Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1270

Archive 1265

←

Archive 1268

Archive 1269

Archive 1270

Archive 1271

Archive 1272

→

Archive 1275

Neutrality Issue on British MP Page

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

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

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

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

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

I want to mention the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you change your signature

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

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

Illustrating for Wiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

finding an image I've uploaded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dimensions of a state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need to become extended confirmed user

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

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

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

First visit

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

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

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

did not appear constructive

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

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

I just want to ask 2 things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for letting me know!

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

help

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

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

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

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

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

(I advised using the Article Wizard)

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

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

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

'NoIndex' and 'NoFollow' Meta tag

Sabarisan Vedamurthy

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

Screenshot: (Redacted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK nomination

Hello. How are you all?? I have a concern: my September 29 DYK nomination of Titanic Collapsible Boat B seems to be stuck in this sense: It was approved by a user who was immediately blocked afterwards, so, I asked what happened next... But no one answered, and that's not a problem, but I see that it is no longer for further review, and it seems to be in a limbo. May anyone clarify this to me or help me? Thanks. CoryGlee 12:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CoryGlee! It's still listed as a "Pending DYK nomination" in the categories. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PhoenixCaelestis :-) ... oh, thank you! I wasn't able to locate it. Thanks again. :-) CoryGlee 13:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Youtube videos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bug prevents new users creating pages

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

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

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

This should be fixed by Monday.

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

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

I am being denied normal access of Wikipedia

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

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

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

Unable to create pages or save edits - page keeps refreshing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I change the following to remove copyright

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

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

Stanjik, are you asking the following?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to update A person's life information

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

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

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

Question regarding submission

Hello,

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

Link: Draft:Everard Entertainment

Thanks,

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

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

"Review waiting, please be patient.

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

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

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

It: Welcome to Derry; Episode 2

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

Courtesy Link: It – Welcome to Derry#Episodes

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

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

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

Have you seen.....

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

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

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

Wrong stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits rejected by ClueBot. How can I make progress?

Dear All,

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

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

Many thanks

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

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

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

Becket controversy

Becket controversy

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

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

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

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

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

Translation

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

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

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

Please note that, because English Wikipedia has stricter rules on sourcing than many other Wikipedias, translating an article to English is often (not always) a much bigger task than simply translating an existing article, and I would give the same advice as I give to new editors wanting to create articles: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

There is some guidance at WP:Translate us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is my rewritten sandbox draft ready for AfC submission?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all sources need to meet those criteria, we simply require that at least three do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the promotional articles. Excessive spamming at best

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

This is WP:SPAM.

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

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

Thank you @Horse Eye's Back

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

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

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

@University of The Purple Unicorn: you have created 19 deletion discussions, I would withdraw all but the first and see what happens at COIN. Possibly a discussion at WP:ANI will be needed, possibly a large number of nominations can be bundled. A WP:AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) user may be able to help with tagging the articles. I have found 451 articles with Miss Grand in the title and we should avoid having 450 separate discussions. @Horse Eye's Back: what do you think? TSventon (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Prete Bhutani

Im having difficulty publishing the article, It comes up as draft only. And not allowing me to 'submit for review'. Please could you look, as what am I missing? And help me publish if possible. Bhupinder29 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate information so you can submit it(it's provided if you use the Article Wizard). However, please see Referencing for beginners; references should be in line next to the text they support. You should also review the definition of a notable actress to make sure that she meets it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that Times of India is not the greatest source to use, see WP:TIMESOFINDIA. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also ~Im not able to delete the term Draft from Draft:Prete Bhutani. When Im trying to submit, its findable by this name only. Bhupinder29 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bhupinder29 Yes, that correct. It is at Draft:Prete Bhutani and won't be moved to mainspace until submitted for review and accepted. At present, it would cetainly be declined if submitted because it does not comply with the policy concerning the biographies of living people. Please read that carefully. You are a new editor here and it might be better to put the draft aside until you have learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by contributing to existing articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

biography draft

Hi there, could someone please help move my draft page User:Pablo246g/sandbox to Paul Spong Musician Trumpeter?

It’s a biography draft for Paul Spong (musician/trumpeter). I’m not yet autoconfirmed so I can’t move it myself, and I want to preserve the edit history.

Many thanks! Pablo246g (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You can submit it for review through WP:AFC. Looking at it right now it would be declined because it does not cite any sources. Ultraodan (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Since we already have an article about someone else at Paul Spong, it is likely your article, if and when it meets our standards, would be moved to, say, Paul Spong (musician). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, that makes sense.

Please could my draft User:Pablo246g/sandbox be moved to Paul Spong (musician) instead? Pablo246g (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You'd first need to address the points made by Ultraodan, above. I'm also not clear why you think we'd publish an article which includes the line "Based on the research from our previous conversation, here are the documented singleswhere Paul Spong is specifically credited with trumpet contributions:". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Since it's written by an LLM, as Pigsonthewing has pointed out, it would also be rejected on that basis alone, and the tone is pure self-promotion too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pablo246g, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like almost everybody who starts editing Wikipedia and immediately tries to create an article, you have written something that superficially looks like an article but is completely unacceptable in its present form.

To use an analogy from housebuilding, it is as though you said "I want to build a house, and I know what a house looks like, so here is the house I've made", without knowing anything about surveying, structural engineering, or legal requirements for new houses. If people tell you what you're doing wrong, you probably won't even understand them.

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, and not much else. What the subject, or their associates, say or want to say is almost irrelevant. Also irrelevant is what you (or I, or any random person on the internet) knows or thinks about the subject, except where that knowledge has been published in reliable secondary sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Can't publish my sandbox page

I’m trying to publish a test sandbox article for my project titled GoalSphere (sports news website). But when I click on the “Publish changes” button, it only shows a preview and doesn’t save. Could you please check if my account has any edit or autoconfirmation restrictions?

Thanks! — User:Amjadwriter Amjadwriter (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a bug that prevents creating drafts/articles if any external links are in the text. The workaround is to first publish a page without any content at all, you can then edit that page to add the content. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

- Seattle Mardi Gras Riots pg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every continent, including the one discussed in the article, would benefit from listening to what thoughtful intelligent foreigners have to say. However, I understand not being familiar enough with the event, or wanting to avoid becoming a target for anger and arguing. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Article Edit History

Hello, I've been editing and publishing the article "Center for Internet Security however", however my edit history is not available, and I was wondering why that is. I've been using the direct edit button from the article as my sandbox is not working. Remadjiadda (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Remadjiadda. I'm not sure I understand, but I suspect you are getting caught by the same bug as in the last but one question on this page. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please review h11qq11

Please review Gravitational water 2550 69 11hne (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be unusual for a topic like this not to have coverage already. Is it related to Soil_mechanics#Soil_classification or Seepage? I have a concern it is a term with no significance in science or engineering that is used by a particular textbook, but an expert opinion is needed. Are there more sources? Commander Keane (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing enough varied websearch hits to suggest that it is a recognised term; but the term is seemingly also used to refer to water pulled by gravity (only) through a filter for drinking purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mmm, the links I gave were engineering orientated whereas I think gravitational water is a sciencey thing, perhaps for agricultural understanding. Soil_moisture#Moisture_level_concepts mentions the term. I found that article through the {{Soil science topics}} template which should be added to Gravitational water.

Maybe the current article is trying to describe soil moisture levels, and should called that? See Wikipedia:Summary style; the parent section in Soil moisture can link to a more in-depth article.

My meagre understanding is that soil gets saturated, and after 24-48 hours is said to be at field capacity (the excess removed was gravitational water). Soil can have hygroscopic, capillary and gravitational water within it. This is also related to Pore space in soil.

I would say you have stumbled upon an underdeveloped topic 2550 69 11hne :-). Commander Keane (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

😮 2550 69 11hne (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I need it to be marked as reviewed because it is an important science topic.2550 69 11hne (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@2550 69 11hne That isn't how Wikipedia works. New articles are reviewed by the New Pages Patrol in due course - there are thousands of new articles awaiting review and only a small number of volunteer Patrollers. qcne (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have moved and modified the article. Commander Keane (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about posting an image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, @Rick Norwood. If you give us the full URL we could try and work out how to do it. (On the image page linked above, you have only given https://comicskingdom.com , which is the top level of the site and doesn't take us to the actual image). ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the image on my computer, but all my attempts to upload it on Wikipedia have failed. I'll be trying to do so all day today. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've made a lot of progress. Thank you for all your help. I've been able to upload the page. The file name is now File:Prince Valiant by Thomas Yeates.jpeg. Is is uploaded to this location: File:Prince Valiant by Thomas Yeates.jpeg. But I still cannot upload it to the Prince Valiant page.

I hope I can continue to have your help for what I hope is the last step. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It was Andy Mabbett who told me (see above) that I could not publish a tiff and needed a jpeg. But now, Andy proposes to delete the jpeg because the file already exists as a tiff. What should I do? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No I did not; and no I do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this article worthy of deletion?

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

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

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

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

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

But it would be a valid reason for nominating the article for deletion should a search reveal a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Seat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll watch how the nomination plays out. Yhvr (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Page review

Hey everyone my page was reviewed then I think unreviewed after a page move. Can any patrollers possibly mark it as reviewed as it was also rated C class on the content assessment scale? Regards, dom 11:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

How not to start an edit war across multiple articles

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

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

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

You know, the more i think about it, the more i can say is... What was my brain thinking? So now that i learned my lesson, all of the articles with the mentions of "the installment of the Cheers franchise" are now removed. By the way, i hate to ask this question. If Mario was a Donkey Kong spin-off, why can't Banjo-Kazooie and Conker considered to be Donkey Kong spin-offs? I don't know, Nintendo owns the first two, while Microsoft owns Rare (including the latter two). HollandJack2002 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

This is not quite accurate, according to my research. Ronny Cox was on St. Elsewhere, but we know his true origin. All of existence resides, in fact, with Deliverance. [cue the banjo players. All of them.] TooManyFingers (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

When is bias in article/tone acceptable?

Hi guys and girls of the Teahouse,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This makes sense! Thank you TMF! Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit streak

Hi all, I would like to have an edit streak that tells me how long I have been editing for without a break, like the daily streak Duolingo is famous for. I have the "longest streak" information available, but I would love to keep track of my activity everyday. Is that a feature? Thanks. Kvinnen (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

See your home page, i believe it works Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

doesn’t work from the app version of wikipedia Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not directly, that I know of. See https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Kvinnen for your editing statistics. On that page you'll see a list of every month since you created your account, and a bar graph showing your edits for each month. Any month with less than 30 edits, you can assume is the start of a new streak. According to that, your current streak started in June. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a more specific, day-to-day tool at https://streaks.toolforge.org/! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And thank you! Kvinnen (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Kvinnen (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyplace for serious discussion w other editors about the future of the English Wikipedia?

Is there anyplace on Wikipedia where a serious discussion can be had about "the future of Wikipedia, given AI coming, and our own recent problems with ideological bias in hot-button articles"?

I'm not interested in unproductive arguments that signal, or make wiki editors feel good. But as a 21-year editor with tens of thousands of contributions, I'm seeing a new epoch could be dawning, and would really benefit from a serious discussion with serious editors about that. N2e (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia:Village pump sub-pages may be a place to start. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Will post there. N2e (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Date of Birth Known, Only Month or Months of Death known. How to show that?

Hello, Apologies if this has already been answered previously. I have tried to find a similar question and was unable. I am having trouble with a page Jungle Phillips, where I know the date of birth, but I only have a month or months for the date of death. This may likely change as further obits/information comes to hand. But so far, the templates for calculating age etc, only seem to work if you have a full death date, with a year (or year and month) for the birthdate sufficient.

I am seeking to effectively flip this, and have a date of birth known, but a month and year for the date of death, which would give me a correct calculated age, instead of the range that I am currently experiencing.

If I am just missing a template, I have not been able to find, please let me know, otherwise, any way of working around this would be excellent. Cheers. Basetornado (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Basetornado, I assume you are talking about the 'Died' field in the Infobox, which currently shows, October 2025 (aged 68–69). This looks correct to me; are you seeing something else? If not, what are you expecting to see? Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I know the date of birth and I know the age. I currently haven't include them, because I was looking to get help with it first. I just don't know the exact date of death. But the templates, seem to not allow me to list a known date of birth and a month date of death with a correct age, rather than a range so to speak. Because I know he is 69, because he was born on 27 June 1956, and died in October 2025. Just looking for help to include that effectively. Basetornado (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Basetornado You could use {{Death year and age|2025|1956|10}} → October 2025 (aged 68–69) . Or, just type his dates and age at death manually. The template is supposed to make your life easier, not harder; if it isn't helping you, then don't use it. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Very fair. Will do just that. Just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing a template. Thank YouBasetornado (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph nickname criteria

Hello everyone. I have noticed on a lot of person articles that those who have a nickname don't include the "________" in the introductory paragraph, and only some do. What exactly is the criteria for this? Are derivative or diminuitive nicknames allowed for it to be quote un quoted?

Take this for example:

Jonathan Williams, his nickname is Johnny. So in the introductory paragraph, is it possible to put Jonathan "Johnny" Williams. Hoagy Carmichael's real name is Hoagland, yet Hoagy is listed there, as Hoagland "Hoagy". Maybe you can help me find the basis on what type of nicknames count to be listed or not?

