Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

GoingBatty, 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 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

Can somebody help me ?

I need to find the Worcester-born female artist whose brother was a sculptor of wild felines and whose work was admired by Whistler. Can someone help? I want to create a description of myself in real wikipedia. Not in the sandbox . How do I do it? Can somebody help me Mykeljackson (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Click on your name, and then edit that page titled "user page". I see that you've already created it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to make a user page follow what the user above commented, if you want to make an article about yourself then I’m afraid that isn’t possible, Wikipedia doesn’t allow (most of the time) articles about oneself, especially if they have no sources. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

on the topic, what are the cases of someone notable writing their own article? Spongebuddymaniac (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been tempted to ask the same thing. If I one day become notable enough for a wikipedia article, perhaps I could be that mythical wikipedian that got an autobiography in mainspace mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think if an individual is famous enough they should be able to edit their page (but not start it, someone else has to deem it notable), because if I had a Wikipedia page I would want to edit it with my own personal info which I have lived through, which might not be out in public knowledge. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater On the contrary, you provide an excellent example of why Wikipedia does NOT want people editing their own article. Everything in an article must be based on published references, so anything "not out in public knowledge" would be inappropriate content and should be removed. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but imagine I’m a famous person and the section of where I was born is blank, I think it would he appropriate to put where I was born if I can prove I am the person I say I am. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

If that happens, then what prevents someone from making stuff up to make themselves look better? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s a tricky question, especially as people in history have some such, I think if there is evidence you can prove (birth certificate, family testimonies and overall timeline correlation) then I think it’s ok. For example if my Wikipedia article said “Born on dd/mm/yy “ and it was incorrect or missing information and I added “Born on dd/mm/yy in London” and if I could prove it then I think that should be allowed, but is it a tricky subject I will give you that. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

birth certificate for most famous people their birth date is already known.

family testimonies they could also make stuff up to make you look better.

overall timeline correlation not sure what that means...

Either way, if there is enough evidence to add it onto that article through reliable sources, then you wouldn't need the subject to write it themselves.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually the birth date is known but usually not the birthplace (unless they’ve mentioned it in a biography, interview etc.)

Overall timeline correlation meant that if I edited my page as a famous person and out my birthplace as Cambridge for example, and there is evidence to say I went to nursery in Cambridge then that’s timeline correlation (which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in).

However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) 😂 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in) that's called WP:OR. You probably need a longer answer for why the rule exists, perhaps you can take a look at the WP:ORSOURCE essay.

However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) I wish you the best of luck! I hope you will make it someday. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks same to you. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Pigswithwings (or Pigsonwings) I believe is a lecturer and scholar and he is also a Wikipedia and has a main space page (Andy or Andrew something is his name) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that happened with Jordan Peterson, either him or someone pretending to be him in his name edited his article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: This is not correct. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about oneself, but it is not actually disallowed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that’s what I meant. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:Notability explains it Versions111^{talk to me :)} 14:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like add myself and accomplishments to Wikipedia ~2025-34738-64 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You can on your userpage, but if you're talking about the mainspace, see WP:notability. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think temporary accounts can make user pages Versions111^{talk to me :)} 08:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, they can always make one and then do that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

They can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that - not familiar to temp accounts yet Versions111^{talk to me :)} 15:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Same here ~2025-36501-74 (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Hi all, I tried to submit an article about a well known figure in the music industry, and it was rejected because I'm not citing it correctly apparently. I also don't know why it rejected the links to news sources, and unlinked them, etc. My head hurts from tying to understand this. Part of the information comes from personal interviews with the subject, a former VP of Promotions for Epic Records, responsible for bringing the singer Sade to America, and pushing Michael Jackson's album Thriller to the top of the charts. The rest are from news sources, though there are more available. Clearly I'm doing it wrong. The information is solid. The citations, etc. are clearly not.

Suggestions please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmoothLanding/sandbox

Thanks.

SmoothLanding (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SmoothLanding. A cursory read of your draft: it is written entirely inappropriately for Wikipedia. It's written like a blog post, or an autobiography, or a magazine feature: not a neutral purely descriptive encyclopedic article. It genuinely needs a total re-write, from scratch. Please carefully have a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid.

If you re-write (and considerably condense it down) you then need to prove how this person meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). qcne (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Some more advice: we require biographic articles to have in-line citations, and you have none. Have a look at the referencing tutorial here: Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 which explains how to create proper references. qcne (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You're a brand new editor attempting to create an article as your first ever action on Wikipedia. Creating an srticle is by far one of the most complex and difficult tasks for any editor to undertake, let alone someone brand new.

The best advice to give you right now is for you to give up, get involved in editing existing articles and participating in discussions for a few weeks to get some clue as to how Wikipedia works, and approach the project with more information at a later date. If you don't know how to cite references you shouldn't be making an article yet. Athanelar (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the things mentioned above by other editors, that "Other occupations" list is incredibly long and wholly unsuitable for an article. Instagram, YouTube and Facebook are also not reliable sources. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but try to avoid promotional citations (e.g. your VP of promotions).

--DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 18:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll read it again - the Neutral POV and words to avoid.

I don't understand the "avoid promotional citations" part as that was his position at Epic Records though. He was Vice President of Promotions in fact, like Barack Obama was President of the United States.

Thanks for responding. I'll read. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Promotional citations" refers to the citing of material which was written or is included in the draft to promote (publicise, praise, advertise) the subject (Thompkins), rather than neutrally document him. It has nothing to do with his coincidentally having a job and job title involving promoting things. Wikipedia specifically forbids its being used to WP:Promote anything. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

My mistake! I thought one of your sources came from a VP of promotions, not that he WAS a VP of promotions. That's different, and fine. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 20:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

hi ~2025-34345-83 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-34345-83: To the unregistered user, not the original poster of this thread: Hello there. You have posted "Hi" on a few pages. Wikipedia is not like Twitter or Facebook. It is an encyclopedia, and discussions are for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't continue to post chat-type messages on Wikipedia. Thanks David10244 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you (to whoever is doing it) for putting the notes on the editing page for this article, many asking for source references. It is helping me understand how to correct some of this.

Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. I didn't reference it because I wan't sure it would be considered legitimate, though it is completely. Also on Wikipedia, there are several people taking credit for work I know he did because I followed his career since he launched Natalie Cole's career in the 1970s, and that needs to be corrected. So how is that dealt with? Keep in mind that the City of Houston would not have given this man his own day, and President Biden would not have given him an award, were he not real and his accomplishments not important. He is a stickler for accuracy and not claiming anything that he did not actually do.

That is part of the problem. He is an unsung hero. Much of the information was taken from a series of interviews I conducted with him, because that is the only source for it. Someone said before that I wrote it like a magazine article. I'll own that, since I did write for Upscale and other magazines and entertainment publications for years.

Also, I read the Phil Specter for a long time before writing this article, and tried to follow the tone of it, which apparently from some of the comments, I did not accomplish.

Thanks to all who are contributing. I appreciate your effort. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. You're falling into a common fallacy here; if there's no published information about the man, that's exactly why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about him. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, all we do is collate information which is already published in secondary sources. We do not publish original information. Our role is not to broaden the available information about a subject, it's to concentrate and summarise it. Even if someone could be considered notable by their achievements, if there simply aren't any reliable, independent, secondary sources to draw from, then we can't make an article. Athanelar (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

None of that is true. He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do..

I really need some thinking help in this, not just repeat of some rules that do not apply please.

This is him. The 6 foot 7 man in that photo with Michael Jackson, Sade, and Boy George .

https://eurweb.com/music-executive-tc-thompkins-pens-powerful-and-insightful-book-when-radio-was-king-photos/

But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem.

It would be very helpful if you folks who understand Wikipedia would actually help me address the REAL problem, not the perceived problem. He is exactly who I said he is. I am not an idiot. If you have a solution that pertains, that would be helpful. This test for "reliable" is the problem here, not his existence or importance. Can you help with that please? The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?

And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of ''reliable.":

Even if someone could be considered notable by their achievements, if there simply aren't any reliable, independent, secondary sources to draw from, then we can't make an article. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @SmoothLanding. I actually think that source is fine? It is a reliable source, it provides some significant coverage of him, and it has a little bit of independent analysis. It's not a really strong source - as it is mostly quoting the book - but it's not a terrible source. qcne (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. He was known for working hard for his clients and taking little of the limelight. Thank you for your helpful comments. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi qcne, Do you mind taking a look at the article now to see if I'm on the right track? I am trying to track down some other articles written at the time he was most active. I know the article is still heavy on the project listings. I can rewrite it to put it in the body if needed, but honestly, I thought it would make more sense to keep them listed like they are since he was always in promotions, just different phases of it, and he didn't have "colorful" like like Phil Specter - whose entry is long. His has a lot to do with his prison time, assaults, etc. TC's life was really about the work and catapulting some major musicians of our time into the spotlight.

Thank you. SmoothLanding (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SmoothLanding - unfortunately I think the draft is now in a worse state. I would really recommend cutting this down to just the bare essentials. Find three really strong sources (and only three!), and remove any and all uncited content and any sources that are from interviews with no analysis, social media, etc.

Most of the awards are not notable and should be removed. Most of the External Links should be removed. The Other occupations table is ridiculously long and should have, maybe, 10 entries tops.

You might get somewhere better if you cut 75% of the draft, and mostly start from scratch. qcne (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I think you are seeing the first one because I gather there is no auto save, and I saw no save button, and was afraid to hit "publish" because that is irrational and I thought it would just get rejected again prematurely, but apparently that is what I should have hit, so when I came back to it, it is just back to the original version. I kept seeing the updated version for days as I was working on it, and then all of a sudden it was gone and back to the original. This is downright laughable at this point in its absurdity. Thanks for looking. Not sure I want to do this anymore. I don't need another full time job for the only entry I'll ever do, and in the scheme of things, Wikipedia just is not that important or considered valid by whose looking for him, for his long career. I appreciate you though. SmoothLanding (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, yes - there is no auto save function on the editor, and "Publish" is akin to "Save". You are "Publishing" your new edits to the page.

To re-submit for review you would hit the blue button "Re-submit for review".

Sorry. qcne (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

LOL! Not your fault. This is a long, long time in the making. Thank you for being so kind and patient. I'm trying not to turn into "that person" who keeps posting actual definitions for what words mean, but it is forcing me to go look up words to see if I have misunderstood words I've been using for decades - like "publish", which has absolutely nothing to do with the way this platform is using it. Why in the world could they not just use a word that actually means what the action is - like "save?" It boggles the mind.

Truly I've crossed over to laughing, rather than being annoyed. Thank you for being so patient and kind. I'm more worried that many people think this is normal, and what that means for their world and their future. Feeling like my name is "Not Sure" at this point!

It has also made me look at some of the entries and compare them to other actual research and established encyclopaedias. That was equally eye opening!

Thanks and have a good evening. SmoothLanding (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@SmoothLanding Wikipedia can indeed be byzantine at times, remember we're a volunteer human-led project that has evolved patchwork over two and a half decades. The reason "Publish" was chosen was because as soon as you hit "Publish" it publishes the changes to the encyclopaedia, and is then publicly viewable. It was thought that "Save" might suggest the changes are private until separately published, which is not the case. qcne (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I follow, but in fact, that is a misuse of the word. This is a closed loop, not a general distribution channel. You want to store it, not send it out into the world yet. No creative logic would need to be applied, if the words were used according to their most evident definitions. There is a lot of that going on here. No need to reinvent the wheel. That is why responsible people must look things up and not make them up. That needs to be a rule. It is not publicly viewable, it is viewable within this closed loop. I can't come in from the outside, looking for his name in the Wikipedia search bar yet, can I? Then it is not public. It is insular, as in separated from other people or cultures. Right?

Publish - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publish

save - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/save

What you say about the evolution is more than obvious and not in a good way at all. Somebody needs to run the ship, and this one is sinking and hitting glaciers and running into other ships all at the same time, continuously. This system needs a major overhaul on so many points, including the fact that if you don't know what something is, or have not read the entire article, make no edits or comments. Whoever changed the section title to "Other Occupations" did not bother to look up and clearly did not know what a "promotions" person does in record/radio arena during that time period. All those positions were a progression of the same job, not "other" occupations.

