Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1279

Archive 1275

←

Archive 1277

Archive 1278

Archive 1279

Archive 1280

Archive 1281

→

Archive 1285

Help with submitting AfC draft for Nishi Chawla (writer)

Hello Teahouse community,

I’ve prepared a neutral, fully sourced draft article about Nishi Chawla, an American poet, playwright, and filmmaker. The draft covers her poetry, theatre, and documentary films, and uses 10 independent, reliable sources such as the Library of Congress, The Indian Express, Mint Lounge, academic journals, and the New York Theatre Festival. A COI disclaimer is included.

I noticed that the draft title I wanted, "Draft:Nishi Chawla," is currently protected due to previous deletion attempts. I would greatly appreciate guidance from experienced editors on:

1. Reviewing the draft for neutrality and sources. 2. Submitting it through Articles for Creation, or advising on a safe draft title (for example, "Nishi Chawla (writer)").

Here is the draft in wikitext:

Don't post your draft here. Create a draft or use your sandbox.

Nishi Chawla is an American poet, writer, playwright, and filmmaker. Her work spans poetry, theatre, and documentary film, often exploring themes of diaspora, ecology, social justice, and cross-cultural memory. Chawla has participated in national literary programs at the Library of Congress, and her work has been reviewed in publications including The Indian Express and Mint Lounge. In 2023, she received a public arts award from the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.

Career

Poetry

Chawla was featured in the Library of Congress literary program Poet and the Poem (2020). Her poetry has been discussed in national publications, including a feature on ecopoetry in Mint Lounge.

She is the author of multiple poetry collections, including Immigrant Diaries, which was reviewed in Fixed & Free Quarterly Review.

Chawla edited Singing in the Dark: A Global Anthology of Poetry Under Lockdown, which received coverage in The Indian Express and The News Minute. Her work has also been discussed in an academic context in the Journal of World Literature.

Theatre

Chawla’s play The Mahatma vs. Gurudev was presented at the New York Theatre Festival (2024) and at Rang Vimarsh theatre festival at Mandi Theatre, India.

Film

Chawla has directed documentaries including The Peace Activists, discussed on Fox 5 Plus.

Awards

• 2023 – Public arts award, Lieutenant Governor of Maryland

Selected works

• Immigrant Diaries (poetry)
• Greening the Earth (poetry, editor)
• The Mahatma vs. Gurudev (theatre)
• The Peace Activists (film)

References

References

Thank you very much for your help and advice! Writernc1958 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Writernc1958: I can see that you have previously created a draft in yout sandbox, so what made you decide to paste a copy of the draft into a help forum this time round? Please just use the standard process of creating a draft in its own page (either in the Draft namespace or in your sandbox) then submitting it for review. Reviewers are all volunteers so you have to be patient. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

On further inspection, I see that Draft:Nishi Chawla was protected by Significa liberdade because promotional drafts have been repeatedly recreated under this name. You will have to somehow convince her or another administrator that you are not seeking to advertise or promote this author. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Given that the draft they pasted here contains a {{connected}} maintenance tag, I'm 99% sure this 'new draft' is just a copypaste of the source of whatever the last one was, especially given the AI generated comment here. Athanelar (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Given repeated promotional creations by editors with COIs, I recommend either waiting until you are extended confirmed to create this draft or requesting that another editor create the draft, such as by listing the subject (not your draft) at Women in Red. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Third-party scan as source link

Topgrading cites two 90s articles with links to scanned PDFs of the articles hosted on topgrading.com, like this:

{{cite news | last=Naj| first=Amal Kumar| title =Corporate Therapy: The Latest Addition To Executive Suite Is Psychologist's Couch| newspaper =[[The Wall Street Journal]]| date =29 August 1994 | url =http://topgrading.com/_tg-content/downloads/WallStreetJournal.pdf| access-date =20 August 2015}}

{{cite magazine | last1=Charan| first1=Ram| last2=Colvin| first2=Geoffrey| title =Looking to Hire the Very Best? Ask the Right Questions. Lots of Them.| magazine =[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]| date =21 June 1999 | url =http://topgrading.com/_tg-content/downloads/LookingToHireTheVeryBest.pdf| access-date =20 August 2015}}

Are these acceptable citations, and if not, how can I fix them? I can't find either article online, and the WSJ's online archives only go back to 1997. Discertain (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Discertain, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sources do not have to be online - providing a URL is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation.

