Wikipedia:Teahouse

Iljhgtn, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

.

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users, 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. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

Jailbreak draft

Sorry for all the draft related stuff, but is there any things that could be improved for this draft? Does it look like it’s article worthy or no? rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

oops i meant this draft rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's ready. Are you submitting it for review or publishing it directly? GarethBaloney (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably publishing it. Review if I want to be more careful rave (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The worst someone can do is send it back to draftspace, so I would say be BOLD and publish it. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Just did publish. rave (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It got.. nominated for deletion Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

eh it’s ok i did not feel too bad about it, im a newbie so i guess that was a lesson for me maybe rave (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

When that happens, people give you a lot of quite long pages to read. Even though they're long and boring, read all of them carefully. It's not fun, but it's way less bad than getting things rejected all the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who read all of those for fun before doing anything on the encyclopedia, right? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope! I did too. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jose Cecotto

Draft:Jose Cecotto

Is my subject can be posted? It is listed in the notability section of the Motorsports drivers. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If this article got declined then I am concerned for many other drivers and riders who were in the lower rungs of motorsport. Even the people who started one Formula One race are really not notable outside of their one F1 appearance. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this (people at the lower rungs of a sport being non-notable and having no article) exactly as things should be? TooManyFingers (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a motor racing fan, I have to say that someone who only ever managed to finish one race (in 16th) in three seasons in the lower echelons of the World Championship in the 1970s is difficult to see as Notable, at least on those grounds. (And he cannot 'inherit' any Notability from his much more successful brother). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. But for example if I take another famous rider's brother, Felice Agostini, he was not really more successfull. Unfortunately, Jose Cecotto got his bests results in non championship races or local championships where he get some podiums. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is probably why Felice Agostini (7 points in the 4th tier of the 1978 Championship) also does not have his own article. If Jose Cecotto does not pass the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by his own racing achievements, nor the criteria of the more general Wikipedia:Notability (people), then he simply does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, like the vast majority of people on Earth.

(Note that I myself am not a draft reviewer and have not personally checked your draft sources; I have assumed that the actual reviewer Endrabcwizart (talk · contribs) who declined the submission has competently done so.)

Of course, it's always possible that more Reliable source material will be written about him in the future, and/or that such material does exist but that you haven't found it yet. The draft has only been Declined, which means it may be resubmitted after improvement; it has not been Rejected, which means basically "No hope, give up." Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll resubmit it. The problem stemmed from the source, Facebook, which I was almost certain wouldn't be accepted. So I deleted it, and now if it's rejected, it's because of its popularity. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Also concerning Felice Agostini, his article is on the Spanish Wikipedia. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Each language's Wikipedia is an independent project, and each one has its own criteria for inclusion, or not. This English-language Wikipedia is generally considered to have the strictest criteria for judging a subject "Notable": i.e. for whether a subject has had enough independent material published about it (in any language) in what are considered Reliable sources, which an article can be summarised from. "Popularity" is irrelevant; "publicly documented in Reliable sources" is the key (and no source with user-generated content is 'Reliable', including any Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia: Get my IP address" page says it needs to be updated

Thank you for all of you who are interested on helping me out! I have gotten the following message and it's shown below: {{Update|reason=FAQ needs to be updated to address temporary accounts|date=November 2025}} <div class="get-my-ip-hide" style="margin-bottom: 1.5em;"> How can I do this? LoveBug71 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert about the page Wikipedia:Get my IP address, LoveBug71. (I've used NOWIKI on your message so that this page -- the "teahouse" -- isn't also marked as in need of updating.) The page needs to be updated; your IP address doesn't need to be. Don't worry about this alert. Somebody who understands these matters and has a little free time will get around to updating the page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hoary, thank you for informing me on this information. LoveBug71 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: Thank you so much for updating the page! You don't know how much this means to me... LoveBug71 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Style guidelines for unicode left/right/straight quotation marks

Where can I find guidelines for when it's acceptable to use what kind of quotes/apostrophes (e.g. U+0027 vs. U+2018 vs. U+2019)? Moiré (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY is probably what you're looking for. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The basic answer is to always use the straight ones - even if an original source has curly quotes, we replace them with straight ones. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(I should have said "even when making a direct quotation that has quotation marks inside it, we go in and change the original author's curly quotes to straight ones".) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Notability

Hello. I want to make an article about the 1997 attempt by monarchists in Albania to subvert the 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. Can this topic be considered notable enough? Please let me know ASAP! Lightnightx3x (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lightnightx3x See WP:BACKWARDS. My knee-jerk reaction is that if you have good sources, it would be reasonable to add something about that in the article you linked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources first, then article.

You've got your idea - now look for sources to support it. If you want help looking for sources, you can ask at the WP:Reference desk. Once you've got your sources, then you can consider writing an article that summarises the information in those sources. But don't bother writing an article if you don't have sources, even if you think the topic might be notable. Athanelar (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Lightnightx3x, articles often start out as just sections in an article on a related topic. I would suggest you start by going that route; for one thing, 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum is already WP:Notable, and will not get deleted, so the topic you want to write about has someplace it can live for a while, as long as you can add citations to reliable sources for your new section. Once your section grows so large that it no longer really fits well in that article, only then should you consider spinning off the section into a new article. See WP:Summary style for how to do that. Mathglot (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Musical inspiration

(This might not be the place for this query but I’ll ask anyway).

I was recently researching about a Jamaican musician called Lord Tickler and the first 30 or so seconds of his song “Green Guava” (produced in the 1950s) has a striking resemblance to the start of the Desmond Dekker song “It Mek” is it possible that Desmond Dekker took inspiration and if so then should the page for It Mek says that the start is remarkably similar to an earlier Jamaican song, I did find evidence to say that Lord Tickler’s music was the inspiration for various later Jamaican genres (such as Reggae and Ska), below I have linked both songs and if you listen you can hear that even some of the lyrics (if not all- I cannot really tell are the same) as well as the melody.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP6fKV25oeE Lord Tickler 1950s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJdGog6K570 Desmond Dekker 1969

Of course I assume more evidence (written) would be needed to truly confirm whether Dekker took inspiration from Tickler but perhaps it’s worth a mention how similar the starts are.

Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KeyolTranslater. I'm afraid not. Unless you can find a reliable published source which says they are similar, you should not even say that much in the article, as it would be original research. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that would be the case, perhaps it’s just a coincidence or a common melody in Jamaica. That’s the unfortunate reality of small-unknown musicians (referring to Lord Tickler). Thanks for the clarification . Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's also part of a tradition that existed long before copyright existed. Using someone else's music in a new way was accepted practice for a long time; see for just one example Johann Sebastian Bach#Antecedents and influences. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah many calypso and mento songs have shared melodies among other musical influences. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Title Formatting

Hi, I had a question about formatting for titles as I am in the process of having an article reviewed for creation (my first). I named my article COHERENT Collaboration because that is how they refer to themselves (never seen it lowercase on any paper or article), but my draft was recently renamed Draft:Coherent Collaboration. It is true that it is not an acronym, but if that is the only way they ever present their name then it feels a little weird to change it, anyone familiar with it would be confused. Using all non-standard capitalization in the title is not uncommon for other experiment pages I have seen as well (for example CONUS experiment and MicroBooNE). I was wondering if anyone here had any insight into what the official standard for this would be. Thanks! Ajheindel (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who changed it doesn’t know it’s meant to capitalised, personally I don’t like seeing long words with capitalisation, but if that is t the official name then I assume it should be capitalised, but I’m not experienced in name changes so I can’t really say. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel The policy on titles is at WP:TITLEFORMAT. My take on that is that we would not use COHERENT within the title unless it were an acronym. Note that Wikipedia only uses initial capitalisation for trademarks, even when they are stylised in other ways. Your draft can mention the stylisation in its first sentence. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, "CONUS experiment" and "MicroBooNE" are both acronyms (albeit somewhat tortured ones). Per our articles, "CONUS" stands for "COherent Neutrino nUcleus Scattering" and "BooNE" for "Booster Neutrino Experiment". Meanwhile the "coherent" in "Coherent Collaboration" is the standard English word "coherent", not an acronym. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Whoever came up with those acronyms needs to be arrested, that’s an utter disgrace. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes it is really hard to make an acronym out of the list of related terms for our experiment, so we have to get creative. Sometimes physicists like to have a little fun with it as well (Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy is an unused but well known example). Ajheindel (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(There's also MOS:ALLCAPS, which says Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function, I think further supporting that "Coherent Collaboration" should not be in allcaps) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, if I understand that correctly then, does that mean I should change all references in my article and others to remove all caps? In general most physics experiments nowadays are acronyms of some sort, so it has become somewhat of a standard/expectation that they are represented in all caps, presumably that is why this group has made it COHERENT instead of Coherent, to be more consistent with other groups in the field. Ajheindel (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ajheindel, no; references should be cited exactly as published. Consistency plays no role here; we do not standardize Brit and American citations to all say 'defence programme' or 'defense program', we just cite as they do. Article titles are a different story. You can mention stylized naming in the body, as Athanelar mentioned; see the lead sentence of Gulf and Western Industries. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The way I've seen this done with e.g., band names who stylise themselves in a nonstandard way is for the article to be in standard formatting, but for the lead to note the stylised usage. I.e., your lead could say something like

The Coherent Collaboration (stylised as COHERENT Collaboration) is [...]

Also, you implied above that you're a physicist who works in this sort of field; if you're affiliated with the COHERENT collaboration at all, please make sure you properly disclose your conflict of interest according to the relevant guideline. Athanelar (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is my plan, it should be fairly easy to fix in my article, but a bit more annoying to fix all the articles that reference my article. Also I am not affiliated with this experiment at all, just trying to expand the coverage of other experiments in my field. Ajheindel (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

References needed

Hello, this is my first time creating a Wikipedia page; see Draft:Michel Goguikian. I have added references wherever I thought them necessary but the article was declined for some missing ones.

