Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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

Merry Christmas

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

---

I just want to wish you all merry Christmas. I hope you enjoy your holiday and have good time with the people you love. ObamaForever2008 (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Echoing Merry Christmas back across the miles, O.F., and in return sharing a thought that resonates with me and may with other wordsmiths: that the one whose birth is celebrated today has also been called The Word. Augnablik (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik! Happy holiday! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry Christmas and a happy and blessed 2026 Ajron Bach (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ajron Bach. Okey! (Iluziya7 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry Christmas! And Happy Holidays! (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

And to you, my friend Ajron Bach (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You too! ~2025-42519-93 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas even though I don’t really celebrate it. 2025 is coming to a close soon, and I wish all of you the best of luck next year. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 15:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ty dude merry Christmas happy holidays! Bps2 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bps2. Congratulations to you too! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry (late) Christmas and happy holidays :D FelixGao0 (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@FelixGao0! Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

happy new year :D wishing everyone a wonderful 2026 Shadestar474 ^(talk) 20:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I wish you for a best time! (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

notability

Hi, I'm having a hard time with my main project, which has the Italian musician Luca Formentini as a subject.

Draft:Luca Formentini.

Given he is active in a niche as experimental ambient music is, it is impossible to find his name on magazines and websites such as Rolling Stones and Pitchfork.

The reviewers keep asking for more notability references while I think my draft contains many, those which should be enough to start the page at least, like multiple major music printed magazines and important music websites from Europe and USA.

I keep looking for references to add but when I find and add them it looks they're never enough of good. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: Your first column of references all share a title, "Luca Formentini", which is not the title of the actual underlying links (most of which are album reviews). I will also note we do not cite iTunes/Apple Music (online storefront) and AllMusic is unusable (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano thank you so much for helping me tracking the weak points of my submission!!!

I adjusted the title on the first column of references, finding a better correlation and erased the link to Itunes, while I kept the Allmusic link as I found it on some of the musicians I checked when I prepared my first draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennesz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Hecker) no problem to erase the Allmusic link if needed though. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

From looking at what you've just written here, and then looking at your draft, it seems like you probably don't know that Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability are quite different from the way you've used that word. Those are important to know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I'm willing to learn, thank you for your advice.

However when I check the criteria for notability I think we have what is needed as:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself > Yes, many important websites are talking of his work and about him as a musician.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart > This is impossible with the kind of music he's playing. Ambient and Experimental will never appear on a national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.> Again this should be contextualized as above.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.> I see the note that shows this has bee debated and probably not considered applicable. I think this is correct, given the current situation and the music style.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).> certainly yes! the Australian Extreme has a long time reputation and important catalogue, the American Curious Music has published albums from very relevant musicians, Soundscape Productions, Dark Companion all have an impressive catalogue. No way they can be considered marginal players in this context.
6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.> Sure! He has collaborated with very important names in the international experimental and ambient scene such as Holger Czukay, Robert Rich, Markus Stockhausen, Steve Jansen.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city> Yes, many local newspapers and Italian magazines cites him as a relevant name in the local and national scene. Focusing just on the latest articles the last review published by Rumore magazine which scores his latest album 80/100 and says "...that confirm Formentini as a secluded yet necessary voice in contemporary sonic research." or Blow Up that scores the same album 8.2 and says "Unmissable"

I think this is a lot for a musician that is active since more than 20 years in a small but relevant music style.

Thank you for your help! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Which three sources would you say are the best ones for showing his notability? We want to be able to say "These three sources already tell his story; we have no need to add anything, because just these three are enough - they've written the article for us." TooManyFingers (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If I had to pick from those online they would be: https://www.15questions.net/interview/luca-formentini-about-creating-silence-and-tapping-sonic-energy-field/page-1/

https://www.chaindlk.com/reviews/12271

https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2021/11/molecules-by-luca-formentini-new-album-intra.html

or https://extrememusic.com.au/artists/luca-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The first one does not show notability, because it is Formentini himself speaking. The third one is announcing an album of his, and includes links to all of his media and gives an interview quote - not sure about this one. The last one seems to have been written by him or by a publicist, also not showing notability.

So if you take the second item, the third item, and nothing else, do those give the full story of his career? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers well, no, the two you suggest are not enough to give a full story of his career. Any advice?

By the way, I just discovered that Gino Dal Soler (one of the most historical writers on Blow Up magazine) listed his latest album within his top 5 albums for 2025. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Being listed doesn't show notability either, unfortunately.

The problem now appears to be that you have far too little good material to start writing an article. Independent publishers have not been telling Formentini's story, so Wikipedia will not tell his story either. Unless you find several major stories about him, written by reporters alone, with no publicist, no interview, no press release. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:SIGCOV

Things like being mentioned on a list of top albums would be considered a passing mention, not suitable for establishing notability even for the album itself. In order to demonstrate that the musician is notable, you need significant, in-depth coverage.

The exception is if they meet any of the criteria in WP:NMUSICIAN that would allow us to presume notability; however, even if we presume this person is notable, you would still need to find enough coverage in secondary sources to base an article on; which passing mentions of "top 5 albums" still doesn't accomplish. Athanelar (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thank you again for your help in interpreting Wikipedia's rules, let me take the chance to ask you if an interview on a major Italian music magazine such as Rockerilla would count. Also, given we're talking about the crossing point between music and art, what about the publishing of his work on a catalogue released by a museum of contemporary art and/or a catalogue of an art exhibition he's been invited to participate?

Thank you! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are kind of a tricky one, because depending on the publication, the fact that a person was interviewed may well indicate notability, but the problem is that you generally can't actually include most of the information from the interview (because it's a primary source which we only permit certain information from)

So, if he's been interviewed by a major publication it's a good indication there should be other, better sources available to substantiate his notability. The kind of sources you're looking for are summarised in the golden rule.

As for his artwork, that would fall under WP:NARTIST. Namely what you're describing would fall under point 4, which says;

[an artist can be considered notable if their] work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So the question is whether the instances in which his art has been published would qualify as a 'significant exhibition' or 'several notable galleries or museums' Athanelar (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar this brings things to a very high level of subjectivity which can become very much debatable. Luckily Wikipedia gives room to artists who are not just those accepted and celebrated by mass critics or media and gives room to outsiders and more niche art explorers whose work is important because of the quality of the feedback and attention it is able to deserve. Art is sometimes happening and developing out of the reach of major radars and this is what allows it to grow honestly and genuinely, allowing the cultural growth of the society, which is so much needed.

I will try find those catalogues and interviews, hopefully they will help to give a better read of the notability his work deserves. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If you show what he deserves, it cannot help.

An article on Wikipedia is like the old saying about getting a bank loan: you can only get one if you prove you don't need it. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Yes, that makes sense. What I wanted to say is that I'm surprised all the references I've been showing still don't validate his recognized value.

Hopefully the latest message I sent a few mins ago will finally prove his importance as a sound artist and composer is recognized by independent and qualified sources. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar and @TooManyFingers I found the catalogues of some expositions, in which different curators talk about his work and about the artwork on display. In the specific these are:

2025: Meccaniche della Meraviglia, site-specific sound installation "We Don't End" catalogue https://www.lacompagniamassetti.it/shop/arte/meccaniche-della-meraviglia-19/

2023: Water Light Festival, site specific sound installations on peter Fellin and Alik Cavaliere Artworks https://www.brixen.org/waterlight/en/installations/past-editions/water-light-festival-edition-2023/franzensfeste-wlf-23

2023: Musil museum, sound installation for Pietro Gardoni artwork https://www.musilbrescia.it/it/news/dettaglio-news.asp?id=844

2023: Franzenfeste Museum: site specific sound installation on Peter Fellin artwork https://www.franzensfeste.info/ausstellung/im-dialog-mit-peter-fellin-2/

2021: Polvere, video and sound installation "Art Spaces" as mentioned on Corriere della Sera and Bresciaoggi

By checking newspapers I also found a (half page) article on Bresciaoggi which is clearly not an interview but a report of his last activities. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If those are the best references available, then I would say the artist has insufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. None of those provides in-depth coverage. None of them devote more than a couple of sentences to the artist; some of them do no more than mention his name. We would need sources that discuss the artist in-depth; perhaps an entire article several pages long discussing his life and works. Just brief mentions like these do not support notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Thank you for your reply. I believe there may be a misunderstanding.

The links listed in my previous message were references to printed exhibition catalogues, not the full sources themselves. They were provided in response to a specific question about art-related documentation. I can scan and upload selected PDFs, or make them available in an online folder, should that be helpful for evaluation.

The draft currently under discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luca_Formentini

In addition to the online sources already cited in the draft, there are multiple in-depth articles in printed music magazines and newspapers that discuss the artist’s work and career at length. Unfortunately, I am unsure of the preferred way to present such offline sources for review, and I would appreciate guidance on how best to make them available for consideration. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker here you can check some articles on newspapers and the pictures of two official catalogues published by the institutions which organized the exhibitions where he was commissioned site-specific artworks.

There are much more available if they can be useful.

@Athanelar and @TooManyFingers any advice from you?

Thank you all and enjoy the last hours before the beginning of the new loop around the sun! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Why does this say "Luca Formentini shared Wikipedia Dox with you"? That's where the name of the Dropbox account owner goes. Does he know you're using his name in this way? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

to nobody's shock, it seems this has just been revealed as a concealed attempt at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY... Athanelar (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Athanelar and @TooManyFingers, I disclosed my COI at the beginning of the project as required. I have made known that I know him and this is why you see his name on the dropbox folder. I just asked him to provide the scans of the documents, just because it looks like they could help to evaluate notability. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

As a side note, I had no idea until just now, that Silvia Dalle Montagne (or Luca Dal Lago?) first submitted a draft of this article five years ago. A determined editor. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers It's Silvia here, I can prove my identity if needed.

And yes, as you can easily check this is my first project. The reason behind this is that I know him as I know some other names working in the same musical genre and I was surprised to see them and not him, while they have the same if not sometimes less notability than him. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if this caused any tension; I will step back from any further involvement and leave the evaluation entirely to uninvolved editors.

Let me send you all my best wishes for a serene and positive 2026! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Clearly you've continued to misunderstand Wikipedia's concept of "notability". These last batches of publicity material you've sent are mostly interviews (sometimes disguised interviews) and announcements.

Notability means independent coverage (the reliable reporter is all by himself, he has no interview quotes to work with, and no concert or album to announce), and it means the subject's history (not only his latest project or two at the time of writing).

In all of this publicity material, we keep hearing and seeing Formentini do the talking. The Rockerilla piece has a title that, in this context, becomes almost a cruel joke just by changing one letter: "Luca Formentini in continuo dialogo con se stesso". That is the problem, throughout. It's all too much of Formentini talking to himself; others have apparently not been talking about him very much unless he tells them to.

This all may change in the future. I suggest setting this draft aside completely, and then coming back to it in 2030 - hopefully by then there will be much more to work with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone should be proud to share the stage with Markus Stockhausen - I'm aware that this is not something done by just anyone. But being "that guy who was with Markus Stockhausen" is not notable, unless publishers independent of you have told your story in great detail - without your help, just because they wanted to. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers ok, I will keep looking for good sources, but I doubt there will be the chance to find one that will give a comprehensive story of his work. The new album has just been published so there will be something new probably.

Not the answer but I found this before reading your last message:

this is what Paul Roland says about his collaboration with Markus Stockhausen: "Luca’s soundscapes, as can be heard on their latest release for Dark Companion, Rêverie, are an emotional journey into the dark side of the soul. Together they converse in a shared musical language, alternating deep exchanges with gently tender moments to produce music that feels very much of the present yet—remarkably—also undeniably enduring, a music that calls for repeated listening. It is a wholly spontaneous method of composition that borders on alchemy. Call it art music, or better yet, free spirits at play."

Original link is here: https://www.folkclub.it/it/concerti/36/stockhausen-capra-vaccina-mortazavi-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding collaborations, see WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:INVALIDBIO

Mere proximity to someone notable does not confer notability. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thank you for pointing this out. However we're not talking about proximity, we're talking about sharing art production (music composition in this case) and signing it together as a single artwork (album). I think this is different than inheriting notability. Additionally we're not talking about an occasional event with a single artist, but with repeated events with different composers and performers. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia is different. Wikipedia uses the word incorrectly, so I understand your frustration. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether you deserve recognition. All that matters is being the subject of major publications that decided to cover your history, with no prompting or influence from you. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

(I think it probably helps to emphasize that this is about explaining a person's history - not announcements.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers thank you for putting more and more light on the many issues I'm finding that, yes, I can admit, are frankly quite frustrating. I sometime feel like there's something weird going on as the quantity and quality of references I'm providing is way deeper and wider than many of those I find in many other similar articles. I'm aware I can't make comparisons, but this is what comes to my mind. This submission is now becoming a challenge as I don't want to become the reason why this musician is not getting the recognition I (and not just me) think he deserves. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Wikipedia intentionally waits until the person already IS fully recognized. We follow. We intentionally refuse to lead. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers and @Athanelar experimental music has one undoubted reference: The Wire (magazine) where the musician was cited a few years ago. I was able to find a part of the article online here: https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/94593/spread/5 Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

didnt cite Da rules Fun81 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image versus navbox image for George Washington article

Hi everyone. I'm looking for some general guidance on lead image selection for biographies of historical figures, specifically in the article on George Washington. The current lead image is a long-standing, widely recognized Gilbert Stuart portrait, while another Stuart portrait painted from life during Washington's lifetime is currently used only in a navbox in a small, cropped form. I'm trying to understand how experienced editors typically weigh recognizability and long-standing use against contemporaneous execution when deciding what works best as a lead image, and whether it's ever appropriate for different images to serve different roles, such as a recognizable portrait in a navbox and a from-life portrait as the lead image. I'm not trying to force a change, just to better understand common practice and expectations before deciding how to proceed- Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with a Martin Dempsey - Wikipedia entry

I would like to get in touch with whoever edited this Wikipedia entry: Holli Dempsey

The reason is, Holli is my (late)uncle's grand-daughter ( my second cousin).

I need their assistance to produce a profile for my late uncle, who was a distinguished Irish TV & Major feature film & Theatre actor/ Opera Singer/ Television Presenter (bi-Lingual) etc etc. I am a supporter of WKP and have donated many times ( modest sums as I am pensioner!). Thank you for your help. ~2025-43689-58 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-43689-58. Wikipedia articles are collaborative projects written by often hundreds of editors. The Holli Dempsey article has had 76 editors over the years contribute to it. If your late uncle meets our criteria for inclusion, at some point a volunteer editor will create an article about them. Please stay away from anyone claiming to be able to write an article in exchange for money, this is a scam. qcne (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They are allowed to make a page themselves I believe, just with reliable sources and declaring a COI. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Allowed, true, but for people writing about themselves the failure rate is extremely high. People want to write many things they know about themselves, and being disallowed from doing that - being forced to write only what the public already knew anyway, without adding to it - is frustrating for most people, and often leads to anger and blame. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I don’t condone it, but if they did it really well and with evidence only I guess it could pass. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a big part of the problem, actually - they do have evidence! They have the wrong kind of evidence, mountains of it, and they're offended and hurt at being told they aren't allowed to present any of it. (Father's papers, that unpublished autobiography, treasured awards from non-notable organizations, ...) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Shame they can't just publish said autobiography. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It would cost them money, and after all nobody would ever read it. So they come to where it's free, and where they think it might be read by someone. That's my guess, anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I know. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about the non-notable evidence, personal evidence and evidence which doesn’t matter who isn’t reliable, sadly people try and try and try to get their pages published. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article Holli Dempsey is, I'm afraid, one of the thousands and thousands of articles we have that are seriously substandard, and would not be accepted if it were submitted today. The problem is that a Wikipedia article is not a "profile" - i.e., what the subject or their associates wish people to know - but an encyclopaedia article about the subject. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

That article does not, as far as I can see, have a single source which meets the criteria of being reliable, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of her (see golden rule). I shall be tagging it for problems, and see if I can find suitable sources - if not, then I will nominate it for deletion.

I realise that if this happens this may be upsetting for you that it was your question that brought it to my attention; but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, an article about somebody is no part whatever of their "online presence", and promotion is forbidden. Wikipedia is edited and managed by volunteers, and many tasks that we would like to have covered (such as reviewing and improving or deleting sub-standard articles) rarely get done.

As for an article about your uncle: unfortunately, there is no reliable way to find somebody to write an article for you, or to help you do so. You can submit a request to requested articles, but in honesty, most requests sit there forever. You can ask somebody who began an existing article if they are willing to look at it (that article was begun by an editor who goes by the name Theroadislong in 2016 - though they are now a respected reviewer of new articles, and I don't think they will thank me for bringing that one to their attention!) but there is no guarantee that they would agree.

You could also ask at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject, such as WP:WikiProject Television or WP:WikiProject Theatre - there you will find editors who have an interest in that topic, and your request may strike a chord with an editor who is interested in your uncle. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

But on the whole, if you want an article writing, the most likely way to get it to happen is to write it yourself. Unfortunarly, writing a Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult activities for a new editor, and even harder if you have a conflict of interest (as you would appear to have, given your relationship). Despite what Keyol Translator said, you are permitted to try. What matters most is whether or not the independent reliable substantial sources about Martin Dempsey exist or not: if not, then no article is possible. (That is the same question as I will be asking as I look at Holli Dempsey).

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.

You mention that you have been a supporter and donor: thank you; but that has no bearing at all on what happens inside Wikipedia. Fundraising is entirely the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation, and nobody editing Wikipedia has anything to do with it, or knows who has donated and who has not.

Finally, I should repeat Keyol Translator's warning: there are people who try to sell their "services" to create article for payment, and having posted here you may be approached by these people. They have no standing in Wikipedia, though they are permitted to operate if they follow Wikipedia's policies for Paid editors: but most of them are scammers (see WP:SCAM).

