The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
My draft article on Herman Richard Kissner Dietz, 19th century artist, was first declined as LLM-generated, then for citation formatting, and now, by a Wikipedia art expert, for original research. At this stage, should I just give up on it, or is there any remaining path forward? PurpleSugarLoaf (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I find it interesting and would be sorry to see it go. That said, however.... Qcne wrote that it seemed to be LLM output, but that was four months ago, and I wonder if Qcne still has this suspicion. I'm surprised to read of Netherzone "spot checking content against some of the sources" as so few of the sources would be easy to find. Here's a randomly selected bunch of four: Report of the Thirtieth Industrial Exposition of the Mechanics' Institute City of San Francisco, San Francisco: Mechanics' Institute, 1897, pp. 72 - 73|Eldred's, auction, March 30, 2007, East Dennis, MA, Lot 357 (source: Invaluable.com)|Koller, 19th Century Paintings, September 24, 2025, Switzerland, Lot 6213 (online auction).|Sarasota Estate Auction, Important Fine Art, Jewellery, Antiques and Silver Auction, August 25, 2024, Sarasota, FL., Lot 950, items #2689 and #2698| You imply that the second is on the web. If so, where? (Not just the website; the exact page.) Are none of the other three available on the web? NB unavailability other than from microfiche, microfilm, or paper is no reason to decline a submission; but the number of sources such as these raises the suspicion of a hoax or LLM hallucination. (And if something such as an auction catalogue really is only available as a book on a shelf, can it not come with an OCLC number?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The draft, when I declined it, was pure AI generated slop @PurpleSugarLoaf. This person certainly did exist, but I think you would have a much easier time by writing a short, concise draft based off available published sources. qcne(talk)09:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
PurpleSugarLoaf, I happen to have a deep interest in Northern California landscape artists for many reasons, including that my sister has been one for several decades. I would love to see an article about Dietz but it needs to be done right. You seem to be under the impression that a massive number of references is a good thing since you now have 71 of them for this lesser known painter. Actually, quality is vastly more important than quantity when it comes to references. Far better to have references to a dozen (or even less) high quality sources that devote significant, in depth coverage to Dietz than a sprawling mess of relatively inaccessible and trivial sources that make the work of a reviewer much more difficult and inevitably raise suspicions. For example, you have a note and seven references for the first two sentences of the "Biography" section. This is commonly called reference bombing and increases skepticism instead of reducing it. Reviewers think, "why the heck are there seven references and a note for this mundane content when one or two would be fine?" And you also seem to have the mistaken notion that an AfC draft needs to include every known detail about Dietz. I agree with Qcne that a short, concise draft based off available published sources is your best path forward. Ruthlessly trim your references down to those that are indisputably the best, and eliminate all content that is not verified by these sources. Exclude inferences and conclusions that come from your own brain after your research, and simply summarize neutrally what the best of the reliable sources say about Dietz. If your slimmed down draft is accepted into the encyclopedia, you can gradually expand and improve it as time goes by. Cullen328 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Hoary. When I was spot checking some of the references I checked content against online auction records, the Internet Archive, Newspaper Archive, Newspapers.com, Google Books and PDF documents in Commons. Here are few examples why I tagged it for original research:
Citation 43: Eldred's, auction, March 30, 2007, East Dennis, MA, Lot 357 (source: Invaluable.com)
Rationale: All the citation says about the painting (in terms of description) is: "Clipper ship off a point."
Yet this is used to verify this sentence: Among his earliest surviving signed works is Clipper Ship off a Point (1876), a small painting of a ship whose masts, rigging and hull shape, flying under a Danish ensign, indicate a brig rather than a clipper. Where was this extended information found? Is it personal opinion, or a conclusion the editor came to on their own, or is this an AI description?
Citation 44: Koller, 19th Century Paintings, September 24, 2025, Switzerland, Lot 6213 (online auction)
Rationale: All the citation says about the painting in terms of description is: "Ships in light swell, Kronborg Castle in the background." Yet it was used to source this content: The turreted building in the background is identical in structure, angle and setting to the castle in the undated work Ships in a Light Swell, Kronborg Castle in the Background. While the two structures do look similar to the eye (whose eye) where is this content found in the source?
This is followed a few sentences later by these unsourced statements:
The near-duplication of line and proportion suggests that Dietz may have been working from his own preparatory drawing, while variations in brushwork and palette indicate that he reinterpreted the motif rather than mechanically copying it. Where did this come from, whose thoughts/interpretations are these?
Here is another detailed description that is unsourced: The vessel had entered San Francisco trade routes in that year. The canvas is a broadside portrait under full sail in a heavy swell beneath bright clouds, flags flying, another vessel, and some landforms on the horizon.
This paragraph is entirely unsourced: Dietz worked primarily in oil on canvas, rendering sail plans and running rigging with technical fidelity: square sails; gaffs and the spanker; staysails and jibs; and halyards, sheets and braces. The set and trim recorded in these details show how the vessel was being worked for the prevailing wind and sea at the moment depicted. The selected canvases below, dated 1876 to 1895, illustrate this approach across varied sea states and settings. He often painted lively seas with detailed waves, and he frequently included small motifs, such as a piece of flotsam in both Ella Rohlffs and Levi G. Burgess, a scattering of seagulls in The Clipper Melanope, or a leaping salmon in The Caspar. Where did it come from, whose thoughts, ideas, interpretations are these? (Original research or possible AI/LLM conclusions?)
WP:OR states that original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. From my understanding of WP:OR the above are examples of original research. Netherzone (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Parker Boudreaux
Can someone please help me edit Parker Boudreaux’s profile? I have a lot of valid amazing content but for some reason people keep removing it it’s annoying ~2025-33004-65 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @~2025-33004-65. I see in the history several anonymous users - are they all you? - edit-warring with a number of different editors, and no discussion whatever on the article's talk page.
The Wayback Machine is great for saving otherwise dead sources. I wonder if it is appropriate to use it with websites which – while still alive – may be updated in the future to reflect new data not accounted for in the Wikipedia article in question. Rockfighterz M (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
You can also do it yourself if the bot is too slow for your liking, just remember to put url-status=live so the archive link isn't seen as the main one by the citation template. Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
How exactly do I trigger the bot to do this? I've tried running the article in question through the "Analyze a page" interface; nothing happened. Rockfighterz M (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on Draft:Art Partner (third AfC submission)
Hi,
I’m seeking guidance on improving my draft for Art Partner: Draft:Art Partner
My latest AfC review noted that the references may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and that the tone reads somewhat promotional. I’ve since revised the draft for neutrality and added independent sources from publications such as Vogue, Dazed Magazine, and The Impression.
I’d appreciate feedback on whether the current references meet Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards, and if any sections still appear non-neutral or promotional.
Hello. If you have revised the draft, you should resubmit it to get feedback- asking for a pre-review review duplicates process. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
You can assess your references against the criteria at WP:42 - the key thing to note is that a good source meets all three criteria, so for example a long interview may have significant coverage but is not independent. Ideally you'll have three or more good sources for your draft.
Since your draft is about a company, you'll also want to make sure it meets WP:NCORP, paying special attention to the list of things that do not make a company notable (WP:CORPTRIV). Most companies never qualify for Wikipedia articles. Since you've disclosed that you're a paid editor (thank you!), WP:BOSS may also be a very useful read. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
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.
have carefully reviewed the notability and reference requirements outlined in your message. Based on your guidance, I have now added several new citations from reliable, independent, and secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. my article is "Draft:Duggaraj Shreyas AP"
I kindly request you to review the updated version of the article and consider it for publication. I have made sure that the sources align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for verifiability and notability, particularly in relation to music-related topics.
Hello, @Sunithashankar. The way to get your draft re-reviewed is to pick the big blue button that says "Resubmit".
However, your sources are woefully inadequate.
Citations to selling or listening sites such as Spotify or Apple Music are completely useless, and should never be used. That leaves only two citations, which is not normally enough.
The second has no byline (It is by "Bangalore Newsroom"), and is almost certainly based on an interview or press release, so is not independent.
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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.
Tampa International Airport Annual Traffic graph corrections
Hello. Scroll down to Annual Traffic, the graph on the right. How do you access the graph to make corrections or add additional years to the graph? You cant do it through the edit window.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello again. Was able to access the Wikidata in reference to Tampa Intl Airport Annual Traffic graph, but the data on the graph doesnt match up for years 2020-2023. Here is the data for years 2020-2023:
@Theairportman33531: The graph shows the data for the following year for 2020, 2021, 2022. I don't know why. 2022 has preferred rank at Wikidata but I don't know whether it matters. Pinging Snævar who has edited the template but only has four edits in the last month. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Source reliability is determined in the context of the claims for which its use is proposed, and such discussions typically take place at WP:RSN. That having been said, as a LiveJournal blog, it is a self-published source and thus is unlikely to be reliable for most purposes unless it can be demonstrated that its author is a recognized expert in the relevant field. signed, Rosguilltalk20:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I am a writer and publisher at Interscope Records, and I’m having trouble getting an artist’s Wikipedia page approved. I could use a helping hand with the edit since this is the first time one of my edits hasn’t been approved. Draft:OZAYBABY
It looks like you're already spoken to the person who reviewed the draft, I completely agree with their recommendations. You need make sure that your subject is actually notable per the WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG guidelines. If they are notable, then you will need to rewrite your draft to have reliable sources (that actually work). Also, Wikipedia heavily discourages the use of AI for creating articles (see WP:LLM). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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.
I was told that "No evidence that the flag of Kaliningrad meets WP:N." in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I added the flag of Kaliningrad to its CoA page and requested to move the page so that its an accurate descriptor of the article's content. Why is this the case? I don't see why the flag would deserve its own article but it feels dumb not to allow the name change.
As a second question, I made Draft:Coat of arms of Kaliningrad Oblast. It's different enough from the flag of Kaliningrad but I am slightly concerned that it will also not be allowed to be made. There's pages in other languages (d:Q1402345) but if I remember right that doesn't mean there will be an English version). Is there a way to make sure it passes the draft review and goes to an article?
That draft seems like a decent start to an article, but I don't think it's ready yet. Try to find a couple more reliable sources that back up its notability. I also recommend adding more information about the history/design/usage of it. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
How to Best Solve the Issues with "Legalism (Chinese Philosophy)"
So.
The Legalism (Chinese philosophy) page has... issues. It's bloated beyond belief, inconsistently formatted, and completely disorganized. It is also, from what I can tell, almost entirely contributed to by a single user, who has been editing it for around a decade, steadily growing it more and more through innumerable edits, including, as of this writing, 46 today alone. Looking through the talk pages, it seems they have restarted it multiple times, but are also entirely unwilling to actually solve the glaring issues with their writing, claiming that because it's not a specific philosophy, but rather a library category, a reasonable method of organization cannot be used.
I'd reorganize & trim it down myself, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to know what to keep & cut, nor the time to actually go through it all and align it to a sensible method of organization, which is compounded by the aforementioned lack of knowledge (which the article doesn't exactly help). Not only that, there are zero doubts in my mind that even if such a radical transformation wasn't reverted by this person, they'd still return to steadily bloating the article to no end. And, of course, they're also probably the wikipedia user that has, in fact, done the most research on the topic, so any process of fixing it would likely require their help, which they seem to be incapable of actually doing.
There was a large number of edits today because I did a re-organization today. If you ignored the issue, I would have slowly engaged in edits until I wrap my head around the next re-organization. It has generally been requested I not engage in so many edits. I likely attracted this discussion with todays edits, more than I did not editing enough.FourLights (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I believe I could blank a sizeable quantity of material back to my drawing board for re-consideration and re-working if you wish. Since you are making a bloat complaint, I expect I will do that if you make no objection. Material needs re-working anyway.FourLights (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the most important thing to keep in mind, re:edit count, would be to "Publish Changes" far less often. For instance, from what I can tell, it looks like when you move a section or a quote, you cut the selection, publish changes, then go elsewhere and publish changes once more. Instead, you could simply cut, then paste, and then publish. However, the priority, I'd argue, would not be the progressive addition of content, but rather achieving readability. To that end, I think the best course of action would be to use one of those drawing boards as, in effect, a draft for that reorganization. Use one of the outlines that has been suggested, there have been quite a few, and stick to it. Once you're there, or even just once in a while, get someone else to look at it. While I don't know the material that well, I am still willing to work as a beta-reader, and I'd argue that would help you with working alongside a layperson's perspective, as the priority is currently not comprehensiveness, but succinctness and readability. 0th Law (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I want to create the dopple ganger accounts Rafael the great, Rafael The Great, and RafaelTheGreat to avoid confusion, but it won't let me because my username is similar to those. What can I do to make these accounts? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Rafaelthegreat. If you cannot create the accounts then neither can impersonators so what's the point? There is an account request process where users with a special permission can create them but I see no reason for that. You can redirect the user pages to your account if you are worried that somebody will misspell your name. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Making merge proposals is kind of annoying. Is there a script or helper that makes it easy to propose simple one-way merges? Just some simple modal that I can activate to propose a merge to some other page, automatically creating the appropriate {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} templates and populating a talk page discussion. Something like the XFD dialogue box that Twinkle adds. Thanks in advance for any pointers, and apologies if I missed something obvious. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Maintenance Q
Hi all. Was just wondering how to go about removing resolved translation cleanups after completion. Saw that to add pages to the category here you weren't supposed to edit the page itself, so wasn't sure if the same was true for removing them. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Draft:UTLAS I've started this page, and I'd just like some feedback on it before I commit a lot of time to research in physical libraries, where there is a lot of material not otherwise available e.g. British Library, UTL:
would the topic be acceptable?
are the current sources appropriate?
my plan for further content is inline as comments, and ongoing investigation as Talk topics
there are other related pages that could be added to extend and simplify this page's content
is my employment at UTLAS (noted as required, in article and profile) a problem? It's a long time ago, and I'm working hard on taking any overstatement/exaggeration out!
It doesn't look to me as if any of your sources is independent of UTLAS. 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.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I know your account has been around for ten years, but with only 36 edits in your history, I think you're probably still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems likely to be a notable subject. Is there not coverage in the academic press? Remember that paper sources as well as those online can be used, so the library trade sources may also have something of use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Issue with merging of article by another Wikipedia editor
Last year a user went on a mass merging campaign of several articles on Wikipedia, including merging two automotive transmissions into one single article. Previously there were unique listings for the Aisin-Warner AWF8 transmission (transverse front wheel drive transmission) and the Toyota AA80E 8-speed transmission (longitudinal RWD). These two transmissions were designed many years apart. As mentioned, one is a rear drive vehicle transmission and the other is a front wheel drive transaxle (includes transmission, and differential all in one housing). These two transmissions two transmissions are covered by separate patents, use different designs for their gearsets, and are clearly very different transmissions when you look at them. The very design of a transverse FWD transaxle is completely different to that of one designed for RWD vehicles.
I attempted to explain the differences to the user last year but he refused to change the articles back. Being a fairly novice Wiki editor myself, I had no idea how to recover the page he had deleted (article for AWF8 transmission).
I have verified through extensive research and even using multiple AI chatbots that the two transmissions are completely different designs. They should not be joined together. This editor has continued to add a ton of complicated data including charts to the newly combined article he created over the last year. He’s a non-native English speaker so there are tons of grammatical and spelling errors in the article. Is there someone that can review this and if you agree with my summation that the two transmissions should have been kept separately with their own articles, assist with splitting them back into their respective parts? This user has also made lots of edits to other automotive articles for transmissions. The user’s name is MusikGeniesser. TurboChargedChiliPepper (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The best place to seek third opinions on content disputes is at WP:30, or you might try WP:WikiProject Automobiles as they'll no doubt have more specific knowledge of the matter.
Just as an aside, saying you have verified [information] using multiple AI chatbots weakens your point rather than strengthening it; LLMs are not good sources of facts. Athanelar (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Dmitry Khanukov
Could someone take a look at (Draft:Dmitry Khanukov)?
I have disclosed my COI and followed all AfC rules.
The draft has independent sources (Wired, FT/Sifted, PropertyWire, Forbes, etc.).