Thanks. SpiritEdit (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse!

MOS:BIOALTNAME has some info on this. Generally I think the nicknames are only added if they’re reflected in a majority of reliable, independent sources.

I don’t have much experience with this, so hopefully some other editors will reply with some more detail :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I will view the article you have sent. SpiritEdit (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SpiritEdit: This is covered at MOS:NICKNAME. I'd say that Johnny is a common enough nickname for Jonathan that it shouldn't be included in quotation marks (especially if the article is titled "Johnny Williams"). Hoagy is an uncommon nickname, which is why it's Hoagland Howard "Hoagy" Carmichael. Deor (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! At first I thought, maybe derivatives of the name as nicknames weren't allowed, and nicknames that were totally different from the first name like Robert "Spunk" Collins, which in this case would be allowed since, as you said, Spunk is an uncommon nickname. But I thought it had to something with the form (conpletely different nicknames, derivatives, diminuitives, hypocorism, etc.)

Much thanks, SpiritEdit SpiritEdit (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

New user naming conventions

Do new users default to randomly generated names? I don't think I missed something like that, but within the past week I've seen multiple new accounts like:

~2025-31508-68

~2025-31499-33

~2025-31666-89

Is there some sort of pattern here? Just hoping for some clarity. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi@PerpetuityGrat. Indeed, this is a new feature that rolled out a couple of days ago. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Temporary accounts qcne (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. Was trying to ensure this wasn't a weird multi account ploy. I will check that out. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

html usage

i use HTML and many people do so, is there a way to use it in templates? Tester6462656543 03:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Tester6462656543, you can use some HTML in templates, especially for tables and much simple markup, but some things are restricted. See Help:HTML in wikitext. Mathglot (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Source Reliability

Is a Google Scholar profile considered a reliable source? I've only begun looking for sources for an author by the name Rob Larson (author of Bleakonomics), so far I've only found enough to make a stub level article. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 15:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SenatorLEVI. A "profile", wherever hosted, is usually compiled by the subject or their associates, and so is not an independent source. It can therefore be used for the limited purposes of a self-published source but does not contribute to establishing notability.

In my opinion "only enough to make a stub level" indicates a misunderstanding. If a subject meets the criteria for notability, then an article is possible; if not, then an article is not possible, even as a stub.

I wonder why anybody would create a stub in 2025? If you've collected enough sources, you've done the hard work. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that clears up somethings. I did not mention that it was simply for the introduction. I will of course find other sources to expand on the person's work. SenatorLEVI 09:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Being notable is not the same as being well-known or being famous, but it is related.

If I told you I was a well-known scientist, and I tried to prove how well known I was by just showing you my identification, that would be missing the point. Being well-known means "... to a large number of unrelated people", not just well-known to myself.

Notability works in a fairly similar way. Showing someone's ID doesn't really help. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The identification is only for the person's profile. I will find and use other sources to make the article and add actual material to it. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 09:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fine Dandy

Please help me alter my article to conform to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you to whoever changed the title to Fine Dandy (horse). I appreciate this as I was worried about the duplication. I’m stunned at this review as the reviewer has made a massive error. I have never used AI. I don’t know how to use ChatGPT and don’t know what a large language model is. From what I’ve read in newspapers AI can’t be trusted. Every reference I’ve given in this article is genuine and correct, the result of painstaking research through old newspapers. The reviewer’s comment that “The references seem to be made up” is ridiculous. I’m a retired academic who has written books and many publications in journals and have also been a reviewer of articles submitted to journals. When I showed my wife the reviewer’s comments she couldn’t stop laughing. She’s a linguist and now teases me that “I write like a large language model” and warns me to stop making up references. She’s still laughing as I write this.

When I review an academic paper I try to be helpful, referring to specific parts of the text and pointing out errors or omissions. It would be really helpful if the reviewer or other experienced editors could pinpoint specific parts of the text that are problematic such as “sentence X has characteristic Y which transgresses Wiki’s policy and needs to be omitted or modified”. I would really like to be told which of my statements are vague and speculative and which are hallucinations (plausible sounding but false information). It’s quite possible that I am guilty of Essay-like writing but I’d like these aspects to be identified for me. However it’s logically impossible for me to Close Paraphrase sources that don’t exist.

No form of AI has been used to write this article. The newspaper references are all genuine. In the late 1950’s, early 1960’s horse racing was very popular in Australia and dominated the Sunday Sports Section. Rugby League was a few pages further back unless it was a Final or Grand Final. The Sydney Morning Herald and the Age (in Melbourne) were the leading reporters on horse racing. They are the best sources to use to get an accurate picture of a race. The reviewer tells me that “The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them…”. This is what I have done.

Please help me alter the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. Bg1970 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Draft:Fine and Dandy (horse). Nil🥝 00:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Earth605 (who declined the draft) may wish to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Doing a spot check of some of the references on https://trove.nla.gov.au/ show that they do exist. It may be helpful to reviewers to include URLs to the articles (along with headline/titles), but it's not a requirement (as offline sources are still sources), and not something that a Draft should be declined for. If the reviewer is able to comment which references they think are non-existent that would be useful.

Racehorses (and WP:NSPORT in general) is not an area I'm familiar with, but a quick search on Trove indicates the subject would easily pass WP:GNG due to the abundance of significant coverage available. Nil🥝 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you put the doi of the papers and the links where you find the newspapers. Simply putting a name and a date doesn't mean anything. Also, the ISBN must be linked to prove the references are real when it comes to books. Just putting Sun Herald, date and a page doesn't help with the never-ending "Wikipedia ain't reliable, folks!" movement. AI likes to make up references too and I once approved an AI draft that got deleted on the basis of made-up references (Steering links). Personal experience. Sorry for the inconvenience. Earth605^talk 06:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bg1970:

1. Most importantly: I think you need to revise the [sections] into shorter narratives. They're very long and filled with puffery.
2. Also please:

• convert the inline textual references (eg "SMH, 13 April 1963: 15") into actual inline citations (with titles); and
• fix the inline citations that you have inserted, by turning them into full citations. (Also write out SMH in full.)

MmeMaigret (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bg1970 Another point. I get the impression that you've only cited the source at the end of each paragraph. This is very common in academic writing but, on WP, we need a citation for each fact (which sometimes means a citation for sentence fragments). Because people can and will amend your text, they need to now which facts are supported by which citations. So that when they rewrite sentences, reformat paragraphs or restructure articles, the citations do not get separated from the citations.

tl;dr So if a citation at the end of a paragraph supports each sentence in the paragraph, can you please put (ie reuse) the citation at the end of every sentence in the paragraph not just at the end of the paragraph. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret I thought that was only for WP:BLPs? WP:CITETYPE allows for end-of-paragraph citations. Nil🥝 05:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nil NZ I shouldn't have said "need" but the problem was there was a mix - most paras had inline paragraph citations but some paras had inline sentence citations (and those didn't always have citations for every sentence). MmeMaigret (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Bg1970, How are you accessing this newspaper page information? For example, I am looking at section § 1958 Breeders Plate, 5f of your Draft, where citation #4 says, Sun Herald, 5 Oct. 1958: 34. Are you using the Sydney Morning Herald Archives search? When I do, I get this result, from which we can construct the following citation:

<ref>{{cite newspaper |author=<!--staff writers; no byline--> |date=5 October 1958 |title=Front Cover's Bold Display : Shock for Stable in Plate Win |newspaper=[[The Sun-Herald]] |location=[[North Sydney]] |issn=1323-1987 |page=34 |url=https://smharchives.smedia.com.au/Olive/APA/freesearch/?action=search&text=5_October_1958#panel=search&search=6 |oclc=67710301 |quote=Front Cover upset his stable's bets as most punter's when he beat stablemate Fine and Dandy, in yesterday's Breeders' Plate at Randwick.}}</ref>

You could style your citations like that. Only one citation for the Sun-Herald needs to include the unchanging information in every citation (location, issn, etc.) others can skip those, but you should repeat the full newspaper name in every citation, even though it repeats. Including the article title and date are usually basic, so should be in every citation. So is author name, if known; if not, adding <!--staff writers; no byline--> shows that you didn't forget. The quotation is not required, but may be helpful for WP:Verifiability; if you are already looking at the page with the quotation and it doesn't cost you extra to include it, then why not. Here is an abbreviated version of that citation, with minimal required info:

<ref>{{cite newspaper |author=Author Name (if known; otherwise:<!--staff writers; no byline-->) |date=dd Month YYYY |title=Title of the Article |newspaper=[[The Sun-Herald]] |page=1234 |url=smharchives url here</ref>}}

Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft approved. Fine and Dandy (horse). Commander Keane (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Page notice

On some pages, like here on the teahouse or on AlphaBetaGamma's (no need for ping) user page. How would I make one for my user page? dot.py 16:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, is Template:Notice what you're looking for? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dot.py. I guess you want an edit notice which appears at top of the page when it's edited. Template:Notice is not that. AlphaBetaGamma uses User:AlphaBetaGamma/Editnotice. See Wikipedia:Editnotice for general help, or just try making a page at User:Dot.py/Editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that was what they were talking about. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what I wanted. Sorry I wasn’t able to respond as I was in class, and also I only just realised that I accidentally omitted the explanation for what I was looking for. dot.py 20:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

New York Times

Just a question, is the New York Times mostly reliable or is it just dependent on the article they made on the subject? rave (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_New_York_Times. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source

I want to know that does global voices, is reliable source or not. 獅眠洞 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞 It's evidently not a reliable source. They state We have hundreds of volunteer writers (like Wikipedia) and I couldn't find any mention of editorial oversight. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How to Restore Old Parent Categories I Previously Removed

Hi everybody! I recently received guidance from another editor named Smasongarrison about non-diffusing categories under WP:EGRS. I had previously removed parent categories such as Category:American lesbian comedians and Category:Filipino gay comedians, but now I understand they should remain included.

I’d like to add these pages back to their old parent categories, but I’ve made several edits and it’s taking time to find them all manually. Is there a faster way or tool to identify my past edits involving these categories—or perhaps a bot that can help restore them more efficiently?

Thanks so much for your help and patience! Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

On the page where you view the list of your own contributions, there's a Search function. If you click the little triangle beside Search, there are choices to let you search for only special items - do any of those help? (I often need to play around with the choices many times, to improve the results I'm seeing.) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the tip! I didn’t realize there was a search function with extra options on the Contributions page. I’ll definitely try using the triangle menu and play around with the filters to find my past edits more efficiently. I really appreciate your helpful advice!

Best, Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This stupid robot

A robot named ClueBotNG keeps telling me my edits are vandalism and deleting them. Is there any way to get it to stop interacting with me? IGV-1 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is, @IGV-1! See Template:Bots. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

IGV-1, if its a false positive, report it so that it can be fixed. Also, Taking Out The Trash is not a bot; he just warned you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IGV-1. Here are some suggestions to you as a new editor to make things easier for you. Do not engage in edit warring behavior to try to force through your preferred wording in articles. Do not use confrontational or insulting language in your edit summaries. Do not try to argue with useful bots. They do not have the ability to argue with you. Just report false positives. Do not confuse human editors with bots. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

oh God I'm so sorry IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Each time you edit something, it finishes by asking you for an "Edit summary" where you explain what you did. Vandals don't fill those in. Real editors do fill them in. When you don't explain, it makes you look like you're hiding something. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Vandals don't fill those in. TooManyFingers, they can and they not infrequently do. When they do, the summaries tend to be generic ("Fixed typos", etc), but there are exceptions. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

True, some of them do. And there are decent editors who often don't. It would be wrong to spread some idea that edit summaries are a conclusive way of determining who's who. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

So.. are edit summaries needed or no? IGV-1 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please, IGV-1, use them, and make them informative and accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

IGV-1, every edit you make, should improve an article in some way, no matter how small. How does your edit improve it? The answer to that question may be included in the edit summary. Wikipedia is by its nature a collaborative volunteer enterprise; that is core to its very DNA. Writing an edit summary is a way of collaborating with your fellow editors, letting them know what you are up to, and why your change to an article is for the better. This helps other editors decide how to budget their time, if they wish to dive deeper and look at the edit, or move on to something else. Editor time is the most precious resource we have at Wikipedia. So, yes; please do use an edit summary with every edit. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this, I'll do this going forward. IGV-1 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

same!! ~2025-31290-55 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For real DaytonJupiterSABFan2015 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft delay

Why is draft taking so long to be reviewed? Any way to send it to see if it can be reviewed quicker?

Draft:Kielania Been 5 days sitting at Draft. Not rejected, just waiting. Is there any way to get drafts reviewed quicker (e.g. submitting to somewhere)? If not, then would anyone here be kind enough to review it? Abdullah raji (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Abdullah raji. Have you seen the note at the top of the draft Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. qcne (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have. I guess I'm a bit impatient. Abdullah raji (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

20 wikipedia pages!!!!

So far ive made 20 wiki pages, so, yippee i guess Rishi88888888 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rishi88888888 great! But the Teahouse was made to ask questions though. Do you have any questions we can answer? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe make your userpage next? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions.