Somewhere in this evolution, and with all these complicated and super bizarre, confusing, inefficient workings, should be a rule that says if you don't know what something is, you must research it enough to comment and CERTAINLY to edit it, and if you do not do so, leave it alone. There are a bunch of keyboard warriors wielding power they have not earned or deserve. You have to work to earn respect, not just have it handed to you like trophies at little league games, for both teams. Might be part of the problem here too, come to think of it.

That should come with the If you have not fully read the entire article, don't edit or comment. One would think these things would be obvious.

So, I looked at the entry to see how to delete it and not surprisingly, I can't find a direct, obvious button to do so. Can you point me to it? I had no idea what fresh hell I was getting into, but you can pick up a phone (if you could find her) and speak to Patti Labelle and mention his name and she would say some version of "Of course I know him. Everybody in the industry since the 70s does!" This process is not appropriate for him at all, and in fact is a gross insult. I'm sorry I subjected him and his name to this.

Frankly, for those of you who seem more responsible and dedicated, as opposed to the power freaks who derive pleasure from berating others, and there are way too many on here from reading other threads - just as there are way too many confused contributors, you deserve better too. This is a hot mess!

Delete button would be nice please, and I will take a different approach, and leave you folks to it. Thanks though for you calm and taking the time. You do stand out here. Now if you would be so kind as to help me escape this level of Dante's Inferno, I would so appreciate it. SmoothLanding (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You can indeed come in from the outside and look him up on Wikipedia. You would just append "Draft" to the start of the search, and it'll pop up in the search bar. That is what I mean by, once you have pressed Publish the content is now out in the world and accessible to anyone. It could be clearer.

Only administrators can delete pages, but you can mark the draft for deletion by adding the code Wikipedia:G7 to the top and pressing Publish changes again, which will add a deletion template to the draft. An administrator will then come along and delete the draft. qcne (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh good grief! That makes this even more ridiculous and absurd, and I didn't think that was possible!.

So I can be sure this can happen, to the top of what exactly? I need this to happen now. If I can't find it quickly, I'll just start erasing all the data within and hit publish. That should do it, right?

When you put his name in a google search, he comes up in 2610 places it says. Hopefully Wikipedia is not in the top 10 pages.

Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Drafts are not usually indexed, but some search engines and aggregators will index draft articles - we don't have any control over this. If you blank the draft (remove all content, press Publish changes), then add that G7 deletion template it will be deleted in a few hours. qcne (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have time to check, because I don't know how this turned out. "add that G7 deletion template it" Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I've marked that for deletion for you. qcne (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I so appreciate you and all your help. I will think of you kindly and send good thoughts your way for a long time! Have a safe holiday season. I'm out! SmoothLanding (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You too! qcne (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting. Not sure how it fits with what you said about indexing.. Just FYI.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gracia+tc+thompkins&client=safari&sca_esv=cda68e4edcd9e4a3&rls=en&sxsrf=AE3TifPKUEdzkWp8_cYPRbkNIyxuGBsmwA:1764012556238&ei=DLIkafmQDvimmtkPzOTksAY&start=20&sa=N&sstk=Af77f_ein0gocow12po2iPPcVNlH2RrINUFeJ6h19zvJIgAOv8yWJwZ8tXG8FlyutgDVult1H5W5Pb5xOCm2qMC9KCn1J5vqvI-q7_d_M-wqTq3ZyfIL3FJHx_J8IgxtXgQX&ved=2ahUKEwj5xqzuwouRAxV4kyYFHUwyGWY4ChDw0wN6BAgMEBc&biw=1261&bih=784&dpr=2 SmoothLanding (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Every Google search is unique and personalised to the user making the search, so I don't know what I am looking for on that URL. If it's a link to the draft or it's talk page: then, yes, we don't control search engine indexing and so Google may have indexed it. qcne (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. It has been deleted. Thank you so much for all your help. SmoothLanding (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do.. Again, the point of Wikipedia is to summarise information which has already been published in secondary sources. If those secondary sources do not exist, there is no material for a Wikipedia article. As for him being 'well known,' fame does not necessarily mean someone is 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense of that word.

But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem. That source is a press release about the publishing of his book and largely consists of quotes from the man himself. Again, see the golden rule for what a good source should contain.

The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?

No, the point of Wikipedia is most certainly not to make sure somebody's story is told. We call that promotion. The point of Wikipedia, as I've said, is simply to summarise information that has already been published about a subject. It is not to publish new information where that information is lacking. You're explicitly saying that you're trying to create this article to 'tell' this man's story because nobody else has done it before; but if nobody else has done it before then there's nothing to make a Wiki article about, because a Wikipedia article should summarise already-published information. I understand the frustration you're having, but if the information hasn't already been published in a reliable, independent, secondary source then you can't include it in a Wikipedia article, except for limited use of primary sources to corroborate simple biographical data and the likes.

And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of "reliable.": You're simply fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. Would you go to the publishers of a travel guide and argue they should include a small town with no tourist attractions? Would you go to the publishers of a business directory and argue they should include some random person's home address? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a particular purpose and function, and that purpose is to act as a tertiary source which summarises information available in secondary sources. Athanelar (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Much has been illuminated with this process, including my rethinking of my donations to Wikipedia yearly, and my understanding of why less than 8% (or whatever the figure I can't remember right now) of users donate to the foundation, and why they are constantly begging for money.

I will forge forward and hope to be free of this soon. Sincerely, thank you for the answers. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer editor the same as you, I have no connection with the Wikimedia foundation or any involvement with where their donation funding goes, so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by telling me this. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Not directed to you specifically. Truly thinking about this experiment that Wikipedia actually is, and how it is working and not. Being in the workings of it is highlighting how it is not.

I will say this though. This is the actual definition of an encyclopedia.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia#:~:text=%3A%20a%20work%20that%20contains%20information%20on%20all%20subjects%20or%20one,and%20Greek%20paideia%20%22education%2C%20child

And this is Wikipedia's directive(s) -

Wikipedia

with this line illuminating some things but is not its sole purpose:

" Articles on breaking news are often accessed as sources for up-to-date information about those events.'"

Since Thompkins is nearly 80 years old, everything about him is historical in nature. So there won't be many current articles/data about him at this point, other than his book, and the way the world actually works now, through people who have found him and want to interview him through social media networks. That is reality, and does not reduce his importance or legitimacy.

Something about your examples seems to be thinking in terms of current events it seems, but that's not all Wikipedia is from their description, or should be.

All that doesn't take into account the description of Wikipedia's purpose really. "breaking news" is only a part of it. History is history. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading the 'about Wikipedia' page and the policy "what Wikipedia is not." Athanelar (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. So might you. Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles on breaking news are only a very small part of Wikipedia, SmoothLanding (and see WP:NOTNEWS). Historical topics are in many ways Wikipedia's bread and butter. There's no requirement for "current articles/data" on a topic - contemporaneous sources are fine. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SmoothLanding (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Need help with formatting

Hi again, I can't figure out how to fix the collapse list/hidden content issue at Details (album)#Singles. Please help, thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've marked the list (singular) up correctly; there's no need to collapse it in parts as separate lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Andy Mabbett, thanks for the help. In future, please do tag users when addressing them, as I had no idea you had replied to my message. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You can't ever rely on people doing that; but see WP:SUBSCRIBE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett, thanks for that, I'd never noticed the feature before. Btw, I may not be able to rely on people tagging users, but it's not too much to ask, is it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What doesn’t have a wikipedia page yet?

~2025-35181-43 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Many different subjects. They might not have pages for one of two reasons: they don't meet any of the notability guidelines, or they meet one of them but their article hasn't been created yet. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For a humorous essay on that question, see WP:WHAAOE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For a idea of some potential articles that people would like to see, take a look at the pages linked from WP:Requested articles and Category:Wikipedia requested articles.

If you are looking for something to write about, see WP:Your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Or WP:Missing articles. DS (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Many things, you could check Special:WantedPages for a list of them. dot.py (alt) 22:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dot.py (alt) (talk • contribs)

Article review

Hello, I made a new stub article called Scraggy Lake. Can somebody review it? Thanks, Versions111^{talk to me :)} 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I've checked it, looks good to me. Plus, you're quite prolific. Of course, I only have ~200 edits, so my opinion is probably flawed somewhat :) --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it — your feedback is helpful regardless of edit count Versions111^{talk to me :)} 14:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111, @DollarStoreBaal44 Reference 1 appears to be user-generated and therefore not good for showing notability. Also, ref 1 is used as a source for "nearby lakes", but I don't see nearby lakes listed at that source. So that part fails verification.

Ref 3 is an app, requiring any reader who wanted to verify the info to zoom and navigate around in the app. I don't think that is a good ref.

I didn't check any more. The way to get a real review is to submit the article for review.

DollarStore, you need to check references before giving your opinion on a draft. You are right, you don't really have enough experience to give advice here. David10244 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Logos

On wiki data once i completely did the logo image and make sure it has a source then i could add it to the article PostmasterCJ (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Which logo are you asking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For Roblox and Roblox Corporation PostmasterCJ (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

We already have the Roblox logo here. Athanelar (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This what im trying to add Roblox Logo 2026.png PostmasterCJ (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You can't add it when it's already there.

Or: What do you want to use it for? TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

PostmasterCJ, my calendar says that this month is November 2025 and I assume that yours does too. Because Wikipedia editors do not have access to functional crystal balls or time machines, we should not be using an image file dated January, 2026 since it is obviously in error and cannot be trusted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@PostmasterCJ you literally reuploading files that look outdated such as File:Microsoft logo (2026).png, which is based on File:Microsoft logo (1980).svg. So please stop reuploading files with incorrect date or you will be blocked. –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@LDM2003 From @PostmasterCJ's talk page, it's clear that they are a new editor. Postmaster, please don't upload fake images and don't try to add images to articles until you have more experience. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve always wondered why people come to Wikipedia and mess around, I’ve seen so many editors (mainly new) who ask (no offence) stupid questions, for example recently someone asked “How can I make money on Wikipedia” among many other questions, do people seriously not read or think it is appropriate to add an image with a Year date which we haven’t been in (because last time I checked we aren’t in 2026). I don’t mean offends but I genuinely wonder why people do these type of things. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Jailbreak draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you guys make money here on wikipedia.com?

My aim is to make money,the rest will be added. Mookodi Baleni (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You can’t make money on Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. If you saw that you can make money then it’s a scam or misinformation and likely dangerous rave (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You have formatted this question wrong and have taken over someone else's question. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We are volunteers and don't make money. Tankishguy 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We are at wikipedia.org to signal that we are non-commercial. The site is run by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation which gets money from donations. The editors are unpaid volunteers. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

😂 no offence but to people not look up what Wikipedia is before making an account. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Evidently not. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

😂 evidently not indeed. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaling in portraits of dead politicians

It has come to my attention by the user Bill L. Hal the issue of potential use of AI upscaling in portraits of Greek politicians (after their death). Examples include the infobox portraits of the following: Andreas Papandreou, Konstantinos Karamanlis, Georgios Papadopoulos, Panayiotis Kanellopoulos, and Christos Sartzetakis. Unfortunately, I have very little understanding about this issue, in terms of detection, interpretation and implementation of the current guidelines. Wikipedia:AI guidelines is rather vague and looks underdeveloped policy-wise. The following statement: AI upscaling might be an appropriate use of AI, depending on context can mean anything provided the subject is not alive since there is not explanation on how to decide on what counts as relevant context. It appears that it needs clear examples for us to better understand what is ok and what is not ok. Has this issue been raised up previously and what is the current consensus. If things are murky, what is the appropriate forum to request clarification or if necessary request for adoption of a new policy. Your input is most helpful. Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @A.Cython, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Discussions of policy generally take place at one of the sections of the Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@A.Cython and ColinFine: WikiProject AI Cleanup is also a very active WikiProject dedicated to these discussions, with its own noticeboard. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable information. A.Cython (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking for help improving a draft I rewrote by hand

Hi everyone. I’m working on a draft for Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day, and I’d really appreciate some guidance. The earlier version was declined because I used AI too much in the beginning. Since then, I’ve completely rewritten the entire article by hand and rebuilt the references using verified news stories and materials from 2011 through 2025. I’m still learning how Wikipedia prefers things to be written, so I’m hoping someone with experience can take a look and let me know what it still needs or how I can get it into the right shape. Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moebius_Syndrome_Awareness_Day Thank you to anyone willing to take a few minutes to look it over. MoebiusTim (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You've already submitted your draft for review. In time a reviewer will get to it and look it over and give you any feedback if needed. Athanelar (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no such thing as "using AI too much" - because using any AI, even a little bit, is already a problem. It's true there are features of AI that are technically OK, but those aren't the features people mostly want to use. And the errors that AI makes are often ones that the AI users don't even know how to find, let alone correct.

