Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users, as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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

How to split an article

I think a section from the page National Testing Agency should be a stand alone article named Controversies of National Testing Agency. About 60% of the page alone is about the controversies so i think it is better to split that part into a new article. No idea how to split..should i do it manually? Dagoofybloke (🥀) 10:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Splitting Lectonar (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Read it and i have splitted the article just few mins ago. New article is National Testing Agency controversies Dagoofybloke (🥀) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dagoofybloke. You may want to reconsider this, in the light of WP:CSECTION. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

didnt know about that. But considering so much controversy weightage being put into the main article, i thought it was better to split. I had seen articles being split like that so i considered it. An example. NCERT textbook controversies Dagoofybloke (🥀) 12:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm no authority, but to me, splitting controversy away from the main article seems like a pretty bad idea. 1) It gives a lot of extra weight (probably WP:UNDUE) to the controversy, basically inviting fights. 2) No matter which side of the controversy you are on personally, it brings disadvantages: splitting "lets them off the hook" because it makes it easier for readers to ignore that part, AND it turns the controversy into a semi-permanent feature of Wikipedia. Keeping it inside the article can BOTH "hold their feet to the fire" more effectively, AND make everyone look less hotheaded when the controversy is over. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The obvious solution here is to keep the old section and add a {{see also}} hatnote linking to the new article, but: (a) make the section short, or (b) have it transclude the lead section of the new article. CheckNineEight (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Information Updates

I need assistance in updating facts and figures on a Wikipedia page for a federal agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Could you give some more information so we can better help you? (Including if you are employed by or otherwise associated with the agency you are interested in) Also, this is a global website, which federal government are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am referring to the US Government, specifically the National Indian Gaming Commission. Again, I'm only interested in suggesting updates to outdated figures. I work for the agency. SDP DPA (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SDP DPA, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your wording, together with your username, suggests that you may be employed by this agency, and also that you may have the (very common) misconception that your agency has some sort of ownership over the Wikipedia's article about it, and it is your role to update it.

This is not the case. On the contrary, nobody owns the article, and almost anybody in the world may edit it except employees and associates of the agency.

What you may do, however, once you have made the mandatory formal declaration of your status as a paid editor, is to suggest edits, using the edit request wizard. Please be as precise as possible in your requests, and remember that all information which you want added to the article (including replacing existing information) should be verifiable from a reliable published source, which you should cite. As far as possible, this should be a source wholly unconnected with your agency - and unless the information is uncontroversial factual information, it must be in an independent source. 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.

I also have a suspicion that your username is not acceptable, as it may suggest that the account belongs to the agency, which is not permitted: all accounts must be personal. (I'm guessing here that "SDP" is your role and "DPA" is the agency, but I may be wrong. If "SDP" is your own initials, so that it is an account which is clearly personal to you, that would be acceptable, even with "DPA" as part of its name. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am not interested in owning an article but interested in providing updates to the information included in the article. For example, number of employees, agency budget figures, and some of the verbiage included in the article. It appears I need to take additional steps declaring my status with the agency. Specific information that provides correct information is available to the public and I would provide the source once I am able to suggest edits to the article. Am I on the right track? Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You may use the edit request process(which can be facilitated with the edit request wizard) to propose edits to articles on their talk page(for example, Talk:National Indian Gaming Commission) You should first disclose as a paid editor; I will provide a pre-written message with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

I would like to know best strategies to update information on a Wikipedia page for an agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's an agency that you have a connection to, please have a read of WP:COIE for the correct process to follow. Nil🥝 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

First, SDP DPA, please read, digest, and respond to the comments and questions posted in response to the thread ("Information Updates") that you started earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the answer you were given at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Information Updates, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you read WP:BOSS before continuing mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

how do I approve a draft article?

I am still relatively new to Wiki, but I have declined a few submissions, while having provided detailed reasoning for my decline. Today I am dealing for the first time with an article, that- after a series of improvements- is ready for getting published. I cannot find a button or instructions HOW TO APPROVE a pending article. You can find the draft here: Draft:PARP7. ApoieRacional (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest directing this to the AFC Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems you had already submitted it for re-review the day before you posted this question (if I'm reading the timestamps correctly). MmeMaigret (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. We may have a misunderstanding: I did not contribute to this draft article at all. Other people wrote it. I think it is good now, I want to approve for publishing. How do I approve a draft written by others? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Refer WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing

To become an AfC reviewer, you need to meet the criteria listed on the main page. If you are not already an administrator or New Page Reviewer, you can obtain approval at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

ApoieRacional, to ensure the smooth, consistent operation of Afc, in my opinion you should not approve, decline, reject, or make official {{Afc comment}}s on drafts under review at Afc. You have an exemplary academic background which should prove highly valuable at Wikipedia and you meet the minimum seniority requirements to be a reviewer, but it is clear from these 4 edits at Draft:Victor Pavlovich Spiridonov, for example, that you do not yet have the knowledge and experience of Wikipedia procedures necessary to advise others about the state of drafts at Afc. This is neither surprising nor a reproach, as you are still very new here. Instead, for now please make your comments on the talk page of such drafts, which is the dedicated venue where editors collaborate to discuss how best to improve an article or draft. While gaining experience at Wikipedia, please have a look at the Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, so that when you do attain the threshold of familiarity with Wikipedia procedures as you inevitably will, you will then be well placed to take on the responsibilities of an Afc reviewer. In the meantime, I look forward to your contributions to articles in pharmacology, genetic disorders, nuclear medicine, and other topics of interest to you. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Newcomer tasks - arbitration?

I saw the newcomer tasks where it directed me to Pakistan Military Academy. I slightly improved the English there for a smoother flow. But it got reverted with the reasoning that I need extended confirmation. [1] I read the arbitration ruling[2] and it's meant for the "contentious topics". I doubt this military academy is a contentious topic and it's not directly subjected to any known controversy or charged debate. If you read the whole article, there is no real potential for dispute over this particular topic in terms of politics, let alone any real risk for politically charged edit wars. It's just a school to train recruits. Also my own edits were merely neutral copy edits that doesn't even add any new info or censor out info. Is that article still deemed a "contentious topic" despite it's currently recommended to "newcomers"? Just want to understand the basis of boundaries here. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Also if an article is blocked to those without extended confirmation. There really should be a template or block to avoid wasting newcomers' time. I restored my edits as the article has ridiculously written in the opening sentence that a certain military academy is a military academy. It's redundant. However if I wanted to edit yoga, or butter chicken recipe or talk about a generic high school located in Sri Lanka ete - that is articles related to India or Pakistan but have zero controversy or potential for contentious info - are newcomers with less than 500 edits also unable to edit them? Seems mindlessly beaucratic to have a blanket bans on all India- or Pakistan-related pages, and no longer understanding the point of the arbitration ruling that it's only intended for high-edit-war topics - articles like Kashmir, Partition of India, Modi and not EVERY single topic that's related to India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc. (zero plausible potential for edit wars, let alone many edit wars) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi JaredMcKenzie! To clarify, within WP:CT/SA there are two sections under the extended confirmed restriction; articles related to WP:GSCASTE, which this article pretty clearly isn't, and Indian military history. The history section fairly clearly falls in the latter, though I am not sure if the entire article should be off limits. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, 45dogs. That's exactly my concern - while I understand why Indian military history as a whole falls under the contentious topics framework, it seems counterproductive when non-contentious subtopics (like a basic description of a training academy) end up being caught in the same net. If an arb ruling was to prevent edit wars over politically charged or disputed subjects - Kashmir, Partition of India, Modi, etc - then blocking routine grammar or clarity fixes on neutral pages really misses the spirit of that decision. It risks deterring genuine newcomers who just want to improve readability, not debate history.

At the very least, if a page is indeed under extended confirmed protection, there really should be a visible notice or warning so editors don’t waste time drafting thoughtful improvements they’re not permitted to save. It’s especially confusing when the same article is featured in the newcomer task recommendations, which signals the opposite.

