Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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 (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

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

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

Political Correctness

 Courtesy link: Political correctness

I am an who had an account years ago (pre-2010). So long ago, that I don’t remember my username. I am going to filter through some articles I believe I edited, and see if I can find my contributions and then resurrect my account.

In the meantime, I had a question about the article “political correctness”. I noticed there are 28 pages of talk archives, which leads me to believe it is a rather fraught topic. My idea was to expand the article according to the lede which states “politically correctness is generally used as a pejorative”. The body of the article seems to discuss *only* pejorative uses, but doesn’t touch on *non* pejorative uses. I suggested improving the article in TALK, but I am already getting the idea that consensus is against doing so.

Is this a bad article to start with? I don’t want to become involved with a maelstrom. Perhaps i should focus my efforts elsewhere.? Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Slyfamlystone - yes, this is probably not a good place to start! You can imagine that the idea of political correctness is something that leads to people having a lot of strong opinions. I would also strongly suggest avoiding all our contentious topics - there's quite a few of those. But luckily, most of Wikipedia isn't a contentious topic and there's lots of articles you can safely improve!

The best plan to ease yourself back in would probably be to read articles you're interested in and make small edits here and there. You might also enjoy finding citations for articles needing them, or looking through articles needing clarification or orphaned articles to see if you can help out there. Welcome back! Meadowlark (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is outright rejection there, more scepticism that you can adequately source such an addition.

If you can, I would suggest you write up a couple of paragraphs or so, with sources, in you sandbox, and then post them (or a link to the sandbox) on the article talk page.

Your point that "the lede currently states PC being “generally” used as a pejorative. If that’s the case, then the body should corroborate the lede" is well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I would however add @Slyfamlystone that the discrepancy between the body and lede could equally mean the lede needs to change, not the body. I.e., if the sources don't seem to support the use of 'political correctness' as a non-pejorative term we should drop the 'generally' from the lede rather than trying to force the body to conform with it. If we want to avoid making too concrete of a statement maybe we could replace the 'generally' with 'almost exclusively' or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, the term itself *should* be described as pejorative. However a section on the underlying philosophy probably needs to be added. I actually have some academic sources I am currently reading. The issue at hand is the tension between the term (which is pejorative) and the underlying philosophy or phenomena: “we ought to avoid offence”.

There is a terrific academic source, one that was written relatively recently (2010): Geoffrey Hughes – Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture'’ It explores in detail the distinction between the term’s pejorative use and the genuine ethical-linguistic movement it describes. Slyfamlystone (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So I’ve followed the advice here and am currently exploring some additional academic sources on the topic. Next I will begin work in my sandbox on the tension between the pejorative term and the underlying philosophy. The final step is to rework the lede so it accurately describes the ‘'term’’ as (almost exclusively) pejorative, while clarifying the normative application (avoiding offence) of the phenomenon. My primary concern is to establish reliable and due sourcing for the new section. Slyfamlystone (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to belabor the point, but I want to make sure I understand our policies and guidelines. The lede of the article states that the term PC is “generally used as a pejorative”, however the article makes no mention of non pejorative use. My understanding is that leaves us with two choices: 1.) Expand the article to include non-pejorative use or 2.) Narrow the lede to define use of the term as “almost exclusively” (or even “exclusively”) a pejorative. But what is not acceptable is having a lede unsupported by the article itself. Am I correct in the understanding that an unsupported assertion in the lede is something to be avoided? I get the impression the rules have changed quite a bit since I was last here. Slyfamlystone (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You're correct, to my understanding. As per WP:LEDE,

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

And also emphasis given to material [in the lead] should reflect its relative importance to the subject

I think the 'generally used' here was probably initially introduced as WP:WEASELWORDing to avoid making an unprovable absolute statement.

I think it would be sensible to amend the lead to something like "While the term was originally coined to [...] it has taken on pejorative connotations" with of course appropriate citations for the original meaning. Athanelar (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. A lot of editors have spent quite a bit of time getting the article to where ti sits now. My intention is to work in a collaborative manner respectful of their contributions, while still maintaining best WP practices. Your input helps with this. Slyfamlystone (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Donations

Hi, a recent article by McSweeney’s promoted me to restart my monthly donation to Wikipedia. However, when I navigated to the site and logged in, I noticed that there’s no donation button on the home page. Does anyone know why this is? CianDikker (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi CianDikker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sometimes surprised how many things are omitted from the mobile site to save screen space. The bottom of mobile pages have a "Desktop" link to view the desktop site which has a "Donate" link in the menu to the left. You may have to tap a hamburger button ☰ at the top left to see the menu. You can switch back to the mobile site on "Mobile view" at the bottom of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Primehunter,

Thanks for your answer. There is no donate button in the hamburger menu either.

I doubt I'm the first to mention this but it is best practice for organisations that seek to raise money to have a donate button visible at the top of the page on desktop and mobile. Do you know if there is an existing discussion about this or has it been discussed and decided historically?

Thanks,

Cian 78.16.169.0 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cian. When I look at an article, or at the main page (but not on pages in the Wikipedia: space, such as this Teahouse) in the desktop version, I see a "Main menu" down the left hand side, which includes items such as "Main page", "Contribute", "Random article", and "Donate". If I hide it, it is replaced by a hamburger at the top, to the left of the Wikipedia globe.

Is that not what you see? ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't first scrolled down to the very bottom of the page and clicked the word "Desktop", then you're not yet looking at the correct menu. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

CianDigger, when logged out on mobile there is a "Donate Now" link in the hamburger (☰) - directly next to the animated gif. As far as I am aware there is no connection between an account and a donation so you could open Wikipedia in a private tab (incognito) to see the link as a logged out user. You will remain logged in for regular tabs in your browser. Commander Keane (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

مرحبا أنا اسمي شوقي عمري 32 انا من اليمن

أطلب منكم مساعدتي لكي اذهب من اليمن انا حقا مهدد بالقتل وانا فقير لايمكنني المدافعه عن نفسب فا اتمني الذهاب الى بلد آخر اعيش فيه باامان شوقي عبدالله محمد (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@شوقي عبدالله محمد للأسف، ويكيبيديا مجرد موسوعة ولا تملك القدرة على المساعدة في طلبات الانتقال أو السلامة الشخصية. يرجى التواصل مع السلطات المحلية أو المنظمات الدولية للحصول على المساعدة في وضعك. أتمنى لك الأفضل، ابق بأمان. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@LuniZunie and @ColinFine I remember an similar Arabic-written teahouse topic started by an IP talking about they were being targeted and abused by his family, and that they could be k***ed by his family. This should be the same user... ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That is seriously so truly awful. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 12:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@LuniZunie yeah. It is 2025 and this violence is still happening. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Google translation: "I am asking for your help to leave Yemen. I am truly threatened with death, and I am poor and unable to defend myself. I wish to go to another country where I can live in safety."

Replying: عذرًا، هذا قسم المساعدة لويكيبيديا الإنجليزية. لا يمكننا مساعدتك إلا في تحرير ويكيبيديا.

(translated by Google from: "I'm sorry, this is the Help Desk for English Wikipedia. We cannot help with anything except editing Wikipedia.") ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I am very sorry. I hope you can get through this. jolielover♥talk 04:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 Take care. — DVRTed (Talk) 05:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:All the President’s Elephants (Film)

My submission Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) has been declined by Jcgaylor because it is “not supported by reliable sources” (eg Streaming Services not considered appropriate.) I made 4 alterations/additions as a result, and my sincere thanks to those who have already helped so much with an additional 8 fixes/improvements. It was been resubmitted for a second review. If there are any experienced editors who have time and interest to help to try to ensure a positive outcome following this second submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing this is a job for its reviewer, so I only gave it a glance. Why "the prestigious International Elephant Film Festival" and "[Blue Ant Media]" and not plain "the International Elephant Film Festival" and "Blue Ant Media"? What does "now" mean? And in my idiolect of English, "renown" is a noun (the adjective being "renowned"); other Englishes may differ. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. Apologies I'm new to Wikipedia.... Is its "reviewer" the person who declined it initially?? (If so, he/she just wrote when declining it, that it was not supported by reliable sources (eg the streaming services I referenced) and advised me to seek feedback from various places, including the Tearoom.) Or is there a different "reviewer"?? - which will only happen when it's officially reviewed a second time? .... I was just wondering if it looks like still more needs to be done, over and above the subsequent 8 changes made since that first rejection, in order to get an approval ... In the animal world, representatives from the the UN and CITES are a big deal as reviewers in an International Elephant Film Festival, hence it is considered a particularly prestigious film festival.... Blue Ant Media isn't a Film Festival, but has the distribution rights for the documentary.... Re the "now", I did previously have in there where it had been screening originally - but they were streaming services (that I also referenced), which the declining reviewer advised aren't reliable sources, and so I deleted those names and references (who happened to have the first viewing rights). So, I can now take "now" out. Free viewing of an award-winning documentary on the Stirr website is quite unusual (most are subscription services) so I thought it important to keep that information in, so that readers can easily access the documentary for free, especially important in Third Word Countries like Africa... I'll google to see if it should be renown or renowned.... Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, representatives from the UN and CITES are ignored until reliable news sources report how important it was that they showed up. Winning awards doesn't count on Wikipedia unless there's already a Wikipedia article about that award. (Think of the millions of unimportant awards that are given around the world each year. Nearly everyone has an "award-winning" product, because of made-up awards.)

Number of changes you've had to make to the article is only meaningful if they were the right kind of changes - that is, that you found several reliable sources and added them.