I've got the following section:

Michel Goguikian was born in Lebanon into a diplomatic family. His father, Ambassador Jean Goguikian, Lebanon’s first ambassador of Armenian origin[2], held several diplomatic posts, including at the United Nations where he participated, among others, in the first International Symposium on Industrial Development held in Athena in 1967[3][4]. Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs and later earned degrees in economics and finance in the United States. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of Venezuela and Spain.

I've added reference links for the "first ambassador or Armenian origin" and the United Nations sentence.

Do I also need to add reference links for the degrees in economics this person obtained? These are proving quite hard to find.

Thank you. MBG2025 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

For an article about a living person, you need a citation for each statement in the article.

How do you know he has a degree, if not from a source? Do you know this person, or work for them?

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on it then. :) MBG2025 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MBG2025 The first (and maybe most important) part of "getting on it" is just to answer Andy's question. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Guidance for improving physics topics for school students

Hi everyone! 👋😊 I’m looking to contribute to physics-related articles, especially for school students in Grades 7–9. I can help simplify concepts like light, sound, electricity, force, motion, and basic astronomy with clear examples. Could you suggest active physics pages or sections that currently need improvements, reliable sources, or better explanations? I’d love to learn and contribute with accuracy and clarity. Thanks a lot for your guidance! 🚀📘 Night-Vector (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is a handy bot which looks at tags on articles and allows editors to focus on areas that interest them. See external link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings. It has a physics section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think so 🤔 Night-Vector (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sections are sorted alphabetically; "Physics" is present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is also simple.wikipedia.org Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean dude Night-Vector (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector I mean that some school students in grades 7-9 may prefer simple.wikipedia.org, dude. Polygnotus (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is a simplified version of Wikipedia Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly ... It's a different Wikipedia that doesn't have the same articles. But they do use simpler writing. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The changing names of actors

Recently an IP address in the page Friends season 8 changed Courtney Cox's name to Courtney Cox Arquette and claims that that was her name for the "credits" of that season. I had undone the edit and left a talk page message for them. In response, the IP address messaged me on the TP repeating the reason for their change.

Must her name be changed per what it was in the show at that time? (Assuming the claim can be proven). Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually the most common name is used for example most monarchs’ pages only have the most commonly known name, and usually middle names and other surnames are included on the person’s page as their full name/title. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a policy I can cite to this IP? Or is this just the unspoken word here? Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There probably is a policy but I am unaware, hopefully a more experienced editor who knows the policies can come back to you if there is one, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help so far. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem :) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Television has the relevant guideline at MOS:TVCAST: All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 08:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television,

All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.

It looks like you could use either option, but since the guide is also suggesting using just surnames, that creates a problem for cases like this of a woman with changing last names. You might want to weigh whether she has been more well known as "Cox" than "Arquette", or known equally. In my opinion, I would probably use "Cox" because it was, and now is, "Cox".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Grorp! Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 01:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello!

I’ve been working on improving the draft Draft:Giacomo Billi over the past days. I’ve rewritten several sections, adjusted the style to keep it neutral, and added more independent sources to strengthen the article.

Could someone please take a careful look at it and let me know if it now meets the requirements for notability and reliable sourcing? Any feedback or guidance would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mihai Catalin 11. According to WP:SURNAME, this person should not be referred to by their first name after the initial mention of their full name. Their claim to notability seems to be as a senior executive of a company that is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. That seems strange to me. This sentence is also strange: Giacomo is mentioned in Romanian economic media in connection with the development of renewable energy projects, the listing of Alive Capital’s corporate bonds on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, and the company’s integration into Premier Energy Group. Being "mentioned in media" is not something worth writing in an encyclopedia. We want significant, in depth coverage which we summarize rather than stating that coverage exists. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mihai Catalin 11:

• "Early career" is a repeat of "Early life and education", please delete.
• Career is mainly about the company rather than Billi. The draft is about Billi.
• You mention that he's been mentioned in Ziarul Financiar, FoodBiz, Energy Industry Review, Financial Intelligence, Forbes, and InvesTenergy but it's the information about him in those articles that need to be in the draft with inline citations, rather than information about the company. (Not all the information, just pertinent information.)
• Most of your sources are in foreign languages. This will delay review because only people who know those languages can read the sources but, because you have bare references, you've made it even more difficult for someone to verify.
• Most of your sources are bare references in some manner (ie they're missing descriptions). Please fill in the name of the author (if known), the title of the article, the name of the publication, the location of the publication (if not in publication name), a date of publication, the translated title, the language (use the two letter language code). It would also be helpful to fill in the type of source (eg, interview, profile page)
• But at the end of the day, there are criteria for a Wikipedia article. You thinking he's important is not enough. He needs to have been covered in depth (eg, a feature article) in multiple, reliable sources for inclusion. Suggest read WP:42 and WP:BOSS.

MmeMaigret (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Does the result of this close make sense?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian genocide in Nigeria

Close says: "The result was redirect to Religious violence in Nigeria. While a fraught topic, there is not consensus that sourcing establishes this as a distinct issue. History is preserved should that change."

I went through the comments and tallied up the comments. I know it's not a vote but the resulting close doesn't make sense.

Delete - 8

Oppose/Keep - 5

Redirect - 4 Guz13 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the last commenter who "oppose[d] deletion" did not have a position on whether to keep the article vs redirect. 12 !voters opposed a standalone article while only 4 supported a standalone article. On the basis of headcount alone, even without getting into the actual arguments, this strongly suggests a consensus to not keep the article. On the other hand, the delete commenters did not argue strongly against a redirect, so it makes perfect sense for the discussion to be closed as redirect even though more commenters !voted "delete" (choosing to redirect vs delete is very common in closing AfD discussions per WP:PRESERVE). In general, questions about a closure should be asked directly to the closer, in this case @Star Mississippi. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ATD

Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and that means we want good, well-sourced information here; it's just that that information might not always warrant an article of its own. If the content from an article can be redirected or merged into another article resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia, that's always better than outright deletion. Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar and @Helpful Raccoon for the ping and stepping in while I was offline. @Guz13 please let me know if you need further information. Star Mississippi 15:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Help finding a userbox

Hello there! I remember a while ago seeing a userbox that said something along the lines of "this user uses :3 a lot :3" but now I can't for the life of me find it again :c can anyone help me find it please? :3 (sorry if this is the wrong place) TheSillyGal (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the closest thing I could find, although I also remember that userbox along the exact lines of what you described. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 03:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

hmm... odd. thanks for looking tho :3 TheSillyGal (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheSillyGal, the custom userbox on the user page of Some0neXP might be what you saw. It doesn't have a dedicated userbox page, it's just a custom transclusion of {{userbox}}. See also a userbox about use of emoticons and emojis on the userpage of SummerDaisyy. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

is there a way I can give it its own page? TheSillyGal (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You can just copy the whole wikitext to your userpage. Here's a simple version: {{Userbox |id=:3 |info=This user likes to overuse the :3 [[emoticon]].}}. If you really want, you can create a subpage, e.g. User:TheSillyGal/Userbox :3 emoticon. Then the following wikitext could be used to show it: {{User:TheSillyGal/Userbox :3 emoticon}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

made a page for it {{User: TheSillyGal/:3}}. TheSillyGal (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikilink to subheading

I forget how to wikilink to a subheading. I want a wikilink to go to the subheading "Willey Amendment" under History of slavery in West Virginia. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Use a # character.

For instance, to Wikilink to this discussion, it would be Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikilink to subheading. Athanelar (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Review my Draft:Ramayana (2026)

Draft:Ramayana (2026)

@Hello, I am writing film articles like Ramayana (2026) I want to know about correct title usage and references. Can someone guide me? Republic of Hindustan (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The title (and several disambiguation) have been deleted numerous times. It does not meet WP:NFF as determined in a deletion discussion. Why did you create it under a different name than what had already been used? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Thanks for the clarification. I created the draft under a different title because recent reliable sources such as India Today, NDTV, and Pinkvilla have consistently referred to the project with the 2026 release year, and I believed this fell under WP:NFF as the production is already underway with confirmed cast, director, and studio. If the previous deletions apply to this version as well, I am happy to follow the correct process. Please guide me on whether the article should remain in draft space until stronger production-confirmation sources appear. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would it not apply to the same film but different title? Notability does not come from the title. You were aware of the previous deletion discussions and drafts correct? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41When I tried to move the draft to mainspace, the system did not allow the title “Ramayana: Part 1” due to prior deletions and protection. I changed it to “Ramayana (2026)” only to bypass the technical block. The title change was not intended to bypass previous discussions; I am happy to keep the draft in draft space and improve sources as needed. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That should answer your questions then. If the title is protected from creation, it doesn't mean you should create it under a different title. It means it cannot be created. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Understood. I will keep the article in draft space and work on improving references and content without attempting to bypass the protected title. Thanks for clarifying.. have a nice day dear (: Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User now blocked as SOCK.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Uhh i need an admin help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

help! Faithlessruslan (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on your edits I don't know what you're trying to achieve but it doesn't look like you're trying to contribute to building an encyclopedia. What do you think you need an admin for? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I need help for my quest Faithlessruslan (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

im throwing in the towel Faithlessruslan (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey please stop that. You are here to help build articles, right? Please read WP:COOL. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This essay is not very relevant to someone simply posting nonsense. It is for people in editing disputes and arguments. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help in Improvisation of Rakshya Bam's Article!

My article keeps getting rejected, How many primary sources are we supposed to add?

And other needed imrpovement regarding the article Draft:Rakshya Bam. Prabesh84 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just skimmed the references and three references are YouTube which is not a reliable sources as per WP:Perennial (which shows all the sources that have been discussed) so I suggest you look through there to see if any of the other sources (The Bloomberg one appears to be behind a paywall, so I can’t confirm whether that is a good source, but the last reviewer said that the references were only passing references and not in-depth reliable sources on a living person). Online Khabar is a glitched link (only shows code, perhaps therefore unreliable), the image is also a bit broken (so that will need to be tended to or removed). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

My Republica and the Kathmandu post seem to not be passing references (which is good for a new article), the Guardian article didn’t appear to mention the subject of the article (I may be mistaken), references 1 and 5 are the same, and therefore shouldn’t be split into two references (you can use the references “re-use” feature to use the same reference without creating a new reference). The ujwal reference links to an article from 2023, before the protests and doesn’t contain anything about the protests (perhaps you accidentally linked the homepage instead of the particular article on that site).