If you make very short pages, you can tag them with {{Stub}}, or one of the similar but subject-specific stub templates. This flags them to other volunteers as having potential for expansion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rishi88888888 or if you want to tag short articles easier, see WP:STUBSORTER. I recommend you try it out! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Is BAPS apart of the Swaminarayan Sampraday?

about BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday

1. Legal and Organizational Split The 1935 Legal Ruling: The legal case in 1935 between the Acharya of Vadtal and Shastriji Maharaj made it clear that BAPS swamis had been excommunicated from the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. A local judge ruled against Shastriji, recognizing his organization as independent from the Vadtal diocese, and stated that BAPS had no right to use properties belonging to the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Independent Institution: BAPS operates as an independent religious organization with its own governance, hierarchy, and temples, distinct from the traditional Swaminarayan leadership. The excommunication and subsequent legal ruling solidified the independence of BAPS.

2. Theological and Doctrinal Divergence Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar: In BAPS, Gunatitanand Swami is worshipped as Akshar (the eternal, unchanging divine counterpart to Purushottam Swaminarayan). However, this concept of Akshar-Purushottam is not found in Swaminarayan’s original teachings and was introduced later, particularly by Shastriji who claimed he was a manifest of god. Doctrinal Innovation: Swaminarayan emphasized strict adherence to Purushottam (Krishna) as the Supreme God. The Akshar-Purushottam doctrine, which became central to BAPS, was developed after Swaminarayan’s passing and represents a departure from the core teachings of the original Sampraday.

3. Leadership and Succession Dispute Shastriji Maharaj’s Claim as Manifestation of Akshar: Shastriji Maharaj (Yagnapurushdas) claimed to be the third manifestation of Akshar, a direct divine successor. This claim to divinity and the establishment of adoptive succession for leadership in BAPS contrasts with the traditional Swaminarayan Sampraday, where leadership is passed through the Dharmakul (Swaminarayan’s bloodline). Swaminarayan Sampraday believes in the scriptures that leadership should stay within the Dharmakul, the bloodline lineage of Swaminarayan adopted children from his brothers. BAPS, on the other hand, adopted a system where Shastriji Maharaj and later BAPS gurus were chosen as spiritual successors, which was not part of the traditional Swaminarayan system.

4. Contradiction of Swaminarayan’s Directives Swaminarayan's Command on Leadership: In his writings such as the Desh Vibhag and Satsangi Jeevan, Swaminarayan made it clear that leadership should be within the Dharmakul and that only those from this lineage should hold the position of Acharya. He also emphasized that tyagis (renunciants) should not take the place of the Acharya, and anyone outside the Dharmakul should not be made a guru. BAPS's adoption of a new succession system and the selection of leadership outside the Dharmakul violates this central directive. Desh Vibhag Lekh “….It is my command to all sadhus, brahmcharis, and all satsangis, that for the purpose of your kalyan you must obey and follow the two Acharyas of the Dharmakul, and obey their commands by thought, action and speech. Whoever turns elsewhere (rejecting the acharyas) will find that they will never find happiness in this world or the worlds beyond, and will experience immense distress…” The Satsangi Jeevan and Shikshapatri explicitly state that followers must adhere to the commands of the two Acharyas and their wives of the Dharmakul. BAPS’s rejection of the authority of the traditional Acharyas of the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses is a direct contradiction to Swaminarayan's writings on obedience to these established leaders as they have no acharayas.

5. Distinct Organizational Identity Independent Religious Entity: BAPS is a distinct organization that not only has a separate leadership but also a different set of practices and interpretations of Swaminarayan’s teachings. The BAPS Guru Parampara and temples are not part of the original Swaminarayan Sampraday’s ecclesiastical structure. The formal split between BAPS and the traditional diocese of Vadtal and Ahmedabad was finalized both doctrinally and legally, marking it as a separate entity.

I believe that in a encyclopedia, BAPS is not part of the Swaminarayan Sampraday due to its court ordered separation, doctrinal innovations (particularly regarding the status of Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar) and Dungar Patel claim that he is a manifest of god, organizational independence (separation from the traditional Acharyas and the Dharmakul), and the legal excommunication that occurred. BAPS changes many core teachings of Swaminarayan, and is a separate religious organization that diverged from the traditional Swaminarayan Sampraday in both theological and organizational terms.

Is this a fair assessment to remove BAPS from the Swaminarayan Sampraday page? Touchedme123 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Touchedme123, whether, for en:Wikipedia purposes, "BAPS" (whatever that is) is a part of "the Swaminarayan Sampraday" (ditto) depends on what reliable sources say. If there's some kind of dispute between BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday, then it's particularly important that the article depends on reliable sources that are independent of both BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday. You can discuss what the article should say in Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday, and I note that you have already started a discussion. There's no point attempting to start a discussion here; the teahouse is not for disputes over what articles should or shouldn't say. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] The fact that BAPS is mentioned 55 times in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article (as well has having its own Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha article) suggests that removing mention of it would be a major and probably controversial change to make, which others are likely to disagree with. Additionally, if BAPS was originally part of SS and was later split (in whatever way) from it, that fact and the prior history should still remain in the article.

Since this is a controversy about the article's content, the Teahouse is not the proper venue to discuss it. It should be raised in the article's Talk page – as you have already done – and debated there over an extended period (i.e. a week or more). If an agreed consensus is not reached, you may have to resort to dispute resolution by reading Wikipedia: Dispute resolution and following the routes described there. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2130.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up, @User talk:94.1.208.246 and Hoary. I was advised by another editor @User:Joshua Jonathan to raise this question here for broader input and clarification.

My goal is to ensure that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article reflects Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya was founded by Swaminarayan in the early 1800s. By contrast, BAPS (Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha) was established nearly a century later, in 1907, by Shastriji Maharaj, who introduced new theological interpretations and claimed a distinct divine lineage which included himself. A later court ruling also recognized BAPS as a separate organization and banned them from entering temple premises.

Given this background, I am struggling to understand why the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article currently contains any information about BAPS—its theology, practices, and deviations from the original teachings. The founder of the Sampradaya created the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not BAPS, and it seems disproportionate that the article mentions BAPS dozens of times. In my view, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article should focus on what Swaminarayan himself established, while briefly acknowledging the existence of later offshoots (like BAPS) with a link directing readers to their own pages for more detail.

I have also documented some of the scriptural and theological changes made by BAPS—such as reinterpretations of Swaminarayan’s original texts and the introduction of the Akshar–Purushottam concept, which was NEVER used by Swaminarayan himself. In retrospect, I realize that this material likely belongs on the BAPS page, since it pertains to their own doctrines rather than to the original Sampradaya. Including such details on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page risks misleading readers into believing that BAPS’s teachings and practices are part of the Swaminarayan Sampraday, which contradicts both historical and legal distinctions.

There is also a broader concern regarding neutrality and sources. Some of the publications that present BAPS as part of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya are authored by BAPS members themselves, which can create bias and blur the lines between the two traditions. Given that reliable legal findings recognize BAPS as a banned separate business, I believe the main article should reflect that separation more clearly.

To summarize:

The Swaminarayan Sampradaya article should focus solely on what Swaminarayan established and the institutions he appointed (e.g., the Acharyas, blood line and his family and scriptures attributed to him like Desh Vibahg Lekh not things like Swamini Vato which was created after Swaminarayan died and is the writings of Gunatitanand Swami. Does not make sense.

The BAPS article should independently cover its theology, reinterpretations, and organizational history. They have manipulated at least eight scriptures. The original are posted on independent sources. BAPS has their manipulated versions. Without original research, it is still notable on the BAPS page that they have changed or distorted or outright ignored the originals.

The main article should only include a concise mention at the end that BAPS is an offshoot, with a link to its page for further reading.

This is not a dispute resolution request but an attempt to clarify article scope and ensure due weight is applied consistently with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and reliable sourcing. Am I correct in my thinking? Touchedme123 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Your reply smells LLM-y. If it wasn't written by an LLM (like chatgpt) then feel free to ignore this. If it was written by one, though, I very much advise you not do that again. It wastes peoples time and you'll just get ignored (or worse, yelled at) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Touchedme123, whether or not the relationship between subjects X and Y is such that an article on X should cover Y is a content dispute. There's no justification for bringing it up here. In Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya you have advocated removal, but you haven't been successful. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what you may do and what you shouldn't do. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up.Touchedme123 (talk)

Article declined twice, advice please

Hello, I am writing an article about Greater Manchester's oldest pub. For some time the title had been claimed by The Wellington, however this building was demolished and rebuilt and also didn't operate as a pub until 19th Century. The article is to help build the narrative that The Olde Boars Head, backed by plenty of evidence and references is actually Greater Manchester's Oldest pub.

The feedback is that there isn't enough 3rd party references. There are currently 22 references 3rd party societies, newspapers and bloggers.

Any advice on what I could add to help have the article accepted would be really helpful.

Thank you so much in advance.

Draft:The Olde Boars Head Public House - Wikipedia

Many thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft- which is the best way to obtain feedback. That said, it would be nice if Rambley elaborated on their decline- as the subject seems notable as a formally designated historic structure. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The idea that a grade II* listed building, cited as such to English Heritage, is not shown to be notable is laughable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It clearly is notable, however there are concerns about tone and LLM use. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It is much appreciated. I have removed any words and phrases which could be seen as promotional. My hopes is that the article can provided an informative view on a building of importance. Do you believe that the reference and source are all acceptable and should just concentrate on the tone. Is it worth writing the whole article again? Many thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mooredoor1986 I'm not sure it needs a full re-write if you address the concerns of the reviewers. However, an additional point is that your WP:LEAD is much too long (see that link). It should just summarise the main text, which is where most of the information and sources should be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Mike, thanks so much for the advice, totally get what you mean. I will make the recommended changes. Really appreciate it. Thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, I amended all your recommendation including removing any promotional wording or tone, removed red links 'see more' section, rewrote all copy so nothing written influenced by AI. Hopefully it all reads better. Rally appreciate your recommendations and support. Many thanks Chris Mooredoor1986 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Airplanes (song)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Airplanes (song) § An entire section was removed. Was that a valid action?. If using {{pls}} is not appropriate for Teahouse, I'm sorry and please let me know if it was wrong to do that. CheckNineEight (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @CheckNineEight. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page was a good move: even better would have been to ping @Nikkimaria, the editor who removed it. (I've pinged them here, so they'll see this discussion)

Resolving disagreements on Wikipedia begins with engaging with the other editors(s), and trying to reach consensus. If you collectively are unable to do so, dispute resolution lays out other things to try, including some ways of inviting others to join the discussion.

I don't think it's wrong to come here and invite others to join the discussion; but I don't think it's helpful at this stage, and it rather suggests something like "I don't think I will be able to convince the other editor on my own, so I'd better get some other people to weigh in". (I'm not saying that that is what you intended, but that's how it comes across to me). ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that that is what you intended, but that's how it comes across to me

The {{pls}} template was not appropriate, got it! I was more wondering how to decide when something is "poorly sourced", and whether the deletion of the section was "illegal" or not, that's why I didn't even think to ping Nikkimaria (I don't think I can argue about that particular decision). CheckNineEight (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

General questions like that don't usually get useful answers, @CheckNineEight. You can look at reliable sources and WP:42 for overviews, but in many many cases it will depend on the particular instance. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Password

I'm Hell yeahhhh man and i made this to contact bcuz i forgot my password Hell yeahhhh mann (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! What exactly do you need help for? You might want to read WP:PASSWORD for more information regarding passwords and account security in general. jolielover♥talk 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I forgot my password and cant reset because I didnt set my email. "Hell yeahhhh man" was my original account Hell yeahhhh mann (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It might be somewhere in your browser settings. But ultimately, if you forgot your password and didn't give the system an email address for password resets, you're probably out of luck.

That said, you only created that account a few days ago, so it's not much of a loss. If you want, you can put a notice on your userpage saying "I used to be 'Hell yeahhhh man' until I forgot the password for that account". DS (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hell yeahhhh mann, you can also make the user and talk pages of your old account redirect to your user and talk pages on this account. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft Mobilart

Hi, I previously worked on a draft titled ‘Draft:Mobilart’ but can’t locate it now. Could someone help me recover or find it? Mobilart Meubles & Décor (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mobilart Meubles & Décor I see no contributions under this name. What user name did you use previously, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:46, 3 November 2025 (UT

Mobilart Meubles & Décor, a draft by that name has never existed as far as I can see. And your account has never edited a draft. If you started a draft but did not click the "Publish changes" button, then your work has been lost. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You'll need to change your username as it's that of your business, your username needs to represent you as an individual. I can change it if you tell what you want it changed to. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Billionaire vs grassroots PACs

Requesting 'noteworthy' discussion of billionaire vs grassroots PACs

In the article 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina I included an endorsement of a candidate by a grassroots PAC, which was removed because the editor felt that the PAC did not meet Wikipedia endorsement standards of a noteworthy organization. I undid the revision twice, but invite other editors to review the discussion on the talk page, considering the purposes of various PACs, and whether editors ought to include only endorsements by PACs launched/controlled by the powerful and the wealthy. I think we could do that, but would miss important dynamics that various PACs represent in a given election year's political contest, dynamics that are important to presenting accurate content.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not summon people in this manner. WP:INAPPNOTE describes how to invite editors to a discussion and it's important that the message is neutral. Framing it as a fight against "the PACs launched/controlled by the powerful and the wealthy" that you need assistance with is not a proper method. Nor was reverting a second time.