Linking to a legitimate free source for a documentary sounds fine to me - if the article is able to go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. There was previously an online article on this International Elephant Film Festival, which I remember reading. Unfortunately it's a 2012 documentary (getting increased attention again now given ongoing Zimbabwe elephant problems and the public reading/re-reading the featured person's elephant memoirs. I will remove 'prestigious' if I'm still unable to find a suitable reference. (I mentioned that there have been 12 changes made since the decline of the 1st submission, only to make it easier if anyone was looking at 'history'.) Thanks again. WikiAdd01 (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say definitely remove "prestigious" anyway, because it's only a show-off word without substance. The real problem might be needing to delete that entire paragraph, if it's talking about an award that doesn't already have its own Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the word "prestigious", and also have now found a reference confirming the documentary was a finalist in this film festival. WikiAdd01 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@WikiAdd01 When I look at the References section, I see quite a large number of sources, but very VERY few of those are the kind you need. Any source that quotes an interview or a press release is not good enough to help the article. Any source that has business connections or personal connections with people involved in the film (on screen or off, including distribution etc) is not good enough to help the article. Any source where they don't have a paid fact-checking editor on their staff is not good enough either. You can probably see that the list of sources that might actually be good enough to help get this onto Wikipedia is becoming very very short. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a little bit confused re this. There's only one press release that I included, which records who that 'prestigious' film festival's finalists were, and who the high-level international judges were. It's a Zimbabwe documentary and so most news articles are Zimbabwe and South African newspapers. They are not (corrupt) government-run newspapers though, (and the documentary speaks of the many problems with corruption etc there), and so I do imagine these newspapers have the staff needed to be considered reputable - which they are, in Africa at least. There's none there written by anybody with business or personal connections to the documentary, that I know of. There is one that is an interview with Pincott, but it's not referencing anything Pincott herself was quoted as saying. Surely the nominations and wins at the various film festivals counts for a fair bit? ...I'm not sure what I could do, other than just have a very short article?? Or I suppose I could see if one more well-known journalist or magazine/newspaper could review it, now that it's available online for free viewing, but I don't know how much luck I would have with that... (I have come across an article pdf from 'Forbes Woman Africa' which speaks highly of Pincott, released after the documentary release (magazine is by subscription) - although it mentions the last elephant memoir of hers (which does include the documentary filming and content), but doesn't actually mention the documentary.)... Any suggestions from anyone? WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

An example: a number of the different sources appear to be multiple versions (or even just copies) of the same blog post, which is a blurb announcing the film's availability online. They don't have a reporter's name attached to them as the author, and I'm not certain of the status of the different blogs they're on. It certainly makes me think that there was a press release used as the basis for all of them. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As the various film festival's released finalists and winners over time, they would have found those if looking for them (as I have here). It's doesn't appear to be unusual, for other journalists to then repeat similar content, all around the world. (It seems it isn't all that unusual either in (corrupt) Africa for some journalists to choose to use 'Staff Reporter' rather than their own names when writing for non-government publications, so that they don't put themselves in danger of the murderous government. Sad but true. WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt the truth of what you're saying. At the same time, being sourced from a press release cuts their significance down to very little, and being all quite similar makes them likely to be redundant. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also ... I'm trying hard here to follow advice and get into this article what I can to ensure it has credible references... I've now added the connection to the 'Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival' (for the International Elephant Film Festival that I included) - which is now called 'Jackson Wild', which does have a Wikipedia page of its own. WikiAdd01 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope that the good sources add up to enough for notability. The film is honestly something I want to see now that I've read about it, but unfortunately that's not what gets things onto Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Despite that, remember that I've included that it's available for free viewing on Stirr.com, if you ever find the time. (I found it so informative, not just about elephant bonds but what people like Pincott go though attempting to keep them safe, and seeing it, especially after having read about it all over many years, made it even more powerful for me.) WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Username glamour

does anyone know how to make your username different colors and/or fonts? would appreciate a tutorial on how to do such, thank you (-: Oath2.joyfulness (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oath2.joyfulness, your current signature has a good signal-to-noise ratio. But if you must perpetrate something bulkier, then first digest Wikipedia:Signatures. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hoary is pointing you in the right place to start, but feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. A bit of general HTML/CSS knowledge helps. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 08:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Where's the bug?

A few months ago I visited someone's user page and was amused to find an image of a fly randomly crawling around the page. I could have sworn I copied the code to my own user page or talk page for the amusement of others, but now there is no sign that it was ever there, and I can't remember whose page I visited. I'd rather like to find it again. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I believe this is what you're thinking of? If not you can look under [1]. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Chorchapu. That looks like it, but that one remains static. The one I saw crawled randomly about the page, so there's some extra code I need to insert. I remember it included the word "random". Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hm, in that case I'm not sure. Sorry, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Are any of the usernames on this list ones you've clicked on previously – Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Fly.gif? Nil🥝 01:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried that but oddly, no. Very strange. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Shantavira: It's not a fly or random but User:Frostly has moving snowflakes with code using User:Frostly/snowflakes.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft Superbet page

Hi everyone, I’d really appreciate some community guidance on my updated draft about Superbet.

Over the past few months, I’ve gone through several rounds of review and feedback (including from @DoubleGrazing and others), and I’ve completely rewritten the article to meet all WP:42 and WP:ORG criteria. I’ve also clarified my COI situation transparently on my user page.

The current version is fully neutral, written in an hopefully encyclopedic tone, and supported exclusively by independent, reliable, and hopefully verifiable sources, including Bloomberg, The Guardian, Forbes, Business Review, Profit.ro, EGBA, and SBC News.

I’ve integrated all reviewer suggestions, expanded the “Technology and Innovation” and “Recognition” sections with balanced context, and ensured the article now offers both regional and international coverage. The goal is simply to provide factual, verifiable information about one of the most prominent betting and iGaming companies in Central and Eastern Europe. Here’s the current draft: Draft:Superbet

I understand that for editors outside this region, the topic may not seem particularly notable, but locally it’s a well-established company with international expansion and consistent coverage in reliable media. In Romania, Wikipedia is often the first place people go to check information, so having a neutral, well-sourced article helps prevent misinformation and gives proper context for readers.

I think once published, the page would of course remain open for community editing, allowing other contributors to refine, expand, or balance it further as new independent coverage appears.

Any advice on whether this version now meets notability and sourcing standards would be truly appreciated. Thank you for your time and for helping keep Wikipedia accurate and fair. Contributor Marius (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, you get my remarks, whether you wanted them or not. ;)

Notability per WP:NCORP depends on sources: either sources exist which establish notability, or they don't; if they do, they establish it globally. If a subject is 'regionally prominent', by which I assume you mean notable, then it is also globally notable; regional-only notability does not exist.

If readers in Romania wish to look up Superbet, they presumably read Romanian, in which case they can already peruse the existing Romanian Wikipedia article at ro:Superbet. While I do understand why, for marketing reasons, it would be desirable to have a subject covered in the largest version of Wikipedia (namely this one), there is otherwise nothing special about the English-language Wikipedia, it isn't the 'premier' one in any sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Contributor Marius. Basically, you are asking for a pre-review. To get a review, resubmit.

But I will say that at a quick glance, it looks to me as if most of your sources are WP:CORPTRIV, and furthermore are not independent, since most of them are clearly based on a press release and/or interview.

Which of your sources are somebody wholly unconnected with Superbet and not fed information from Superbet, writing about Superbet in depth? Unless you have several such sources, you have not established notability and you are wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the insights, @DoubleGrazing and @ColinFine, I really appreciate both of your detailed replies.

I completely understand the point about global notability versus regional prominence, and I also see how WP:CORPTRIV or WP:NCORP might apply when most of the coverage is business reporting or interviews.

My goal here isn’t to promote the subject, I’ve removed any editorial language and kept only verified, factual statements. It’s just that for readers in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Romania and I think in Poland also), Superbet’s operations and acquisitions have become a reference point for the entire betting & tech sector, and local media coverage is both consistent and independent over time.

I’d be open to alternative suggestions, maybe merging the content as a section under Gambling in Romania, or keeping the draft as a base for future expansion once more international coverage accumulates.

Would that approach make sense, or would you suggest waiting until further third-party sources (beyond the current set) appear?

Thanks again for taking the time to review and guide me, I genuinely appreciate the clarity you both brought to this discussion. Contributor Marius (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Contributor Marius "Superbet's operations and acquisitions" may be of interest to people in Eastern Europe, but unless they have caught the interest of several independent commentators who have written in depth about the company, they are not of interest to English Wikipedia.

Superbet was founded, the draft says, in 2008. If it hasn't accreted sufficient interest yet, it probably isn't going to, unless it does (or experiences) something remarkable. You're welcome to keep the draft in the hope something happens (it will get deleted after six months of inaction, but you can request undeletion if something new happens).

As for adding something to another article: possibly. If, as you imply, you have an independent source which says that Superbet has had some significant impact on gambling in Romania, then maybe a sentence or two in that article would be justified. But not if it's just Superbet or its associates that think that. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @ColinFine, that’s very clear and genuinely helpful. I completely understand that notability must be established through multiple independent commentators, and I’ll hold off on further submissions until that coverage exists.

In the meantime, I’ll look into contributing a short, well-sourced paragraph about Superbet’s impact within the Gambling in Romania article, as you suggested. Thanks again for your time and clarity, I really appreciate the constructive guidance! Contributor Marius (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In Romania, Wikipedia is often the first place people go to check information, so having a neutral, well-sourced article helps prevent misinformation and gives proper context for readers. Wikipedia is not for promoting your business, and yes, wanting to 'prevent misinformation and give proper context' is promotion.

As others have said, the references given in the article are routine coverage of business activities (expansion, revenue, success etc) which do not establish notability as per the corporate notability guidelines.

I also get the suspicion you're writing your responses here wholly or partly with AI

Your draft has been declined seven times already. It might be time to just acknowledge that your company is lacking notability and move on. Athanelar (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I've quickly reviewed the draft and it sounds promotional. But more importantly, you don't seem to have any significant coverage. The source "Superbet ranks 11th globally in gaming" in the Business Review looked promising but it only talks about the company for about 50 words (ie a passing mention). It doesn't matter if this is an important company in Romania, has the company ever been featured (ie discussed at length) in any independent reliable sources? MmeMaigret (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both sincerely, @Athanelar and @Mmemaigret, I genuinely appreciate the time and clarity you’ve shared.

I completely understand your points about notability and the need for in-depth coverage, and I see how the current sources may feel routine from a global perspective. That’s fair.

My goal, as I said previously, was never to promote the company, only to document something that’s become quite visible in Romania and Central Europe, where Wikipedia is often the first place people check for factual information. I honestly believe that by publishing even a basic, well-sourced version, other contributors could later refine, balance, or challenge it, making it a truly collective and evolving entry. That’s the beauty of this platform, and the whole community, knowledge shaped by many minds, not one.

Ironically, the more times the draft has been declined, the more determined I’ve become to get it right. 😊 At this point, it’s less about the company itself and more about the process, understanding how to turn solid facts into something that meets Wikipedia’s high standards.

For now, I’ll follow your advice and work instead on a broader “Gambling in Romania” article, which could provide neutral industry context and serve as a home for this information later on.