I'm sorry I couldn't give you a more encouraging answer. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

More than happy for you to take Holli Dempsey to WP:AFD, it's my impression that it would likely survive, but I have no strong attachment to it! Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If it were at WP:AFC now it would be an easy straightforward accept. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong A straightforward accept? @ColinFine thinks it doesn't have a single good source. But, the process can play out... It is unfortunate that many people think that Wikipedia is closer to social media, when it is trying to be an encyclopedia. It's also unfortunate that, with millions of very old articles, we can't easily find all of the substandard ones. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

re Holli Dempsey...WP:NACTOR says they are notable if..."the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions." Take it to WP:AFD if you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Tangential to ColinFine's You mention that you have been a supporter and donor: thank you; but...nobody editing Wikipedia...knows who has donated and who has not: when I saw a pensioner, I thought it prudent to make a general note: please do not donate if you aren't in a place financially to do so. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Great info here for a newbie like me. Thank you. CROWLSYONG (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Name correction

1. My official name is Jorge Haddock. In Puerto Rico they use Jorge Haddock Acevedo. The editor does not allow me to correct it.
2. My citizenship is US, Puerto Rican citizenship does not exist. The editor does not allow the correction.

GuiquiJH (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be the person that article was written about. You should check this page: Wikipedia:Autobiography for more info. I'd assume for something this minor, they'd allow it but I should note that the nationality part does not refer to citizenship, it simply refers to what country you are from. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 16:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a country, it is a Territory of the US. The Puerto Rican Citizenship does not exist. All Puerto Ricans are US Citizens by birth carrying a US Passport as there is no Puerto Rico Passport. GuiquiJH (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said that is not for citizenship, it is for your nationality, like how English people exist but there's no such thing as English citizenship. Puerto Ricans exist in a similar manner. I should note that there does exist a citizenship parameter for the infobox that we may use for the article. For that one, it should say "United States". S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 21:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuiquiJH You are making some bad changes to the article. Please stop. You've been adding things you know, but which are not already published in reliable secondary sources, and that is not permitted. You are also removing legitimate information just because you don't like it, which is not good either. It is NOT your article - it is Wikipedia's article. You are not permitted to make major changes like this. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: I thought this would be just a minor thing, but checking the contributions for this user, this has clearly spiraled out of control and is looking like a violation of Wikipedia:Autobiography. A block should be put in place, I'd say, especially if he doesn't listen to any of the warnings...again. To @GuiquiJH: Please stop and listen to these warnings because all you're doing at this point is disrupting Wikipedia. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 17:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger @GuiquiJH I have reverted all the edits done to Jorge Haddock Acevedo by GuiquiJH, because of his conflict of interest as the subject of the article, and because at least some of the edits removed or changed legitimate and properly-sourced information that should have stayed as it was. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope that marks the end of this. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 18:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably not the end of the story - but hopefully the end of the misunderstanding. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. Stuff like this can get really annoying to deal with and I'd really prefer that it doesn't get pushed to the point where a block is needed. To @GuiquiJH: We have pinged you several times in this thread because we hope that you understand that we'd rather not let this reach the point where admin intervention is required. Please listen to the advice and warnings we have given you here to ensure that it doesn't have to reach that point. I will repeat what @TooManyFingers has said here before, do NOT make any substantial changes to the Jorge Haddock article if you are unwilling to cooperate with Wikipedia's guidelines. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 19:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuiquiJH Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:COISELF, and follow the directions at Wikipedia:Disclose, if you wish to have anything more to do with the Jorge Haddock article. If you do not follow Wikipedia:DISCLOSE, then you are not permitted to touch or influence that article again. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, GuiquiJH! I realize you're getting a lot of pushback for what must seem to you obvious changes to the article, so I'll try to explain. Wikipedia generally does not like subjects of their articles editing them. The Wikipedia-related reasons are listed as linked at the autobiography page, specifically this section.

In particular, the biggest issue with your suggested changes is verifiability, which Wikipedia requires. If the only source for the changed information is you saying that it is the case, there's no way of verifying that information. In fact, there's also no way of verifying that your account is in fact you. Wikipedia's solution to that is to go off of published, reliable sources, preferably secondary. (There is limited allowance for certain things about yourself that are what are known as primary sources.)

Additionally, it is very hard for people – any people, not just you – to write about themselves neutrally, which is another Wikipedia requirement. As a result, Wikipedia editors prefer subjects of articles to make edit requests instead of editing articles directly. This would mean that you would make a comment on the talk page of the article stating what changes you wish to make and the sources for those changes – though it might be harder for you to assess the source reliability, you are likely able to find sources about yourself more easily, which might help. I'm happy to help or explain more here or on your or my talk page if that would be helpful!

(I will also note that some of GuiquiJH's changes, while not neutral, did remove some questionable wording and inclusions from the article. I doubt we need to report on the mother's degree, wedding guests, the scholarship quote, or phrasing like Ihe aspired to two presidential positions in the article. There's some more stuff that could probably use a pair of scissors as well, I might work on that later if I have time.) Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It's true that he removed some insignificant things, but he also added other things that were just as insignificant. And (perhaps just a little accident) removed the fact that he was decisively fired from a prominent job when his contract came up for renewal. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Jorge and Maria Haddock initiated legal proceedings against the University, alleging that it violated the law by failing to adhere to the prescribed procedures. Jorge Haddock was never provided with a rationale for the termination of his employment, a contract was breached without cause, and the law was disregarded without cause. The lawsuit is currently proceeding through the judicial system. GuiquiJH (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't see how we can include this on the article about you. @TooManyFingers @Perfect4th, please respond to this, I'm not sure what we can do here. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 21:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing legal affairs are not within the scope of Wikipedia by remit of existing. If and only if secondary reporting by news organizations or scholarly sources is published will it be considered for inclusion. -- Reconrabbit 16:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuiquiJH I do want the article about you to be fair, correct, and up to date. I have nothing against you as a person. I think my responses may have been offensive to you; if they were, it's because I misunderstood your behavior. (You might have misunderstood mine, too.)

If Wikipedia allowed individuals to freely write about themselves, almost every person would look like a perfect saint, and Wikipedia could never be trusted to tell the truth; all of our articles would quickly become worthless. Because of this problem, we have to maintain special rules about how to edit the biography of a living person, and this includes putting tight restrictions on what a person is allowed to say about themselves. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuiquiJH: I will also add that if my comments came off as offensive, then I also apologise. I have nothing against you as a person, this is not about you, it is only about your edits. I won't say too much else because most of what I can say, @TooManyFingers has already said in his comment. But I wanted to add that since he also apologised, and I felt the need to do so as well. On Wikipedia, we must remember to separate the editor from the edits, no matter how disruptive they may be. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 19:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@GuiquiJH To make it simple, there may be legal proceedings that were started, but that does not mean that you can remove the information from the article. It is fully sourced, with a reference. David10244 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

1. This is how an evil governing body gets rid of a boss who fights against corruption.

2. This is also how a legitimate and fair governing body gets rid of a corrupt boss.

When the boss comes to Wikipedia and says "Trust me, it was the first example", Wikipedia must say "No, we can't trust you like that". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

How can I edit my bio that has numerous erroneous or incomplete facts? There are missing significant accomplishments, as well as insignificant facts.

Thank you for your assistance. This was my first attempt at editing on Wikipedia. GuiquiJH (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The answer to this has more than one part. Please don't be discouraged by all the "can't" - I'm only trying to be very specific and relate this directly with the things you've tried to do so far. Most of this information is at Wikipedia:AUTOPROB. If I am seriously mistaken about policy as it applies in this case, someone should correct me.

• You can't edit anything that is an opinion, or anything that might affect the reader's opinion of you.
• You can't remove or modify anything that was reported about you in what Wikipedia calls a reliable source.
• You can't edit your career, work history, what kind of work you do, etc.
• You can't decide which facts about you are important (or not important).
• You can't change what name you are called, can't put AKA, etc.
• You can't change your country - Wikipedia does it this way for good reasons.

If you want any of those things to be changed, you have to keep using Template:Edit COI every time, to ask if someone else is willing to make the change for you. They are free to refuse, if they don't think your request would improve the article. Note: that link to the template includes the full instructions on how to use it.

• You can edit obvious simple mistakes if they are only about present-day reality - not about accomplishments or history, and not able to affect the reader's opinion. For example, if the article says "he works at A" but you now work at B instead, you can change just that one fact (without making other changes to your career). If they have spelled your spouse's name wrong or put your birthplace wrong, you can change just that one fact, and so on.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

A number of the changes you wanted to make are good ones, in my opinion. You should request them - I expect that at least some of them will be accepted. But please note that it's necessary to present Wikipedia:Reliable sources for every change you want made; nothing can appear in the article unless it's already shown in a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Where art thou, Renaissance art wikipedians?

I would like to find wikipedians that contribute to the topic of Renaissance Art (ideally Italian, but the more general topic will do). I've looked in Projects / Visual Arts but did not find anything close. Other than stalking users from Talk pages, any suggestions? Jp1008 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Italian Renaissance, I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy could help. It might not, but I don't doubt that there'd be at least a few members there who cover this topic. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Hello! You are very active on the English Wikipedia, I admire you, you are great, keep it up, thank you for your contributions! (Iluziya7 (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

WP:WikiProject Arts and WP:WikiProject Italy perhaps ? ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME 15:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jp1008: within WikiProject History there is a suggestion of a possible task force on renaissance; maybe you could join that project and help kick-start the TF? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Another point of view: whatever group you'd really hope to find, don't worry about finding it, and don't try to revive it; just start doing the work such a group ought to do! People who are interested might not see you in a tiny corner waving a tiny banner, but they will notice your good work, eventually, and become more likely to help.

I mean this as a way to prevent you from bearing the heavy load of running a group that has few members. When a group is large enough, the load of running it becomes worthwhile. With small numbers, it's just a burden. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Our talk page isn't super active but the museum project wikipedians still are on the whole, happy to help on renaissance stuff if you want to ping me to a discussion or six @Jp1008 Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Star! Jp1008 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Tea for me

Could I have some tea please? It sounds delicious and tasty. (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-43569-93 welcome to Wikipedia! what kinda tea you want? ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME 17:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I want green tea please. (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Coffee person myself, but I’ll take the tea with the generous and instantaneous help and welcoming spirit you get here! Jp1008 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's your tea! Green tea Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Help me

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

---

How to change my Username from Ya hmar no which translates to You Donkey in arabic, an insult. I have no E Mail. Do I make a new account called Hayawan X0X? Ya hmar no (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you aren't particularly attached to this account, the best thing to do is simply abandon it and create a new one.

Otherwise you can request a username change at WP:RENAME Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You created this username today, announcing that you were previously REPUBLICactNO.4136-noParking (created just four days ago, never edited). But you've found time to edit User:TFFA-4460/sandbox (TFFA-4460 being indefinitely blocked). Would I be right in guessing that you are (or were) TFFA-4460? -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

They also claim to be a clean start. Even if true, announcing it would appear to defeat the purpose. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, Hayawan appears to translate as "animal" or "beast" and I suspect there might be a joke we aren't privy to. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hell of a clean start. -- asilvering (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

requesting restriction lifting, first time

I have read some alarming, highly subjective language on multiple, related pages that in my opinion, has no place on Wiki. Unfortunately, these pages are restricted. Is it the case that as a newcomer, I cannot request edits on such pages? Please link me either to the place where I may request a restriction be lifted or if this is off limits to me, then to the appropriate link, to relay my desired edits.

Thanks Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You can't make the edit yourself as a new editor, but you can request others address it - if it's fairly active the article's talk page may suffice. Depending on the subject and just how problematic the issue is there may be other places you can raise it also. There's probably a good reason for them being protected, however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331: What articles are you talking about exactly? Could you please link them? I'd assume that by restricted, you mean protected from editing. If they are extended confirmed protected articles, then the chances are high that the articles are about a contentious topic. In which case, you can file an edit request for them but there are a lot of regulations in place for those sort of articles, so be careful and check that what you're requesting isn't too controversial to be added. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 10:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I just sent an email to ivanvector describing the pages in question and my issues with the tone and semantics. Not major but not minor either. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I should add the subject is probably the most contentious one on the planet currently - and as a newbie, I'm nervous about sharing it here, and about my privacy. Hope you understand Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

As a brand new account there's nothing to connect you to, unless your username is relevant to your identity (not recommended). You can also make comments under temporary accounts if you want to be extra cautious, so long as they aren't disruptive. Emails are an option for users who have theirs available but it may take longer to get a response that way. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The page has an "extended-confirmed restriction" on it. So from here on out, when I encounter this, I'm safe to simply click on "request edit" and go from there? Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In general, yes. If it's a contentious topic as suspected I recommend reading the additional rules and skimming the talk page to see whether it's already been discussed, to avoid wasting anyone's time (including your own). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is what's on that page:

"You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)"

Hope I haven't screwed the pooch with the editor/s. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's unlikely be a big deal as long as it's good faith. They know we're still figuring things out. If you'd like you could send a follow up email to Ivanvector to let him know you've been directed to the request page, and that he doesn't need to respond unless he feels something additional needs to be addressed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, please don't recommend that editors use temporary accounts to avoid scrutiny. That's WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant to imply and I apologize if it came across that way - I only meant if it's an appropriate question but they were concerned about privacy if someone external recognized their account somehow. I don't know what may or may not have been mentioned in the email so there could be more going on that I'm unaware of. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:PUBSOCK>Privacy would also apply to the following WP:LOGOUT, wouldn't it? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Not logically, since logged-out editing is significantly less private. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331: Unless what you requested required you to give personal information, I'd recommend against sending users emails about this sort of thing. What I meant by "filing an edit request" is that on the talk pages of whatever articles you're talking about, they will have this notice that tells you that you can file an edit request. Of course, if your request does involve personal or confidential information, then emailing is fine. Make sure to let Ivanvector know that you sent him an email on his talk page. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 10:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I thought Ivan was an admin and therefore the guy to talk about the request - before anything. I just didn't want to get in trouble as a newcomer because I read there are consequences for not following protocol with regard to restricted pages. Of course, an understanding of protocol is essential. This is all a tad Byzantine. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331: Ivan is an admin. (Says so on his userpage, and he is a part of the user group that all admins are in). Regardless, like @ChompyTheGogoat said in her comment, I think you should file a request on these articles' talk pages directly, instead of emailing admins for help. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 10:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Roger that, will do. Thanks mucho.

Kalamputi Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I should ask, since I've already sent the request for edits to Ivan, would it confuse the issue to do the same thing on the talk pages? Should I simply wait to hear from Ivan? Kalamputi0331 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331: I don't think it would confuse them, it would probably get resolved a lot quicker on the talk page than on email. It could bother Ivan, but I doubt that. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 11:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Great. I'll repeat the concerns - with suggested edits on the talk page. Looking forward... Kalamputi0331 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, your account isn't going to let you make any inappropriate edits to the live articles due to the protections. Asking questions on talk pages and discussions like this is fine, so long as they're WP:CIVIL and in good faith. We get some leeway under WP:NEWBIES as long as those are followed.

As far as getting an exemption to protections to make your very first edit on a highly contentious topic, I wouldn't hold your breath, but mentioning the issue to see whether senior editors involved think it merits attention is acceptable. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I see. So there are some built in filters which would prevent any inadvertent edits from going "live" when they shouldn't - a good thing for everyone I suppose.

I did make a handful of edits on various pages before I realized I should have set up an account first - but you're right about expectations. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the purpose of protections, yes. Standard articles (like the ones you were able to edit without an account) where Wikipedia:Vandalism isn't expected usually don't have protections, and mistakes (or actual vandalism) can go live, but they're usually fixed quickly and some form of protection may be added if the latter is anticipated to become an ongoing problem. Afaik as new accounts there's not much we can do yet that can't be done without one, but our edits are connected to our account for posterity. (I may be corrected if I'm wrong about that, but we're certainly still limited.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

New Year's happy birthday world 🌎 you 2026

Hello! Editors and communities of the English Wikipedia! Today is a great day, New Year's Day is widely celebrated on Wikipedia, and perhaps all over the world, as a global holida! Never tire of developing and protecting Wikipedia! We wish you all a happy New Year 2026! We appreciate every edit!😍 Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: Happy New Year! 2026 will mark Wikipedia's 25th anniversary! Yup, a quarter of a century of existence, I don't think Jimmy Wales ever thought that this project would last past its first year, let alone 25 years. Let's hope that this 25th year of Wikipedia's existence will be a great one! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Oh, so be it! I believe Wikipedia will last forever! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Me too! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, its been 25 years since this has started? Guess I chose the right time to join.

(happy early new year) Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Thank you, thank you, and may you be blessed! Now 2026 has arrived! (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

You too lol

(It was already 2026 for me when I said that) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Me to! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@72011copperfan2, @SignedInteger, @Starlet147, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you. Today is the first day of 2026, January 1st. Can you imagine? Let's all imagine, this gives me some great motivation, great, may this year be a good one for you on Wikipedia and in life! Good luck to you all! Thank you! 🌍👋 (04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)) Iluziya7 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

2026! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@72011copperfan2. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

@Starlet147. Okey, Thanks, 2026 New Year's happy (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

Happy New Year all! Ajron Bach (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

About reverting multiple edits by the same person?