If you'd like to propose a change to a guideline, then you should go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Based on WP:ENDORSE, the removal of the endorsement was the correct move. Whether or not that's good on an ethical level or not, well, that's not really our jurisdiction here. We merely record the knowledge as found in society, we don't WP:RGW. And that frequently means that yes, people or entities that are powerful, rich, and/or connected may have an easier time being WP:NOTABLE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary sources that cover the endorsement, then it's likely a noteworthy endorsement. If you have to rely on a primary source, such as a Facebook photo from the organisation, then it is not a noteworthy endorsement. Wikipedia is more interested in what reliable sources say, than what organisations say about themself. Nil🥝 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Help publishing my sandbox article (Sebastian Brameshuber)

Hi! I have written an article draft about Austrian filmmaker Sebastian Brameshuber in my user sandbox. Could someone please move it to the main namespace? Here is the link: User:Sbrameshuber/sandbox. Thank you very much! Sbrameshuber (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sbrameshuber. The vast majority of your content has no in-line citations. In a biography, every biographic statement requires an in-line citation to a reliable source. qcne (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sbrameshuber Judging by your username, this is an attempt at autobiography. As that link explains, this is very strongly discouraged here and almost always fails. You must use the WP:Articles for creation process and be aware of the policy on biographies of living people summarised by Qcne. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ric Roman

Ric Roman, born Earl Breitbard, was the brother of DJ William B. Williams. Can somebody add that to his bio? I am reluctant to add a biography or family section to attempt this. (Their father owned a department store using the family name-Breitbard.)

Thank you. Ric Roman Cleftonefan (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How to fix a double redirect?

(from link redirect page to new main article)

Hello Teahouse folks! I have a question, I have created a draft/an article named as Thick and Thin (LANY song) (a single from LANY sophomore album 'Malibu night') and I decided move it to the mainspace/publish it as article (I'm sorry) since it stuck in AfC, and when I search it using Google search and Wikipedia search bar, it redirect to the album instead the single (the article that I had created). Turns out there is a redirect page that exist with the same name. I don't know how to fix that, so out of curiosity, I try edit it by change the #Redirect Malibu Nights to #Redirect Thick and Thin (LANY song) and when I publish it, it redirect to the same page, keep looping into the redirect page, so I have no options but to undo both. How to fix this because I want to know/learn how to fix it since I'm planning to do articles for singles from the Malibu Nights, in which i found all the singles that doesn't have their own article yet, all redirect into the album. Im sorry if my grammar is bad. DuskSky2018 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @DuskSky2018, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When a draft is accepted through AFC, the reviewer will handle any issues with title, disambiguation, redirects.

If you choose to move it yourself, you have to handle those; but moving over a redirect is something that ordinary users cannot do in many cases. In that case you should request it be moved at WP:Requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

oh i see, thank you and i want to ask that, if an article have move to mainspace, how to clean/delete the draft? DuskSky2018 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

man of the match parameter in the football infobox

I was editing the UEFA Futsal Euro 2026 page and I wanted to add the motm (man of the match) parameter in the football box for the tournament. However, nothing shows up when you put a name in the parameter. Is there any way of fixing this? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006 That's because the article uses {{Infobox international football competition}}, which doesn't have that parameter. The template you linked does have it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006: The article also uses {{Football box}} later like in UEFA Futsal Euro 2026#Group A. However, there have been no matches yet so I don't know why you want man of the match to appear now. Anyway, it appears that motm is only supported by {{Football box collapsible}} and not {{Football box}} which claims to support it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How can I add the motm parameter in the football box? I want the parameter for the future when the tournament starts. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ILoveSport2006. Template:Football box is protected, so only authorised editors can edit it. I suggest that you make your suggestion at Template Talk:Football box. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Info

So I was making an article which already has a counterpart in French, but some of the info is unverified. There are no public records that I could find. If I were to email the Regiment (the article in on the 152nd Infantry Regiment) how would I cite that? Vestrix (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, email exchanges or interviews that you yourself conduct with an article subject are not acceptable sources. The policy on WP:original research requires that all Wikipedia text can be verified by reliable, published sources. In theory, if you convinced an article subject to self-publish said information, on say, a website they own, then it would be acceptable for certain statements but not considered universally reliable (see WP:ABOUTSELF).

Your best bet is to find reliable secondary sources, or otherwise remove the unverified text. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Vestrix (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vestrix! One of the key policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, meaning that readers should be able, with enough resources, to double-check information on Wikipedia by themselves. If the regiment replies to you by email, you cannot cite that directly, as other people will not be able to access the email to verify. What you can do instead is ask the regiment, in your email, to publish the relevant information (on their website, or through some other outlet whose provenance can be verified), and cite that instead. I also invite you to read how to handle non-independent sources (which the regiment itself would be in the context of its own article) and primary sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Vestrix (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, they will direct you to, or supply you with, material that you can cite. So, if you email them, suggest you might ask them for or to point you to sources and material, as opposed to asking questions for them to answer. (But there are quite a few hits when you google "152e régiment d'infanterie" particularly Google Books - they may only be mentions but they might allow you to verify some facts.) MmeMaigret (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

While the above answers are correct, you could email the regiment and ask if they know of any sources that you can cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Also a great answer – they might know of secondary sources about their history that could be better suited for the article than an official statement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Page review

I created the page Barbula convoluta, can someone review it? Versions111^{talk to me :)} 16:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111 The new pages patrol will get round to it eventually. The Gallery could do with some captions, to explain why they are relevant/interesting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the gallery section, and replaced with == See also == section. Versions111^{talk to me :)} 16:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Lost submitted article!

Excuse me, I´m a technical nincompoop. I submitted an article that was rejected. An email was sent on this subject but it went to the wrong Hotmail file and got deleted. Can´t find the page of rejection notification. How can I return to the article for editing? Jay Teddy (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jay Teddy, You can find the message on your user talk page User talk:Jay Teddy, and the draft is at Draft:Plasticene Extinction. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jay Teddy. Your article was Declined, not Rejected.

'Declined' means "not up to the required standards yet, please improve [stated deficiencies] and re-submit";

'Rejected' means "no prospect of this becoming an acceptable article in the forseeable future, please give up."

If the subject of the draft is a real concept, it seems not to be widely named by the (admittedly apt) term that you've used, so Wikipedia (which explicitly forbids Original research including neologisms) cannot introduce the term. Is there some other term that multiple sources do use for the subject?

Good luck and happy editing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ok, resolved, tks Jay Teddy (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Article deletion proposal

I've tried nominating the article The Masked Singer (German TV series) season 12 for deletion (due to notability), but the proposal got removed by an IP account with no reason given. I still think that the article should at least be considered for deletion. WP:proposed deletion says After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion., but the deletion template said not to add it back. What can I do here? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wikieditor662, you cannot PROD the article again but you can take it to AfD. Articles can only ever be prodded one time! If you're not using WP:TWINKLE, I strongly recommend it - it does all the hard work for you, creating the required notifications and pages. You can use it to PROD as well, and it will auto-stop if it finds the article's been PRODded before. It makes the grunt work of editing so much easier. Enjoy and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I finally figured twinkle out and it helps a lot. Thank you so much for your help! Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Lbe scar

Who is lbe scar and how many albums has he released ? ~2025-31465-44 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is not a search engine. Please stop posting this everywhere.

(Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Who is lbe scar, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#When did lbe scar release his new albums ? When is his birthday ? How long has he been doing music ? What is lbe scar known for ? How many releases does lbe scar have ?) Aesurias (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Veefin Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@36Flames

Here are three examples:

• Microsoft
• Devolutions
• SCAA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP name

TBJZL

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

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

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

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

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

BLP name

TBJZL

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

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

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

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

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

Article name

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

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

idk how to use this

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

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

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

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

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

How to fix specific Info box errors?

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

Oh! I thought you had seen it already.

I changed this: name=gnbsuburbPSC/>

to this: name=gnbsuburbPSC />

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

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

Infobox citation

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

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

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

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

Is it okay to cite/edit a biography about a certain person using a source about a different person?

Heya Wikipedians!! I'm currently editing and finding sources for Louis Philippe, Crown Prince of Belgium. I found a decent source to cite but the cite is from the biography of a DIFFERENT person, Louise of Orleans, is this permissable since the biography of Louise has a paragraph about Louis-Philippe and contains similar information about Louis-Philippe that can be spotted in the article? DZ! (he/him) (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@DeZetator: I think that is fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources would apply. Without knowing the specifics, perhaps the source you found isn't the absolute best one available if it is written as an aside and not by a subject expert, but it may be better than nothing for the time being. Commander Keane (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The subject is pretty unknown, and its the only source I've found that would work alright, so sadly, I probably won't find a better source. Thanks for the help and advice @Commander Keane. DZ! (he/him) (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A question

 Courtesy link: Ukrainian Musical Encyclopedia

This might sound like a stupid question, but when writing an article about a book, if you use info from the book, do you need to add a footnote to it? I'm writing an article on an encyclopedia and the book has a list of contributors/editors that I can't seem to find in any other sources. WafflesInvasion (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

All the information in your article should be cited; if it came from the encyclopedia, you should cite that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the info and cite it WafflesInvasion (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Newcomer tasks - arbitration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to split an article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of reliable sources

Hi everybody,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situation here is that you do not yet (or, not until you read the answers above) have any idea of the requirements that Wikipedia puts on the subject of articles - requirements we call notability, but mostly mean "enough has been reliably published about this subject to base an article on" - remembering also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Unable to download from Wikisources

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

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

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

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

How do i find pages to edit?

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

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

- Find any page about something that interests you.

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

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

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

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

Two pointers that might help you:

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

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

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

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

why temporary accounts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template for user-specific stats

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

how do I approve a draft article?

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

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

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

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

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

Refer WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing

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

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

Draft:The Alibi (TV series)

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Alibi (TV series)

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

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

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

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

Request for help with Renishaw Hills article

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

Areas I need help with:

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

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

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

Where to get people to get concensus?

Hi

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

References

Opposition Indonesia

Bisa buatkan Saya article tentang Opposition Indonesia

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

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

Draft rejected. How do I edit to resubmit?

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

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

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

OK, try this -

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

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

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

Looking for guidance on my draft

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do i move Draft pages into the Mainspace?

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 do i move Draft pages into the Mainspace? Imakeflagsthe4th (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Imakeflagsthe4th You are using the recommended process for new editors, via your submission at Draft:Sarasas Witaed Bangbon School. Although in theory you could WP:MOVE drafts to mainspace, they would still be subject to review by the new pages patrol, who will put them back to draftspace, or even delete them entirely if the article doesn't follow policy. I suggest you focus on following the reviewers comments, especially relating to notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mike, the OP here didn't actually submit that draft, they did submit Draft:Duck TV (Latin America) though, which has already been declined. @Imakeflagsthe4th, you'll need to follow the reviewer's recomendation to include more WP:RS before resubmitting. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah! I looked at Special:Contributions/Imakeflagsthe4th which had an edit to that draft immediately before the edit here, which is why I was confused. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull and @DandelionAndBurdock I worked to translate show names in Spanish. Imakeflagsthe4th (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I was editing Duck TV (Latin America) then

this happened:

• An independent review found virtually no sourcing, even for the parent, Duck TV

Why??? Imakeflagsthe4th (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As stated at Draft:Duck TV (Latin America) your submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Click on those link for more information. The reviewing editor is pointing out that this may be difficult so the article would not be acceptable. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Duck TV (Latin America) is real

Is it? Imakeflagsthe4th (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

No one is disputing whether Duck TV is "real" or not (that's not even that important since there are many articles about fictional things) but it would need to be WP:NOTABLE to warrant a Wikipedia article - which is to be demonstrated with Signfiicant, Independent and Reliable coverage. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Why there is still "This article needs additional sources" flag after I modified a page

Good evening,

I'm a newcomer so my question might sound dumm but in the following page written in French, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Fragments_d%27institutions_r%C3%A9publicaines I added a lot of sources and modifications. And I do not understand why the "This article needs additionnal sources" flag did not even change or was updated. How does it work ? I noticed that the flag is in the code and that I actually can remove it but...sounds weird. Like, I can remove it and assume my changes are goodenough. I do not understand how does the review works in this case.

May I ask you some help please ?

Take care,

ZB

P.S I write my question here because I did not get any answer in the page, or in the page of the author of the book. Zeru berde (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, you should ask questions about French Wikipedia on that website, but in this case we can actually help you.

The flag is not automatic; indeed, no flags (or "banners" are). It was manually placed into the source code by an editor and won't be automatically removed at any time. If you think the problem is fixed, feel free to remove it yourself. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Cremastra By the way, I just saw the banner on the top of the code. But is there any more specific information provided somewhere about where was the problem ? I was thinking about a comment in the problematic line (I did not find any). Thank you Zeru berde (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zeru berde. Like Cremastra, I can only answer for English Wikipedia, but I guess it's the same.