And just to clear the air, no AI here, just a stubborn human who enjoys learning the hard way 😅

Thanks again for your patience and thoughtful guidance, it’s been genuinely motivating to go through this with such dedicated editors. Contributor Marius (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How is a contested move request resolved?

I recently submitted an uncontested move request for Ford I4 DOHC engine, which was closed with one unanswered question that had not been dealt with. I then submitted a contested move request on the article's talk page, and have responded to one response so far. How does this move request come to its conclusion? Thanks.16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Kumboloi (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, when there has been enough discussion to get a clear enough consensus, a decision gets made.

From the beginnings of the newer discussion, it sounds like the name you proposed might not be accepted because it doesn't tell an ordinary reader (no experience with cars) which engine the article is really about. A title that's only understood by Ford experts seems like a problem to me as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

(What I mean is, your title would be great if Ford only ever offered one engine that included a double overhead cam, but that seems pretty unlikely.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback TooManyFingers (talk). I agree that my suggested name is not as helpful (i.e.: specific) as I'd like, but the existing name isn't much better, and I feel that the suggested one is more correct. It sounds like I can answer questions if I have additional information, but the final decision is not depending on action from me.20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that good suggestions you make will be taken into account. I agree the old title is not MUCH better, but I do think the old one is a little bit better. Being accurate to the catalogue is not as important as making sure newbies find the right article. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is "Night Owl" the aircraft name for Western Airlines Flight 2605?

I have done some googling and I think it is the aircraft name. A Times Article called the aircraft and a few other articles say it is the nickname. I am only asking because when it was added to the article in the past, it got removed because it apparently isn't visible on the aircraft fuselage before it crashed. I am asking to hopefully resolve this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Airlines_Flight_2605&diff=prev&oldid=1270727289 Zaptain United (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue is, who says it's the name? When you do some googling, some of what you find is going to be garbage. Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Ask in Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is for discussing stuff about Wikipedia. Versions111 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple-image footer inaccurate for mobile

When viewing galleries formed using the multipleimage tag on mobile, perrow attributes are ignored, leading to footers describing images in a clockwise manner being functionally useless. The multipleimade template specifically says to avoid using left and right as descriptors in the footer for this exact reason, so I'm confused why this descriptor passes muster.

For an example, the photos of the elementary schools on Glen Rock Public Schools have an accurate caption for desktop users, but the format changes to make it unhelpful on mobile.

This is definitely an issue I want to fix, I'm just not sure where to start. Thanks in advance! Magicalus (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Magicalus, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Generally, the people who hang out here are editors who work on the content of Wikipedia, not the software. WP:VPT is the best place to ask technical questions.

If it is about one of the mobile apps (as opposed to a browser on mobile), then mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps seems to be the best place. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood, I'll ask there. Thanks for redirecting me! Magicalus (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Advanced use of Template?

I have noticed an image which is laterally reversed. I was hoping to use a style template {{mirrorH}} to correct this, but I need to apply that style to the img tag itself – not the whole float. Is this possible using [[file:image.jpeg|thumb|style="css"]] or similar ? Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.Karthik Venkataraman no es actual campeón indio de ajedrez (2025) tampoco lo fue en 2023 SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Then, SergioMiguelPS, it would be helpful if you pointed out the mistake on the talk page of every article that makes the mistake. Say who actually was/is the Indian champion, and be sure to supply a reference to a reliable source for this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SergioMiguelPS, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have raised this on Talk:Karthik Venkataraman, which is the best place for the discussion.

A couple of hints:

• Post in English on English Wikipedia (I know you have posted in English, but the Spanish is distracting for an English reader)
• "Look it up on Chessresults" is really unhelpful. If you are recommending a change to an article, provide a proper, specific, citation to a reliable published source. (I don't know whether Chessresults is a reliable source or not: it doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN. But the citation should be to where the specific information is, not telling the reader to go and look for it).
• The claim that Venkataraman won in 2023 is cited to Chess News in the current article. If you are correct, then we have different sources contradicting each other. What grounds have we for believing one over the other? Are there other, clearly reliable sources, that clarify the position? Maybe the article should say that there is disagreement?

ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I have several chess-playing

I have several chess-playing friends; one of them wants his picture added to Wikipedia, but I'm new here and don't know how to do it, and the other doesn't have a page. Both are Grandmasters. SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

SergioMiguelPS, if the first of these has an article in one or several Wikipedias -- English, Bengali, Swahili, whatever -- and if you have a photograph of him that you took, then do please upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons. Once the photograph is there, you can add it to the Wikipedia article. For English-language Wikipedia, you might start at Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How do I change the following to remove copyright

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender for renovation of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's official residence owing to administrative reasons, according to documents.The cancelled tender worth ₹60 lakh was related to proposed installations at her residence, including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures

This is taken verbatim and was removed from an article how do I change to it get into a wiki article Stanjik (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Stanjik, are you asking the following?

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender [...] including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures is taken verbatim from this page of The Hindu. But simply shoveling it into an article would amount to plagiarism. How might I transform it so that shoveling in the transformed version would not bring a charge of plagiarism?

-- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep how do I report factual info in a different way Stanjik (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In the biography of Rekha Gupta, you could simply say that the government decided that her official residence would not be renovated but then you have to ask yourself the question "what has this small fact to do with Gupta's life story?". Only if you can find sourcing that describes why this is relevant to her personally should you expand on that and explain the details. Note that the policy on living people applies, so you need to be careful about the background. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Dude this not about her this about her governance as covered by RS Stanjik (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Her governance doesn't automatically affect the story of her life. Sometimes it does. Reliable sources about a political issue are important for that issue, but they don't always say how the issue affected a politician's personal life. A politician may do great things that bring them no personal benefit, and may do very bad things without facing any consequences. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

« The Indian govt cancelled plans to renovate the Chief Minister’s residence; renovations which were to cost 60 lakh rupees. » MmeMaigret (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Question

Do you think this editor Plasticwonder is assuming bad faith here to a good faith IP contributor? The IP contributor removed content with an explanation. I didn't really wanted to take this to ANI yet because I'm not 100% sure if this is serious enough to take this to ANI. If I'm correct, this editor seems to be biting newcomers as well, for example, this.yes, this newcomer has done something wrong but it wasn't intentional (I don't think) PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 11:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with PW's conduct. They rv'd an unneeded blanking, and they were very polite in your second diff. AN/I is for chronic, intractable issues, as the large, bolded banner says. Definitely a huge step to take for this. Cheers, Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 14:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I didn't really think their behaviour was super wrong, just wanted to double check. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 21:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Order for "Electoral record" sections

What is the proper order for "Electoral record" sections in a page for a public office holder? Should we start with the most recent, or oldest at the top? I've seen both and would like to know if there is a Wikipedia style for this. Thanks! Kdorse (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kdorse I think it should be chronological. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I also think chronological (i.e. oldest first, not reversed). My reasoning is that reverse chronological is for when spotting the latest item is important, but we don't need that, we're writing history. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you! Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How to deal with constant removal Template:Globalize

There are some articles that I believe are biased. The reason is that editors from a pool of 20 million people are pitted against editors from a pool of 2 million. This inherently creates the illusion of consensus, which silences the minority. For that reason, I believe that the Globalize template (Template:Globalize/doc) is appropriate. The issue is that the majority side constantly removes it without addressing the problem. What kind of steps should I take? MacedonLinguist (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You have already discussed this in the proper venue. As you were told, that's not how things work here. Editors from any country are permitted to contribute to most any article they wish. We don't give editors' views more weight because they claim to be from a country with a small population. You have been notified about the special rules surrounding editing about the Balkans, please review them, as they are enforced more strictly. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The documentation says that editors are allowed to remove the Template:Globalize only if the issue is addressed. This template is the only mechanism that safeguards minority people from majority. The removal goes against the rules. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that your interpretation of the rules is correct. As I said, Wikipedia does not give what you term "minority populations" greater weight than any other group(and you have a faulty assumption in that the entire population of Greece ia not editing that article). I advise you to drop this matter. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I never made this assumption. I argue that statistically speaking there will be 10x more editors from the majority group. All edits are made from 2 countries that silence one small one. I would appreciate if anyone else also comments. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably the best way to combat any bias you are concerned about is to find reliable sources to include in the article that will fill it out better from a global perspective. Wikipedia can be biased - or appear to be so - if the sources for an article all have a similar opinion. And of course, this being the English-language Wikipedia, we are more likely to have editors finding English-language sources from English-language countries. If you happen to speak other languages and are able to find reliable sources and present them, then you have a great opportunity to put forth information from other viewpoints. WP:42 may be very helpful here: seek sources that meet all three criteria. It's usually best to provide these sources on the article talk page, along with suggested wording, so discussion and consensus can develop. Most Wikipedia editors are more than happy to discuss new sources and help update articles - it just takes someone who can and will go hunting for those sources. Meadowlark (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There's more to editing than just pure numbers. The assumption is still faulty, and we don't give North Macedonians more weight because there are fewer of them. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I never mentioned where I'm from. I would like to challenge you a little. Statistically speaking, approximately the same percentage of people from population A will be interested in a matter that concerns them as from population B, if the matter of interest is the same. If population A is 10 times bigger than population B, it means that 10 times more people from population A will be interested in the same subject than from population B. This gives a huge advantage to population A to silence population B and create bias in articles. The reason for having Template:Globalize is to bring people from other areas to contribute. There is no reason to remove it. It doesn't mean that necessarily the article is biased. There is no reason not to have the template.The policy states that it should only be removed if the issue is addressed, and doesn't mention establishing consensus to have it. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If you think that there is no bias, you can search other encyclopedias to see what they are saying about the matter. The differences are huge. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If people from [any place] are allowed to be the only ones who explain the history of where they live, then the people from [the next place] must be the only ones allowed to explain theirs too. That kind of system leads to false history; nobody will tell the truth in a system like that, they'll only say what they want to say.

Sometimes when neighbors have a difficult conflict, one neighbor really is right and the other neighbor really is wrong. But if they take their dispute to court, a good judge will not trust either of them. A good judge will ask hard questions, and find ways to discover the real truth.