So there are a few sources which mention the subject in detail (or at least not passing mentions), but some more may need to be found and a clean up of the unreliable sources. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Prabesh84.

It's not primary sources that we chiefly need, but secondary sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Using sources which are not mentioned in the WP:RS/PS thread or contain purchase/affiliate links

Hello beloved editors,

I come today with a small query that I hope you will be able to help me with. I was going through some of Wiki pages recently and noticed that a minor detail in UK journalist Reeta Chakrabarti's wiki page needs updating; her book, Finding Belle, was launched in May 2025, but it still shows as to be launched. The publications covering the updated information (The Herald Scotland, Eastern Eye, etc.) are not mentioned in the perennial sources list, and primary sources with purchase links (HarperCollins, Amazon, Google Books, etc.) should probably be avoided according to the WP:RS thread.

My questions, therefore, revolve around a few things:

• Can these publications be used as references, despite there being no mention of them on the WP:RS/PS thread, if the edit is to simply establish a minor fact (in this case, the confirmation of the printing of the book)?
• When and how do we decide if we can use the e-commerce link if no notable journalistic references are available? Are there established SOPs for this, or does it boil down to a judgement call?
• Can review aggregators such as Goodreads be used to avoid the conflict in point 2 above, despite it being owned by Amazon, to establish that a book is published? I know that it isn't supposed to be taken as a reference for opinions about a published work, but establishing that it is published boils down to facts, not opinions.

Thanking you in advance for your response. Srambled089 (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Srambled089. My answer to your questions (which others might disagree with) is that we never use an e-commerce site as a source, and if you cannot find an independent source for some imformation (eg that a particular book has been published), why does it belong in the article at all? ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine, and thank you for your response.

Responding in the reverse order, because the question is fair - and one I am curious about myself, now that you point it out. The information is already there in the article, but the information it references is outdated (the book about to be published as opposed to already having been published). To my understanding, it is advisable to update Wiki information to reflect the most up-to-date information available in the public sphere. Is this assumption inaccurate?

As to finding independent sources, I did find mention of the updated information in independent sources, which I have linked in the original comment. My issue is the validity of using them as reference. The Herald, for instance, appears to be a legit news publisher for all intents and purposes, but I am not from Scotland, nor familiar with its news publishing ecosystem. It is also not mentioned in the WP:RS/PS list. The same holds true for the Eastern Eye.

Also, while the WP:RS page mentions to avoid e-commerce links, there is this section in it:

"...inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times."

I am averse to directly linking to e-commerce pages, but this does establish the fact of the book actually being published instead of, say, being delayed or cancelled before print.

To be honest, it is a relatively minor edit (changing from "about to be published" to "was published") and likely did not merit a lengthy discussion. But I am trying to expand my own understanding of such referencing for better judgement in future edits. Srambled089 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Srambled089 The Herald (Glasgow) is, apparently, the longest running national newspaper in the world, so I would consider it an excellent source. Not all sources are on the list at WP:RSPS and some are only in its archive discussions (see search box on that page). Others are not present because their use has never been controversial. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it. That resolves that question. Thank you, @Michael D. Turnbull! Srambled089 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify some confusion, WP:RSPS is for what it says on the tin; perennial sources, i.e., sources whose reliability is often questioned. A source which is generally considered to be reliable is therefore not likely to be there as there's no reason for its reliability to be discussed often; so don't take something not being listed as green on the PS list as evidence that you can't use it. Athanelar (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I must have missed it in jumping to the actual sources. Thanks, @Athanelar! Srambled089 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The Perennial Sources page is an excellent one, but in my opinion the fact that it's so easy to miss the thing you missed is a flaw of the page, not you. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the way a lot of people (myself included) usually end up at PS is because someone links it with a shortcut like WP:NEWYORKTIMES which jumps straight to the analysis of a single source. It's easy to make the mistake that it's a general source analysis page, especially if you're not someone who uses the word 'perennial' regularly. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If you do use that word regularly, you know that it doesn't mean what Wikipedia is using it for. A perennial source is a source that doesn't have a fixed end to its life cycle, implying that other sources will die off and become unusable at particular times. What Wikipedia means is "perennially-discussed sources". TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This, yes, lol. Both of these things. I usually click on a saved bookmark which redirects to TOI, and the wording 'perennial sources' did seem to imply that these are the sources which are perennially used, not perennially discussed. I'll be more mindful browsing through WP resource pages from now on.

That said, I still am curious about questions 2 and 3. While I'm fairly certain that e-commerce and Goodreads links will not likely be acceptable for most thinks, in case of the lack of reputable publications, can they be used to establish basic facts such as, say, date/status of publication/launch? Srambled089 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Most things*

Good grief. Srambled089 (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF has guidance on what kinds of sources can be used for basic facts like that. Athanelar (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks again! Srambled089 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sites that are open for anyone to sign up and edit, like Goodreads, are likely to contain false information even about basic things - not because they're malicious, but because nobody is fact-checking anything on there. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing with VPN

Hi. Sounds we are able to edit while VPN is on. Very good news! Aminabzz (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation text source

If I use any wikipedia text as a source for my tanslation studies in any CAT AI translation system (in this case MateCat), would it be considered as a copyright infringement? NehirÇabuk (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:COPYRIGHT Athanelar (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @NehirÇabuk. See Reusing Wikipedia content. ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

I found 2 redirects to pages, British undegraduate degree nicknames, and British degree nicknames, both of which redirected to British undergraduate degree classification, which had the relevant information removed from the page years ago. Do I blank the page, nominate it for deletion, etc.? TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Another one: Campusj, which redirected to List of The New York Times controversies but was deleted in 2020 due to WP:N. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You could take a look at WP:CSD#Redirects and see if it meets any of the criteria there, and if not put them up for discussion at WP:RfD Athanelar (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you so much! TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting my media properties onto Wikipedia

Hi,

So in the ongoing struggle as a small publisher, it's been recommended to us that having Wikipedia pages for each of our properties is a good way to increase our Google traffic and hence revenue/survival/ongoing employment for my 40 odd staff members. As I've thus far found Wikipedia article creation to be extremely time consuming and more than a little bewildering, I turned to an LLM to help. However my pages have been subsequently rejected.

I'd really love to have them made, but am really struggling with the motivation to persevere.

Is there no easy path? DaveHov (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whomever you spoke to has given you bad advice. Wikipedia has exactly zero interest in increasing your Google traffic. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet out special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable company. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia even without a conflict of interest, it's even harder with one(and you are also a paid editor under our rules and must make a formal disclosure per the Terms of Use). It's not easy to write an article and it isn't intended to be. LLMs do an especially bad job at it(see WP:LLM as to why). Also please see why you are unlikely to succeed at your efforts and the reasons an article is not something to desire. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

LLM use isn't the only problem, DaveHov. Draft:The Misfits Media Company tells the reader that The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd (The Misfits) [...] owns and operates the industry publications B&T and Travel Weekly... The draft has six references. One is to the Misfits. Four are to B&T. The sixth is presented as if it's a link to "The Misfits founders on transforming Australia's trade media". Mumbrella. However, it isn't. Instead, it's a link to the top page of Mumbrella, which currently has no mention of "Misfits". -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your reason for being here is immediately contrary to two very important principles on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not for promotion and editors are expected to be here because they want to build an encyclopedia.

If you're exclusively here to try to create pages to increase traffic to your properties in order to boost your company's performance, you are not here to build an encyclopedia and you are engaging in promotion. The result, as you've already experienced, will only be frustration and wasted time for you. Athanelar (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass

I have just submitted a draft Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass for the first ever article draft I have made for a Chinese film co-produced by Warner Bros called Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass. It was a difficult one to find sources for but I tried my very best. I added the cast list and producers based on IMDB and The Movie Database since I could not find them anywhere else. I tried my best to find it but could not find it anywhere else.

Please may you let me know if it meets requirements and what I should add or do to improve it? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass.

Kala7992 (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like your sources are mostly not good ones. Sometimes it's because they are from sites that allow public editing, like IMDB; other times it's because they're only announcements and not real stories covering what the reporter really thinks about the film. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Other people started editing on the article, I never added IMDB it was other editors and i'm under an 1RR restriction so I don't know what to do Kala7992 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you're the only editor in that draft. What do you mean "other editors"? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If you check the version history you can see that other people have edited it Kala7992 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I am. I only see you and no one else. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

All those edits were removed and IMDB is no longer on the article Kala7992 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I was looking at Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025) and not at Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass. My bad. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see it again, people edited on my draft article. I am very confused by all this, and didn't know other editors could just edit on my draft Kala7992 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

now i see the other editors in my version history again this is very bizarre Kala7992 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not bizarre at all - drafts are intentionally open for all to edit. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not know this somehow, I thought only admins could approve or deny the draft Kala7992 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Now I understand what went wrong, I mistook a draft on the same movie as my own. Here is my actual draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_and_Jerry:_Forbidden_Compass_(2025) Kala7992 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kala7992: Remember that IMDb is not a reliable source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't put that in, other editors started editing on it and im under a 1RR restriction. Kala7992 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kala7992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You are the only editor who has ever edited Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025). (It is not customary to edit drafts that other people are working on, but it is permitted.)