If certain categories (like military academies) are automatically but mindlessly swept into "contentious topic" status, maybe there needs to be a more granular approach - or some exception for clearly apolitical articles.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If a page goes under extended confirmed restriction, then people who don't have EC will be entirely unable to edit it. But again, ARBECR is a bit weird; if a page doesn't entirely relate to a specific topic, it can be preferable for that article to not go under that restriction, and instead have the restriction imposed through things like reverting. I will add invisible comments in the history section that it is under ECR restriction, but again, I'm not confident the entire article should be under protection. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. It's no skin off my nose but it just feels like inefficient bureaucracy. Personally, if I were to define the policy with aim to better Wikipedia, it should only apply to sections that actually discuss contentious EC-barred topics like Indian military history. Not those that just talk about a school and nothing more. Regardless I will reach EC status eventually and maybe will raise it at WP:ARCA. Seems I need EC status first to have the luxury of even questioning the policy. I will leave this topic alone for the time being, and thanks again for your time and response. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it more efficient to take a granular look at a page than to simply say only confirmed users can edit it? You might not think the change that you want to make is controversial but pages become protected or semi-protected because there's a history of vandalism or disruptive edits. Someone actually has to apply for the protection. So the suggestion that we should have little exceptions seems to me to be the height of inefficiency. To get to 500 edits, you only have to make 10 edits a day for 50 days. You've only been on Wikipedia for a week and you've already complained twice and suggested improvements. Could you imagine if you went into a workplace and started complaining during the first week. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Because nobody will edit war on those particular articles and you only waste newcomers who are being encouraged by the auto system to edit it. My first edit was a newcomer task. So seems like a workplace that encourages newcomers and automatically recommends tasks for them to practice their skills. They take the time to improve something, but their effort is wasted if the manager forgets to flag certain tasks in advance as off-limits. If certain articles are off-limits to newcomers, they shouldn’t appear on the recommendation list; otherwise, newcomers may lose trust in the system. This particular article is now recommended to newcomers for practice, and it was just on my list for that purpose. That said, my comment wasn’t meant as an attack on anyone’s intelligence, but rather as a reflection on what seems like an unintended overly broad application of the policy. I appreciate the explanation about why protections exist and the effort required to manage them. I'll leave this alone for now and continue working toward 500 edits. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As we've discovered, the battleground editors who have caused a great deal of trouble on this topic area will find almost every opportunity to get into edit wars. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If those editors were genuinely "battleground editors" rather than simple one off vandals, I'm not sure a 500-edit threshold would be enough to deter them. In any case, I wasn't familiar nor interested in Pakistan Military Academy beforehand however it just doesn't seem like an article to attract politically partisan disputes, though I may be mistaken. I only asked one question on whether the protection applied to the entire article and still haven't got clarity. Nonetheless I don't have a particular interest in it otherwise; it just came up through the newcomer task recommendations. Going forward, I'll probably avoid all South Asian topics in those newcomer tasks suggestions for simplicity's sake instead of figuring out the nuance on whether it applies to all or only part of the article. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

ECR is just one method to deter battleground editors. Put together, the entire arbitration process helps to deal with battlegrounding, and ECR is part of that. Most importantly, ECR provides justification for page protection. Page protection isn't supposed to be preventative, except in cases where ECR mandates it (for example, WP:PIA). Since ECR is essentially the only method to apply protection before any disruption happens, its intended to be fairly limited in application, since we would rather not lock editors out of pages. Sufficiently determined battleground and POV pushing editors do make their way through, but they are much smaller than the potential hundreds of less dedicated POV pushers, which makes it easier to deal with. (Also, battleground refers to WP:BATTLEGROUND in this case). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing yourself

I read Wikipedia:NOR, and maybe I'm missing something, but are you allowed to cite yourself? For example, if one were to do research on a topic and publish a paper, could that same person cite that?  staglol   ctbs
talk 01:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE would be useful to review. It will still have to conform to all the content policies, and needs to avoid undue emphasis on your own work. This also means it must be consistent with WP:SELFPUB, meaning that it's not enough for you to publish it, you'll have to pass the bar of there being consensus that reliable, independent sources have identified you as a subject-matter expert in the specific topic. And even then, not as a source about living people.

I would certainly try and avoid it until you're far more experienced with community expectations for sourcing and where the line of promotional editing is generally drawn. What you'd like to do is possible, if certain conditions are met, but it's fraught with peril; it wouldn't take much of a whiff of self-promotion to end up with a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

ok, that's very helpful, thank you!  staglol   ctbs
talk 01:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A subject matter expert has often spent much of their time in an environment where being a subject matter expert confers automatic legitimacy and automatic trust. In such environments, the experts have already been vetted (by job interviews, proof of qualifications, etc).

But on Wikipedia, we are forced to act as if each expert who shows up and declares themselves might be a random crank with no qualifications - because there are so many people in the world who like to pose as experts, and we aren't set up to do job interviews or requests for documents. We have to use other means of determining whose information to publish, and that is what the pages recommended by CoffeeCrumbs are part of. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Veefin Group

Hello, I am looking for help. One of my article is rejected thrice & this time there are no comments for improvement. Draft:Veefin Group. What is the next step? -- 36Flames (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same thing in more than one forum. You have also opened this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, which is a more appropriate location. Meters (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for revert there. I tried live chat however, there was no response. No worries, lets wait for help desk & next time I will take care of it. Thanks. 36Flames (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @36Flames, and welcome to the Teahouse. A little note about language: I am aware that "revert" is used in Indian English to mean "reply to a message", but that use is not widely understood in the rest of the Anglosphere, and furthermore, in Wikipedia "revert" has a specific meaning: to undo an edit. I suggest, for clarity, that you avoid the word in the sense of "reply" when you're posting on Wikipedia! ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Revert" isn't just used in Indian English. It's commonly used in other countries, esp. by lawyers and civil servants. The issue with his sentence is revert, as in to reply, is a verb, not a noun, eg. Are you in a position to revert? I will revert re your query on Monday. (But then thrice has gone well out of fashion too.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, MmeMaigret for explaining them in details. 36Flames (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I was asking for help and you only understand "revert" and that was on my reply to Meters which I was acknowledging. 36Flames (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@36Flames The reviewer doesn't have to leave you specific comments - the decline notice explains that the issue is still that your subject doesn't meet the criteria for WP notability. You need at least two sources that discuss the subject in detail in independent (ie not connected with the subject) reliable, secondary sources. You don't seem to even have one source that discusses the subject in detail.

Examples: Here's an article about Nathaniel Levi that discusses him in detail - this is an example significant coverage.

Here's an article about a party that Levi threw - the article only discusses him in passing, it's really about the party and talks about other people. It's long enough to meet the criteria but it doesn't tell you anything about Levi - this isn't significant coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello MmeMaigret, the example you are referring to Nathaniel Levi is related to Biography. Can you please send an example of organisation? as I am not able to relate it. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@36Flames

Here are three examples:

• Microsoft
• Devolutions
• SCAA

MmeMaigret (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mmemaigret for the examples. It really helps. Also, there were more discussions on WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk I got to know about notability. I did cross check with Veefin Group article as well. To have a glance, you can read nearby content around table. Closing this thread. -- 36Flames (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at most of the sources in your draft, but I suggest you see the WP:CORPTRIV guideline. Sources such as these[example of a non-SIGCOV source from a draft], which only report on e.g., an accquisition and nothing else, are not considered significant coverage and thus do not contribute to notability. OutsideNormality (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello OutsideNormality, I have read WP:CORPTRIV as guideline. Can you share a good example of significant coverage? I have checked many other organisation articles, however, not able to get one. Acquisition is just a point or a statement which I have mentioned as it was 100% acquired. Thehindubusinessline.com domain is a perennial source & it has journalist involved so it is actual & factual fact. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Significant coverage means they are intentionally telling a detailed story about the history of the company - not just mentioning it because some event happened. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, TooManyFingers. -- 36Flames (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Great explanation! MmeMaigret (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

why temporary accounts?

it has been IP addresses, now temporary accounts, why is this happening for me ~2025-31180-06 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Editor. Does Wikipedia:Temporary accounts answer your question?

You are more than welcome to create a free Wikipedia account by following the process at Special:CreateAccount. qcne (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

In a nutshell: it should increase the protection of your privacy; more info here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Temporary_accounts_rollout. Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It actually puts a cookie on your device, allowing tracking of all of the networks you view Wikipedia from over 90 days. You must delete the cookie before changing networks, or provide a history of when you go to the coffee shop for break. Overall, much less safe. It's similar to Facebooks tracking cookies. ~2025-31252-16 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31252-16 not all cookies are for spying on you. The cookie saved on your device is simply there so that your device can be identified by the same string of digits regardless of whether you are at home or in a cafe. Previously, if you edited Wikipedia on the same device at home and at a cafe, you would have been identified by the two places' different IP addresses, which would have made it easier to track your rough location. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it fair to summarize by saying that this cookie allows Wikipedia to know it's still you, while preventing malicious people from harvesting your location by checking your Wikipedia habits? Clearly, TooManyFingers (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

BLP name

TBJZL

Does it make sense to address this person as 'Brown' throughout the article when Tobi or TBJZL are much more common ways to refer him in the media. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Refer to him as Brown or TBJZL. If you do refer to him as TBJZL, I would refer to him as Brown until he adopts the name, eg Brown was born on X at Y. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME has your answer here. For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally [...] use the legal surname. If they use their mononym or pseudonym exclusively, then use that name.