Hello, I've reverted about two or three edits on different pages and I've realized not too long ago that they were by the same editor. I was about to go for another one (which is revision) when I realized it was the same person. I don't know if that would be the right thing to do, even if I don't agree with many of their edits, most of them being adding new infobox images which I don't think are as good as the ones before. I don't know if this counts as an argument but I had to explain to them why the old image was better on Pauline Bonaparte, reverting twice. They still went against that advice on most of their other edits, though some are okay. I don't know if I should just ignore or do anything. Thank you, OliviaRigby (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, they made an edit on this biography which made the infobox image the same as another biography, which would've been very confusing, even though I realized that it was of that person and I still reverted it for being too strongly associated with the other person. I'd just like to know if what I'm doing is the right thing to do. OliviaRigby (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@OliviaRigby Feel free to revert as the user is a sockpuppet. Edits made by blocked accounts can be reverted as needed per WP:DENY. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Quxyz, do you have any proof Alfdeckse is a sockpuppet? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk page ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Nvm, I just saw the notice and not the unblock. In this case, just bring up the discussion with them. Sorry for the confusion. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a problem, thank you. I did have a feeling (no accusations) that they might be a sockpuppet, but that would be without any proof. Thank both of you guys. OliviaRigby (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

While this might not be foolproof, generally, editors with more than a few hundred edits are unlikely to be sockpuppets. This is especially true in chronic cases where a puppeteer may be only able to get a few dozen edits in before they are blocked or move onto another account. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thank you, OliviaRigby (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

How to deal with "the greatest" statements

So on some articles there's a statement of "the greatest (insert occupation here) of all time" and I was wondering if that confirms to the WP:NPOV policy or not. What can be done about that, and should anything be done about it? P.S. happy new year TheNerdy Parakeet (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheNerdy Parakeet: That depends. One example that quickly jumps to my mind are NBA players. Examples: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson.

These all do have the statement of "considered to be one of the greatest NBA players of all time", there was an RfC regarding that not too long ago that concluded that these were perfectly in line with Wikipedia:NPOV. (You can see them on the talk pages of all the articles I linked)

Personally I think that for things like musicians, songs, or albums, the statement would make sense if it is said like this: "frequently ranked as one of the greatest", then it is likely NPOV but for musicians "most influential" works better. Are there any other examples that you could list? _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 22:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The page in particular I was referring to is the page Joe Tacopina, which already has a notice of being written in a subjective way. So should that statement be changed? (upon closer inspection it has a reference so maybe I should just leave it) TheNerdy Parakeet (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheNerdy Parakeet: The statement in question says this: "Sean Hannity has described Tacopina as one of 'the greatest attorneys of all time'", I feel like this might be WP:UNDUE. To be blunt, who cares that Sean Hannity described him as such? How is this noteworthy? Why should we be giving weight to the opinion of one single individual? Also, I must note that this is the first time I've ever seen this be written on an article about a lawyer of all things. Usually, this sort of language is used in articles about films, albums, video games and that sort of thing. Undertale, Citizen Kane, The Dark Side of the Moon, all good examples of this in effect. Since when has any article about a lawyer said this?

@TooManyFingers @Athanelar Pinging you two to see what you think of what I said here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If Rolling Stone calls someone "best band", that probably merits a mention. But this example is more like Mike Tyson saying "best band". :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: I decided to check if any other lawyer related articles use this sort of language. One result for greatest attorney that I got was this article about Samuel B. Amidon, which says this in the lead: "Dubbed 'the greatest attorney in the Middle West'," (sentence intentionally cut off). Then I did a check for greatest lawyer and found a good amount of results, such as Clarence Darrow and Edward H. Levi. But guess what they have that this doesn't? Yup, actual reliable sources to back it up.

@TheNerdy Parakeet: I'll be removing the statement in question as it is clearly giving undue weight to the opinion of a notable person. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 00:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The source [1] says:

He has represented high-profile clients ranging from the Fox News host Sean Hannity, who on his show called Mr. Tacopina one of the “greatest defense attorneys of all time, ...”

If we did mention this (which I oppose) then it should certainly have included that he reprsented the man who called him one of the greatest. The removed statement [2] didn't. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If a person writing that kind of thing actually shows reliable sources to prove it, good. If the sources don't say it, we can't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The main question is whether the claim is reliably sourced, and whether the claim is presented as a third-party opinion or as a fact.

Saying "X person is considered to be one of the greatest Y of all time" as SG said above with NBA players is just fine, provided the origin of that 'consideration' is reliably sourced.

Saying, in Wikivoice, "X is one of the greatest Y of all time" would however be completely inappropriate even if sourced; because opinion statements like that should never be in wikivoice. Athanelar (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: To add to this: "Most influential" should also always be written as "regarded as one of the most influential", this is pretty much a synonym of "regarded as one of the greatest", so it is worth mentioning. An example of this is on the article for Bob Dylan where in the legacy section it says this:

"Dylan has been described as one of the most influential cultural figures of the 20th century." (This paragraph on its own does not cite any sources but the next paragraphs do clarify and provide sources to back that claim up)

@TheNerdy Parakeet: I hope that these answered your question, but if what you saw was "X is one of the greatest Y of all time" or "X is one of the most influential Y of all time", then reword those statements immediately. If they are unsourced, then remove them or find sources for them quickly. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 23:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

There are sometimes people who were a famous and amazing one-off and who have had little to no influence. But the fact I decided to say this in this way sort of proves your point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Article draft declined due to use of "artificial intelligence"

I submitted an article about Willard G. Van Name, an important but woefully ignored figure in the American conservation movement from the 1920s into the 1950s. The article was apparently declined because it "showed signs" of being drafted by AI. It was not. I've never used AI in my life and I am lucky enough to likely be able to avoid it altogether as I am in my 60s.

I am curating a museum exhibition on the conservation movement scheduled for several years hence. In the work that I have done to get to this point, Van Name is a person who I've long thought does not get his due. The sources I cite are solid (although I have a couple of page numbers to add), and he is certainly worthy of an article. MiJaEm (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello - welcome. I read some of the draft and I don't think it's AI. I would, however, say that it's in a style quite foreign to Wikipedia, so much so that the style will need pretty extensive fixing. Some of the criticisms of AI writing appear to be an accidental match for some of the things you tend to do, but to me it seems clear that you're human because the whole thing is far too sane for a machine. [grinning] TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this - the submitted version doesn't appear to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. There's also a number of grammar and linking errors which require significant clean-up. Limmidy (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as sources, I haven't looked, but here's my very short "sources spiel": Every good Wikipedia biography was already written by the people who produced the sources in the first place. All we're allowed to do is to transmit the information that's already found in the sources; we do no interpretation and no discussion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

(I said that because I do wonder if you might have included quite a bit of interpreting and discussing in this draft.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MiJaEm! I was the person who initially declined your draft for being AI generated. Looking more closely at it, I concur with what TooManyFingers said in that it has characteristics of AI-generated text, but that it very likely isn't. I believe people if they tell me their text is generated. Your original draft had normal bolded text as section headers (which is typical of AI), a "top-level" header containing the page name, oddly formatted references (a mix of paranthetical referencing, bare URLs, and placeholders for page numbers), and incorrectly formatted wikilinks.

The writing style is not really that of an artificial intelligence model, and that matters more than how those other things are structured. I jumped the gun early when declining, and I apologize for making that mistake. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 23:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I promise I am not AI. My wife sometimes questions if I am anything "I". But that is a different story. Regarding the other comments, I tried my best to follow the instructions for citations to references but I'll admit I am new at this. All the info (with one exception discussed below) in the piece is fact-based but definitionally, the decision as to what to include in a summary of other sources is by its nature subjective. I do posit that the rather glaring lack of focus on Van Name in the histories of the conservation movement generally perhaps reflect that he was gay and apparently a generally touchy guy. Which to me is an important fact in and of itself - but I get the point. I said it, not somebody else (that I have read at least). So will change that post haste.

I do think if one focuses on the substance, the fact that he does not (for example) have a Wikipedia page is pretty extraordinary. I am working on my larger project and just took a quick detour to address what I perceive as an injustice.

Incidentally, I am pretty sure he has marine invertebrate named after him but I am still searching for the reference where I came across that. MiJaEm (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

All good, thank you for your response. I hope your article turns out great. Welcome to Wikipedia :-) EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 03:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A couple of improvements you should make to your draft, @MiJaEm:

- The NYT sources are all bare URLs. Please replace with a full reference (article title, date, author, page, etc).

- Same with the FamilySearch source. qcne (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@MiJaEm "All of it is fact-based" often turns out to be a major problem in Wikipedia articles. That sounds crazy, so I'll try to explain.

Wikipedia can't check anyone's credentials, or analyze anyone's honesty. That's a serious and unfixable defect that we historically had to find a way around, if Wikipedia was to have any chance at credibility. The solution is to completely bypass the honesty and credentials of editors like you and me, by requiring us to show the source of each piece of information we write, and only allowing information that comes directly from what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. We (you and I as editors) can't synthesize, expand, or "fill in the blanks" using our own knowledge of the topic. And when the topic is one we're very familiar with, being restricted to just parroting the sources and leaving out everything we know can be very frustrating.

Instead of "fact-based", we have to substitute "every word I wrote is directly proved within the sources I've supplied". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I cleaned up anything I thought could be interpreted as subjective. I think I can confidently say that "every word I wrote is directly proved within the sources I've supplied." I do need to add some page numbers to the references but will have to wait until I am reunited with my reference library either next week or the following one, as I've been unexpectedly detained out of town. BTW, am not sure if I am supposed to use this forum to engage in an ongoing discussion regarding this process or not. But I assume it doesn't hurt. MiJaEm (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You might not know how refreshing it is to get that kind of response. Thanks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Also cleaned up wikilinks. HNY MiJaEm (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Willard G. Van Name. Deor (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

And a courtesy ping to EatingCarBatteries, since he declined the draft. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

points raised

1. Having tried a couple of times (anonymously) to edit Wikipedia pages I find it hugely laborious, unwieldy and bureaucratic. I know it is necessary to exclude people who are ignorant, malicious or not the persevering type, but people using Wikipedia in the course of hurrying to write books, theses etc must think there are easier ways of contributing whilst keeping out the 'idiots'. 2. People using a VPN usually do so for a good reason :- the long-forgotten ideal of personal privacy. 3. On another point, for example, the historic (and to many people, fascinating) fire engineering company Merryweather and Sons has about one third the space on Wikipedia of the pop song 'All about the bass'. About 400 pages has been written on the former with hardly scratching the surface. 4. The other points are more specific - On the page for Frank J Sprague / Awards and Recognition / International Exposition of Electricity in 1889, the link/window immediately below has the contradicting date 1881. 5. Regarding the 'psychic researcher' Harry Price (1881-1948) I would suggest the insertion 'Not to be confused with Henry H Price', and vice versa. Please read this again and thank you. ~2025-44215-99 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

1: What specific problems are you facing? 2: There are security problems with open proxies because IP addresses are depended on to block malicious users. If you create an account and are considered trustworthy enough, you can email a checkuser and request exemption from IP blocking based off your proxy. 3,4,5: You're welcome to edit those pages to fix the errors and add more information! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy new year ~2026-2664 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year for you too! It's not 2026 where I live yet, but I'm excited for when it will be -- in January 15, 2026 Wikipedia will have its 25th anniversary! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually considering leaving a message on Jimmy Wales' talk page when that date arrives. Why? To thank him, of course! To thank him and Larry Sanger for taking a risk by making Wikipedia a thing. To thank him for creating this wonderful project that has managed to flourish for over a quarter of a century. I have high hopes for Wikipedia's silver jubilee! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 01:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy (early, for me) New years!!! Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year to all! And happy birthday Wikipedia in January. Still 2025 for me but it'll be next year... next year, I guess! TheNerdy Parakeet (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Saaaame. But Its around 9 here, so close??? Starry~~(Starlet147) 03:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Also I left a message at jimmy's page already. Starry~~(Starlet147) 03:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147. Good, We wish you luck, victory, happiness and success! (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

@SignedInteger. Oh, do that, I agree with you, I would have done the same! Iluziya7 (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kvinnen. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

It’s 2026 now, so happy new year! Starry~~(Starlet147) 15:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

My article needs help

I need help getting my article, 2022-2023 United States flu season more popular. It shows up if you look up the full title, but I need to insert the flu image template like the other flu season articles. I need to get this article to the top page and more popular. Ben639457 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would you want a seasonal flu article to be popular? It's boring. Of course it's important, yes, but still it's going to be boring no matter what you do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A common way for people to find your article is linking it on other pages. Your article is an orphan,--meaning no other page links to it--and I tagged it as such. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I link other pages? I thought I already linked several. Ben639457 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you linked several pages in the article you created, but no pages link to the article you created. For the article to stop being an orphan, you need to do the same thing, but with the article you created on other pages. I would give some recommendations on where you could link the page, but the article is too specialized for me to find anything. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I linked it on “flu season” is this what it needs? Ben639457 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is great! Some other people helped you out, so it is now linked on Flu season,2017–2018 United States flu season, and 2020s in medicine. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

When will it stop being linked as an orphan? Ben639457 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? It isn't an orphan anymore. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The 2022-2023 United States flu season article says “this article is an orphan” if you go on it. Ben639457 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I mixed up your article with the 2024-2025 when I stated what linked to it. Secondly, the orphan tag was removed. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks Ben639457 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

subjective language

Is there any reason why I - a newcomer to Wiki - cannot discuss the language of these particular pages in the Teahouse setting?

• Beit Hanoun
• Om al-Nasr

Yesterday based on several helpful comments, it seemed like it would be okay to discuss - but not edit - a restricted page here but I'm not yet certain:

I do not wish to make waves but I thought this would present a good intro to the process for a newcomer, if the article could be parsed here. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you plan to sign up on Wikipedia just so you could get chewed up and spit out? If no, then please stay far away from controversial topics for a long time. You will certainly not be making any waves or gaining any recognition, just getting badly humiliated. Please, just don't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, no. I won't bore you with any long stories but I made several edits - I think "bandarlog" was my last - before I was prompted to make an account. Made an account, was researching a character from history named Hanunu, wondered if related to Bait Hanun, looked it up and the rest is history.

So, that's it and that's all. Thanks for the advice. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I've made 10,000 edits and I still refuse to touch that stuff. It's important, of course. But that doesn't make me able to handle it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Kalamputi0331: Sorry for the late reply but I wanted to mention a few things:

• One, you linked the pages in question with their URLs, but this is how you link other articles (or just pages in general on here), by using these characters: [[]]. For example: Beit Hanoun.
• Secondly, I agree with what @TooManyFingers said. Although a few of the edits I've made are on articles related to this, they are not anything that major and even then I refuse to edit anything that's more current such as for example: "Gaza war". The only exception is Ashkelon but even there the addition I made wasn't anything that significant.

I'll say it again: It is best to stay away from this topic, especially when you're a new editor, but even if you're not, it is still for the best to stay away from these. Stick to stuff that's not as contentious and you'll likely be fine. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 09:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I was tangentially aware of the editing "wars," post 10/7, and am just now getting up to speed on the the dispiriting news about the wiki editors ban early last year - so I have a fuller picture now and can see how fraught things are. The truth is hard enough to ferret out in peacetime and doubly so in wartime. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331: Oh, then are you aware that the US House of Representatives has decided to intervene on how Wikipedia handles this topic? See what I linked for more info, but if not, basically, Republican members of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform started a probe against Wikipedia on August 2025. Why? Supposed allegations of an anti-Israel bias. So on top of the bans and all the other inner-wiki problems, we also have this to deal with. As I said earlier, just stay away from this and edit something else that interests you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 10:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Some background information is always appreciated. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I notice that nobody in this thread or on your talk page has really told you the relevant thing, which is about contentious topics. I've left some info on your talk page, but the tl;dr is that with this particular CTOP (the Arab-Israeli conflixt) if your account is not extended-confirmed then you cannot participate in articles even remotely relating to it (because contentious topics are 'broadly construed') in any way, even discussions about their content. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate greatly the good information and especially the civility with which it was delivered. I'll stay away from contention - and perhaps confine my scholarship to "Butterflies of the Massif Central." Cheers. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kalamputi0331 Well ... There's quite a lot of middle ground between the butterflies and the fighting. The actual page about contentious topics, which I obviously forgot to mention, explains it quite well.

There's another page that may apply too, though it might already be mentioned in the other one: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS basically says don't try to fix the world by fixing Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to improve the world should go out into the world, instead of coming here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Counter-vandalism tools

Hello and happy new year, Tea house!

I am in the midst of experimenting with a few different Counter-vandalism tools. There is Anti Vandal I intend to try, but I stumbled across one or two other tools whose names I have forgotten. I would appreciate it if someone is able to point it out for me. Thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ANVDL, WP:HUG, WP:RWRN, WP:UV, WP:TWINK Meters (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the new hotness, WP:WikiShield, which is a spiritual successor to AntiVandal (which is itself a browser-based variant of WP:Huggle). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Poke around in Category:Wikipedia_counter-vandalism_tools and you'll find other possibly useful stuff. Meters (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Meters! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

YES! Thanks Wikishield is what I had forgotten. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Username conundrum

Hi,

Suppose, a person is a fan of something and has the username "XYZfan" and edits on the page "XYZ" and related pages (be it a sports team, a movie, etc.) and these edits show the subject of the edit in a positive light. Does that mean that they will be understood to have a WP:COI and thus is less likely to edit Wikipedia objectively? _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kvinnen: Yes, for obvious reasons. Take for example: Lensfan. This person's username refers to a Kenyan YouTuber, and I recently declined their user sandbox about said YouTuber because aside from the fact that it is unlikely to be written from a neutral point of view, it has no sources cited, so it doesn't explain how this YouTuber is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. That's the first example that popped into my mind, but I'd assume that these are always a Wikipedia:COI with some possible exceptions. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 11:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible for such a person to be perfectly fine, so observe what they're actually doing. But yes, when such a name matches the topic it should immediately make you suspicious. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

iOS app: Finding my questions (and answers)

In the iOS app, when I get a notification because one of my questions was answered, how do I find my original question?