Monty Python's "Hungarian Phrasebook" sketch was (in part) funny because of how ridiculously and obviously wrong the phrases were. AI is wrong just as badly as that phrasebook, but instead of being funny, the false material is hidden so some people have a hard time finding it. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say you "rewrote it by hand", do you really mean that? Did you actually wipe the entire thing and start again from blank?

If you didn't, I think it would be a great idea to save all the references, delete and forget ALL of the text, wipe all copies you have personally as well, and start absolutely fresh in 100% human words. Even if you don't like your own style, it will be a better article. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes,

I did rewrite the entire draft manually from a blank screen. I kept the verified references. I’m hoping someone can look at the draft and let me know if anything still needs to be fixed so it fits Wikipedia’s style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoebiusTim (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Great!

One little thing I would suggest changing: in the history section, you have "Larger news publications like The New York Times ...". This obviously means "there are other news publications comparable to the New York Times involved, but we won't name them". I don't imagine this is what you intended. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. MoebiusTim (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I should note that my eyes always go to the little details like that - I have likely missed things that are more important. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitting draft translation

Hello, I created a draft translation (User:Confused cantaloupe/Angel Hou) for (https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=90130355). How may i submit the draft translation for review?

Confused cantaloupe (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Your draft doesn't cite any sources. Sources are mandatory in a Wikipedia article. Please see Help:Your first article and consider gaining some editing experience before trying to create a new article. Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

May I use the sources from the original article? Confused cantaloupe (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Confused cantaloupe Yes,.. Also, it's a good idea to add your own inline citations rather than just linking to the original article, so that your draft stands on its own. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I have put in the sources. How do I put my submit my draft for review? Confused cantaloupe (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a header, with a button which will allow you to submit for review.

If you cite non-English sources, it is helpful to readers and reviewers to include a translation of the title. {{cite web}} has a parameter trans-title= which you can use. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Confused cantaloupe. Yes, you can use non-English sources if there are not better English sources.

You still need to make sure that the sources (or at least most of them) are reliably published and independent of the subject, as explained at WP:42. Looking at them quickly with Google Translate, it seems to me that they are all almost entirely about her marriage and family, and so most of the article is unsourced. This is not acceptable for a new article in English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Be aware that an article with no or few English-language sources may take longer to be reviewed, because of the limited number of reviewers who can read the necessary languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See also help:translation#Attribution to attribute your translation from another language's project. // hekatlys [talk] 20:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I credited the source article at the bottom. Not sure if the formatting is correct. Confused cantaloupe (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

To have it formatted correctly, it's supposed to go into the edit summary. Here's a quick way to do that:

Start editing your draft. Add an extra space where it won't matter, or make some other little change. When you go to save your changes, it will ask for an edit summary. Copy this, and paste it into the box:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Chinese Wikipedia article at [[:zh:侯湘婷]]; see its history for attribution.

'

(My own comment: This way of writing the link is the proper one for this situation, not the one with https:// etc.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

opinions about possible new article

I am considering a short article about a modest peak nearby a reasonably well known area. The peak itself only reaches 8800' elevation with a 1400' climb (hike). It is at a "gateway" to the Rockies, Estes Park, which serves probably a million visitors into Rocky Mountain National Park each summer. The surrounding peaks are distant but much more notable; at 12-14k ft elevation. However the peak in question is a piece of the history of attracting the attention of the US President to drive the creation of the national park. A photo taken in 1909 from the summit is a striking landscape and was included in a published book that help build the case for the area being established as a national park. There is another landmark mountain ridge with is nearby, is not dramatically high in elevation, and has a wiki page. Because the town of Estes Park is so striking itself, with the high peaks framing it, this peak I am considering documenting is not known though it is very prominent from the roadsite view sites. Plus it is in the national forest so there is a trail to it's remarkable summit.

Does this warrant an article? Nornotlob (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the name of the peak? I looked on Google Maps and one contender may be Lily Mountain, but without the name it's difficult to confirm whether or not an article would be warranted. aesurias (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Mount Olympus Nornotlob (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nornotlob That's a grandiose name for what you describe as a modest peak! Happy editing. David10244 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have sources (preferably three or more) that meet all the requirements at WP:42, there's no intrinsic reason not to have an article. See Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) for a detailed treatment of that topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:GEONATURAL, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist [...] The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.

However, as you're a very new editor I wouldn't advise trying to make a new article at this time. It's a very complex task which is challenging even for experienced editors. Hang around and edit other articles for a while first. Athanelar (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Alpharetta Georgia

I tried to edit a page on Wikipedia's Alpharetta Georgia page and I don't think I did it right. I tried to add a famous person to the website and it's in the wrong alphabetical order. How can I fix it. It's on the notable people section. ~2025-35724-15 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @~2025-35724-15 and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume it was you who tried to add Damian Shine to the list, however we have no article on Damian Shine so I have removed the entry per our policy at WP:LISTPEOPLE. If you can first establish that he is notable and provide a reliable source for this, it may be possible to include his name in the list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the response. ~2025-35724-15 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Article

Hey there! I was trying to find topics to create articles about but I couldn’t seem to figure out what could be created because there are articles about them already, video games, space (didn’t know what could be considered) I didn’t know. Is there any suggestions of articles that should be on the namespace or could be considered to be added to article namespace? rave (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You could take a look at WP:Article requests to see articles that people have suggested for creation. However, I'd probably suggest you proceed with caution, given that the only article you've created so far is currently being discussed at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @RaveCrowny, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can find lots of articles that have been requested at Requested articles.

But remember that creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, nor necessarily the best way. We have thousands of articles that need some TLC. You can find some at the task center.

Yours is still a relatively new account: I'd suggest you get some more experience, and in particular learn more about core principles like verifiability, reliable sources, and notability, before taking on that task. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The three links that Colin Fine listed at the end - verifiability, reliable sources, and notability - might seem like a lot of reading. But they're absolutely worth it, because they explain a lot about how this place really works. It's far easier to read them, than to waste your time doing work that doesn't get accepted.

I'm sure there are articles on games or space where parts of the article need to be fixed or improved. Far too many people put stuff into an article without showing a reliable source for it, and someone like you probably knows where to find those sources and add them in.

If someone plans to build a car from scratch, they first need to be a very good mechanic. If they haven't done a lot of work on cars already, they won't know what's good and what to avoid. Fixing a lot of articles goes before writing new articles, for the same reasons. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

rave, Multiday race is an article about a subject that will have a (horrible?) fascination for many people. But the article is seriously flawed. Sample 1: August 2012 will see possibly the final 64 stage Trans-Europe race organised by Ingo Schulze. Unreferenced, and speculates about a future that's now 13 years in the past. Sample 2: The RacingThePlanet's 4 Deserts Race Series and the Marathon des Sables are among the most popular multiday races taking place today. Unreferenced, about the situation in an undefined "today", and with the ambiguous "most popular" (attracting the most applicants/participants? most reported on TV? something else?). My inexpert impression is that it's only been during this, internet-equipped century that multiday races have moved in the popular perception from "near-suicidal activity for a loony fringe" to "extreme sport"; so researching most of the events shouldn't require trips to a large reference library. Consider researching them (via Google Books, etc) and improving the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Protection Review Request

Could the extended-confirmed protection on the Dadvan Yousuf article be reviewed? Given the existing COI/cleanup tag and the absence of active extended-confirmed editors, reducing protection may allow needed improvements. ~2025-35833-90 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Which improvements are needed? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

There are outstanding neutrality and COI-related issues, along with missing or outdated information that hasn’t been revised for years. Allowing broader editing access would help with the needed cleanup and to bring the article up to date.

Just to give you one example:

Grokipedia has a section for "Citizenship Matters" on it's Dadvan Yousuf article, while on WP no confirmed user is interested to touch the article or do independent research.

I think accuracy also depends on reopening access after long periods without vandalism, so the article can be properly updated and remain competitive with other encyclopedias. ~2025-35381-70 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is a joke and is treated as such. Furthermore, wikipedia doesn't platform independent research, it only publishes what reliable, secondary sources have said mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been my experience that when "needed improvements" are mentioned, the aim is to try to improve the subject's reputation. That is probably why the article needed protection.

Grokipedia has nothing to do with it. Competition has nothing to do with it.

Maybe confirmed users consider him non-notable, I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that Yousuf's main claim to fame seems to be his cryptocurrency "investments" I'm not surprised the article has protection. There is no bar to editors who can't edit directly to make edit requests on its talk page, which already has extensive discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgh, "needed improvements" were obviously meant to add all the missing information since no extended confirmed user did it for years + doing independent research on the person.

If the article is considered non-notable, I would suggest you a speedy deletion request. Better to have no article on WP instead of something which is protected without confirmed users interested in it.

While I do see issues with the article years ago, It just looked fully outdated compared to Grokipedia. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Again: "compared to Grokipedia" is pointless. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems, the ignorance towards Grokipedia from many WP Editors will bring this enclopedia down - I think we should be open for all and learn from the best. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No thanks. qcne (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh god this article. I spent a few months trying to clean it up a few years ago, it's had persistent COI editing - apparently Dadvan himself has asked his "fans" to improve the article and remove the criticisms and controversy.

This should absolutely not be unprotected. qcne (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you share where he asked his "fans" to edit the article? This might be worth to add on the talk page and cite - so editors are aware. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Planning to save the entire Wikipedia, just by opening this one article up to random editors who insist on keeping under the radar and having no experience, seems ... odd. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Was talking in general terms. Grokipedia is doing a way better job then whats happening here. Maybe because it's less corrupted by personal feelings towards a topic. ~2025-35766-15 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe because a lot of its content is lifted from us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

There are many good editors here, but it’s surprising how little awareness there is of the fact that articles often remain outdated simply because confirmed users lose interest, while Grokipedia updates automatically. I also wasn’t aware of the level of antipathy toward Grokipedia among some WP editors until now. @QcneDoing some wild accusations without proof & @~2025-35381-70 doesnt really understand that I just tried to help. ~2025-35766-15 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Tell me you're a COI editor without telling me you're a COI editor, lol. qcne (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support @Qcne. This should absolutely not be unprotected. The proper way for auto-confirmed users or Temporary accounts to request updates is by using the article's talk page and letting the community handle the changes. We can smell COI from 3,000 miles away :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Saying that another encyclopedia is much better, and yet claiming an urgent need to get secret access to this one, doesn't make any sense. If the subject of the article is in such desperate need of Wikipedia's help, that says some things about him, and about Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Those who want a reasonably well-researched comparison by Wikipedia editors between this encyclopaedia and Grokipedia should read WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-11-10/Community view. I know which one I will mostly use.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We very much aren't corrupted by personal feelings and strive to ensure that isn't the case. However, to people who object to verifiable secondary information this might seem to be the case mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How to add a reference a second time

I still thoroughly confused about adding a reference a second time. Sure this should be easy but its not. I tried to do as instructed but am getting an error now in three different places. Any way someone can explain this is even more simple terms for me? Thank you Rosemary Kimble (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

First time, you give the reference a name, thus: <ref name="Example">[http://example.com]</ref>. Every other time, you just say <ref name="Example" />. The extra "/" is important, as is the fact that you don't have to put anything else. DS (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Help:Referencing for beginners is particularly helpful on the matter of named references. DragonflySixtyseven, I don't suppose that you intended to encourage reuse of a "bare URL" (disguised as a number), but I fear that this would be the result. Also, you're assuming that Rosemary is editing the "source" (as I assumed, earlier). But I inferred from the earlier thread that she's instead using the "visual editor". It would be good if somebody who (unlike me) is familiar with the VE would try answering this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

On my machine (which is my phone), when I use the visual editor, I need to click the big quotation mark to insert a reference. After I click that, there are three tabs visible: Automatic, Manual, and Reuse. If I click Reuse, I see a list of already used references that I can choose from.