Other encyclopedias may contain wrong information, and may even contain lies. We shouldn't trust them just because they exist. The English Wikipedia may also be wrong, and if it is, all of us should improve it. We DO have quite good methods for allowing us to get closer to the truth, and fighting against those methods is not going to succeed. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@MacedonLinguist Editors here are not "pitted against" each other. WP:CONSENSUS says Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. That whole policy page is well worth reading. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

MacedonLinguist, as someone who has been here nearly two decades, with a particular love for articles on language, I have seen this situation many, many times before and it often does not end well. My honest advice for someone in your position, is to write about any topic in the world except Macedonian language. Users rarely follow this advice, and I don't expect you to, but it would be the best for the encyclopedia, and also for your own satisfaction and longevity here, assuming there are other topics that interest you. If this piqued your curiosity in any way, feel free to contact me on my Talk page for a more extended discussion. Good luck, whatever you decide to do! Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Unable to create Draft

page not saving despite being logged in

Hi, I’ve been trying to create my draft “Draft:Paolo Iannattone” using the AfC process. I’m logged in, but Wikipedia doesn’t save the page — it just reloads saying it doesn’t exist. Could an admin check if an Anti-Abuse Filter or Autoconfirmed restriction is blocking my account from creating drafts? Paoloiannattone (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Paoloiannattone, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is not an answer to your question (I don't know about the technical aspects, but I would suspect it is either something to do with your connection, or a temporary glitch in the software, rather than anything to do with your account. But I may be wrong).

But, have you read about why we very strongly discourage writing about yourself on Wikipedia? If you try, it is likely that you will put a lot of effort into something which will never succeed, and be disappointed and frustrated in trying to.

Please read autobiography carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ColnFine, good to know. I'll read what you suggested :) Paoloiannattone (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Paoloiannattone, I can't see anything in the fiter log indicating a filter trigger; only thing I could think of is if you tried to create it in article space rather than draft space. Have you tried putting the draft in your sandbox? You can find your sandbox with vector 2010 by clicking the red sandbox button in the top right, and in vector 2022 by clicking the account icon and clicking on sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs This is probably T408975! (TLDR, if a new user adds a reference and uses the source editor to create a article, their edit does not go through) This is bug and should fixed (hopefully soon!) :( Sohom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware that we strongly discourage people from writing articles about themselves Athanelar (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Paoloiannattone, you have a career total of three edits, which iirc is not enough to create a new page. Ask for assistance to create it, then you can ad to it. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Dimensions of a state

When providing the physical dimensions of a state or polity, which side is length and which side is width? ==

I was looking on some US State articles and noticed that some of them consider “length” to be east-west while others consider it to be north-south. Is there any standardization for this? It’s quite confusing when trying to compare. Dcshedrick (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dcshedrick I don't know if this is in the MOS but there's an article at State Plane Coordinate System which might suggest a standard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If, for example, our imaginary state exactly covers a river valley, we can't say what N-S or E-W should be called - along that river is certainly the length dimension.

I say this to prove that you can't make a rule. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(I said you can't make a rule. Instead, I should have said you can't make a simple rule that covers every case. Either you have a fairly complicated rule, or you have a lot of exceptions.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You mean, like The Gambia? Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of exactly that, yes. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Page numbers

Help with references: different page numbers for same book for different points ==

I am trying to get the references correct on my first article, which was accepted 9 Oct. Reinhard Höhn (in English) Amongst the referenced books there are two where I quote more than once and need to add pages to the separate bits. I tried to follow Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once But I seem to be getting it wrong as the actual article now has bits like this: He became professor of constitutional and administrative law at the Humboldt University of Berlin and chair of public law at the University of Jena from 1935–1945. During this time he was also director of the Institute for State Research. He was one of the architects of National Socialist theory (Nazism) in the Völkisch movement.[4] This seems to comeout OK on the preview here (why?!)...but if you look at Reinhard Höhn Rather than the ref in suprascript and pages after the bracket...the editing text persists

Evidently I am not being savvy ...but can someone please explain what I am doing wrong Thank you Scarp-bolt (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see if the information at WP:IBID helps. The thing about page numbers is a bit tricky, so if you try advice from that section and you don't like the results, then try the other advice given in the same section. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Scarp-bolt, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your calls are syntactically very odd, and surrounded by the sort of thing you would see in a page explaining how to use them.

So the first one (which I have corrected) read

<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Rp|rp]]<nowiki>|38-9}}</nowiki></code>

which I have now corrected to

{{Rp|38-39}}

However, it is missing the actual citation.

I haven't touched the second one - I've left it for you.

I don't know how you managed that: I think sometimes the visual editor (which I never use) can make that sort of problem. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Too many fingers

You are right I was using the visual editor,it seemed more intuitive as I am not experienced in computing (school was pre-computers), I'll try and do the other one...and give it a go tomorrow

Thank you for helping Scarp-bolt (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Colin

Your suggestion is working on the Source Editing (which does look so complicated to the uninitiated)

I do have to re-access the Ingrao book to tidy that up too.

I really appreciate your help

I must find a way of learning to do this so it becomes more easily do-able and understandable to me! Scarp-bolt (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Similar pages

(sorry, couldn't think of a better title)

I just edited the page for Joe DeSa, expanding it from a stub. While editing the page, I entered in the name Greg Walker. Nothing came up for similar links, I thought I was good. Then when I previewed the page, I saw there were multiple links to that name, so I removed the brackets. Is there a reason this wasn't caught right away, or am I missing something?

Thanks for any light that can be shed on this. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There are other people named Greg Walker, so the baseball player's article had to be called "Greg Walker (baseball)". Please see if I did the right thing to the article - I wasn't completely sure if I understood your question.

And if I did do the right thing, then click on the edit button in the article, to see the way I fixed it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I went back to the article again and realized that you had inserted a very large amount of material without telling what sources you got it from. Sorry, but you can't do that. I took it all down. You can put it back if you correctly cite reliable sources for everything. (You can't put any facts that aren't shown in your sources, even if you know they're true.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oops - a ping @Sportsfan1976 TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: wolfTPM

Hi Teahouse,

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate some help improving my draft Draft:WolfTPM

It was declined once for not having enough independent sources. I've added more citations (including an article from Embedded Computing Design, a partner listing from STMicroelectronics, and a technical reference from Sanctuary.dev), but I'm unsure if those sources are sufficient, or I need more independent sources to support the article.

Could someone take a look and suggest specidic improvements to help it meet AfC standards?

For transparency, I have a COI since i work for wolfSSL, the company that develops wolfTPM, and I;ve disclosed that on the Talk page. Shy63 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I do know that anything from a partner is not independent, and also that being listed somewhere doesn't count as coverage.

I think it helps to look at it this way: look closely at what the independent sources say (and even then, only the ones that Wikipedia classifies as reliable). That is basically going to have to be the entire article. There's very little "filling in the blanks" allowed, even when you know what ought to be said. Sources that are partners, or that aren't considered reliable, have very limited use.

If you go to the References section of the draft, and you ignore every item with the letters TPM or the word Partner, you can see there's not much left. And when you start sorting out the ones that remain, some of them are not reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

As I read more, I see that the bulk of the article is your own description of what the company does. Unfortunately, most of that is considered promotional material and needs to be cut out. The vast majority of the article needs to come from reliable independent sources, not from the company.

The "fantasy perfect" independent reliable source would be (let's say) a five-page story in Time magazine called "The Incredible Saga of WolfTPM". Very few companies can boast that level of coverage, but at least that's the type of thing to look for. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, you surprise me. I'd lump "The Incredible Saga of XYZ" together with "XYZ the Game-Changer", "Why Is EVERYONE Using XYZ?", "XYZ Is Insane", "XYZ Blows Up the Internet" and suchlike -- as mere clickbait for the dimwitted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of where the article was, not the title. Doesn't everyone use clickbait titles now? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You have a point, TooManyFingers. Yes, Insane Clickbait Titles Teach a BRUTAL Lesson. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOSS and tell whoever told you to write an article about your product that it's a bad idea. Athanelar (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue in MrBeast

A neutrality tag could be added to MrBeast, as someone has raised a possible WP:NPOV violation on the talk page: Talk:MrBeast#c-Originalcola-20251029192200-Controveries. 2001:861:5C86:3120:3C71:6520:C55E:3316 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Difficulty Writing An Article

 Courtesy link: Oyin Olugbile My draft article keeps being rejected from being published as an article because a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, has been flagged in my edits. However, I have edited the draft multiple times without using any large language model. Please, what do I do, and how can I write this article properly? Please, what am I missing or doing wrong? Mamman Oyinnoiza (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The best way of fixing this is to delete everything and start again, doing everything by yourself with no help. You have probably become quite familiar with the subject after trying to fix the LLM's mistakes. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Even if (working as a real person with no help) you are not very satisfied with your work, that way is still the best. I am not a good article writer, but I am good at fixing the mistakes that real humans make. If you have good references to reliable sources, but your style is clumsy, people like me can improve the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why did you move your draft to mainspace without resubmitting it for review? Athanelar (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. That sounds like a quick way to get the article permanently rejected. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know it was different. I thought the article would be reviewed once published. Mamman Oyinnoiza (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was declined in the first review, you have to resubmit it to be reviewed again. It can be moved to mainspace only when it has passed review. I would advise you redraftify the article and go through the proper procedure, especially now that the article is being discussed at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Review is to decide IF it should be published, or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Illustrating for Wiki

Hello, my question is, how can I upload illustrations for articles? There are plenty of times where visual context/ artist interpretation is needed. Would love to know how I can contribute. Sebasschyun (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons "upload wizard" -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm this is cool but I would still like to know how to upload an image to specific articles. Sorry, I didnt make that clear.

For instance if there was an article about a mythical place and I created a painting imagining that place. How would I be able to edit the article to add my image? Sebasschyun (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/All. Now, if there were an article about a mythical place and some Wikipedia editor created a painting imagining that place, then this would of course represent that person's visualization of that place. It's not obvious to me that that person's painting, however well intended, of their own visualization would be of encyclopedic significance. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that art on imaginary topics is mainly not helpful and not wanted. I can imagine that drawings might help with some real things that are hard to explain without a picture. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that a functional distinction needs to be made between illustrations which primarily have an informational and educational purpose, and works of art, which have an aesthetic and entertainment purpose. Excellent illustrations that neutrally and accurately convey information are welcome, subject to consensus regarding their best use. Works of art by non-notable artists who are also Wikipedia editors present many challenges and in my opinion should be used very sparingly, only when the use case is clear. Self-promotion is a potential problem. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Another potential problem could be veering into original research or synthesis, or at least whatever is the pictorial equivalent thereof.