I’ve tried several ways that do not work:

• The “Wikipedia Teahouse” link in the Notification takes me to the main Teahouse page that shows the latest questions.
• The <diff> link takes me to the answer, but I can’t get to the question page from there.
• The user link takes me to his/her page.
• Frustratingly, the search field for Teahouse does not search Teahouse but all Wikipedia Help (it seems).

Thanks in advance. Jp1008 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jp1008. Your original topic is currently about a quarter of the way up the page. The Wikipedia app should take you directly to the topic heading, but in case it does not here is the direct link: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can't find EAN field in {{cite book}} template. Alternatively you could use the Search feature on Safari / your web browser to search for your topic / your username within the Teahouse and get to it from there.

Eventually the topic will be archived and will appear in the Teahouse Archives - at the top of the Teahouse is a little search box which will allow you to search just the Archives. qcne (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008: As you say, "Wikipedia:Teahouse" in the app doesn't go to the topic heading but the top of the page. You can scroll down to manually look for your section but we currently have 84 sections so it can take some work. The diff view should have a down arrow above the reply to show the previous lines but that may not be enough to reach your original post. If you switch to your browser and are logged in there then the mobile version has a bell icon at the top right where you can see the notification and click it to go to the reply but allowing you to scroll up. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Policy or guideline needed

Hi, and best wishes to all here for 2026.

Do we have a policy or guideline which governs repetition of salient facts across articles and lists? By this, I mean that if we have a biographical article about a particular person, and that person is also included in a list of similar people, I don't think the list notes should repeat what the linked bio article already says. That being so, I'd like to cite a policy or guideline which supports removal of the surplus text from the list. I would think there is one, but it escapes me.

For example, although this verges on the trivial, the cricketer William Bedster was employed by his patron as a butler. That's in the article, reliably sourced, and it provides some added interest. The same piece of information has been copied into Bedster's entry within List of Kent county cricketers to 1842, where I think it is unnecessary. (I should point out that my real concern about the entry is its statistical information, which is false.) I want to remove the sentence, but saying something like "unnecessary repetition of article content" is kind of unilateral without a WP:WHATEVER as justification.

Thanks very much, Jack (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@BlackJack, I would just boldly remove the unnecessary information. If someone objects, then you can discuss it with them. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is there for a reason. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Deltaspace42. I agree. Actually, there are elements of WP:DUP and WP:REDUNDANT here, although I'm not going to merge or AfD the list, so I'll cite those in the summaries. Thanks very much, and all the best. Jack (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@BlackJack In any list resembling that Kent cricketers one, the only information added should be what lets a reader know they've found the person they're looking for. For most people, a single fact about them is enough - generally it's the thing they became known for doing, but in any case the one thing that makes them say "Oh, that John Smith". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, TooManyFingers. You're right. I've started revising it by simply saying who, when, and what type of player, little more than that. That's plenty, especially for those who have an article. Thanks very much, and all the best. Jack (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right that if there's a relevant comment about the ones with no article it would be OK. I'm used to the lists where every person must have an article or they're out, but this is not that type of list. (since in such a case it's reasonable to list every single one of them, or as close as we can) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Bold texts when editing tables

Hi,

while I was editing Osamason's page since it had some missing informations about his discography, I had to add cells to the tables: however, for some reason, the first column's text (only the ones i write though) are always in bold text, while they shouldn't be. I tried making the text normal but I couldn't. Please check it out, I added "3vil Reflection and "FMJ (featuring Che) OsamaSon . Bps2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bps2. You use VisualEditor where some parts of table formatting are hard or impossible to control. The top right has a pencil icon where you can switch to the source editor and see that the other cells in the column have the code scope="row" |. You can add that code and return to VisualEditor on the pencil icon which may be positioned lower this time. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

ill try thanks Bps2 (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Help requesting addition of my Commons image to an article

Hi! I’m new to editing and not autoconfirmed yet.

I uploaded a photo to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license, and it visually demonstrates a concept discussed in the Dog coat genetics article (specifically the G (progressive greying) locus section)

Here’s the image: File:Silken Windhound age progression muzzle graying 4 weeks vs 4 years.png

I’d like to request that it be added to the article, but I’m not sure of the best way to do that or whether it’s appropriate as an illustration. Could someone advise me, or add it if it’s a good fit?

Thanks for any guidance! Lkwinn (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lkwinn, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would suggest you just be WP:BOLD and add it. If somebody disagrees, they will revert your addition, and then you can have a discussion about it on the article's talk page. (Have a look at the page I linked to there).

Alternatively, you can open a discussion on the talk page first, and get consensus to add it.

For actually adding it, see Help:Pictures ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Lkwinn (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you own both of the two images used in the diagram? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It's listed as "own work", so the better question is "Were you really the one holding the camera". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I was. ~2026-19309 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Replying from a logged in account. These are both mine and they are of the same dog. Lkwinn (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio and mirror sites

Hello everyone; is there a certain way of telling whether an article here is copyvio, or whether the external site is mirroring Wiki? I'm starting to review new pages, and Tahini roll would seem to have a copyvio issue with this site, but I don't want to tag it in haste). ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener: Have you checked the article with Earwig's Copyvio Detector? It could help. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and there are definitely violations there; but I'm not sure whether the fault is with the Wiki article, or whether the website has copied Wiki. I've been through the editing history, but I'm still uncertain how to tell for sure. ArthurTheGardener (talk) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's best to compare the ages of the text and see which is older. For example, external sites sometimes have "From Wikipedia", etc. There's also archive.org which is helpful for checking previous content of the website over time. For checking articles, you can look at the revision history and when the text was added and changed. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Instructions has a lot more detail, though feel free to ask for help at WT:CP if you're not completely sure. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very helpful. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener: To help a bit here, the oldest edit of this article in a form similar to how it looks now is from 2021 or perhaps 2020. I checked on the Wayback Machine to see the oldest snapshot of what you linked. The oldest snapshot is from 2022, and the contents don't seem too different from what it looks like today. This might clear things up. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this: your help is greatly appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Messed up references

Hi all, I somehow screwed up the reference list numbering on River (Bishop Briggs song), and when I try to fix it, it wants to delete the entire ref list. Will someone help me out? EllieDellie (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@EllieDellie I fixed it with this edit. You had placed your citation at the end, instead of inserting it next to the information you added. See Help:referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! EllieDellie (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair use rationale question

Hi. I'm looking to replace the main photo [3] in the Gaspar Henaine article, since it has low quality.

I found online a photo from a lobby card [4], from the 1959 Mexican movie Little Trapeze Angels.

Would a low-res (less than 100k pixels) crop like this [5] be suitable for use?

Notes: The subject of the article died in 2011. The image would be hosted in the English Wikipedia, not in Commons. I couldn't find any other photos in the public domain. I read Wikipedia:Non-free content but I still have doubts.

Related question: Could a crop from the illustration in this would also work? Could a screenshot of a movie be used?

Thank you. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I cant answer that myself you can ask at Commons:Help Desk or wait for someone else that is much more knowledgeable then me Theknoledgeableperson (SHOUT HERE) 20:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Itzcuauhtli11.

Criterion #1 of the Non-free content criteria is Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since the existing image is free, you would have to argue that your replacement would serve an encyclopedic purpose that the existing one does not. You may be able to make that argument, but I'm dubious. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The existing image is not in the public domain. It also came from a photo from a lobby card, found online. The replacement is a much better photo. Would that be enough? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The existing photo is in the public domain. And would this be photo really be that much better, especially when in low resolution? Bear in mind, fair use is super restrictive for a reason. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I get it now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Move

I have finished creating the list Draft:List of lakes in Slovakia and want to move it to List of lakes of Slovakia, but the title a redirect. How can I move/merge the pages and keep the edit history?

Thanks, Fcstmani (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Fcstmani. The usual way is to submit your draft via Articles for Creation: a reviewer can then mark the redirect for deletion during their acceptance. If you want to skip AfC you can add {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} to the redirect to mark it for speedy deletion. Once the redirect is deleted, you can move the draft. qcne (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne Thanks a lot for the quick reply! :)

Fcstmani (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I added the draft template; you can submit it when you want. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Please help

I am trying to complete the profile and I cant get it correct could. someone help me please Draft:Saskhia Menendez. REMYMAZY (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @REMYMAZY. We don't have "profiles" on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't a social networking website. Instead we have descriptive biographic encyclopaedic articles about people who meet our criteria for inclusion. That said, your draft has been submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. qcne (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much REMYMAZY (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

"Profile" ("A summary or collection of information, especially about a person") is a perfectly good synonym for a Wikipedia article about a person, and has nothing to do with social media. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't write it yourself, and that's the main reason it keeps failing. If it's too hard to do it yourself, so that you need AI help, then please give up now. But if you could do it by yourself without help, then that would be fine - just delete everything and start again with no AI. You are smart. AI is stupid because it can't think. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Couple more questions more

1: Is it normal for most of your edits to be small/non substantial? (e.x: reverting vandalism, commenting, asking questions at Teahouse, copyediting, etc.). I know everyone's different but I feel like I don't make that many large edits.

2: Is there anywhere I can find good article ideas? I tried requested articles but it's obsolete and I haven't found any that have actually worked. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: To answer both:

1. Absolutely! And if your edits are copyedits, then feel free to join the Guild of Copy Editors! Even if you don't make large edits or even make articles at all, your contributions are always helpful.
2. What are your interests? Do you have any topics that you think could potentially be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? (assuming they aren't already on Wikipedia). If yes, then find at least 3 good secondary independent sources, organize them, and then make a draft about said topic and submit it for review. The reason I went with 3 is because that is the amount that the Wikipedia:GOLDENRULE mentions.

Hope this helped. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sweet, thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I supposedly have 10,000 edits, but my net number of bytes in article space is probably VERY low. I once overflowed an edit summary box though, so that makes me prolific. :) (it was probably some obscure rant that I'd regret now) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Content Assessment Scale

I tried looking at the content assessment table, but couldn't find an answer to my question.

I've contributed to a few articles recently - that weren't very long - but encompassed all available information on that subject (which for me the subject has always been people). The class given is usually start-B class, however the article has no chance to expand because all information has been exhausted.

Is content assessment based off of the legnth of the article or how much of the information available it encompasses? If the latter, can I rank my articles higher?

Some examples:

Eric Stephens (cricketer), Bruce Dickson (rower), and Peter Butler. Zxilef (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there can never be a really clear answer that covers every case. For example, sometimes an article exists when it shouldn't; the assessment criteria aren't much help for that. Encompassing more of what's in the sources is probably the best aim, but within reason. Not everything is important or worth keeping, even if it's in a source.

I think focusing on content ratings, especially for short articles, is only going to become more frustrating the deeper into it you get. There's no prize for content ratings. Just do a good job. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: The only ratings that really should matter are GAs and FAs. That's literally it.

My advice to @Zxilef: Expand the first two so they're past stub-class if you can, but don't worry about it too much. Stub-class is arguably the only other rating besides GA and FA that should matter, but even then that's debateable. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't get them past stub class. I've looked and the remaining information either isn't there or is already referenced on the article. Zxilef (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Zxilef: Then there's nothing more that you can do. Sometimes there comes a point where the best choice is to do nothing and move onto something else. I know that sounds discouraging, but if you can't do anything to improve it, then yeah, just move onto something else. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, if the content assessment scale was deleted and salted, I would be happy with that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Random tidbit related to this: Hebrew Wikipedia does not have this scale at all, it only has Stubs, GAs and FAs. This is probably because of the fact that the scale uses Latin characters, though, I've yet to check if this is the case for Arabic Wikipedia or Persian Wikipedia or basically any Wikipedia that's of a language that does not use the Latin alphabet. I find it interesting because it means there's no need to aim for what are pretty much meaningless ratings, if we're being honest with ourselves. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't imagine that Hebrew (and others) would be unable to solve the problem of what to use instead of A B C, though maybe there's a technical issue where those are part of the code.

Maybe they just see that it's not all that useful. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Eh, as someone who speaks Hebrew natively, I don't really think that editors would want to know that their article was rated as "Rama Gimel" (C-Class in Hebrew, obviously romanized) or "Rama Bet" (B-Class in Hebrew, ditto). That just sounds strange to me. Or maybe they realized that this is complete nonsense like you said, which is probably the case. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

According to the criteria table length isn't a factor, and that makes sense because not every topic will have the same quantity of sources. Koriodan (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Selection Process" section

Hello fellow editors,

I would like to propose adding a new section titled "Selection Process" to the Staff Selection Commission article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_Selection_Commission). Currently, the article provides comprehensive information about the Staff Selection Commission's history, organizational structure, and the various examinations it conducts. However, it lacks detailed information about how the actual selection process works for these examinations.

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

=== Rationale === The addition of this section would:

Fill a significant content gap in the article by explaining the multi-tier examination structure that SSC follows

Provide readers with a better understanding of what candidates go through during recruitment

Align with similar articles about other recruitment bodies (like UPSC) that include selection process details

Add educational value for readers who want to understand SSC's functioning comprehensively

=== Proposed section === I've drafted the following content for the "Selection Process" section, which would be placed after the "Exams conducted by Staff Selection Commission" section:

Selection Process

Depending on the test and the position being filled, the Staff Selection Commission uses a structured hiring procedure. The majority of the commission's exams use a multi-tiered system intended to evaluate applicants in a variety of competencies.<ref>{{cite web |title=SSC CGL, CHSL, GD, MTS Selection Process Guide |url=https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/ |access-date={{CURRENT_DATE}} |website=Exam Kranti}}</ref>

==== Examination Structure ==== The selection process usually involves several steps for major exams like the Combined Graduate Level and Combined Higher Secondary Level. Candidates are tested on general intelligence, quantitative aptitude, English comprehension, and general awareness in the first tier, which is a computer-based test. Those who pass this stage move on to the next levels, which could involve more computer-based exams with more difficult questions or descriptive papers that assess writing abilities in both Hindi and English. Specialised skill tests are necessary for some positions. Candidates for stenographer positions must pass a practical exam to show off their typing accuracy and speed. The Junior Engineer examination for engineering positions includes a paper that focusses on discipline-specific technical knowledge.<ref>{{cite web |title=SSC CGL, CHSL, GD, MTS Selection Process Guide |url=https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/ |access-date={{CURRENT_DATE}} |website=Exam Kranti}}</ref>

==== Physical Standards and Medical Examination ==== There are extra requirements for positions in the Central Police Organisation and other law enforcement agencies. Candidates must fulfil specific physical requirements, which include height, weight proportionate to height, and chest circumference for male candidates. Running and other exercises are used in a physical efficiency test to assess fitness and endurance. After passing these tests, candidates are put through a thorough medical examination to make sure they meet the post's health requirements.<ref>{{cite web |title=SSC CGL, CHSL, GD, MTS Selection Process Guide |url=https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/ |access-date={{CURRENT_DATE}} |website=Exam Kranti}}</ref>

==== Document Verification ==== Candidates are contacted for document verification after passing every exam phase. The commission checks the legitimacy of certificates pertaining to age, educational background, caste classification, and other pertinent documents during this procedure. Regardless of exam performance, any disparity discovered at this point may result in disqualification.<ref>{{cite web |title=SSC CGL, CHSL, GD, MTS Selection Process Guide |url=https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/ |access-date={{CURRENT_DATE}} |website=Exam Kranti}}</ref>

==== Final Merit List ==== Based on the candidates' overall performance throughout the entire selection process, the commission creates the final merit list. The examination notice specifies the weighting of the marks earned in the various tiers. After that, candidates are assigned to different departments and positions based on their rank, preferences, and open positions. From the first assessment to the final distribution, the entire process may take several months to finish. The commission may use personality tests or interviews as part of the evaluation process for some exams, especially those for departmental promotions. Before the recruitment cycle starts, the commission releases a notification outlining the particular requirements and steps for each exam.<ref>{{cite web |title=SSC CGL, CHSL, GD, MTS Selection Process Guide |url=https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/ |access-date={{CURRENT_DATE}} |website=Exam Kranti}}</ref>

=== Sources === The primary source for this content is:

Exam Kranti - SSC Selection Process Guide (https://examkranti.com/ek-blog/ssc-cgl-chsl-gd-mts-selection-process-guide/)

Additional supporting sources can include:

Official SSC website (ssc.gov.in) - examination notifications and information bulletins

SSC Annual Reports published by the Department of Personnel and Training

Official examination notifications for various SSC exams (CGL, CHSL, CPO, etc.)

References

=== Feedback requested ===

I welcome feedback from other editors on:

• Whether this addition is appropriate and adds encyclopedic value
• The structure and organization of the proposed content
• Any concerns about neutrality, verifiability, or adherence to Wikipedia guidelines
• The reliability of the cited source and whether additional references should be added
• Suggestions for improvement or additional subsections that might be relevant

Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions. Prabhatgsmp (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Prabhatgsmp: What even is this? This reeks of AI to me. I apologise if it isn't made by AI but like...this is a very unusual...request, I guess? I don't get this, I'm sorry. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Prabhatgsmp, as long as you didn’t write this with AI, I would suggest perhaps proposing this at the relevant talk page, if you haven’t already? Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 21:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Prabhatgsmp.

It looks to me as if your proposed section is entirely sourced from a how-to guide by a company that prepares people for the exam.

That is absolutely not the kind of source we should be using. If you can find (eg) academic studies of the process, that would be different. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a heavy load of irrelevant material that shouldn't be in an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and from this article readers should learn what the organization is, what it does, and the important parts of its history. We do not want a study guide for applicants (see Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO), and that's what this looks like to me. I think you should forget this material and move on to something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: I'm just baffled by the way that this is formatted, sometimes stuff like this can be so baffling that it makes it difficult for me to even understand what it's meant to be. I've checked this editor's contributions, and they're mostly just newcomer tasks, and that's good.