Normally, when we find a dead link, we mark it in the citation template as status=dead (see WP:linkrot), and if possible find an archive at archive.org, which can then be inserted using archive-url=.

However, I would not do that in this case, because, having looked at both those sources on archive.org, I see no evidence that WSJ or Fortune gave permission for topgrading.com to publish scans of their articles, and therefore we should assume that they were copyright violations (which may even be why they have gone away now?). It is forbidden for Wikipedia to link to copyright violations (which is why I haven't given you the archive URLs here - you can search for them on archive.org if you want to read them), so those URLs should simply be removed, and the citations left as offline ones. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine This leads me to ask a question that has bugged me for some time. If WP doesn't allow links to copyright violations then why do we allow links to the Internet Archive at all? WP editors regularly add IA links without any concern for the copyright status of the target article. You have expressed reluctance to give the WSJ link to the archive but most editors would readily add them to an article here if they had found them. (My understanding used to be that the IA had made appropriate licensing arrangements with the publishers involved or was relying on "fair use" provisions but your reply has made me doubt that). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, @Michael D. Turnbull. WP:LINKVIO says

The copyright status of web archives in the United States is unclear. On Wikipedia it is currently acceptable to link to archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Discertain: The links to the scans should be removed, for the reasons that ColinFine says. If the rest of the citation otherwise has the minimum information needed for a proper citation (publication, edition, article name, article byline, pages the article is on) then nothing else needs to be changed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Quote=, but for reused citations?

Is it possible to add a quote to an inline citation when the reference is used multiple times in an article? The issue is that if I add the quote from the cited article inside the citation template under “quote=“, then the quote would show up in all the instances of the use of this reference, which I don’t want.

essentially, I want to do this:

−

It is a legal uncertainty if Denmark could invoke NATO's mutual defense clause to repel an attack undertaken by another NATO state.

+

It is a legal uncertainty if Denmark could invoke NATO's mutual defense clause to repel an attack undertaken by another NATO state.

but without changing the other instances of this reference in the article.

References

Does that make sense? Is there any way to do this?

I am fairly certain there is a template that can be used to add page names next to a reused reference (instead of using the page= or pp= values in the citation template) so what I am looking for is the same but for a quote instead.

Slomo666 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Slomo666, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of a template for this. I don't see why you couldn't put the text in quotes within the <ref> ... </ref>, but after the {{cite news}}. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You could also tack the quotation on separately, using {{efn}}. Whichever works better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Curiosity regarding 'Draw Something' Article; wanting to add more details/make changes

Hi! I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and was curious about how to start, especially with what I want to do. I grew up using and interacting with the app 'Draw Something', specifically its sequel, 'Draw Something 2/Art With Friends'. I want to make/add new information about this specific app, as it was similar but different to its predecessor. How can I go about this, should a new article be made entirely or can I edit/add details about the sequel app in a section of the original? Rasciality (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I read the page at WP:WELCOME and it has a lot of information and links to other helpful pages, so that might help you find what you're looking for. Cheers and good luck! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

(ec) @Rasciality: Hi, just out of curiosity: are you talking about the Draw Something article? --CiaPan (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes! I have sources I'm collecting for its sequel app and the history of it though. That's why I was confused to whether to make a new article or not. ~2026-18499-5 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Normally, a new version of an app gets added to the first article.

If it's completely different AND it has received far more independent coverage than the first one ever did, that might justify a separate article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-18499-5 (who I presume is @Rasciality, not logged in), and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is one of the many questions that really come down to editor discretion.