I don't normally use the visual editor, so I don't know if the citations always work as well as they did on my trial run.

I deliberately chose a reference that seemed to have no name yet. The visual editor didn't complain at all about that, so I guess it was giving a name automatically. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Help:Referencing for beginners is particularly helpful on the matter of named references. Then you must have missed Help:Referencing for beginners#See also.

But you are also welcome to edit the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, is it appropriate to put references in the beginning paragraph that is the summary of the bio or should that only be done below that? Rosemary Kimble (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you mean the lede, then we generally avoid including citations there; the lede should summarise key points that are cited in the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. And should i not use references to wikipedia pages here either? Rosemary Kimble (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking information on editing tools

I see a lot of edits tagged with "IABotManagementConsole [1.3]". I imagine it is a very useful tool to complete tedious tasks in a short time. How can i use this tool? Avidanalyst (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

See User:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi all, if some1 would be so kind and change the official langue of Bosnia and Herzegovina and i have a proof for you on this link of official Government website of Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The website can be also viewed english if you need it. Cheers https://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/osnovne_informacije_o_bih/default.aspx?id=95&langTag=bs-BA Benori (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

From looking at it, you aren't the first to make your claim and won't be the last. Please review the talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Benori, Wikipedia dutifully notes "Gulf of America" and (within English as well as Turkish) "Türkiye", but it continues to use the terms Gulf of Mexico and Turkey. Please first read the discussions of the matter in Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_1, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_2, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_3, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_4, and Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_5. Each of these five has at least one discussion (or attempt at a discussion) about the matter; Archive 4, for example, has at least three. If you are dissatisfied by what you read, you can bring up the matter yet again in Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina, but if you do then your reasoning should show that you have digested and understood what has already been written. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Static IP & ExpressVPN Login request - Banned domain?

Hi

Can you please direct me to the appropriate individual that would help me with allowing my static IP address from my ISP along with my use of ExpressVPN on WP here?

My previous account name 'n9nu' is not retrievable as my previous ISP & my email account I had has cease to exist thus I am unable to reset my 'lost' password.

Thank you much

Tim Dickerson ARS N9NU N9NU-9 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by allowing (your) static IP address from (your) ISP, since unless there is a block on the IP it shouldn't matter, but for the VPN stuff the correct way is to request IP block exemption. In this case, since you are requesting it for use on a proxy, you need to email the Checkuser team, which can be found on the page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What is this

How do I load and put images ~2025-35954-64 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-35954-64. If you are talking about an image that has already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, please see Help:Pictures.

If you are wishing to upload an image, first read and understand the image use policy. If the image is free to use (in the sense explained there) then see Help:Upload. If not, you probably can't. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Even though I'm not signed in, how do I block people?

I see administrators blocking vandals on articles. I know IP addresses can't block people, when I sign in, how do I block people?? Also I know I can just read articles on here what else should I supposed to do? ~2025-35954-64 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Signed-in users can't block people either.

There's nothing wrong with just reading about things you're interested in; nobody minds if that's all you do. But when you sign in, I'm pretty sure you receive a "Welcome" message with ideas of what else you might do. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Other editors may send you a welcome message, but unlike some other Wikis it isn't automated. As far as I know, every welcome message is sent by another editor, rather than a bot. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Only administrators can block vandals. But any editor can file a report on a vandal at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the source of confusion here is that on most social media websites 'blocking' somebody means making their content/contributions invisible to you (also called 'ignoring' on some sites). What we call 'blocking' on Wikipedia is what most sites call 'banning' and what we call 'banning' is something entirely different. Athanelar (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is true. @~2025-35954-64, on Wikipedia the ignoring type of block doesn't exist. We're all pretty much stuck with each other. :) (If someone is acting very badly, there are ways to report it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Temp account- Is this problematic?

~2025-35889-61 is adding the category of Indian Inventions to a lot of articles and I think that this might be nationalism-motivated but I'm unsure of the accuracy and if they should be reverted. Perpetually Blooming Rose (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a problem to me, because in my opinion the origin of several of these inventions cannot even be definitively established. As far as I know, something can only be called an Indian invention if we know for certain that it was not also independently invented in other places. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It should only be added if the claim is supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

red links and disambiguation

I'm adding a list of notable alumni for William Cullen McBride High School. Specifically, Bill McDermott, a long-time (over 50 years) soccer broadcaster, was on my list to include. I was surprised to learn that there is no Wikipedia article on this Bill McDermott, but there are articles on another Bill McDermott (a businessman), a Bill MacDermott (a gridiron football player and coach) and a Billy MacDermott (a cricketeer). So my question is can I red link my reference to Bill McDermott the soccer broadcaster in my article and somehow disambiguate him from the other three?

(I don't know enough about Bill to write an article about him, but I do hope to enlist someone to do so.) Sickingm (Matt Sicking) 04:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems clear that an article about him is going to be called Bill McDermott (American radio announcer), or something similar, whatever way it's normally worded for someone like him. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, WP:NCPDAB says If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term, so I ould suggest Bill McDermott (broadcaster). The "American" bit would only be appropriate if there were another broadcaster with the same name. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah - makes sense. That's better. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Adoption

So i was wandering, how long does the adoption process take?, Can i ask my mentor to adopt me? Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If this is about WP:ADOPT, it says "So, it is up to you, as someone who wants to be adopted, not only to find and approach an adopter ... They might accept you, or they may turn you down for various reasons. Please don't approach more than one potential adopter at a time. Wait a few days before asking someone else." So it would depend on you and the people you decide to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo The "adopt-a-user" has now been largely replaced by a mentoring scheme (see WP:MENTOR). New accounts are automatically assigned a mentor and you can find who has been allocated to you at Special:Homepage. Your mentor will be very happy to answer your questions via their talk page, or you can ask everybody here at the Teahouse if you prefer. That may give you a fast response but is less personal. Threads here are also archived much more quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you access the mentor module? I have the new editor homepage enabled, but the options relating to mentors don't show up for me. IrisPersephone (she/her) (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@IrisPersephone On my editor homepage, it's on the right side, a bit down (I'm on a laptop). However, I see there's an "opt out of mentorship" option, if that has anything to do with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the “Views on articles you've edited”

Hi! I’ve started editing on the platform quite recently, and I have been enjoying it immensely.

However, when I viewed the amount of views on articles I have edited earlier today, the number was above 13k. But later in the day, it somehow decreased to only around 10k. Is there any reason why?

This is not really that big of a deal, but I am just curious on why this has happened.

Thank you very much! Gileselig (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the articles you edited was deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gileselig. You don't have edits to deleted articles. Special:Impact/Gileselig says "Most viewed (since edit was made)". I think the total is also since your latest edit to the article was made. Maybe you edited the same article again and its count reset to 0. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you! Gileselig (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, so my view count suddenly dropped down to 142 this morning, and it only seems to be tracking down a single one of the articles I edited. Is this intended, or is it a glitch? Gileselig (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I think it was a temporary glitch in the system, the count went back up to 18k. Gileselig (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it went out of the “last sixty days” part as it says “views on articles you’ve edited in the last sixty days” therefore meaning that if an edit was made 60 days ago at 1:00pm and it’s 12;59 then the views would be displayed but after it hits 1:00 pm it gets wiped, that’s just my theory however. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I don’t think that’s the reason as my account is only 6 days old. Gileselig (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see, perhaps a glitch, page deleted or… Actually I think it can only be those two options, because even when an edit is reverted it still shows on the views since last edit. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a bug. Its working as intended, per my reading of T216217. I have never found the impact section to make much sense, but the purpose of it (per this) is to show an impact, rather than a precise impact. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 11:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating an encyclopedic article about an existing company

Hello, I would like to ask about the correct steps and guidelines for creating an encyclopedic article about an existing company.

For full transparency: I am affiliated with the company. Because of this, I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia’s rules properly and avoid anything that could be considered promotional. My goal is simply to publish neutral, verifiable information supported by independent and reliable sources.

Since we do not have anyone outside the company who could write the article for us, I would like to understand the correct procedure to submit a draft without violating conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Could you advise on:

• the specific policies I should follow,
• whether I should prepare the draft in my user sandbox, and
• the proper way to request a review so the community can evaluate it neutrally?

Thank you very much for your help. AntoninoTesta (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:AFC, and WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

AntonioTesta I would also advise you to read why an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. Wikipedia does not merely host information, and it is not a place for companies to just tell about themselves, their offerings, and their activities. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. See WP:YESPROMO.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Companies trying to force the issue and create an article about themselves are rarely successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic in any way, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing what those sources say- not what the company wants to say about itself. If your company is truly a notable company as Wikipedia defines the term, someone will eventually write about it. I suggest that you go on about the work of your company as if Wikipedia did not exist and allow an article to organically develop the usual way. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations and for the links you provided.

I understand the concerns regarding COI, promotional tone, and the difficulty of creating a new article on Wikipedia. I fully respect these guidelines.

I would just like to clarify the context of my request: the company has been operating for over five years and has served more than 4,000,000 passengers during this time. While this is certainly small compared to the large global players in the industry, I thought that these figures might indicate that the topic could be of some potential encyclopedic interest, and therefore worth evaluating for a reference page.

I understand that my attempt may appear promotional — this was absolutely not my intention. The goal was simply to “be present” with the same opportunities that many multinational companies already have, and to leave a neutral trace of the company’s existence.

The project was born during one of the most difficult periods in recent history (the COVID-19 crisis) and, despite uncertainty about the future, it managed to grow in a region like Sicily — a place that is often associated with negative stereotypes rather than technological innovation. For this reason, I believed it might be appropriate to check whether the company could meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

In any case, I appreciate the guidance and I will refrain from directly creating or pushing for an article. If, in the future, independent editors consider the topic notable enough based on reliable and independent sources, I would of course welcome an organically created article.

Thank you again for your time and your feedback. AntoninoTesta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@AntoninoTesta Please do not use an AI chatbot to communicate with us. qcne (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I just translate from Italian to english AntoninoTesta (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you write an article on the Italian language Wikipedia instead. qcne (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You clearly have not understood "the concerns regarding COI", because the very first link I gave you in my reply, the first one above, tells you must declare who you are being paid by and/or who you represent.

This you have not done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never used Wikipedia before, only for research until now. I realized I needed to update my personal wiki page with a disclosure, I hope I did this correctly. AntoninoTesta (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

As user:qcne said, don't use a chatbot to talk here. It's considered rude, and we don't mind people making grammatical errors and the like. You wanting "the same opportunities" is considered promotional and not what wikipedia is for mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all AntoninoTesta (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Old AfC decline tags on Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello! My draft (Draft:Giacomo Billi) contains old AfC decline tags that I cannot remove.

I have rewritten the entire draft with neutral tone and independent reliable sources.

Could an AfC reviewer please clean the old decline templates so I can resubmit properly?

Thank you! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

People will object to the tags being removed, and will restore them if they are removed.