Since tags like that are placed by human editors, they may or may not put some explanation on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @ColinFine Zeru berde (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata links

How did I, if possible, shorten these links to remove the QID from appearing on screen? Thanks. Fort esc (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fort esc, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The {{q}} template doesn't appear to have a parameter to suppress the QID, and I presume that is intentional, because most Wikipedia readers don't know about Wikidata, and are likely to get confused if they pick the link and go to Wikidata instead of a Wikipedia article.

You can suppress it by using the direct Wikilink: [[:D:Q124695999|Stanislav Yermakov]], which displays as Stanislav Yermakov, but I don't think this is desirable, for the reason I stated. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fort esc: there is another template, {{label}} so when {{Q|124695999}} gives you Stanislav Yermakov (Q124695999), {{label|Q124695999}} gives you Stanislav Yermakov. As @ColinFine: says, this may not be desirable TSventon (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Fort esc (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to use {{Ill}}; as {{Ill|Stanislav Yermakov|qid=Q124695999}}, giving Stanislav Yermakov.

If the article is later created, the template will link to that instead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This is what I'm using as I think it's the best option. Fort esc (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Staglol: Your signature (dark blue on dark purple) is unreadable. Please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Hi, I've already been informed of this, you can see the new one here. I made it in dark mode and didn't realize how it looked in light mode.  staglol   ctbs
talk 23:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi! I want to create a page on a local politician who's running for the US Congress in 2026, but there is no red text (just a name). How would I go about creating the page?

Thanks! 77eagle (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@77eagle: Maybe the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is the path for you to take. Otherwise, you could edit the article with just the name and create a link. For example in source editing mode, you could change:

• candidates include Mike Beard, to
• candidates include [[Mike Beard (Alaskan politician)|Mike Beard]], which will display as
• candidates include Mike Beard

Thus creating a red link. Commander Keane (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You need to be sure—and to demonstrate, through the sources you cite—that they meet our notability criteria for politicians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

77eagle, unelected candidates are rarely considered notable simply for running and getting routine campaign news coverage. Exceptions are cases where the person is already notable for other reasons, as an entertainer or athlete or author, for example. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood 77eagle (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

What to do if G15 doesn't apply?

If an article is unambiguously AI-generated but doesn't have any of the specific hallucinations listed as a speedy deletion criterion, what can I do besides tagging it with {{llm}}? The editor in question hasn't shown the competence to comply with WP:LLM and the template says all such content should be deleted, which means the whole article. lp0 on fire () 20:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You could draftify it, PROD it, or do something else. I'd be far more help if you actually linked to the article in question. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is Hair Pie. Sorry, I've been looking through new pages which is not something I'm used to doing, so I'm a little overwhelmed and not thinking things through as much as I usually would. lp0 on fire () 21:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

mk, thanks. I draftified it. That thing should not have been in mainspace.

Usually if something has a reasonably severe but fixable problem, draftification is the answer. If it's a severe but unfixable problem, like a lack of notability for the subject, deletion is usually the way to go. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind; thanks for helping (: lp0 on fire () 21:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you know it has no hallucinations? Not a single one of the cited sources is linked to anything. I know sources don't need to be online, but the nature of an AI is that they scan for sources available to them, so they should all be online. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I verified all those sources do at least exist. I wasn't saying it had no hallucinations, just none of the specific hallucinations that would qualify it for WP:G15 lp0 on fire () 07:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If the sources were 404ing, even if they do technically exist, I believe that's enough to tag it as G15 - it is unreviewed AI content because a competent human reviewer would have noticed that none of the sources actually work. Obviously people can make mistakes and one 404 doesn't mean it's AI, but when most or all of them are wrong... Meadowlark (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately they weren't hyperlinked at all. I think technically hyperlinks aren't required for references. lp0 on fire () 14:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Maconaquah consolidation

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

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

Sources and language match

Draft:Shihan_Igor_Soloshenko

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of anti-vandalism tools?

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

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

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

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

AV for most of my patrolling and reverting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about song pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing word

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

This is the paragraph below:

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

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

Hello, @Mike5one7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substacks

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

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

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

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

Ava Max - Don’t Click Play

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

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

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

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

Hello @MusicwikiNerd, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

I need some help it involves specialized Mathematics and Physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazbin Hotel Fan Songs

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information Updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you may do, however, once you have made the mandatory formal declaration of your status as a paid editor, is to suggest edits, using the edit request wizard. Please be as precise as possible in your requests, and remember that all information which you want added to the article (including replacing existing information) should be verifiable from a reliable published source, which you should cite. As far as possible, this should be a source wholly unconnected with your agency - and unless the information is uncontroversial factual information, it must be in an independent source. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Page

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

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

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

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

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

How to read inside an article?

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

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

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

How to find the guidelines on making/editing pages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

Reporting of vandalism and submit user to block from more edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template to store badges

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

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

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

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

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

Citing an Advertisement

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wrote a article Stub as a Newbie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Areux, and welcome to the Teahouse. The point is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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

Human penis should be deleted

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

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

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

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

Removed contributions list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages unreviewed by an bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need help moving my draft article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citati0ns

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

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

Valentí Gómez Oliver

Hello everyone,

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

Why he is notable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic" suggests he is indeed notable; but that needs to be demonstrated in the manner described. You're nearly there; you just need to complete the final push. I have added a template so that, when you feel it is ready, you can submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The Order of Merit of the Italian Republic is Italy's highest honor but it has six tiers. Its highest level "Knight Grand Cross with Collar" has been awarded to only 201 people in 75 years, so is quite exclusive. On the other hand, "Knight" is the lowest level and has been awarded to 146,390 people. I do not think that receiving an award handed out so liberally to two thousand people on average each year is a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

how can i get someone to review my article?

i spent alot of effort into it - so i appreciate it if anyone can review it. ~2025-31999-56 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at WP:peer review? I'm not sure if it's very active, however. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the draft you created, it has now been reviewed. Be aware that any article for creation submission may take up to two months with the current queue. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 22:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this trivial?

The Scratch (programming language) contains trivial history despite there being a history section to compile this information. Here are two examples:

"In Scratch, extensions add extra blocks and features that can be used in projects. In Scratch 2.0, the extensions were all hardware-based and Pen was a normal category. Software-based extensions were added in Scratch 3.0, such as text-to-speech voices, along with some new hardware-based extensions like the micro:bit."

"Many of the digital extensions in Scratch 3.0 used to be regular block categories that were moved to the extensions section to reduce clutter."

Is there a reason to sprinkle history facts in an article like salt when sections should be mostly talking about other aspects? Is there any special significance to them that it must be in the article? Kexy314159 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Kexy314159, you should bring up the issue (if it really is an issue) at the foot of Talk:Scratch (programming language). -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I was asking, in general, if this is something Wikipedia allows, because that information doesn't seem notable enough to be included. If I worded it to make it seem like a specific issue towards an article, then that's on me. Kexy314159 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources – these generally determine what information is worth including in the encyclopedia. The article in question appears to be a case study in what happens when this standard is not followed. Perception312 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am confused Help me .read my description.

So how do you open it? I am confused useless before please just accept my apology for what I said upfront. Will you help me with how to do what it says or something I’m not very professional stuff. I just need help sincerely, McMahon Everett, Jamey, man McDonald’s, man two yeah that’s my name , please reply ~2025-31884-94 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31884-94 It's not clear what you're asking. Is this a speech-to-text transcription? Can you restate your question more clearly? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think they're asking about their user page... I think they need an account for that however. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Swami Narasimhananda

This draft has been declined. Please help me in fixing this. Bindusouhrudam (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I would start by addressing citations. Your references should be reliable sources, cover the subject in more than a passing mention, and verify the information cited. The reviewer also noted that the draft shows signed of AI writing. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have verified all the citations. They are all independent reliable and verifiable sources and most discuss about the subject. Bindusouhrudam (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You still have many uncited sentences and sometimes whole paragraphs. If you do not address the issues raised by the AfC reviewer your article will not pass. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Bindusouhrudam, most if not all of your references do not help establish the notability of Swami Narasimhananda, which should be your most important objective when writing a draft article. Your sources must be reliable, and they must be completely independent of Narasimhananda and his organizations, publications and writings, and they must devote significant, in depth coverage to Narasimhananda. Interviews with him don't help, things he has written don't help, and brief passing mentions don't help. Why are you clogging your draft with so many unhelpful refererences that make things difficult for reviewers? What are your three best references? No more than three, please. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The creating editor has been advised at WP:AFCHD to enter into a conversation with the editor who declined it. Instead of taking that advice they have brought their question here.

@Bindusouhrudam Instead of asking in a second location, you ought to have opened a dialogue with the reviewer who declined the draft.

Take note of what the editors replying here have to say. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Reviews

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

Hi @Ppt2003. For both of these I am not seeing evidence of passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). The latter has serious issues with grammar. qcne (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Khondokar Faruk Ahmed was a singer of Bangladesh who sang in 150 films and have received multiple awards. How does a playback singer of 150 films and receiver of some of the most prestigious awards not satisfy the criteria of notability? About Hemendra Bhatia, how does an actor of several films, tv series, writer and acting coaches of biggest Indian Stars Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Deepika not satisfy notability criteria? I have provided references in support of the points. I will look into the grammatical aspects. Thanks. Ppt2003 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have copyedited Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. I also wanna mention that I wrote the same article in Bengali Wikipedia years ago and it was accepted there. Ppt2003 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The English and Bengali projects are totally separate and with different criteria- the English Wikipedia has the strictest criteria out of all the Wikipedia projects. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - I am not fully convinced either article quite meets our criteria, but it's borderline. qcne (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have looked at it. How a famous playback and radio singer of Bangladesh is not notable is beyond my understanding. I mean what other likely qualities should he have possessed to be notable?? Ppt2003 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ppt2003 I think you haven't actually looked at our criteria, because being famous does not equal notability in the Wikipedia-sense of the word. qcne (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: Wikipedia:Notability (music) please check no. 10.... Ppt2003 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Khondokar Faruk Ahmed obviously meets criteria no. 1 and no. 10 of Notability : Music. Ppt2003 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your sources, in order to satisfy Criterion 1:

1. Reliable, independent, significant coverage. A good source.
2. This source doesn't work for me.
3. Reliable, independent, significant coverage. A good source.
4. This source doesn't work for me.
5. No by-line, so I have no idea if this is reliable or not. Who wrote this?

qcne (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have tried my level best to improve the quality of sources for Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. Please do check & give your opinion. Ppt2003 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that's okay now, @Ppt2003, and the grammar is better. It will be reviewed by the New Pages Patrol in due course, but there is a large backlog. qcne (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in future, the best way to get an article reviewed is to create it as a draft and submit it for review via the AfC process, rather than publishing direct to mainspace and then asking for review in the teahouse. Doing things the first way means that the article can be reviewed before it's 'public' so to speak. Athanelar (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing Deepfake article: Subject:

Deepfake

The subject is the controversy surrounding the Atlas Comet, related comets. I have seen all over Social Media, including YouTube stating that Michu Kaku, Elon Musk and others are making some really interesting commentary about the Atlas Comet. I have Googled this matter as well, Google saying that Michu Kaku and others are warning people that they are NOT saying that the Atlas Comet is a alien device. How can I place this in the article? New at this. Also, what is up with the temp accounts? ~2025-32072-99 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The temp account means that you are editing while logged out, using an IP address from when you were recently logged in. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are now issued to all users who are not logged in; they have nothing to do with having been previously logged in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-32072-99 Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable source report. Please ignore social media and what "Google says" (I assume you mean Google AI) when considering editing any Wikipedia article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Searching for sources

Is there a good forum to ask for help on searching for sources? I am doing some research on Chinese feminism and I'm not particularly familiar with searching for sources in Chinese, so I'm not sure if there are specific search engines or ways to search. Katzrockso (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You can try WP:REFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You can ask on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects; in this case WT:WikiProject China seems the best bet, given the language issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikeversity Chess Team

Is it allowed to propagate the Wikiversity Chess Team here ? Harold Foppele (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "propagate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Mention where people can join and how. Its for “Wikians” who like to play chess. Harold Foppele (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I should renew my English course I used it as propaganda:) Harold Foppele (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele: I will provide the link to the Wikversity page to aid in propagation :-) If by "here" you meant the Teahouse, I guess you already have. If you meant English Wikipedia generally, the most relevant forum would be Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) but there is an asocial flavour around and I think the relevance of spruiking (a word to test of your English course ;-)) a chess team will be questioned. Long gone are the days when I travelled slightly north and stayed with a Wikipedian in their home in Lansingerland. I was going to suggest meta:Wikimedia Forum as it should be multilingual, but it doesn't look too active. Perhaps a quick note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess would be your best bet. Commander Keane (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You :) Harold Foppele (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikiversity Chess Team. Please join.