You have submitted it for review, and at some point a reviewer (who will probably not be an admin - they are different groups) will pick it up and review it. ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Please note that the draft you just referred to was not the one that this question is about. "The one without a date in the title" is the one under discussion. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

... And now the editor with the question has realized that the one you commented on IS theirs, and that the no-date one is someone else. Sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles that rely heavily on 1 source

I am writing an article right now that relies heavily on one source as it is about an accident and most of the information can only be sourced from the official accident report. Is this okay? AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not great, no. If the only source for the article is the official accident report, it is likely not notable. If you give me some more info, I can try find other sources? Best, aesurias (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not the only source for the article, there are several other sources that discuss that the accident occured. All the technical information and breakdown of it is sourced from the accident report. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would need to see the article. It's not ideal but it's also not unexpected -- newspapers don't typically publish things like that. Perhaps submit it as a draft so you can get proper feedback on whether or not it is sufficient? aesurias (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will make it a draft. I was drafting it in google docs because I didn't have time to learn wikipedia editing when I was writing it. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the time, this means the article isn't going to work. The reason is that accident reports are only good for showing a few supporting details, not for writing an article. If the other available sources are just confirming that the accident happened - if they're not fully telling the story - then Wikipedia is unlikely to take it. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@AllegedlyAPhotographer: See Jetline (roller coaster) § Accident, where this is already mentioned. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. I want to make a more in-depth article that also discusses the impact that this accident has had on the industry. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That depth can't come from the accident report. It can only come from reliable secondary sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that you should be aiming to get this into an industry publication, instead of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not the only source for the article, there are several other sources that discuss that the accident occured. Suggests this is notable and an article will be fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I took "other sources that discuss that the accident occurred" as a pretty strong implication that those other sources are little more than mentions. If they are full articles, then I agree with you. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AllegedlyAPhotographer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else.

A small amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from primary sources, such as accident reports; but if there is little or no information in secondary sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

While the accident might be notable, the current article is not long and has little other content. I think it would be best to add your new material to it. They can always be split later, if need be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Several merges

Hello! I am currently looking to start a discussion for merging multiple of the lists of mayors of Melburnian local councils (e.g. List of mayors of Boroondara, List of mayors of Hawthorn, and List of mayors of Merri-bek, as per WP:Consistent and WP:Overlap. Where would I put this discussion? The Kora Person (come say hi!) 02:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEPROP for a full guide on how to initiate a discussion! Best, aesurias (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not making myself clear enough, but I wish to merge several lists into the articles that they should be in (eg. the discussion I already made for List of mayors of Boroondara, which what I outlined there I wish to happen to all other Victorian Mayor list pages (barring Melbourne itself). These council articles all have their own talk pages, and I don't want to repeat these merge discussion for each and every one. I have searched the WP:MERGEPROP article many times, but it does not outline how to go about this. The Kora Person (come say hi!) 02:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is adding a mayor to the notable people list of a city a good addition?

Is adding a mayor to the notable people list of a city a good addition? Scream626282 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That depends on whether this mayor is a notable person or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried adding a mayor who is Florida's youngest elected mayor Scream626282 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this new mayor already notable? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Very often, a non-notable person is elected as mayor. Becoming the mayor does not make them notable. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, "notable people" lists are reserved for people who already have Wikipedia articles. You have added the mayor to the article's infobox, which is more acceptable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about LLM use

In a discussion on an article, another editor had mentioned utilizing LLM’s when editing. The discussion prompted some deeper observations. I currently have very limited experience with ChatGTP. I have used it in my personal life on rare occasion, primarily as a search engine substitute (not for WP, but for tasks like finding the best pizza in Detroit). I have read the relevant WP LLM guidelines and policies and noticed they are focused on the limitations and restrictions of LLM use. I’ve also noticed multiple contemporary WP discussions regarding the applicability of LLMs. It never occurred to me until very recently (actually until the above editor mentioned it) that it could be a useful tool for editing. My biggest concerns would be misinformation and errors. Personally, I am a voracious reader and prefer to perform my own research.

My question is this, does WP plan to offer some kind of LLM training modules? I could see the limited utility of such a tool, especially in areas like grammar-checking, spell-checking or for ESL users. I also could see LLM’s utility in perhaps parsing or summarizing a technical paper for a layman. I’ve come to the conclusion that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle regarding AI. The bottom line is I find the technology to be fascinating, but I am too intimidated to utilize it effectively. It occurred to me that WP could be an ideal platform for users like me who are unfamiliar with the technology but interested in its potential applications on an academic project Just curious if anyone else had thought about positive applications of AI on WP. Slyfamlystone (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Slyfamlystone. Please read Wikipedia:Large language models. Frankly, a large majority of LLM usage on Wikipedia in 2025 is highly problematic, and that is especially true of newer and less experienced editors. LLM usage cannot turn an incompetent editor into a competent one. Instead, it usually causes more widespread damage. I am aware of one highly experienced editor who holds a PhD in a very specialized area who uses an LLM extensively, checking its output carefully. This is a rare exception to the general rule. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I just thought of a very positive use: an AI-driven bot that trawls Wikipedia and summarily deletes every AI-infected edit that it finds. Nothing of value would be lost; the risk of false positives is a red herring. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Slyfamlystone See WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-11-10/Community_view for a detailed commentary comparing Wikipedia with a recent attempt by a well-known billionaire to create an encyclopedia entirely using LLM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Pansexuality Article

The article says that Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are the same thing. The page can not be edited because it is locked. The problem may be offensive or misleading to some ~2025-36951-57 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The article Pansexuality says Pansexuality and omnisexuality are sometimes considered synonymous, but when a distinction is made between them, the former term emphasizes gender blindness, while the latter emphasizes the role of gender in attraction. And it provides a source for this (though I haven't looked at the source). You are free to post a suggestion for improvement to Talk:Pansexuality. Be sure to back it up with a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and once you've find the change you want to make with a reliable source, feel free to add {{Edit semi-protected}} to your message, which makes an edit request. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

One main reason that editing is blocked on pages like that is so that people will have to prove that neutral reporters have already written the things they want to put in. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Stub article help awareness

Hello, SpiritEdit here. I am currently creating an article: George Zen Stewart, and I need help to expand this further with the help of fellow Wikipedians. I hope you help me expand the stub article. Thanks! SpiritEdit (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@SpiritEdit Hello! I would recommend checking if Stewart meets the requirements of WP:N. See WP:BESTTHREE for more information. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SpiritEdit, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikipedia, that is really not a useful way to begin an article.

To take a house-building analogy, it is as if you had gone "I want to build a house, but I am unable or unwilling to do the boring preparatory work like surveying the site, checking what building regulations are in force, or digging the foundations: I'll just throw up a frame, and invite other people to come and improve it".

By far the most important (and sometimes challenging) part of writing an article is in finding the sources, especially to determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (in my analogy, surveying the site and examining building regulations, to see whether it is even possible to build a house there). If not, then there is no point in writing so much as a single word of a draft.

So you've thrown up your frame (which you have written backwards). What is likely to happen to it? Just possibly, somebody will be interested enough to do the foundational work you haven't done, and find the sources, cite them, and create a useful article.

If somebody does that research and can't find suitable sources, they'll probably propose it for deletion.

Possibly, somebody will have a mild interest and add a bit more text, but without addressing the fundamental problem.

Most likely, the stub will just sit there forever, adding almost nothing to Wikipedia. I really don't understand why antybody would create a stub in 2025.

I see that you have some experience of editing existing articles. Please read your first article. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:George Zen Stewart, where you can continue to work on it. Please do not submit the draft for review until you have added independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, per WP:GOLDENRULE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

hey i want to write an article about Grace Reiter but i dont know if i can

Hey, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia. There’s an influencer/actress I like Grace Reiter and I wanted to write an article about her. But when I saw the requirements, I wasn’t sure whether I’m allowed to or not. Can someone help me? Sealourebery (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You are certainly allowed to create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. Writing a new article is challenging, it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge of Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial. Just as you wouldn't start building a house or a car without learning how to do so, it's not recommended to dive right in to article creation. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sealourebery, and welcome to the Teahouse. I strongly echo 331dot's comments.

Even though I don't recommend trying to create an article yet, I suggest you have a look at your first article, and especially the parts about notability: unless you can find the necessary sources to establsh that Reiter meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability, then any attempt to create an article about her will be effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sealourebery Judging by this search on the Programmable Search Engine, there are simply no reliable sources for Reiter, as these are not independent. You need several which meet these ideals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Are the links to articles about suspects required to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME to be used?

While looking at 2025_Washington,_D.C.,_National_Guard_shooting, I noticed that the surname of the suspect had been added and then missed by a few subsequent editors, so I removed it.
I then noticed that one of the sources added in the edit that added the surname also includes the suspect's full name, and I must admit that I'm unsure if I should also remove it per WP:BLPCRIME or if it is fine to remain. Kaotac (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean "is it necessary to reject a reliable published secondary source because it gives away the identity of a suspect"?

I don't know the answer, but felt it might help to clarify the question. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean that the title of the source article is "What we know about (first and last name of suspect)" so that mousing over the link to the source will pop the name up. It just seems that circumvents the policy of not including the names of suspect (which I'm not suggesting was the intention of the editor who added it)

If I'm thinking too deeply into it: All good, no worries. I just wanted to make sure of the correct way it should be dealt with, if at all. Kaotac (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your question is a good one. I don't know the proper answer to it; I hope you get one. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Help

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ahmed Osman Shatila

Can i have some help for my article to be published.

Ahmed Osman Shatila Saria116 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What this needs is proof that all by themselves, without interviewing him, reliable publications have done long stories about him. Is that something you can do? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you . Feel free to edit anything you find suitable I really appreciate it Saria116 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you know where reliable publications have written long stories about him? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No :( searching Saria116 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

About signatures...

I'm very new to Wikipedia, I discovered how to make a User Page around a month ago. Can someone please tell me how to customize my signature in preferences? 6luewaffle (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signature tutorial Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! :D 6luewaffle _{(talk to me!)} 15:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You can also do it in cursive:

<span class="sig" style="font-family:Cursive,Serif;">[[User:6luewaffle|<span style="color: #ff87c7">6luewaffle</span>]]</span> <sub>([[User talk:6luewaffle|<span style="color: #696969"><u>talk to me!</u></span>]])</sub>

makes 6luewaffle _{(talk to me!)} Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

OOO that looks nice!! Thank you so much I'll keep this in mind! ^.^ 6luewaffle^(talk) 15:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I add my signature in userboxes?

