while I was trying to tidy the page. I appreciate your feedback and will make sure not to delete others’ comments again. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medical article
Page references a medical article, but the text doesn't match the contents of said article.
Hello, I was reading the page Life expectancy, and I noticed in the Japan section it said
Japan's high life expectancy can largely be explained by their healthy diets, which are low on salt, fat, and red meat. For these reasons, Japan has a low obesity rate, and ultimately low mortality from heart disease and cancers.
I thought this was odd, since Japan has a fairly high level of salt consumption per capita. I decided to look at the cited article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189904), and it didn't match up with that text, it said
The decreasing mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease are thought to reflect the increases in animal foods, milk, and dairy products and consequently in saturated fatty acids and calcium, together with a decrease in salt intake which may have led to a decrease in blood pressure. This decrease in salt and highly salted foods also seems to account for the decrease in stomach cancer. The typical Japanese diet as characterized by plant food and fish as well as modest Westernized diet such as meat, milk and dairy products might be associated with longevity in Japan.
What can be done about this? I don't have enough confidence to re-write the section myself. Is there perhaps some template I could add to call this out?
Sorry for the long question, I felt this was important to address considering it's a medical reference. 51.37.88.62 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you want to add a template to call this out in the text, the appropriate template for when an article doesn't match the source it's cited to would be Template:Failed verification. But I agree with Andy that it would be great to raise this on the talk page so it's easier for another editor to fix. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and rewritten the section you noted, though, so at this point I don't think you'll need to add that template (unless you disagree with my summary, which is of course fair). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self published citation
In what context is a self published citation appropriate?
Hey y'all, I'm pretty new here and I am aware that self published sources are almost always NOT something we want to use when citing information in an article. I was looking at the web page for Yung Leans Mixtape Frost God, and saw a citation needed for a directors credit. The only place I could find that information was the description of the youtube video published by Yung Lean. Is this an appropriate exception to the rule? Since it is information from the creator with a detail about the thing that was created? I would love some more explanation as to why this is or isn't appropriate, so I can provide higher quality edits in the future. Thanks so much.
@InsertMode I'm not an expert on this, but I have a couple of things that may help a little. My first question assumes that you're knowledgeable about the artists being discussed.
How likely is it that this director credit might be controversial? (Meaning, is there anyone out there who might want to argue that somebody wasn't telling the truth when they put that credit on YouTube?) If you think someone might argue, then you should try to get some better evidence.
Second thing: In my experience, credits on YouTube have REALLY often contained very stupid mistakes. It happens so very often that I wonder if YouTube itself might be partly to blame, but regardless, there are tons of wrong credits on there. Maybe I see this so much because I listen to a lot of very old stuff, but honestly I think the mistakes are pretty widespread. I'm NOT saying yours is a mistake, but I'm asking: Does it look right to you? Do you, knowing about these artists pretty well, think this makes sense?
If you can answer that nobody's likely to argue, and the credit seems right to you, then I think it's safe to leave it the way you did it. But if some other editor isn't satisfied and changes it back, I think you should easily let them do that because the evidence isn't 100% solid. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful context. I am very familiar with the artist, and this particular credit is a long time collaborator. That can be shown with other sources (unfortunately I can't find a source that directly confirms this credit) so I think in this case this change made sense. I'd be very surprised if it were disputed, but I will defer to a disputer if that time comes for the reasons you described. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I will seek to learn more as I continue editing!
If you have a conflict of interest with a topic or with a source, the best practice is to write a proposal on the article talk page to include it, and let the community decide. The community generally frowns on editors adding citations to their own works. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I do not have a connection with the subject. I am just a fan of their work and wanted to include a citation for a director credit in their article and wanted to know if my citation was appropriate given the context. InsertMode (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hierarchy of information
In the Ukrainophilism article, should the 19th century nationalist movement take precedence in the lede or should the modern understanding of the word? I'd argue the former is more significant but most people searching for the article would likely be looking for the latter. I was planning on rewriting that section at some point. Joko2468 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I can't confirm that a source on the wiki says what it supposedly says, can I reuse it on another page on the wiki?