Is it possible to get early feedback? Laprok (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Laprok, yes, it is possible to get early feedback if an experienced editor chooses to offer it. Here it is. Your draft in its current form is certain to be declined or rejected because none of your references are to reliable, fully independent sources that provide significant, in-depth coverage of Khanukov as a biographical subject. All you have is the usual and predictable press release/public relations fluff that accompanies tens of thousands of startup ventures everywhere. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of business executives and your draft fails to make the case that Khanukov is a notable person as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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.
How can editors make category discussions more welcoming and accessible for new contributors?
Hi everyone! I’ve been going through the Wikipedia:Teahouse guidelines and really appreciate how they focus on friendly mentorship and helping new editors feel comfortable.
In some category or data-related discussions, I’ve noticed the tone can sometimes feel overly technical, which might discourage beginners from participating. I totally understand that structure and accuracy are key, but I’m curious — are there examples of how to make these spaces feel more inviting while keeping the same policy standards?
For instance, while working on my own small project a Starbucks Nutrition Calculator I realized that clear explanations and gentle guidance can make even complex data topics approachable. I think a similar approach could really help new editors here too.
Would love to hear how others balance friendliness with maintaining Wikipedia’s editorial rigor. ~2025-33241-06 (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I am making an article about the Gamemode Clan arena(I know it's pretty short, but it is in its early stages), after a while I added a link to the website church of Quake and it still stated that there is no reliable source, so I ask, why are some websites which are clearly correct not counted as reliable? Zuake (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
It comes down primarily to having strong editorial practices, which entails fact-checking, the willingness to make corrections or retract a piece, and openly declaring if a piece is written under a conflict of interest. However, I would ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about specific websites, especially as regards eSports in general (as that particular topic area has a dearth of good outlets). —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Specifically this diff page: [3] When you click on 'Visual' (instead of 'Wikitext'), the following error appears and it automatically returns me to wikitext view: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'from')
Why does that happen? Thanks. Hogshine (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions today
1. Can you create a WP: page or Wikipedia: page? Do you have to ask beforehand?
2. Shouldn't Wikipedia coverage about itself on WP: or WIKIPEDIA: pages?
3. Can you edit WP: page or WIKIPEDIA: page? Breck0530 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you can create a Wikipedia namespace page (as in have the ability to). They should generally not be created just for the purpose of existing, but if you have a reason a page belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, then sure. You might consider asking if you're not sure if it needs to be in WP namespace; if it's just for your use, you could use your userspace instead.
I'm not sure what you mean by this question, but coverage of Wikipedia that we're trying to include in the encyclopedia should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. WP space is just for backend coordination and is not reader-facing.
You can indeed edit pages in the WP namespace, and indeed have done just that, as the Teahouse's full name is Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Well, Breck0530, such articles should be notable and based on reliable sources, and based on the quickest of glances I did see some citations in that article. Were you asking for a specific reason? Perfect4th (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I tried to confirm my email but it only says invalid, and I forgot to validate my email address for some reason, but now it shows me expired code even when it sent me just a minute ago. Wikin1iwie2d (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm trying to create an article for Karl Lagasse as all the scammers online are ridiculously priced. It's my first time doing that, and I'm completely lost. Karl is a worldwide artist , the page shouldn't be a problem , specially bc he already have a page in wiki French. Any help at this point would be greatly appreciated. TY Karineicher (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Interfacing with people wanting to be paid for writing Wikipedia article is always discouraged, good job for avoiding them. A good place to start writing your own article would be to read WP:Your first article. Notability on French Wikipedia does not necessarily mean they're notable here, see WP:ARTIST for more information.
Also, if you have a relationship with Karl Lagasse or are paid by/on behalf of Karl, that is something you have to declare as a WP:Conflict of interest or as a WP:Paid editor (respectively).
Looking at your previous rejected drafts at your talk page, I would recommended making the improvements listed there. For example, your draft did not have WP:Reliable sources and appeared to have been written using AI (ChatGPT, etc.). See WP:LLM for more information about that, but the use of AI to write articles is heavily discouraged. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia.
I'll give you the short version first:
If you're connected with Karl Lagasse in any way, read WP:COI and understand that we strongly discourage people from writing articles about topics they're connected to.
Coming to Wikipedia with the intention of writing a particular article without first understanding what makes a good Wikipedia article is always a bad idea.
Now the long version:
I suspect what you're trying to do is what we call writing an article 'backwards,' meaning you've come here with the intention to write a particular article with particular information in it, and you plan to try to find sources after the fact to justify your article. This is a bad idea, and will only result in a frustrating and unproductive experience for you on Wikipedia.
My advice is this; if you want to write an article about a particular topic, look for sources first. A couple of things to note;
The purpose of these sources is to establish notability. The word "notability" has particular meaning on Wikipedia which doesn't necessarily reflect how it's used in everyday speech. Namely, somebody being famous or their work being widespread does not necessarily mean they meet the requirement for notability; see WP:FAME. In this case you might want to look at WP:NARTIST which has specific notability guidelines for creative professionals. If you can't find sources which corroborate the subject's notability in this sense, then you cannot create the article. That's why you should look for sources first.
The sources don't necessarily need to be in English. In this case, if the subject is mostly known in the French-speaking world, then French-language sources are perfectly fine, so long as they still meet points 1 and 2.
Once you've found your sources, then you should write the article. The article should contain only what the sources state about the subject, with the barest minimum amount of supplementation from primary sources where necessary for things like biographical data (birthdates etc). You seem to have some kind of connection to Karl Lagasse, so I understand there may be certain information you are personally aware of or would like to include in the article, but Wikipedia has no interest in what people want to say about themselves - we only have interest in what has already been recorded in secondary sources.
When writing your article, you can read Help:Your first article for a guide, and if you do indeed have a connection to Karl Lagasse, make sure to follow the disclosure procedures at WP:COI and please take heed that we strongly discourage people from writing articles about subjects they are personally connected to. Athanelar (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that the Karl Lagasse article was deleted in the past due its promotional nature (with possible undisclosed paid editing), and that he did not meet notability criteria. You can try to write a new article, but there is no guarantee that it will be accepted. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. Netherzone (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Team, I created a page, but it has been removed. I received a warning message. Can someone please help me review the page and guide me on how to create it? Gauray (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Gauray. Please do not use an AI chatbot to generate Wikipedia articles and do not use Wikipedia to promote this company. Instead, create a new draft via Wikipedia:Article wizard and submit the draft for review so it can be reviewed by experienced editors. qcne(talk)09:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Or, to avoid wasting any time, give up! It is very unlikely your company is or ever will be notable. Harsh, I know, but not everything can get a wikipedia article and we aren't a place to promote your business mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
A sample (about a co-founder): With deep industry knowledge and sharp business acumen, he has led the development of innovative solutions that strengthen market presence and customer trust. This is promotional junk. If, as it seems, you want to advertise your company, then Wikipedia is the wrong website. Advertise the company on its own website. -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Request for feedback on Draft:ChessUp (smart chessboard article)
Hi everyone 👋
I’ve recently created and submitted a new Wikipedia draft for ChessUp, a smart chessboard developed by Bryght Labs.
The goal is to document ChessUp’s development, features, and community history in a neutral, well-sourced article.
It’s currently pending review, but I’d appreciate any early feedback or help refining sources and structure before it’s approved.
Any suggestions or improvements from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated — especially around references and neutrality.
Hi @Ivara96. Please don't use an LLM chatbot to communicate with us. There's unfortunately no indication this product meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne(talk)10:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I really think we need a new guideline in place that obvious COI editors who slap together a promotional draft article with no COI disclosure and then come to the Teahouse with the same LLM-generated format about neutrality and well-sourced content with no actual understanding of Wikipedia's methodology should be blocked and their draft deleted with no questions asked. These people are never going to end up contributing productively. Athanelar (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I just don't know what they hope to accomplish. I understand wanting to have an article on wikipedia but what inspires every random businessperson to make a wikipedia article about them or their new thing nobody will ever care about. Do they think everyone will care about their thing so much that they can unambiguously write an ad in the form of a wikipedia article and everyone will let them? Is there some blogspam or marketing influencer out there telling people that the only way to have a successful business is to be on wikipedia? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The goal is to document ChessUp’s development, features, and community history in a neutral, well-sourced article i.e., you're here to promote your product, not to build an encyclopedia. Your 'goal' should be to create an encyclopedia by summarising information available in secondary sources, not to 'document' a particular product. Athanelar (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The wiki page for my diversity and wildlife friendly gardening in
I am the new Wikipedia I am trying to create a page of gardening initiative. I don’t know how to write the copy for the article without it sounding like an AI while at the same time only stating facts in an unemotional manner it’s kind of a dichotomy. This is the article. Can anybody please help me? It’s not a lot of text but just don’t know how to rewrite it making false claims seeming emotional and yet not sound like an AI. I do have ASD, which doesn’t help me. Draft:GardeningWell Please help :-).
Regards,
ciaran ~2025-32785-40 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, I would presume that you're the Ciarán De Buitléar mentioned in the article, in that case you should first know that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of your article, and you need to follow the relevant guidelines to disclose your conflict of interest appropriately.
Hi there! I understand the fear of sounding like AI (I'm also autistic). Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware your gardening program(?) isn't wp:notable enough for a wikipedia article. Sorry :/ mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
d2s1
I need help making an article about the music producer d2s1. If anybody has the time to help me out, that would be a great honour to me. THANKS!
Hello and welcome to the teahouse. You can go ahead and read Help:Your first article, but please be aware that we really recommend people get familiar with Wikipedia by editing other articles for at least a few weeks before trying to create an article, as it's really quite a deceptively complex process which requires a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. Athanelar (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I declined the draft you submitted on D2s1 because it was unsourced and therefore had no indication of notability. If you are unable to find sources on the artist, that is an indication that they may not be notable. Aesurias (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean by, unsourced? If you mean links, i can work on that, but if you mean: [1] then i would like to know how to add them VZ9999 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
What about like wikionary or wiki ed? They are like diff links to wikipedia, because its like the box with the arrow pointing upper right VZ9999 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @VZ9999. An article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. Almost all the sources should meet all the criteria in WP:42. What you perssonally know about the subject (whoever you are) is almost irrelevant, except where it happens to be verifiable from such a source.
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) 23:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Doing a quick google search, they don't have enough secondary sources to be considered notable. Note that Wikipedias definition of notable is slightly different from the commonly understood meaning of the word mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "my information" and by "put ... on Wikipedia".
The first thing to note is that all information that you put in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from a reliable published source. Information you know from your own experience, or from personal communication, or from unreliable sources such as most social media, is not acceptable unless you can find a reliable source that backs it up. Verifiability is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia
Secondly, if the information you want to add pertains to you, or to an activity or organisation you have a connection with, then Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest: you should not insert the information directly, but should make an edit request, including a reference to your sources - prefereably unconnected with you or the organisation - and an uninvolved editor will decide whether and how to incorporate the information.
If you mean that you want to create an article, that is a different ball game. 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.
Finally, if what you mean is that you want to create an article about yourself, your business, your brand, your band, your software, your artwork etc, the answer is almost certainly "don't waste your time, as you will not be successful". Most people, companies, bands do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. If the subject is notable, then an article is possible, but you are one of the worst people to write it because of your COI. Please see autobiography and WP:BOSS - and WP:YESPROMO.
You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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 yourself, 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.
thank you! and yes iam aware that its not a socialmedia platform but iam not using it as one this Draft:Mahdi Yasser is going to be my first and last article i create myself even though i will contniue to contribute, fix and edit already published articles. Mahdi-Yasser (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hey so my 12-year-old sister loves chickens, so me and my boyfriend were trying to find ideas for us to build her some kind of chicken oasis. Does anyone have any ideas? ~2025-33056-46 (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello. My eight year old granddaughter also loves chickens so I am sympathetic. But the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. You can search for ideas on Google and there are many chicken enthusiast groups on Facebook and other social media platforms. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I am writing an article about my barangay, which is the smallest administrative unit in the Philippines. My barangay is called Union, but my article was declined. This is my first time creating a Wikipedia article. How can I improve my writing so that it will be accepted? Mike Morales Adao (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry, I didn't understand what you actually meant. I checked your draft, it is a good article, well explained and also neutral . But ,I would advise you to add more references if you want your article to get accepted as my article was once rejected due to lack of references, but later got accepted when I added more references. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Mike Morales Adao! Drmies left a comment when they reviewed your article that you need to add more sources to it. The content of your draft should depend on and be cited to such sources. They establish notability, which is the Wikipedia definition of what subjects should be an encyclopedia article, so it's important to add them to your draft.
I'll also give you the caveat I usually add: writing an new article references a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you start your Wikipedia journey by trying to write an article, you have to learn them all at once; if you spend some time working on existing articles first it'll be much easier to write your own later, so I do suggest editing articles already in Wikipedia before you create a new one. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Regarding the sources, this area is quite remote and has limited available information, which is why I want to start by sharing more about my place of origin. I agree, though—I’ll begin with editing first. I really appreciate it; it’s wonderful to know that so many of you are willing to provide responses. Thanks again! Mike Morales Adao (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independent chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Successfully writing an article begins with finding several such sources (see WP:42) because if you cannot find any, you'll know that there is no point in continuing with this article.
If you do find such sources, you then need to effectively forget absolutely everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. Do you see why it is hard writing with a COI? ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Journal Publisher Reliability ???
does Inernational Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT). Reliable or Not. ??
An international journal of thoughts? The very title says that no it isn't reliable. And glancing at the page to which you link doesn't dispel that impression. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Help with updating a page as per advice provided - Please!
Hello - I am contacting you following correspondence with your colleague earlier this year. I have been trying to update the following page to simply reflect the business and philanthropic life of Assem Allam, which is currently not reflected. There also appear to be a number of references to sources which are no longer available. Your colleague suggested there may be a way forward after outlining some of the things I was previously unaware of. It would seem fair to ensure the page reflects a balanced outline of business life as this is essentially who Dr Assem Allam was. Are you able to please advise?
Hello, @Mary 65 2025, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the history of Assem Allam (which you can retrieve on your phone, though it may not be as obvious as on a computer) I can see that your edits have been reverted with comments explaining why, and that there has been a discussion on your user talk page.
Put simply, 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.
This means that almost anything that you add needs to be verifiable from a reliable published source - and anything which might be in any way contentious or non-neutral (whether positive or negative) must be verifiable from an independent published source. To talk about his philanthropy you would need sources unconnected with him and his organisations and also unconnected with any recipients of his philanthropy.
Secondly, the decision of just what should go into an article is partly subjective, and different editors may disagree. If an editor disagrees with you and reverts your edit, then (unless you just choose to leave it) it is your responsibility to open a discussion with that other editor, and try to reach consensus. By all means try to persuade them of your position: but make sure you listen to their position as well. See WP:BRD.
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see that in one of your edits you said Family keen to share more information about Assem's life and acheivements. Previous version does not reflect this. Unfortunately, we cannot include information in Wikipedia simply because the family of the subject wants it included. Information is included in Wikipedia articles only if it has been published in reliable, independent, secondary sources.Athanelar (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Mary 65 2025, you have received many excellent replies, but what caught my eye was the mention of '[]our colleague' - I am concerned that someone may have contacted you or Allam's family about the Wikipedia article, possibly offering to edit it for payment. This is always a scam. Please be extremely cautious if you receive any communication of this nature, and never give anyone money, gift cards, etc in exchange for Wikipedia edits. Meadowlark (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Request for help restoring and improving article about Dr. Davron Makhmudov
The draft was deleted because it was considered autobiographical.
I would like to find an experienced editor who could review the reliable sources
and help recreate the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
I have independent media coverage, official websites, and photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
Could someone please assist or guide me on how to proceed?