Which is odd, because if the draft is deleted, then a "new" draft is submitted, the tags are not shown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I am an AfC reviewer (though I haven't reviewed this draft and don't intend to), and I have restored the decline templates. Please do not remove them yet again. If/when the draft is accepted, the earlier decline templates will automatically be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline notices do not need to be removed in order for a draft to be resubmitted. They should be kept in place so other reviewers can see if/why your draft was previously declined to determine whether you've actually made an attempt to improve on the earlier feedback. Athanelar (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Support with page

Hi

The page I am editing has been declined with the reason as tone and not notable. Please advise, as there are lots of other people with wiki pages who have awards and news features teh same or similar to the subject in question - Draft:Beverly Clarke (consultant) - Wikipedia please advise on what needs fixing here. Thank you. TheEditShade (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TheEditShade. The draft's reviewers have left advice in both the templates and comments under those. You do not really talk about why the subject is notable. You also seem to have a somewhat promotional tone: Her podcast appearances and hosting efforts aim to educate and also to make technology careers and entrepreneurship more accessible to a wider audience, and her efforts to bridge the digital divide, and Clarke is also a life and career coach. Her coaching practice focuses on confidence, empowerment, and leadership development. I would remove the fluff and only focus on the factual information. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you TheEditShade (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TheEditShade, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, we have thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not be accepted; but few volunteers want to spend their time cleaning this up. But this is not a reason for accepting further sub-standard articles: see other stuff exists.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Question with talk page formatting

Hey! All discussions on WT:SERBIA are under the 'about this talk page' section on mobile for some reason. I'm not that good at source editing so I was wondering if someone knows how to fix it (or knows where to find someone who can). TIA. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi JustARandomSquid. Fixed by closing an unclosed table in the lead.[1] The fix means there is no longer a blue border around the sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you! JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To Move or Not to Move a Page Due to Conflict of Interest

Hi!

The article in question is Quirino station (MRT) of the MRT Line 7 (Metro Manila). Editors have apparently come to a consensus in a requested move that "Quirino Avenue station" is not the correct name for the article of the station.

As publicly stated on my userpage, I am involved with the said metro project, especially on its operations. Because of this, I can say that the correct station name is "Quirino Avenue" as stated on the maps inside the trains shown by the consultant (KORAIL). All our documents also use "Quirino Avenue" as the station name. The move requester mentioned the MRT-7 Project Briefer and this presentation as their references to support the page move. However, these are very outdated and does not reflect the current status of the project.

If we follow their references, then it would also mean that the names for station numbers 1 (North EDSA) and 9 (Regalado Avenue) are incorrect.

What's your advice on this? HiwilmsTalk 14:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @Hiwilms. I would present this on the article's talk page and have a discussion with other editors. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you meant. However, "conflict of interest" almost always has a different meaning, and that more usual meaning is used often on Wikipedia. "Conflict of interest" normally describes someone who shouldn't be making decisions because they have friends or associates who can gain from those decisions. On Wikipedia we use it when a friend or associate wants to write about someone. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How to stop vandalism

Hello I was wondering if it's possible for me to stop people from vandalizing Articles/pages and fixing the pages to the original form. Very high frequency (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Take a look at WP:Vandalism. You can also enroll in the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to learn more, which is what I'm currently doing. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Very high frequency, welcome to the teahouse. I would recommend getting twinkle; it is incredibly useful in general, but is nearly integral for counter vandalism. Twinkle allows for the easy reversion of vandalism, restoration of pages, and other useful abilities for counter vandals. The most common way to detect vandalism is through the recent changes log. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Which page (or pages) is an issue right now? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge...

I've been working on an article that has a variety of other extremely similar articles. In the Talk page (which is mostly from pre-2020), users have already suggested merging some of these articles, but it has never been done.

How can I merge an article? What are some good tips to correctly do so?

Also, I was wondering where I should discuss this article, since my message on the Talk page has gone quite unnoticed.

Here is the main article: firewood and some others for potential merging: firewood, firewood in Nigeria, wood fuel

Thank you! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

All the talk page comments about potential merging are at least 20 years old, Wikipedia was a very different place back then and the articles in question were very different articles. If you still think a merge of the articles in their current forms should take place you should start a new discussion as outlined in WP:MERGE to get more up to date opinions on the matter. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. After looking through the articles proposed for merging with the guidelines from WP:MERGE in mind, I think that they each have enough of their own content to remain as standalone articles. I did however improve linking and connections between the articles. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Links to browse archives by page disappeared from some article talk banners

Hello, some article talk pages with recently archived content (via MiszaBot and lowercase sigmabot III) are not displaying the small links to browse archived pages ("1, 2"), years ("2023") or index that are displayed in the archive banner above the search bar on most other talk pages. Here is a talk page whose banner is missing these small links, compared with a talk page that has such links. Is there formatting to re-enable the links to archived pages of talk topics to appear on the talk page after they have disappeared? Thanks, Llll5032 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Llll5032. Iljhgtn incorrectly set counter = 4 (probably copied from another page) in Talk:Atlas Network when archiving was set up in [2]. This caused archive numbers to start at 4 instead of 1 which the index looks for. I have moved the archives and fixed the counter. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, thanks very much, both for solving the problem and offering the succinct explanation. Also, my own reversion edit may now be causing some topics to be displayed on both the live talk page and in the archive (part of 1, and all of 2). Can you recommend a solution? Llll5032 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Llll5032: I have removed the sections from the main talk page.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, thanks, PrimeHunter. Llll5032 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

National historic register places listings for Maryland and mid Atlantic

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

---

Hi, been uploading photos of historic structures/boats for over a decade with no issues. Now it seems my photo contributions for Wicomico/Talbot Counties in Maryland are not getting posted in the Listings. I have retried to upload but then get a duplication message. Help. A lot of time, money, scary trips down back roads and dirt lanes involved. Linda Roy Walls (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Linda Roy Walls Please only ask a question in one place at a time, and see the replies you had at Wikipedia:Help_desk#National_Historic_Register_Listings_for_Maryland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Unexplained revisions

Sock AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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

---

There is a mod, Belbury, who reverted an edit I made on Marx Brothers. I asked him on his talk page if since the multimedia files were removed because of WP:BE then they should probably be removed from commons as well. But he just reverted all my edits, without batting an eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChesterFingers23 ChesterFingers23 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What other accounts have you used? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BE doesn't mean that the files should be removed from commons. It would seem to mean Belbury suspects that one user is utilising multiple accounts to try to implement this edit, specifically in violation of a block on a previous account. Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Belbury is not an admin. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Public Domain videos uploaded by sock puppets should be deleted. ChesterFingers23 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Flag of Belarus

Hello. I corrected a significant error on the page about the Belarusian flag. Specifically, I changed the designer's name from Mikhail to Nikolai. I also added a link to his name and to the Belarusian National Movement (Slutsk uprising, Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz) mentioned in the article. But all of this was removed by user Materialscientist without any explanation. Could someone help please? Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only source you provided was the Russian Wikipedia- user-generated websites(like every version of Wikipedia) are not acceptable as sources. If the information is cited on the Russian Wikipedia, you may use those sources here(even if they are in Russian). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much. Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

But I didn't actually want to use this link to the Russian Wikipedia as a source, but as a transition within the Wikipedia environment. But apparently, it's not allowed between different Wikipedia languages. Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It is allowed, you just need to use Template:Interlanguage link rather than an external link. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Or follow one of the options at H:FOREIGNLINK. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks Transhuman.singularity (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Transhuman.singularity, linking to Russian (or Swahili, or Welsh, or whatever) -language Wikipedia is indeed allowed; but (if I may simplify slightly) citing the Wikipedia of any language (including English) as a source is not allowed. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How does one copyedit?

How do you copyedit? I can't seem to figure out what I'm supposed to fix. CrepeVampire (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CrepeVampire. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting should be able to explain the basics of how to copyedit. But basically, you just look for things to fix, such as spelling errors. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia saying my comments are unsigned

Hello. For some reason, it seem that whenever I make a comment, Wikipedia marks it as unsigned (see my reply in #What doesn’t have a wikipedia page yet? for an example), even though it is signed. Would it be an issue with my signature? I would understand if it is, as it does have a non-User: namespace wikilink at the end, and it doesn't link to this account's user page. dot.py (alt) 22:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Dot.py, it appears that your signature doesn't align with the instructions on Sinebot's page. Your signature doesn't contain a link to your alt's page. The autosignature can be avoided with the steps here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dot.py. Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links says: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". The edit [4] was made by User:Dot.py (alt) and did have a contributions link (on a single letter) for that account but not the user page as normal. User:SineBot#What it looks for says "It should have a link to your user page", so the bot appears a little stricter than the policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, I have gotten that fixed. dot.py (alt) 22:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of JSTOR

Hi there, I wanted to check that it's okay to cite articles found on JSTOR within Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Avawatson03 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Avawatson03 Yes Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that the criterion of reliability depends on the publisher, not the particular medium or site. I don't know whether material from any predatory journals or other sources that the community has decided are generally unreliable are hosted on JSTOR or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Avawatson03 Note that JSTOR is just like a library. While many have access to it via their academic institution or via The Wikipedia Library most will not. Hence when citing an article you found in JSTOR, you should use the digital object identifier, if there is one, not JSTOR's URL link. You can convert DOI to full Wikipedia citations using citer.toolforge. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How to request mass merger of articles

Hi everyone

I noticed that several articles of Bible translation like Pashto, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Konkani, Kannada,Buryat, Kalmyk and many more articles on Category:Bible translations by language those can't established notability under WP:GNG.

Some pages have info but not backed by citation.

Can anyone help me how to deal with it. 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, what do you think, 獅眠洞? If you post a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and invite comments on your suggestion, I think you're more likely to get helpful responses than if you ask there for unspecified help on how to deal with these article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean most of the sources are not independent but primary for example official site link none of the sources providing mention above any context of Bible translation into that language Discription. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking to merge all these mentioned articles into List of Bible translations by language. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say open a merge discussion at that article's talk page and do it.

Also, please be note WP:LATINPLEASE regarding your username, it would be very helpful if your signature included a latin transliteration of your username so that we have something to refer to you by. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

"Sleeping Lion Cave"? (NB I don't know Chinese.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mr.Lazy (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Currently the 'MrLazy' text links to User:Example rather than your userpage, so please do fix that. Athanelar (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

For "Mr.Lazy Guy" to be concealing 「獅眠洞」 strikes me as unnecessarily and undesirably confusing. As hanzi are written left to right, they're pretty easy to copy 'n' paste for people who are accustomed to English but utterly unfamiliar with Chinese. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you simply merge them into List of Bible translations by language, 獅眠洞, you'll have to choose between (A) cutting a large percentage of each of them and (B) ending up with an article that's bloated and grossly under-referenced. What you might do is go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and there briefly describe the inadequately referenced state of these articles and announce your intention of making a start at (i) cutting from them all material that's inadequately referenced, (ii) moving what is adequately referenced to List of Bible translations by language, and (iii) converting these language-specific articles into redirects to List of Bible translations by language. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

But remember, 獅眠洞, that a book can be an acceptable source for certain kinds of statement about itself. For example, an edition α of the bible translated by A into language X would be an acceptable reference for a statement that edition α included (or didn't include) the apocrypha. (However, it wouldn't be an acceptable reference for a statement that α was a superior translation to that made by B into language X.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I know that, but I mean News or any secondary source (Translation of Bible is a book so we should deal it with that criteria). But some pages like Buryat have only one citation, turkmen have two links both are of from primary download link not any source providing context of its history.

I think that we should deal it with criteria of a book to deserve independent article. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

"Editor in good standing" criteria

Many policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:EXEMPT or WP:NAC) make reference to being an "editor in good standing" being required in order to perform a certain action, but as far as I can tell it's not defined anywhere. Is there any formal definition (confirmed? extended confirmed?), or does it just mean something loose and subjective like "no recent warnings" or "established enough to have a good reputation in the community"? The wording of this and other policies mentioning the requirement seems to imply there's some probationary period for newer editors, but it's never spelled out. IrisPersephone (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It is, as you put it, loose and subjective. My understanding is it's a very low bar, and it can be thought of as synonymous with "not untrustworthy". If you're not viewed as a habitual menace to the community, or blocked, you are probably an editor in good standing. If it can be articulated that you are not an editor in good standing, and if that is consensus, then you are not. tony 04:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IrisPersephone. My understanding of "in good standing" is that an editor is not currently subject to any formal sanctions such as blocks, page blocks, topic bans, interaction bans and the like. Also, that sanctions against the editor are not currently being discussed at any administrative or ArbCom noticeboard. The latter type of discussion is commonly called being "under a cloud". Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to write about a computer hardware company as a beginner I want to know about corporate notability?