This question is brought to you by the Citation Hunt tool. Which send me to: Slave Rebellions - Europe - Servile Wars. Since those have their own pages, I figured they might be the best starting points. Turns out there are the sources I need, but they are books. So I can't confirm they say what they supposedly say. Which begs the question, can I copy the source from one article to the other if it confirms the assertion made in either, even if I can't check what it says myself? MMichkov (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you should check the sources before citing them—sometimes what they're being cited for is vague, and sometimes sourcing is sloppy or the sources get separated from what they were originally cited for. If you could see the secondary sources, I would say you might get away with citing the Greek and Roman writers as cited in them. But in this case, it looks like those are the sources you should be able to check: chiefly Diodorus Siculus and Livy, but also the other writers cited in the bibliography under Third Servile War. I would feel safe citing these once you check them, since you should be able to find all of the Greek and Roman sources online, and possibly also Mommsen.
Among secondary sources, you should be able to check some good sources through the Wikipedia Library, possibly including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, and possibly some version of Pauly-Wissowa (in German). The Cambridge Ancient History is sometimes accessible.
Some older sources that likely have relevant information are available through Internet Archive and Google Books, including the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (under biographical articles for the participants), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (under places, usually including historical information), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. These works have copious citations to Greek and Roman writers, though you should check them for what they say and to make sure the citations are correct; proofreading citations was hard in the 19th century, and many sources have different editions with different numbering. Obviously attitudes toward social issues (such as slavery, race, and class) have changed since these sources were written, but in terms of supplying the basic facts and providing the authorities for them, they are unsurpassed in detail among English-language classical scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not quite what you're asking, it's worth being aware of WP's rules around copying from one article to another. Attribution isn't required if you're only copying the citation, but if you also copy any of the article text (along with the source), make sure you have a read of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Nil🥝00:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template for time style
I have very simple and brief question: is there a template one could use that displays in editing mode to warn editors to use a certain time style? There’s a template for “use DMY” dates for instance. What I’m looking for is basically a “use 24 hour clock” template. Thanks in advance.
That’s what I was considering. Now that you confirmed me not finding the desired template is not merely my own bad searching, I’ll probably do that soon. Thanks. Slomo666 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced or dead linked material
Should unsourced or dead linked material be removed? I have found several of them around, I just don’t want to remove that if it is against the rules. DawnB3 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best practice is to look for sources, including copies of the formerly-linked material if it's available. It often will be, if the source is a published book or journal; search Google Books or Scholar, or Internet Archive for older works. The latter also has a tool called the "Wayback Machine", which archives web pages from time to time, and may include the original text saved when the link was live. It's possible to link to those archived versions for citation purposes, indicating that the original site is no longer available. However, if that site was citing a source that's available elsewhere, it may be preferable to link directly to that source.
If you can't find the original source in any form, you still should be able to search for the claim being made. You might have to formulate the search in different ways, but there's a good chance that you can find a source for most valid claims—Google Books and Internet Archive are still your most useful tools for anything likely to be found in books or magazines.
If you can't locate any sources after a reasonable search in likely sources, then technically the material can be deleted. However, I usually take guidance from two of the guidelines for sourcing: first, the guidelines say that material likely to be challenged may be removed if it can't be verified by reliable sources; I note that verifiability requires only that sources exist, not that they're available to you or over the internet. This means that if the best possible sources are inaccessible, but seem to exist or likely to exist in some format that isn't available, the material may still be verifiable, even if you're not able to verify it yourself.