Thank you very much! Davronmt (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Davronmt. As an adminstrator, I could read your deleted draft. It was unreferenced and self-promotional, and violated Wikipedia's policies. The Daryo.uz source is not independent. It is quite obvious that it is a reprint of press release/public relations content. The website of a group you founded is not independent. Your own website is not independent. Photos on Commons are irrelevant. Please carefully read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. There is no indication that you are eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Davronmt, to repeat, that content is clearly generated by press release/public relations activity and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's requirement for truly independent coverage as needed to establish notability. This is not a negative comment about the publication. Pretty much all publications rely at least partially on press releases. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You ... would like to find an experienced editor who could review the reliable sources and help recreate the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. And you have enabled email. It's very likely that at least one person claiming to satisfy your job description will apply via email. Their motive would be payment, but any money that you paid would be wasted. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Scam warning. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you help me to write an article about me please.
To put it bluntly, you are not likely notable enough for a wikipedia article. Because this is the case, it is highly likely anyone trying to help you will be doing so with good intentions. If someone contacts you asking for money in exchange for a wikipedia article they are trying to scam you. Wikipedia editors are volunteers and will never ask for money in exchange for editing help mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello when making edits and citing with the Wikipedia guidelines, I'm having a hard time adding those to my edit summaries in a way that The link functions Hiya2527 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Should I create subchapters or link new article for Sprains
If you go to Sprains article, it only gives a brief summary of some common different sprains including wrist sprains but doesn't go in-depth for any specific one in subsection (Joints Involved). Since it seems like general overview, adding a more in-depth subchapter now just for wrist sprains isn't ideal as it may give the impression that wrists sprains are more notable than others that don't have their own dedicated sections. My question is - Should the Sprain article stay as a general overview, with only short summaries, and I instead build a new separate in-depth article for Wrist Sprains (Draft:Sprained wrist) - and link it from there? Or should I expand the Sprains article with a dedicated subchapter for wrist sprain, even tho there's so many other sprains out there and it may be impractical to add subsections for all of them. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I saw the draft but didn't feel qualified to accept or decline without a discussion taking place, so thanks for opening a discussion. This isn't the best place to ask it but I personally don't think separate articles are needed -- the Sprain article is not long enough to warrant it aesurias (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
That draft article isn't complete. It's just a stub with an intro. Later I or others may add chapters like "prevention" gear, treatment like wrist exercises and protocols, the 3 gradings for specifically wrist sprains etc - which then easily becomes a full scale Wikipedia article. If you look at ankle sprain article or Anterior cruciate ligament injury article, you would get an idea what a full dedicated article on wrist sprain could potentially look like. And it's tricky to fit all this specific info in the sprain article, so why I am still leaning towards making a new dedicated article. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Please don't write about wrist exercises and protocols, Wikipedia is not in the business of offering medical advice or anything similar. See: WP:NOTGUIDE
I meant I will just mirror on what the ankle sprain do per WP: Backwards and include standard chapters like Cause, Diagnosis, Treatment, Epidemiology, Prognosis, Signs and Symptoms, and use RS. And it's currently just a draft for wrist sprain. If the wiki article reviewers don't like it, then it's no skin off my nose. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I can't see the draft being accepted in its current form as its too small to not be merged into the existing 'Sprain' article, if you understand? If it was built on further, I think it'd be accepted (or at least I would accept it). I have read it but neither accepted or declined it, feel free to unsubmit it and keep working on it if you want to :) aesurias (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Huh? It's not meant to be merged. It's actually meant to be a standalone separate Wikipedia article. Basic idea is in future - the Sprains article briefly introduce (wrist sprains) which has a link. Readers click on the link and it takes them to a new article dedicated to wrist sprains. Also, how do I "unsubmit" the draft so I can build it up? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I am aware. I'm saying that the draft, in it's current form, may be considered too 'small' to have a standalone article, and a reviewer may suggest it just be merged into sprain, which is obviously not your goal. I have un-submitted it for you. aesurias (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah I see. And thanks for un-submitting. I wanted to do that but there's no unsubmit button and didn't know it was even an option. So much appreciated. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Background. I am new to the City of Osage Beach. I want to update our page with current information as well as add a few new areas that are not reflected on our current page. My edits keep getting rejected. Here is the copy I'm looking to use for updates along with credible, independent resources. How can I get this done?
Draft
History
The development of Osage Beach is closely linked to the creation of the Lake of the Ozarks.
• Formation of the Lake: In 1931, the Union Electric Company of St. Louis completed the construction of Bagnell Dam on the Osage River, creating the Lake of the Ozarks. The new reservoir quickly became a draw for visitors interested in boating, fishing, and resort recreation.
• Early Development: During the 1930s and 1940s, the shoreline began to see the establishment of cabins, fishing camps, and small businesses catering to lake tourism. The area that would become Osage Beach developed as an accessible point on the lake due to its proximity to U.S. Highway 54.
• Incorporation: The City of Osage Beach was first incorporated in 1959. Following a temporary dis-incorporation, voters approved a second and final incorporation in 1965.
• Growth: The city grew rapidly as a resort and second-home destination during the 1960s and 1970s. Its central location on the Lake of the Ozarks led to the establishment of marinas, hotels, and resorts. Commercial growth in the 1980s and 1990s included the 1985 opening of the Osage Beach Premium Outlets (originally the Factory Outlet Mall).
________________________________________
Modern Era
Since the early 2000s, Osage Beach has continued to function as a year-round community that integrates a tourism economy with its role as a regional commercial center. Development has included new retail centers, expanded lodging, and infrastructure investment. The city provides resources to support business growth, including permitting, licensing, and incentive programs such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Community Improvement Districts (CID). The city partners with the Lake of the Ozarks Convention and Visitor Bureau to promote the region.
________________________________________
Demographics
According to the United States Census, the population of Osage Beach has grown steadily: 1,992 in 1980; 2,929 in 1990; 3,662 in 2000; 4,351 in 2010; and 4,792 in 2020. Estimates for 2024 place the population at just over 5,100 residents (1). As of 2023, the median age in Osage Beach is 55.9 years, and the median household income is $52,067 (2). The population is predominantly White (non-Hispanic), with smaller percentages identifying as Hispanic or Latino, multiracial, or other racial groups (1), (2).
________________________________________
Economy
The Osage Beach economy is driven by tourism, hospitality, retail, and services, with activity also in healthcare, real estate, and construction. Seasonal visitor demand from the Lake of the Ozarks region is a key driver for employment in lodging, restaurants, and attractions. Osage Beach has the largest concentration of hotels, vacation rentals, resorts, restaurants, and retail outlets in the Lake of the Ozarks area.
________________________________________
Parks and Recreation
Osage Beach maintains a variety of parks and recreational amenities (4).
• Facilities: City Park and Peanick Park offer athletic fields, basketball and pickleball courts, walking trails, playgrounds, and covered pavilions. The city also operates a dog park and invests in facilities to support youth and adult sports leagues.
• Water Access: Public access to the Lake of the Ozarks provides opportunities for boating and fishing.
• Events: The Parks & Recreation Department hosts seasonal events, including a Fall Festival, an annual Easter Egg Hunt, and Summer Nights programs.
________________________________________
Arts, Culture, and Attractions
Osage Beach is a primary destination for some of the largest annual events in the Midwest.
• Major Annual Events:
o Lake of the Ozarks Shootout: Held every August, this is a large unsanctioned powerboat race. Osage Beach venues serve as viewing and organization points for the week-long event.
o Lake of the Ozarks BikeFest: Occurring each September, this motorcycle rally uses Osage Beach as its central hub.
o Boat Events: Osage Beach venues are pivotal to the twice-yearly Harbor Hop poker run and the annual Aquapalooza boat raft-up.
• Family Attractions: Attractions in Osage Beach include the Indoor Water Park at Margaritaville Lake Resort and Miner Mike’s, an indoor amusement center. The city also offers miniature golf, go-kart tracks, boat rentals, and waterfront dining.
________________________________________
Infrastructure and Transportation
Osage Beach is served by U.S. Highway 54, which connects to Interstate 44 and Interstate 70.
• Airports: The city is served by two municipal airports:
o Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport (AIZ): This airport has a 6,497-foot asphalt runway capable of accommodating larger aircraft, including corporate jets and charter services (5).
o Grand Glaize–Osage Beach Airport (K15): Located near the city center, this airport features a 3,206-foot runway primarily for smaller aircraft, serving private pilots and local businesses (6).
________________________________________
Healthcare
Osage Beach is home to Lake Regional Health System, the largest healthcare provider in the region. The system is anchored by Lake Regional Hospital, a full-service facility offering emergency services, surgical care, and specialized services. Lake Regional is a member of the Mayo Clinic Care Network, which provides its physicians access to Mayo Clinic resources (9).
________________________________________
Education
The city is served by the Camdenton R-III School District and School of the Osage for K–12 education. Several colleges and universities operate satellite campuses in the region, including State Fair Community College (7) and Columbia College (8).
________________________________________
References
1. Census Reporter. "Osage Beach, MO Profile." 2023. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2955244-osage-beach-mo.
2. DataUSA. "Osage Beach, MO Profile." 2023. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/osage-beach-mo.
3. Lake of the Ozarks Convention & Visitor Bureau. "Visitor Information." 2023. https://www.funlake.com.
4. City of Osage Beach. "Parks & Recreation Department." 2023. https://www.osagebeach.org/154/Parks-Recreation.
5. AirNav. "Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport (AIZ)." 2023. https://www.airnav.com/airport/kaiz.
6. AirNav. "Grand Glaize–Osage Beach Airport (K15)." 2023. https://www.airnav.com/airport/K15.
7. State Fair Community College. "Lake of the Ozarks Campus." https://www.sfccmo.edu/about/campus-locations/lake-of-the-ozarks/.
8. Columbia College. "Lake of the Ozarks Location." https://www.ccis.edu/locations/lake-ozark.
9. Lake Regional Health System. "About Us." 2023. https://www.lakeregional.com.
Definitely not trying to be deceoptive. First time ever trying to update a Wiki page. I originally made changes that were rejected. The editor indicated it was because of the user id is set up was based on my city email address. That is why i made a new userid with my personal email. I took the coaching and made the updates. Those too were rejected because of an editors opinion. I did not agree. I asked him where i could go for help. He said Teahouse. Which is why i'm here. I would rather use my city userid vs personal. Would rather be more transparent. I am not a coder and this site makes it difficult to update info. OSB65065 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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.
Please expand on this. I ready the city's wiki page. It is old, outdated, and does not reflect the community the city is today. I just want to add some objective points to enhance the materials that is out there. I'm happy to use my personal login, but I just wanted to make sure I was being fully transparent. If I don't update it, who will? OSB65065 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
You mention you have a 'city login' and 'personal login', could you elaborate a bit on your connection? Do you work for the city in some way? Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@OSB65065, since it sounds like you work for the city, you should make edit requests on the article's talk page. Do not edit the article yourself. The best way to get your request/s fulfilled is to request small changes in the format of 'please change X to Y' and to provide a reliable source for each change. So for example I see that among other things, you wanted to update the current population. Your edit request could look like this:
Please change 'The population was 4,637 at the 2020 census.' in the lead to 'As of the 2024 census, the city home to approximately 5,100 residents while welcoming over three million visitors each year.' per [put a link to the census here]
If I am correct and you do work for the city, please also read through WP:PAID as it has requirements for you to complete - not big requirements at all, but you do need to declare that you are being paid by the city to abide by our Terms of Use. I hope all of that is helpful! Meadowlark (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I don’t want to sound like I’m in disagreement but at what point does that idea stop, for example if there was a terrorist attack and someone was alive who was there and can prove it would their testimony be accepted, or if you were the childhood friend of a famous person and could prove it. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I see. I do understand that completely and it was more of a general question as opposed to I actual have personal evidence to bring. I look at WP:No Original research and by that logic documents which aren’t available online are able to be sources, which I think is interesting, but I’m guessing you’d have to have a photo or library number of said reference. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Offline documents absolutely are valid sources, see WP:OFFLINE. For a source to be included in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable, but not necessarily verifiable by anybody. If you say 'this information is contained on X page of Y book,' that is verifiable (and therefore acceptable) because technically anybody could go down to the library and get a copy and verify.
Obviously, as the article says, with offline sources you need to be prepared to be challenged and to support your source accordingly, but it is allowed. Athanelar (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I see, that’s helpful as sometimes I have found and seen real life documents which are just images in my phone currently but which have been in the British library and in the country I come from. That’s good to hear about books as sources (I knew they could be sources regionally but it’s good to be reminded as I have a lot of books), thanks for your help and answering. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Bundling references
Hi ... I’ve been editing for a little while but I’m still not totally sure about citation formatting. If I want to support one sentence with several different sources, what’s the best way to do that? Should I list all the refs right after the sentence or is there a cleaner way to combine them? RedBaron214 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC) RedBaron214 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to add to what others have said, that unless the multiple references are needed to support different information in the sentence, there is no point in adding more than one source. (I have not looked at your editing history to see if that appears to be the case or not). ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Title change
The name for the government program that is ran by US Marshals "Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System" was changed to "The Justice Prisoner Air Transportation System" in December 2024 according to the official US Marshals website [4] I was able to update the name in the description here but I'm unable to change the name in the tittle how does one go about doing that? This is the link to the page I'm referring about. Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System~2025-33573-14 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Changing the title of an article is done not by editing the text, but by WP:Move-ing the page. However, this may or may not be appropriate: Wikipedia prefers to title articles with the most commonly used name of the subject, which may not be the current official name, particularly soon after that official name has been changed: researching the online frequency of use of each name may be useful. Please read WP:COMMONNAME for a longer treatment.
Moreover, moves to new titles are often controversial, so rather than just doing it, it is better to propose doing it in the article's Talk page, wait to see what (if any) responses are received, and come to a consensus on whether the move should be made. This avoids someone reverting your choice and then having to discuss it anyway, per the WP:BRD procedure.
Whether it is agreed that the new name should be moved to or the old one be retained, it will be appropriate to create a WP:Redirect from the un-used title to the used one, and of course the renaming of the subject should be mentioned in the article itself, certainly in an appropriate place in the main text, and probably also in the lede paragraph.
The promotion banner appears at the top of the page but I've edited the wording. Can I get help please?
Hi, I think the promotion banner relates back to February 2012 but I feel the changes I've made are factual and direct so I'm trying to see what else I need to do to remove that. There is a 'marketing' section but lots of brands have that as it relates to moments in time when newspapers have referenced what the company is about. Any help appreciated. Thanks JoeyS31 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
One important thing you need to realize is that the banner was added by a human. You can't just change the content and expect the banner to come off automatically. DS (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. Is it the person that added it, the one that chooses to take it down. Once suitable changes have been made? JoeyS31 (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Anybody can remove the banner once they feel the issue with the article has been resolved. If you think you've resolved the issue, you can remove the banner. Athanelar (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] I am not a reviewer, but my impression as a long-term Wikipedia editor and user is that the article still contains much unnecessary material (such as the company's financing history), and too much promotional material (such as favourable reviews) and descriptions of what it (says it) does, in proportion to what disinterested third party Reliable sources say at some length about its significance, which is what a Wikipedia article should mostly reflect and summarise. (Please see, to begin with, WP:42). The article does not at this point convince me that this company is even Notable – please review WP:Notability (companies). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I wanted to place my vote on an open block proposal, but I can't figure out how to actually place my vote in the correct spot. I tried using the reply button, but I wound up replying directly to a comment from the proposer instead [5], so I manually reverted it. Just trying to figure out how I can get more involved with the community and such NoOneFliesAroundTheSun (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Just reply to the top proposal, and put your vote right at the start in bold.