@Sebasschyun: note also that you would be releasing your creations under a Creative Commons or similar licence, meaning you would no longer hold copyright in them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Uh, not quite, DoubleGrazing. Your paintings start off as copyright (of the conventional kind, "all rights reserved"), ab ovo (or anyway a penicillo). You can then choose to waive copyright, and Creative Commons even has something visually reminiscent of a license for doing so (CC0). But a Creative Commons license is a copyleft license, and thus is a copyright license, though one that doesn't reserve all rights. And the copyleft/copyright holder remains yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

My learned friend @Hoary, you are of course very right, and I stand duly corrected. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think "copyright" in everyday language often means "preventing others from using the material" rather than "being the copyright holder", so that "being the copyright holder while giving broad permission for reuse" can be - colloquially only - self-contradictory. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Sebasschyun, getting back to your question: a great way for you to help out, is by hanging out at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab for a bit, read the pages, especially WP:GL/I, and leaf through the archives to get a feel for the place. Then, whenever you are ready, you can volunteer to respond to a user request for an image or illustration. Helpers at WP:GL are needed, so your contributions there would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - I never knew Graphics Lab existed, but it sounds like exactly what I hoped would exist for this kind of thing. And I hope it suits the person who asked. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Peer or GA Review?

Hello all! A little bit back I expanded the Cain's Ballroom page and I think it's come along very nicely. I was hoping to possibly get it to GA status. Would it be best to submit this for peer review so someone can check my work, or do you think it's better to just submit it as a GA candidate already? Not looking for a review in of itself from the people of the Teahouse, just hoping to get instruction on the proper steps. Any help is appreciated! ----^The Robot Parade 06:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should reread it, aloud. Just considering the lead: (i) referred to simply as Cain's; but the article refers to it as "the Cain's". (i) However it's referred to, it's a historic music venue in Tulsa, Oklahoma that was built in 1924. The building is over 100 years old and serves as a historical landmark in downtown Tulsa; do you need to point out that 2025−1924>100, that it's historic, and that this historic centenarian is historical? Good luck with the article! -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Robot Parade I assume you have read the instructions at WP:PEER and WP:GAR. A third possibility is to ask someone from the WP:GOCE to take a look. They will do a less comprehensive review but will improve the article by, for example, removing two of the three "surprises" in the notable performances final paragraph. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I really appreciate it, and I've made changes based on the sections referenced here. Thank you especially to Mike Turnbull for the suggestion to go to WP:GOCE, I will likely pursue that for not only this page but others in the future. Are there any other pieces of advice for someone trying to get into writing GA articles that you all have? Genuinely its all very appreciated. ----^The Robot Parade 21:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do project namespace articles get special treatment?

Articles in the project namespace have shortcuts that link to the article and nutshell templates that summarize the article. I don't see why other namespaces can't have them either. It would vastly improve naviagtability and understandability, with almost zero cons attached. Can any experienced editors explain why not, because this has been bothering me ever since I discovered what project namespace articles were.Magnificent451 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The nutshell template is redundant with the lede section, which should summarise the rest of the article. As for shortcuts, this is more dependent on what a realistic search term for the subject would be, and not every article is going to have those. Doubly so if the subject has to be disambiguated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, articles are pages in the article namespace, other pages are just pages (which includes polices, essays, Wikiprojects, article talkpages, user talkpages etc etc etc). Some none-project pages (as in pages that don't have a title starting with Wikipedia:) do have shortcuts, like WP:JIMBOTALK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Templates have shortcuts, Modules have shortcuts, Help pages have shortcuts, even some user pages (bots usually) do. And that's probably not all. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Magnificent451: We have seven million encyclopedia articles (just called articles) and shortcuts would be hard to guess for readers. If the subject is known by an abbrevation or short name then it will usually redirect there or lead to a page with a link. Article content is based on reliable sources. We don't want to display our own made up name for the subject. The project namespace is for editors. An editor who knows the page name can usually guess a shortcut since we have a systematic practice with WP: followed by an acronym, e.g. WP:AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, how can I delete my previous post? 175.110.11.226 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That depends where it is. It doesn't look like you've even made any posts, unless something odd has happened. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: See the glossary at WP:Glossary#Self-revert and the related links. Your edit/revert will still be in visible and accessible via the page history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

finding an image I've uploaded

I uploaded an image which I think is fair usage. It is titled Prince Valiant 6 April 2025. I would like to look at this image and then upload it to the Prince Valiant page. (Most pages about comic strips have samples of the strip.) I spent more than an hour trying to find the image I uploaded. Nothing I've found is any help.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Rick Norwood Your contribution history has File:Prince Valiant 6 April 2025.pdf; is that it? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. You have solved my problem, though I would still like to know how, in the future, I can search images. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rick Norwood, and welcome to the Teahouse.

For something you have uploaded yourself, you can look in your own contributions (though if you uploaded to Commons, you will need to look at your contributions there).

For a more general search for images, if you don't know the name of the image, the best way for Commons images is by category; but I don't think images uploaded to Wikipedia are often categorised.

You can do a general search specifying the namespace "File". ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood At [2] there is a link for "Files uploaded". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Trying to create a page but it was declined

I am trying to create a page for the company i work for but received this reply:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This is what I submitted:

Draft text The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Center for Research & Education in Technology (CRET)

The Center for Research & Education in Technology (CRET) is a U.S.-based nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that brings together dental industry partners and academic institutions to advance dental education through technology-enhanced learning environments. Founded in 2004, CRET’s mission is to foster innovation in dental education by providing students and faculty with access to state-of-the-art equipment and digital tools used in modern dental practice.

---

Innovation Centers

CRET is best known for its Innovation Centers (ICs)—fully equipped simulation and clinical facilities developed in collaboration with dental schools across the United States. These centers are designed to replicate a private practice environment, allowing students to gain hands-on experience using current technologies before entering professional practice.

Each Innovation Center is designed as a private-sector dental office and includes six operatories, each fully furnished by a different dental manufacturer. Dental students have the opportunity to learn on a wide range of equipment and provide feedback to participating companies through evaluation surveys.

Under CRET’s partnership model, the dental school builds and staffs the facility, while CRET—through its member companies—provides all equipment and merchandise for the center at no cost to the school.

To date, six Innovation Centers have been established, with a seventh in progress:

• August 22, 2012 – Hugh Love Center for Research & Education in Technology at Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, California
• September 23, 2013 – Dr. Charles Dunlap Innovation Center for Research & Education in Technology at University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Dentistry, Kansas City, Missouri
• September 21, 2017 – Dr. W. Robert Biddington Center for Dental Innovation at West Virginia University School of Dentistry, Morgantown, West Virginia
• June 21, 2019 – Regions Center for Research & Education in Technology Innovation Suite at University of Mississippi School of Dentistry, Jackson, Mississippi
• September 10, 2022 – Center for Research & Education in Technology at Lincoln Memorial University College of Dental Medicine, Harrogate, Tennessee
• July 25, 2025 – Center for Research & Education in Technology at Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry, Nashville, Tennessee
• (In progress) University of Pikeville – Tanner College of Dental Medicine, Pikeville, Kentucky, selected as the next recipient of the CRET Innovation Center Award in 2024

---

Partnerships and Impact

CRET’s membership is composed of dental manufacturers and distributors who contribute equipment, expertise, and educational support to partner institutions. By bridging the gap between industry and academia, CRET promotes interprofessional collaboration, continuing education, and applied research in dental technology.

Its Innovation Centers have been recognized by dental education leaders as key environments for preparing students to be “practice-ready,” integrating digital dentistry, advanced imaging, and restorative systems into daily clinical use.

---

References

• Rossomando, E. F. (2020). Promoting a Partnership Between the Dental Industry and Dental Schools. Dental Hypotheses, 11(1), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_23_20
• Loma Linda University School of Dentistry opens Hugh Love Center for Research & Education in Technology. (2012). https://myllu.llu.edu/oncampus/story/?id=4728
• Kulsrud, Z. (2015). Dental School Disruption 101. Dentistry IQ. https://www.dentistryiq.com/dental-hygiene/student-hygiene/article/16366495/dental-school-disruption-101
• West Virginia University School of Dentistry – Center for Dental Innovation. https://dentistry.hsc.wvu.edu/about/facilities-and-technology/center-for-dental-innovation/
• University of Mississippi Medical Center – CRET Innovation Suite Opening. (2019). https://umc.edu/news/News_Articles/2019/06/CRET-Clinic-Opening.html
• ADA News – Connecting Industry with Students to Improve Dental Education. (2021). https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2021/july/connecting-industry-with-students-to-improve-dental-education-access-to-oral-care/
• Meharry School of Dentistry to Launch New Innovation Center for Dental Education. (2023). https://home.mmc.edu/meharry-school-of-dentistry-to-launch-new-innovation-center-for-dental-education/
• University of Pikeville – Tanner College of Dental Medicine Receives 2024 CRET Innovation Center Award. (2024). https://www.upike.edu/tanner-college-of-dental-medicine-receives-prestigious-2024-cret-innovation-center-award/

Any help or suggestions are appreciated. Cretdental2025 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cretdental2025:. You used ChatGPT to create this draft, and ChatGPT can often write promotional, vague, inappropriate prose which is not compatible with Wikipedia's manual of style. Your draft content reads like a brochure because of this. Please re-write, without the use of ChatGPT. Remember: an article on Wikipedia is only a descriptive and neutral summary of what reliable, published sources state. Nothing more. Please also read WP:LLM for more guidance on using AI chatbots. qcne (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cretdental2025 It is an extremely bad idea to write an article about your own company. My first advice is don't do it. If you still insist on doing it, read WP:PAID and WP:COI more broadly first. Then read WP:YFA for how to write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards.

The reality is that your business most likely does not meet the corporate notability guidelines and your article will inevitably be declined on those grounds, resulting in a frustrating experience for you and a waste of time for the rest of us. Athanelar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating an account

This website won't let me create an account. I entered my information SIX DIFFERENT times and it still will not allow me to create an account. I am getting frustrated because I want to be able to research without losing my history but I can't keep anything anywhere because I can't create an account. You guys need to look into this (if you are able to) and fix whatever bug is messing with a user being unable to create an account here. Thank you in advance. 197.233.67.84 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please give us more information; what is the exact message that you see when you attempt it? 331dot (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue on British MP Page

I have some concerns about the Tony Vaughan (politician) page. It seems to contain an unusual amount of detail regarding his political views and actions. Additionally, the account responsible for many of these edits appears to belong to a staff member for the same MP, as listed here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/251020/staff-01.htm.