I recently changed my signature, and I want to display it on my talk page, specifically in the userbox. The thing is, I don't know how to input it, so I need some help. Thanks. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean my user page, sorry! Not talk page. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The template that you're using on your userpage has a field for signatures, so you can simply include | signature=~~~~ in the userbox template (you'll have to use the source editor rather than the visual editor). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That worked! I'm also wondering if there is there a way to get rid of the time and date? BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Use three tildes instead of four. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Added Page to Category - in wrong place alphabetically

I obviously did something wrong. I added the category "Composer for piano" to the page Louis Anthony deLise - Wikipedia and it ended up alphabetized on Category:Composers for piano - Wikipedia by first name instead of last. What do I need to fix? CaffeinatedBrew (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@CaffeinatedBrew  Done Here to fix such problem in future just add {{DEFAULTSORT}} followed by the article's last name, first name and middle name above the categories section. This will automatically sort the page correctly in category lists. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! CaffeinatedBrew (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting a second pair of eyes on my draft article

Article Draft Link: User:BluePixelLOLLL/sandbox2

Hey there, I'm making an article and would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it. I've gotten lots of feedback so far, and would like to hear from you guys at the teahouse. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL The main issue, IMO, is that most of your sources are not independent of the park, nor are they secondary. Your draft would be much improved if it had some sourcing from newspapers, for example. Note also MOS:BOLD, which is a minor style point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I will improve it according to your feedback. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I always go for picky little things ... "Public use and events" should have only one capital letter, like I just did it. ("Kitsap Live Steamers" is OK because that's the name of an organization.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the hint! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Song

The map in Sunset Song is obviously user generated content, and possibly original research. Should it be removed? Lexiconaut (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete it. Not suitable for MOS. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What does the MOS have to do with it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is that obvious. Have you read the book? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Because the description at Wikipedia Commons says: "Source Own work" --Lexiconaut (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not unusual for that to be wrong.

And if someone read a textual description, or looked at a diagram then redrew it in their own hand, from memory, it is not unreasonable to say it is "own work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We should perhaps check that it isn't based on a map in the original (or another) edition of the book (it's not in my 1983 paperback): and if nothing else it should be made smaller. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing higher biological taxonomic ranks in italics

There is an article:

"Thines, M., Aoki, T., Crous, P. W., Hyde, K. D., Lücking, R., Malosso, E., May, T. W., Miller, A. N., Redhead, S. A., Yurkov, A. M., & Hawksworth, D. L. (2020). Setting scientific names at all taxonomic ranks in italics facilitates their quick recognition in scientific papers. IMA Fungus, 11(1), 25–5. doi:10.1186/s43008-020-00048-6 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link)"

That states that all higher taxonomic ranks should be italicized. Should someone add this? I would love to go through some pages and add italics to higher rankings, and add the reason to this. But I would love to hear more opinions on this before I go and italicize all taxonomic ranks… MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LIFE says capitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below [...] Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae). Athanelar (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I know well how you write taxonomic names. Historically all higher ranks have been written normally and capitalized, and genera and epithets written italicized.

this article however proposes writing all names italicized for easier recognition in texts. I think it really makes sense. There is no reason not to write names in italics. I just want more opinions on this from the Wikipedia community. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to raise it at the Manual of Style talk page then, since you'd have to get MOS:LIFE changed before you go about changing it in articles. Athanelar (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will, thanks!! MagnusVandbakk (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The key part of your comment is "this article however proposes...". It is a proposal. We follow what is most common in the sources we cite; and they have not, in general, adopted this proposal.

When you can give examples of the proposal being adopted by the majority of, say, the top ten most cited journals in taxonomy, then you may have a case to make. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I get that, thank you. Then I will wait. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Understanding draft feedback

Hello, I recently had my first draft declined (Draft:Short-Baseline Near Detector) and I struggling a bit to understand how to move forward. The notability comments I am working on, and I am reaching out to other people in the physics wikiproject to see if they have advice. The comments that I am struggling with more are the claims of that my article is "obvious AI output", which is a bit disheartening because there was no AI involvement at all in the writing of this article. I have been reading the various links shown in the LLM template, but I am struggling to understand what I can do to not sound like AI. This experiment is in the same program as MicroBooNE and ICARUS experiment, so I took inspiration but also tried to improve to make it more readable. This is my first draft, so any advice would be appreciated! Thanks - Ajheindel (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@WeirdNAnnoyed Do you mind explaining why you said that the article is obvious AI output? I myself don't understand that either. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose "obvious" isn't the correct word. The draft looks like LLM output to me because a) it has a tendency to treat central concepts and peripheral details with equal weight (for example, describing the pitch of wires in the detector before ever describing the physical principle on which it works, in "Design"); and b) formatting quirks, such as the use of title case and the tendency to provide an abbreviation for every term, some of which are only used once (I appreciate that some terms are best known as acronyms, but there is no reason to say "tetraphenyl-butadiene (TPB)" when the term is only used this once and is excessive detail to begin with. None of these is definitive, and if the author says they didn't use AI, I believe them (most editors caught using AI at AfC slink away silently). @Ajheindel:: Please don't be discouraged by my review, and thank you for commenting here. The draft can be improved but I think you're well on your way. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I included more specific details about this experiment because there are links to the specific kind of detector this experiment uses, but I can definitely expand on that so it is more inclusive. As for the acronyms, that was a deliberate choice because these are really common acronyms in this field and I find it helpful to have those defined in beginner friendly articles, but I understand I went a little overboard with that. I will try to take this feedback and make some improvements before resubmitting. Ajheindel (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope reviewers are not starting to assume that any competently written draft must be AI generated. I used to be a professional non-fiction book and periodicals desk editor, and although I have not so far (in 20 years of editing on Wikipedia) wanted to create a new article, if I did I would be able to ensure it was structured, written and presented (as well as properly referenced) in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and house style. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

20 years? Why haven't you made an account, if you don't mind me asking? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I made a deliberate decision not to: partly because I try to 'join' or subscribe to as few things as possible, particularly online; partly because (from past self-experience), if I opened an account I would feel (irrational) mental pressure to spend more time 'working' here that I ought (this is just my personal quirk); partly because I feel that any edit should stand or fall by its own merits, not on the perceived reputation of its contributor. Since my last fixed home IP became dynamic (due to a company takeover) I have used it as a 'pseudosignature' merely to preserve continuity in dialogues. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

But wouldn't it get frustrating after 20 years to not be able to edit semi protected or extended protected articles among other things? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I rarely if ever want to do so. On articles I usually perform minor copyediting and typo corrections when I see the need; my additions or corrections to factual content are made on topics that interest me (often book-related) that are almost never protected. I avoid embroiling myself in anything contentious – I'm here for relaxation (and, of course, factual research), not angst. Mostly I answer queries or advise on procedures (which I have had 20 years to observe) on the Reference, Help and Teahouse Desks.

If I ever see the need for a change I cannot myself make, I request it on the article's Talk page or bring it up at an appropriate Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel My view is that the article relies far too much on primary sources: those written by people associated with the Project and hence not independent. You need to summarise what secondary sources have said, e.g. in newspapers or technical review articles. If there are no such sources, then your draft fails to establish the notability of the topic. A limited amount of primary material is OK once you have got clear notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am looking for some more sources, it is difficult for these experiments which are relatively new and don't have much media coverage. The suggestion of the physics wikiproject was to look at funding agency reviews, so I will try to find some clear notability from there. Ajheindel (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ajheindel, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, that may simply mean that it is too soon for an article on this subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles with multiple languages

How exactly do we indicate in the reference template that an article contains multiple languages? I run into this a lot with articles in the Philippines, as many of them contain, for instance, prose in English but a lot of untranslated statements in Tagalog and/or Cebuano. English, Tagalog, and Cebuano all have language codes in Wikipedia, but how exactly do we mark stuff like that? Thanks. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bloomagiliw, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the cleanup tag {{Not English}} ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks so much! But I'd like to clarify that I'm pertaining to *reference* articles. A lot of news and magazine articles, especially in the Philippines, switch between languages.

Thanks again. Bloomagiliw (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't quoting directly what they wrote in that source, then I think you don't really have to do anything special. References are allowed to be in any language, as long as they're good and reliable. If there are easy ways to "be nice" to an English-only reader, like keeping the original title but also translating the title into English so I know what's supposed to be in the referenced article, that's appreciated. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit statistics abnormality

Hi all. Though this isn't exceptionally important, I thought it should be noted that there appears to be an issue where edits over 10,240 bytes don't appear in the edit statistics breakdown under 'Number of edits in that size change interval, in bytes*'. I'm not certain if a specific threshold needs to be reached before they appear (given how small it would presumably be relative to smaller-sized edits). If someone could give me some direction on where to note this bug, it would be appreciated. My best to all regardless, and well wishes as we approach the new year. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Please report this at How to report a bug - MediaWiki. There are instructions at the top of that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: I have reported it in phab:T411310. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and @PrimeHunter, many thanks for the assistance!

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Message regarding draft

Hi, I had recently tried to sumbit a draft of a an old Pakistani football club which played in the 1940s, the draft contains around 22 references in total, I'd like to know why it was rejected, I believe that the draft article is good enough to be published, but I'm open to any feedback, Thank you. Sandwichesandpancakes (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jinnah Gymkhana FC was declined, Sandwichesandpancakes, not rejected. You're asked for multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) [and] reliable [and] secondary [and] independent of the subject, and each italicized term is linked to an explanation. If you believe that you have done this, then here, in this thread, please nominate three good examples. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There are about 5 good sources but they were hard to find.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sandwichesandpancakes You certainly haven't made it easy to verify sources with the bare references, ie. links to newspaper pages with a dozen-odd articles but no indication which article on the page is the source. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As well as what others have said, more references isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it establish a stronger case for the notability of a subject. We'd rather have three good sources than 50 passing mentions of the subject. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I am looking, just for a list of things that make a good article and how to write a good article this may seem oddly specific, but, I would like to help expand the scope of Wikipedia. :) 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 11:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@RFKTNG You should read WP:GA and WP:FA, which describe the process and criteria for good and featured articles. See also WP:Assess. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you mean what makes an a article good in general, it is relevant and up-to-date content, well cited, demonstrating notability, written in clear prose; and with a reasonable number of relevant illustrations. We also have an assessment for what are classed as "Good articles"; see the GA link, above.