So, if your comment here were the proposal, I would reply and put;
I tried to do that, but as in the linked diff, it replied directly to a comment and didn't place it at the bottom with the other votes. I don't see a button to make a reply to the initial proposal. Should I just go into source and manually add in a reply? NoOneFliesAroundTheSun (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Athanelar, that is not a vote. That (important) matter aside, I am responding to your comment. NoOneFliesAroundTheSun has already responded to it. I am placing this response under NoOneFliesAroundTheSun's -- not because it's less (or more) important, but simply because it's later. Are you saying that I should instead be putting this response above NoOneFliesAroundTheSun's? -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I meant put the vote at the start of your comment, not at the top of the chain of replies - sorry for the unclear response. Athanelar (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
NoOneFliesAroundTheSun, the premise of your question is mistaken. If they ever occur at all, votes on WP:ANI are rare indeed, and this is no exception. Participants in that thread are, or should be, supporting or opposing the proposal with their reasoning. -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Apologies to everyone for using the wrong terminology. What I was trying to say was that I was trying to participate in the proposal discussion, but when I replied, my comment was up top underneath a later comment the proposer made and not with the list of other people's arguments. You'll see what I mean my diff in the initial comment NoOneFliesAroundTheSun (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
السلام عليكم عليك أنشأ معلومات عتدند عبد العظيم جاد رئس مجلس الشعب الحاي لكم جزيل الشكر والعرفان تواصلوا ل أعط لكم كل مفيد ليكم ضمن صفحات معلومات صفحتكم
Google translation for anyone curious. The title reads "Peace be upon you. Please create information for Abdul-Azim Jad, the current Speaker of the People's Assembly. Thank you very much. Please contact us so we can provide you with all the useful information on your page" The description reads "History of one of the most influential figures in the political situation". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. Google gives me (my emphasis):
Peace be upon you. You have created information on Abdel Azim Gad, the current Speaker of the People's Assembly. Thank you very much. Please contact us so we can provide you with all the useful information on your page.
You could be right @Mgjertson, I do know that various dialects can be highly different, Arabic in Iraq and Arabic in Morocco are quite different and in fact mutually unintelligible from what I have seen (well what I’ve heard, I don’t speak any Arabic), and perhaps the Google translate is trying to translate it from Saudi Arabic and not a regional dialect of Arabic. That is my guess however. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose so, I’m not a professional either, I occasionally like linguistics though (just not the too nerdy aspects). I assume Google does use standard dialects (London for British English), Beijing for Chinese, Tokyo for Japanese and so on (not sure what America would use, perhaps Washington or New England dialect). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Need Help With My Wikipedia Draft Page
Hello, I need assistance with my Wikipedia article draft.
I am trying to understand the status of my page and whether it is correctly placed in the Draft namespace for review. I am also facing difficulty determining if the page is submitted for AfC review or if I need to take any additional steps.
Here is the link to the page I am asking about:
User:Hasainul_Choudhury
Please let me know:
Whether my draft is correctly created.
Whether it has been submitted for review.
If there are any issues I need to fix before resubmitting. Hasainul Choudhury (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
That is not a draft, that is your userpage. It has not been submitted for review because it is not a draft.
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.
You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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 yourself, 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.
Found a reference, doesn't verify everything and has different information.
Hello everybody!
I am trying to add a citation I found to the article on Carol Lambrino. The reference I found is from the Telegraph, so I think it is a reliable source. I would like to add it to the section about his three marriages because it does verify their names, dates, and children. It gives a different date for his first marriage and divorce, and it doesn't give the additional information about the wives, for example that one was an opera singer or who the third's great grandfather was.
Is this a good enough source to update the dates and would I remove the information it doesn't verify, or just place it so it is obvious what it does verify?
You could write: A Telegraph article states she married on this date, but other sources give this date. Then provide reference cites to both dates given. Best wishes on your editing. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
My apologies, allow me to clarify. I have one source. The information that is different is in the article already and currently unreferenced. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
If it is Unreferenced then I believe you should use the source you have found, however I do wonder how the wrong information ended up on the page, perhaps a mistake or did someone have a source and forget to link it. If suggest you use your source however as it has a reliable source backing it up. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The year of his first marriage is listed as 1948 in the article and divorced in 1958, where the source gives 1944 and 1960 respectively. The source also does not confirm the familial ties for his third wife as its listed in the article, but it does give others. If you would like, the section is Marriages and Children.
Hmmm. I looked at the marriages and children and I do think it is adequate to change everything with evidence of your source, perhaps maybe keep the familial ties of his third wife, if that seems adequate, if not and you suspect it is fake then do change it. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The company I work at has been around for over 15 years and almost all of its competitors have wikipedia pages. My boss feels as though it makes us look bad not to have a wikipedia page. He's tasked me with figuring out how to create us a page. I know I have a conflict of interest if I create the page myself. Is there a good way to determine how to hire someone to create a wikipedia page? Or, are there good recommendations for working around my conflict of interest?
Here is my first draft, which was denied publication: Draft:Peachwave Frozen Yogurt & Gelato. Froyofan15 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi MediaKyle! Our company was targeted by scammers, which is what gave him the idea. We realized they were scammers, but the idea was still something he wanted to pursue. Thanks for the helpful link, I'll check it out! Froyofan15 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Froyofan15 (ec) Hello. You must disclose as a paid editor(because your boss assigned this task to you), please see WP:PAID. This is a Terms of Use requirement.
Here is another consideration: would your boss expect you to take on a job that requires a new skill-set without any training? (Even for people who are practised writers, creating Wikipedia article is different from most other kinds of writing).
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even if there is not a COI. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Do you have three independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of your company and show how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company? These should not be press releases, staff interviews, the reporting of routine business activities, or other company materials. If you don't have that, your company would not merit an article, no matter who writes it. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You're already linking to the page that explains. Temporary accounts are are accounts which are automatically assigned to unregistered editors. Temporary accounts replace the practice of identifying unregistered editors by their IP addresses, which are no longer exposed publicly for their privacy and security. Could you elaborate on what exactly is unclear to you? Amstrad00 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I have developed a brand new concept about understanding God as a virtual concept that there are two independent realities - Physical universe is an external independent universe and that there is an inner virtual world that each one of us create through sense organs and the brain. This leads me to explain God as a virtual entity in each one of us and that we are the real creator or God of our own world.
That is what I want to add in the Wikipedia - 'Physical Universe Virtual God'.
I searched and this topic is not found on Wikipedia.
I have worked and done research in the field of Mind/Brain and consciousness for the last 40 years at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
I have also written a book in 2025 which is published by a publisher MLBD.in.
The title is 'Physical Universe Virtual God'.
I'm afraid that Wikipedia does not publish original research under any circumstances.
If the only published material on the subject is your own book, then that would be a primary source: without secondary sources about the concept, it cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
If there are secondary sources by people unconnected with you, discussing your book in depth, then it is possible there could be an article about the book or the concept - based on those commentaries, not on what you have written or want to say; but in any case you should not write it. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
i look at criteria but i dont know how to see if it fit it. it cedar point article. how know if it is ready for become featured article? ~2025-33285-93 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I am really trying to get League of Nations to be featured article on april 18 2026, as it is its 80th anniversary of its dissolution, but it was featured article in 2005 and I don’t know how to request a rerun as its some sort of special process! ~2025-33737-68 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello @~2025-33737-68! You can probably post it on this page: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. It does say: "If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand", so I'd recommend talking with one the TFA coordinators, who are Wehwalt, Gog the Mild, and SchroCat (according to the main TFA page). PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Miss World England
Hi everyone,
My name is Charlotte Grant. I currently hold the titles Miss World England 2025 and Miss Cosmo England 2024, as well as previous regional titles. Because I am the subject of the article, I want to be transparent that I have a Conflict of Interest, so I will not create the article myself.
I would greatly appreciate guidance on whether the sources below meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for a biography, and if possible, help from a neutral editor to create or review a draft.
Independent reliable sources:
The Times – Coverage related to the Miss World 2025 final:
I would imagine that the modelling titles you hold probably meet criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, i.e., you are 'likely to be notable' because you have received a well-known and significant award or honor.
I assume it is because once someone has a Wikipedia article it makes them look relevant. If there are more obscure sources (well social media isn’t obscure but you understand where I am going), people would suppose the person is “unworthy” or “irrelevant”. I know that is somewhat weird of people to think bearing in mind Wikipedia is run by volunteers who won’t always get to writing about a specific famous person quickly but still many people I’ve met have that idea, for example I have relatives who have Wikipedia pages and people are always amazed when I show them. That is why I think Ms. Grant would like one, but I may be mistaken, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
To answer the question you asked: I haven't read the sources, but for establishing notability, we don't count interviews (a few quotes can be OK, but we want to see what other people say about you).
The draft you started was deleted because it had not been edited for six months; you can request its undeletion at WP:REFUND.
Once you are sure it meets the guidelines at WP:42, you can submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. Andy was trying to say that the article would be appropriate for a draft review when the issues are addressed - i.e. when it is rewritten so it isn't resume-like.
To be fair, I think the point qcne is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that when someone comes to Wikipedia and produces an AI-generated autobiography and says 'give me an article, thank you' with evidently 0 understanding of how Wikipedia works it's highly highly unlikely that there is any substantial notability to warrant an article and that even if there was, this person is in no position to be able to create it appropriately, and therefore encouraging them to pursue AfC is just a time-waste for everybody.
Which is evidenced by the fact that OP proceeded to immediately submit their draft for review without turning it into a fitting Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
That might be correct, had they not explicitly referred to "that content ... when it would be rejected and deleted by any reviewer at AFC", since I did not suggest that the OP submit "that content" for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Please note that "making the necessary improvements" almost certainly means deleting everything and starting again.
Please start by reading autobiography, to understand how writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so difficult that hardly anybody has ever done it successfully, and consequently it is very strongly discouraged.
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.
It follows that you would start by finding places where people unconnected with you have chosen to write about you, in some depth, in reliable publications (see WP:42). If, like most of us, you have not been the subject of several such pieces, then no article is possible, and you should turn your attention to something else.
If you can find at least three such pieces, then you will have the challenging task of effectively forgetting everything you know about yourself, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources say.
I'm curious why some people so keenly want an article about themselves on Wikipedia. Promotion? Publicity? Vanity? Those are the only reasons I can think of, and not one of them is a valid reason to have an article about oneself on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Anachronist. I don't think this is really the right place for that discussion. But I'm going to have my twopennyworth anyway. In my experience the majority of people who come here and immediately try to create an article, especially about a company, are here for the sole purpose of promotion. The problem is that they usually don't see it as promotion, and they are not usually aware that Wikipedia defines promotion so broadly, or so strongly prohibits it. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
It's exactly this. We recently has a corporate COI editor say "we just want to have a page about our company like McDonalds or Amazon etc has." I think autobiographies are the same. Again, these people don't know why Wikipedia articles exist, they just know they do, and if other people have a wiki biography, why not me? Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
This probably should go somewhere else
I wonder if there's any way to stop these types of editors before they begin. Do we already have some kind of warning that they probably shouldn't be creating an article yet? preferably featuring bold red text in a popup window that fills the screen and doesn't go away until people read wp:coi and wp:verifiability. Maybe that could work? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Isn't that what Facebook is for? In any case I did forget SEO as a reason, given that Wikipedia tends to appear on the first page of most Google searches. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
If someone who has no association with you thinks you're important enough to have an article, then that person can write it. That's how it should be. There is no valid reason I can think of why you would write an article about yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I have made many expansions & corrections to the article Khondokar Faruk Ahmed and I think all the required criterias have been met. I brought this topic in teahouse days ago and many users gave me suggestions, which I have tried to follow accordingly. I will now make an earnest request to review it. Ppt2003 (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@Ppt2003 Thanks for your work on Khondokar Faruk Ahmed However the article still can not be marked as reviewed because notability has not yet been demonstrated under WP:GNGWP:NMUSIC... Most of YOUR sources are memorials or low reliability entertainment sites AND the subject still lacks multiple independent, in-depth and high-quality secondary sources from major newspapers or lemme say books. oops almost forgot... there are also tone and sourcing issues that need fixing too... Once stronger reliable sources are added and the article is more NEUTRAL it can be reviewed. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk11:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
How to find fellow wikipedians / meetups in my city (bangalore)
Been trying to browse Wikipedia to find upcoming meetup of Bangaloreans. No success. Any guidance would be great! If it is not happening, happy to revive! Swapnil (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
A page which has been on the waiting list for quite a while.
Hello everyone, I just wanted to ask about one of my pages which has been on the waiting list for quite a while, usually I have experienced pages that have been accepted or declined quite swiftly (usually declined swiftly), and I don’t want to sound impatient but what is the average amount of time for an article to wait before being added to the main space, the article in particle I am talking about is Draft:Trinidadian French-Creole. Thanks for anyone’s info and I hope I didn’t come across as impatient as that wasn’t what I intended. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Just over 2 months, then, which is still within reasonable time; especially for a linguistics article, which is a bit more niche and harder for people to review appropriately, I'd say.
One quick tip; I see you've put your citations in your section headers, which isn't proper. Read WP:HOWTOCITE for a guide on how to properly cite your sources in your article. Athanelar (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@KeyolTranslater, something that makes things a bit trickier is that drafts don't have a queue, as such - instead they have a pool, and reviewers will select them by whatever criteria they choose. It can be because they're interested in the subject, or because they have some expertise in it, or because it's been waiting the longest, or because it will be easy to review...at any rate, this means it's difficult to give a good answer apart from 'two months or more'. Sorry!
While you are waiting, though, you have time to work on and improve your draft - I would recommend doing that! An easy-to-review draft may well get picked up and reviewed faster than a difficult one. You have some comments from previous reviewers that you could implement, including removing YouTube and other unreliable sources and making sure all your statements are backed up by good sources. For example, your 'Example words and grammar' section is cited to a Weebly site (I think you meant to cite the book instead?), two YouTube videos (not usable as sources), a website that honestly doesn't look especially reliable (but as it's hawaii.edu, it may actually be good!), and an interview with a native speaker. I would be concerned that none of these sources are scholarly works - the book may well be, but you haven't actually cited the book, just a website mentioning it. You want to make it possible for someone to find that book without having to leave Wikipedia - giving them enough information that they could go to their library and find it or borrow it from another library. Have a look at WP:REFB for more help on how to cite things - and I wish you good luck and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I have also cited Mwen Ka Alé which is on Grenadian Creole but which is highly similar if not the same, I do think I meant to cite the books but books on this topic are few and far between, the YouTube videos I linked are by professor Nnamdi Hodge (who speaks the language), and some other smaller websites which are made by Trinidadians who have some knowledge of he language, I myself also speak quite a bit of it and I know I can’t be a verifiable source but most of the sources I’ve found so appear to be highly correct in their creole elements, and cultural elements, I will try to look for even more sources in my spare time and shall take heed of your response. It’s quite a forgotten language and not many speakers, I personally know people who spoke it (most now deceased), and I have been in contact before with Mr. Slinger Francisco (Mighty Sparrow) who speaks it as well. Thank you for your time however.
One last thing to add: I doubt many libraries have books and articles in the language, it’s quite a small enclosed and undocumented language (it will be even harder for me when I try write about Venezuelan French Patwa). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@KeyolTranslater, the YouTube videos are still a problem because they are not from verified official channels - anyone can upload anything on YouTube. I could upload a video and claim it was Trinidadian French-Creole and anyone who didn't know the language would have no idea how wrong I was! The same applies to small websites; how does anyone know they're correct without being able to verify that their author is a subject matter expert? I know this makes your task much more difficult, but Wikipedia tries very hard to use only trustworthy sources, which means knowing that information we rely on has been checked for errors and untruths by people who know what they're doing. Look through WP:42 for more information on what sources you can use - sources should meet all three criteria. Meadowlark (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I know, I know but I do personally know both Professor Nnamdi Hodge (who is mentioned in the Trinidadian express) and Mr. Fimber (who owns Myrote and was mentioned in the Grenada Now News site), I have spoken to them both who are spearheading their revitalisation movements in their respective countries. The Myrote YouTube channel has a couple of school courses in St Georges and a book of the same name, and Professor Nnamdi Hodge’s father wrote a book which I have now linked to my article on here. Which is about creole songs and is on Google books. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @KeyolTranslater. The trouble with that is that most Wikipedia readers don't know Hodge or Fimber, and have no way of telling either that they are knowledgeable in the languages or even that they are the people in the videos.
Yeah I understand, however they are in the public record, both being authors and mentioned in regional news sites. I understand about the hoaxes but Trinidadian French Creole has enough sources I believe to be made and recognised (I’m going to move onto Venezuelan Creole French but that might have even fewer sources which will be annoying). Interesting about the hoax articles however, never knew there had been hoaxes before. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
But @KeyolTranslater, imagine that I made a video just like Hodge's - but completely wrong about the language - and said that I was in fact Hodge. You would know I was lying, but no one else would. ColinFine wouldn't know, and he's a very experienced editor. I dare say that none of the reviewers would know. You might think this sounds crazy, but you would be amazed what people try to do in order to get things into Wikipedia articles. This is why we're so hard on making absolutely certain sources are as impeccable as possible, and unfortunately YouTube videos are not anywhere near impeccable.