@Prabhatgsmp: I recommend that you keep doing newcomer tasks and as @ColinFine said earlier, if you can find high quality academic studies (or journals, same sort of thing) that talk about this, then maybe this could merit being added. Key word: could. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think even with top-quality sources, this material would fail WP:DUE and WP:NOTHOWTO. I can see it possibly being appropriate if it was cut down to two or three sentences. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your replied.

This is not AI genrated I have used ai in some of part to correct the code only conten is full written by me I gaven my time and effort hoping that this may be approved.

Thanks & regard

Prabhat Prabhatgsmp (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Prabhatgsmp, I'm sorry but there's a very low chance that this is going to be approved, and even then, it shouldn't be placed here. Once again, I recommend that you keep doing newcomer tasks or just move onto something else. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

& if you’re having trouble with code, may I suggest Help:Wikitext? Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 22:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you worked on it, but unfortunately you worked on the wrong thing. Unfortunately, even if you fix it, it's simply not wanted and not a good idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear, the objective here was to add spam links to that Exam Kranti site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added "nowiki" tags in the OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I edit

Please teach me how to edit on Wikipedia I just signed up. WikiDignity (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I am so sorry if this is the wrong place to post this where would be the right place to post this. Just so I dont make a mistake snd for your clarification this is not writen by AI. WikiDignity (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @WikiDignity, don't worry, this is the perfect place to ask for help on editing Wikipedia. But I recommend that you start with minor edits first, such as copyediting, since if you have no idea on how to edit, doing anything more complicated could disrupt a lot of things. Once you feel like you're ready to do anything more than that, check your homepage for other types of newcomer tasks. I hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Help:Introduction is specifically about how to edit, as distinct from what to edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse?

What is the Teahouse I just signed up so I do apologize if this makes me sound dumb or uneducated. 😅 WikiDignity (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No, not at all! The Teahouse is a place for anyone to ask any questions they may have pertaining to Wikipedia, especially but not only beginners, so it’s perfect for you if you have any questions. :) Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 23:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

what are those little profile badges by people's names? WikiDignity (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place for supposedly "dumb or uneducated" questions (which yours isn't!) about how to use Wikipedia, so asking "What is the Teahouse?" while on the Teahouse is oddly perfect.

There's also the Reference desk for questions about the actual content of the encyclopedia, like "Where can I find out about extinct elephant-like animals?". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That was… oddly specific? Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 00:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I did intend for it to be oddly specific, since if you only want to look up elephants, you just type Elephant in the search box at the top of the page and you're done. I've never used the Reference Desk, and I'd only go there if I'd had no luck doing it the easy way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Promotional account?

A very new user with a tiny number of edits, but each edit appears to be a tiny cryptic advertisement for their services. Google search shows that the username matches the name on numerous online ads for a lawyer in India. What do I do? Anything? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would start with a warning on their talk page; I use WP:Twinkle to do so but that’s not necessary. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If it's very obviously a promo account, you can report them to WP:AVI. qcne (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

AVI warns me only to report those who are persistent. The account has been 100% promotional, but 100% of 3 edits, and nothing at all since Wednesday, isn't much. So I guess I'll just keep my eyes open. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

English Wikipedia: 25 years of service and anniversary; congratulations

Hello! I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to all of you today for your great, grateful and festive spirit in celebrating 25 years of continuous unlimited knowledge (♾️🌎) of the English Wikipedia, for eliminating vandalism and various system failures that occur! It will be held on January 17, 2026, we congratulate all Wikimedians on Wikipedia's 25th birthday!!!! The English Wikipedia has been the largest section of Wikipedia so far and will continue to be so, we believe that Wikipedia's development will be eternal! I congratulate all of you on your 25th year of continuous development of the English Wikipedia (here the sky and the planet Earth, the infinity of the Universe lie in labor), today on your solemn birthday! English Wikipedia is moving forward! Thank you all! We appreciate each of your contributions!!! 🥳🎂 Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Irving Johnson (ship)

Irving Johnson (ship)

This article is actually about a pair of 'twin' ships, both run by the same sailing program and named after a husband-and-wife sailing team, Irving Johnson and Electa Johnson. It seems off for the article to live at the name of just one of the two ships - for one thing, judging by the quality of their own wikipedia pages Exy is if anything somewhat more notable! But I'm not sure what the right title would be to have a single article for both ships (The Irving Johnson and The Exy Johnson?) and I definitely don't think they each need their own. The Los Angeles Maritime Institute, which runs them, redirects to the ships' page, so I can't merge them there!

And not only that but I couldn't even figure out the right noticeboard to ask such a question, so here I am at the friendliest place on Wikipedia. What do you think, teahouse? Vary | (Talk) 06:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I think, considering the nature of your question, you're probably at the right place, or at least not the wrong one.

The person who created the existing article about the two ships hasn't been seen here for years, but as soon as they had put up their brand-new article, they also set up a redirect, so that people searching for "Exy Johnson" would also find Irving Johnson. It seems clear to me that they thought that was an acceptable way of dealing with the situation. I can see that it's possible to disagree with their plan, and I don't even know if their redirect is still working the way they intended.

Is there a particular thing you would like to see done, to improve the way Wikipedia handles this? (I have no authority, but I flatter myself enough to think I might be asking a useful question.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: A note about the redirect, Exy Johnson redirects to Electa Johnson, not Irving Johnson (ship) or Irving Johnson. Checking the ship article, it appears that back when this was first made only Irving had a page so the piped link is now inaccurate, so I've changed that. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 08:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Vary | (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think what I'm looking for mainly is an idea for an article title that would correctly identify the subject of the article - not a single ship but a pair. The article title should be what the article is about, right? It's not about the Irving Johnson, it's about the twin brigantines the Irving Johnson and the Exy Johnson. Would that be it, maybe? Twin brigantines Irving Johnson and Exy Johnson?

If there was an obvious stylistic solution I would just be bold and move the thing, but I'm not sure what it would be or where to ask. Vary | (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Background color

Hello everyone! Tell me what's the 'Red color equivalent' of #9EFF9E (green background)? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 09:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Akshadev! This website has hex codes for various shades of red. But since you asked what the red equal to this specific Green hex-code is, would #FF9E9E help? (#9EFF9E is Mint Green, whereas #FF9E9E is "Rose bud", it might not be the one you want though.) If it isn't, then again, check the website I linked to see what could work. Hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 11:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It is helpful. Thanks! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 11:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And keep in mind that not all web browsers will display all shades. There should be a list of "web friendly" shades somewhere. Koriodan (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year!

This isnt for any help, just hope everyones having a good new year :) ~2026-27486 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You too! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27486. Hello! Wikipedia: Thank you for your holiday greetings at the teahouse, welcome to Wikipedia! Happy holidays to you too! (Iluziya7 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Wikipedia's main typeface

I'm writing about Wikipedia's main typeface, because I can't tell whether the first letter of, say, Ilabrat is a capital 'I' or a lower case 'l'. In some typefaces they're the same, in others, not. For example, a capital 'I' or a lower case 'l'. A drastic solution would be for wikipedia to use a different typeface. A more reasonable one would be for the main typeface to be an option, a 'setting' if you like. In fact, I don't know wikipedia well enough to know that it isn't already; is it? If not, there's probably no mileage in my suggestion, since wikipedia has managed well enough up to now. And also the fact that it should be possible to tell from the context, or failing that, copying the text concerned to a document and changing its typeface. Nick Barnett (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You can change this in your browser, or alternatively through one of the CSS themes in the settings. Koriodan (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hullo Koriodan -- yes, Michael mentions five skins in Preferences; I've tried them; they do lay the page out differently, but they all use the same basic typeface. If skins and CSS themes mean the same thing, that leaves your suggestion of changing it in my browser.

However, googling reveals that "there is no built-in option in Safari 26.1 to directly select a new font type". I have no experience with CSSs, but I expect the change I am looking for is a very small edit of a CSS file from one typeface name to another, isn't it? Can you give me a bit of a clue, a bit of a shove in the right direction? Nick Barnett (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

On the page Help:User style, if you scroll down to about the middle, you'll see "Samples". In the first large box of samples, you can copy the very last item in it, labelled "Change all text to the font Avenir" - just copy that entire line and all the way to the } at the bottom of the box, making sure you do include the } itself - and add it to your CSS as described in other parts of that article. (Change the word Avenir to whichever font you mean to use, of course.)

In addition - and this one has helped me in the past - somewhere not too far below "Samples" is "User CSS for a monospaced coding font". You can add that on a separate line in your same CSS.

Those should provide a start, at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts TMF, but . . . what a fucking rabbit hole!!! I have to use command line to find where Localsetting.PHP is, and then edit that to allow a CSS, BUT NOT WITH A NORMAL EDITOR, I have to use Vim or Notepad (which I do not have). I have to create a User page, and then a Usersubpage. I have to store a CSS file there, and edit in this from Samples:

.mw-body h1, .mw-body h2 {

font-family: "Avenir"

}

And then clear my cache and restart?

And then spend how long trouble shooting, because this is all a level or two above my paygrade?

What a carry on, just to distinguish between I and L . . .

I think I'll just pass on all that. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nick Barnett Also, a variety of "skins" are available: see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. There is a "preview" function that allows you to check how the main page would look with each skin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is actually a slight height difference; Ilabrat vs lIabrat, the capital I is slightly shorter than the lowercase l, but I get that that doesn't exactly leap out. Athanelar (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nick Barnett: there is a way to change wikipedia's font, but i would not fault anyone for not finding it.

in the top right of a page, you'll see "[some number] languages". click it, and a dropdown will appear. in the bottom right of that dropdown, click the small settings icon, then click "fonts". now you can change the font to ComicNeue, OpenDyslexic, or the system font. ltbdl (hypnotise) 13:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Guidance new article

Hello, I’m looking for guidance from experienced editors.

I have written a non-biographical, topic-based article in my sandbox titled “Brazilian nationals convicted of financial fraud in the United States”. User:DataSystemsQuantum/sandbox

The article is based on independent secondary sources (Folha de S.Paulo, Bloomberg Línea, OCCRP) and is not a biography of a living person.

I would like to know whether the article would be appropriate to move to the main article namespace, or what improvements would be required before a move.

Thank you very much for your time. DataSystemsQuantum (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

If you would like feedback, it should be submitted for a review via Articles for Creation- and probably moved into Draft space(the preferred location for submissions). However, it is essentially a list article which would fall under the notability criteria for such. For this to be an article it would need to be less about documenting specific crimes(which themselves may not be notable) and more about summarizing what independent reliable sources state about this as a distinct topic. Unless you have experience in having drafts accepted, you should avoid moving it into mainspace yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review and explain this.

That makes sense. I understand the distinction you’re pointing out between documenting individual crimes and summarizing what independent reliable sources say about this as a broader, notable topic.

I’ll move the draft to the Draft namespace and work on reframing it accordingly before submitting it through Articles for Creation. DataSystemsQuantum (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@DataSystemsQuantum As a rule of thumb for list notability, the more specific of a topic your list covers, the less likely it is to be notable.

For example, List of U.S. presidents is evidently notable. List of multilingual presidents of the United States is one step more specific, but still okay; something like List of U.S. presidents above six feet tall who liked the colour red would obviously be far too specific for it to have been covered as a group in any reliable source, even if you might technically be able to populate it.

Same goes here; I worry that "List of Brazilian nationals convicted of financial fraud in the United States" is probably a little bit overspecific and is going to be harder to source than a broader "List of Brazilian nationals convicted of financial fraud" or "List of Brazilian nationals convicted in the United States" Athanelar (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that rule of thumb is very helpful.

I see your point about the topic potentially being too specific, and I agree that narrowing the scope too much makes it harder to demonstrate notability through independent coverage.

I’ll reconsider the framing and explore whether a broader scope, or a different way of structuring the topic. Would be more appropriate and better supported by reliable sources before proceeding further. DataSystemsQuantum (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @DataSystemsQuantum! As @331dot said, this looks more like a list than a regular article. It would benefit greatly if it shifted towards that style. For help on how lists look like, see the featured lists, as they are considered to be the best lists that Wikipedia has to offer. Also, try to look for more notable cases to make this a longer list, as a list this short is very unlikely to merit being included on Wikipedia. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Brazilian nationals convicted of financial fraud in the United States Here is the proper link to the page. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, I really appreciate it.

You’re right. At the moment it does read more like a list. I’ll study the featured list guidelines and work on restructuring it toward a proper list format, expanding the scope and context based on reliable sources.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. DataSystemsQuantum (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia penetrated all directions?

Hello! Are there articles on Wikipedia about all (world directions)? (Iluziya7 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7, hello! What do you mean by world directions? If you are asking about topics which Wikipedia hasn't covered yet, then you can find ideas here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean all areas of the world, such as education, art, etc. (Iluziya7 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Hey @Iluziya7! Wikipedia is a work in progress, so the answer to that question is always going to be: No. The very nature of Wikipedia requires editors to accept that we won't ever be able to cover every single topic that is notable enough for inclusion. But if anything, that just means there's always more to add or improve, and that's a good thing, I'd say. A common but apt comparison would be Sisyphus. One must imagine Wikipedians to be happy. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger Understandable, thank you for your answer! (Iluziya7 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

We have a lot of articles about trains, aviation, and motor vehicles, which amply covers "sideways pretty quickly"; sloths, turtles, and snails represent "mostly sideways, slowly"; Brownian motion for "lots of directions very very fast but not at all far"; arithmetic, which is "arguably straightforward"; moles and gophers for "slowly down-ish"; various political controversies provide "much too far to the left or the right"; oil drilling for "straight down as quickly as practical under the circumstances"; rockets, taxation, and that movie with Ed Asner and the boy and the balloons for "up"; and, finally, relativity for "this all depends on your frame of reference anyway".

Oh, plus Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which in terms of directions ought to take care of "Please follow the". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42. Yes, is that so? (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@TooManyFingers help I died laughing- that was hilarious Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 21:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

John Lenzie Creech

He is a famous current inmate at Terminal Island, but is not listed. Wikipedia still has him at FCI Victorville Medium 2. This can be verified by bop.gov Thank you ~2026-31306 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-31306. There are two reasons why a person does not appear on Wikipedia: they either do not meet our strict criteria for inclusion, or a volunteer editor has not taken the time to research and write an article yet. Creech is mentioned in Gavin Smith (film studio executive) and I don't think he meets our criteria as he is only known for one event (the murder). qcne (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne. Thank you for your answer! (Iluziya7 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Hey @Qcne! I think it might be likely that you mistakenly thought that they were asking why this person does not have a Wikipedia article. Instead, it appears that they were asking why he isn't listed in the list of inmates on the article for the Federal Correctional Institution on Terminal Island. I checked the article, and it does have a list of "notable inmates" (two lists, actually). Although not everyone on either list has a Wikipedia article, so maybe Creech could be included here, assuming what @~2026-31306 said is true. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense! qcne (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Clemens Christian Poetzsch

Hello, I would appreciate some neutral guidance from experienced editors. I have been working on a draft biography (Draft:Clemens_Christian_Poetzsch), which has been declined multiple times at AfC. At this point, I am not seeking help with rewriting or promotion, but rather an independent assessment of whether the subject can realistically meet WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO based on currently available sources. I would be especially grateful for advice on whether it makes sense to continue developing this draft, or whether it should be set aside until stronger independent biographical sources emerge. Thank you for your time and guidance. Vikynet (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vikynet. We hope your Wikipedia project will be the best! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

The last message you received on that draft was not the same as the others. It was a final rejection, saying nothing can be done to save this draft and that further work would be only a waste of time. I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Any guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Vikynet (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vikynet! Firstly, you should link the draft using these characters: [[]]. Example: Draft:Clemens Christian Poetzsch. Secondly, the draft was declined several times for reasons explained by comments left there by AfC reviewers. One particular point was that the draft appears to have been generated by a large language model, something Wikipedia strictly prohibits. It is probably too soon for someone like this to have an article on Wikipedia if they can't pass the notability guidelines for musician biographies. Lastly, the draft was completely rejected, this is an extreme option AfC reviews only take when it is absolutely needed, and it is pretty much a signal that the draft's potential is dead in the water. I'm sorry to say that, but that's just how it goes here sometimes. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to ask for practical guidance on the next possible step, rather than trying to revive this draft. My question is specifically: how to find an independent editor who might be willing to review my list of 12 independent sources in English and decide whether the subject is suitable for an article Thank you for your time. Vikynet (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The only next step is to give up. I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It's discouraging but I do agree. Just move onto something else, or get yourself a nice cup of tea and relax instead. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Why is the article being rejected? (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: As stated in the draft's comments, it was rejected after being declined several times due to a lack of improvement or effort by its author to tackle the issues that the AfC reviewers raised when they declined the draft. This is, as I mentioned earlier, an extreme option only reserved for when it is really needed and is usually the end of the line for a draft. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Or does the article violate Wikipedia rules? (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: It could be both, the reason stated on the rejection notice is: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I believed the sources I used were independent and reliable, and I was genuinely trying to follow Wikipedia’s rules as carefully as possible - so it's not about lack of effort at all. With the German Wikipedia, for example, the same approach worked without any issues. But I accept that different language editions apply policies differently, and I’ll take this as feedback for the future. Vikynet (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedias in other languages have different rules and guidelines independent of the English Wikipedia, so a comparison to the German Wikipedia is irrelevant here.

I rejected your draft because you failed to address the concerns of reviewers after six declines, and I explicitly stated that retaining the AI slop in the draft destroys its chances of being published, there is no path forward by continuing down that road, and it would need to be rewritten entirely from scratch by a human. You can still do that. Go through your sources and keep the ones that meet WP:Golden Rule criteria. Then you write the article based only on what those sources say, without AI help. If the article is just a handful of sentences, that's fine, as long as each source meets every WP:Golden Rule requirement.