As to what "likely to be challenged" means, I refer to "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue". Meaning that if something seems obvious, or uncontroversial, it should probably remain even if no source has been located for it. Perhaps you'll think of a source, or some other editor will find one, but if it seems likely to be correct, I would leave it alone, and remove only things that seem dubious or probably wrong. Experts in the subject matter of an article may recognize errors that can never be verified because they are simply wrong, and delete them. But if you're not sure, and you can't find anything on point, it may be best to leave it for another editor. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see if the source has been backed up at archive.org. Failing that, one time I succeeded in convincing the publisher to restore the source so that it could be cited. If that doesn't work, see if alternate sources can be found. You may have to dig deeper than a Google search, maybe using Lexis/Nexis, the newspapers.com archive, and so on. And if the source ever existed in print, there are always libraries. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming a page
HI Teahouse, I've got a question about renaming a page. I'm a native-English speaker learning French, and I've come across this page on French Wikipedia: fr:Chāt masālā which I believe should have the title "Chaat masala" instead of "Chāt masālā" as macrons are not a thing that exists in French (as far as I am aware). I could do an edit to the page to change the text within the article, but this change would also need to be in the title of the page (which if I understand correctly would also change the URL).
I am a relatively new and inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I assume this isn't a change I can make by myself. How would I go about requesting / kicking off the converstation about this change?
Generally, the proccess of changing a page's URL (which also changes the main page header) is called moving a page, though, given the fact that the page in question is on frwiki, you will need to ask over there (perhaps at fr:Project:Forum_des_nouveaux, which appears to be frwiki's equivalent of the Teahouse) regarding the exact procedure. Victor Schmidt (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the French Wikipedia rules for foreign-language page titles. Maybe they have it this way intentionally. But you are right to be asking them a question to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
💡 Macrons are actually quite common in NZ English for loan words from Maori. (Also, if chat were a Maori loan word, both spellings (chaat and chāt) would be acceptable.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accident report
How much of an accident report do I add to the article?
I am currently trying to improve this draft about USAir Flight 499. I was wondering how much of the report should I add to the article. Should I summarize the main points or try to add everything into the article but word it differently?
Because that's a primary source, I would defer to what actual journalists chose to cover from that report, and cite the secondary sources instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be kind of a pointless question, because the reviewer already told you that the source you're asking about doesn't count for much. You need to be finding the other different sources that the reviewer said are needed, not trying to optimize this one. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zaptain United, the question that you need to answer for yourself and for other editors is why an airline incident that resulted in only one minor injury meets the standard of notability? In all honesty, I doubt that this mishap is notable and I see no evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then why are those sources not yet referenced in the draft? Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage does not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this is good advice, but it's probably advice to be taken on an article that has a chance of being accepted. This article will continue to be a waste of time, until it shows significant coverage of the event in independent sources. Anyone planning to summarize this accident report should find those other sources first, and if they don't find good enough coverage, find a different article to work on. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis
How do I suggest some kind of POV evaluation on the article 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis?
Currently most of the 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis article is a collection of info derived from both Cambodian and Thai media. Which most media in both countries depicts their own country as the morally correct one.
Resubmitting improved AfC bio draft after declines; confusion on versions for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir
Hi Teahouse hosts,
I'm User:Abujahangir (65 edits since July 2025), improving a bio draft on Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur and Community Leader Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, who is noted for his role in leading the initiative that resulted in the city of Port Alberni, British Columbia, being recognized by FIFA as a potential training site for the 2026 World Cup.
The original Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (by blocked User:Farzana.1970, January 2025) links in the Jan 2025 Teahouse thread (Archive 1247) to a July 18, 2025, declined version—not matching the early stub. It was declined for sourcing/formatting; I've left it abandoned.
My expanded Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) (submitted Sep 2, 2025) has 2 declines (July 21 by Utopes: WP:REFB/MINREF; Oct 1 by Theroadislong: similar). I've fixed refs (31 independent sources now: CHEK, Alberni Valley News, CBC, Daily Janakantha and more), structure, and neutrality—meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO.
Resubmitted today. Could a reviewer check for approval/feedback? Tips on merging versions or avoiding future declines?