Now, if Hodge and Fimber are known experts in the field, you could try putting their names into Google Scholar and see whether they or anyone else has written scholarly works on the language. Articles in reviewed journals would be very helpful to you. If other experts are involved in those articles, now you have more names to search and hopefully more good sources. Just make sure you're assessing things against WP:42 so you're not disappointed by a declined draft. Meadowlark (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You're on the right track. You cannot expect Wikipedia readers to themselves conduct web searches to investigate the academic expertise of people whose statements or writing in non-reliable media you are referencing; you need to demonstrate their expertise 'up-front' by referencing such data published in Reliable sources. This may involve a lot of time and effort, which is why writing Wikipedia articles is harder that it may first appear. Good luck, and don't be discouraged! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
In the 1937 elections, the Justice Party lost and the Indian National Congress under C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) came to power in Madras Presidency. Rajaji's introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in schools led to the anti-Hindi agitations, led by Periyar and his associates.
I want to ask if such Paranthising for names is allowed or not? In this case it is for a person, but in other cases, it can also be for organisations. Please note that I am not asking about abbreviations which I think is allowed. Kingsacrificer (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Need feedback on Draft about Indian cinematographer
Hi! I’m working on Draft:Jay Pinak Oza, about an Indian cinematographer who primarily works in Hindi cinema. I’d appreciate some beginner-friendly guidance on whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability standards, and how I can improve the sourcing and structure before submitting the draft to AfC. I’ve also opened a discussion on the draft’s talk page if anyone wants to take a look. Any feedback or suggestions are welcome—thank you! TheGreatPredator (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
On a cursory look it seems OK. Please submit the article for review (using the big blue button I've just a added at the top of the page), via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look and adding the submission button. I’ll go ahead and submit the draft through Afc as suggested. I appreciate the guidance! TheGreatPredator (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
There's no need for a pre-review. Submit it for review and if it's good it'll get published, if not the reviewer will give you feedback to work on. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm drafting my first page about an artist named Kira Somerset. I feel as though there is already good coverage and they have some upcoming exhibitions so relevant and important to have wikepedia documentation.
Is it possible to get some feedback on my draft please? -Draft:Kira Somerset
One issue is that she was published in Vanity Fair but I can't find an online link for the article. However, it has been documented elsewhere.
they have some upcoming exhibitions so relevant and important to have wikepedia documentation.
This sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia to promote this person in the leadup to their exhibitions. Are you connected professionally or personally to the artist in any way? Athanelar (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, no I'm not connected to them at all. The work is just unique and relevant. They have also been published in multiple publications already. There is no reference to upcoming exhibitions in the draft. Jamessinclair1987 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Marksaeed2024, only a vanishingly small percentage of Wikipedia articles are notable. A rare (and unpleasant) example is an earlier version of the article John Seigenthaler, as described in the article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. A Wikipedia article should demonstrate that its subject is notable. However, many do not. Failure to demonstrate that the subject is notable of course does not entail that the subject is not notable: the problem is often the incompetence (or laziness) of the editors of the article, though it could be something else (e.g. vandalism of a version of the article that did demonstrate notability). Unfortunately, there are many (crappy) articles about non-notable subjects, and these should be deleted; however, before moving to delete an article because of a notability concern you should attempt to gauge what untapped sources exist. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I am writing a book about my recent trip to Zambia, my intention is to self publish and sell it to raise money for World Vision.
I would like to include a photo of a windmill from the web page William Kamkwamba.
Do I need permission?
How do I get permission? Bob bradQual (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
In the page List of highways numbered A7, there are no distinct sections for the different countries. This is unusual for a page like this as all other "List of highways numbered xyz" pages have these sections where applicable. Should sections be added to the page or just leave it as is? ~2025-32312-50 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @~2025-32312-50. As usually with this sort of question, it's best to ask the people who are known to have an interest, by opening a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:List of A7 roads, and possibly putting a link to that discussion at a relevant WikiProject, WT:WikiProject Highways.
My opinion is that since there are rarely more than one in a country, it's not worth dividing it up; but others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I did notice that there were hardly any with more than one per nation but thats hardly a difference from most of the other lists, especially in higher numbers. But I don't know if anyone would see something on the talk page of a page like that. Would you know anyone with an interest in this? ~2025-32312-50 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The article was redirected at AFD, but I found this document on the accident. Could this make the article notable? Could I argue it is WP:SUSTAINED through possible increases in funding?
So I'm trying to make a taxobox for a new article about a prehistoric insect. Just one slight, minuscule problem though, I have not the slightest idea how :(. I tried using the guidelines listed up top when making a new taxobox, but it still didn't generate the way I wanted it to when I checked the preview. If someone could help me with this, it would be greatly appreciated. A.atokensis (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if a page on the rapper Lil GoDD would be too niche on wikipedia? He's kind of a meme, but I'm genuinely interested in writing a wikipedia page on him. Please let me know if I'm allowed to write one, or if he's too unknown. Thanks in advance! Alikersantti (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Alikersantti, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The answer to that question is always: "Only if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability" - which in most cases comes down to "Has there been enough independent reliable material published about the subject to base an article on?" (See WP:42 for what we mean by "independent reliable material").
If there has, then an article is possible - find those sources, and summarise what they say. That's it.
Maybe. Personally, I haven't heard of him, but I don't listen to a lot of rap music. If he's pretty well known in that space though, there ought to be enough sources to put together an article mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm a long time editor here. Just came back from a couple of weeks offline and I now see in my Watchlist lots of contributions from neither registered users nor obvious IP addresses. They look like this "~2025-33622-56". What's going on? Who are these people? HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
(courtesy link Draft:Hazara Waterfalls) Unfortunately the answer for reviewing draft articles is the same as it was four days ago: This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,783 pending submissions waiting for review. Also, writing the article is on the drafter, not the reviewer. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 08:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Am I allowed to copy text from one Wikipedia article and paste it into another? And keep the references. Or is that copyright infringement? Guz13 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
plz helpediting hello wikipedia nmnmn yh my sholder hurrds helpme iwant tonknow why edit is bad whattvfgfzgxu vjycgi myname is not bolytip gjhelp meeeeedeeereeeeweseswfh g 16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34041-26 (talk)
A small question, I made a personal sandbox to make a test draft if there was a Jailbreak (Roblox) article. I completed it but I want to know if I could make it a draft article? rave (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi guys, I know of a non-admin editor who is very good and active at closing AfD discussions, who I believe should be nominated to be an administrator. How can I nominate this user for administrative rights, if possible? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects22:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
What is - or is supposed to be - the rule on how to order shows in the same block that started in the exact same year -- or even on the same day? WillArms (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello.
I'm wondering if there is a preferred way to sequence shows within the same year? It seems like within each section of the template -- for instance within the "1960s–1980s debuts" and then within the "PBS" block, generally the pattern seems to be that shows are listed with the earliest release year first and then descending through the list going by later and later dates.
But where there are shows with the same debut year, how are shows supposed to be ordered? at first I just thinking like a dewy decimal user and assumed it would be alphabetical after the displayed numerical value (year) in the template, but that does not seem to be the case. Are we supposed to go look at the specific day of release and continue in the sequence in order of month and day of release?
Why does Rebop precede Once Upon a Classic? I looked at each and it turns out they both premiered the exact same day, Oct 9, 1976. Does Rebop come first because it ran shorter, ending in 79 and OUAC comes later because it continued running farther into the future to 1980?
In particular, once I understood how the Terms "PBS Original" and "Syndicated" are being used in the catagory, I realised that even though The Secret City (1985) was produced with private funds, in terms of first run broadcast network for distribution, it belongs in the PBS Original group, not the Syndicated group -- so I'm wondering if it goes before or after OWL/TV. I found a reliable source and added a release date of November for OWL/TV so now I know that The Secret City debuted (in September 85) prior to OWL/TV's debut.
Also, The Secret City re-ran the some one season of the original 65 episodes for several years following the release, but it seems like in the Template we are only supposed to list the years of original release of new first run episodes -- so just 1985 for Secret City, not 1985-1991 reflecting the years of re-runs?
I am not sure of the true order either, but if you want to reorder all the shows yourself (to alphabetical, lets say), then you can do that. GarethBaloney (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I have lost everything - my kids, my wife, my house. And the draft I was working on.
Alright, I didn't have kids, or a wife, and the economy will probably never let me own a house. But my system updated and I did end up losing track of the draft of my first article submission here. I might just make another article and submit it, but will still request help to figure a few things out, namely:
How to retrieve drafts previously worked upon
How to delete unused drafts
Also, since I am relatively new to the community and am looking to become a long-term and frequent contributor, if an experienced contributor can take a look at the edits and article submissions I'm making and provide feedback if anything needs improvement, that would be super helpful.
@Srambled089 Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your contributions I can't see any draft pages. It's possible you were logged out when you made it, then it would still be at the draft title. Or maybe you forgot to click publish while writing so the draft was never actually created in the first place. If that happened, I'm afraid it's lost. That's why we recommend saving changes to draft pages regularly or writing in another text editor.
Unused drafts are deleted after 6 months of inactivity from speedy deletion criteria G13. If you want a draft you wrote deleted you can request it from G7, as long as nobody else made substantial edits. Ultraodan (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
It wasn't a big draft, and most of the raw content used in it is on a separate word file, so that should be okay; I just need to double-check for citations and tonal neutrality, which is a pain, but it's also my fault for not paying attention to saving it. A newb error I would not be repeating. I'll keep in mind the bit about G7 for draft removal.
Source from media social of artist/singer as references (X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and etc...)
Hello TeaHouse people! I want to ask. Can I use media social of an artist (X [formerly Twitter], Instagram and etc..) as references for song/album creation? because I'm currently working on an article for a song (background), and I found the only source that support the section as a proof is the post from X/Twitter and Instagram of the artist himself. So how can I put this as a references to avoid any error? DuskSky2018 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There is a template specifically for citing tweets (Template:Cite tweet) but the general way to do it would be to use the generic Template:Cite web. However, what you're using sounds exactly like a self-published source, so should be treated with care. Only very basic, uncontroversial stuff (like release dates of albums, etc.) should have their source be a tweet. What specifically are you going to be citing this tweet for? — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, i can use this to improve my other article, but does it need to be done using quote box or just put it in the paragraph? DuskSky2018 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
oh thank you, do i need to write which the words came from, for instance, "John Doe said this song is about the birth of his first child, on his Instagram account"? DuskSky2018 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you so much for the info. I'm a little in doubt right now because there that was this long context on the artist (saidthesky) instagram acount where the he said how his sophomore album were made after he read a comment from Reddit that critcised his debut album as a straight-forward EDM back in 2018 and from there he took a different direction on shaping his sophomore album. To put all this in the article, i took the important part and put it in the quote box template which in the end, i put "- SaidtheSky on Sentiment via Instagram". Is it fine to do this? im sorry for asking too much question. DuskSky2018 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Questions are fine.
That should be OK. It's always open to other editors to change it of they feel otherwise. But it's not the main sticking point when it comes to publishing your draft, as others have noted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
hello, uh well I'm currently on improving my declined article for SaidtheSky's sophomore album, Sentiment.
It got declined because of my references citation (sorry for the subject mislead), that some of it taken from SaidtheSky's Instagram and X/Twitter because its where the accurate information of the album came from such as (background and development of the album) and name, track list + album cover reveal date etc... , for example this: https://www.instagram.com/p/CXbwGTOv7q_/ (context: ...album title were announced by SaidtheSky with a image that shown the meaning of "Sentiment" on (date)).
How to put the link reference in correct citation format? it lack of author, publisher and date. (sorry for my long sentences). DuskSky2018 (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
I think this is what you should focus on first. If you click those links they explain what the requirements for the sources are. Polygnotus (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @DuskSky2018. You don't need to apologise for being new at this and not knowing all the policies and processes. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, it is essential to learn the core policies first as it became the parts in creating and improving articles. I will study those. DuskSky2018 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
English language term vs local Uzbek Cyrillic/Russian
Hi, I recently published a new article - Uzbek Plov. I only titled it as (Uzbek Plov) because virtually many international sources [6][7] and global English language media outlets refer to the dish using that exact spelling, such as UKs' BBC[8] and Australia's SBS outlets[9]. However inside Uzbekistan, the dish is often called Palov or Osh, depending on the region. For context, "Palov" is the transliteration from Uzbek Cyrillic or Russian, while plov is the English version. I am wondering whether the article's title should prioritise the most common English language reference or its more authentic local (Cryllic spelling). I am conflicted at diluting its local authentic term, using the international common English-language reference to the dish. So am asking what's the deciding factor - should I call it as "Palov" or "Plov" or just retain the article's current name (Uzbek Plov)?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
We generally use the WP:COMMONNAME. the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). Of course you can make WP:REDIRECTs so that people who type other names in the search bar still end up at the correct article.Polygnotus (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@Polygnotus I forgot to add one thing. When I go to this article, it has a subchapter titled Palov, and not Plov. Can I assume WP:COMMONNAME also apply to a subchapter and I should rename it as Plov (English version)? And in extension, I noticed in pilaf article, the gallery presents Uzbek plov and Osh Plov as if they are separate dishes as they are presented with different names, despite those names all refer to essentially the same traditional Uzbek rice dish. Osh is just the more formal name used inside Uzbekistan while Uzbek plov is widely used outside Uzbekistan - but it's the same thing. To avoid confusion, should I give them all one name, and maybe mention on the side the dish can have different names? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I guess I will just be bold and do uniformity and explain changes in talk (for benefit of readers' comprehension). And thanks for that link - I haven't read that article in full but upon your recommendation, I am curious to see what it says now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Deleting draft
I'm embarrassed to ask this, but I created a draft several months ago for a disamb page. It got adopted quickly via copy/paste, and the draft is pointless now. I got a message on my talk page saying it will be deleted soon, which I knew would happen eventually. But I can't figure out how to delete it myself without involving a procedure. Am I able to delete it? Or should I wait, or should I request it to be deleted? I'd be fine waiting, but I feel like there's a better way to deal with a draft that needed to exist for a few days at most. closhund/talk/03:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
So for a while now I've been editing pages with lists of highways and stumbled across a county in particular with a lot of county roads. I wanted to make a draft with a list of county roads in that county but was unsure of whether or not that would be notable. Would this count as a valid topic or no? ~2025-32312-50 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I myself think it would only qualify as notable if multiple published reliable sources had already written about this matter (which seems unlikely, but not impossible if there is some unusual reason for their numerousness). Just you as a Wikipedia editor doing so would count as WP:Original research. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Is there anything distinct about those roads that could mean a source might have spoken about them as a coherent group? Like they're all built out of a different material to roads in their neighbouring counties or something? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
In hindsight I am realizing that there isn't much that sets them apart. But notice how like all the counties in Florida have lists of county roads. The main reasoning was to start something like that for Alabama (the county in question was Lee County, Alabama) ~2025-32312-50 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
See WP:OSE, the fact a different article exists is not evidence that this article should exist, especially since that other article maybe shouldn't exist in the first place. Potential articles should be weighed on their own merits. Athanelar (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Well after reading the page I see that while that is no reason for more pages there should still be a page for the counties in my mind. They can still serve a use right? ~2025-32312-50 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I think I have found a clone of Wikipedia, If I am mistaken then I apologies for wasting all of your time but this seemed kind of fishy, and I’ve never seen it mentioned in Wikipedia before. Here is the site
That just seems like an instance of the mediawiki software, which is free and open source - anyone may do what they feel like with it. I'm not sure what niche they're trying to fill exactly, but good luck them. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I’ve never understood why so many people know what Wikipedia is yet try write articles like this, or about themselves or promoting their own company as if this is a social media site, I don’t understand why. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Infobox image disproportionately large
on Bruce Harrell's wiki page, the image is oddly large. i resized it, but it looks like other pages don't need the explicit width declared, why does his page need it? ~2025-34315-48 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Some users will specifically crop an image on Wikimedia to the exact proportions of the infobox image space beforehand, so they don't need to insert the size manually when adding the image into the article. aesurias (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@2025-34315-48: infobox templates will usually automatically set the image size, but you need to enter just the image name, without the [[File:]]-part. I removed the explicit image size. MKFI (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
For some reason, often times when using infobox politician, this is not the case. I've had the same happen to me and its frustrating. aesurias (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
formal tone
Hey, the new article I wrote was considered to not have been written in a formal tone, and so was rejected, but, after reading my article, I cannot understand why it was considered informal. Can anyone explain it to me?