To all Chess players: There is a Wikiversity Chess Team. Free for all to join. Look at : Wikiversity Team Lichess.org.. See you over the board :) Harold Foppele (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikilinks to redirects

Hi, I frequently edit in VisualEditor, especially when adding links. Recently, redirects don't pop up the same way that articles do when inputting something for a link. It just doesn't appear as one of the things that are clickable in the menu. If the "done" button is pressed, the link shows as a redirect, but it didn't show up before in the menu, and the redirect target doesn't either. This isn't a big issue for me but it's a little annoyance and I'm not sure why. Thanks. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 16:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Review my Submission

Hello, could you please review this I published? Dekmantel. Urbanfel123 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason you put it directly in mainspace without going through the review process? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that isn't a submission, it's a mainspace article. Would you like me to move it to draft space for you so you can submit it for review? :) Aesurias (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You asked for it, Urbanfel123, so here goes. Dekmantel is feeble. Is there nothing more on the subject that's worth writing? Or is there more, but you can't be bothered to write it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I decided to draftify this article given the feedback from others here, it's now at Draft:Dekmantel, I think it needs a lot of fleshing out before going to AfC. Athanelar (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: When making such moves, please don't leave redirects from mainspace to draftspace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Not everybody can delete mainspace pages ... Aesurias (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, in which case you can tag the leftover redirect with {{db-r2}}, which lists the page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which is monitored by many administrators including me.

Personally I think this is a bug in the wiki software. It shouldn't be leaving a redirect behind anyway when performing a page move from mainspace into another name space. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I think I have a tool that adds it automatically so I didn't realize. Aesurias (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I've put a "submit" button at the top, for when you think it's ready to review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Lobachevsky (song)

Lehrer mentions an "analytical, algebraic topology of locally Euclidean metrizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds." As I progressed through my mathematics education, and I learned what each of those meant, I found out that they all describe nice and easy functions. The normal geometry we do is locally Euclidean. That's easier than if it isn't locally Euclidean. Most numbers are algebraic. Numbers that aren't algebraic are transcendental, and those are harder to work with. I thought that was interesting enough that it might be worth mentioning. ~2025-32097-93 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I cannot fathom if this is leading towards a question about editing a wikipedia article. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 23:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to bring this up is on the talk page Talk:Lobachevsky (song). My personal opinion is that unless you can find a source where somebody talks about that line of the song, it would be original research to discuss it; but others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Algebraic topology is a different concept than algebraic numbers. This shows why basing article content on one editor's original research is dangerous and can result in misleading content. I agree that any such proposed changes should be discussed on the article's talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Lorenz Attractor

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

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

thank you i am new to this and i appriciete the advice alot JG qwerty (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

thank you i am new to this and i appreciate the advice JG qwerty (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you i am new to this and i appriciate the advice JG qwerty (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Hunt: Article Feedback and improvement

Hi, I had my first article draft declined at Articles for Creation. I have read through the comments and referred to the Wikipedia guidelines and rewritten it under drafts below. Could I please get assistance on how it can be further improved? Lawrence Hunt Ash17e (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Please resubmit the article for review, via AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking feedback about my recently created article

Hello I recently contributed heavily on this article K Moses Chalai. And now currently seeking feedback and suggestions to improve it. Umar Choudhary8 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You should add citations to each of the statements (in some cases, whole paragraphs) which currently lack them; or remove those statements. The article should not have been published from draft without them. I have moved it back to Draft:K Moses Chalai. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance in consensus building

Hi all, wouldn't want to canvass, but would appreciate some assistance in the talk pages for 2025 Tanzanian general election and 2025 Tanzanian election protests, as there seems to be a row between two editors which has grown a bit hostile. Neither side need be banned or locked out for the time being, but both sides are firmly stuck in their positions, and one does not seem willing to accept just one argument (mine) for maintaining a series of the others edits without additional consensus. Any help would be appreciated. Context on the discussion can be found in the pages' history and on the relevant talk pages. All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion is a good mechanism for resolving a dispute between two editors. Even if neither one has formally requested a third opinion, there's no harm in you offering one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist, I think you misunderstand me. I have given my opinion, but @Af265 does not consider this adequate to overturn his opinion. This is why I'd appreciate an additional voice in the conversation to encourage him to stand aside; alternatively, perhaps this serves as proof to him of what I'd pointed out previously?

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yea, Wikipedia:Third opinion is the place to go for that. It's essentially what you're requesting here except it will be more official. If disruptive behaviour continues after that, I think it's suitable to escalate the matter Aesurias (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Follow up

If editors could please review the post "Request for assistance in consensus building, it would be appreciated. I appreciate @Anachronist's response, but they misunderstood the point I was attempting to make and thus left the question open and allowed this to get out of hand. I need assistance with this, the other editor isn't listening to anything that I or the other editor in conflict is saying and refusing to comply with consensus guidelines, to the point that it's bordering on WP:OWN. Help would be greatly appreciated. Am noting this here for @CircleAdrian so they know that this is being dealt with. My thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

CSGinger14, editors would be more likely to review the post if you gave a link to it. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse § Request for assistance in consensus building Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The advice you were given was good; as a second editor already pointed out to you.

Your only other option is to follow WP:DR and, ultimately, report the other editor to [{WP:ANI]]—where both of your actions will be reviewed.

This page is not a court of appeal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Article notability

Hello. I just did a little bit of research and wanted to ask if this information does not meet the notability guidelines for articles on Wikipedia.

According to the Florida HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Hillsborough County is located at the house with the address of 11811 N 51st Street in the Temple Terrace city limits. Based on this information, it appears to be a populated place associated with a specific address within the city limits of Temple Terrace. While it is not explicitly labeled as a neighborhood or subdivision, its location and classification suggest it could function as a small locality or community within Temple Terrace. It might not have formal boundaries like a designated subdivision but could still be recognized as a distinct area. Its unique identification might stem from historical or administrative reasons rather than being a planned residential area.

Based on the description from Puerto Rico HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Naguabo municipality, positioned at a roadway median on Puerto Rico Highway 53, does not align with the typical characteristics of a neighborhood or subdivision. Instead, it is more of a designated geographical point, possibly serving as a landmark or administrative feature. Its location in a roadway median suggests it may not include residential or organized community structures that are common in neighborhoods or subdivisions.

Mendoza (historical) is a former populated place in Sutter County, California. It is classified as a "historical" feature, meaning it no longer exists as an active community. The site is located near Live Oak, California, and falls within the ZIP Code delivery area of 95953. I have noticed that many communities designated as historical on the GNIS are called ghost towns here on Wikipedia.

The one in Missouri is no longer on the Geographic Names Information System's website or on HomeTownLocator, but because it was identified as a locale, this means that it was a geographic place in Missouri at which there is or was human activity. This definition does not include populated places such as cities or towns, but rather encompasses locations where human activity has occurred, such as camps, farms, or other dispersed sites.

As a result, I don't think these places qualify for their own Wikipedia articles, as stated on the notability guidelines, but I wanted to get some insight to clarify if it's correct. I have not created any articles on these topics. Thank you. Colman2000 (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think it's not notable enough, you can start a WP:PROD, along with a discussion. I was suggested using WP:Twinkle to help out with this, although I haven't figured it out yet. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have Twinkle enabled, then on any given article you can click the 'TW' dropdown in the top-right and you'll see 'PROD' which allows you to easily PROD the article. This doesn't display properly on mobile, but a workaround is to enable desktop view for the page and then you can access the twinkle dropdown that way. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it out, thanks. I didn't know that's how you used it; I thought there was a page for a panel or something, or maybe even that you had to install it. I'm glad to hear it's that easy. Are there any other super useful and underrated tools? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the English Wikipedia does not have articles on places named Mendoza in Florida, Puerto Rico, California, or Missouri. Was this generated by an AI/LLM? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Could be, the text style is ChatGPT-ic Versions111^{talk to me :)} 05:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think what this individual is asking is whether they should create these articles, not whether the existing articles ought to be deleted. Athanelar (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Updating Higherlife Foundation Wikipedia Page

I would like to update the Higherlife Foundation Wikipedia page Higherlife Foundation to ensure that it is current and accurately reflects their brand narrative. How do I go about doing this? Colette2204 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

To “ensure that it is current and accurately reflects their brand narrative.” is to go against Wikipedia's policy of WP:NEUTRALITY. Thus you should not do such thing. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 09:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Colette2204 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Higherlife Foundation]].

As you represent the charity or its founder, you should not directly edit the article, but you are permitted to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Higherlife Foundation, detailing changes you feel are needed. Jothefiredragon is correct that the article will not necessarily reflect what your organization feels it should say- it should reflect what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about it. That said, you are welcome to offer your input. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't represent the charity or its Founder, I am the agency required to update the page so it is current. How do I go about updating the page? Colette2204 (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Colette2204. As the agency required to update the page you should not directly edit the article, but you are permitted to make formal edit requests (click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Higherlife Foundation, detailing any necessary changes. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Required by whom? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am the agency required by Higherlife Foundation to update the page so it is current. Colette2204 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

So you do represent the foundation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make formal edit requests and how do I do this? Colette2204 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes; see the link provided by 331dot, above. You should also comply with WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

. . . and when you make them in Talk:Higherlife Foundation, please be as precise as you can (e.g. "Please change [current text] to [new text]"), and please supply references to reliable sources. For most revisions, the source must be independent of the Foundation. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Please have a good read of WP:BOSS and consider the information therein before you continue this undertaking. We strongly discourage people or organisations from getting involved in editing about themselves in any way. While making edit requests is the 'acceptable' way to go about such a thing, it is really, really better to not waste your time, because the kinds of edits you're going to want to make are no doubt not at all in line with Wikipedia's goals or operating principles.

Wikipedia has no interest in any company's 'brand narrative.' In fact we have no interest at all in what a person or company has to say about themselves. As an encyclopedia, our goal is to neutrally represent what other people are saying about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. This may be different or incomplete or completely wrong compared to what those people or companies want to say about themselves, and there is simply nothing that can be done about that, because if the information is not available in reliable, independent secondary sources then it cannot be reported here. People and companies have no ownership whatsoever over articles about themselves.

Thus, I strongly advise that you go back to your client and inform them that you will not be able to update their Wikipedia article in the way that they have hired you to do, because that's simply not how Wikipedia works. Athanelar (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your guidance and feedback.

To clarify: while I am working on behalf of Higherlife Foundation, my intent is not to promote a brand narrative, but to ensure that the article is factually accurate and up to date, in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I fully respect Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality and verifiability, and I understand that content must be based on reliable, independent secondary sources.

I plan to submit formal edit requests on this Talk page, following the recommended format (e.g., “Please change [current text] to [new text]”), and will include citations from independent media coverage, academic publications, and other reliable sources where applicable. Where primary sources are used (e.g., for factual updates such as leadership changes or program names), I will ensure they are clearly labeled and used only in accordance with Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines.

I’ve reviewed WP:PAID and will comply with the disclosure requirements. I appreciate the community’s oversight and welcome constructive input on any proposed edits. Colette2204 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You initially said "I would like to update the Higherlife Foundation Wikipedia page Higherlife Foundation to ensure that it is current and accurately reflects their brand narrative." So that's no longer the case? 331dot (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:YESPROMO. "Ensuring an article is factually accurate and up to date" is promotion.

Please also understand that we have all seen enough ChatGPT-generated replies here to know that you wrote this reply with AI, and that an AI-written statement we've all seen a million times does not actually demonstrate to us that you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm inclined to believe you haven't even actually read anything I said, because I have no reason to believe otherwise when it's a chatbot replying to me and not you. We have no interest here in conversing with an AI. Please reply in your own words. Competence is required to participate in Wikipedia, and that includes being able to communicate for yourself and not through an AI. Athanelar (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add primary sources to the Higherlife Foundation page and will go about doing so accordingly. Colette2204 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Colette2204. Wikipedia has very limited interest in primary sources. An article should be mostly (say, at least 95%) based on secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Image of a person in Biography who passed away

Deepak Verma (judge) is a biography article of a person who has passed away (BDP?). I had read somewhere that if a person is dead we can use an image of theirs as fair use, but I cannot find this in MOS:Biography. Is this a valid case? Please let me know, thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This is correct - and it's because the thing that bars fair-use images of living people is actually bullet 1 of WP:NFCC (a free equivalent can't be made if a living subject is deceased). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Noted, I'll add that picture then. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

is my editing count glitched?

hello my name is Zakk I was wondering why my editing count is glitched the basic number says 200 then my other one (with the bar graph to the right) says 201. is there any way to fix this issue? Zakkgamesontwitch (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Zakkgamesontwitch it is probably just a bit of delay in updating edit count. Don't worry about it, it's not like editcount is a good way to measure your contribution to Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

ive got it up to 218 for the one next to the bar graph but just the number says 217 Zakkgamesontwitch (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the above user just explained that there is a delay in updating. The bar graph tracks day by day.

Regardless, edit count is not an accurate measure of a user's actual contributions to Wikipedia. Many editors have hundreds of thousands of edits, but they're minor (like changing the type of commas used on quotes). Aesurias (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

How do i edit? I don't see an easy "edit" button.

My edit thing doesn't work by i don't see an clear edit button. Can you help me? ~2025-32704-45 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The exact location of the edit button depends on how you are viewing Wikipedia, but it is usually at the top of the screen or in the section header. It also may depend on what you are trying to do, some pages or articles are restricted to certain users. What exactly are you trying to do? 331dot (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Click the pencil icon. (This: ) Versions111^{talk to me :)} 23:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Or see what 331dot said Versions111^{talk to me :)} 23:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Royal Tunbridge Wells, England

Hello,

I’ve been reading the article about Royal Tunbridge Wells, England. I think reference could be made to the English writer and artist Denton Welch, who visited the town with his partner Eric Oliver … I imagine they often visited as the spa town wasn’t far from their home.