Hello all, I want to know about corporate notability for a computer hardware company i am interested to write. can anyone help? Mhasan0396 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I would first advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right in without first learning about how things work here is likely to end in frustration and anger as things happen to work you spend hours on that you don't understand. We don't want you to feel bad here. We recommend that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for what is being looked for and how things work. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.

That said, you may write and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. Regarding companies, you should review the notability guidelines for companies to see if this company meets it; the vast majority of companies do not. The company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that is more than just telling of the activities of the company or its offerings. Sources like press releases, interviews, and basic coverage do not establish notability. You should first gather any sources there are and have them in hand before you begin writing. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope this all works out well. In general though, computer hardware companies tend to get very little coverage from independent sources, unless they're huge and world-famous like Intel, or unless they've been involved in a high-profile public scandal. (And note that if there has been a major scandal, the Wikipedia article is going to have to cover the scandal too.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are employed by this company, it is very unlikely to be notable, but you are technically allowed to submit a draft for others to review if you follow the rules in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a Wikipedia:Paid-editing disclosure. Every day, dozens of people sign up on Wikipedia to write a draft about their company, only to be told that their company does not meet our very strict criteria for inclusion; this is a big part of why conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I proceed to get my page published?

Hi all! I'm new here, so please be kind 😅

I've submitted this page a while ago, and it seems to be stuck in draft. I don't know if I should make any further changes or or take any actions to progress towards a published page. Can anyone help me?

Thanks, P PaalAU (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PaalAU. It was never submitted for review. I have submitted it for review for you- this may take two months or more. qcne (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Awesome @Qcne, thanks! As mentioned, I'm new, and I thought I had already submitted it.

/P PaalAU (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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

On a quick look (this is not a formal review) the draft looks to be much more about the product than the company: I suggest you clarify which it is. Note that since notability is mostly about what has been published about a subject, it is perfectly possible for a product to be notable and the company not, or vice versa.

I need to ask, have you any connection with the company? When the first thing a new editor does is to start creating an article about a company, that is often the case. If so, you need to be aware of our policy on editing with a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way employed or remunerated by the company, with our policy on paid editing.

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) 11:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this very helpful reply, @ColinFine. And yes, I have not done my due dilligence here. I am affiliated with the company as an external consultant, and therefore I will withdraw the draft and cancel my attempt to get published. I did post the page because I was looking for information about the product, which I think is a product with both commercial, environmental and societal value, but I certainly understand that it should be written by someone with a neutral standing to the commercial aspect. My apologies, and again – thanks for your clear and informative feedback. /P PaalAU (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil Behavior

Hi I'm need advice if this should be consider under ANI. This user has been quite uncivil in the interaction with me and apparently some other pages as well. His summary on topic seems to violate edit summary do and don't but again not 100% sure. G Zhong 10:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this is quite an instance of WP:OWN. So yeah, I think this should go to WP:ANI. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Upload an article

Upload an article, I am getting errors Dr. Moses Matur Chol (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You have no edits (deleted or otherwise) beside your query here , that I could see. Which article/page are you talking about? Lectonar (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Moses Matur Chol: what you saw is an automated filter that stops new users from uploading PDF files. Please note that you can't create an article by uploading a PDF; you must use Wikipedia editors (either visual editor or the old style wikitext editor). MKFI (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance template @ Niels_Kuster

Niels Kuster

I am writing to request help to delete the maintenance template on the English language version of the article about Niels Kuster.

The issues:

• This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles. (August 2022)
  • 3 articles -- Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society, Sim4Life/SEMCAD, and Computational human phantoms -- link to it now
• This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (September 2022)
  • improper external links have been addressed
• This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (December 2023)
  • the declaration regarding paid contributions has been added to the tlak page

I am not allowed to remove the box because I am the paid contributor. Thanks very much for your help on this matter. GoneDutch (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GoneDutch, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for declaring your status.

The "orphan" tag has been removed, as there are now incoming links.

You should not remove COI notice, or directly edit the article. But you can clean it up by suggesting specific edits to it using edit requests. The thing to remember is 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.

Almost nothing published by I'TIS or by Kuster is relevant, and also little by other organisations he is affiliated with such as IEEE. Given the paucity independent sources, I doubt that the article establishes that Kuster meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - so offering sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 would be helpful.

So for example, if you find an truly independent source that discusses some of his work, you might make an edit request that says "delete the paragraph ... and replace it with the following ..." (based entirely on what that independent sources says, and including a citation to it)

If you cannot find several sources that meet the criteria, then I'm afraid that is a strong indication that Kuster is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and the article should be deleted and cannot be saved. ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine,

Thank you for removing the box, aside from the paid contributions part. To provide a bit of background, I was asked to translate the German language version of the article about Niels Kuster written by Wikipedia ID BBCLCD. That contributor contacted me after I submitted the translation to remark that I am too close to the subject (although a little digging revealed that BBCLCD had also contributed an article about himself):

Du bist erst seit kurzem auf Wikipedia tätig geworden und hast bisher ausschliesslich den Artikel über Niels Kuster erweitert. Bei WP-Artikeln über Personen sind der entsprechenden Person nahestehende Autoren weniger erwünscht, da sie oft voreingenommen sind. Du legst fairerweise offen, dass Du bei diesem Artikel von Prof. Niels Kuster angeleitet wirst. Bezüglich WP-Relevanzkriterien für Professoren sind Assistenz- oder Titularprofessoren per se für WP nicht relevant genug. Weil ich über die besonderen Verdienste von Kuster erfahren habe, entstand von mir der Artikel über Kuster. Mein ursprünglicher Artikel wurde bewusst knapp gehalten. Ich möchte nicht, dass auf dieser Basis PR-artige Erweiterungen gemacht werden (wie z. B. in Geschäftsberichten üblich).

...translated:

You've only recently joined Wikipedia and so far have only expanded the article about Niels Kuster. For Wikipedia articles about individuals, authors close to the person in question are less desirable, as they are often biased. You fairly disclose that you are being guided by Professor Niels Kuster on this article. Regarding Wikipedia's relevance criteria for professors, assistant or titular professors are not considered relevant enough per se. Because I learned about Kuster's exceptional achievements (italics from GoneDutch), I wrote the article about him. My original article was deliberately kept brief. I don't want any PR-style expansions (like those commonly found in annual reports) based on it.

The comment about assistant or titular professors being not considered relevant enough per se (implies that full professors in the Swiss system are automatically relevant? -- I beg to differ). Prof. Kuster's work began in the early 1990's, when he was a Titularprofessoren, with the development of a robotic system to measure electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile devices. The first spin-off SME, SPEAG (Draft:Schmid & Partner Engineering AG), was founded to market the system, the current version of which is used worldwide for testing compliance of mobile phones and other mobile devices like tablets, smart-watches, etc. The IT'IS Foundation, a spin-off of SPEAG, continues to support the development of tools for studies of electromagnetic radiation and has spawned other spin-offs. To my knowledge, the majority of university spin-offs are "one-trick ponies", a single patent, product, or protocol that eventually gets bought up and marketed by a larger conglomerate. Prof. Kuster has kept his work in Switzerland, continued to expand and provide science and engineering jobs, as well as jobs in production and logistics, for more than 30 years.

I have since been drafting other contributions about the research, SMEs, products, etc. guided by Prof. Kuster, trying very hard to adhere to encyclopedic language. I model my contributions after Wikipedia articles about similar organizations and products. I haven't had much success so far with getting articles accepted. My contributions are criticized by Wikipedia editors for -- in addition to paid contributor problem -- as you point out, a paucity of independent sources. Many of the sources that I consider independent, e.g., research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, are dismissed, I suppose because the articles are co-authored by IT'IS researchers. In my opinion, the peer review process should be sufficient to overcome the independence hurdle.

I need help to make the contributions more acceptable to the Wikipedia editors making decisions. I appreciate the guidance you provide in your reply, especially about not being allowed to edit the articles myself -- I had not come across that rule. GoneDutch (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GoneDutch. There are some different criteria for notability which may be used for academics - WP:NPROF. I don't really understand these, or how they interact with the basic criteria. But I'm pretty sure that you still need to provide several sources which are independent.

Even setting aside the question of independence, his peer-reviewed papers do not contain significant coverage of him, and so cannot be used to support information about him in an article about him.

There is a simple (though not easy!) approach to writing an article for English Wikipedia:

1. Assemble sources each of which is reliably published, completely independent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject (as explained in Golden rule
2. If you have no sources, or few and they are not enough to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article, give up.
3. Set aside all other information you may have about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
4. Optionally, add a small amount of uncontroversial factual data (eg dates, locations) from non-independent sources about the subject.

There are few circumstances (if any) in which it is appropriate to cite a source which deoes not contain information about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Image for a draft article

I remember seeing (on Wikipedia) that images of someone who is deceased are allowed onto pages, is this true and therefore what license would it be, as the Wikimiedia commons image uploader doesn’t have a specific button to tick or “deceased persons”.

Here is the person who I’d like to add an image for —> Draft:Lord Blakie. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted.

That said, I'm not aware of special rules surrounding images of not-recently deceased persons; you may be referring to WP:BLPIMAGE regarding images of recently deceased or living people. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, well if it is possible to add an image I do think that would be nice, so are there any specific rules on deceased images or is it the same with most other images (EG. Requires permission, or is free from copyright). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: If a person is dead, a freely licensed photo of him or her can obviously not be taken, so a copyrighted image may be uploaded (to this Wikipedia, not to Commons) if it meets the Non-free content criteria. A non-free image cannot be used in a draft, however; it can be added only after the draft is moved to article space. Deor (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the NFCC and the image checks the boxes, in fact it may be copyright free judging but it’s use on the TrinidadExpress website (news site) however I wasn’t able to see any Copyright or who exactly took said image (considering it was most likely taken in the 50s-early 60s), sure when it is published to the main space then I’d add the image, but like I just tick the box “my own work” as when uploading an image to a Wikipedia page that is the only way to add said image? Thanks for your help Deor and 331 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KeyolTranslater. No, please do not tick "my own work" unless you personally hold the copyright to the image. You do not, so do not tick that checkbox. qcne (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see, so then how would I upload it if not via commons, wasn’t planning to tick the “own work” section, just a little confused, I’ve uploaded images before which were my own work/free from copyright but usually that was Via commons and according to Deor I couldn’t put this specific image of Lord Blakie via Commons, therefore I’m a bit lost on how I would put the image onto Wikipedia without using commons, and even then using commons I’m unaware of what copyright it is (if it has a copyright at all). Thanks for any help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater Since you're unaware of the copyright, you can't upload the image to Wikimedia Commons - sorry. Commons can only accept images under special copyright-free licenses, or where you are the copyright holder and are releasing the image to Commons under a compatible license. And as @331dot said, images are a "nice to have" feature but not a requirement for drafts, and have no bearing on acceptance. qcne (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn’t thinking it was a requirement, I just thought as I remember hearing that deceased persons can have their image on Wikipedia, I think it was even in the Teahouse I saw that, hence why I thought it could be appropriate but perhaps I’m mistaken. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: Definitely do not claim that a photo that you did not take yourself is your own work. Go to the File upload wizard, click on "Upload a non-free file", then "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" and "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive", and the wizard will guide you through the upload process. If you can't determine who took the photo, just say that the author is "unknown". Deor (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks a lot, all this technical stuff can be quite confusing. I’ll add it when the article is accepted (as I do believe it has enough info to be accepted), thanks for taking your time today to help me 👍 have a great rest of your day, same goes to qcne and 331. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KeyolTranslater. You're not entirely wrong, but you're misremembering.

As Deor explained, if a person is living it is almost never acceptable to upload a non-free image, because there is nearly always a possibility (even a removeremote one) that a free image could be obtained.