Draft:Battle of Varamin. Historicthebruce (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I can't understand why either, Historicthebruce. But my guess is that the reviewer didn't believe that the tone was unsuitably informal. When a reviewer declines a draft, they normally go through a process that pushes them to choose one or two among a set of reasons for declining. One of these reasons (sorry, offhand I forget which) is about the prose, or the exposition, or something like that, and isn't at all specific; yet selecting it causes that not-written-in-an-appropriately-formal-tone template to appear. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Another matter, Historicthebruce: I've no reason to think that epdf.pub (aka epdf.tips) gives a toss about copyright. Instead I get the impression that they distribute anything that anyone uploads to them, until perhaps the copyright holder warns them of impending lawsuits. If I'm right, you should not link to the website. (If I'm wrong, do please explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
To answer your question about copyright, from what I can tell, epdf.pub does care about copyright. The main reason I think this is that one of the very first things you see when reading something on epdf.pub, is a button to file a copyright claim asking for your work to be removed if it has been placed there without your consent. For example:
epdf.pub has made it very easy to at least ask for the work to be taken down, to the point where it is literally impossible to miss the bright yellow button to report a copyright violation. Therefore, I assume they care about copyright.
That said, if we feel it necessary, we can email the author of the book and ask him if he's okay with his work being on epdf.pub. If he says "no" then I won't link the cite. Historicthebruce (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
site (correction of the that last word of my reply)
How and when to link to an external site for up-to-date information
Hello, I'm new to contributing and have a question about when it is appropriate to link to an external site for more up-to-date information.
I am editing the Borg (backup software) article. At the bottom, when talking about community programs that build on the Borg software, it reads "See the community pages for an updated list" with a reference to the official list of Borg Community Projects on GitHub. I feel the use of a reference here is not appropriate. I would like some guidance on whether I should leave this sentence as is, remove the sentence entirely, or use an external link. Is it proper to send users to the official source to get more up-to-date info?
I think the prose of "See the community pages for an updated list" is definitely inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Remove the sentence and shift the link to the external links section, I'd say. Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm trying to publish an article on Paul Seligman, but there is not a lot of publicly available information of him, except what I have already linked, this is what prompted me to try and create an article.
I'd say the references added provide enough context and information regarding this person, and I do not fully understand the reasoning behind the decline of the article itself.
Are they expecting more information on the book itself? Are references that do not include direct connections to websites and articles as valuable as links? Is there anything else I am missing?
If there are not suitable sources, it's very unlikely that anyone else will want to spend time working on an article that has so little chance of being published.
There are suitable sources about his work being both discussed and challenged, what there are not many sources of is about his biography. Considering he travelled through various countries with his work, it is most likely that there are even more sources about his work in languages I cannot understand. Boyosoap (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Boyosoap, perhaps the book The Apeiron of Anaximander is rather more promising as the subject for an article than is its author. It was published half a century ago; I wonder how people writing in this century about Anaximander's Apeiron evaluate Seligman's earlier book. (If they describe it, the descriptions might go towards an article about it; if they don't, this might suggest that the book isn't notable. But see Wikipedia:Notability (books).) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The book did well considering how niche it is, but most of the people involved with it at the time seemed to be doing reviews, but these may be.... four, five.
It did introduce very important talking points to the theme considered (obviously with certain authors thinking otherwise).
The article I was getting ready did indeed mention the book and referenced the book, and if published, I was going to go into great detail with information about the chapters and the information within them.
He has a second work that is also well regarded, that's why I initially thought making an article about the author would be better guided than the thesis themselves.
The main idea was making an article that did include some of what scraps of his biographical information I could find so there was a publicly and readily available place for people to know him.
I added a couple references for you, and I think this subject is likely notable. I encourage you to keep searching, I imagine you can find more about him. MediaKyle (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much! those are beautiful newspaper clippings. What a shame that the one that could've had a picture was turned into a black box
Knowing now where he died, there may be a way of finding an obituary or mention. Maybe the universities he attended had one of those frames with the picture of all the students? Would be great, I'll get to it later today.
@Boyosoap For pictures, you need to carefully check the copyright status before trying to use it in an article. And images are not considered when an article is being reviewed. I don't know the rules around using obituaries (I know that the "Find a grave" website is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable). Good luck, and I hope you find enough info! David10244 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I am drafting an article for an american philosopher by submitting it to Articles for Creation. However, after less than 3 minutes after submitting it had already been reviewed and denied due to not 'meeting any of the eight academic-specific criteria'. However, this is simply not true. According to WP:ACADEMIC, one of the criteria is receiving a highly prestigious award or honour at a national or international level. As I explicitly wrote in the draft of the article with multiple sources to back it up, Professor Kaplan has received 6 awards for his teaching AND the Governor's Award for Excellence, which is the highest honor a Professor may receive in the State of North Carolina. I tried to contact the person who denied the draft but they are not responding. What should I do? Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
What I find weird is that there is a page for an homonymous academic which is covered here in Wikipedia and he has not filled any criteria as described in WP:ACADEMIC and has a less impressive CV. The Kaplan whose Bio Article I'm drafting has graduated from Williams College summa cum laude, was a Phi Beta Kappa speaker for his class, has a M.Phil degree from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. His dissertation is considered very important in jurisprudence and his articles are often cited dozens of times. Not only that, he has an youtube channel with millions of views on his lectures and has plenty of secondary independent sources about him online which would instantly satisfy the basic criteria as per WP:BIO: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
If there are indeed more secondary, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Kaplan, then I suggest citing some more of them in the draft before resubmitting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
What I find weird is that there is a page for an homonymous academic which is covered here in Wikipedia and he has not filled any criteria as described in WP:ACADEMIC and has a less impressive CV.WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. That another article exists on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it should, and so cannot be used to justify the existence (or conversely the deletion) of any other article. There are a great many articles on Wikipedia that are not up to standard and should not exist. Athanelar (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@Victor Zaak SaraivaHaving an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing., I suggest you keep working on your draft fix the BARE URLS Links, for guides please see (HOW TO CITING SOURCES). AND yes the award is impressive but it does not automatically satisfy the "academic award" criterion under WP:ACADEMIC. The WP:ACADEMICThe person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Let me simplify, "State-level employment awards and teaching awards, even multiple ones, usually don't count toward the academic criteria. That's likely why the draft was declined". ThilioR O B O T🤖talk11:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
There's nothing sinister in someone reviewing it quickly. Reviewers can choose a random submission, which because it's random, can be recently submitted. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, drafts that are obviously deficient are "low-hanging fruit" that reviewers (who are all volunteers and who are not assigned any particular task) often assess and decline quickly in order to reduce the backlog.
(Drafts that, at first glance, look very good are also often assessed quite promptly, though it takes a little longer to check their references. Drafts that look borderline are often left longest because they will be harder to make a decison on and/or determine how best they can be improved, and some reviewers may skip them in the hope that someone else will take them on.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.95} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
You're quite correct, there is a 'fat finger' 1 there; I tend to type over-quickly and correct typos afterwards, but I didn't spot this one – duly corrected. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
How to contribute book covers
I love books. And would love to upload pictures of book covers. But everytime I try it, it gets copyright-flagged. Can someone help me with a process to do that? Swapnil (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you (A) saying that the flagging as copyright (conventionally copyright, "all rights reserved") has been mistaken, and asking how to prevent editors from flagging mistakenly? Or are you (B) saying that these designs are copyright (conventionally copyright, "all rights reserved"), and asking how you may successfully violate the copyright? Or (C) something else? -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Swapnildixit. You cannot contribute what you do not own. And a large majority of book covers published in the last 95 years are copyrighted and therefore someone else's intellectual property. Please read Non-free content/images to develop an understanding of the limited ways that copyright restricted content can be used on the English Wikipedia. And follow that policy with great care. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I was saying that I sometimes click the book covers of the book I own and would like to upload them to the wikipedia pages of the book (Esp when they don't have it) .. and overtime, they get flagged! Have not noticed the rejection messages in great details but will be careful next time and revisit this thread then. Thanks. Swapnil (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Since submitting my article draft (declined submission) I rediscovered the Lietuvos Talentai article: lt:Lietuvos talentai.
I want there to be an article on Wikipedia (English) about Lithuania's Got Talent, I have wanted this for years, and it's been in the back of my mind for longer than I want to admit. However, I don't know where to start; if for some reason a Lithuanian Wikipedian reads this, or even a Latvian, or someone who knows about Lietuvos Talentai or knows a significant amount of a Baltic language specifically, I'd very much love your help. Guaxinim-1339 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Guaxinim-1339. I don't read Lithuanian (though my great grandparents came from there). But it appears to me that lt:Lietuvos talentai cites only two sources, and I don't think either of them has significant content about the competition, as opposed to the judges and winners from one particular season of it.
In order for there to be an article about it in English Wikipedia, you would need to find several sources where people wholly unconnected with the competition had published about it in some depth. in reliable publications. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know whether I formatted the citations correctly, I don't think I did, however, I also had a very, very difficult time finding information about this online, and I watched some clips from the show on the Lietuvos Talentai YouTube channel to verify who the host was.
And, in order to find a source on who the judges were, I did cite something from the website of TV3, I believe, so, I probably shouldn't have done that.
Anyway, I assume you don't happen to speak any Lithuanian, then? I guess it's not that weird to say this, but 6 years ago (which would've been in 2019 given the current date) I first felt sad about there not being an article on Lithuania's Got Talent. Guaxinim-1339 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Your sources on the draft are broken because they have 'Template' at the start of them. Fixing that and adding a few more sources would be helpful. aesurias (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
True. I don't know a whole more sources. I'm terribly sorry for the lack of experience, do you mind telling me how to fix that? Thank you so much, aesurias! Guaxinim-1339 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Guaxinim-1339. Your sources do not have to be online (though for something that recent, it seems likely they all will be). But they do need to be independent, and reliably published, and at least some of them need to be about "Lietuvos Talentai" as a whole, not just about particular instances - how it came to be, who founded it, who runs it, etc. Anything from TV3 is not independent: you may be able to cite it for certain kinds of information, but it will not help to establish that the competition meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you cannot find suitable sources (see WP:42), then I'm afraid that an article is not possible at present.
Youve put your sources in double curly brackets ({{..}}), which tells the software that it should go and look for a template of that name - which of course doesn't exist. As far as the Wiki-markup syntax is concerned, you don't need to put them in any kind of brackets: it will recognise a URL and turn it into a link.
But for the purposes of a citation, a URL is much less important than bibliographic information like author, publisher, title, date. Ways to present citations are explained at referencing for beginners - the easiest to use are templates such as {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, which are explained in that tutorial.
I'm afraid that very often, translating an article from another Wikipedia really means writing a new article from sratch, which is extremely difficult for new editors. 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) 11:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply. I’ve already decided to try and just edit more articles before attempting this again if I do; notability is a very important thing, and well, Poland’s rendition of the Got Talent franchise has an English article, but I also imagine that due to its (likely) way higher viewer ratings, etc… it’s probably much more internationally acclaimed, and sources probably aren’t quite as limited. Poland has, well, roughly 19x the population of Lithuania, so, to be fair, this is quite niche. Thanks for your reply, however! Guaxinim-1339 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Edit Filter Abuse Report
I know there is a page of this, but I forgot where. I try to search it on the internet and I can't find it. It has been like this for a few days. Could somebody link it to me real quick? Maybe I will remember it BoxOfThings123 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Also possibly looking for WP:AIV. A caveat though: a single attempted edit can generate multiple filter hits at the same time, and many filters track edits which are not harmful, so you'd want to look a bit beyond the basic quantity. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, why can I use 2FA? I thought it was restricted to certain users, I haven't submitted any requests to access 2FA. In preferences, I see: "Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Extended confirmed users, Users, Users who may use two-factor authentication" Anti-pro-air (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Then shouldn't I be at least informed of being chosen for 2FA? Also why me? I don't believe I have any "sensitive permissions", or does XC count now? Anti-pro-air (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You are what I mean by 'normal' (no offence). I believe the philosophy is to monitor and manage the natural rate of adoption, rather than prompting people. HTH. -- zzuuzz(talk)23:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The key word in the roll out is that these editors may use two-factor authentication. They don't have to if they don't want to, so although I am now a member of this group, I've no intention of using it. Note also that very soon editors logging in from a new device or location without 2FA, may be asked to enter a 6-digit code sent by email to finish logging in. (see Product Safety and Integrity/Account Security - MediaWiki). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Can someone help get rid of this backlog?
The COI edit requests page (Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests) has a huge backlog that needs to be taken care of. Can someone please help with that? NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
If you yourself feel up to the task of editing then you can do some of them yourself. I would start with fulfilling the requests on articles that have subject matters you are interested in, such as American Football (that is if there are any COI requests about the sport right now...) GarethBaloney (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Requesting review of draft before submission
I am currently creating Draft:Nebraska Repertory Theatre. So far, I have found 3 independent, unreliable sources, meaning that it fits WP:N guidelines. However, this is my first true page attempt creation, and I'm not exactly confident in my own writing. Could someone please review the article and see if it would be worthy of being put in the mainspace? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices18:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The best way to get your draft reviewed is to hit the 'submit draft for review' button at the top of the draft page. If it's acceptable the reviewer will send it to mainspace, if it isn't then they'll tell you why. Athanelar (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, DollarStoreBaal44. What is required are references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant, in depth coverage to the topic. Your first reference is not independent. Your second source is a routine directory listing. Your third source does not provide significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Mazzumito, and welcome! Your homepage is just a list of editing suggestions, so if you want to add more links you can add links to your userpage by creating it and then adding the link inside double square brackets (for instance, [[Example]] results in Example). Or, if you're unfamiliar with that code and use the visual editor, you can click the link button and do so by searching for the article or pasting the URL you want (more on that here). Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
In source editor, you can link the article you want by this. Example:
By 1893, all modern Pakistan was part of the [[British Indian Empire]], and remained so until independence in 1947.
By 1893, all modern Pakistan was part of the British Indian Empire, and remained so until independence in 1947. (result)
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.
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.
Question about a page with suspected copyvio
I'm working on Ejemekwuru, which seems to lean heavily on one source. I think there's either close paraphrasing going on, if not direct quotes pulled for a few of the sections on this page. My issue is that I can't seem to find a way to access the source, it's a book that looks independently published. Author and title searches aren't pulling up anything in the wiki library. The best I was able to access was the book preview on amazon.
In this case, should I just assume copyvio and remove the content? Is this source even RS? I'm at a loss here because a bulk of the article leans on this source and removing it all would nearly stub the article, which I don't want to do if I can't confirm the copyvio.
The source in question is:
Ihemedu, Innocent Ejikeme (1997). Ejemekwuru - A Case Study in Socio-Cultural Evolution. Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria: I-O Publishers
Yeah, I think my issue is less that the source is used, and more that it's being used in a way that it looks like direct quotes or nearly direct quotes are used (without the proper formatting, so it's hard to tell what's directly from the source). It's my understanding that we should either rephrase things in our own words, or use quotation marks to denote direct quotes. maryshelagh (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
For drafts, does it allow you to add "page images" onto them, or is not available? Also is it possible to add them (if you can) on mobile? rave (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
DescriptionIf your adding thumb images, just write (in source editor)
It may be worth mentioning that non-free images can't be used in drafts. If you want to use one of those, you'll have to wait until the draft is moved to article space. Deor (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Question about using many different sources in one place
Hello, I'm new here. I was using Citation Hunt and I was directed here: Santa Clara, California#Economy. I'm able to find some of the headquarters locations for some of these companies, but most of them are on the company's individual website. Is it fine that there will have to be many different citations back-to-back proving these companies are all headquartered in Santa Clara? If not, where can I find a big list of them? The government website for Santa Clara only seems to have data on the largest employers in the city, and other sources that list headquarter locations are few and far between. Roundpigeon (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It would probably be better to just trim the list of example companies, it doesn't need to be so long. Leave 3-4 of the most notable ones and provide references for those; even better if you can find a single source for all of those 3-4. Athanelar (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
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.