I also note that you removed your conflict-of-interest declaration here, and I am curious why. What is your affiliation with Clemens Christian Poetzsch? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the current draft is considered unsuitable and that further revisions along the same lines are not productive. I accept that any future attempt would need to start from scratch and be written strictly from what qualifying independent sources explicitly state. I reviewed comparable articles prior to submission in order to follow established practice, but I was not able to achieve a result that meets the English Wikipedia requirements anyway. Given the current sources, I see that seems this topic does not yet meet the requirements for a viable article on the English Wikipedia. My intention is simply to avoid taking any steps that could limit its chances in the future.

To clarify the points you raised:

– the conflict-of-interest declaration was updated due to a change in my professional situation and was not intended to remove relevant information;

– I have no professional, financial, or personal affiliation with Mr. Poetzsch. My interest is purely editorial and relates to understanding how English Wikipedia standards apply to contemporary classical and jazz musicians.

I appreciate the direct explanation of the requirements. It has helped clarify the practical limits of what is possible at this time, and I will keep this in mind in any future contributions. Vikynet (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Will anyone else be able to publish this article in the future? Or the topic is permanently rejected? Vikynet (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It really is permanently rejected. That's what the latest notice with the big stop sign is for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

... not strictly true. If he wins a major music award then he would certainly be notable enough for Wikipedia. The current issue is that the sources do not show notability, despite many attempts to stretch them to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it could be too soon for this article to exist. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it really considered too early, given a career spanning over 30 years, 12 released albums, performances in several European philharmonic halls and Jazz Festivals, award-winning work on film soundtracks, and recognition with an Opus Klassik award . All of these details are documented in independent, reliable sources. I am not trying to argue; I am trying to understand why this cannot be presented on Wikipedia. Vikynet (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you present any sources that cover those things that you mentioned? No, really, I mean it. You mention all of this and yet the sources for the draft do not show enough notability. If you did add sources that mention these things, then as @Michael D. Turnbull said earlier, they're just not enough to prove notability. If not, find the sources in question and add them. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have several articles to prove notability, however maybe it's really still not enough. The career is developing faster than the media coverage can follow (my main sources were Womex, meetheartist, leipzig.travel, acloserlisten.com, brnodaily.com, www.loudandquiet.com). Vikynet (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intentionally and firmly committed to following behind the media. We wait for them, because they are our sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers. You are very right, thank you for your kind words! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

On Wikipedia, a person's story is told only by the sources. Other knowledge, other facts, other explanations, can't be included.

Number of albums, length of career, time spent on stage, prove that he is a musician. But just proving he's a musician is not the point.

What's needed is just three sources, three very special sources, that all must follow every one of these requirements: (a) they're independent of the subject - he is not involved in helping to create them, not even by having information sent to the reporter by someone else; (b) Wikipedia recognizes them as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's own rules; AND (c) they have already written the whole thing for you; together, these three sources must be SO complete that you would be satisfied to just stick them together and say "Here is the article - I don't need to add one word".

Do you have sources - just three of them, no more - that you believe are good enough to BE the whole article, with no input from anywhere else, so that you could say to us "Just read these, I have nothing to add"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this so clearly. I truly appreciate your patience and the directness of your explanation. I understand your point. At this moment, I cannot confidently say that I have such sources that would, on their own, fully function as the entire article in the way you describe. I see now why this is the key issue. Thank you again for your openness and for outlining the requirements so precisely. This helps me understand how to approach this more realistically in the future. Vikynet (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vikynet. This idea will make everyone more active! Thank you! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I am neither the first nor the last person to face these issues, and it is important to clarify them before working on or submitting other articles. In this sense, it is good that this discussion has taken place. Vikynet (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The best way to summarise it is that, while it seems counterintuitive, notability on Wikipedia is not really about what the subject of an article has done, but rather what people have said about it already. What matters for our purpose is whether the subject has received enough significant coverage to give us enough material to write an article, not whether the subject has actually done anything particularly important. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia’s notability is based on significant independent coverage rather than on the subject’s achievements themselves. At the same time, in the field of music and contemporary arts, independent coverage is often primarily analytical or interpretative rather than biographical or fact-heavy. Additional sources: dougthomas.co.uk/with-clemens-christian-poetzsch, www.dougthomas.co.uk/the-soul-of-things, londonjazznews.com/, cutcommonmag.com Reviews and critical essays tend to focus on style, artistic context and reception, while concrete biographical facts usually appear in interviews or official materials, which are considered non-independent. This creates a practical tension: independent sources establish cultural relevance and reception, but they do not always provide enough factual detail to stand alone as a complete article. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia recommends bridging this gap without introducing original research or relying on non-independent sources. Vikynet (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The simple fact is that for that exact reason, the vast majority of musical artists don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. It's exactly as you say; for most artists, secondary sources are interested in their work, not the artist themselves. That's why WP:NMUSICIAN does have somewhat of a carveout for people with particularly widely-known work, but generally notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the fact that somebody's work has been discussed or platformed is not always evidence that they themselves are encyclopedically notable. There's no 'bridging that gap,' it just is what it is. Athanelar (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right of course. And I'm right too, depending how you look at it. Poetzsch himself is not somehow banned from ever being mentioned on Wikipedia. But it's also necessary to be clear that there is no possible way to write about him here, unless a lot of brand-new and very major coverage of him gets published in the future. Using the sources that now exist, the chance of success is zero. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

My interest here is primarily methodological. This is not the only contemporary musician I would consider writing about, and this case has been a helpful illustration of how the process works in practice. Anyway still there is a possibility, that some future independent coverage will resolve the issue naturally. Vikynet (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Paywalls (or pay walls?)

Is there any wikipedia guidance or instruction to cover referencing web pages which are behind pay walls? I ask because I occasionally doubt what I'm reading in an article and so I follow up by trying to check the reference . . . and then find I can't, unless I decide to pay money. Nick Barnett (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Archiving the page at a site like archive.md or archive.org usually gets around the paywall. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There's WP:PAYWALL, which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Editors are specifically and deliberately allowed to include paywalled sources, probably (among other things) because of how much legitimately valuable information would be placed out of bounds by disallowing them.

WP:PAYWALL is mainly for editors and admins rather than for readers, but it's not wrong to refer to it here because it's probably relevant in some ways.

Depending on the particular source, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library may also be able to provide access to some of the things you're looking for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Important detail: one needs to have 500+ edits and 10+ edits in the last 30 days to access the Wikipedia Library. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have said that but I neglected to look up what the actual numbers were. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I shift wip published (and rejected) articles to my draft space

I am looking for insights on: How do I shift wip published (and rejected) articles to my draft space? I was translating an article and published it - but it's not really ready to be published yet. It was nominated for speedy deletion.

Any insights are welcome thank you! I&I22 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @I&I22! I moved the article in question to the draft space, since per Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, this is probably the correct thing to do. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: I should note that this won't always prevent its deletion, and that it may still be deleted. I apologise if that does happen, but I did try to help here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7@SignedInteger Thank you so much for your help and support! Great I will continue to work on it until it is ready. It would be so awesome to have the option to choose saving a translation in drafts instead of just jumping into publishing. Not sure how to follow up about that though....thanks again and Happy New years 2026!!! I&I22 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: Happy New Year! And good luck with your draft, assuming that it doesn't get deleted, which I hope that it doesn't. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22. You are doing a wonderful, good and wonderful job, thank you and we wish you a Happy New Year 2026! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7awww that is so kind of you! Well, I care a lot about protecting cultural legacies. I am very mediocre as an editor and basically fail my way to success hahahah o bbboy. Eventually it all works out. Very kind of you to encourage my imperfect attempts at being useful. I don't know what to say as am so ordinary. Thank yououuouou, I&I22 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22. It's true, you love Wikipedia so much, so learn Wikipedia rules like a pro! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I think failing your way to success is (at least in some sense) the only way to success. Learning how to prevent certain kinds of failure from happening again is always a good thing, as is making improvements to strategy, but still ... if you don't put yourself open to failing, then you accomplish nothing. Sometimes a person succeeds on their first attempt at something, but the risk of failing was still with them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingersyessssss! It's quite anarchistic and experiential learning and I enjoy the process! thank youou for sharing your thoughts and providing encouragements I&I22 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: I removed the notice, so you don't have to worry about it being deleted anymore. Good luck with your draft! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@User:I&I22: It would be so awesome to have the option to choose saving a translation in drafts instead of just jumping into publishing. For proposed article "XYZ" you could start directly at "Draft:XYZ". Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic. You're right! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Are you using the Content Translation tool to translate? If so, it does save your work in the tool, so if you haven't finished, you can do that. Or if you have page mover rights (I don't remember if that's autoconfirmed or extended confirmed) you can hit publish and then immediately move page to Draft:Title as explained above. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming I was in the content translation and then manually adding my own translations, but it was incomplete and only saw the 'publish' option, not a 'save draft' option. I do not think that I have page mover rights as yet, not sure...someone else kindly moved the page for me though. I like to offer translation, so am wondering how to avoid this misstep in the future - beyond copy pasting to sandbox. I will figure it out! Thank you so much everyone :) I&I22 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, 'publish' really just means 'save work' - it is supposed to make it clear that when you press that button, your work becomes visible to everyone on the internet (if they know where to look anyway). It sounds like you accidentally made a draft page in the 'main' namespace, so it looked like you were saying it was a finished article before it was ready.

What you can do instead is use the WP:Article wizard, which I'm pretty sure automatically puts things into the 'draft' namespace and gets the Wikipedia code set up for you. The other option is that you can create a page by searching for "Draft:Subject" (replacing Subject with what you're writing about), which will tell you the page doesn't exist, and from that you can create a new draft. So for example I'm interested in writing an article about artists called the Numina Sisters, so I would put "Draft:Numina Sisters" in the search bar and then select the red link Draft:Numina Sisters. If you choose this second option, you'll need to put {{subst:submit}} at the very top of your draft so that you get the magic submission button to show up. Once your draft is ready for review, you simply press that button and your draft will go into the review pool. Meadowlark (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

YahooOoOooo thank you @Meadowlark! This info is gold. Love all this learning and sharing of knowledge. Much thanks and to you too @SomeoneDreaming. Very cool community Wikipedia is! I&I22 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: Oh, and here's another place where your potential articles could go: Help:Userspace draft. Unlike regular drafts, userspace drafts usually aren't deleted if an editor doesn't edit them for a while (aka 6 months). This is what the articles I make usually start off as. This still allows you to submit it for review as well. Of course, feel free to choose between a userspace draft and a draftspace one. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

aha! Thank you for clarifying this @SignedInteger. I was a bit confused re these different spaces - I have always created work in drafts spaces and once I had copy pasted some collected text, quotes and was told off that it was plagiarism, even though I thought it was a "private-ish" draft space. So now I understand what was going on a a bit better thank you. I might copy pooaste all these hot tips to my user page, as I remember how to do everything better when it's in these conversational contexts. I will de-activate the tags/pings of you all though. I&I22 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no private space on Wikipedia. Every page can be read by everyone who knows where to look for it. DS (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

super! thank you for this @DragonflySixtysevenYesss, I rather thought that privacy doesn't exist here, which is just fine. I&I22 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely go ahead and put them on your user page, @I&I22 - mine is full of useful links that I often need to find!

In terms of copy-pasting things, we can't have that anywhere on Wikipedia unless it's a very short quote and it's properly attributed. It sets Wikipedia up for legal trouble so we are very, very strict about it. You could try Google Docs or just a word processor on your own device to keep copied text or quotes in. A few useful links: WP:QUOTE, WP:CLOP, WP:COPYVIO.

Another super useful tip: you can often find policies or guidelines you're looking for by typing WP: in the search bar and then a word that relates to what you're looking for. So I found the quotation policy by typing WP:QUOTE. You could try, for example, WP:DRAFT to get more information about that! Sometimes people will say things like 'per INDY' or 'not a RS' or '3RR' and you can use the WP: search to find out what they're talking about by searching for WP:INDY etc. Meadowlark (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oooo very useful @Meadowlarkre: WP searches ! and these other wps - great, ok noted re: copy-paste en masse advice. ha! already added the text but will now edit so not your words- just links. thank yououuoo I&I22 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

In the content translation tool I believe it saves automatically. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Mixing Citation Styles

I've just expanded the article 1826_Red_River_flood, including a number of per-sentence citations to the exact page. The prior authors of the page used in-line citations, but I'd like to use the sfn template since it could lead to consistency problems to do inline citations for every source.

Is what I've done on that page acceptable practice? What would be best practice in this situation? WarpdriveEngineer 17:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is exactly what you need for this one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Lengthy but comprehensive, thanks! WarpdriveEngineer 18:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the same response I got when I gave my friend a printed copy of Wikipedia. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you copy a Polish page pl.wikipedia.org to an en.wikipedia.org

The subject Stefania Niekrasz escaped to London and made many contributions that should be acknowledged and added to her file ~2026-34883 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-34883. I don't think this is in line with Wikipedia's rules! Because Wikipedias' rules are not all the same! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

i suggest stop trying to give advice at the teahouse for now. You have very little experience so why try to give advice? Your answers are often wrong or misleading. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

oh you were blocked from the Teahouse a short time ago, nevermind Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-34883, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sometimes it is possible to translate an article from another Wikipedia into English (and if this is done you must attribute the origin properly: see WP:translation).

But in many cases an article in another Wikipedia article does not have adequate sources. (English Wikipedia is more careful about this than many others). If this is the case, then a translation into English will be a waste of time, because even if suitable sources exist, you will in effect have written the English article backwards: an article should be written from its (reliable, independent, secondary) sources, not from anything else.

If you are considering translating an article from another Wikipedia into English, start by evaluating each source cited in that article against the criteria in golden rule (note that non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria: see WP:NONENG). If you have several sources which meet all the criteria in that page, then it is worth considering the translation. Otherwise, you should treat this as a competely new article in English. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Non-free use

I read the non-free use policy, and it was kind of confusing. So, I'm asking here instead. If I wanted to use the cover of the Bleachers' single Modern Girl in an article under non-free use, would I be allowed? As far as I can tell, it:

1) Has no free equivalent

2) Is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material (advertising music).

3) Is only one item

4) Has been published (as a single on Spotify, by the artist on Twitter, etc.)

5) Is encyclopedic.

6) Meets image use policy

7) Will be used in my article on the song

8) Increases understanding

9) Will be used properly

10) Will be described properly

Does the cover art have to be specifically mentioned in the article? I have not been able to find any independent criticisms of the art online. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin! The album cover needs to be included in the infobox of the article or at least featured in the article in some way, it also has to be of a low resolution. To give an example that I've made, The Sixteenth Sheep, which uses a 295x300 image of the album cover. Also, it doesn't have to have its own section, unless there is coverage that merits it. It just needs to be featured on the article proper. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sweet. How low is considered low resolution? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: 300x300 pixels appears to be a sweet spot. Although, I recommend that you look at Category:Album covers for other examples. It really depends on the image itself, but if it looks relatively fine at 300x300, then that is probably what you should resize it as. I should note that to resize album covers, I use Paint.NET, but you can use whatever program you feel like. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin For future reference, when you upload non-free images, you don't have to bother with resolution, bots will take care of that eventually (a few days). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that when I've uploaded a non-free image larger than that, a bot comes along and rescales it. I don't know if that still happens, it's been several years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes it still does do that. File:HaSela HaAdom Radio Record.jpg is a non-free image that I uploaded that was in a much higher resolution at first but then a bot resized it. It wasn't resized to 300x300 but 315x317 isn't that different, so pretty much the same size. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

no submit tab

Hi! We have a discussion with an editor @Robert McClenon on the DVR page about an issue with a draft that previously had a re-direct tab. The tab to "submit" is not loading for me and I was wondering if anyone can help with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg

Thanks in advance! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm reading your question correctly, but I've submitted Draft:Winston Weinberg for you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352Thanks! I appreciate that. I saved the draft, but there was no button to "submit" it. The blue one, the one that usually appears on the page when you save a draft. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Kelob2678 added the button right after you posted here. If you can't find it next time, you can try the draft submission wizard. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 got it. thanks again! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How to edit a citation?

I was adding citations to Émile Muller and all the sources I found were in French. For the first two the Magic Wikipedia Citation Thing™ added "(in French)" but for the last one it didn't. This is probably not a big issue but it's irking me and I have absolutely no clue how to edit the citation to fix it (I'm absolutely hopeless with technology and VERY new to Wikipedia). If somebody could fix it or tell me how to fix it that would be amazing, thank you! Violetlamprey (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Violetlamprey: I added the tag as well as translating the source's title. You should probably see Help:Introduction for basic editing tips, if you haven't already. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Violetlamprey (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

RfC

Has this discussion reached enough of a non-consensus stalemate to warrant filing an RfC? If so, can you help me find a neutral wording for the question? I’m thinking “Does the use of Crisco as a lubricant by the homosexual community have due weight to be included in the article?” FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tea House

Who are you? I'm related to Herb Gilbert and Have information about him. Lineage origin and following.