When a person is dead, that argument no longer applies, so the claim that "no free alternative exists" is easier to maintain. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater See the image at File:Coral_Bell_in_2008.jpg for the sort of justification and link to the source you need to use to meet WP:NONFREE for images of deceased people. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, i will look for any copyright free images of Blakie but if not then I’ll use this format of Non-Free. Thanks very much, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

For future reference, on a photo, "Own work" always always means "I am the person who pressed the button on the camera". TooManyFingers (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know I just was a little confused in how to upload the images without using commons, I’ve uploaded images before (which are mine/out of copyright) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I get that. But there is pretty widespread misuse and abuse of "own work" as a sort of magic ticket saying "Post my copyright violation now, because I said so". TooManyFingers (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I can definitely see that, especially if people don’t think it’s has a copyright and just put “own work” I did that once but then I had to change it to say the artist was “unknown” but don’t worry, I won’t be getting any copyright violations for Wikipedia. :) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

submission rejected

My submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted (LuniZunie) because it is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. What did I do wrong? Theangrymoms (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Theangrymoms. Your draft is not a valid Wikipedia article, it's just a list of people who have signed a petition? Go to a social media website instead if you want to get people to sign a petition. qcne (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ I think we need a warning when creating accounts here on Wikipedia, too many people come thinking it’s social media. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the improper way that I've tried to provide validation for the documentation of the outrage for something that I feel everyone should know about: the underutilization of clozapine for it's current two indications: 1) treatment resistant schizophrenia; 2) suicide prevention. There's also a petition to the FDA for a third indication: anti-aggression. With the explosion of violence due to the increased occurences of untreated/undertreated Serious Mental Illness (SMI), and for the millions of US citizens affected by SMI, people need to know that there is possible help with proper utilization of clozapine. Our kids are dead, on the streets, or incarcerated because there is no help available. Institutions were closed decades ago, there is no place for them. Moms, first responders, jails, are left "holding the bag". Society pays a lot. Monetarily, and in public safety. It's a huge issue. People should know that lives, families, society, governments, etc. could save a lot of suffering, fear, and money, by educating people about clozapine. ~2025-36395-04 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I was a bit harsh. Perhaps if you want to raise awareness find sources and put it on a Wikipedia page for Clozapine (if there is one already existent, or if not then create one), or go on social media sites, I agree that drugs (which I assume Clozapine is) are a serious issue, I have relatives no have fallen into those dark spaces and it’s upsetting, I agree completely with your cause, but unfortunately you can’t promote it on here, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a promotion site, and even then I think social media will be better for your petition that Wikipedia. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-36395-04 There is, of course, a Wikipedia article about clozapine. However, for medical topics we insist on a very high quality of sourcing, described at WP:MEDRS. Do not attempt to add anything to that article which does not meet that standard or the edit will be reverted quite quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with pursuing these goals at all, nor does the draft being rejected suggest that it isn't. It's just that this isn't the purpose of Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia that merely summarizes what independent, reliable sources have chosen to say about notable subjects. Many laudable things aren't written about here and many worthless things are, by design. Advocacy for a cause is something for social media, issue organizations, public events, or websites that do have this kind of thing as a goal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-36395-04. To amplify what CoffeeCrumbs said, please see WP:NOTADVOCACY. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

[Edit Conflicts] Our article Clozapine already discusses this topic in its Section 8.1 Society and culture's subsection Clozapine#Underuse in neutral encyclopaedic terms.

Your wish to further awareness of the issue is entirely understandable and commendable, but unfortunately this would fall under the definition of promotion, which as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia deliberately excludes even if it is for a worthy cause. Other websites and social media are more suitable for this sort of activity, and I wish you good luck with efforts there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I did read this page before trying to add mine. However, it seemed outdated since it did not mention that the FDA has stopped the REMS. It also seems to have more information about countries outside of the United States. Also, although a friend of mine (Dr. Robert Laitman) is mentioned (and a link to his website is included) it does not mention his EASE model that could help many more experience Meaningful Recovery.

Are those updates appropriate?

Also, another, separate, yet worthwhile topic for Wikipedia might be the history of clozapine in the US. My friend, Dr. Gilbert Honigfeld, has been involved in it for around 52 years. Although he has multiple publications they are rarely viewed, aside from those already involved with clozapine. However, if more people knew of his work as a clinical researcher that led the development of clozapine, they may learn a lot.

I have been corresponding with him for years and have asked him to record his history for all. He suggested that we start comprising the things that he's told me about. He's 91 and wants to tell someone. Me? I'm just a mom. The world could learn so much from his experiences and knowledge.

It all is factual history. Isn't that what wikipedia seeks to preserve? ~2025-36395-04 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

We will be happy to have those if he has papers or journals on like JSTOR or published works/papers, it will help if you compile the info and spend some time editing the page of Clozapine, we will certainly like views from qualified doctors (as they are credible). Of course other users and admins will have to read your message but I think it seems good, but I can’t make a unanimous decision as I’m not that hire on the editor “hierarchy” (not a long experienced admin editor). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You've asked this in three different forums; please don't do that, as it takes up additional volunteer time.

Just use one—you will get an answer, whichever you choose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking advice on article of prominent journalist, that has been marked for deletion.

Hello everyone! I am seeking counsel on an article that I wrote on a music journalist and author, Ben Cardew.

There is a discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted.

This journalist is also the programming head of a large music festival Radio Primavera Sound. He is cited 100s of times in Wikipedia and regularly sought out by leading music media outlets to write about and interview leading artists. Yes I understand that notability is established when others publish articles on the actual person, but it is what he does and not who he is that is of interest to popular culture, even though that is all tied together. So the issue is that obviously the journalist is a private person and avoids the spotlight, because that is not the point, and maybe does not have an agent who would arrange for paid coverage. (I am speculating! I have no idea if they have an agent or not.)

How can someone be cited many times and yet not have their own article? It does not make sense to me.

I understand and yet am wondering how to establish a more contemporary understanding of notability.

Thanks so much if you have any guidance to offer. I&I22 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @I&I22. Do any of the sources in your draft meet the criterion set out in Wikipedia:GOLDENRULE? From the deletion nominator, it doesn't look like it.

If not, that means this journalist does not pass our threshold for criteria for inclusion, which is at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). Criteria for inclusion is tested by evidence of multiple secondary sources that are independent from the person the article is about.

Note that we specifically exclude sources that are primary or written by the person the article is about, which looks like what most of your sources are.

What is your professional or personal relationship/connection to Ben Cardew? qcne (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There are also many non-him articles cited and many that I chose the auto formatting option did not include the authors.

I follow his work as am an electronic music enthusiast and am working to protect the legacy of genx creators - their webpages and archives are disappearing and so trying to secure some of this important history in wikipedia as well as encourage other edm enthusiasts to participate here.

I follow the work of all the people that I have written about in Wikipedia.

If you are insinuating that I am getting paid to do this labour you are very wrong. I am not a capitalist and so don't follow capitalist rationale for my efforts. I&I22 (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so, again, what three sources meet the golden rule I linked above that prove this person meets our criteria? qcne (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I will get them and here will be my guidelines taken from Referencing

"Citations

Citations are the most important element of any Wikipedia page. No page should be on Wikipedia if it cannot be backed up from a high quality published secondary source.

You should aim to have a citation at the end of every sentence, or at least every paragraph.

Your golden rule for sources used is that they should be published, and they should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Scholarly material is normally fine, broadsheet newspapers, university-level textbooks and books from respected publishing houses. Blogs from universities or any organisations with an editorial oversight might be acceptable. Tabloids and clickbait journalism tend to be less reliable and should be avoided." I&I22 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, those are the criteria.

Most of your sources are primary, which fail the "secondary source" rule. qcne (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There are 2 others listed by journalist Christian Eede

Eede, Christian (July 29, 2021) New Daft Punk podcast examines each track on ‘Discovery’: Listen: The podcast series precedes a forthcoming book on the classic album DJ Mag.

( I will add in one at a time) I&I22 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This source is reliable, independent, but does not provide the significant coverage we require: it just states he writes the Podcast and does no analysis or discussion of Ben otherwise. qcne (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Now:

Bain, Katie (2021-06-03). "A Book About Daft Punk's 'Discovery' Is Coming This Fall: See the Cover". Billboard. I&I22 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Cassidy, Johny (2011-04-14). "Could the indie record store be on the comeback trail?". BBC News. Retrieved 2025-11-25. I&I22 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Do modern pop stars 'just pose at singing'?". BBC News. 2011-05-09. I&I22 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue with establishing notability is the Wikipedia editor aka me, not really the subject. Cardew writes a lot and is everywhere. It is a deep dive to get past his publications insearches. If the BBC is citing and interviewing Cardew in music articles, it cannot be that he is unnotable. In any case i can remove the lesser quality citations and do more work to find more solid ones. I&I22 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @I&I22. I sometimes think that the choice of the word "notable" is unfortunate. If somebody is not Wikinotable, this does not mean that he is unimportant, or insignificant: it means that there is not enough independent material about him to base an article on - that's all. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Reynolds, Matthew (2008). "Why Music Should Be Socialized". The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 10 (3): 5. I&I22 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Reid, Andy; Rosni, Devin; Shelton, Darren. "Episode 23 - Daft Punk - The Ben Cardew Interview". Apple Podcasts. Retrieved October 5, 2025. I&I22 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing about journalists(other than top tier journalists like Walter Kronkite or Lester Holt) can be challenging as they rarely write about each other, making it difficult for there to be appropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these notes. Yes, it is an interesting challenge and normally journalists are not my subject. Just this one as writes about all the artists that I am making articles for. He is genx and with that much of what is written on him is not necessarily easy to find as not digitised. But also, he is a journalist and I don’t think that they focus on promoting their own stories as much. The other thing that is interesting is that Wikipedia’s ideas on notability might be out of date. Now, I think that notable journalists just get the gigs and are paid by media outlets. I think that also is an important point to recognise. Maybe I am not expressing my thoughts accurately enough. I am a volunteer and have a busy life like everyone and find these Wikipedia tangles exhausting and a bit demoralising lol. Then when you are passionate ppl accuse you of making money. I care about time and protecting legacies and want to put my energy towards other articles that need to be written. Anyways I guess it’s par for the course. Am learning but it’s so unfun ha! I&I22 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, @I&I22, none of these sources provide significant critical coverage of Ben himself, as a person. I, unfortunately, concur that it seems this person does not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I&I22 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what not being a capitalist has to do with this; I don't know of any nation that doesn't require the use of money. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am too tired to explain. Anyways it is done. Thank you 🙏🏾 🤩☮️🎉 I&I22 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Navigating Wikipedia's information pages, etc

How do I find Wikipedia's information pages when I need them? There doesn't seem to be a search feature and the only way I have seen is through links. For example, is there some place I could search "noticeboards" and find the page WP:PNB? Lucevium (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia information pages. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lucevium The simplest way is, I think to prefix your search with WP: in the standard search box. This will restrict the search to the WP namespace and allow you to put relevant keywords into a search. WP:Noticeboards for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There are a couple of things you can do.

1. If you search for, say, "noticeboards", you are redirected to the article Bulletin board. But at that top of that page is the "hat note" "For noticeboards on Wikipedia, see WP:Noticeboards"—so always look there.
2. If you are taken to a search results page, look for the Search in: box, and deselect everything except "Wikipedia" (the quickest way to do that is select "all", then deselect it, then add "Wikipedia").