However, given the extremely steep learning curve for creating new articles, I would strongly suggest that you add to the existing article. If in time, the material on the new version becomes big enough, it can be split into a new article. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Say less! Thanks for the advice. Also apologies about my log in issue! I was hopping around from Firefox and the app on my phone at work. Rasciality (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How many Wikipedias are there yesterday

How many wikipedias are there yesterday. Reid ~2026-18058-7 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your Subject heading makes it difficult to see this as a serious question.

The literal answer to it is "none", because yesterday, being in the past, no longer exists in the present, which "are there" can only mean.

Do you want to re-phrase your question? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

As stated above, the subject headline could have been better. About the users; I don’t think we have statistics per day, but here you can see active users for English Wikipedia per month. I hope it helps. — SimmeD (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I changed the title of the question to your actual question and not whatever keyboard-mash was the title before. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the question says "Wikipedias", which most likely refers to Wikipedia articles, not editors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It might actually really even mean "different (language) Wikipedias"...and for that we actually have a List of Wikipedias Lectonar (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, I read it wrong 😅 my mistake Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You might be right, yet again I think we only have statistics per month, also when it comes to total amount of pages. I’ll try to find a source for this information. —SimmeD (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so there is this link, which shows the daily number of pages. However, I believe the data is only updated once a month, so you'll probably be able to see it in February. -- SimmeD (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, @Children Will Listen. Maybe he was asking about the number of wikipedias, as in the number of different languages that have a Wikipedia. In that case, there are 342 currently active. Here's a list if you want to learn more--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

A lot of non-Wikipedians call Wikipedia articles "Wikipedias." For example, Have you seen his wikipedia? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've personally never heard people call it that, but I'll take your word for it. You've almost certainly got more life experience than me.--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've never heard it either, in any language, at least not in the parts of Europe which are my ususal haunt. I might have a bit more life experience than my esteemed colleague above, though :). Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's wait for @~2026-18058-7 to come back. He now has the number of users, pages, and wikis. If that's not enough, we can help further; otherwise, anything beyond this would just be speculation :-) -- SimmeD (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally I only know the term to mean different versions of Wikipedia, so how many different language wikipedias, never seen it in the context of articles but perhaps I’ve just not come across that use. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I too have encountered people (both in real life and in Reference and Help Desk/Teahouse queries) referring to a Wikipedia article as 'a Wikipedia'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've heard it in real life too. I think this use of the word seems trapped in the singular though; I've never heard "The disparity between their Wikipedias mirrors their disjunct personalities", for example.

Speaking of disjunc, I should really tidy up displace. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with the Kevin Spencer page

Hi can someone help me with the Kevin Spencer page? I want to get the season table from the list of episodes on to the main page but I can’t figure out how, also I need to turn a PDF file into a reference KajagoogooSonichu (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@KajagoogooSonichu: You may want to check out WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Or, if you're stuck, just add

<ref>https://www.cbsc.ca/decisionsarchive/19-9899/19-9899-1173_PD_E.pdf</ref>

in the appropriate spot in the article and we can help turn it into a well-formed citation. GoingBatty (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thomas KajagoogooSonichu (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Where I'm from?

Material of no concern to Wikipedia

This based on sonic who asks himself that where I'm from?,where did I came from and where are my family, So sonic starts to have an adventure to find his location that where he came from.But this is somehow 🤔 related on sonic underground and based on all sonic games and also shadow the hedgehog game where. shadow starts to recall all the memories of him and Maria. But tails already invested time machine,then takes the time machine by force and he goes to the past to revive Maria back. Meanwhile silver after the defeat of mephilis,silver goes back to the his future to see how it goes,then he sees the worse future because someone created sonic.exe(original one) who is the main villain. I'm still on with ideas but I will come up with them. My name is jacton bagera a Tanzanian but also an artist i have already created a manga version of it. I will be not online cuz I'm going to school for six months 😅 if still need me for more thank you ~2026-16463-7 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Jacton, do you have a specific question or perhaps a problem or concern that you would like to see addressed? This text is very hard to read, but it appears to be some kind of Sonic the Hedgehog-related story. This is a noticeboard for people seeking assistance editing or using Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Making my first article