I Spole to Herb Gilbert Jrs Daughter Yesterday. I'm her Grandchild who used to be a Police Officer

Who are you? ~2026-43463 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, we can't accept "this is my family history, I know it" as a source. If you have anything published that you could point to, that would be helpful. DS (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Herb Gilbert and his son Herb Gilbert Jr. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

User Page

How do I create my own userpage? I'm so confusedd.. Also Happy new year to whoever sees this

DangerousEagles (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@DangerousEagles You have created it, it's at User:DangerousEagles. You can see its edithistory here:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't you, that was @Orwell reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

However, you should not create other editors user pages, like you did at User:RosinJohn. That type of message is for the User talk page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

My mistake.. I did not mean to create her page i just needed to give that warning thing DangerousEagles (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Dont worry, we all make mistakes here. Just note this mistake permanently, this would help in future. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a chaos at History of books. Orwell'sreader (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A temporary account is a vandalising the page, somebody should ban the account immediatly. Orwell'sreader (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Orwell reader I reverted the page to the last stable revision before the vandal. Greedycell (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Orwell reader if they continue to be a problem, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Orphan page and lack of links

A page created for my professional music appearances (Lazarus Steel (singer)), has been flagged as orphan and not having external links. I have actually added several links from news and to (I was at The Voice of Germany, and also play at The Grand Jam) stating and showing independent news articles, as well as internal Wikipedia links.

yet my page is not available … what should I do? who can help me?

thanks Lazarus Steel ~2026-47863 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your page is available and in the main-space. The word orphan means it hasn’t been put into any categories and isn’t linked to other pages. Here is the link —>Lazarus Steel (singer). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47863 @Marcosdreher, please remember to log in when posting.

There's a couple of things you should be aware of. First, you uploaded your logo to Wikimedia Commons. When you did that, you signed away many of your rights - you agreed that anyone can use it for any reason as long as they credit you. Mostly this is not something individuals or companies want to do, but of course that is your choice.

You uploaded two other images, both as 'own work'. Were you the one holding the camera and pressing the button in the photograph? If not, you must immediately go to Commons and have it deleted. Likewise if you did not paint the painting yourself, you must immediately have that deleted. You can ask the photographer and artist to upload their work to Wikimedia Commons, but they need to be aware of the rights they are giving up by doing so.

You also need to stop editing the article; as the subject, you are not permitted to edit directly in most cases. The page WP:ABOUTYOU will be a good guide for you. If there are changes you want to make, please do so via edit requests - more information on that page. It would be a very good idea to use the article's Talk page to provide links to any reliable sources you have on your work, since unsourced information is likely to start being deleted very quickly. Meadowlark (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, the picture and painting were literally made by me (digital painting) as well as the design of the logo, but How do I then add a picture to the article if the pic is not in "Wikimedia Commons"? Marcosdreher (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a tricky question! You can add pictures that are hosted on Commons, and also pictures hosted here on English Wikipedia. However, both places have rules. On Commons, all images must be under a copyleft license, which means basically that anyone can use them for any reason - including commercially - as long as they credit the original artist. I imagine you would rather not have anyone printing and selling your art! So you will probably not want to upload it to Commons.

However, on English Wikipedia, there are very strict rules. Since you are alive, we can only have non-copyrighted images of you, and they have to go on Commons - so if you're happy to upload a photo of you that you took to Commons, we can use that. We can host some non-free content - there is more information at WP:LOGO (about logos, surprise!) and more extensively at WP:NFCC. Other people are much better at copyright than me, but I don't think your logo would pass the non-free content criteria because it does not meet Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. To have the art and the logo on your article, I believe you would need to host them on Commons, but as you now know that would mean surrendering some of your rights irrevocably (unless you have the files deleted before anyone downloads them to use, which is why we suggest deleting them immediately if you want to keep all your rights intact).

Copyright is very complicated. If someone contradicts me they probably know better and you should listen to them, but that's what I'd advise you to do for the moment. I hope that helps a bit! Meadowlark (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

very very enlighthening, indeed not as easy as I thought... am now trying to delete the images on commons, but still not as easy as I thought... many many thanks for your help, and happy new year! (sorry I forgot earlier) Marcosdreher (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well! I've tagged the logo and art for speedy deletion on Commons and linked to this thread, which I hope will be enough evidence for an admin on Commons to delete them shortly. If you see this before they're deleted, you can override my tags with your own by going to the image pages, choosing 'edit', and changing this:

{{speedydelete|G7 - per uploader on en-WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Marcosdreher-20260103131500-Meadowlark-20260103120100]}}

to this:

{{speedydelete|G7}}

It should be right up the top and easy to find. That will tell the admins there that you, the author and uploader, definitely want them deleted (rather than them having to come over here to check I'm actually doing what you want). I've left the photo of you alone since it sounds like you're happy to keep that, but if I'm wrong you can just add the speedydelete tag to that image too by using the edit button as I described above.

If you have any more questions or concerns, my talk page is always open as well as the Teahouse and I'll do my best to help you out. Happy editing! :) Meadowlark (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

kickstarter link?

Hello,

how can i add a link to kickstarter? it is a reference for how much money was made in the final kickstarter (i have another secondary source that mentions the successful kickstarter campaign, but doesn't give the final amount raised) For this page: Draft:Unihertz_Jelly_series

Thank you Tioseafj (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Kickstarter is blacklisted, so I suggest you use the other source instead. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

May I ask whether AI has been used for this article (Draft:). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had used it to create the software/hardware specification tables-- i am still in the process of checking those against the sources, so they might currently have errors. I also used AI to fix the grammar and wording. But I did write it from sources originally. Is that allowed?

Additionally, part of the text is copied or paraphrased from the currently existing article Unihertz_Jelly. I planned to merge this article to it. The reason why I thought I should use the kickstarter source is because that part is already used in the current article, but it won't let me copy that paragraph and source intact. Thank you. 10:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Tioseafj (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NEWLLM. Articles cannot be written from scratch using an LLM on Wikipedia. The way I have used AI is to help me find sources and summarize them, but I use my own words to write things, after thoroughly checking the AI's sources (and eliminating most of them because the AI finds a lot of junk).

If any secondary source reports anything about Kickstarter, you could cite that. You could try asking at WT:WHITELIST for a hole to be poked into the blacklist to allow linking to a specific Kickstarter page, but the request is unlikely to be accepted if there are ways to avoid citing Kickstarter directly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

First Wikipedia entry

I've drafted an entry on the late theatre and movie scenic artist Tony Strong, who died a little over a year ago. Since it's the first time I've written a piece for Wikipedia, I'd be grateful for any help in getting it right.

Here's what I've drafted: Draft:Tony Strong. APK7 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @APK7, without comment on the draft, I've removed the content from here and added a link to your draft instead - this is the preferred method. Meadowlark (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A totally unsourced Draft wont go far.

You need to do some basic research on "writing your first article" for wikipedia - something you clearly haven't done. Walter Ego 11:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a very helpful answer. Asking that question here is part of that research, no need to WP:BITE

@APK7 Help:Your first article might be useful. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Egomaniac! If you'd troubled to read to the end of my draft, you'd see that I have in fact quoted several sources.

Happy New Year

Philip APK7 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your sources are not formatted as they should be, so are easily missed (I have now tweaked the formatting slightly, for clarity). Please see WP:Referencing for beginners.

Even with them, you have several paragraphs which are entirely uncited.

"The Guardian, 4 9-24" is not a good citation - Is that 4 September or 9 April? Which page or URL? Which article title? Who wrote it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:Golden rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with sources for an article

Hello, I need help with why my draft wasn't accepted as an article. i cant find sources on revenue and profit, so i cant make one without making an estimate which probably is far off. I am a new article creator, but I couldn't find good or sources going in depth on it. I only have 3-4 sources I can work with and they aren't going in depth. Do you maybe have ideas how I can improve my article with only those few sources? This is the article: Draft:Trekpleister. Hallohellohillo (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see the golden rule. If you can't find a minimum of three sources which satisfy this rule, you probably don't have enough material to create an article. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

but anyway, how cant this draft be an article, yet the dutch version has less info yet is accepted? same for the french one Hallohellohillo (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Because every different language's Wikipedia has different rules - the English Wikipedia is commonly considered to be the strictest, so it's harder to have articles accepted here unless you have good sources. You might have written your draft backwards, which means writing down what you know about the subject and then looking for sources. This usually doesn't work very well! A Wikipedia article is written by looking for sources first, and then summarizing what they say. This also means that if you don't have enough good sources, you don't waste any time writing a draft that won't be accepted - that's extremely frustrating for everyone involved. Meadowlark (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

no i didnt write my draft backwards, i looked for the sources and typed what they said. i only realized there wasnt good enough sources at the end. Hallohellohillo (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, as it says on your decline notice; Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. I have restored the decline notice. Athanelar (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Reason for moving a page

Hello!

I want to move a stub article that misspells someone's name. The correct spelling redirects to the incorrect spelling. So I want reverse this: I want to move the article to the correct spelling and then have the incorrect spelling redirect to it.

When I move the page, should I use "Swap two pages ([[WP:SWAP]])" as the reason? Or should the reason be "Misspelled"? Also, would moving the page accomplish this correctly?

Thank you in advance for your help! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 18:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The WP:SWAP reason is meant for a process that only editors with extended page-moving rights can carry out. "Misspelled" is a good option, or you can just write your own custom explanation.

Moving a page will change its name, but not its contents. If the article still uses the old spelling in its prose, image captions, etc., those will need to be updated separately. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Chao Garden, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In some cases it is possible for ordinary users to move over a redirect; but I suggest you put in a technical move request, so that whoever carries it out can make sure everything is right. ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In this situation, I would tag the redirect with "{{Db-moved}}", wait until it is deleted, and then move the original page to the correct spelling. Once you move it, the old spelling will automatically become a redirect. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend doing this manually as it seems simple, but you'll need to move the redirect first to open up the title. Koriodan (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If you do not have extended page-mover rights, moving a redirect will always leave behind another redirect, and the title will be no more "opened up" than before. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable sources repeatedly used in BLPs

Recently I've come across a batch of articles using unreliable sources like classmates.com, familysearch.org and imdb.com to cite personal details, (DOB, place of birth, etc.) about living people with imdb the most frequently appearing. None of these sources can be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP and imdb is even listed at the perennial sources page as unreliable, (though acceptable to be added to external links sections). Is there some method of blacklisting these so that people can't use them as citations? I considered the spam blacklist, but these aren't really being spammed as such, just grossly misused. I take BLP very seriously and I think we need some way to prevent misuse of unreliable sources beyond manually removing them when people happen to see them. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Balph Eubank! What you're asking is for these sources to be marked as deprecated, but this requires community consensus first, and I think it is unlikely that we'd deprecate IMDb as it does have its valid uses as a source. Perhaps it can be deprecated for BLPs (which is fair, I don't think anyone would argue against that) but that's it. The other two should also be deprecated for BLPs, but again unless I am mistaken this requires community consensus first. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Take them to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I've now done that. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank, although it's not what you're looking for, you can use insource:"classmates.com" (or whatever) in the search to track down all the articles - I go on a bit of an IMDB rampage every now and then. Apologies if you're already aware of this - it's a useful tool so I wanted to make sure you knew. Meadowlark (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image versus navbox image for George Washington article

Hi everyone. I'm looking for some general guidance on lead image selection for biographies of historical figures, specifically in the article on George Washington. The current lead image is a long-standing, widely recognized Gilbert Stuart portrait, while another Stuart portrait painted from life during Washington's lifetime is currently used only in a navbox in a small, cropped form. I'm trying to understand how experienced editors typically weigh recognizability and long-standing use against contemporaneous execution when deciding what works best as a lead image, and whether it's ever appropriate for different images to serve different roles, such as a recognizable portrait in a navbox and a from-life portrait as the lead image. I'm not trying to force a change, just to better understand common practice and expectations before deciding how to proceed- Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

"Sanitized CSS"

i tried to apply templatestyles to one of my userspace pages and it threw an error saying it must be "Sanitized CSS". How do i make it or access it? does an admin need to approve it? Is it an issue with the CSS itself? Is it a MediaWiki issue? The issue i was working on is no longer relevant because i found a different way to do it, but I'd to know how it works for anything i do in the future. The page i was trying to fix was User:ItsReallyAlex/non-binary stripe/styles.css. The page currently has no purpose because i replaced it with inline CSS in User:ItsReallyAlex/non-binary stripe. ItsReallyAlex [they/them] • [talk] 20:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

HI ItsReallyAlex. It can only be changed by interface administrators. You can use {{Edit interface-protected}} on the talk page to request it. If you create a .css page as a subpage in the template namespace then it automatically gets Sanitized CSS and I think keeps it if you move it to your userspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro

Moved from Draft talk:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro/Requests for third opinion

Hello team,

First of all, I want to thank you in advance for reviewing this. The reason I am reaching out is to request a third opinion regarding the articles for creation submission for Alvaro Núñez Alfaro (Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro).

The draft was declined due to concerns about the writing style perceived as LLM-generated. Since then, the draft was rewritten using neutral, concise, encyclopedic language and relying exclusively on independent, reliable sources.”

The subject (Alvaro Núñez Alfaro) has received significant coverage in outlets that include Forbes France, Corriere della Sera, Sports Illustrated, ABC News / Good Morning America, and NBC Los Angeles, among many others. Also, I asked for some guidance at the AfC Help Desk, but there has been no further reviewer feedback after the initial response.

I would appreciate if I could get an impartial third opinion on whether the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and tone requirements, or if any specific further adjustments are recommended.

Draft link: Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro

Appreciate all your help and support on this.

Happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNAtlanticWriter (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just as a note, this is a slightly different request than the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_December_25 which is why I moved it here since AFCHD has already fielded the question once and they're specifically looking for a different group to look at the page. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. OP, the threshold for passing the draft process is that Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro would survive a deletion discussion. That depends mostly on sources: have multiple secondary sources independent of the subject that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight written in-depth about the subject? My own initial search did not seem promising: neither interviews ([7], [8], [9]) nor repackaged press releases ([disruptmagazine.com/how-super-luxury-groups-daniel-tzinker-and-alvaro-nunez-are-disrupting-real-estate-marketing/], [10]) are independent of Alvaro Núñez Alfaro.

Only two sources in the draft fulfill the independent, reliable, secondary source criteria: the GMA/ABC source and the Sports Illustrated one (the rest are authored by the subject himself, a Forbes puff piece (WP:FORBESCON), two interviews). The GMA one is kind of borderline, as it doesn't cover Núñez Alfaro himself in-depth, as it is focused more on his completion of the challenge.

So I am not convinced of that the subject meets the inclusion criteria at this moment, and the page is consequently not likely to survive a deletion discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to come and ask about your draft being rejected for sounding like an LLM wrote it, you probably shouldn't use an LLM to write your question... Athanelar (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

dealing with talk page disruption?

On the 15th of december, Talk:soyjak.party was semi-protected by Mfield because of disruptive editing. I still think that this talk page has a lot more disruption than usual, what should I do?

thanks wikipedians! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If the page needs more protection, you can request this at WP:RFPP. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

done! thanks claudine ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Stats on Wikipedia

Hi, I am trying to find the approximate number of Wikipedia biography articles for people(Both Living and Dead, basically all). I would like to see the total number of Wikipedia articles on particular professions, Can you help me how to look this up? For example, I know that of the 7.1 million Articles, around 2.1 million are human biographies, but how can i find more info by specifying it further by profession, country, gender, ethnicity etc? Codonified (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try looking for an applicable category; e.g., Category:Carpenters has 58 pages on various carpenters. Athanelar (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking for academicians, mathematicians, scientists engineers to be specific,

And when I go to such categories, there are more sub-categories, the problem is that it is impossible to count,

Like I did something similar to what you said, and it took me months to tally and estimate the final number, The most I get is 200k articles of Mathematicians, Scientists, Engineers, Academicians, Professors(Only STEM ones), and basically anyone who has contributed to science and maths in any meaningful way.

Also i realized that a lot of these Biographical articles im trying to tally may not be included in those categories, this makes the number even more than the one I stated Codonified (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, there's no way for Wikipedia to automatically categorise and tally articles; so unless people add those articles to categories like Category:Mathematicians then we simply have no way to keep track.

If categorising people is something you're interested in, you could always work on doing so, perhaps with help from WP:WikiProject Biography. Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

PetScan, Quarry, or perhaps even Wikidata:Request a query? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with infobox template

Hey! I'm trying to add a module to an infobox template of mine – that is, I'd like my template to consist of a part which I made myself and one below it that already exists as a separate template. I am very new to creating templates. Does anyone know how to insert this module? I have absolutely no coding experience, so could this be done without Lua? I can show an example of my progress so far, so maybe someone can point out where I went wrong, as the module currently doesnt work:

{{Infobox
| child = {{Yesno|{{{embed|no}}}}}
| title      = {{{Title}}}
| label1     = Any label
|  data1     = {{{Any data}}}
| label2     = Another label
|  data2     = {{{Another data}}}
|  header3   = Separate module should go below:
| module4 = {{Infobox any example
| child = yes
| image = {{{Any image}}}
| caption = {{{Any caption}}}
}}
}}

Of course, this is just an example, but I'm wondering if my format is wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated! Rockfighterz M (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the best place for technical questions. Athanelar (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Although in this case, Template talk:Infobox might be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Company hiring Wikipedia article writer

I saw a job posting for someone to write a Wikipedia article about a particular company. I've seen that in the past as well. I guess I'm wondering if something like that should be reported somewhere? Or would that just be addressed after the page is posted, if it sounds promotional? Bleepbloop678 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there already an article about this company? If so, it might be worth bringing this up on the article talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Bleepbloop678, although many or most editors frown on paid editing, it is not forbidden by policy. Paid editors must make a full disclosure as described at WP:PAID and are expected to fully comply with policies and guidelines, especially the Neutral point of view and restrictions on conflict of interest editing. They must also submit a draft article to the Articles for creation process. You can keep an eye out for a new article about the company. But the mere existence of the advertisement is not a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit been undone.

I tried updating the YouTube stats of Lana Condor, as it had not been edited since 2023, and was outdated. I am a new editor, and it was my first time editing a page. The information i had was directly from Lana Condor's verified YouTube channel. From what i have gathered, it was undone because 'it did not appear constructive', and i think that is because i did not have any other sources to back it up - other than the direct page.

(As you can probably tell, i am very new to this, and *not* a pro. I'm also sorry if what i say is not entirely understandable, English is not my first language, so i'm trying to translate this as best as i can.)