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.
Question about Notability: William J. Doherty
I’d appreciate guidance on whether an article about William J. Doherty, Ph.D., would meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for living people.
He is an American family therapist and academic whose work includes family therapy, medical family therapy, and civic depolarization efforts. He is a cofounder of the national nonprofit Braver Angels and has been the primary developer of its workshops. His books have been published by major presses, and his work has been covered in national media and academic sources.
Since I’m the person involved, I know it’s not appropriate for me to draft or edit an article. I’m just hoping to learn whether editors think the available independent sources are sufficient for notability, and, if so, whether someone might be interested in creating a neutral draft.
Drbilldoherty (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It is unlikely that anybody but you will go looking for sources.
My principal advice to you is to give up this idea: trying to bring about an article about yourself rarely ends well, even if you try to stay at arm's length.
If you are determined to push on with this., then it is up to you to find the sources, and come back and ask if they establish notability. Remember that nothing written, edited, published, or commissioned by you or any person or institution associated with you will count towards this; and nor will anything based on the words of you or your associated (eg in intervews or press releases). Evaluate each proposed source strictly against the golden rule.
This may sound as if I am discouraging you: frankly, I am - not discouraging you from contributing to Wikipedia, which would be most welcome, but from trying to get an article about yourself into Wikipedia: that immediately sounds like promotion, which is not permitted.
Finally, now you have opened up this question, you may find people approach you offering to create an article for money. Such people are very likely to be scammers: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Drbilldoherty, welcome to Wikipedia! There's a few possible lines of thought here. Firstly, have a look at WP:BIO, and judge for yourself whether you believe you meet any of the criteria. If not, then an article is not possible. This can always change, but if you don't meet the criteria now is not a good time to spend time and energy on going any further.
Secondly, if you believe you do meet one or more of the criteria, it would be very helpful if you could link three or so of the best sources you are aware of/can find. Check them against WP:42 before doing so, and consider ColinFine's words carefully - he is very experienced and is giving you excellent advice.
Thirdly, it's possible that one of your books is notable even if you aren't! See WP:NBOOK for more on this. If you think this may be the case, it would again be very helpful if you could link three or so good sources for that particular book. Meadowlark (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Meadowlark. I’ve reviewed WP:BIO and I believe these may qualify as significant independent coverage. Per your suggestion, here are several of the strongest sources I’m aware of.
1. The Atlantic – “Can America’s Political Divisions Be Healed?”
None of those links actually work, they all return 404/'this page doesn't exist' errors. Googling the titles also returns nothing. They do, however, sound vaguely similar to articles that 'do' exist and show up; did you get these sources from an AI? Athanelar (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. The links must have broken when I pasted them into the Wikipedia editor — VisualEditor seems to have converted them into internal links, which would explain the 404s.
Here are the direct URLs again (just plain text, no formatting). I tried googling them do and pasting the links.
Please understand that I am not intending to write and article on myself. I am just checking out whether I would be eligible for an article.
Thanks.
The Atlantic – “Better Angels: Can This Union Be Saved?”
@Drbilldoherty Three of those articles are about the organization and do not have in-depth coverage of you as a person. The interview is not independent of you.
Wikipedia articles must be based on what is published about the subject of the article. The sources you gave might be enough for an article on the organization, but they don't really demonstrate your notability. See WP:Notability. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@Drbilldoherty, as a last note, the URLs you gave changed very significantly - that's often the work of AI, which just makes up plausible source information. We have a page on why you shouldn't trust AIs; have a look at WP:AIFAIL for more information. They want to give you what you want and they don't care if they have to invent things to do so!
The best way to get a Wikipedia article written about you is to continue your life as if Wikipedia didn't exist. If you become notable, someone will notice. Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Meadowlark. You named what happened with me and AI.
To be more fully disclosing, after being interviewed by Jimmy Wales for his new book and then reading the lessons he learned from Wikipedia's development, I found myself hankering to have a page! I obviously jumped the gun. I probably should have volunteered to edit. Drbilldoherty (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Drbilldoherty, if you're interested in editing, we'd certainly love to have you. And editing is a great way to get experience in assessing whether a subject may be notable, too. It probably wouldn't make it any easier for you to write a draft about your own life or work, since it's incredibly difficult to be neutral about oneself for obvious reasons - but you'd have a better idea of whether one was viable. Of course, you might also decide you don't want an article about yourself!
There's tons of things you could do on Wikipedia, depending on what you enjoy most. Many articles need citations, or better citations; proof-reading and copyediting is always very much in demand, to the point there's a Guild of Copy-Editors; there's a whole tag for confusing or incomprehensible sentences that need to be rewritten...really, the best way to start is to read an article and fix any errors you spot. It can be very enjoyable and rewarding. Meadowlark (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.
You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.
First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. 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 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 yourself, 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.
Help improving declined draft for Educational Records Evaluation Service
Hi everyone,
I submitted a draft for Educational Records Evaluation Service but it was declined due to insufficient sourcing. I’d appreciate help identifying reliable, independent sources that meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria.
If you don't have sources, then there's no article to be made. You're trying to write this article backwards.
Some people might be willing to help you search for sources, you can also check Help:Find sources, but in future, you should really have your sources prepared before you start writing a draft, since the whole point of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable, independent secondary sources say about a subject. Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I recently got my draft article declined (again) but this time because their is a glitch in the external sources area and I have no clue how to clean it up, otherwise it would’ve been accepted. Here is the link and if anyone can help tidy it up I will be most grateful —> Draft:Trinidadian French-CreoleMwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Your draft was declined because it needs more reliable sources, not because of the external sources glitching. (although I do see the issue)
I was told the sources were fine, except one which I can always take out, it was mainly the glitching at the references, which you can only see when reading it, not when editing although other problems arise whilst that happens. I don’t think I’m qualified to do any source editing, I’m not very good at that coding aspect of Wikipedia. Thanks for your reply. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, the YouTube source for Ms. Nnamdi Hodge I have been told is fine to keep, and the one of Myrote (by Mr Fimber) but be able to be kept, but that’s what I’ve put them in the external sources section (or I can rename it external links instead) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@KeyolTranslater, I think you will run into some disagreement regarding the YouTube source, but it looks like it's been removed in the current version in any case (which I would have strongly suggested). Overall the draft has been hugely improved - well done! Meadowlark (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I keep on editing a page with the correct information but it keeps on getting reverted because there is a bogus article that has been referenced so wikipedia seems to think that article is the correct information.
I tried removing the reference but still couldn't get it to input my information. Absolutely everything that I provide get's reverted when there is a lot of incorrect information Lukeoregonpattison (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Your edits to Elder Island (band) were properly reverted because you added unsourced information, and that is never acceptable.
Now, what you are saying is that one of the sources that the article relies on is wrong: you may be right about that, but it is hard for anybody to tell. As it happens, the source that you removed was from Allmusic.com, and there does not seem to be a consensus about the reliability of WP:ALLMUSIC: ("Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available"). But the way to challenge it is not just removing it and putting in different information that we have no way of checking: it is by countering it with a reliable published source that contains that information.
What I suggest is that you open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Elder Island (band) explaining your reasons for doubting the accuracy of the Allmusic article, and (much more important) giving a reliable published source for the information which you wish to include instead.
I am moved to ask: where does your information come from? Have you a connection with the band (maybe you're Luke Thornton under another name?) If so, you should declare your conflict of interest, and shouldn't edit the article directly at all. ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Wanted to help with Page Translation for Oshrit Birvadker
Hello, I wanted to help with article translation. Came across with a Hebrew article he:אושרית בירודקר. Is this person notable? Is it possible to create English & Hindi languages for Oshrit Birvadker? if yes then I can give it a try ~~ 36Flames (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, @36Flames, in most cases the original article is inadequately sourced for English Wikipedia, and creating the article from scratch is the only sensible option. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
How do I deal with disagreements over whether a citation is needed?
I made an edit to Claims to the first airplane flight, and got it reverted twice without any real elaboration. The claim to which I added tags seems large and unsubstantiated, and even doubtful. I want to start a discussion in the Talk page, but, having never done it, I wanted to ask for orientation first.
Gangstalking, or Gang Stalking is known defined by the FBI.gov. Gang stalking has been around for decades and is also known as Stasi, Stazi Stalking, as a group in organized attacks, harassing another individual or group with physical presence to intimidate, coerce, are make them afraid. Gang stalking. ~2025-34590-09 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @LinkBoTWnotToTK, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
Your account is old enough, and has enough edits that the software will permit you to create an article directly.
However, I would very very strongly advise you not to try this, but to create a draft via the articles for creation process.
In fact, I will go further: 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) 11:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs articles to have a notable subject matter and reliable sources. I can only find 2 news articles on Gancube, one of which is highly promotional and the other one being a copy of the first article's content. This means that Gancube is likely to not be notable and so it doesn't warrant an article, at most it could get a mention inside of speedcubing. As said by Colin, it is highly recommended that you make improvements to other articles before making your own. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who choose what they want to spend their time on, it's not very likely that somebody will make an article just because you ask them to - unless somebody reading this goes "Oh, yes, that's an interesting subject! I'll have a look at creating an article on it": that could happen, but it's not very likely. (For myself, I haven't the slightest idea what "the boiled one phenomenon or dr nowhere" means, and no interest in finding out).
That's why @Versions111 suggested creating it yourself. They are right that that is the most likely way to make an article happen. But I don't suggest that you plunge straight into the very challenging task of creating an article: please see my answer to the previous questionColinFine (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @KianXBe. As I said above, the next step is discussing the matter according to dispute resolution. There has been no discussion at all on Talk:Shahrak-e Shahid Rejai, Mazandaran. There has been no discussion on your user talk page since @Paradoctor (inappropriately) gave you a final warning, which you did not reply to.
Both of you, stop edit warring, and start discussing. Make sure you actually listen to what each other are saying: if you go in with "I am right and everybody else is wrong", you have no chance of reaching consensus, which is what Wikipedia works on. ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello there!!
I made a account so I could help make wiki better but every time I try to edit something, it just says "an unknown error occurred". is it because I am a new user and a T-Mobile customer? BasicBirdy (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@BasicBirdy You have made a successful edit here, so maybe the problem is solved. If not, report it at the page WP:VPT, with full details of the device and browser you are using and the page you were trying to edit. It is very unlikely that your T-Mobile is the problem unless there is a limit on some of their IP addresses. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Ahecht Thanks for that link. That page implies that account holders here should not run into the problem, so maybe the OP started getting the error before managing to create their account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi all, I am of the belief that Eleanor Abbott is, in fact, a real person.
Eleanor Abbott-Diamond (they left out half of her hyphenated last name) appears to have been imprisoned with her husband Abraham Diamond and their daughter Ana Diamond in 2016. Ana's wiki page reads "She was formally arrested with her parents in January 2016."
A CNN interview with Ana also quotes her as saying In my case, I refrained from speaking out publicly for the first year after my release because my parents were still held captive in Iran
The first diff provided doesn't use a working link/source but it's clear they meant to use this, the website of the Hostagesses Alliance run by the Diamond family. In the about section, it says ...former hostage Dr Eleanor Abbottaesurias (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. This editor confused me because they added this person with broken references and different dates in which this person was held hostage. Guz13 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I found the information in the supporting documents. If they didn't add other false information about the dates and such, I would not have been as skeptical. Guz13 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It was rejected yesterday for lacking multiple significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. However, I believe I have enough sources to show otherwise, though I could be mistaken. If anyone is available, could you please check these links and see whether the subject’s references meet the General Notability Guidelines?
As Thilio has noted, there is a strong reliance on articles that cover his career in reality TV (which could be less researched) and not as much on his rugby career. Also, avoid using International Business Times as a source, since it is a source of press releases. -- Reconrabbit18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I just realized that IBT is considered a generally unreliable source.
I have a follow-up question: Are you saying that even if the subject is part of a reality show, that doesn’t make them eligible for a Wikipedia page? What if the person wins or makes it to the finals? I’m curious because I want to understand this better, as I’m planning to write more about the other contestants. Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It is more than being a prominent cast member on a reality show leads to high quantity, low quality news sources about a person. It is more promising to see sources about a person before or unrelated to their reality TV exploits. Maybe a good comparison is Choi Seung-yeon: she has some coverage because of Physical: Asia, sure, but there are several articles just about her participation in the CrossFit Games. -- Reconrabbit19:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
No it isn't, User:RasikaofVR. It's a biography of a living person, and therefore everything it says must be referenced to a reliable source. Currently a lot of it is not referenced. Furthermore, every assertion of what could be described as an achievement must cite a reliable source that's independent of the person that the draft is about. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I have added the citation whereever required can you please let me know if its good to be submitted for review as draft? Thanks RasikaofVR (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
In addition to Hoary's comment, please note there's no need to seek pre-draft review. The purpose of making a draft article is so it can be submitted for review via the Articles for Creation procedure, and then if it passes that review it can be published in mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You can read the decline notice at the top of the draft. It was declined not just for unencyclopedic tone but also for a lack of notability in your sources. You need to find sources that demonstrate this person is notable as per WP:GNG and/or WP:NBLP and/or WP:NSINGER. See WP:42 for guidance on what makes a good source. Otherwise, there's no point trying to clean up the unencyclopedic tone if the subject isn't notable enough for an article anyway.
@RasikaofVR Claims like "Vasudha’s concerts are noted for their chaste and unhurried, balancing depth and emotion" are not supported by the sources provided. Many of the claims in "musical training & career" are not from independent sources, including some that come directly from site profiles that Ravi has written herself. (her own site, Shaale)
Also, the example you provided here of another similar article shouldn't be used as an exemplar. It needs a lot of work and uses mostly unreliable sources. aesurias (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am unable to review the draft as I am no longer a reviewer. Someone will be able to look at it soon. No need to rush. aesurias (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you please let me know what I need to fix, are there peacock terms or the citation are not appropriate? If its the citations kindly please let me know which ones are not accepted ones. Really appreciate your help in this, have been struggling to get this right. Thank you again RasikaofVR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
As a fairly inexperienced editor, perhaps you'd be better off giving up on your draft for now and getting some experience editing the wiki and participating in discussions first. There's no rush to create this article. If the subject is notable enough for an article now they'll still be notable later. Creating an article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia and requires a very solid understanding of how Wikipedia works. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
However, it will not be accepted at present, because your translation leaves out the most important part of the article: the citations. An article without citations cannot be accepted.
So you need to put them back in. I haven't looked closely enough at de:Gabriela Jolowicz to see whether the sources cited are adequate for an article in English Wikipedia or not: you'll need to do that as you insert them. Sources in German are perfectly acceptable, if there aren't sources available in English; but all the sources need to be reliable, and most of them need to be independent of Jolowicz, and I haven't checked whether or not they meet those criteria. See WP:42 for the checks you should do on every source.
@BodhiHarp That was a valid closure; you did not put forth a reason for deletion. To nominate an article for deletion, you need to make an argument for deletion, not ask other people if they would like to. You are free to open a deletion review if you would like, but I don't think the regulars there would do anything but endorse that close. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸21:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
But I linked to a section on the talk page. It does indeed have a reason.