Abujahangir, you say "Resubmitted today". No, Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) has not been resubmitted. For that purpose, you have to click on the blue "Resubmit" quasi-button. It reads much less like an encyclopedia article, a lot more like a PR piece (and close to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir). Its promotional nature and your seemingly exclusive interest in writing up Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir combine to make me wonder: How are you related to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (the man, not the draft)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abujahangir I don't think your subject is Wikipedia notable. He's a businessman who helped get a small city identified as a training site (not even a venue). This isn't enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Are there any pages on Wikipedia that will link to it or will this page be an orphan? Second, your name suggests that you might be related to the subject. If so, you'll need to declare your COI, see WP:COI. I'd suggest you park the draft for 3 months and, in the mean time, get more familiar with Wikipedia first. You seem to be good at referencing. Maybe start by helping to reference articles. (If the subject is notable now, he'll still be notable in 3 months.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with a draft
Hi friends at Teahouse,
I hope you are all well. We are trying to make a wikipage for a company called Life After Me, but I'm finding it hard to find my way around Wikipedia and it's rules and regulations. My hope is to get some pointers and perhaps help on what we need to do to get this page approved: Draft:Life After Me
The main goal for this page is to show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do, we don't want to use wikipedia as place for promoting Life After Me, but we want to use it as place where people can independently find out more info on Life After Me, like it's security certifications and who they have worked with as in trusted partners and such.
Hey there, welcome to the teahouse! First off, I noticed your use of 'we', and I'd just like to let you know that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared as per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Please ensure each individual has their own account going forward.
I see you've submitted a draft of your article recently which was declined as it may not meet the standards for needing an article. The notability guidelines for organisations has in-depth information on what should and shouldn't get articles. I'd suggest reading this in full and then deciding whether the company needs an article.
Hi, Thank you for the quick and clear response! 1. My apologies, my English isn't that good, with "we" I ment me and my colleagues helping me, I am the only one using this account :)
2. Thank you for this! Having read through it I am still struggling with which sources I should remove or add, I have made an attempt in the last revised edit and i think i am waiting for approval or decline. The sources mentioned on the draft are under media coverage, with main purpose to let people know where they can have heard of Life After Me before, but i have a suspicion this is also where its going wrong? Perhaps i cant mention any media coverage to let people know who talk about Life After Me?
3. "We" prioritize transparency and honesty, this is core in the business of legacy planning! When Life After Me is big enough as company perhaps others will write this for and about Life After Me instead. Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Tijmen Blue Marloc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is for.
To show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden in Wikipedia.
Basically, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what your company wants people to know about itself. If several people wholly unconnected with your company have independently chosen to write in some depth about your company in reliable publications, then an article about your company is possible - and it would be based almost entirely on what those independent people had said, not on what you want to say.
Hi ColinFine, Thanks for your input, I have already read this before making the initial draft.
I opted into the conflict of interest disclosure and taking into consideration not to "Self-promote" with specifically "This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view" and "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations" where "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." has been tried to my best capability and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" has been tried to my best capability. I hope to not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is" by following the rules set as best as I can and most importantly never self promoting.
Since the first time the initial draft was not denied because of any of these reasons I assumed to have passed on the neutrality side of the article. When the draft gets denied because of these reasons I will surely comeback here to get help on staying neutral on these pages. For now the first hurdle is the articles and sources I think.
Hello! I see that you've created an Article about your son; father; grandfather; or someone that you have a close relationship with! Which is called a Conflict of Interest on Wikipedia. I can help you find some sources and help you make the article non promotional; but I recommend looking that the hyperlink I made to the page for further information! Valorrr(lets chat)14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I strongly suggest you please consider if you're willing to create a space where anyone can publicize criticism of your father if supported by reliable sources.