If he often uses his legal name professionally, then use 'Brown.' If he exclusively goes by his pseudonym, then use that.

Also, the "Tobi" in quotation marks should be removed as per MOS:HYPOCORISM but I'll go ahead and do that while I'm looking at the article. Athanelar (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Article name

Hello! I am looking to write an article about the Sunset Fire in Idaho this year. However, searching "Sunset Fire" ends up as a redirect to the January 2025 Southern California wildfires page, where there was a small wildfire named the Sunset Fire. While I would move the redirect to have a (2025) tag at the end and make the main page a disambiguation page, I am unsure whether I should make the current redirect include (California) in the title and the article I will create include (Idaho) in the title or if there are other conventions I should follow. Consulting WP:WILDFIRE-NAME did not give me any information. If you cannot answer my question, if possible, could you point to a page that would help? Please ping when responding, and thank you, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire Hello! I would recommend a title like Sunset Fire (Idaho) and probably a "... redirects here. For..." hatnote. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

It Says "this article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (October 2025)" I read the article of layout guidelines but didn't understood what was wrong with the article So I have decided to take help in the teahouse Please, If you can help me regarding how can I reorganise the article Gamerzer (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If after thoroughly reviewing the article, you don't find anything wrong, you might wanna post a message on the talk page inquiring about if the tag should be removed. Earth605^talk 06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Only 2 sources are mentioned as references here, and neither of them are reliable. Should this article be marked for AfD? @Earth605 Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think the deletion will be uncontroversial, you can just WP:PROD rather than AfD. Athanelar (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I did that last time but somebody objected to it and said that this should have been an AfD instead of PROD. Since then, I can't decide whether a deletion is uncontroversial or not. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WAIT! What if you search for sources. Earth605^talk 19:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My preliminary search at google news shows nothing notable. I don't have access to newspapers.com Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And what about sites that are not news? Earth605^talk 07:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything reliable. Feel free to add a source if you find something. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That tag was originally placed in August 2020. The article has been massively rewritten since, then; you can just remove the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

idk how to use this

have you ever thought you knew stuff then poof its gone LOVEDOGS1234567890 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm assuming you're having trouble learning how to edit around here? "The Wikipedia Adventure" is a relatively short game you could play to understand how to do so. If you have any further questions, kindly reply back. Thank you. randomdude121    03:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

do edits by temporary accounts can be edited by registered accounts?

im just asking this question because why? ~2025-31290-55 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31290-55 Edits made by any user can be reverted, undone or changed when someone else edits the same article. Ultraodan (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

How to fix specific Info box errors?

I noticed on many articles like Old Bar, New South Wales and Wallabi Point, New South Wales - there are these errors saying "LUA ERROR in module..." within their infobox. I would like to help fix it but have no idea where to start. Could someone please explain what causes these Lua errors and how editors can fix them? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The one for Wallabi Point was a typo - merely a missing space in two places. If you examine my recent edit you'll see exactly where the extra space needs to go. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A typo? After checking both pages just now - the errors seem to all have dissapeared. I noticed you edited and fixed Wallabi Point article. Thank you. But the Old Bar article seems to be also simultaneously fixed too just now despite nobody had edited it for 2 years. Could you explain how that article got fixed just now? 😕 JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

1. I can do long-distance magic unintentionally and without knowing.

OR

2. Somebody else fixed it. 😁 TooManyFingers (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly it was you who fixed it. It seems inputting one proper formatting (needs a space afterward) fixed not just that article but also automatically fixed the other closely related articles. I can learn by seeing others do it first. If I see another Lua error, I am just going to try that proper formatting and see if I can make the same "magic" happen - or you could just explain it so I don’t have to guess and have a better chance of understanding next time. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you had seen it already.

I changed this: name=gnbsuburbPSC/>

to this: name=gnbsuburbPSC />

If I also accidentally fixed a different page, I have no clue how that happened. But a good result is a good result, regardless. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: Lately, people have been converting {{Infobox Australian place}} into a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}} and have been dealing with a number of errors that have popped up in the process (see Template talk:Infobox Australian place). It's possible that this was the result of an error that just happened to be fixed by them while TooManyFingers was attempting to deal with it. (If the message was "Lua error in Module:PopulationFromWikidata ...", Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Williams Landing may explain things.) Deor (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources

Hi everybody,

I am creating my first page for a new novel series and the issue is lack of sources... any sources. This is a self published author they started on REDDIT and people then did live narrations in their own YouTube channels but when the author turned them into a book series he had them taken down. Now the only sources I can find are through Audible and Amazon kindle. I used the website/page for his Amazon kindle page for the series as the only source and the page was denied due to "not being adequately supported by reliable sources".

His books have ISBNs, but there is not one created for the series just for each individual book and right now I am creating the main page for the series.

How can I get a reliable source or get WIKI to allow the page to get published with the lack of other sources?

Thank you for any helps and advice. Zerfear (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No sources, no article, no debate. Incidentally, anything else written by the author wouldn't be an acceptable source either. For a series of novels, you'd need reviews or critical analyses of the series. or its individual books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Without WP:GNG sources, an article will not be accepted. Such sources may or may not appear at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As an aside – anyone can obtain a 'block' of ISBNs (International Standard Book Numbers) from the issuing Agency, usually by paying a modest fee. How they then assign them to their books is entirely up to them, and it is not uncommon for some of the issued numbers never to be used: sometimes the Agency (The International ISBN Agency) will assign an ISBN to a book that its publisher (usually a private individual or very small concern) did not give one to. ISBNs are not compulsory, but they make selling a book very much easier.

It would not be usual to assign an ISBN to a series of books, unless it was a publication as a 'boxed set' or something similar. International Standard Series Numbers (ISSNs) are applied to periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals, comics etc.). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zerfear, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wkipedia.

I'm afraid you're having a common experience for people who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works.

To use a housebuilding analogy: imagine somebody saying "I'm quite good at carpentry, and I know what a house looks like, so I'm going to start building a house". Unfortunately, what they don't know is rather a lot of things that are crucial to building a house but don't actually appear in the finished product, like surveying, structural engineering, requirements for legal permits etc. So if they get something built, they probably won't even understand the comments they get from builders and inspectors.

The situation here is that you do not yet (or, not until you read the answers above) have any idea of the requirements that Wikipedia puts on the subject of articles - requirements we call notability, but mostly mean "enough has been reliably published about this subject to base an article on" - remembering also that 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.

You're asking the right question about sources: but (like surveying the plot to make sure it's suitable to build on) your very first activity in creating an article, long before creating a draft or writing a single word, should be finding suitable sources. Because if you cannot find suitable sources (see WP:42) then the subject is not notable, and doing anything further on such an article would be a waste of your time.

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, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Missing word

I think a word is missing in an area that I don't have an account.

This is the paragraph below:

Hava Mehutan, 84, is both an internationally acclaimed artist and a passionate Zionist. She claims to have been attracted to art since infancy. It took another 20 for her to embrace Zionism, leave her comfortable life in the US city of Philadelphia behind, and move to British Mandate Palestine in early 1946, soon after the end of World War II.

I believe "years" should come after "20". I saw this Woman's Mike5one7 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mike5one7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Reading the paragraph you have quoted above, I think you're right. But what article are you talking about? We don't have an article Hava Mehutan (that's why that link appears in red) and while she is mentioned in Dizengoff Prize and Israeli ceramics, neither of them contains the paragraph you quote.

For future reference, if you see an improvement that you think can be made in an article, but are unable or unwilling to make the change yourself, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest it. ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk page messages of less important articles rarely get any responses though. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mike5one7 The only Wikipedia page on that artist is in Hebrew חוה מחותן - ויקיפדיה| here at this link. As I don't speak Hebrew, I don't know whether that is where you saw the paragraph and you translated it. If you are interested in her, you might attempt to WP:TRANSLATE that article into English, assuming that there are enough reliable sources to show notability as we define that here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, accounts are global and you should be able to edit in other-language areas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm just learning to use this. I do wish to be of some help if I can. I do donate money to Wikipedia when I can, but I am on Social Security, my funds are limited. ~2025-31407-86 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; but please don't feel obligated to donate if funds are tight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears the paragraph in question is from a JPost article. @Mike5one7, if it's not hosted on Wikipedia, then it's not something we can assist with here. Thanks, Nil🥝 11:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm logged in on this area of Wikipedia but the page I found a possible error says I'm not. Man, I need to do this on my desktop computer, my phone is a problem doing this. I do apologize for wasting your time.