I have left links to some other guidance, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with Wiki Article Creation

Hello Team

Can anyone help me with Wikipedia page creation, and submission for review - Draft:Grahaa Space.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 11:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M The draft has been submitted for review and in due course an experienced editor will get to it. You don't need a pre-review review from Teahouse hosts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a notice on the page, saying:

Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,837 pending submissions waiting for review.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about a company or organisation you appear to have a connection to.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form of paid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with the neutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may not intend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result in promotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this is still promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.

People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such as the 'general' notability guidelines, the guidelines for notability of companies or organisations, the notability of creative professionals etc. The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here that ChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.

It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being written backwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written. This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise the existing information available about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not to present new information or to synthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you must first search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting the golden rule) and only include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but you must not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to. If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.

If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.

Writing a COI article

First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this at WP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions at WP:PAID to disclose that also.

Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need to forget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sources first. Remember that those sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Avoid trivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type of day-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), you must double-check the sources yourself and verify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.

Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, follow Help:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.

Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Are you familiar with the "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" metaphor?

The draft is written, and submitted for review, with the CoI declared. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's still good to get the spiel out there so there's no "well, nobody told me it was a bad idea" when the draft (as corporate COI drafts often do) gets declined five times for being promotional and poorly sourced. Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Malaya Kumar Biswal M#November 2025. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M I've had a quick look:

• The tone is promotional
• I can't work out what the relevance of the "Early foundations" section is besides to give the backgrounds of the two "important" people mentioned. How are those early activities actually related to the company (eg did they decide they needed to incorporate to further their business)?
• Sources: you've got bare references like msn and srmsat. Sources 3 and 4 are the same article "provided by PNN" - delete the ANI version. You've got things in the "first name" and "last name" fields that are[n't] people's names and names that aren't capitalised. There's a source error in 10 that needs fixing.
• The misspelling of "its" jumped out at me so I wonder what else needs spell checking.
• tl;dr If you don't have two well-regarded sources that discuss the company in depth and aren't WP:CORPTRIV, the article will get declined.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret Sir, Mr. Loganathan, a former ISRO scientist, played a key role in guiding SRMSAT to success. During this period, he met Mr. Ramesh Kumar, and both agreed to collaborate on Mr. Ramesh Kumar’s proposal. Mr. Loganathan later applied the same principles and expertise to Grahaa Space as well.

With regard to the sources and names, I will make the necessary changes in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you for your review and feedback. As I am new to this platform, your support and guidance are sincerely appreciated. Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes on articles

Is it possible for articles to have userboxes? WinningGame480 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes are for user pages, not articles. Why do you want to use a userbox on an article? 331dot (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, but there are similar-looking templates for some purposes, such as {{Commons category}} and {{GeoGroup}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary Accounts replacing IP editing

Why would temporary accounts replace IPs for privacy reasons? ~2025-37176-86 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresess can be used to identify someone's location. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses reveal your location.

See also:

• Say Hi to Temporary Accounts
• Access to Temp Acct Policy

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There's more at WP:Temporary accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP is now considered to be personal information according to EEA regulation. Icelandic, Danish and Swedish Wikipedia all have temporary accounts now instead of showing IP numbers due to this regulation and I presume that most language version inside the EEA have done so as well. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Need new mentor

Hello, I would like to request a new mentor. My assigned mentor has been inactive for a long time, so I need guidance from an active editor. How can I get a new mentor assigned? Kurangi v nagraj (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship#How can I get a different mentor?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Better citation template

Hi. Can someone modify my edit so that it uses a better citation format? Thank you very much Comte0 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made a start, using {{Cite journal}}. Somebody else will have to advise how "publié sous la direction de Ivan du Jonchay et de Sandor Rado" should be included, if at all.

It may be that the title should just be "Un nouvel Atlas internationale", as per the actual paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Under the "Référence bibliographique" tab on the left, Persée.fr disagree with your proposed title, and they provide a bibtex file that should help. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not unusual for publishers to screw up digital metadata.

What title would you use, if you had the original, on paper, in front of you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't ;)

I do not work with scientific articles, this is why I'm asking here. Feel free to use whatever you think is best. Again, thanks for the help. Comte0 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

CLAT

Guys,This is not related to any edits.I just want to know if there are any Wikipedians like me ,who are preparing for the CLAT exams. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Very likely, but this isn't a social forum, and neither does Wikipedia host one.

You might try WP:Social if you want to find other Wikimedians who share your circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

AI and Wikipedia

I recently read a discussion on Icelandic Wikipedia about the use of LLM and AI when editing Wikipedia and if there should be a policy about the use of these things when editing it. So I would like to ask, does the English Wikipedia have policy on these issues? I study at University and there are strict rules about using ChatGPT and other AI when solving a schoolproject (especially BA and Masters essays). The AI is the future for our technology and in near future people will use it far more than today, and that's why we need to have serious discussion about how to use it properly when editing Wikipedia just like the Universities have the discussion about how to use it properly in their work. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 16:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As of right now there is the guideline NEWLLM in place, though right now that is being workshopped. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking if someone can help the Administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia to create their policy on how users should use AI and LLM properly when editing Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ideally it should be avoided - we're having so many problems that there's an entire noticeboard dedicated to fixing the errors it's causing - Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup. If you take a look over there, you'll see how bad things are getting. Half the incidents at Wikipedia:ANI are caused by people using AI.

Even if it might be useful in the future, right now it's just not reliable enough to be used by anyone other than very experienced editors who understand how to detect and fix the errors it introduces.

The paradox is that very experienced editors don't need to use AI.

Currently AI is just an extra step, an additional thing that needs checking before you can edit and an additional risk to accuracy. I've not seen it make Wikipedia better for anyone so far, only cause problems.

That may change in the future but we're not there yet, it's too early.

There's a Wikipedia Discord, the admins could speak to each other there? There's also the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, let them know about the policy page links you've been given and the AI cleanup noticeboard. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia are not seeking help regarding this subject. The OP is indefinitely blocked from editing the Icelandic Wiki and is trying to insert himself into its processes in roundabout, unasked for ways. TKSnaevarr (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for something relating LLM use by any chance? Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, for unrelated breaches of conduct. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Best Practices for Editing Articles

Greetings Fellow Friends of Wikipedia! Some time ago I edited a few Wiki articles and my edits were removed with no comment. I would like to support the community by improving articles so I’ll start again by seeing what I can contribute to the articles linked above.

In the meantime, can you tell how the editing process works? Perhaps there is a page that might guide me. Cheers! Petuniabaa (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Petuniabaa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are no such edits in your history, so I guess you made those edits under a different account, or not logged in. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't look at them and advise you what happened then.

But in general, I suggest looking at WP:BRD.

I see that you began your recent edits by creating a draft for a new article. 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) 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Colin-Fine, yes, the previous edits were a few years ago and under a different account.

Thanks for the WP:BRD suggestion. I’ll have a look. I hope my understanding of the core policies is close to correct with this new article. My ‘template’ was the other published social psychology Wiki Articles—not to deep but complete. Time will tell...

In the meantime, I have joined some Wiki Projects as a means of experiencing how disagreements with other editors are handled. (I think that’s what happens in Projects?) If not, please feel free to ‘redirect’ me. :-)

Thanks again for your response. Petuniabaa (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @Petuniabaa. Beware of copying "other published social psychology articles". Unless you make sure you are only looking at good articles or featured articles you may be trying to build on something that does not meet current standards: see other stuff exists.

Actually your draft Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory is not properly formatted, as it does not use standard markup for headers. But that is a superficial matter. Far more seriously, it has two sources which are from the originator of the theory, and two that predate the theory, and so cannot be talking about it at all. (There is absolutely no point in citing a source about Maslow: just wikilink to the relevant article Maslow's heirarchy of needs.)

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.

Consequently, unless you can find several sources wholly independent of Clark, there can be no article. If you can find some, then you need to set aside pretty well anything that Clark said, and base the article on those independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Petuniabaa, I largely agree with Colin above. The essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward covers this well. One way to think about Wikipedia, is that we are not asking a reader to trust any Wikipedia editors. The editors could be anybody; many people edit under a pseudonym or an anonymous temporary account. We're asking readers instead to trust the cited sources, but so if there is no cited source to point towards, editors will say the topic is not "notable", which is almost a misnomer as it kind of implicitly means the subject is not notable enough for anonymous editors to summarize external sources as a cohesive and neutral encyclopedia article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Awkward sentences in my page

Hi! I’m working on improving an article i have created. Some sentences feel awkward or unencyclopedic. Can someone help me on how to improve grammar, flow, or tone according to Wikipedia’s style guidelines? Selim beg (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Selim beg, try the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, there's a ton of helpful information there. If you still need help after checking that out, let us know? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Need neutral uninvolved eyes to ensure I understand everything I did wrong

Not here to re-litigate. Just want to make sure I know all my wrongs to apologise for in future appeals. I am currently topic blocked and my past disputed and disliked edits includes this[1] and this[2]. In my list of wrongs, I lazily used a LLM in ANI thread when cautiously pondering how to best answer off-topic and politically triggering questions without escalating tensions.[3] That backfired as it wasn't transparent. I did however answer a same repeated question later without LLM to show how I would have answered it regardless if it aggravates.[4] I am aware of my bludgeoning or repeating myself on talk (asking for clarification repeatedly)[5] [6], and repeatedly disagreeing that my proposed edits weren't original research or violated any policies etc)[[7]]. I also didn't follow DRN rules, but accidentally, when I eeported someone to ANI for reverting edits that most weren't even being disputed.[8]. But I know it's my responsibility to read all the DRN rules. But personally, I feel an indefinite block seems overly harsh for all this. As I had good intent, only broke DRN rules unintentionally, my edits were well sourced direct from mainly experts in The Conversation and Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law, was willing to avoid edit warring and wanted DRN to resolve. I figured a warning would have sufficed if it's at least not of bad intent but rookie mistakes. Tho in hindsight, I think a topic block was more beneficial to me as it not only helps me cool off but gave me time to properly reflect and create essays to personally help me or others avoid very same mistakes above.[9][10] I only intend to cover my bases, so I know what to apologise for entirely in any future appeals. Please only neutral uninvolved parties to explain if I missed any. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JaredMcKenzie.