To be fair, it is allowed to create an article about a relative (though super-strongly recommended to use the AfC process, as you have) and while you have very little control over where that article later goes, you can still make edit suggestions on the talk-page. The main problem your article has is that it needs properly-formatted sources that are independent of your father. Wikipedia has quite strict expectations about "notability", defining people as notable not because they've done a lot of useful stuff, but because someone else has written about them doing a lot of useful stuff. You need to demonstrate this. One thing in your father's favour is his writing: we have special guidelines on authors WP:NAUTHOR that might be useful. If you're okay with this, make your COI clear as described in the instructions in the link Valorrr sent, and sort out those references! Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input; I have no concerns about someone editing and saying something about my father. My BIL is Dan K McNeill and I see examples of what you speak of on his page. Terry Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I copied and pasted the article from Word to the template in the sandbox. Sorry to be a rookie at this - it is a bit overwhelming -- thank you so much for your help. Terry Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum Archeology
I was looking through Wikipedia, and saw there's no page for Quantum Archeology. Seriously!! It's like an idea that says one day we might be able to rebuild people from the past using insanely advanced tech. The basic thought is that if the universe keeps a perfect record of everything that’s ever happened, you know, every atom, every interaction then in theory, we could dig through that data and re-create entire lives, memories, and minds. It mixes quantum physics, computing, and a bit of sci-fi optimism, imagining a future where even the long-dead could be brought back digitally or physically. I don't believe it personally, but it would be ridiculously fun to read about. Why doesn't a page for it exist? I never edit wikipedia, so I guess it's something to do with sources? Let me know :) 31.208.88.59 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor. With sources (according to Google) only on Substack, Reddit and Quora etc, any attempt to place an article in Wikipedia will fail as fringe-of-the-fringe. Wikipedia doesn't really do "ridiculously fun to read about". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum archeology is the kind of topic that I might hear about from that one crazy friend of mine. (I don't really have such a friend at the moment, but I hope you know what I mean.)
Wikipedia handles those topics (whether the stories or the friend himself) basically by "covering the coverage" while pointing out that the stories he tells have no basis in fact. At least that's the idea, as far as I can tell. And so we wouldn't write about it at all, unless a ton of coverage kind of forced us to. I hope. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the info-box of Bishopsgate railway station there is a little map of London with a dot on it to indicate where the station stood. The map covers only part of London, and it's so teeny-tiny that unless you have a good overview of London and can work out where the location is relative to one loop of the Thames, it's of no use whatsoever. If you click on the map to see a bigger version, the dot disappears, so you can now see roughly where in London the map might be, but now with no indication where the station is. This all seems rather less than ideal. Is there a way to make this more like Google Maps, where a map can be expanded without losing the target location? Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would want to expand this question to cover all cases of "Wikipedia map becomes useless because the location dot disappears". You just happen to have found one that's even more frustrating than the majority. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a static image, and the dot is superimposed over it by the infobox. Other articles have versions where you can pick "Location within X", "Location within Y", etc. I just don't think there's any standard in regards to this, and it varies between editors and articles. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was already established that it's a static map with a dot superimposed. I think the point was that this way of superimposing a dot is ... I think they call it a "brittle" solution? The kind of feature that breaks as soon as you try to actually use it.
The dot disappearing is rather silly, but unfixable. I don't think that map is particularly bad, though. I have never been to London, but can still get an idea of where the station is located. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wiki deliberately want to be out of date?
I have twice changed an entry for Caroline Corby because it was out of date and therfore wrong, incorrect and misleading. This is annoying for the subject and makes Wiki an unreliable source. The first time it did change at first, and then some genius must have switched it back to the old version, despite me linking the new information to government websites and other authorative sources. Now, when I go into edit mode and publish, it won't even seem to change at all. Should we just give up and accept Wiki is a poor source or can anyone help? Olde Danny Boy (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to assume good faith in the actions of other editors, so remarks like "someone, who is clearly badly informed", "some genius" and "deliberately want to be out of date" are not acceptable.
The reason given for the reversion of the previous edit (presumably made by you, though you were not signed in) was "Unsourced, external links"; That's because you didn't cite sources (or not adequately), and because you linked text in the article body to external websites, which is not how we do things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is deliberately out of date in one particular way: we don't take a subject's word for anything that's of real importance, and instead we deliberately wait until reliable secondary sources have published the material. This causes consternation for the subjects of articles (as well as for unpublished experts in various fields, whose word we similarly don't take). If we DID take subjects' word for things, we would see a few articles greatly improved, but at the expense of having thousands upon thousands of grossly unreliable articles filled with puffery and outright lies. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, is using the consensus (with those who already agree with you), to remove (or add) citations, you personally disagree (bias) with, a punishable offense? (Despite said sources being credible) – KaijuEditor (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally answer unspecific questions here, because for most questions it will depend on the circumstances - especially if other editors may disagree with your characterising of the issue (which I'm guessing might be the case here). Your refusal to be specific is simply wasting time and effort - yours and others'.