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

AfD closers

When an Afd decision arrives at a consensus, who decides to close it? Can any uninvolved editor do so? Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:CLOSE runs it all down. Generally speaking, any uninvolved, registered editor in good standing may close a thread, but there are times that it's considered inappropriate for a non-admin to do so: when it's a contentious topic, the non-admin has little experience, or the result requires an administrator action. It's generally a community judgment call. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're not an admin, don't close anything at AfD unless it's a keep or no-consensus (all other outcomes require actions that are hard or impossible for non-admins); even then, use extreme caution, because almost everything at AfD is contentious, and requires a very fine judgement and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. But please contribute to AfD, it desperately needs good input! Elemimele (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 04:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I will read WP:CLOSE. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 04:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Link to portrait rather than (historical) person w/o page

In Doni Tondo#History I have added: "Vasari tells us that the work was commissioned by Agnolo Doni (portrait by Raphael Portrait of Agnolo Doni). The occasion may have been to celebrate his marriage in January 1504 to Maddelena Strozzi (portrait by Raphael Portrait of Maddalena Doni) ..." since there are no pages for either Agnolo Doni or Maddelena Strozzi. Is this OK? Jp1008 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It's more common to use links like "...commissioned by Agnolo Doni" (note the link target); unless you think it likely there will be an article in future, in which case you could use a red link: "...commissioned by Agnolo Doni". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Help sorting through sources?

Hi there! I just had a article rejected on someone I think meets the notable people category (though perhaps I'm wrong) and I am wondering if it has to do with the way I used citations? I am a little flummoxed by the number of categories required in a citation, for example there is a Ms. Magazine article which does have a byline with the author name, but i'm not sure how to fill in the publisher? (here is the page I'm trying to create Draft:Daniella Mestyanek Young)

Also, do interviews with NPR count as primary sources because she is giving her own interview? Or do they count as secondary sources because the broadcaster/host can edit and/or add commentary? LizyF (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Please take note of the template posted to the top of the draft by the declining reviewer, which gives the reason why the draft was declined. In this case, the reviewer has said that the draft was declined because This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and it advises you that Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added

The problem isn't with your current sources, the problem is that you don't have enough sources to prove the notability of the subject. If you want to know why your current sources don't demonstrate notability, your best bet would be to ask the reviewer who declined your submission at their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

An interview, or anything based on material from an interview, is always primary.

It's probably not the way you used citations, it's probably that the publications you cited don't contain the kind of material that would make Mestyanek "notable" according to Wikipedia.

In general, they're looking for multiple sources that all tell long involved stories about her history without interviewing her. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Math

Is thete a universal number ~2025-36400-15 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

What are you asking? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

What’s a universal number, Andy? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: 42 is The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

😂oh ok I see now, perhaps I need to be more knowledgable on media, books and films. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiText Help

Hi, I've just started on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if there was some sort of beginner's guide to WikiText. So far, I've just been using the Visual Editor, but I want to know how to use the Source Editor as well. Can someone help?

Related Question: What are the advantages to source editing over visual editing? Mxwllhe (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I never use source editing, it’s too coding-wired for me, a bit too nerdy in that subject matter, I know there probably are many advantages (having more control, etc.) but I personally like Visual more, I mainly here to add and find info and make pages on subjects which don’t have pages yet. It is good that you are looking at learning the source code. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you check out draft on Farook Mohammed, any help you could offer there. Check if something is missing or needed. ~2025-35735-58 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main advantage of source editing is that you have a better view of how it works. Visual editing covers up how some things work, which IS easier - but only easier until something goes wrong.

I would suggest finding an article that is not full of complicated stuff, and jump right into using source editing. It's easier to just pick it up than to explain it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Also: When you want to do something in the source editor but don't know how, it really helps to find where someone else has done it, click "edit" to see the source, and copy their technique. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

+1. This is probably the most effective and easiest way to learn source editing on Wikipedia. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mxwllhe beginner's guide to WikiText PLEASE see Cheatsheet for Wiki markup and to know MORE about Source Editor LIKE STEP BY STEP procedure on how to edit using it, please see Source Editor/User guide . CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, I'm definitely going to do all of those things. Mxwllhe (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

To answer the second question, tables and infoboxes are much more difficult to edit in Visual as opposed to source. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah don’t do tables in visual editing, I learnt the hard way (accidentally deleted everything). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, many people find that editing an existing table (e.g. to add a column or a row) is much easier in the visual editor. See Help:Introduction_to_tables_with_VisualEditor/1. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Userbox

I accidentally mucked up one of my userboxes, tried to add an image and now it’s massive and taking up the whole page, how can I make the image fit in the userbox like all the other userboxes on my page (which have predetermined templates, this one I tried to make I tried to make on my own). Any help will be really appreciated. (I’m not that good at source editing, so if there is a way to fix it without it being in source then that would be good), I’ll continue to edit and see and troubleshoot, so if I fix it then I will come back and alert you all that this question is no longer needed. Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit. Adjust the numerical value as you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed date of birth from draft page: Farook Mohammed

There are no sources for date of birth, reviewed citations; those are in order. Anything else needed? ~2025-35735-58 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-35735-58. If you think you've addressed all the issues, resubmit for another review. qcne (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears to me that you don't have ANY good sources. There's a huge list but none of them are the right kind. The problem: interviews don't count (even when the reporter also has something to say), and announcements of shows don't count (even when they also give an information blurb about the artist). All these things ultimately come from Mr. Mohammed himself. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a new section "art as a weapon", building onto it... the same sources later on end up in peer reviewed academic papers over time in art history among the academia. It's an interesting piece so will save it as something to work on. ~2025-35735-58 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, you can save the article by finding several reliable sources where there is no announcement being made and the reporter all by himself makes a long explanation of Mr. Mohammed's history as an artist. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35735-58 One of the difficulties I think people often run into is that media writers intentionally try to hide the fact that their article is really an interview, or that it's really a show announcement (which in the artist world serves the same purpose as a press release does in the corporate world). TooManyFingers (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It makes an interesting case... saving this one ~2025-35735-58 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Value

Is $ more valuable than information. And is information always valued by $. If information is of itself valuable why not just trade it. ~2025-36238-86 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

To put it simply, paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia unless you explicitly disclose who you are working for and who paid you to edit a page. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This page is for getting help about editing Wikipedia, it is not a general discussion forum. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Etiquette for College Football Logos

Hello, I am confused on what the logo used for College Football teams should be. I'm mainly asking this as I was editing the Idaho State Bengals football article, and I'm unsure if the wordmark is supposed to be displayed. Is the wordmark supposed to be the displayed logo on football articles? Some articles, like Michigan State Spartans football use the wordmark, but some like Michigan Wolverines football use a different logo even if the team has a wordmark (shown in Michigan Wolverines at the bottom of the infobox). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ackyducc, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have no idea whether there is any guidance or consensus on this. I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject College Football ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jose Cecotto

Draft:Jose Cecotto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit I am confused

I recently returned to Wikipedia after a long absence. Before editing any specific articles, i went to the Teahouse and asked some general questions about the topic in which I was interested. I received some excellent input, and then began TALK page discussions. You will notice that for every edit I attempted, I first discussed my proposed addition at great length, ensured there was consensus, and only then made the edit itself. Additionally, every one of my edits was extensively supported by reliable sources. Recently I was surprised to find every single one of mty edits had been reverted, with edit summaries that did not support said reversions in any way. When I attempted to discuss this on the TALK page, I was tagged as a “single purpose account” and had my comments collapsed as being “LLM generated”.

Normally I would simply understand this as part of the BRD process, however it seems there may be something else going on. I am not sure why. What is my best course of action? Should I just edit a different article? I am less inclined to continue editing if my efforts are going to be wholesale reverted without any sort of policy basis. Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you!! Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose I currently *am* a “single purpose account” since I have only edited one topic since my return. This is simply because I tend to take an academic approach and focus on one topic at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyfamlystone (talk • contribs) 01:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

So...just tell people "yes, I've only edited one subject, buf I prefer to focus on one at a time. I intend to edit about other subjects". If you didn't use a LLM, just say so. I haven't examined your posts, but formally written posts with perfect grammar can generate false positives by AI checkers. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Where exactly do I tell them this? If you look at the TALK pages and revision histories I linked above, you will see the problem I speak of. Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

My larger question is more about editing in general. I have no problem moving on from the PC article, however I did spend some time and effort on my contributions. If I endeavor to edit a different article, is there anything I can do to prevent another wholesale reversion of properly sourced edits, followed by a shutdown of any TALK page discussion? Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no way to preemptively prevent your edits from being removed. If they were removed due to vandalism, that can be reversed and action taken against the vandal, or in persistent cases, page protection can be requested. If they were removed due to disagreement with them, you must justify the inclusion of your edit, see WP:ONUS.

You've already posted on the talk page that you didn't use an LLM. I kind of see why someone might have thought so due to the writing style(which may be due to your background as a professor). 331dot (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input. I will not attempt to restore the reversions until there is sufficient TALK page discussion. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Slyfamlystone (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If talk page discussion is proving fruitless, escalate matters by following the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a page patroller/reviewer

Can a patroller or reviewer please mark the pages 29 Neibolt Street and The Great Swirling Apparatus of Our Planet's Function as reviewed because they were accepted AfC submissions? Regards - dom 02:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ddellas: they were not accepted at AfC, but instead moved into the main article space by a user who isn't an AfC reviewer, AFAICT. New page patrol will come along at some point to assess them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Even if accepted by an editor who is an AfC reviewer, standard practice is to have someone from the new pages patrol re-check them unless the reviewer has the autopatrolled user right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Linking to other articles

Hi! I have recently made a contribution to the article “List of Mountains in Bavaria”, by adding the mountain “Ospis” in the section “Lower Franconia”. Since Ospis is from the Miltenberg district, I wanted to link the text “Miltenberg District” to the article “Miltenberg (District) using the linking feature. However, I am unable to as the text and the article I’m trying to link the text to is slightly different, and I’m editing by source, rather than visual. Is there any way for me to fix this issue? Thanks! Gileselig (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gileselig. If you type [[Miltenberg (district)|Miltenberg District]], it will display as Miltenberg District. Creating a redirect could also be reasonable in this case. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

[Edit clash:] Done, Gileselig. With hindsight, I regret having done this, as it would have been better if you'd followed 45dogs' excellent recipe. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary Thank you very much for helping me edit the article. Can you also please clarify what you mean by “45dogs’ excellent recipe”? Gileselig (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Gileselig. I meant: "If you type [[Miltenberg (district)|Miltenberg District]]...." (Unaware that 45dogs had invited you to do this, I did it myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thx for the clarification Gileselig (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Style guidelines for unicode left/right/straight quotation marks

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

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

Notability

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

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

Sources first, then article.

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

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

Musical inspiration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title Formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References needed

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

I've got the following section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mathematics

Mathematics is a broad field of knowledge that studies quantity (numbers), structure (patterns and relationships), space (geometry), and change (calculus and dynamic systems). It uses logical reasoning, symbolic representation, and abstract thinking to formulate theories, solve problems, and describe natural phenomena. The discipline is often divided into pure mathematics, which focuses on abstract concepts, and applied mathematics, which deals with practical applications in science, engineering, economics, and technology. Major branches include arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, probability, and statistics. Mathematics plays a fundamental role in shaping modern advancements such as cryptography, artificial intelligence, physics modeling, computer algorithms, and financial systems. It is considered a universal language due to its precise and consistent nature 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)~ Night-Vector (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a help page. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Guidance for improving physics topics for school students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changing names of actors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have submitted sandbox for review, how to fix title?

I’m a new editor and not autoconfirmed yet. I have submitted a sandbox for review, however, I could not work out how to make my title. Currently, my sandbox is User:Jcrudgington/sandbox Jcrudgington (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jcrudgington Welcome to Teahouse!! Could you tell me the title you want the article to have? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jcrudgington here Draft:Xanthobacter sp. SoF1 move  Done BY @Bobby Cohn CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello!

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

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

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

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

Does the result of this close make sense?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian genocide in Nigeria

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

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

Delete - 8

Oppose/Keep - 5

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

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

See WP:ATD

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

Help finding a userbox

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

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

Wikilink to subheading

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

Use a # character.

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

Review my Draft:Ramayana (2026)

Draft:Ramayana (2026)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhh i need an admin help

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

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

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

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

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

Help in Improvisation of Rakshya Bam's Article!

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Prabesh84.

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

Sourcing issues

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

Hello beloved editors,

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

My questions, therefore, revolve around a few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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