I don't know for sure, but I guess that the reason that nobody has answered you so far is that nobody is prepared to wae through the wall of text to even work out what you are asking, let alone dig into the diffs you link to and try and understand what is going on.

Basically, this is not an appropriate question for the Teahouse. I'm not sure where is - perhaps WP:AN, though it doesn't seem to fit in any of the heading at the top.

Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? That may give you a better guide. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Ok, I will make it very simple. An editor, who voted for me to be blocked, made allegations that these edits here are pov pushing / against policy.[11] I genuinely do not see it. If anything, these edits were made to improve Wikipedia and give readers a complete picture. I still genuinely believe that to be the case tho it's possible I may be wrong about these accusations made at me. If they violate policy, I want to understand as I am sincerely unaware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw some of what happened.

You seem to still be convinced that making someone unhappy was the problem, and it never was. Smoothing things over with someone who you had a fight with is not the point at all. (It's a nice thing to do, and if you can you should, but it's not the main thing.)

There is no magic planned apology that can cover for what happened, because it's necessary to listen to each individual and react to them in real time. But I think the biggest positive step you can probably take is to admit "The edits I wanted to make on that topic were basically all wrong, I don't know the topic nearly as well as I used to think I did, and if someone disagrees with me about the topic I will start by assuming I'm probably wrong again."

That's pretty harsh, but also unfortunately pretty close to the truth. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but I didn't come here to discuss the subject. Just want to cover my bases but don't think content policy is one of them. Also I do remember you. You also said my sources were unreliable. But a different Teahouse host contradicted you and said it was a reliable source.[12] Regardless, my edits were only mirroring a subject expert with a degree in international law - I don't claim to be an expert but I believe they are. If anything, I am probably closer to being guilty of plagiarism as I maybe too closely mirrored what they were saying. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Content policy is not the point. It was not basically a policy matter. It was not basically a problem of relating to people. It was you being flat-out wrong about the facts. You refusing to see that you were flat-out wrong about the facts was exactly what went wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if the issue that lead to my block is about me being flat out wrong on facts then even tho I disagree - I believe it's for the community to decide. Not me as I am only just one editor here and it's the community overall that bears that larger responsibility in the end. I understand the best I could really have done in my past dispute - is tell others that Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law is a good source and the info they present is all true. But if hypothetically a RFC or the community consensus do not agree later, then I assure you I have zero intentions in arguing further, as that would be against community consensus. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The community DID decide. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers They didn't. DRN[13] never reached that final stage. I had primarily criticised a section for being full of original research that is also likely wrong, and needed to either be deleted entirely, or needed to show the sourced info from experts saying the exact opposite to them. I should mention after my topic block - that problematic section has now been completely removed by (others) without my input who also recognise it's unacceptable original research.[14] Also I noticed the editors who disputed me before, have not challenged this. So the article has already resolved itself without needing my input when more experienced editors had arrived to edit it. And I am 100 percent happy with the article's current revision (that is far better than the flawed version I fought against) and do not want to change the article any further, as I support and fully agree with it now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie

• You say you're not here to re-litigate then, rather than a simple explanation, you rehash what happened (with links!) Then demand to hear only from people who didn't comment before. Honestly, your Teahouse query isn't getting off to a very good start.
• You didn't just use AI but you used in an ANI thread?!
• You weren't indefinitely blocked so why are you explaining - I thought you didn't want to rehash?
• Your response to TooManyFingers was rude suggesting that you haven't reflected long enough.
• What future appeals? Are you planning to do something to get ANI'd and topic blocked again?
• As TooManyFingers pointed, apologies don't matter. Learn the rules and stay out of trouble.

MmeMaigret (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

My intent was not to "push a pov", or to be rude to others. I have at least reflected on what to do if I believe Wikipedia is wrong yet the community opposes me. My reflection[15] is simply if the community decides I am wrong, it's not my responsibility to try to fix Wikipedia further. But please note I never actually got the chance to reach this final stage on DRN. I was frequently accused of not being here to build an encyclopaedia (WP: NOTHERE) but I assure that was never my case. After my topic block, I have abided to it, and contributed constructively such as improving articles, and the creation of 2 new articles[16] [17] to demonstrate that I am both capable of building an encyclopaedia, and my intent to do so. However if my question to know what to apologise for in future appeals, isn't welcome on Teahouse, then I can take a hint and will leave it here. Thanks for your time. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place like any other with policies and procedure and a culture. Think of it like a company or a social group. You don't know the all the unspoken rules and other people have been there longer than you. For you to go to ANI this early, doesn't reflect well. To get topic banned is even more grave. But you're still talking about how unfair it was. If people just thought you said the wrong thing, you probably would have just gotten told off but you got topic banned. So my advice would be to set aside what you know, or think you know, and actually figure out how things work. Also, no one's surveilling you. You don't need to prove to anyone you know how to be constructive. Your record will eventually prove that. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

But to answer your implied question - if you want to know what to do in future appeals (since you seem determined to go to ANI again), go to the ANI noticeboard, read the page or the archives, see what (if any) apologies were received well. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret I am not an experienced editor like you. I used LLM for a crash course to reduce the high learning curve on Wiki policies, but unfortunately it did not fill me in about not going to ANI too early. So thank you for telling me that unwritten rule. I will remember that. But here on this thread, I only rehashed things that I admit fully that I did wrong and am not disputing it. I am just requesting if there were additional things I have to apologise for. The key reason that prompted me to ask is that I have noticed other editors, who cast ugly aspersions and edit war, yet only get blocked for a few weeks after warning. I never got a clear warning and personally always felt my first time topic block was maybe too harsh. And as you say indef blocks are typically only for the most grave crimes but I just don't think I reached that level, and feel a warning instead would had been more proportionate. So maybe I missed something. I just needed to be sure before submitting my appeal in future. I already created a draft appeal letter for future.[18] But nonetheless if Teahouse do not want to deal with this albeit intensive question, I will respect it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Something to note; ban appeals are generally made at the admin's noticeboard, rather than ANI, so looking through the archives of that page is likely to be better. There a couple of ban appeals on that page currently. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to contradict you, but pushing a POV was exactly your intent, though I think to a person who's in the process of doing that it doesn't feel to them like that's what they're doing. Pushing a POV probably often feels like trying to bring truth to a description or debate that has been based on serious mistakes until the POV-pusher came along. (That's more or less how it felt to me when I did it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Unfortunately that is where I cannot agree. It was explicitly called as POV pushing with these edits - [19] [20] [21] but I genuinely don't see it. I merely added in sourced info from a RS and if they are pushing a pov, then it means legal experts and scholars are pushing pov, as I only cite them faithfully. I believe neutrality is proportional to what reliable sources says on the matter and they all emphasise this in their articles. But I guess we can agree to disagree. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree to disagree. It was called POV pushing because that's exactly what it was. You saying you "genuinely don't see it" is exactly why your topic ban needs to continue; your genuine not-seeing is a fault you currently have. I'm sorry for putting it so bluntly, but there it is. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing restrictions on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. I.e., we block or ban people to prevent them from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, not to punish them for wrongdoing. If ever you're sanctioned in some way and want to apologise or appeal, then ultimately the goal therefore is not to demonstrate some kind of moral contrition, but rather to demonstrate that you aren't going to repeat the (perceived) disruptive behaviour. The best way to do that is first and foremost to demonstrate to the community(/the admin who sanctioned you) that you clearly understand what you did, why it was detrimental to Wikipedia, and what you plan to do instead going forward. For example, if someone were sanctioned for repeated edit warring, their apology/appeal would probably look something like "I understand that by repeatedly re-inserting disputed content into this article without seeking consensus on the talk page, I was engaged in an edit war and contravening WP:ONUS. By doing so, I understand that I compromised the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and allowed my ego to dictate my editing decisions rather than my desire to build an encyclopedia. In the future, I'll seek dispute resolution or third opinions in the case of content disputes and refrain from repeated reversions of article content."

That's what we want out of an 'apology' or appeal; an understanding of what led to the edit restriction, and why it should be lifted. Athanelar (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What was difficult for me to process is how some editors would describe my edits as pov pushing or disinformation. But sources I primarily relied on are the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and a subject expert from a community-recognised RS per WP:THECONVERSATION. And because of their reputation, I didn't ever doubt their credibility so I added their expertise in. So the reactions to my edits was unexpected for me. I did try to work things out on DRN but my topic ban happened before the process was finished. I am merely trying to understand how to avoid same situation but I do believe I was following what high quality sources said in my key edits.[22] [23] And I can't apologise for relying on sources that seem reliable. I can however commit to handling disputes more calmly and stepping back earlier when it becomes clear I cannot reach an agreement with them. [24] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Query regarding reporting a user

There is an account on social media which spews vile and racist content against a specific region/ethnicity. The person who runs that account also happens to edit on Wikipedia which I can prove with near certainty, with a good amount of evidence. He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles, and openly admits doing it on his social media account.