I’m new to Wikipedia and not entirely sure of the best way to address this. If someone with more experience could take a look or advise on how to proceed, I’d really appreciate it.

Thank you! Shadowlark92 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the user who added the content's talk page regarding the paid editing requirements. Someone will likely need to go through and remove some of the content from the article that is particularly NPOV violating. CoconutOctopus talk 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Dont worry,I am removing some sentences as it is NPOV violating. But, I would still need the help of another person as I am not British as I don't know which is true or false.I would be deleating sentences like He has pledged to fight every day to improve constituents lives and be [their] voice in Parliament" to make the area "the best it can be for everyone," noting that the constituency was "forgotten by Westminster for many years as this sentence is not a neutral sentence. Helloitzmeleo (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to mention the lead

Anthony Vaughan KC is a Labour Party politician who has been Member of Parliament (MP) for Folkestone and Hythe since 2024. Shouldn't him being an MP take precedence over him being a Labour politician in the first sentence? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly normal English usage. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the English usage, but about the BLP's identity being defined by their affiliation before their constitutional post. Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This (as an elderly Brit) seems appropriate to me. He was certainly a Labour politician before becoming an MP, he will (probably) remain one if he loses his next election and is no longer an MP, and might (or might not) later be elected as an MP again, but quite possibly in a different constituency. The ordering is logical historical narrative; such attributes need not be ranked in order of perceived 'importance' in the way that, for example, noble titles or military awards are. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried putting it the other way around: Anthony Vaughan KC is a Member of Parliament (MP) for Folkestone and Hythe since 2024 and a Labour Party politician.

It sounds clunky to me; the current version is much smoother to read. Both identifications are in the first sentence anyway so I don't think the order is a problem. Meadowlark (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the sentence He has pledged to fight every day to improve constituents lives and be [their] voice in Parliament" to make the area "the best it can be for everyone," noting that the constituency was "forgotten by Westminster for many years clearly shows a bias to this candidate and is also not a neutral statement as this sentence is used during election propaganda. When, pages on politicians are written, the pages should be neutral and should only show their career and their early life, current personal life and the actions they did during their tenure and post-tenure. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No, The party of a politician can be written before his or her constitutional position. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Naughty Dog: remove this section?

This section of the Naughty Dog page seems to be that it can be removed, especially the first part. I have already removed a sentence on account of unreliable claim from a primary source, but I have a feeling that the rest of the paragraph is also not relevant to the article, barring perhaps the first line. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit promotional/corptriv I think. Athanelar (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How to add a source you do not have access to

On the page for the Cumberland Law Review I know the second source (currently a dead url) should be the Cumberland Law Review volume 47 if that volume is about Harper Lee (otherwise the claim should be removed). When I replaced the source with an archived version the edit was reverted by a bot because blurblawg.typepad.com is not a reliable looking domain name. I do not have access to the Cumberland Law Review to check if it is indeed about Harper Lee. What should I do? Flapjack06 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Flapjack06 Someone at the Reference Desk may have access and be able to check for you. 219.89.24.171 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Flapjack06 an even better "desk" to ask would be WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to AfD nominate at scale and not one-by-one?

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:SPAM (Advertisements masquerading as articles) operation. There are hundreds and hundreds of them. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims do not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

Some of the articles very obviously fail WP:N, some aren't as obvious. It is very time consuming to nominate AfD on them manually, one-by-one. Is there a way to do that at scale, especially the the ones that obviously fail WP:GNG? University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend addressing the promotional editing first and then going for AfD so that promotional editors don't gum up the process and so that we can get wider community input on the issue before AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Some of the promotional articles. Excessive spamming at best

• Miss Grand Apulia
• Miss Grand Asunción
• Miss Grand Paraná
• Miss Grand Toledo
• Miss Grand Extremadura
• Miss Grand Galicia
• Miss Grand Catalonia
• Miss Grand Zaragoza
• Miss Grand Curaçao 2014
• Miss Grand Netherlands 2016
• Miss Grand Netherlands 2017
• Miss Grand Netherlands 2018
• Miss Grand Curaçao
• Miss Grand Lithuania
• Miss Grand Latvia
• Miss Grand Cantabria
• Miss Grand Madrid
• Miss Grand La Rioja
• Miss Grand Georgia
• Miss Grand Euskadi
• Miss Grand Navarra
• Miss Grand Las Palmas
• Miss Grand Abruzzo
• Listed Miss Grand International 2017's national representative selection
• Listed Miss Grand International 2018's national representative selection
• Miss Grand Ciudad Real
• Miss Grand Cádiz
• Miss Grand Anzoátegui
• Miss Grand Trentino-South Tyrol
• Miss Grand Veneto
• Miss Grand Sicily
• Miss Grand Marche
• Miss Grand Liguria
• Miss Grand Lazio
• Miss Grand Jaén
• Miss Grand Sabah
• Miss Grand Sarawak
• Miss Grand Balearic Islands
• Miss Grand Paraná
• Miss Grand Minas Gerais
• Miss Grand Piauí
• Miss Grand Basilicata
• Miss Grand Siem Reap
• Miss Grand Castellón
• Miss Grand New Jersey

This is WP:SPAM.

See the collapsed list, the entries never end and there are additional hundreds and hundreds of them.

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Horse Eye's Back

Where or how would you recommend to address promotional editing? University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:COIN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Miss_Grand_Lithuania
University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about posting an image.

I tried to post File:Prince Valiant 6 April 2025.pdf on the Prince Valiant page but it didn't work. Any help I can get will be appreciated. 20:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC) 20:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You need to upload it as an image (.jpg, for example) not a PDF.

You should also note WP:IMAGERES. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The picture is a Chrome HTML, which is on the list of acceptable formats, is lo rez, and is "fair use" as many Wikipedia pages about comic strips have pictures of those comic strips. I still don't know how to post it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rick Norwood. The image you have linked to above is a PDF - which is presumably what you uploaded to Wikipedia, not an image format. If you found it on an HTML page, either it was a PDF linked in that page, or you downloaded it as a PDF. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I just tried to upload here the real image, which says "Chrome HTML document, Size 8.69 mb" but I could not figure out how to upload it here. Any help greatly appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

US airport codes

please incorporate U.S. airport ICAO codes like: KORD               to denote Chicago O'Hare Int'l air, etc...

KLAX, KIAD, KMCO KEWR...... Schaalmeister (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Schaalmeister sorry, this is a place where we ask questions relating to Wikipedia. But you can ask it here! Thanks, ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Schaalmeister: What do you mean by incorporate? If you want pages to be changed then link an example. The infobox in O'Hare International Airport already says "ICAO: KORD", and List of airports by ICAO code: K#KO already says "KORD – O'Hare International Airport – Chicago, Illinois". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Again?

I asked something here, and it happened on my user page again, because I edited it and added more info about me. Can someone again remove it and prevent this from happening, and tell me why this is happening? Regards ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems that the template is being substituted onto your userpage, not sure why it's happening if you're not doing it manually. I've removed it for now, but you may have to remove it manually each time. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@I am bad at usernames thank you! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

My guess would be its a visual editor issue. But I don't know beyond that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs maybe. Though I remember it happened at the source editor too. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Rafaelthegreat, that was my guess based on it only seeming to happen when you are in visual editor; see this this and this in source. It doesn't appear to be happening in source, judging by the tags on your edits. Every time it has happened has been in visual. I am fairly certain visual editor is causing it to be substituted, though not sure why. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs you are probably right. IDK though. VisualEditor is a little bit wonky at times. I remember at my edits I was alternating from source editing to Visual editing so I don't really remember. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Rafaelthegreat, based on my own testing here, I can confirm that some action is being done that is making it be substituted, rather than transcluded. Help:VisualEditor#Substituting templates has a guide on substituting templates. Make sure you aren't causing it to be substituted instead of transcluded. You alternated between source and visual here, whenever the tag says Visual Edit:Switched in the history page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs oh I see. Thank you so much! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Youtube videos

if some youtube videos can be licensed by cc-by-sa is it recomended to use <youtube></youtube> tags if you're lazy to uploaf the video

read the tile! 38.248.158.239 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:RSPYT before you think about YouTube. Basically you can't use it. Most of the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The RSPYT language says regarding YouTube, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. So, a small percentage of YouTube videos are reliable. But these are produced by highly professional outlets and highly unlikely to be freely licensed for financial reasons. They need to make their money back. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

or, for showing examples like a Gallery section with the external media template, like Example:

External videos
Two YouTube videos
That Gangnam Style MV that broke the internet and became one of the four horsemen of the ongoing korean wave
Some clips of the original first Inside Out film by Pixar

.38.248.158.82 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The <youtube> markup stated in the thread title is supported by Miraheze (I believe), but not on WP (where either traditional external linkage [i.e. [https://youtube.com YouTube]] or {{cite youtube}} must be used). External-media embeds are outside Wikimedia's purview.