The writer talks about the town and its spa in THE DENTON WELCH JOURNALS. Page 163. Entry under 3 August 1945.

I have no idea how to add this to the page. Perhaps someone with more experience could. Thank you.

Kenneth Robinson Northern Ireland 10/11/2026 ~2025-32542-95 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kenneth, and thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.

Asking for somebody to make a vaguely-specified edit to an article is not usually very productive, unless somebody happens to see it who has a particular interest in the subject.

It is usually more productive if you do most of the work. Even if you don't know the specifics of editing, it would be helpful if you specified exactly what should be added to the article, and where, and give a source in a form that another editor can use.

So if you were to add to the talk page Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells something like Please insert the following sentence after ...: 'Artist Denton Welch visited Tunbridge Wells in ... and wrote the following about it in his journal for 3rd August 1945: ' ... ', citing the particular entry in the journals, there is more chance that somebody will make the edit you suggest, or else explain why they don't think it is appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

There is an article on The Denton Welch Journals and Google books has a version available which shows that Tunbridge Wells was mentioned several times. As already suggested, the best place for this is on the talk page of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-32542-95, the article already tells us that Tunbridge Wells is mentioned in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Valley of Fear, H. G. Wells' Christina Alberta's Father, Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines, E. M. Forster's A Room with a View, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, Arnold Bennett's The Old Wives' Tale, and Zadie Smith's White Teeth -- which looks to me like a pile of mere trivia that I'd be inclined to delete. Now, I can easily believe that a few of these "mentions" are more that that, instead saying something perceptive, witty, or whatever about Tunbridge Wells, and worth a concise description. Similarly, I can imagine that the visits by Welch and Oliver might tell us something about the place (as it then was). If so, then point out the "something". If not, well, very many people have visited the place; and so? The article shouldn't be bloated with material that adds little or nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback needed for my draft article

I need feedback regarding my Draft:K Moses Chalai article Umar Choudhary8 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Umar Choudhary8. You've submitted it for review so it will be reviewed in due course. Have you checked our criteria for inclusion? The person must meet one of the criteria in order to merit an article. qcne (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

page creation

I am creating a page on Wikipedia for the first time, kindly help so that it does not get deleted on re-submission. YDWAGH (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone would be able to help, given that you a) haven't linked the article and b) haven't specified what you actually need help with.

An article would only be deleted for justified reasons which would be explained to you. Aesurias (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@YDWAGH Your draft was speedily deleted as spam. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote this organisation. Have a careful read of our policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. qcne (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review for “Arthunkal Beach Fest” draft

Hi everyone,

I’ve recently created a draft article about Arthunkal Beach Fest, a well-known annual cultural and musical festival held in Kerala, India. The draft has been pending in the Articles for Creation (AfC) review queue for quite some time, and I understand there are many submissions waiting.

I’ve ensured that the article is written in a neutral tone and includes reliable, independent sources such as regional and national news coverage, along with proper citations.

Could someone please take a moment to review it or provide feedback on how I can improve it for faster approval?

🔗 Draft link: Draft:Arthunkal_beach_fest

Thank you very much for your time and help! 🙏 Joysjithin (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A notice at the top says "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." This draft of yours was submitted less than two weeks ago. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Joysjithin Unfortunately I do not see evidence this event meets our criteria for inclusion. Sorry. qcne (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Joysjithin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid you're making all the usual mistakes that people make when they come to Wikipedia and immediately try to create an article - especially if they are connected with the subject.

You have written an draft that is what the festival wants to say about itself. This is called promotion, and is forbidden on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without the added problem of a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request for Draft:Matthew Dunne

Draft:Matthew Dunne

Hello Hope all is well Can I please get more detailed information as to why it hasn't been accepted please? (I also updated my own User Page and indicating that "I am an employee of The Despatch Company. I am assisting with improving or drafting this article about Matthew Dunne in compliance with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest and paid-editing guidelines." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Br.Colak I have listed 5 independent sources in the page,so I don't understand why they haven't been considered as independent? Thank you Br.Colak (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Br.Colak. You claim that your sources are all independent. In order to contribute to the notability of the topic (Dunne in this case), the source must be reliable, it must be fully independent of the topic, and it must devote significant, in depth coverage of the topic. Let's take a look at your first source, which is a Top 50 entrepreneurship listicle. The coverage of Dunne consists of his name and title, and a banal, self-promotional direct quotation from Dunne that is only three sentences long. So, that source is not independent because what Dunne says about his company does not qualify, and is not significant, in depth coverage of Dunne. It is of no value. I believe that the other sources have problems as well. You uploaded a photo of coverage in the Driffield Post claiming it as your own work and identifying yourself as the copyright holder. Are you the owner or publisher of that newspaper? If not, your claim is false. The Growth Yorkshire and Warehouse & Logistics News sources show all the hallmarks of being the result of press releases/public relations efforts. Those are not independent sources and they do not provide significant, in depth coverage of Dunne as a biographical subject. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Br.Colak and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see my reply to the previous item, #Requesting review for “Arthunkal Beach Fest” draft, all of which applies. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitting the draft

Hello,

I’ve been working on a draft Wikipedia article for Draft:XUnlocked, a learning and development company. I disclosed my affiliation with the company and have made every effort to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability.

Before drafting, I reviewed multiple existing company articles — including Perlego — and structured the page in a similar way, focusing on informative content supported by independent, reliable third-party sources.

However, the draft has been declined several times. I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines, and I want to ensure the article meets expectations. We're not seeking to promote the company, but to provide a factual, well-sourced entry that informs readers.

Would it be possible to get feedback or assistance in refining the draft so that it better aligns with Wikipedia’s requirements? I'm very open to suggested improvements, especially regarding sourcing, tone, or structure.

Many thanks in advance for your time and help!

Best regards, Aveekam Aveekam (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Aveekam Hello. I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed.

If you want feedback, please resubmit the draft- we don't do pre-review reviews.

Unfortunately, you seem to have used one poorly written article to write another. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. There are many ways inappropriate content can get past us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

I'll also warn you, what you are attempting to do is not likely to succeed. Company representatives are usually too close to their company to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Companies trying to force the issue of creating an article are rarely successful, though it does happen. Are you the rare person who will succeed? Possibly, but the odds are against it. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Aveekam. Unfortunately Wikipedia has many hundreds of thousands of poor quality articles that no volunteer editor has gotten around to improving or deleting - so it's best not to draft a new article by comparing to existing articles. We review articles on their own merits.

I concur with the reviewers that Draft:XUnlocked reads like an advert, and you have not evidenced via Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH how this company meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

We're not seeking to promote the company, but to provide a factual, well-sourced entry that informs readers. Yes, you are, actually. Wanting to 'inform readers' about your company is promotion. Athanelar (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Iron Cross second class recipients

This isn’t really a question about an existing article but has anyone ever tried (on Wikipedia and the internet), to compile all the Iron Cross 2nd Class recipients (this might sound stupid considering there are something like 4 million recipients), I was just wondering whether anyone in the past has tried to make a page for that on Wikipedia (considering there is a list for other awards), or is the Iron Cross second class too insignificant to warrant such a grand article. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KeyolTranslater, and welcome to the Teahouse.

List articles are not normally intended to list all possible members, but only those which are independently notable, so that they are or could be the subjects of articles. So the project you are describing would not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

Note that there are categories such as Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross, 2nd class. By the way the software works, Categories contain only articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah ok, I completely understand that. Thanks for your time Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I don't think there actually is a complete list; even the number of about 4,5M recipients is more an edicated guess than real knowledge. Lectonar (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, I haven’t been able to find any full list (although I don’t know who would’ve undertaken such a task) I assume many were handed out without being recorded especially in the latter days of the war. (WW2) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1. What does the editor think and feel:
2. What does the editor say and do:
3. What does the editor hear and see:
4. What are his pains:
5. What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :) Tartaluca (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tartaluca. Some of your work is already cut out for you as Wikipedia:Editor reflections has hosted interviews for hundreds of editors covering some of these topics. You should check it out! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The Teahouse is targeted at new users; it is probably the wrong place to ask this if you want comments from experienced users.

Please see WP:Research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you :) Tartaluca (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure I’ll answer those questions (I wouldn’t call myself a new user or an old experienced one, I’m in the middle).

1. I feel proud and scholarly when editing. It especially feels satisfying to see a subject you care about be accepted as an article (for new articles), and it’s always nice to add to pre-existing articles too.
2. I can’t really answer what I say to be honest, and I do what I fancy doing really.
3. I don’t hear anything when editing, except the music I listen too 😂 and I don’t see much except Wikipedia and the sources I’m looking at
4. One of the pains is having an article go to draftspace/not be accepted and having an edit reversed (but there is usually a reason for those)
5. The gains are seeing your creation (a new article), come to life with information and other creators contributing and seeing your article get viewership (even if a small amount)

I hope my answers help with your survey 👍 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank so much I hope more people like you existed, just a small clarification with the say and do section. It meant like "oh look at this wrong info" and do something like change it but in a more various sense. for hear I meant like what do you "hear" from interactions with others users. Thanks again have a great day Tartaluca (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah ok that makes sense 😂, when I see wrong info I usually go off and find sources to change it, although sometimes we do miss wrong info.

Regarding interactions usually (at least for me) they don’t happen often, it’s usually when I’m asking a question or answering, or when an article gets declined, or telling someone something else on their talk page, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you Tartaluca (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1. What does the editor think and feel:
2. What does the editor say and do:
3. What does the editor hear and see:
4. What are his pains:
5. What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :) Tartaluca (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tartaluca. This was answered above, at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia Research. qcne (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

my fault I thought this was a different channel Tartaluca (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tartaluca I will be answering on your Talk page.Karenthewriter (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Copyright for images

I do not know if this is a foolish question but can you add certain images if the copyrighters respond with consent that you can upload and utilize their images, can you display them on drafts and articles or is that not allowed on the website? rave (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello RaveCrowny. If the copyright holder freely and correctly licenses the image in writing, allowing its use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, then the answer is "yes". But the legal language must be precise. The easiest way to comply is for the copyright holder to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons themself, agreeing to the terms. There are other ways but they are more complex. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see c:COM:THIRD for guidance about how this can be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Tool to cleanup sources

Is there a tool to check/cleanup references? I am talking about the referencing style used in Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals (and some other pages such as Heavy metals) with the {{harvnb}} format combined with {{anchor}} and {{harvid}}. A problem I have come across is that there seems to be no simple way to find (and ideally remove) in larger pages sources that are not used. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I use the user script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. When previewing a page, I can see when a citation is not referenced in a footnote by the bold text that appears after it. One example here is Qin et al 2012; with this script it is followed by Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFQinNishiyamaOhfujiShinmei2012. -- Reconrabbit 16:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, it worked very well and immediately identified ~30 unused links in Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals Ldm1954 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ug, I spoke slightly too soon. It shows them nicely, but they vanish in edit mode and removing them seems to be a bit of a mess. I am open to other suggestions, this is a 60% cure but I am lazy and would prefer a 100% cure. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The only solution I can think of is using the source editor with the side-by-side preview. The preview will show harv errors (unused citations) even when using the section-only editor. -- Reconrabbit 16:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, that is what I expect I will have to use. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Linking a discussion in text

Hello, how do I link to specific talk page discussions in chat like this?
Thanks! User4926 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is headed "Linking a discussion in text", and is on page called "Wikipedia:Teahouse". So you can link to "Wikipedia:Teahouse#Linking a discussion in text", with a hash symbol between the two parts.

The link would appear as: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Linking a discussion in text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! User4926 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This thread reminded me of a question IÄve had for a while - what if I want to link to lower sub-headings? Since there's no mention of it (that I understood) under H:WIKILINK I assume this isn't possible, but I'd like to confirm. Barbalalaika 🐌 09:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika:} You can link to any heading made with header syntax ===...=== in the same way regardles of the number of =. If you mean a heading made in other ways like syntax for bold then you cannot. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

AI used to distort image

commons:File:Sharad_Kelkar_at_the_Lokmat_Most_Stylish_Awards_2023.jpg This image is used for article Sharad Kelkar and this image is an altered image it is altered from the original image through AI to remove half of the glasses, please do something. Optim594 (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The person who uploaded the image likely used an AI tool to remove watermarks in the background, which inadvertently blurred the glasses. I'm not able to actually see the problem - unless you zoom in, it looks as if there is no issue. Aesurias (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

They look more like sponsors than watermarks. Why would they need to be removed? Barbalalaika 🐌 06:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a massive watermark in the middle of the original photo, I think I was looking at both while writing and used the wrong word. Aesurias (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, the sponsor was just next to the glasses, so the glasses also got removed. Optim594 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating the file for deletion. The issue is very much visible even without zooming in. Optim594 (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Files are deleted if the license is incorrect, not because an editor doesn't like how it is cropped or edited. Is the original image under a compatible CC-BY-SA 3.0 license? Yes. Is this an allowed derivative image? Yes. Should it be deleted from Commons because you don't like it? No. Should it be used in the article here? That's a question for the article talk page, not here and not commons. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Files can be deleted from Commons for a number of reasons other than licensing, incusing (but not limited to) being out of scope, being spam, being of poor quality, or deliberately attempting to mislead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: are we sure it's not copyright? I found what looks like an original here: with the footer "© 2025. All Rights Reserved.", which doesn't exactly embody CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Besides which, removing a person's ear and half their glasses just isn't polite. Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There's an VRT ticket where Bollywood Hungama apparently agreed to release certain images as CC-BY-SA 3.0 under certain conditions. In the licensing section of the commons file, look at the third box which gives the conditions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

John Kerr article, structural issue

I'm not sure where this comment/question should go, so I am trying here... Following today's (English) Wikipedia Featured Article leads to John Kerr (governor-general). This article has a problem: when I viewed it, it appears as two, sequential versions of the same article. Possibly, it is in mid-edit. I do not have the knowledge to appropriately edit the page but I hope this note can be passed to someone who can take oversight of the article. Eurial.nz (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Eurial.nz! It looks to be an error introduced by @Nimsuisu (Pinging him here). The text inserted feels very LLM-y, as well as the edit summary. I will leave a post on their talk page to ask about this. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

What to do about possible hoaxes

Dear Teahouse host(s),

Recently, I came across an article I suspect to be a hoax. This is because it cited no sources, had at least two historical inaccuracies(I think), and contained information not on the Hungarian Wikipedia. Of course, I could be wrong, but I just want to know what to do when I come across this type of dubious content. It is not the first time I have seen such articles. Is there somewhere to report hoaxes/get someone more knowledgeable to check? Thank you.