I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia policy that deals with this situation, and which I can invoke to get this person barred from editing anything regarding that region. If not please let me know how I should proceed further with this knowledge. This is also my first time on Wikipedia and I don't know if Teahouse is the correct place to ask this question so I apologize for any inconveniences. Bhattigang (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If "He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles" can be evidenced, than that alone is actionable, regardless of anything said elsewhere, which is out of out purview. Before taking any further steps, it is vital you read WP:OUTING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place for behavioural reports but as Andy said, please refrain from WP:OUTING the user by speculating on or disclosing the identity of their other social media account(s), and stick to reporting them based only on their (mis)conduct here on Wikipedia. Be sure to include links to specific problematic edits, see WP:DIFF for how to get those. Athanelar (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aiming to add an article about a living person

David E. Walter

Born; Perth, Western Australia

September 1st 1949

EDUCATION; Bellview Primary School, Perth.

Governor Stirling Senior High School.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING; Indentured as an Apprentice Clock and watch repairer for six years.

Issued a Certificate by the western Australian Industrial Commission

After examination on June 24th 1971. Further professional training

followed as a horologist in London, England and in Vienna, Austria. NGS Arts (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy links Draft:David E. Walter and David E Walter. both unsourced and failing to meet WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or something else with which you need help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't look like David Walter meets the criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I'd suggest you read the links you were given on your Talk page when you first asked about this, because they explain what the problems are. So will the links in the draft decline notice and from Theroadislong.

The information is there, you just need to read it.

I'd honestly recommend that you leave trying to create this article and work on any other topic of your choosing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

How is my article now?

My article: Draft:South Kitsap Regional Park

I've capitalized and uncapitalized stuff, I've unbolded stuff, someone even added a whole interactive map, and now I just need some feedback and suggestions before I can move from draftspace to mainspace. Thanks! (IRC doesn't work) BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of your article which you can use to submit it for review. It will be checked by a reviewer in time, and if they approve it they'll move it to mainspace for you, otherwise they'll explain the issues that you need to improve.

I wouldn't suggest moving a draft to mainspace yourself unless you're 100% confident in your article. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Micrometer (microscopic tool) merge

Merge the stub article Ocular micrometer and non-existent article Stage micrometer and redirect them as a common article Micrometer (microscopic tool)

Originally discussed here: Talk:Ocular micrometer

Stage micrometer and Ocular micrometer are often used together as a pair, where the stage micrometer is first used to calibrate the ocular micrometer (under a very specific set of Objective lens and Eye piece lens of a specific microscope), and the ocular micrometer is then used at the exact same setup (But the stage micrometer is then replaced by the specimen mounted on a microscopic slide and cover-slip using mounting medium, and the microscopic image is drawn using a camera lucida).

The article is still in a Stub status, and there is no article yet for stage micrometer. Therefore, merge of the two topics may improve both amount of article content, as well as a bigger and meaningful picture of the topic.

Regards, RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the stage micrometer article doesn't even exist, then what content is it that you're suggesting to 'merge' from it?

Surely you could just include the information about stage micrometers as a new section on Ocular micrometer and then if it's still necessary you could move the whole article to Micrometer (microscopy) or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's already discussed elsewhere, what are you asking here?

This is a general help desk; we give advice, we do not decide such matters here. Our advice would be to discuss the matter on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Archive

How can I bypass Cloudflare to archive a site? I can’t archive it because of Cloudflare’s verification issue. Rafael Ronen 00:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this board is for beginner questions about things relating to Wikipedia. We can't help you with this. Athanelar (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Asking for help

I've been editing Wikipedia for one and a half year now but unfortunately I have faced number of challenges. Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia. I want to help to make Wikipedia a better website but it is often difficult for me to do it properly so I want to ask for help to be a better user. Unfortunately I have been accused of deliberately disrupting Wikipedia but the truth is that it is hard for me to understand many things on Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So I was thinking if someone can talk to me and teach me to edit Wikipedia more properly so I can return to Icelandic Wikipedia like a honorable man as well as helping you all make English Wikipedia a better website like honorable men do. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For what you're describing, I think what really might help the most is just some studying. What you wrote here is good English; how is your confidence level for reading a lot of rules and explanations in English? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course I want to read the rules but I guess I will need some help.

I am smart and talented man who wants to help making Wikipedia a better website but I have autism that maked some things harder for me to understand.

Unfortunately I am banned on Icelandic Wikipedia and I am not proud of it. The truth is that it often takes me very long time to learn certain things but some people doesn't seem to understand that. I repeatedly asked for help in the Icelandic Wikipedia but I didn't get the proper help that I deserve so I need you to help me.

My dream is to be better user and return to the Icelandic Wikipedia.

I see that you have mentors so I was wondering if they can help me. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an official mentor, but I'm willing to do that unofficially for one person right now, if you like. (I could also sign up to be an official mentor, but I'm not sure I want to continue doing it in the later future.)

If you want to try that, knowing that if you find out I'm not that helpful or you don't like me then you can just stop and get someone else instead, I'd be happy to try it. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy If you want to try that, please put a message on my user talk page. If you would rather use the official mentor system and maybe get someone else instead of me, I can show you how to make that request. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there are very many autistic people doing a lot of good on Wikipedia. I know (at the same time) that social expectations are difficult online just as they are when meeting in person, and that Wikipedia has some weird and complex rules which are often stated in ways that are inconsistent.

And I know enough to know that a lot of social interaction with people you don't know, plus trying hard to follow a lot of weird inconsistently-stated rules that keep being mentioned, might sometimes make Wikipedia extremely difficult for you - even though Wikipedia may also be where some of your greatest strengths will be very useful to you, and to everyone.

I know that you're already honorable. I expect that with some help to get a better start and to get used to the interactions and expectations on Wikipedia, everyone here will have a much easier time understanding that you are. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy, welcome to English Wikipedia. You wrote, "Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia." I have two ideas:

1. Rather than starting a new article, you could work on an existing article.
2. Or, before starting a new article, gather your sources for the topic. I recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. It talks about the importance of finding the sources first. If you're not sure if the sources establish notability for the subject of the article, you can always post them here and ask for input.

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of ways to help at Wikipedia other than creating new articles. See Help:Contributing to Wikipedia. If you aren't very good at understanding notability, that's totally fine. You can certainly try to learn and improve on that, but in the meantime there's no need to worry about trying to create articles. I just passed 1,000 edits and I've still never even tried creating an article. Athanelar (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy I took a short look, and it's clear that you haven't really been telling the truth. You are never ever going back to the Icelandic Wikipedia, because you have been permanently banned from there. (It must take some effort to get a permanent ban!) Banned from some other Wikipedias too, for vandalism and sockpuppets. You did a lot of dishonest and really wrong stuff, after people tried to help you.

You are not some misunderstood autistic person trying to do the right thing, but an intentional and long-term vandal. Sorry, but I am not willing to help a vandal who doesn't listen when people help. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Gharanas of Indian Music

I’ve created a draft for Gharanas of Indian Music(Draft:Gharanas of Indian Music), as this book has recently been used as a source in articles such as Inayat Hussain Khan, Raghunath Singha Dev II, and Nasir Moinuddin Dagar by various contributors.

I felt that creating an article for the book would help provide clearer context, support verifiability, and benefit both contributors and readers who may want to understand the source more fully.

I am still a beginner on Wikipedia, so I would be grateful for any guidance you can offer on how to improve the draft, especially regarding structure, neutrality, and meeting notability expectations. I have already submitted the draft for review and I understand there is a long queue for AfC submissions.

If the draft is considered ready, is there any way to publish it directly to mainspace, or should I wait for the reviewer? Any advice on the correct process would be very helpful. Thank you again for your time and support. Serviceeternity (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you've already submitted your draft for review, there's no need to request additional review here at the Teahouse. Someone will get to it in time and either approve & publish it, or decline it and give you feedback.

Since you're a newer editor, I would advise against unilaterally moving your article to mainspace even if someone tells you it's ready. Let a reviewer look at it first. Athanelar (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here.

What can I do to help here?

I want to be able to voice my opinion on Wikipedia policy too. Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome!

Helping here essentially means interacting in a civil and helpful way with all the rest of us, to improve this encyclopedia to the best of our ability. Maybe the best thing to do first is to read some articles on topics that you're interested in. Editing articles to improve them is an important part of the work, and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia can tell you a lot about that.

Wikipedia:Community portal is a page that shows a lot of ways to connect with Wikipedia.

I suggest that you not voice opinions on policy until you've already spent a lot of time working on Wikipedia, so that your opinions will come from experience instead of from assumptions. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Names of fictional characters

Hello! I was recently editing the page for Jabba the Hutt and I may have made a mistake. In the Star Wars lore, his full name is Jabba Desilijic Tiure, but obviously the vast majority of people know him simply as Jabba the Hutt. Should his full name be mentioned in the lead, or just in the infobox? I took it out of the lead but I could put it back in. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to guess "put it back the way it was, because it's Star Wars, and many fans probably argued about that exact detail for many weeks already". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Acclaro Inc Draft

@Pythoncoder, thank you for the invite. I tried to update the draft and am hoping I followed your feedback appropriately. Draft:Acclaro, Inc. Any guidance is appreciated. I also posted in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#November_30 for help to make sure I am getting up to standard and making useful contributions! Thank again for reviewing my first draft and I am open to any critique/feedback that can help me in this process. Mark Teget (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood Pythoncoder's list of requirements - in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Wikipedia does not need a selection from that list. Wikipedia needs several different sources that all meet all four requirements at once. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse.

First, if you are involved professionally or personally with this company, you must disclose this per the policy linked there before making any further edits to your draft.

Secondly, your article currently shows no indication that this company is what we call notable (i.e., qualifies for a Wikipedia article) according to either the general notability guideline or specific corporate notability guideline. The sources and information you've included about the company's mergers, expansions, product releases and market performance are what we call trivial coverage of this corporation. I.e., pretty much every company on the planet can link to sources that report this kind of information, and it doesn't tell us that this company is specifically notable compared to any other company. The golden rule tells you what kind of information we need to see in order to determine that your company is notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I can see some indications that AI generation was involved in the creation of this draft. Did you use any AI software to help you create this draft? You should be aware that we have a new guideline that prohibits the creation of articles 'from scratch' through the use of AI. Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Userpage

Why couldn’t Temporary Accounts create their own userpage? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)