Mike Mike5one7 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are not logged on when you think you should be, reloading the page often fixes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources and language match

Draft:Shihan_Igor_Soloshenko

Hi dear team, I would like to create and add the article about karate master - Shihan Igor Soloshenko. Would grateful when you can educate me on sources I use and the language. The article is in English, however the sources are in Ukrainian language as the master has started practice in Ukraine. Iaroslav Dyshkant (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Referencing for beginners is what you seek? Sources in languages other than English are acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does require sources that are reliable; "reliable" is explained at WP:RS. But the reliable sources can be in Ukrainian, or other languages. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Iaroslav Dyshkant. I see you are just starting out, so I have added a Welcome message to your Talk page. Creating a new article at Wikipedia is not easy, but all of the most important points are covered in Wikipedia:Your first article. I urge you to go through that page carefully; you will find that all the most common issues about creating a page are addressed there. Questions about citing sources, including foreign sources, are covered there briefly in section § Citing sources, with links to more detailed information. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Iaroslav Dyshkant: I looked at your draft and made some notes that should make it easier to fix the obvious problems. -- Reconrabbit 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Iaroslav Dyshkant, I have tagged the first three citations in your draft as {{failed verification}}, and stopped after three. Do you understand that to comply with Wikipedia's WP:Verifiablity policy, it isn't enough to just cite some source related to the topic, your source has to actually directly support the content you add? So, if you say that he was born in Uman, then the source you cited has to say he was born in Uman, and not just talk about him in a general sort of way. You should go over all of the citations in your draft and make sure they directly support your content before you submit the draft for review again. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on my draft

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get some friendly advice about my draft article for Klippa. It was declined on 25 September 2025 because the sources supposedly didn’t show that the company is notable enough for Wikipedia.

Since then, I’ve gone through it carefully to make sure it only uses independent, reliable, secondary sources (none created or influenced by us), and that it’s written in a neutral tone without any promotional language. I’ve tried to use only articles where the company is discussed in some depth, rather than quick mentions or standard announcements.

Even after those changes, it hasn’t been reviewed again, and I honestly don’t understand why it keeps getting rejected. I want to make sure I’m following Wikipedia’s standards for companies, but I’m struggling to tell if my sources really meet the notability requirements.

Could anyone here take a quick look and let me know whether the sources in the current draft look strong enough, or point me in the right direction for fixing what’s wrong?

I’d be really grateful for any guidance. I want to get this right, and I appreciate the help from more experienced editors here. Borisandre (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You posted your company logo; are you aware that by uploading it to Commons you have released it for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution? This would include competitors. You are also claiming that you personally created it and personally hold the copyright to it. If those things are not the case, you should return to Commons and work with the editors there to adjust that information. As the logo is just text, it can probably remain on Commons once the description is accurate(if you really want to release it for use by anyone).

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubimtted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You have resubmitted it and it is pending- that's the typical way to get feedback. However, you have just summarized the offerings and routine business activities of your company; this does not establish that your company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. You need to summarize significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just telling what your company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. That the company was acquired, received funding, and has employees are not significant in terms of notability. Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

Keep in mind that the vast majority of companies do not actually merit articles- just as most humans do not. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Frankly, you aren't likely to succeed at what you are trying to do, at least with what you have so far. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Borisandre, see above; in particular, this part: "are you aware that by uploading it to Commons you have released it for use by anyone for any purpose... includ[ing] competitors" ? If you would like to retract this, you can request deletion of your company logo, otherwise anybody on the internet may use it, even make modified copies of it, make money off it, etc. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:CORPTRIV. Most coverage of most companies is 'trivial' and does not provide evidence for notability in the Wikipedia sense. This includes 'top 10' style lists, press releases about expansions, acquisitions, mergers, product releases, etc etc. I can see from looking at the references that all of the coverage you've cited is trivial coverage.

Understand that no matter how much you claim to want to create an unbiased article, the reity is that you have come to Wikipedia with the specific purpose of creating an article about your company. This means that you are automatically biased, because you are not interested in writing an article which meets Wikipedia's standards, you are interested in writing an article and then trying to prove it meets Wikipedia's standards so it can get published; case in point, no matter how many times your draft gets declined because your company is not notable enough for an article, you keep trying. Obviously, because you're here to promote your business and 'your business doesn't belong here' isn't an answer you'll accept.

If your company becomes notable enough, somebody else will write an article about it for you. There's no need to frustrate yourself and waste youe time trying to do it yourself. Athanelar (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Unable to download from Wikisources

Hi! Due to the new Wikipedia anti AI-scrapping mechanism I can't download any e-book files from the Wikisources, it either shows me a notice screen that it's checking whether I'm a human, or timeout notice, or just freezes. Samsung mobile on Android 13, tried three various browsers with both mobile and desktop settings - nothing. Is there any way on my side of the screen to solve this issue? ~2025-31427-01 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Just now I used a Samsung mobile to download a file from Wikisource, and it worked fine. My version of Android is a bit later, but I don't think (?) that that should matter for this.

I wonder what else could be different between our situations. (I used Firefox in its beta version; I'll go try some other browser now.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried the Samsung browser ("Internet"). On it, I'm not logged in. I was still allowed to download a file with no problems. (But my IP address would be the same, so maybe I got exempted from the check.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I need a template to store all of my badges earned in The Wikipedia Adventure on my user page

i tried the table template but it didn't work DiamondCat22 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

DiamondCat22, Did you try this one: {{Userbox table userbox}}? If not, try it; if so, what went wrong? Describe your problem, or link to a page where it broke. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

could you try it on my user page DiamondCat22 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. DiamondCat22, do you like it? You can adjust the look and feel by playing with the |extra-css= param. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

How do i find pages to edit?

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, And yet i feel like i cannot find a place to edit,I would like to know if there was anyway to know that areas of an article need to be edited on your own. (In a Nutshell : I´m asking for a guide of how to tell which parts of an page to edit) - TheHeartAcoustic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

An easy way to find pages to edit are to seek out pages with maintenance tags or other issues. See WP:MAINTENANCE for info and Special:SpecialPages#Maintenance reports for pages with known issues. A guide for how to tell what needs editing might be Help:Editing. — Rtrb (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

- Find any page about something that interests you.

- While reading, if you find something that needs improving, go ahead!

- If it's something that you don't know how to fix, look in the Help or the Manual of Style, or ask at places like this. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TheHeartAcoustic, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for wanting to improve existing articles, rather than plunging straight into trying to create a new article! We need people to be willing to do that.

Generally I would answer that by asking, "Well, what on the page could be improved?"; but I guess you haven't been here long enough to answer that.

Two pointers that might help you:

• The task center talks about kinds of editing you might do, rather than pointing out where in an article to do them.
• People often tag articles with templates like {{citation needed}} or {{copy edit}} in particular places in the article. If you go to Category:Clean-up categories, you can drill down to a particular month and a particular kind of problem tag, for example Category:Articles with weasel words from October 2014 or Category:Articles lacking sources from May 2024, and go from there to the tagged articles.

ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rtrb @TooManyFingers, Thank you all for the tips! I´ll get to looking after lunch and during my Study Period! Juno, (IT/THEY) Juno, (IT/THEY) 17:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Double Signature, Sorry. Juno, (IT/THEY) 18:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hazbin Hotel Fan Songs

Why do we not have a page for fan songs for Hazbin Hotel, specificly Upside Down. We need to make them. ~2025-31457-11 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To make that page, we'd need to see which reporters have written major articles about the songs, or major articles about Hazbin Hotel where a big chunk of the article is about the songs. AND the articles have to be ones that were published by an organization that has a paid editor who fact-checks and approves every article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we likely don't. Unless the song is significantly notable by itself with extensive third party coverage, it doesn't need an article and likely will never have one mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? I'm good. Aesurias (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Template for user-specific stats

Hello. I want to make an automatically changing service award topicon template, however to do this, I would need a template that can automatically check someone's edits and days registered (like what TM:NUMBEROF does but user-specific). Is there any template that can do this? dot.py (alt) 22:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about song pages

I saw some song pages, and I wondered how many views a song needs to have in order to qualify for a page. this is for future reference. Cakey-P (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Cakey-P. The views that a song has doesn't immediately state whether it should have an article, but rather if it is notable or not. I would suggest checking WP:NSONG to tell if the song is notable. dot.py (alt) 22:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cakey-P: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability standards for songs can be found at WP:NSONG--note that the number of "views" it gets is essentially irrelevant to these standards. Has it won major awards? In anybody independent of the artist or their label or their management writing about the song (on its own, and not simply in the context of the artist or an album on which it appears)? Has it appeared on any major charts? Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and without proper references to independent reliable sources, there isn't really anything upon which we can base an encyclopedia article, number of views notwithstanding. Hope this helps. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 22:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

i was just wondering because I wanted to add some pepoyo songs and I was wondering the rules Cakey-P (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

(more specifically, rakuraku anrakushi as it has 17 million+ views on youtube and warranted the creation of an animation meme) Cakey-P (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cakey-P: Yes, I see that there seems to be quite a following, but that alone doesn't necessarily make a subject notable (in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term) enough to qualify for an article here. I did just a bit of poking around, and in my initial searches, I didn't find any great sourcing for a potential article on Rakuraku Anrakushi in particular or on Pepoyo in general.