Like i said earlier, i think i know why it was undone. Yes, because i did not have a secondary source, but - through a little bit of research - i also found out it may have been undone because the numbers should not be there at all, since they are constantly changing. I do not know if that is a fact, but you'll see my suggestions for this confusion to be cleared up under.

I noticed that the YouTube statistics were already present in the infobox since 2023 and tagged as “needs update”. I only updated the existing figures using the official channel.

If YouTube statistics are no longer considered appropriate on the page, would it be better to remove the entire YouTube info section instead?

I was redirected here from the message i got to inform me that my edits had been undone.

Kind regards, Novasillah (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. From what I can see, the change of total views from 27 million to 4 million is likely what resulted in your change being reverted. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Questions on citations

Hello, I’m doing the “tutorial” and I’m being prompted to move on from copy editing and linking (but I’m not ready!). Sometimes in articles one will come across a citation needed tag. At what point can the whole sentence or paragraph be removed? Is there an agreed upon time limit? For example, if a citation needed tag has been there for 2 years - and if I can’t find any sources - is it appropriate to just straight up remove the unsourced information? I have read the Citing sources page but I couldn’t figure it out. Can you give me a black and white example of when you would just straight up remove something that’s unsourced? Thanks so much. Itsaclarinet (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Itsaclarinet. This is a question without an easy one-size-fits-all answer. For example, we are more stringent about unsourced claims in biographies of living persons than other types of articles. The nature of the unsourced claim also matters. You should be quicker to remove an unsourced claim that a living person was arrested in a barroom brawl than that the person graduated from a known high school in their verified home town. When you say you can't find sources, that raises the issue of how thoroughly you are searching. Do you have access, for example, to historical newspaper databases, or are you just relying on a simple Google search? How skilled are you at writing search queries that separate the wheat from the chaff? How high visibility is the article? An article about a medical topic is held to a more stringent standard than, for example, a biography of a lesser known artist who died 300 years ago. In the end, it comes down to good editorial judgment, which is probably the most important skill of a productive Wikipedia editor, and the most difficult to quantify. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks very much. Itsaclarinet (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

May I trouble you with an example I’ve found? The tutorial prompted me to Shōnen Gahōsha. There is a citation needed tag on the statement “Its current president is Isao Imai.” I could not find a news article or anything like that. Then I went to the company’s website and translated it to English and the President is, from 2024, Satoru Imai. The Japanese version of the article also has Satoru. So, reading about primary and secondary sources, is it ok to cite their site for something straightforward? Is it an issue if the site is in Japanese? Thanks again! Itsaclarinet (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Itsaclarinet, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for Wikignoming.

Yes, that kind of information can be cited from their own website. See WP:ABOUTSELF for the criteria to consider.

Having said that "current" is not a useful word in any Wikipedia article, unless it is qualified by a date: I suggest you reword that as well. See MOS:NOW. ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks for these links, Colin. Itsaclarinet (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating a navbox template

I've been thinking of creating a navbox template to use in some pages that I'm contributing to, but I don't really know exactly how to create one. I already have the code figured out, and it works in the sandbox, but how can I bring it into the main template namespace for use in regular articles? Below is the template:

Zach1055 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zach1055. You can save the code in Template:Urban rail transit in Algeria and write {{Urban rail transit in Algeria}} in the articles. Try to avoid redirects like Oran tramway and Sidi Bel Abbès tramway in navigation templates. It breaks a feature which displays it as bold text in the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the help. Zach1055 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeking clarification about MOS:EDITORIAL

MOS:EDITORIAL states that words like "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while" are not recommended to be used in articles in pursuance of WP:NPOV. So what other words should I use when stating two facts that contradict one another? Astley101 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

No, Astley101, it says that words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Yes, may, possibly. Various words may imply various relationships. So watch these words. (Indeed, watch all words.) I've used all of them and don't remember anyone complaining. You needn't fret about this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! I initially thought that the guideline discouraged these conjunctions for all statements (even those that are actually backed by sources). Astley101 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete Information

This guideline page seems to be carelessly written and is also incomplete: WP:Editing Your Own Page. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your link. I agree that page is useless. Apart from anything else the title implies that people can have "their own page" which is not correct. You are very welcome to improve it or make a suggestion on the talk page; that is how Wikipedia works.Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I read this and this and it seems to me that disclosing the COI hardly matter because editing your own page is simply not allowed 'without following strict rules'. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also I would like to be reminded of how much freedom an editor has, even with COI disclosure, when he touches article related directly to him and his in-relation. A user I noticed seems to seems to be editing his and his relatives articles, though mentioning his relation in summmary. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Orwell reader, and welcome to the Teahouse

Does WP:FAQ/Article subjects answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Well I spent a lot of time reading about the subject on guidelines pages, forums and talk pages. I think I have very much idea about "freedom on COI". Yeah, thanks for asking. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a guideline; it's merely an essay. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Noticed that, but later. Blame my eyes. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Wikipedia:Editing a page about you; but it would probably be better to redirect it to Wikipedia:About you.

Folk might also be interested to read the quotes at User:Pigsonthewing/About self. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I remove/add the copy edit tag?

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and want to try out the Guild of Copy Editor's Backlog elimination drives for January 2026 but I have no idea how to remove or add the relevant tags (eg copyedit, GOCE, in use, etc.) as instructed here in the main drive page. Thank you in advance :) Girl so confusing (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Girl so confusing At the top of any article when you see a {{copyedit}} tag, tag usually something like {{Copy edit|date=January 2026}} in the source code), you can remove it and replace it with the {{Goce in use}} tag. Remove the {{Goce in use}} tag once you have finished copyediting. That's all your good to go to next article. on how to record your work please follow Instructions for participants CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Girl so confusing (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleting and republishing other people's work

Happy 2026. It happened that I added a large (and very laborious) table to an article. A user completely deleted it, putting the page in draft mode. So I drafted a list with the table, and at the same time that user created the same list in the mainspace, using the code he deleted from the original page.

Result: my draft was rejected because the page (written by that user) already existed.

It's a bit frustrating, because I don't get any credit for the work I did, since the page now appears to have been created by him.

I'd like to know: besides being frustrating, is this also unfair? Sinucep (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

When that user created List of OSCAR satellites they put in their edit summary "Created list from article", so (while they're not very specific) they did attribute the origin of the list to the OSCAR article.

Unfortunately, you don't own anything you produce on Wikipedia, no matter how much effort it takes you, and you should expect no thanks or credit for your hard work. Ultimately the list you created is in mainspace and does have its own article, so who cares if you're 'credited' for it? Your work is on the encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is designed to symbolically recognize the work done by users. Aside from that, I think it would have been much more appropriate if the user, while I was working on the article, had written in a talk space: "Why not make a separate list?", instead of deleting and copying-pasting without any discussion.

Also, the fact that he put my page in draft mode: others must use draft mode, and he doesn't. He wouldn't even look if the page he's publishing already has a draft.

Personally, I would never act that way. Sinucep (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Which page did they 'put in draft mode?' OSCAR (satellite) is in mainspace, and in fact it's Rangasyd (the other editor) who put it there. Athanelar (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There are still guidelines which should be followed. WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Splitting are the two relevant to this topic. @Sinucep, if you feel inclined, you can request (on their talk page) that the other editor attribute the table to your article (see step 5, #4 on WP:Splitting). – Quinn ΘΔ 14:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Quinntropy, I'm glad I learned about these gudelines. There's a lot to learn in a community as large and diverse as Wikipedia's. It's just as important to respect the efforts of others as it is to ask that others respect yours. Amen ;) -- Sinucep (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Or you can request an admin to do a history merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Khorly and the drone strikes

I hope this is the right place to ask for some help with this.

Recently, an editor created an article for the Ukrainian village of Khorly (currently under Russian occupation). According to Wikidata, the article exists in a number of non-English Wikipedias. However, the English Wikipedia article cited a single source that was about the drone strike in the town and not the town itself, so I moved it to Draft:2026 drone strike in Khorly. And this is what the article looked like at time of moving. An administrator then deleted the redirect (because it was a redirect to draft space).

Now, editor User:Sajnovics is telling me (via email) that they found sources and so on. And to be fair to them, they have apologised for calling what I did vandalism, I think that is important to say. They also seem to think that I am in control of the article and that I deleted it. I tried explaining to them on their talk page (User talk:Sajnovics) and on the talk page of the draft (Draft talk:2026 drone strike in Khorly) exactly what had happened and what they could do to accomplish what they want. It seems as though I am not explaining it the right way.

Could another editor please try to explain to them what moving, deleting, creating, draftifying means on Wikipedia and how articles are created and titled? This is a new editor and I am in no way asking for sanctions (which is why I am at the Teahouse), I just need help explaining how things are done on Wikipedia. I tried my best, provided links and so on, but to be completely honest I don't want to spend any more time on this.

Thank you.

@Sajnovics: You can ask as many questions here as you want. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an article titled “Khorly” (Kherson Oblast, Ukraine, various spellings, in Ukrainian Хорлі, Russian Хорлы) in seven languages: Armenian, Chechen, Chinese, Minnan (Taiwan), Romanian, Russian, and Ukrainian; the articles in Russian, and Ukrainian cover the latest events in the village under the entry and not in a separate article.

The English "Khorly" entry was moved by TurboSuperA+ to "2026 drone strike in Khorly" (draft), a lemma that does not exist in any other language, which I criticize here: events related to a location belong in the article about that location, as in the Russian and Ukrainian articles and, in future, probably also in articles in other languages.

I don't understand why TurboSuperA+ didn't just mark it as a stub for other editors and why he doesn't want to revert the renaming of the lemma.

TurboSuperA+ has no objection to me creating an English article entitled “Khorly”; I do object according to relevance criteria to an article entitled "2026 drone strike in Khorly" being created. I could easily write a few dozen articles on similar drone strikes that took place last year in Ukraine and its Russian-occupied territories, always with reference to a location.

I don't now have questions, but I have a suggestion: revert to the article "Khorly" as it was, mark it as stub, and omit draft "2026 drone strike in Khorly", I agree to edit the article about the location in a timely manner.

Sajnovics Sajnovics (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

In short:

1. replacing entry "Khorly" (settlement) with "2026 drone strike in Khorly" (draft) violates Wikipedia:Notability (events)

2. there are entries for the settlement of Khorly in seven languages.

3. there is no entry for “2026 drone strike in Khorly” in any language.

4. in the Ukrainian and Russian entries, the 2026 drone strike is handled in the entry for the settlement under “History”, others will follow.

What should I do? Sajnovics (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

First, stop referring to what is done on other language Wikipedias. Each language is a separate project, with different policies. What happens on other Wikipedias has no bearing on what should be done on the English Wikipedia, and any part of your argument based on what is done on other Wikipedias will generally be ignored.

Right now, the article contains one short sentence about the village, and the rest of the article is about the drone strike. So as it stands, the title seems appropriate. If you wish to make the article be about the village, you could start by expanding the draft with sourced information about the village. CodeTalker (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Newcastle KB United statistics page

I believe the highest home attendance figure is incorrect, Easter 1978? v Sydney Olympic attendance was 18,368.

I believe your quoted highest attendance of 16,000 is incorrect, Easter I believe 1978? Via Sydney Olympic attendance was 18,368. ~2026-70807 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-70807! Can you cite a source for where you got that figure from? That would help since we can't just add figures we ourselves made. If you can, then this will be corrected. Although I should note that I did check the Newcastle KB United article. It says this in the supporters section. (without any sources cited):

"Newcastle KB United set many crowd records during their time in the NSL holding the record for the largest crowd to a domestic game in this country until the formation of the A-league. This record was 18,367 against Sydney Olympic in April 1979, a year when their average home crowd exceeded 10,000."

This makes me think that you were off by a year, so, find a source for this claim, because I doubt that this isn't the exact figure that you are referring to. If you can't, I'll find it myself to help, but thanks for bringing this to our attention. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Wrote a movie synopsis for the first time, any comments?

I have edited the page We Bury the Dead to add a summary. I watched the movie yesterday so I thought it made sense to write a synopsis from memory. I have read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and some other pages that it links but I'm still curious if my synopsis is too long or not, any comments? I don't want to copy-paste the entirety of the synopsis here so go to the We Bury the Dead page if you want to check it out. I understood the idea of cutting out not fully necessary information, but We Bury the Dead is a movie that places a lot of emphasis on "minor" moments so I tried to still include things that I felt were "significant enough" while still cutting out a lot. Chompylover2011 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chompylover2011: I'd say to rename that section to "Plot summary", but honestly aside from that, it's pretty good! I think that you did a fine job here, maybe some fat could be trimmed, but overall, it's not that bad. Plot summaries are always where the prose has to shine, and I think you did a good job there, too. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much! Someone already renamed the preceding section to "Premise" so I don't know if I should still rename it to plot summary, but thank you very much for the advice and kind words! Chompylover2011 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

If i get flagged for vandalism will reputation be hit. (This vandalism wasn't purposeful but i made a mistake that definitely could have come off as vandalism by ClueBot) MrEdits1 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dont do it again, you'll be fine. I didn't look btw. - Walter Ego 16:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding content and reverting of content added to wiki

I've notice that pages are semi - protected and just wondered why, I have seen through the history notes on certain pages that certain user were reverting cited content and they reverted leading to edit ward just because they disagreed with the content published. So for clarity and I hope you guys don't mind me asking is content only allowed on wiki that is found on the internet or is content allowed from published content, including magazine, newspaper articles that maybe not on the web.

I feel it's important that as new editor on here no content should be removed or reverted by any user or admin unless correctly proven its not factual. If I'm wrong on this then some help would be great. but after reading wiki protect page and according to wiki Reverting. It clearly states reverting a user edit tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion.

Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

So for example if I posted content from a newspaper article from 1987 yet this was not found on the net and may be not published in other countries is this allowed. because what I've seen looking through numerous articles users reverting correctly published content without even providing and explanation and this I believe really needs to discussed and clearly put into wiki legal code of conduct. Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be available globally. They also, however, do not need to be free or easy to access; if you want to verify a source that is only in a library in Alaska, you need to travel to Alaska to do so.

Please also read WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Member thank you for your response so does this mean in simple terms that if edit is submitted it should not be reverted by an editor until that editor correctly disputed the content, Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guinnessdrinker32 No. That something is cited does not necessarily mean it should be in included in a specific article, there are several factors that might be relevant. It's factual that Barack Obama is rather tall, but that isn't mentioned in that article per WP:PROPORTION (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States though...). In simple terms, if you add something (new editor or not), and someone reverts you, first see if you understand why, perhaps you agree the reverter is WP-right. If not, you try to discuss the matter with the reverter. More at WP:BRD.

And yes, having your edits reverted can feel unpleasant, I think most editors will agree with you on that. But it's part of life on an open wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Song article help

Any credible resources I can use to find song length, producers, songwriters, b side, etc. info? Most articles don't cite a source on it as far as I can tell. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: Unless an editor requires you to, it is generally assumed that the source you got the basic song details from is the song's own liner notes/credits. See MOS:ALBUM for more info about this. (I know that you are talking about a song, but the advice there also applies to songs as well). _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also if you need to find reliable sources, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Yes, this is about songs, but the sources there can apply to songs as well as more often than not the sources here also cover songs as well as albums. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FloblinTheGoblin. For uncontroversial song information, you can use primary sources or even the slipjacket itself: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label qcne (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

US PD-tagging

Hi. I need help in figuring out how to figure out the appropriate US PD tag for the image Recueil. Portraits d'Allal El Fassi, homme politique marocain (XXe s.) - btv1b85299742.jpg. The image is in the public domain in France and was taken in the mid 50s. It's for the page Allal al-Fassi. Thank you in advance Mayouhm (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mayouhm, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think, since you uploaded this to Commons, you'd get better answers there, specifically at C:COM:Village pump/Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice on creating an article for Tennyson Schad / Light Gallery (COI Disclosure)

hello i am a new editor who got off to a bit of a rocky start but i would like some help creating an article on Tennyson Schad and the light gallery , I have a conflict of interest as my wife is Tennysons daughter, im unclear if i should work with an editor or try and create the page my self in AFC , or if there was an editor in art history or photography that would be willing to help?

Tennyson was a first ammendemnt lawyer who founded the light gallery in 1971, It was the first NYC gallery to exclusively represent Modern photographers as fine artists, Artists like Harry Callahan , Aaron Siskind , Garry winogrand, and was recently subject of a show at the centre for creative photography in Tuscon.

References

• Institutional Archive (CCP):

• Expert Commentary (Charles Traub):

• Exhibition Record (Fine Books & Collections):

• Legal/Professional (Norwick & Schad):

• Art Market History (Gallery 98):

References

Hoping too find someone too help and if the legend that is @qnce is intersted that would be amazing

Best Mark Mann Mark Simon Mann (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Text borders

Hey, so does anyone know if it’s possible to use wikimarkup to create a border around text? Not a background, a border, like the edges of the letters are a different color than the insides of them. I’ve checked WP:Signature tutorial (even though I’m not using it for a signature, I thought I’d find something helpful there) and Help:Wikitext, but didn’t seem to find anything.

Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 01:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This can be done with CSS in wikitext. For example, <span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 0.25px blue">example</span> produces example. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; that’s exactly what I needed. This is probably gonna make me sound uneducated in wikitext, but I didn’t know it could include CSS. That’s interesting. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

repeated links

in the geoguessr article, under "History", in the 1st paragraph, it has a link to the google streetview article. in the 2nd paragraph it says google streetview again but no link. is this right? i don't know. ~2026-82424 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

riddle

“I am both everywhere and nowhere. I am older than time yet born in every moment. I can be felt but never touched, measured but never held. Some chase me, some fear me, and some ignore me—but I am always with you." who am i User of thy name (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)