Should this be [[Talk:Voiceless glottal affricate#What's the difference between this supposed consonant and an aspirated glottal stop?|deleted]] or something else? - [[User:BodhiHarp|<span style="color: blue;">Bᴏᴅʜı</span><span style="color: red;">Hᴀᴙᴩ</span>]] ([[User talk:BodhiHarp|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/BodhiHarp|<span style="color: purple;">contributions</span>]]) 21:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC) - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes; the talkpage has a reason. Your AfD nomination did not. If you agree with the other talk page participants that the existence of the affricative doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, then you can re-nominate it for deletion -- but please say that something along those lines on the actual AfD page itself! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
To put it another way, 'Should this be deleted or something else?' is the entire purpose of the AfD procedure; that question is implied by the nomination being made in the first place.
The appropriate way to do this nomination would've been to say something like 'There is debate over whether this phoneme is distinct enough from another, the aspirated glottal stop, to warrant having its own article. See the relevant discussion on the talk page: [link]
Otherwise what you're essentially asking the reader to do is infer your deletion argument from reading the argument on the talk page, which isn't appropriate; we need to know why you are proposing the page for deletion, not try to figure it out ourselves, because the people voting on the AfD need to assess the merits of the argument you are making for the page's deletion, since you're the nominator. Athanelar (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
References going to the wrong place?!
Hi! So I was editing here and noticed that the references I added went to the 'notes' section instead of the 'references' section. Any idea how to fix it? Thanx so much! ScottyNolan (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The reference list is created by adding the template {{reflist}} to a section under the header 'References.' In this case somebody added that template to the 'Notes' header and then only added a single reference under the 'References' list manually. I've fixed it for you. Athanelar (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Good evening! I wanted to ask this question: what should be written in the edit summary for vandalism edits? Please tell me about this! Thanks in advance! Thanks! (XLs6 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC))
Do you mean edits where you are reverting vandalism? "reverting vandalism" will suffice. If you mean edits where you perform vandalism, well, don't do that obviously. CoconutOctopustalk18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I'll watch them for recent changes! Thanks, I'll definitely look into that, but how do you determine what constitutes vandalism (edits that deface articles)? (XLs6 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC))
WP:VANDALISM describes it as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
It can take different forms, but some of the more common are sudden blanking of whole pages, or inserting swear words and slurs randomly, or gibberish text. CoconutOctopustalk18:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Photo of a Video game on the gaming platform "ROBLOX".
Hello, I want to add context first before asking my question, I created a draft on the ROBLOX video game, Jailbreak which is partially finished (needs finishing and possibly more info). For the section on "Gameplay", Is it allowed for me to upload a PNG or other file that is similar to a PNG or JPG/JPEG still image of me playing the video game? I want to make sure that if I upload an image onto Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia that I don't want to break United States copyright rules. rave (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Game screenshots can be uploaded for articles but have to be done so as a non-free file with proper rationale. I recommend seeing how similar photos are uploaded on other game articles (Grow a Garden etc.) to get a good reference as to how they should be uploaded. Non-free images can only be uploaded for existing articles, so one cannot be uploaded until it is no longer a Draft and on the mainspace. B3251(talk)22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Im doing some work with this because it’s an FA with several (and serious) warnings. I would normally be WP:BOLD and copyedit myself but my English isn’t the best so Im better requesting to other one. Protoeus (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Protoeus, this is a list that merits the time and effort of two or three people who are better-informed about matters of conservation (and who are less sleepy) than I am. In late August, Easternsaharawrote (or anyway caused to be written) "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling"; it would be helpful if Easternsahara explained on the list's talk page which among grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling is/are unsatisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Difference between reference list and reference endices?
Can you help me understand what Hoary means by this? I do not know how to add code, which is what this looks like to me. I would like to use a source in more than one place as suggested here. I am not sure what he means by reference indices do not belong under "References". I thought that was the point? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Comment: There are three reference indices -- superscripted numbers, like [7] -- in the text of the article. As expected, each points (under "References") to a source. (I'll call these sources A1, A2, and A3.) Immediately under the three listed sources come three more reference indices, each of which points to a source. (I'll call these sources B1, B2, and B3.) A3 and B3 are the same. Was the idea that the web page "A brief history of Cabbagetown, Atlanta" would be cited at two or more places? If so, use <ref name="Cabbagetown">{{Cite web |title=A brief history of Cabbagetown, Atlanta |url=https://cabbagetown.com/history |access-date=2025-11-06 |website=Cabbagetown | publisher=Cabbagetown Neighborhood Improvement Association | language=en-US}}</ref> for any one use, and <ref name="Cabbagetown" /> for any other use(s). Anyway, reference indices don't belong under the heading "References". -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Rosemary Kimble, here's an example. In the first paragraph of the article Tupinambá people, we read that "The name Tupinambá was also applied to other Tupi-speaking groups, such as the Tupiniquim, Potiguara, Tupinambá, Temiminó, Caeté, Tabajara, Tamoio, and Tupinaé, among others.[1]" The "[1]" at the end of that is what I call a reference index. (This may not be the best term for it.) It points to "1. Navarro, Eduardo de Almeida (1998). Método moderno de tupi antigo : a língua do Brasil dos primeiros séculos. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes. [...]", which is what I call a reference. The "References" are numbered from 1 to 23, as expected; but they don't include up-in-the-air ("superscripted") indices. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Rosemary Kimble, welcome to the Teahouse! I think I can translate for you.
When you place a reference in an article/draft, you should do so at the end of the sentence or paragraph that it supports. It looks like you've got this bit down! The Wikipedia code automatically collects all of those references and puts them in your "References" section for you if you use {{Reflist}} at the end of the draft, which you have done. So you don't need to manually add any references to the "References" section - if you do, it duplicates them as superscript links with no further information, which is not what you want. Remove your manually added references from that section and Wikipedia will do the work for you.
To cite a source twice (or more), you can give it a name. You add the name to the <ref> part as Hoary has done for you: see <ref name="Cabbagetown"> at the start of the example reference? Then, to call on that ref again, you would write <ref name="Cabbagetown" / >. Note the / after the name but before the closing bracket - this is vital when you are calling a named reference. You don't put it there when you are giving the reference a name (ie Hoary's example), only when you are calling on that reference at a later stage. Does that make a bit more sense? Meadowlark (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Meadowlark, yes, all true; but I take "I do not know how to add code, which is what this looks like to me" (above) to mean that RK is using the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I have hopefully started adding more CITs including one that i cited twice. I decided not to do too much in case I am still doing this incorrectly. I sort of have a handle on doing it manually. Let me know if I still am not getting it. Thanks for all of your guidance so far. Rosemary Kimble (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
And when that happens, the new account will get blocked when it's discovered. Blocks apply to people rather than accounts, so a new account created by a blocked editor often gets blocked also. David10244 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I have been unsuccessful on my last 2 attempts. CBT News is a reputable source for all automotive news. They have har many famous business people in their show. Please someone can either create a page for them or give me feedback on how to create it. ~2025-34387-71 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
A couple of points first;
You have no edit history relating to this article on the account you're currently on. Is there another account you forgot to log into, or a different temporary account you were previously using?
Okay, just wanted to clear that up so I know whether to give COI advice.
First, your userpage User:Scyllatech seems to be a redirect to CBT News, that's an improper use of userspace, I believe.
Secondly, as is visible there, the CBT news page does currently exist, but is currently being discussed at Articles for Deletion.
If you agree, then I'll draftify the page (i.e., move it to Draft:CBT News). You'll be able to take as long as you like to work on it there, and you can then submit it for review via WP:AFC whenever you're ready to have someone check if it's suitable to become a fully published article. Athanelar (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure how scyllatech and CBTnews got mixed up in redirecting. I would love if you can help me with this page creation. Scyllatech (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the article to Draft:CBT News and added a box to the top of the article with details on how to get the draft ready for submission and how to submit it for review.
Thank you, so much for your help. I know I am asking too much. Would you please give me some examples of good independent sources that I can use? Should these sources be under reference? For example, Tesla Wikipage used CBTNews website for reference, is that good thing to have? Scyllatech (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Scyllatech You need to find sources that discuss CBT News in depth, then summarize what those sources say to create the article. It doesn't work to draft the article and then look for sources. The sources are there to verify the material that's in the article. You have gone about the process WP:Backwards. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your help and feedback, would anyone tell me which of these links can serve as a reliable source?
I doubt any of these would help to establish notability. The only properly reliable one is Ground News, but they give CBT an "Unknown" rating, which may be an indication that they're simply not notable enough at this point in time. aesurias (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@ZackOugh It might be true that the Automotive News article also does not have enough reliable sources. That doesn't mean "bias"; maybe that article was created when sourcing standards were not as strictly enforced. David10244 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Drawings of current figures have been used in their infoboxes, I remember that Gisèle Pelicot has a drawing that was even featured on the main page as her image. It does appear accurate and doesn't seem like a caricature, or done in bad faith. That being said, I'm sure a non-free image can be used as he is deceased, and the drawing is not really comparable to a real photo. I'd prefer that. jolielover♥talk09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
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.
On articles of other languages not properly displaying
I have come to discover a problem of certain articles in which there exists articles of other languages on the exact same topic yet such languages fail to be displayed in the top right 文A column. For instance, for the topic of Brown sugar, it displayed that there are no articles of other languages on this topic, when in fact, when you access it via the Chinese Wikipedia page zh:红糖, you can see that there are 40 languages on this topic, including English, though the English link leads to Sucrose#Caster. There are several other articles I have come across sharing this problem, most of which are biological species related articles. If anyone would know of a way to improve on this systemically it would be greatly appreciated. Pygos (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I would like to have my wiki page totally rewritten since it is full of inaccuracies and needs to be brought up to date. How can I make that happen? Thank you. LF Leonard Foglia (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The best thing to do is first to find a source which contains the information you want to add or change; this is essential. I understand that because you know yourself better than anyone there may be information you want to add or change from your own knowledge, but a Wikipedia article can only summarise information available in reliable, independent secondary sources with a small amount of supporting information from primary sources.
I tried to fiddle with some wikidata thing, not something that I often do, and it seems to have totally broken the infobox I was linking to. This is for this page, where I though I was helping by adding an image, something I often do, but then I noticed that no matter what I did, the infobox seemed to want to force in a website which was wrong or does not exist. Does anyone have familiarity with this who could help? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The small pencil icon after the URL is an indicator that the URL is being fetched from Wikidata.
If its the wrong URL, then either:
The article is attached to the wrong Wikidata item
I have created a Wikipedia new sandbox and published the page I can't access it anywhere in the web except in my account I want it to be seen in the worldwide Wikipedia pages included but for that I need to change the title of the page main title of this Wikipedia page it's not changing I don't know the process how to change but I've created it for an Indian film editor The page looks new and fresh This links to many of his films he worked for correcting the links of the other Wikipedia pages so my only problem is how could I change the easy videos the Wikipedia is access Please if anyone knows tell me the process I would learn it Manvith111 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Manvith111 Hello and welcome. New accounts cannot directly create articles, you need to use the draft submission process. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bikkina Thammiraju so you can submit it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Requesting help to move draft to mainspace
Hello, I need some assistance with my draft "Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak."
I have added multiple reliable, independent secondary sources (Hürriyet, Milliyet, Radikal, Yeni Asır, Sabah, DHA, Habertürk) that provide significant, in-depth coverage of the subject’s academic, scientific, and international achievements.
The draft now clearly meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the biography guideline (WP:BIO).
I would appreciate help from an experienced editor to review the draft and, if appropriate, move it to the mainspace.
Here is the link to the draft:
Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak
I submitted a new page on Sept. 24, 2025. How can I check if it's been reviewed, or where it might be in the review queue? LPFasold (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
LPFasold, your draft isn't submitted. I have added the template that allows it to be submitted for review. After submitting for review, please be patient. There is currently an extremely long backlog at the AFC process, with some 2,810 drafts waiting for review. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)03:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
45dogs, I'm confused. I put ref tags in the Sandbox draft originally. Why would they not go through when I push to submit the page? LPFasold (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I think there may be confusion on what ref tags are. Currently, your citations are superscript numbers. They are currently <sup>1</sup>. Inline citations look like <ref>{{cite web |title=Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers |website=NSF |date=January 1, 2007 |url=https://ncses.nsf.gov/resource/master-gov-lists-ffrdc |access-date=November 19, 2025}}</ref>. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)15:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
@LPFasold Drafts waiting for review are not in a first-in-first-out queue, but rather in an unordered pile. Reviewers select articles they wish to review, in various ways... by draft age, by topic, at random, etc. So there's not a concept of your draft "moving through the queue" or being at a certain position in a queue. Articles that clearly pass, or clearly fail, are easier to review, and those might get reviewed more quickly. David10244 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks David10244. That's very helpful. Is there a particular place I should look to see if my page submission has been accepted or rejected? I'm new to the submission process and don't want to accidentally miss anything. LPFasold (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
At the moment User:LPFasold/sandbox has a box at the top that says (among other things) "Draft article not currently submitted for review".
Once you believe it is suitable for submission (and I echo 45dogs that you it will not be suitable before you have converted your citations: see WP:REFB) you can pick the button that says "Submit your draft for review!"
Once you have done so, it will show "Draft waiting for review" (I haven't checked the exact wording) for a time - could be minutes, could be weeks - until a reviewer picks it up.
Then one of three things will happen. Either the reviewer will accept it, and move it into mainspace as an article, under a suitable title.
The most common thing (especially for submissions by new editors) is that they will decline it, so it remains as a draft for further work. The third possibility is that they will reject it, meaning that the subject is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and you should not spend any more time on it.
Whichever of these is the case, the header will change to show that state; and I believe the reviewer will also always notify you on your user talk page.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I am currently trying to improve an NRHP article and I'm wondering if there are possible plagiarism/copyright issues with the way the article is now. I have started adding new sections, but the majority of the existing sections are copied almost word-for-word from the NRHP nomination form. Should all copied material be deleted, or can this stay? DeishaJ (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Either it should be deleted or rewritten in a non-plagiaristic way. if it is copyrighted, it should just be removed, as Wikipedia can't hold copyrighted works. And then it needs to be revision deleted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)15:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The material is taken from a federal work (mostly, there may still be other plagiarism issues I haven't spotted yet) but many parts had no citations and some linked to dead websites. I removed a bulleted list of info after discovering it was just a straight copy of part of the NRHP form that was originally in the article without any citations. DeishaJ (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I'm new, although I've read many of the tutorials.
I made my first edit, to this article. But, it was immediately reverted.
I attempted to clarify which José Avelino is referred to in the first paragraph, as the system suggested I link the name to José Avelino. I believed adding the Bolivian José Avelino Aramayo's matriname ("Orvalle") could add clarity.
But, this was reverted, as it was not constructive.
This feedback confuses me. But, I am willing to learn!
I'm looking for resources detailing what information is considered constructive in a Wikipedia article, and what is unhelpful.
Please point me to any articles, guides, or even insights from your experience. Thanks!
Don't worry too much about making mistakes. I think the message on your talk page is a standard one, that may not have room for nuance.
The issue is that you added something to an article without giving a source, so it's not obvious that your addition was correct.
It may be you're right, but in that case you should cite a source where it can be verified.
The other thing to note is that editors often disagree, and WP:BRD tells how to proceed. If an editor reverts your change, but you think that it was an improvement it is up to you (unless you choose to drop the matter) to open a discussion with the other editor.
I see that you have replied to @Materialscientist on your user talk page, which is the right thing to do; but because you did not ping them, they may not notice that you have replied. (I have pinged them here, so they should see this discussion.) ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
It is labelled only with its 'official name' of "National Pavilion", and the following two flags in the table,"Artigas flag" and "Flag of the Treinta y Tres", are also 'official flags' of Uruguay (see lede of Flag of Uruguay). This seems to me somewhat confusing: I suggest the actual name of the country should additionally appear in this table against all three. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
publishing a draft
Hello,
I just created my first page Draft:Laramie Dennis but I do not know how to get it published out of the draft version. Can someone please help me?
I've added a template to the top of the page that will allow you to submit the draft for review. The article will be published if it passes review, but currently I don't think it will. At a cursory glance, I don't think you have enough independent sources to justify notability. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Union
Done - added the AfC template; you can click the blue button to submit the draft to review. In the future, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to submit it. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/rich-or-poor-uzbeks-eat-plov-180983483/ Polygnotus (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Dinesh Thyagarajan
button. Versions111talk to me :) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