Speaking more generally, creating a new article is actually one of the hardest tasks to do on Wikipedia, and one which has frustrated many a new editor, because more often than not they try to write it WP:BACKWARDS--they write a bunch of stuff then try to find the sources for it, rather than starting with good sources (assuming they even exist) and building the article from there. I'm not trying to be discouraging here, but for newer editors I strongly recommend hanging around for a while, reading up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures, doing smaller edits to existing articles and other smaller tasks, and generally getting accustomed to how things work around here before embarking on something bigger like creating new articles. --Finngall ^talk 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll be able to find sources, seeing as I already know tons of information on the song and have some sources memorized. I'm also good at Wiki coding, seeing as I'm an extremely active Wiki fandom user. Cakey-P (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Cakey-P, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Bear in mind that the sources you use to establish notability must each meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you're a fandom wiki user I feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is a lot more strict on sourcing than most other wikis. Additionally, if your source is a wiki then it doesn't count mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox citation

How do you add a citation on a infobox or is it not possible? rave (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @RaveCrowny! It is possible, it just uses source editor in infoboxes. See this page about footnotes for information that should help. Cheers, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, content in the infobox should also be in the body, which is where, in such cases, the citation belongs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

See Citing sources, useful for beginners Versions111^{talk to me :)} 14:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:The Alibi (TV series)

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Alibi (TV series)

I got a comment that says it's a hatnote? This isn't a duplicate to the film The Alibi. So how can this be accepted? What is your advice? ~2025-31580-53 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! The hatnote comment is just a note for if/when it becomes an article, so that the person doing that knows to put a note on it and on the film article so that people who are at the wrong one can go to the right one. Nothing that prevents the article from being accepted!

Instead, the article was declined due to a lack of significant coverage by independent sources. As the reviewer said, the best thing you can do is wait for a bit, and resubmit when the series airs if there are more independent articles about the series (such as reviews).

There's also a note about LLM use--in case you didn't know, we strongly discourage people from using LLMs to create Wikipedia articles due to frequent errors and copyright violations. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Ava Max - Don’t Click Play (song) is officially a single and I need someone to add it.

Hi. I just received news that Ava Max’s 2025 song Don’t Click Play was officially released as a radio single after being sent to German radio. Could you please add the article? Here is the source: https://www.energy.de/news/ava-max-mit-dont-click-play-im-energy-new-hits-friday MusicwikiNerd (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

MusicwikiNerd, you want somebody else to add a morsel of information to an article. But you don't name the article. Whatever the article is, it will have a "talk page". (In the same way that for Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band there is Talk:Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band.) Go to the talk page of the article, and make your request there. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I read it as he is asking someone make a new article. He doesn't say "add it to the article" but "add the article". So the answer I guess is check if it's notable and add it yourself, no one will do it for you Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MusicwikiNerd, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing an article for Wikipedia is neither quick nor easy, so the chances of somebody doing so just because you ask are ... remote.

Furthermore, the fact that it was "officially released as a radio single" has close to zero relevance to whether or not it meets our criteria for notability, and hence whether or not it is possible to write an acceptable article about it.

The reason I say "close to zero" and not "zero" is that it makes it slightly more likely that somebody wholly unconnected with the song, the band, or their producers, will have written a piece about it in a reliable source - that being essentially the minimum requirement. I'm not sure whether or not energy.de counts as a reliable source, or whether that piece is an independent source; but even if it is both of them, I doubt that it has significant coverage of the song, and so I don't think it helps to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

one of these days I want to find one of these maybe notable requests, make an article or one related to it and get it to good article status. I want t be that close to zero lol mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mgjertson, you may enjoy looking through requested articles! Meadowlark (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for help with Renishaw Hills article

Hello all - I’m working on the article “Renishaw Hills” (link: Renishaw Hills), which was recently voted to 'keep' in an AfD, and I would appreciate assistance from editors with experience in South African developments and real-estate/residential topics.

Areas I need help with:

• Enhancing structure and neutrality: balancing developer information with critical/independent perspectives.
• Improving readability and classification (infobox, categories, links to related topics).

Any contributions - edits or suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks in advance for your help. Van1985 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Van1985, the AfD suggests to me that what must come first is a successful search for good sources. From there, the article is re-created "backwards". Few people are likely to want to do this; you probably have to embark on it yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Bisa buatkan Saya article tentang Opposition Indonesia

bisa buat artikel tentang Opposition Indonesia Masyundai (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Try asking at WT:WikiProject Indonesia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Where to get people to get concensus?

Hi

I am trying to get concensus regarding South Vietnam's status as a "Satellite state of the United States". I have asked three people on their talk pages but I do not know how to else get concensus? Is there a page I can go to for "requests for concensus" or something similar?

Thanks

-~~~~ Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, either the talk-pages of Satellite State or South Vietnam would be where I would go. It is actually mentioned in the Satellite state article..."... some countries in the American sphere of influence, such as South Vietnam during 1964–1973...", but that has a "citation needed" tag. Try not to get into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory though. Lectonar (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Was unaware of the 2nd - I'll fix that Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You can try WP:3O, or post a notice on the talk page of relevant WikiPojects (which should be listed on the talk page of the article concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Hey

I saw other users with multiple pages. How do I do that? Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Starlet147. Do you mean user subpages? You can create subpages of your user page by just going to, for example, User:Starlet147/My new subpage and creating the page.

Let me know if you mean something else? qcne (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks. That's what I meant. Do I have to give it a designation or something? Starry~~(Starlet147) 00:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You can choose whatever title of the subpage you want. qcne (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft rejected. How do I edit to resubmit?

Draft rejected. How do I edit to resubmit? LJBCrackenthorpe (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Follow the advice already given to you in the rejection notice. - Walter Ego 14:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@LJBCrackenthorpe Is this regarding Draft:Katherine La Fevre? Just press the Edit button on the top of the page and improve the draft, then click Publish changes to "save" the changes you made then click Resubmit to re-submit the draft for review. qcne (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, try this -

Just press the Edit button on the top of the page and improve the draft, Follow the advice already given to you in the rejection notice then click Publish changes to "save" the changes you made then click Resubmit to re-submit the draft for review.

I'm not being sarcastic, not at all. - Walter Ego 14:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent topic summary, Walter Ego. +1 —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

How do I prevent vandalism to articles? Seussfanlover (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are particular articles where you want to focus your efforts, you can add them to your watchlist; checking your watchlist will enable you to keep an eye on recent edits to articles on the list, which makes it relatively easy to identify and revert any vandalism that shows up. Another option is to check Special:RecentChanges, which shows the most recent edits across the whole wiki, and see if any edits there need to be reverted. (Admins are also able to implement page protection as a preventative measure, but for a non-admin like you or me, simply watching for and reverting vandalism is probably your best bet.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean on Wikiquote, but thanks anyway! Seussfanlover (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Seussfanlover You'll get better advice at q:Wikiquote:Village pump. qcne (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The same applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're one to talk about preventing vandalism when you've engaged in vandalism yourself, as you did with this edit, which added false/inaccurate information. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed contributions list

Wanted to go through my recent contributions, but noticed that I can't find the Contributions link at the top. Nor at the bottom. Nor anywhere. Am I missing something, or is it some new change to chase away IP editors? ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That edit was the first saved from your new account, which is not linked to any previous (e.g. IP) account you may have had. It will be visible at Special:Contributions/~2025-31679-71. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You mean that I have been just stripped of all contributions I made over the years? ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, this seems to be the case. Goodbye everyone. ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that we encourage you to create a free account. I'll note that even looking at your current IP address, it has no other contributions other than this thread, which suggests your IP address has changed (which they often do), so your contributions would no longer have been linked any way. qcne (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I pay for a static IP address which hasn't changed in the past 7 years - and it hasn't changed today either when I look at it. When I look at the privacy policy, that free account of course comes with the usual caveats: shared with all partners, only select partners' privacy policy is available, and of course, it is stipulated that it is impossible to protect my data.