However, as long as the uploader set their video's license under CC-BY, then it can be uploaded to Commons (subject to review/verification). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"read the tile!"—Please make your points in the body of comments, and keep subheadings short (as I have now done), for ease of navigation by others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you change your signature

How can you change your signature to have colour? ChaoticVermillion (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ChaoticVermillion. Please read Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How not to start an edit war across multiple articles

Just stopping by for advice on this one. I know some will say: "Drop a note on the editor's Talk Page" or "Start a discussion on the article's Talk Page"; but really I'm just here to see how one goes about editing an agenda pattern across multiple articles. On my Watchlist I saw this edit: [3] claiming the television sitcom Cheers was the "first installment in the Cheers franchise"; and that subsequent TV sitcoms: The Tortellis, Wings and Frasier were the next installments in the franchise series. (BTW Wings is not an installment or even a spin-off of Cheers; it merely shared creators and occasional appearances by characters from the original show). But I digress. In clicking on the other spin-off WP page links, I saw that the "concept" of Cheers being a franchise has traveled to the other article pages: [4], [5] and [6]. All in a very short span of time and without any history summary or RS to back the claims. In searching other TV sitcoms with spin-offs at WP (i.e. All in the Family is not the "first installment in the franchise", and the spin-offs: Archie Bunker's Place, The Jeffersons, Maude etc), they are not considered "franchise installments" on their pages. If I'm not mistaken, it just doesn't work that way like the second or third installments (films) of the John Wick movie franchise. My case for discussion toward reverting is one thing; but my Teahouse Question is this: how do I go about challenging (or even reverting) an "edit agenda" across several articles without it coming across as "trolling" or starting an inter-connected edit war? (Pinging the editor in this discussion @HollandJack2002) I consider the edits as WP:GF. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Assuming your description is complete and accurate, then I think you're dealing with someone whose edits are high-profile enough and bad enough that they can make a disastrous fool of themselves without your help. I say, just make some popcorn and open your dictionary to Schadenfreude. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverting edits across multiple articles isn't edit warring. It can at worst be harassment if you're targeting a particular editor for no reason, but if an editor is making bad edits to multiple articles you can revert all of those edits without concern. it only becomes edit warring if you're continually reverting the same edit without trying to discuss and resolve the matter more productively. Athanelar (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, by the logic presented, basically all of existence is part of the St. Elsewhere franchise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Thanks for the chuckle! Maineartists (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I need to become extended confirmed user

I need to become extended confirmed user because I have reached 500 edits right away? Yetneberk Hailu (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:Log/Yetneberk_Hailu says that you are extended confirmed, Yetneberk Hailu. (But I don't understand your question, and am merely responding to the question that I think you are asking.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You became one with this edit. jolielover♥talk 08:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

did not appear constructive

Hey there, someone reverted my contribution because it was "they did not appear constructive". What does this mean?

Hi there. I've just gotten a message from Gasiseda telling me that my recent contributions my recent contributions to Hyunmoo were reverted because they did not seem "constructive".

I just want to ask 2 things:

1. Is it ok to just notify someone that they reverted your contributions for such vague reasons as "unconstructive"?
2. Doesn't the two news articles I provided in the article support my contributions? In the article history WP:CRYSTAL BALL was cited as the actual reason. However, my sourced information did state that the missile can reach up to 5500km with a payload less than 1 ton.

Thanks. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The source you suggested was first claimed by Yoo Yong-weon (유용원), a member of the National Assembly's National Defense Committee,[7] and the South Korean military has no plan to increase the range of Hyunmoo 5 by reducing the weight of warheads by 5,500 kilometers, and has never mentioned it publicly. Therefore, it is inappropriate to add a maximum range of 5,500 km to the specification table, as the effective range of Hyunmoo 5, which is currently available through reliable sources open to the public, is estimated to be 300 to 3,000 km.

There is no problem with you adding the claim to the section that the maximum range will be 5,500 km if reduce the warhead weight of Hyunmoo 5, but entering that figure in the specification table is definitely a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Gasiseda (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Read my sources again. You are right. I seem to have read it wrong before.

It seems to imply that it has the potential of reaching that range, rather than the fact that it has reached 5500km with a 1 ton warhead.

Thanks for letting me know!

Also, not trying to sound rude, but regarding question one, I do believe people should do one more extra step than just say "unconstructive"(i.e. in my case, "Your contributions broke wikipedia guidelines. See WP:CRYSTAL BALL"). It almost made me think that there was a revision with no actual reason. Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I didn't undo everything you revised, I did some after seeing unpredictable or something that didn't really happen was added to the article. It is clear and respectful that you are amending Wikipedia articles in good faith. Thank you. Gasiseda (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The warning you're talking about is a stock template first-stage warning for vandalism. The wording about the edit "not being constructive" is supposed to be a polite way to warn someone without using inflammatory words like vandialism. You can see it for yourself if you type {{uw-vandalism1}} and look at the preview.

There's lots of stock templates for different warnings, the user probably should've used a more specific one. Athanelar (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Ohhh I see. Thanks! Notendiesonmyplate (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that this is resolved. I want to add that it is also very common for people to be impatient or careless when they write reasons for what they've done. You will probably see it many times. When they are impatient or careless writing their edit summary, it takes some experience to recognize "this person has acted reasonably and correctly even though their summary is useless", or "this person really has done something wrong". TooManyFingers (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

References

First visit

i don't know how to make use of this website. this is the first time i am visiting this page.

can you help me. 103.197.114.60 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

What is it that you need exactly? I would suggest creating user account so we can help you better. Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

'NoIndex' and 'NoFollow' Meta tag

Sabarisan Vedamurthy

Dear All, the above Wiki article carry 'NoIndex' and 'NoFollow' in its META Robots tag. Hence cannot see in Search Engine results include Google.

Screenshot: (Redacted)

Can anyone please help how to address this. Thank you. ArmeVijay (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It is intentionally done this way, and cannot be changed. The reason is that it is not a Wikipedia article but a user page.

Please delete everything you have put on your user page. Self-promotion is prohibited. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's quite clearly an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I misunderstood the whole thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(ec) @ArmeVijay Contrary to what User:TooManyFingers has said, Sabarisan Vedamurthy is an article in mainspace accepted through the WP:AfC process. However, it still has to be reviewed by the new pages patrol before it will be indexed by search engines and they are heavily backlogged. If 90 days elapse without review, it will index by default. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. ArmeVijay (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is tagged as promotional content. Will you be revising it? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

help

need help in submitting an article Apsecschool (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Apsecschool I don't see any saved drafts or a sandbox in your contributions. There is extensive help at Help:Your first article. You have created this thread at the Teahouse, so I don't think that there is a fundamental problem in saving your work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

After you create a new article, there will be a template for submitting the article at the top! (Throughtsr (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC))

To add context, here's the question as they put it to me on my talk page:

I am trying to create new article page for Presbyterian Senior High School, Abetifi or Abetifi Presbyterian Senior High School but any time I publish it does not publish why? Apsecschool (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(I advised using the Article Wizard)

I have but when I click on Publish just just refresh and give me same page Apsecschool (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(I advised seeking help at VPT). This might help someone here to help, as I'm out of my depth. • a frantic turtle 🐢 15:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that there is a bug report at phabricator which says that New editors are unable to create pages with external links in them. This may be the issue. If User:Apsecschool tried to create such a draft, he/she should try again without the external link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Becket controversy

Becket controversy

A great article. But I don't understand the Citations and References sections. Can these be improved? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @Kingsacrificer! It looks like the sources are organized by author, title, and page number. This is an appropriate formatting style and I see it a lot in higher-level articles. "Citations" applies to inline citations, and "References" applies to the works the inline citations refer to - in this case, books. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 22:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's suboptimal. A typical example is Barlow Thomas Becket pp. 189–192, but there's no link from "Barlow Thomas Becket" down to the explanation below that this is a book by Frank Barlow, with publication details. It would be better if there were. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Should the Citations sections be modified to fit into the usual References format? Although, this would mean that the Citations section gets removed. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer The article was first created in 2010. Its structure with citations and a biography of the books from which these citations are taken would today be done using the template {{sfn}} (shortened footnotes): see the template page for details. Usual practice is not to change citation style once set for an article (see WP:CITEVAR). However, you could seek consensus to do so for this article via its talk page. I wouldn't expect others to object to a move to use sfn, which ends up looking very much like what is already there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Bug prevents new users creating pages

FYI: There is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages with external links

Per this Phabricator ticket, there is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages which contain external links, due to an issue with CAPTCHA. The user will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use the Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

This should be fixed by Monday.

We're seeing quite a few new users report this across various channels, so I thought I'd make an FYI here. qcne (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is my rewritten sandbox draft ready for AfC submission?

Hello, I’ve rewritten User:Hend.Alhinnawi/sandbox in my sandbox based on independent sources with neutral tone.

Could someone please review it and let me know if it’s ready to go through Articles for Creation? Hend.Alhinnawi (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello- the best way to get feedback is to submit the draft. You're asking for a pre-review review, which duplicates the process. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hend.Alhinnawi. The key thing you have to ask yourself is, have I proven that this person meets our criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)? qcne (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. I’ve reviewed the notability criteria and believe the sources in my sandbox (e.g., Wall Street Journal, STAT News, Bio-IT World, RAPS, and Healthcare IT News) provide independent, in-depth coverage of Kass-Hout’s professional work. I’ll go ahead and submit the draft through AfC for formal review. Hend.Alhinnawi (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hend.Alhinnawi, apart from the LLM concern raised by the reviewer, you may have missed an important thing: your sources must be all three of independent, significant coverage, and reliable sources. See WP:42 for more information. Interviews, for example, are not independent (because the subject is giving the information directly). Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I am being denied normal access of Wikipedia

My USER name: "Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas" My last entry was 2025-07-08 I’ve made over a thousand entries, mostly minor edits. WHY AM I BEING DENIED MY NORMAL USE OF WIKIPEDIA NOW ? A long involved series of 4-digits appeared: 2605:A601:AABF:9700:9455:DC68:8F0F:4515

Has my IP address has been hacked ? 2605:A601:AABF:9700:9455:DC68:8F0F:4515 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The user account User:Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas hasn't edited much during 2025 but looks healthy enough. I imagine that you simply weren't logged in to it. Try logging in. If your attempt is unsuccessful, please describe the error message or other problem (but of course without divulging your password). -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

When is bias in article/tone acceptable?

Hi guys and girls of the Teahouse,

I and my friend have run into some issues while on this site, and I'm curious - when is bias in an article and its tone acceptable on Wikipedia? There's pages like Mass killings under communist regimes (don't get me wrong, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot did a lot of very bad things) which cite the Black Book of Communism as a source (which is known to be very bad and has inflated figures). But there's no such pages like, for example, Death toll of capitalism or American empire (though there is American imperialism). There's also bias IMO in how pages are named, such as a difference between "Nedelin catastrophe" and Apollo 1's "accident" section.

Is this because of sourcing? Or bias of editors? Or something else?

I'm just curious, sorry if I grind gears with this post or my questions. Also sorry for all issues I've caused in the past, really want to contribute here but I'm still new Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss deaths caused by capitalism as a distinct topic, feel free to summarize those in a draft by using the Article Wizard- or discuss them on Talk:Capitalism.

If you want to challenge the use of a source in an article, that's what the article talk page is for. That a source is biased does not necessarily preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless it is so biased it makes things up out of whole cloth- in which case WP:RSN is probably the best venue. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way I can know if a source is reliable or not, besides taking it to RSN or seeing that it's a private blog or something? Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read more about what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source but in short, a source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control to be considered reliable. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes.. thank you 331dot! Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

A good start can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons that articles have the names they have, is that we try to stick to the way the topic is referred to in the reliable sources we're aware of. The result is that we usually name things according to what the majority of people really call them. We don't try to create names that are "better".