Secondly, saying "due to personal biases" is a violation of the principle of assume good faith.
Thirdly Wikipedia works by consensus. When you have a disagreement with other editors, the first step is always to open a discussion with those other editors and try and reach consensus, not to appeal to some authority for a general ruling (there is no such authority anyway). Please see dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a VERY big difference - at least on this site - between "credible sources" (your words) and "reliable sources" (Wikipedia's words). I think people tend to say "credible sources" to mean "My sources don't meet Wikipedia standards, but trust me on this". To make sure you don't get wrongly labelled like that, it's probably better to use Wikipedia's words to get your point across. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, when tried to download files on my android device, it's empty; while downloading the same thing on Mainland Chinese Phone it have content. 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this edit. Apparently, this user has fully removed the 'Controversey' section form the Aurora page. I feel this section should remain in the article.
Subsequent good-faith edits have made it difficult for me to undo the changes without losing good content. Please guide me on how to best deal with this? I use Twinkle, but not sure if it could have helped. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsacrificer Welcome to Teahouse. I think the IP editor's removal might actually follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE rules.. The controversy was mostly about Aurora’s drummer, not Aurora herself so giving it a full section could give too much focus to something not really about her. Oh almost forget Twinkle wouldnt really help here it's more about using good judgment with content and policy than reverting edits. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kingsacrificer, just to add to Thilio's comment above, it's recommended that Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" (see WP:CSECTION). If there is consensus to include the information, it should be included into an appropriate part of the article's body (with consideration to WP:BLP & WP:DUE), rather than as a standalone section. My personal read of the situation is that, as the article is about her (and not her band), a whole paragraph or section feels undue. Nil🥝21:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to automate adding lang templates?
Apologies if this is not the right venue for making this request, but there's been a bit of a kerfuffle over at List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands. The main contributing editor has reverted the article to how it was 5 or so years ago and shortly after writing an "epitaph" on the article talk page, left the building so to speak. I would undo the edit myself but there's been two subsequent edits since and I'm not sure of the effects of undoing those. Would someone please take a look? Rupples (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That "main contributing editor" writes on the article's talk page As a symbolic gesture, I have reverted this page to its status on the day I made my first edit; but an encyclopedia isn't built on symbolic gestures and so you needn't hesitate to revert. Yes, you'd thereby also revert subsequent edits, but other people (or of course you) could redo these. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft wass declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reasons for the decline were left by the reviewer. It is sourced only to primary sources- your organization itself. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself.
Thank you for saying "In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article." But your username suggests that you are an employee of AGSF. Is this so? (i) The draft hasn't been rejected but declined. (ii) You present a set of "References". And then you present a set of "References". Why not expand the first set with what are now in the second set, thereby informatively linking specific assertions with specific sources? (iii) For almost all purposes, the sources must be independent of AGSF. Is there so little about AGSF in the websites of the more serious newspapers and magazines? -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for help getting my draft reviewed
Hello! I’ve been refining my Draft:Shawn Hale article. It’s been revised a few times to fix all the citation and formatting errors from the original upload, and I noticed someone else even made a small edit recently, which was great to see.
I’d really appreciate if a reviewer or experienced editor could take another look and help move it toward publication. Thanks so much just for reading this! WhippySmash (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhippySmash At a glace the big issue I'm noticing is you have sections without sources. There's no citations for early life or the second half of personal life. There's possibly other issues but that's something simple to work on. I didn't check notability for example but finding more sources will help with that. Ultraodan (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WhippySmash, the most important issue is the one Ultraodan highlighted above about a lack of sources. There are also signs that an AI/LLM (such as ChatGPT) was used to create your draft; please have a read of our help page on large language models and the issues they can introduce. Nil🥝03:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Marla Stone (author)