--Bor Q.H. (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The article appears to link to its sources in the 'External Links' section, it just hasn't been properly inline cited. I don't have the interest to compare the sources to the article to see whether it's accurate, but you might like to do so and fix the citing before you sound the alarm on it being a hoax. Athanelar (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If, after you've checked, you're still convinced it's a hoax, you have two options. If you're convinced the hoax is 100% beyond doubt and obvious, you can mark it for speedy deletion (see WP:G3). If you think that a frazzled administrator with limited time won't immediately recognise it as a blatant hoax, you can send it to Articles for Deletion (see WP:AFD) where you should include some evidence that it's a hoax in the deletion discussion. This is also the right thing to do if you're fairly sure it's a hoax but not 100%. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The place certainly exists. Some of the information in the article may be incorrect, but the article itself is decidedly not a candidate for speedy deletion or for AfD. Deor (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Sweden

Am I wrong in saying that the location map modules should not be in the category Category:Maps of Sweden? They are already in Category:Sweden location map modules, but I thought templates and modules were not supposed to be in encyclopedic categories per WP:CAT#T. ~2025-32945-68 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Age in days template that considers time zone/start time

Hello,

I am inexperienced with editing Wikipedia so I apologize if this is the improper avenue for this.

On some articles, notably 2025 United States federal government shutdown but generally wherever there is something that began at a discrete point in time (in this case, midnight EST) and that continues to present day, the Template:Duration in days "x days" template displays the wrong number for a portion of every day.

It seems that this is due to this template only taking a date, not a time. Because of this, for a few hours every day, the reported "days" metric is incorrect, counting from midnight UTC instead of the actual start time. Looking at Template:Age in days, it isn't obvious that there is a way to achieve the correct behavior, ticking over at, in this case, midnight EST.

Is there a way to get the "correct" behavior out of this template? If not, where should I look to getting the behavior I'm looking for? NexusXe (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Try asking on the template's talk page. If you get no response there, post a pointer to the discussion on WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Would an article on Outrage Machine be worth making, or do we lack the reliable sources to do so?

Self-explanatory question; I've been able to find this article from Slate about the book, but aside from that, I haven't found many other reliable sources, though I have only done a cursory search. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See the golden rule, and the specific guidelines for notability of books. Athanelar (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

How to prove a signature of mine is authentic?

I have a signature from Deadmau5 on a Funko Pop in my possessions. I transcribed the signature through Ibis Paint X and uploaded it to commons. I added it to the Deadmau5 article. However, in this diff, Miklogfeather disputed its authenticity and counted it as original research. While I completely understand what OR is, as contributors, our pictures have got to come from somewhere sometimes and this is more expedient than copying some low resolution signature from the internet.

I want to properly upload proof. How can I do this when more images of the signed object are copyrighted? I also have a photo of me with Deadmau5 at the meet & greet in case forgery is a concern.

I figure is is the route of least resistance, I'd rather not start an edit war-- but I would also rather keep that signature up to beef up the page. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 06:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, you claimed the signature as your "own work" when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. If that is accurate, then the signature is a hoax and should be removed from both Wikipedia and Commons. If the signature is actually genuine, then it is not your own work. It is the work of Joel Thomas Zimmerman, whose stage name is Deadmau5. So, the license you created on Commons is defective. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: my range is blocked on all Wikimedia wikis. Could you please mark c:File:Deadmau5 funko signature.png for speedy deletion? Thank you. Besides this, I would still like guidance on how to do this (and do it right). Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 07:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, if your range is blocked on all Wikimedia wikis, how are you able to post here? What does "viva la horde" signify? Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have IPBE on enwiki only. It's a school iBOSS range (works at home too) and I am not able to obtain a device to make that edit like I usually do. 'Viva la horde' is basically a deadmau5 fandom thing. 'Long live the mice' is what it means at a rudimentary level. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 07:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant: See meta:No open proxies#Global exceptions and appeals. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be deleted, I have updated the source and licence, according to the description given above.

Others may have a view as to whether it is above or below the "threshold of originality" for copyright in signatures.

The country of origin is also significant. I have assumed Canada, please say if it was elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: February 2023, Cincinatti, Ohio, United States. Not Canada! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi GoatLordServant. Courtesy link: File:Deadmau5 funko signature.png.

It is true that any user-generated file can be the subject of original research and we use common-sense to evaluate the ones we use. Maybe Dschwen didn't travel to Missouri with their camera to take File:St Louis night expblend.jpg, but instead has an excellent scale model and studio lighting in their basement :-). Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons says a reliable source should have published the signature first, is this the case? If you had a video of Deadmau5 signing your Funko Pop and with the design the clearly visible that would be interesting evidence. Or maybe a discussion at Talk:Deadmau5 would accept a cropped photo of the signature on the Funko Pop (with your written description) and comparison it to the reliable source.

As an aside, the own-work license on Commons will apply to your transcription, with the signature potentially having an additional copyright tag (I don't know much about this). Commander Keane (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that 'transcribing' someone's signature sounds an awful lot like... forgery?

Although I'm certainly no expert on Canadian (?) copyright law, in some jurisdictions a signature can also be covered by copyright, esp. if there is an element of originality to it.

For both reasons, I would steer well clear of this, myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I received the signature in the United States in Cincinnati Ohio. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

At some point during this week, I will upload a cropped version of my signed item. I'll forward it (and any other files I might collect) to this page and the deadmau5 talk page. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant: Please don't be hasty. As mentioned by DoubleGrazing there are copyright concerns (I didn't fully consider them). Ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright (Commons is the media repository), if you are determined. Also, you didn't address if a reliable source has published the signature, so it may have no place in Wikipedia. Commander Keane (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane:, what separates the transcription from other signatures in articles? They are all transcriptions; digitalized copies of signed works. Marshmello has one from an auction site, for example. As for the reliable source, it's my personal signature. How do we determine if my personal signature does or does not have a place here? I highlight that I have not yet accessed every image of the meet and greet. I do currently possess definitive proof I was there to receive the signature, however. In any case, I'm not quite hastening here, I am not reinserting the signature until I am confident that all concerns are addressed. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 18:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant: thanks for the Mellow example. It uses the PD-signature tag to exclude copyright, read this: c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. The smiley mouse thing could introduce copyright, above I gave you a village pump link to ask about that.

About the reliable source thing, did you read the Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons link I gave above? I meant: has a reliable source like a magazine published a photo of the signature saying "this is Deadmau5' signature". If not, then even if acceptable on Commons, Wikipedia won't host it. If the Mellow article violates that then the image will get removed.

You can see there are multiple things at play: copyright; avoiding users making up random signatures and adding them to articles; and adding signatures when there is limited encyclopedic value. Commander Keane (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: than I suppose it is quits for my signature. Little value, and no source on it. I can't personally determine if it's quits for the Marshmello one, as the Julian's Auctions link is blocked for me, but my guess is that it's the same case. Thank you for your help, lol :P I would have a better case inserting a low quality 15 second clip of Ghosts 'n' Stuff than to add the signature!! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 18:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Though I will highlight that it is strange that my signature is the only controversial one now. There's a similar case in Alan Walker. Either we've got it wrong, or significant cleanup is required. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 18:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant, well Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons is an essay (not a guideline or policy) and says you can bring it up on an article's talk page. But I don't know how anyone can get past the publishing in a reliable source. As for accessing the Julian's Auctions link, I am not sure how it is relevant; you would want to view the reliable source (magazine etc) that confirms the signature and then compare the file to that reliable source. Perhaps a cleanup is required everywhere including Alan Walker, or nobody yet to link to a reliable source on the image's description page. Even the signature on Jimmy Carter doesn't link to a reliable source (just a website, I assume a page number in U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Elections: A Biographical and Historical Guide (1996) or similar should be present). I understand your frustration that you think that your signature file is the only controversial one, but to me, Wikipedia is volunteer-driven, one edit at a time project so this can happen. Commander Keane (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: my meaning is that the Marshmello signature is backed by a Julians Auctions listing. I would assume an auction site is not a reliable source as it would technically be user generated content. The Alan Walker signature is also backed by a Pinterest link, also user generated content. I think I know what I have to do... hehehehe... Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 12:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I highly recommend reading c:COM:THIRD, which explains the numerous pitfalls of uploading third party works to Commons. HyperAnd (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

whats the best way to layout ref section?

im seeing some diff looks for diff pages wondering what the best way to approach this is? thanks! Driedmango345 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:REFLIST has the information you're looking for. Happy editing! Athanelar (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:All the President's Elephants documentary infobox, and Executive Producer query

Hello, there were actually 3 'Executive Producers' for this documentary but it flags an error if I try to add that extra Title to the Infobox. Hence I have added the 1st Executive Producer name to the list of Producers. Should I just leave it there and leave out the other 2 Executive Producer names? Or should I add the other 2 there as well? Or can an Executive Producer title be added to the Infobox?

There is also a notice questioning 'close contact' with the subject at the top of this page. As requested, I used the Talk page and answered this question from my own perspective on 30 October, asking if anybody had any further queries. I have had no responses to date. It says that this notice (eventually) needs to be removed manually. Should I - or someone - remove it now? Or should it be left there for more time?

Thankyou. WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The notice at the top of your draft is indicating that the editor who placed the notice believes you might have a conflict of interest with the subject. It seems that you don't, and you've thoroughly responded on the talk page, so you can go ahead and remove the notice. Maybe provide a link to the talk page discussion in your edit summary. Athanelar (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou. WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiAdd01, the documentation for Template: Infobox film says Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. So, that's your answer. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou Cullen328. WikiAdd01 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Found a wikipedia page that plagiarises another web page; what to do?

Hi! I was using Citation Hunt to add citations, and found a wikipedia page that is wholesale copied from another online encyclopedia. The other encyclopedia is a digital reprint of a physical book from 1909, so I know it's wikipedia copying the other source, not the other way around.

The wikipedia page is Eusebius of Alexandria. Most of the Biography section is wholesale copied from https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617a.htm

Do I just rewrite the entire plagiarized section? Really steve (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Really steve That page could do with some more citations or expanding, but there's no copyright problem here because that 1909 encyclopedia is in the public domain. At the bottom of the article there is an explanation of that (although referencing a later edition of the book). Ultraodan (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ultraodan Aha I see! Thanks for the explanation.(talk) 04:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

For interest, Ultraodan, I recall that when Wikipedia first started, it copied material extensively from the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the 1907–12 Catholic Encyclopaedia, which were both out of copyright by then. Doubtless other o-o-c texts were also utilised, though I don't remember any specifically. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review for Article

this draft is pending from a few month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hazara_Waterfalls no review since a month. ~2025-32900-90 (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page says: Review waiting, please be patient.This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,773 pending submissions waiting for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

ok thank you :) ~2025-32900-90 (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What is art and what is art theory and what is the philosophy of art?

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 have submitted a simple and erudite text answering these questions factually and I have been blocked by people who have no the qualifications and without any content reason, just a pure spamming and damning of what I have done. Dan Van Carloads (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Dan Van Carloads, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not publish unreferenced personal essays consisting of original research or claimed breakthroughs or insights by Wikipedia editors. We are summarizers. You are free to find another website to host your content but it does not belong on Wikipedia and that decision is final and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Dan Van Carloads, this is, you say, "the most pertinent and erudite information on art ever written". If indeed so, it would be wasted on Wikipedia. Consider pitching it to the editors of The Burlington Magazine or a similarly august publication. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Dan Van Carloads, I would sincerly advise taking a break from whatever you think you're doing here. It's only going to bring you upset. Wikipedia is simply not the place for this kind of musing. You may wish to seek an alternative outlet online or find a discussion group local to your area. Declaring yourself to be an expert or world authority in whatever isn't going to help you force a square peg into a round hole, and it's only going to add to your feeling of fustration. Contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone at every point in their life, and that's okay. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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