I have had no problem with protecting my privacy so far on WP. I doubt that giving away more of my info to the company would improve this situation. ~2025-31781-98 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Shrug. Hope you decide to stay as a temporary account and continue to contribute. qcne (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Was that from Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy or something else? Anyway, sure, that is the same as when you were an IP, but one difference is that people like me won't know your IP and probably approximate location just by looking/clicking on your sign here. That may be of zero importance to you, but not necessarily to others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You'd have more privacy with an account than you ever did as an IP editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the attribution and credits for the edits I made over the years, everything that was removed, for some "extra privacy" that I never asked for. And also about all the bullcrap all of you keep writing "your IP has never made any edits" (which is an outright lie), "your temporary account will keep the new contributions" (so far there were 2 in this thread, I wonder if this will be the third), "if you give out your email address to a million random companies that's the same as not giving it out, so you could just give it to us"...

I'm not even sure why I'm writing. All the best for all of you, I hope at least you enjoy removing all my attributions, and whoever had this excellent idea will get a raise. ~2025-31807-44 (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If it brings you any comfort, do note that this isn't exactly a popular change and the majority opinion when it was initially "discussed" was that it was a bad idea mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you would have more privacy with an account than you ever did as an IP editor. I'm sorry that I'm unable to say so in language more clear to you than I already used.

I have removed nothing of yours, and neither has anyone else, as has already been explained to your by others. I don't recall ever writing "your IP has never made any edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think "your IP has never made any edits" is in reference to Qcne stating that earlier, presumably he hadn't checked Legacy IP edits, which does display the edits that the user is presumably referring to(hope I'm allowed to note that without actually stating the IP).

~2025, if you can remember any of the pages you edited on,(won't list any since that would link you to your IP which I'm not allowed to do) you can check that page's history and see the contributions from your IP address from before TAs were rolled out. I'll also note that you don't need to provide an email address, which is presumably what you take issue with regarding making an account. It just makes it easier to recover your account if you lose access to it somehow. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You also don't need an email address for a Wikipedia account - you can get a password reset sent to an email address attached to your account, but you'll often see people here and on the help desk who've forgotten their password and didn't set up an email. If you're confident in remembering your password it's completely unnecessary. Meadowlark (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You should still be able to access your previous contributions by navigating to Special:Contributions and manually entering your IP address into the search box. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31679-71 It's a actually to protect their privacy, see WP:TA. You can still look at stuff like [3], but you can't edit "from" your usual IP, so to speak. In short, the WMF did this because their lawyers said they should (or must). And in the light of various law suits in India and a lot of attention from the American right etc, it seems like a reasonable idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Btw, fellow Teahousers, I'm also told that TA:s can be pinged and "thanked" (you know what I mean). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31679-71, relax, all your old contributions are still there. Wikimedia has just rolled out Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, and I can see the IP address behind your temp account and all the contributions you did, because certain activities I engage in (like vandal-fighting) requires the ability to see IP addresses. Now, this feature was just rolled out a few days ago, and I am not sure how to explain to you how to see your old edits yet. But you will probably have better luck just asking that question directly at WT:Temporary accounts. When you find out how to do it yourself, please come back here (if the thread isn't archived) or to my Talk page, and let me know how it worked out. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ping: User:~2025-31679-71. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot How about "Go to the edit history of a page you edited, find an edit you did and click on the link that is your IP-adress." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of anti-vandalism tools?

Is there some essay somewhere providing a neutral comparison of Twinkle, UV, Huggle, AntiVandal, and so forth? I've been using Twinkle but was just granted rollback so there are probably some more efficient options now, and I was hoping for a single advice page comparing the benefits of each. If a dedicated page doesn't exist, a link to a discussion where someone has compared them in some depth would be much appreciated. lp0 on fire () 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I would also be interested in a comparison like this, but from my own experience I've enjoyed trying out each tool and seeing which I like using the most.

Most of them work well together, for example I use Twinkle for reporting things/welcoming/warning etc.

RedWarn (UV) for quickly reverting bad edits if I happen to see them in a page history or through a user's contribs page.

AV for most of my patrolling and reverting.

Another side note: I think RedWarn (UV) and Twinkle automatically take advantage of the rollback right and they automatically use that if you're granted it as it's much faster, so they're still fast and efficient. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I believe UV uses rollback for users who have the right, but Twinkle doesn't. lp0 on fire () 23:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As someone who primarily edits Wikipedia on an iPad, secondarily on a Mac, I've thought about creating a page summarising the various tools and device/operating system compatibility. I'll just add this to my never-ending todo list. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be very cool and I'm probably far from the only one who would appreciate it. lp0 on fire () 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I use UV for warnings on mobile and desktop, and Twinkle for welcoming/AIV reports. They work pretty well together. jellyfish ✉ 00:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume you've seen WP:AVT? Not exactly in-depth, but I'm not sure what you're expecting. Personally, like many experienced users I wouldn't be without WP:POPUPS. It also works in combination with other things. I also suggest just seeing what works for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Maconaquah consolidation

My brother graduated from MHS in 1965, the old building in Bunker Hill. I started 1966 in the new building MHight1 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. This board is for asking questions related to using Wikipedia. Are you asking a question? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I need some help it involves specialized Mathematics and Physics

I have created something called "The Spectral Barrier Theory". It claims to solve not one, not two but three Millennium Prize Problems. I need help on determining if it is correct or not, math anyone can verify however as I have used my theory in physics. Now, I am unsure what to do. Please respond

[4] Branden Friend (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't a general help desk. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi it said ask a question Branden Friend (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My question was am I correct in my way of doing this or is it wrong? Branden Friend (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This board is to ask questions about using Wikipedia. You could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe then my question would be as to where to go here to speak to an expert In mathematics and physics then. Branden Friend (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for the help, I will go there now. I deleted my question and assumed it was not reply able any longer. sorry it has taken this long to reply back to you. I was writing a User talk subject on my account. Branden Friend (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Branden Friend, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that what you have written on your User talk page is not suitable for there, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.

Your user talk page is primarily for people to talk to you about building and editing Wikipedia.

Your user page is where you can share things for yourself - but only a limited amount is acceptable that is not directly about building and improving Wikipedia. Please see User pages. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As you have clearly stated, I may at my own discretion choose what the things personally about me that are chosen so I have chosen the English alphabet and will remind you my freedom of speech is above your policy and de facto Laws, I my not silence a private company nor may it me in any form or any way, That's correct I know my rights as an American Citizen and I have High expectations that those are honored in all things that deal with my speech and expressions. thank you. Branden Friend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, and you'll find that it applies only to congress. A private company (such as a newspaper) cannot be compelled to carry your speech, and neither can Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is perfectly within its rights to restrict your speech at will, if your speech isn't permitted by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you have no recourse to the law, because the law doesn't apply. If you want freedom of speech online, then you are free to set up your own web server to host it. That's what freedom of speech means. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

haha, I deleted it for you... So, Volunteers I take it correct? I know how most try to keep the Disk space low and so forth, but I would like to say a few things. Just not to start a debate or lengthy argument as I am very busy still. When I sign up , click the agree to click wrap so I can access something anywhere here online, My constitution is what that contract bows to, clearly You yourself here on this site are not the private company or entity who owns this site, you are more of a friendly suggestion and helpful router rather than someone who says what I can and cannot do, the contract does that which I have agreed to so thank you I did delete what you complained about and I will try as I learn to properly do things until then Have a nice day. Branden Friend (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. As far as I'm aware, despite Wikipedia being a volunteer project it is still "owned", it just so happens that the owners let us make the rules since we're a volunteer led project mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, @Branden Friend - our userpage policy for your perusal. I'm not sure if you're asserting that the American constitution overrules Wikipedia's policies, but if so you'll also be interested in WP:FREESPEECH. That page also goes into a bit more detail on who owns and controls Wikipedia, if that's something you're curious about. Meadowlark (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This person has no expertise in this field??? odd ?? either way I have it published, time stamped and all already so thanks anyways. Branden Friend (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I do indeed (as I told you on my talk page) have no expertise in the field of mathematics or physics. I do, however, have a great deal of expertise when it comes to Wikipedia, which is why the answer I gave you above, in response to your supplementary question, is the correct one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Lorenz Attractor

Hi, i am new to the editing community and had my page on the Lorenz attractor taken down as a content fork? i think it would be useful to add this as a page as it is here: Lorenz attractor - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here: Lorenz attractor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, could somone explain why? also if it is possible could i have some help making this page if it is determined that it should be a page JG qwerty (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If you split out the Lorenz attractor from the Lorenz system article, what would there be left? Yes it was a content fork, because we already have an article that covers the content. If you want to split it out, go to Talk:Lorenz system and propose a split. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@JG qwerty The original article from 2012 was moved to Lorenz system and "Lorenz attractor" became a redirect at that time. I don't think it likely that you will obtain a consensus to put it back at that title but you can certainly try. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You'll notice that our article on Lorenz systems (which is what a reader will find if they go looking for Lorenz attractor) has been flagged as overly-technical for a typical reader. If you drafted an article on Lorenz attractors because you felt the main article is too technical, you might do better to see if you can improve the main article. Do discuss changes on the talk page. Changes in mathematical articles, especially changes intended to make them more understandable, are often very controversial. Elemimele (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

How to read inside an article?