The disadvantage of this is that when mainstream usage has settled on an inappropriate name for something, Wikipedia will probably still call it by that name.

If we did start renaming things by what each of us as individuals would prefer, there would be so many bitter arguments over names that we'd soon be forced back to doing it the way we do now. "Just call it what all the reliable sources call it" is the best, most neutral way out of the fight. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Unable to create pages or save edits - page keeps refreshing

Hello! I have a 6-year-old Wikipedia account (DrustvotouhouSI) but no edit history on English Wikipedia. I'm trying to create my first article (Draft:Association Touhou) with proper COI disclosure.

Every time I try to publish a page (draft, sandbox, anything), the page just refreshes without saving. I don't get an error message - it just returns to the same page.

I've tried: - Creating a draft - Creating content in my sandbox - Multiple browsers - Waiting between attempts

My user page edit did work, but nothing else will save.

Can someone help me figure out what's blocking me, or help me create the draft page so I can edit it?

Thank you! DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

DrustvoTouhouSI, please see #Bug_prevents_new_users_creating_pages (above). -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this article worthy of deletion?

I found the article Cell Phone Seat via the filter logs when it was being made and have been surprised it has remained untouched ever since. The content personally struck me as weird (e.g. how much the article talks about intellectual property), and the author having no prior contributions gives me a gut feeling of COI but there's no way I could really verify that.

Rather than gut feelings of weird-ness, it seems like a concrete rationale for deleting the article might be it failing WP:NCORP. I haven't proposed any articles for deletion before though, and I'm hesitant to do it for that criteria because the article just has so many refs. I did a quick overview myself, and it seems like refs 1, 2, 6, and 19 are primary, 3-5, 7, and 8 aren't significant coverage, 8 and 9 are gadget reviews, and 10-17 are not independent.

Am I doing this right? If so, what avenue for article deletion should I be trying to take?

Thanks, Yhvr (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You say a concrete rationale for deleting the article might be it failing WP:NCORP. Nope, Yhvr. Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability tells us that if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability. (As for your question "Is this article worthy of deletion?", I haven't looked at the article, let alone attempted to find good sources for the subject.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How to update A person's life information

Hi, I know someone who is listed in a wiki page that recently passed. When I edit the information, do I need to provide an obituary for verification? Ron Ronbalazs (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Ronbalazs--yeah, you do, and the more reliable the sourcing, the better. A newspaper article is better than an obituary placed as an ad. Sorry for your loss. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. Ronbalazs (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place

Not exactly new, but really inactive. Just wanted to know if it was fine to edit articles without warning if it's minor ish and violates WP:NPOV:

"The police stood by and did nothing as a group of black attendees assaulted a white female teenager; when a white male bystander, Kris Kime, attempted to protect her, the group of black attendees beat him to death."

- Seattle Mardi Gras Riots pg.

I want to edit this because I'm pretty sure this is racially charged to incite a black vs white feeling. Am I fine in changing this? 2601:600:8D00:7EB0:D404:3A6B:EEC:8F85 (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The source it comes from is one of the main keys to this. If this is really what a solidly reliable source intended to say, we're going to need to keep it. But if a Wikipedia editor has twisted what the source says, then it should be repaired, to make it say just what the reliable source intended. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(And since this is a question on how to edit right, I do believe you're in a good place to ask it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Having checked the two sources cited for this passage, I myself think that it overinterprets what they say. The most relevant sentence seems to be

"Witnesses said the man who hit Kime from behind was black, that he may have been part of a roving group of young black men and women who police say attacked many white partygoers in the crowd. But police spokesman Benton yesterday cautioned against concluding that the attackers were motivated by race".

However, as someone from and in a different continent, I am not going to involve myself in editing the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted back to an earlier version because a lot of racial language was added in this diff back in July which is blatantly not NPOV.

For your knowledge, it's always fine to edit Wikipedia. That's the point of WP:BOLD. If you make a bad edit someone can always revert it. Athanelar (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if I rewrite an article and put all the wrong stuff will i get banned or something like that

the same that i said up there 138.84.45.31 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes jolielover♥talk 04:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be counted as vandalism, or disruptive editing. You could expect warnings, and then a block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are genuinely trying to improve it, you won't be blocked, even if you're mistaken (unless you ignore people's advice and keep on doing it).

If you're obviously doing it to damage Wikipedia, you will get warned and (if you don't stop) blocked as Graeme says. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It: Welcome to Derry; Episode 2

Why is the "Original Release Date" of Episode 2 listed as November, 2? I saw the information tab that indicates the show aired on streaming first (on October 31, to coincide with Halloween) and was being broadcast over the air on November, 2. However, IMDB lists the Original Air Date as October 31, 2025. The show was ORIGINALLY AIRED on October 31, 2025. Can we please report accurately the ORIGINAL AIR DATE, please? You have left the information citation indicating the episode was broadcast on 2 separate dates. Isn't that good enough? As of right now, your Wiki page is a lie and I would like to see that fixed, please. I can do it myself. Please give me permission or explain your reasoning for reporting false information. Thanks. Banueloschris (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy Link: It – Welcome to Derry#Episodes

IMDb is not considered by Wikipedia to be a Reliable source, because its information is user-contributed and often unreferenced – see Wikipedia:IMDB.

Currently the information in the article is cited (Ref No 10) to a source considered reliable. The details on IMDb (here) state "Release Date . . . United States October 31, 2025 (internet)" My understanding of the term "air" is that it refers to TV broadcasting, not internet streaming: however, I am not an expert in this field.

When multiple forms of dissemination are being used, the term 'Original Releae Date' may be an over-simplification; editors can differ in interpretations, and being human they can make mistakes – mistakes are not "lies", and are always open to correction after civil discussion and consensus. Does anyone else care to comment? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Edits rejected by ClueBot. How can I make progress?

Dear All,

I made substantial edits to this wiki: Global carbon reward, but my extensive edits were all rejected by ClueBot.

I followed the links and instructions to ClueBot NG Report Interface // Viewing 4440176, and filled out the small form at the bottom of the page. This process is rather mysterious. Does anybody know what happens next, and can I continue to revised the Wiki?

Many thanks

Bandicoot66. Bandicoot66 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bandicoot66. ClueBot NG is just an anti-vandlism bot; it uses machine learning in order to detect vandalism, and when it does, it reverts the vandalism. In this case, it looks like your edits were a false positive. From a brief look, it seems your edits were largely improving the page, so I would recommend going ahead and continuing your edits. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've re-instated your edits. Reporting a false positive to ClueBot just helps the developer refine what it flags as vandalism in the future, it doesn't mean ClueBot will restore your removed edits, you have to do that manually, but I already did it for you. Athanelar (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding submission

Hello,

I wanted to confirm that my article is being considered for AfC approval, and if so, that it would then be moved to the main space. Please advise if there are additional steps to take.

Link: Draft:Everard Entertainment

Thanks,

Jared Jared Press (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is awaiting assessment and approval (or being declined for needing further improvement, or being rejected as unsuitable for Wikipedia at this time). As the topmost text in the template currently says:

"Review waiting, please be patient.

This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,817 pending submissions waiting for review."

There is no way of predicting when one of our (too few, overworked) volunteer reviewer will get to it; in the meantime you are free to continue improving it (no Wikipedia article is ever considered finished).

One thing I notice is that, though titled 'Everard Entertainment', the draft appears to be 99% about Ben Everard himself. This is not critical as, if a reviewer approves and publishes it, they may well change the title to what they deem most suitable anyway, but it might help to focus your further efforts if you decide what the draft's subject actually is. Hope this helps. {The poster fornerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen.....

this: I have seen claims about the Atlas comet all over the place claiming that a group of aliens has tested Earth and found humanity wanting and humanity will be quarantined and/or destroyed, and that humanity at large did not know that humanity was being examined. There are other claims that a alien race will conquer Earth making claims that humanity will be terminated. This is all over the place. Can you imagine some explorers going to the Moon, even Mars only to have a "light" fire a laser-like/ phaser-like weapon at the exploratory ship? Some of this I have seen on YouTube, some I have seen elsewhere. Allegedly famous scientists were making quotes like these are allegedly Michu Kaku, Stephen Hawking to name a few. Is this all BS or is there something to this? I have also seen some science fiction similar to this in which humanity not only broke out of imprisonment with alien help, but has destroyed the opposing spaceborne political entities as well. Can this be of use on Wikipedia as well? This sort of thing, properly sourced, if possible, could be useful. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's never aliens —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The comet in question is 3I/ATLAS and it has an unusual orbit. If Stephen Hawking had commented on this comet, that would be remarkable no matter what he said. The comet was discovered on July 1, 2025 and Hawking died 7-1/2 years ago. The scientist who is speculating that it might be an alien spaceship is Avi Loeb, who is prone to such flights of fancy. That's all described in the article about the comet and in Loeb's biography. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation

Hey, I just started editing and it’s not clear to me how to translate pages. I know how to request for a translation, and I did one already correcting the automatic translation, but it’s still not published. Is it because I’m new, or just missing something? Mag-871 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mag-871, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you told us which article you are talking about, we might have more chance of helping you.

Please note that, because English Wikipedia has stricter rules on sourcing than many other Wikipedias, translating an article to English is often (not always) a much bigger task than simply translating an existing article, and I would give the same advice as I give to new editors wanting to create articles: 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.

Looking at your contributions, I wonder if you might be talking about translating from English? If that is the case, beyond pointing you at WP:translate us, we can't help you much here, and you'd be better asking on the target Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s the Italian translation from English of “Arcuate Nucleus”, “Nucleo Arcuato”.

@ColinFine Mag-871 (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If I get it right you translated it from English to Italian, and want to publish it on the Italian Wikipedia? If so, you would need to ask at the Italian Wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mag-871: I can see that you've added the {{Expand Italian}} template to Arcuate nucleus (medulla). Is that what you mean? All that template does is make the point that the Italian Wikipedia article it:Nucleo arcuato has more content, which could be used to expand the English Wikipedia one. (I'm not sure that's actually the case here, but that's beside the point.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How to split an article

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

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

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

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

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