I would like to know how I can see behind the articles, like where the text is being stored and why the pictures are able to be showed? Anajlizzler (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The text you are referring to is called wikitext (or, 'wikicode'). You can view it by clicking the tab at the top of the page that is labeled, 'Edit source' (sometimes labeled, 'View source'). If you are using the Visual Editor (the default) then you may have to enable the source editor in Preferences > Editing first to see that tab; under section 'Editor', choose 'Show me both editor tabs' in the drop-down, then hit the Save button. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anajlizzler If you are interested, there's much more detail about the software which runs Wikipedia MediaWiki here. You could even install it on your own server. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Reporting of vandalism and submit user to block from more edits

If a user has already received multiple vandalism warnings up to level 3 (using {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}) from different editors and continues to vandalize, what is the correct next step to prevent more vandalism ? Magiciandsrk (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

My usual practice would be to give them a level 4 (final) warning, and if after they've had a chance to see it they vandalize again, go to WP:AIV. Perception312 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responds, is there a way to know, when they have seen the warning/messages? Magiciandsrk (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If you see them edit after they've received the notice, then you know they've seen the notification either at or before the time of that edit (but see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). The above is of course the canonical response. I would add something to consider: warning templates can be inappropriate, disproportionate, uninformative, and mistimed. Sometimes they just don't make sense. Just talking to the user in plain English sometimes works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In my view, especially for blatant and deliberate disruption (as opposed to good-faith incompetence), four levels of warning aren't necessary. If they're ignoring the first three warnings, they'll ignore the fourth one too, so I just issue a block. This is on a case by case basis, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It really depends. The normal progression is to go through the warnings 1-4 and then escalate to AIV or ANI etc, but if somebody's displaying overtly vandalistic or WP:NOTHERE behaviour then just go right to the noticeboard and let admins be the judge; that's basically what 4im warnings are for.

Warnings are intended to dissuade people who are acting in good faith but not doing the right thing. If somebody's not acting in good faith (i.e., productively engaging after the first one or two warnings) then multiple more warnings are no good anyway. Athanelar (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Substacks

I made an edit quoting from Paul Krugman's Substack, and my edit was reverted because a Substack is considered a blog. I suggest that Wikipedia reconsider its policy. I understand that any crank or crackpot can start a blog, but these days, many professional journalists, even if they are not Nobel Prize-winning economists, have left the mainstream media to publish Substacks. But how can Wikipedia distinguish reputable sources such as Krugman from cranks and crackpots? How about allowing Substacks as sources if their writers have a Wikipedia page? That way readers can check who the writer is and evaluate his or her worth as a source. Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussions about changing policy. Start a discussion on WP:RSN first to discuss the specific source you wanted to add, to get a consensus of whether it's reliable. For policy changes, you would start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus In some circumstances, it is acceptable to use self-published blogs as sources, provided that the author is an expert in the relevant field. However, Wikipedia has a higher standard for claims about living persons; third-party self-published sources are never acceptable for such claims (WP:BLPSPS). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Policy already allows the blogs of reputable experts to be cited in certain circumstances; and those of any article subject to be cited in attributing their own speech to them. If you believe your edit meets those criteria, please follow our dispute resolution procedure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing an Advertisement

I'm working to improve the history section of a small town in Canada. Reliable sources are limited about some episodes, but I've found a newspaper advertisement that at least establishes the existence and purpose of one of the main developers. My questions are:

1. Is this an acceptable citation for the purpose of establishing the basic fact of the developer's existence?
2. If so, how should it be cited (I didn't find an obvious template)?

Thanks!

Benfwilliamson (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! This probably is an acceptable citation. I am not entirely sure and experienced with citation guidelines. Just click the Citation button at the top, along with the text options ans font when editing, and paste the link of your desired cited website. I am not very experienced with this, so if this does not work, other more proficient editors may help you.

Much thanks, SpiritEdit SpiritEdit (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If it were more recent ad, it wouldn't be a great idea. However, given the age of the newspaper, using it as a source would not be perceived as inadvertently advertising the company (imo). Best of luck :) Aesurias (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest the {{cite news}} template, with the google books link as the url. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm dubious, but it depends how you're using it. We are a tertiary source. When we write about the history of a place, we don't do so as historians, investigating history. We summarise the work that real historians have done, which is often finding primary sources that build up a picture of a place's history: the historian will have written up his/her work in a secondary publication, which we cite. Discovering that a developer existed by locating and interpreting adverts in old newspapers is the work of a historian, and the adverts are probably primary sources. Elemimele (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Elemimele, thanks for the comment (and thanks to the other commenters too!). I'm dubious about this source too, and consideration of your point is exactly why I asked here. There are offline sources for this topic (physical archives of the paper of record and an out of print book), but it would be nice for verifiability to include something that readers can click on. I'll think some more about how to improve the article while avoiding WP:SYNTH and properly applying WP:PRIMARY, which does permit primary sources for some purposes. Benfwilliamson (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Benfwilliamson: As an aside, you can link directly to policies using double brackets like this: [[WP:SYNTH]], which displays as WP:SYNTH. The method you used linked to a redirect and requires an extra click to get to where you meant to link. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to move draft to article space

Hello! I have created a user draft at User:Humayunnpeerzaada and would like it moved to the main article space as Humayun Niaz Ahmed Peerzada. It is a neutral biographical article, written in English and Hindi, and is linked with Wikidata entry d:Q136722034. Kindly review and assist. Warm regards, Humayunn Peerzaada Humayunnpeerzaada (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Humayunnpeerzaada. This would be a totally inappropriate for mainspace. It is a resume/biography, which we do not host on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

When you have addressed the issues described above, please submit the draft article (which I have moved to Draft:Humayun Niaz Ahmed Peerzada) 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 edits 11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Andy, it is unhelpful to suggest submitting that content for review when it would be rejected and deleted by any reviewer at AFC. qcne (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read my posts before replying to them, lest you further embarrass yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you stop giving bad advice at the Teahouse. qcne (talk) 11:19, 7 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.

I didn't understand this at first either, had to reread twice. Aesurias (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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 edits 17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge your note and will make the necessary improvements as per the review process. Humayunnpeerzaada (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Humayunnpeerzaada, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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.

Do you see why it is almost impossible to do this successfully? ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Anachronist, you forgot immortality. Like graffiti, only better. Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 8 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)

How to find the guidelines on making/editing pages?

I was once editing a page when another guy deleted most of my added content. I asked the person "Why!?". He said that I wasn't following the guidelines on editing that kind of page and showed me a link to the guidelines.

Ever since then, I've wanted to know how to find the guidelines' page to make sure I don't get my content deleted. Z-Astro3 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I see another volunteer has already left some useful links on your talk page; they are the best place to start.

Wikipedia has lots of guidelines, some specific to certain aspects of editing, like WP:MOS, WP:RS and WP:OR, and some that apply to contentious types of articles, such as those about the middle east or LGBTQ+ issues.

It's impossible to list them all, but don't be put off my having some of your editing undone; that too is a necessary part of being a Wikipedian.

Feel free to ask here again any time you are unsure of how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Firstly: 'making sure you don't get your content deleted' shouldn't be a worry, because having content you've added deleted is not a bad thing. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and that sometimes means other people know better than we do and change or remove things that we've added. This is perfectly fine, because our goal is to collaboratively improve Wikipedia, not to make sure that we personally do so. Don't get yourself down if you make an edit that someone else reverts; you're a newer editor, so you might make mistakes. If you really believe you didn't make a mistake, that's fine too; content disputes happen all the time on Wikipedia, and you can read our dispute guidance to see how to handle that, as well as reading about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which explains how content addition normally goes on Wikipedia.

Secondly, I notice you describe yourself as a tween on your user profile, so I'll also direct you to our guidance for younger editors, which should give you lots of useful advice about the wiki's policies and guidelines.

Lastly, some personal advice; I had an account on Wikipedia for 3 years before I ever started making serious edits. In that time I would mostly just correct spelling and grammar mistakes on articles that I happened to end up reading. Then I started browsing noticeboards like WP:ANI and the Teahouse here to see how other editors were dealing with disputes, what guidelines they were citing, etc. I.e., if you want to learn how Wikipedia works, the very best way is just to observe it in action. You'll soon see what sort of things gets kept, what gets removed, what gets debated over, etc etc. Don't feel the need to rush into making major edits, creating articles, things like that. Athanelar (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are seperate articles about bus routes in Hong Kong allowed on Wikipedia?

I remember seeing a Wikipedia notability guideline saying that articles about bus routes are not necessary. However, I saw some seperate articles about individual bus routes in Hong Kong in the English Wikipedia. I would like to add more articles about bus routes in Hong Kong, but I am afraid that these drafts would get denied from being a full article. KobaltKolibri (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:2WRONGS applies. The fact that those other articles exist does not necessarily mean they should; a lot of unnotable articles exist on Wikipedia that should really be removed. Rather than focusing on creating new articles, maybe a good project would be for you to review those other bus route articles and see whether they meet the criteria necessary for an article to exist; and if they don't, then submit them to WP:AFD Athanelar (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar In case that's confusing to a relative newcomer, I would point out that WP:2WRONGS is an essay about conduct. You were probably remembering the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay which is the one that reminds people not to argue that article (A) should exist because a similar article (B) does. It may be that (B) is severely deficient. VoitieVelocity, please change your signature to make it a bit closer to your actual username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there KobaltKolibri. I would suggest you take a look at some "Good Articles" about bus routes to get a better idea of what is expected of such an article. Good Articles have been reviewed by other editors and would represent some of the better work on Wikipedia, compared to others which may not quite be up to par, as Athanelar mentioned. You can see a list of Good Articles under the purview of WikiProject Buses listed here. For example, Q14 and Q38 buses in New York City. I think it's quite likely that some older Hong Kong bus routes can be proven notable. Non-English sources are okay, too! Hope that helps. MediaKyle (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

how do I cite a video game that seemingly no one has played

Ok some people have played it including me but there is one (1) article on it and that's just announcing its release. The game is DiscoPup, released this summer, and I only wanted to add it to the list of references under Carcosa, because there are some great parallels to the King in Yellow and Carcosa in the game but the only source I got for that is me and this one video essay on youtube which I've been told isn't really liked on here as a source? I don't suppose Steam reviews are reputable? I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia so I appreciate any sort of guidance. Elodieeeeee (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Elodieeeeee, you are right, YouTube and Steam aren't reliable sources because they are user-generated sources, which are generally not accepted on Wikipedia. If there are no reliable sources to support your claim about DiscoPup, then you unfortunately cannot talk about it in an article. win8x (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

man :// thank you for the quick response! Elodieeeeee (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Would the developer's steam page count as a disapproved source, as they made the product and would have valid knowledge on it? Vanilla (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

They're not an independent source. Ultraodan (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Areux, and welcome to the Teahouse. The point is that 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.

On another subject, having a signature that is completely different from your user name is confusing when other editors want to interact with you. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Need help moving my draft article

Hi! I’ve written an article draft at User:Yudranawat14 about Bahadur Singh of Bhunas, ruler of Bhunas in Mewar, Rajasthan. I’d like it to be reviewed and moved to the main article space as Bahadur Singh of Bhunas. Could someone please help me with this move request? Thank you! Yudranawat14 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Yudranawat14. It would be impossible for this to be moved to the main encyclopaedia, as it has no sources at all. Verifiability is the most important policy on Wikipedia. I will move the content to draftspace for you to allow you to improve it, then you can submit it for review. qcne (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yudranawat14, we read Bhunas is recognized as the **fifth thikana in the Bada Batisa of Mewar** and so forth, with asterisks. Am I right in inferring that you employed "artificial intelligence" to create what is now Draft:Bahadur Singh of Bhunas? -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"artificial stupidity" is the phrase I'm going to use in future. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Human penis should be deleted

Penis already exists so Human penis should be deleted and be a redirect to Penis, as for example for Human vagina, it redirects to Vagina. ~2025-31999-41 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please raise your issue on Talk:Human penis. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A merge and redirect to Penis has already been discussed and rejected at Talk:Human penis/Archive 3#Merge back with Penis article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

More realistically, the article "Human vagina" should be created, as proposed at Talk:Vagina#Split request (pun presumably not intended). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Valentí Gómez Oliver

Hello everyone,

I have created a draft article about Valentí Gómez Oliver, a Catalan poet, novelist, essayist, translator, and university professor. The draft is available at Draft:Valentí Gómez Oliver.

Why he is notable:

• Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (2007), official honor from the Italian government
• University professor at Sapienza University of Rome and Roma Tre University for over 30 years (late 1960s - 2003)
• Author of 15+ poetry collections published by reputable publishers (Empúries, Edicions 62, Ara Llibres, etc.)
• His works have been translated into multiple languages including Italian, English, German, Danish, Portuguese, and Japanese
• Won second prize at the Chicago Opera Festival (2007) for the chamber opera Joc de mans
• His poetry has been set to music by artists including Rosalía
• Regular contributor to major publications like La Vanguardia
• Founder and honorary president of the European Observatory for Children's Television (OETI)

Why I need help: As a relatively new editor on English Wikipedia, I am unable to create articles directly in mainspace. The draft has been carefully prepared with proper citations and formatting. I believe it meets all notability criteria for academics, writers, and cultural figures.

Could someone please review the draft and, if it meets standards, move it to mainspace? Alternatively, if there are any improvements needed, I would be happy to make them.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Pomazon (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use an AI to communicate with us. We want to talk to a real person.

See, this is why we don't allow new editors to create articles in main space.

The notability reasons posted above clearly demonstrates that your AI has zero understanding of what makes a subject notable to merit a Wikipedia article. It's really very simple, outlined in WP:Golden Rule. Most of your sources don't meet the criteria and are therefore useless for assessing notability.

I suggest you start over with sources that actually meet WP:Golden Rule criteria, and go from there, writing in your own words based on what the sources actually say. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What, Pomazon, have literary critics, literature historians, and others whose opinions matter written (whether in Catalan, Spanish, Italian, English, or any other language) intelligibly and informatively about VGO's works? Summarize that, of course specifying who it is that says what. (Be sure to do this work yourself; don't delegate it to so-called artificial intelligence.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic" suggests he is indeed notable; but that needs to be demonstrated in the manner described. You're nearly there; you just need to complete the final push. I have added a template so that, when you feel it is ready, 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 edits 13:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pomazon I followed up by trying to verify your assertion that he is a Knight of Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, based on your draft. The first citation for that is supposed to from this website, which is clearly created by his literary agency: but even that has no mention of this "fact". Then, in the body of the article, you cite Wikipedia's Spanish biography of him at Valentí Gómez-Oliver - Wikipedia, which does indeed claim he has this Award but offers no citation and we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the Award, but I am saying that your draft is unacceptable at present. We have a policy about biographies of living people that insists that all claims like this are backed up by published inline citations to reliable sources. Incidentally, there are apparently 146,390 Knights who have been given that class of the honour, so it is not a particularly select group. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I just wrote a article Stub as a Newbie.

I want to know how much we (collectively) should add to it before submitting it for review. Draft:Tiramisu (Homebrew) is the article stub. I couldn't write much more, and the Editor warned me about publishing it due to the links, but most are trusted sources or from the developer in the homebrew community. Vanilla (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello :) If you can't write much more because there are no more sources/info on the topic, that may be an indication that it is not notable.

Based on a quick look at the draft, the first two sources are GitHub (not sufficient in establishing notability), the third is self-published, and the last two are both How-To blog sites for homebrewing and hacking.

I am a draft reviewer and personally would not accept the draft at this stage. I don't think many others would either. While the developer of the technology may seem like a trusted source because of their proximity to it, using self-published sources are highly discouraged due to their inevitably promotional nature.

Best of luck :) Aesurias (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Pages unreviewed by an bot

Hi, recently i saw some of pages i have created like : Top Channel Films and Top Story (Albanian TV program), are unreviewed and added to New Page created by an bot named User:DreamRimmer bot, without any explanation. I wanted to know it's kind of mistake... or something else, is first time i encounter this and i am curious to know reason or reasons.. Thank you in advance. Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Not a mistake, that bot was unreviewing a bunch of articles that were marked as reviewed in a questionable way. This was approved by BAG at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DreamRimmer bot 5. It was just a one time thing so you probably won't run into it again (hopefully it won't be needed again). Ultraodan (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(ec) @Lanceloth345 That seems to have been a one-off task for the bot to mark as "unreviewed" articles which had been marked as "reviewed" (presumably in error) as part of the NPP backlog drive. The Main public logs confirm this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I kinda "sense" it was an error, becouse neither any tag in articles.. and sources are verified as per notability ect. Thabk you for your answer. Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for inconvenience :) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's ok as long as peoples make mistakes, bot's too till perfection as software :) Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Citati0ns

What is the procedure to add citations? ~2025-30971-40 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-30971-40. Have you seen the tutorial Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1? qcne (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Reviews

please review two of my recently written articles, Hemendra Bhatia and Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. Regards, Ppt2003 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)