Hello I want to start making a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how to find a topic. Make sure I have enough sources. If anybody can help me I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time have a nice day. Very high frequency (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to help you find a topic, but I can tell you how to create one. Generally, you'll want to find independent, reliable sources about your topic first. After this, cut out every source except for the three best, which is good for letting reviewers know if your topic is WP:NOTABLE enough for Wikipedia. Once you've got the draft submitted for review/in article space, take your remaining sources and add the missing information. Try not to write WP:BACKWARD (writing the article, then finding the sources). Hope this helps! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying to pursue whatever you are interested in and knowledgeable of. It's easier to then find different more niche topics that deserve encyclopaedic coverage but don't have it yet.

A reccomendation I've given a lot of my friends who wanted to start editing is to find animals you like and are knowledgeable of and create short stub/start class articles for species of them. It is typically easy to find sources and there will usually be a lot of help for you in the Wikiprojects related to them animals.

No matter what though, you need to be certain the subject fits with WP:Notability, which can be easy to determine for some topics but a lot more complex for others (that's another reason I recommend making species articles because of WP:Notability (Species) defining that most species are notably)

You also need to remember to just have fun, editing Wikipedia should be a hobby, not a chore so try and write about stuff you enjoy. FranticSpud (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Very high frequency Lots of newcomers here want to "make their mark" by creating a new article but IMO a much better way to contribute is to edit one of the millions of articles we already have. Most of them are deficient in some way and some severely so. So I'd advise you to read a few articles on topics which interest you and add content from reliable sources you happen to know about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Very high frequency. Find a subject that interests you, because a first article is a long hard process. When I became a Wikipedia editor I originally had no plan to write new articles, but I’m interested in classic children’s literature, and became annoyed that there was no online info on the Meg Duncan book series. Then it occurred to me that I could be the one providing an article to help others. I read Help:Your first article so many times I’d practically memorized it, then I studied Help:Referencing for beginners. I read Wikipedia articles on every book series I could think of, to learn what should be included, and spent weeks on the project before submitting my effort for review. This will seem corny, but I truly believe it is a privilege and an honor to have an article published on Wikipedia, and its my way to help people looking for a good source of info on a niche subject. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Sambucha

Draft:Sambucha

hello Wikipedia I found this article while I'm checking Draftspaces article. And I cameacross to this Pages is made from May 2024 and now is 2026 Is should be CSD G13 JamesLatts (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi JamesLatts. That draft isn't valid for G13, as G13 requires that there has been no edits within 6 months. The last edit (besides yours) was in November, some 2 months ago. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Questionable source

Hello everyone! Recently, while editing the article for Sompot chong kben, I came across a source from an organization by the name of Asia Society. Although the author seems to be legit, (Tori Shapiro-Phim, here's her LinkedIn ) the organization itself is quite dodgy. For starters, the organization has been linked to the Chinese Communist Party, which could bias the article. I have linked the article below, if you would like to check it out. https://asiasociety.org/education-2025/reamker Diorzhou (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the source is acceptable as the sources only gives a neutral description. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If the Asia Society is linked to the PRC's Communist Party, Diorzhou, the material that it publishes could indeed be biased. But it's OK to make judicious use of biased materials. Please read the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Help please

I need help organizing my user page and maybe adding some userboxes because I suck at them. have a good day! Skellingtonthe2 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think your user page looks cool as it is! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still pretty new, so I don't know how to make it look good. Skel AKA Skellingtonthe2 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want, I can add a cool feature which I like, Well Ill add it, You can delete it if you want TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, Flags will fall like snowflakes TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a vexillophile

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Skellingtonthe2. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:User page design guide if you've not already seen that, although I would stress that making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia is much more valuable than having a "cool" user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines for me

Hi everyone,

I’m a relatively new editor and recently created an article that was tagged with notability concerns. I’ve read the notability guidelines, but I’m still a bit unsure how to properly demonstrate notability in practice.

What’s the best way to show that a topic meets Wikipedia’s notability standards? Specifically:

• What kinds of sources are most convincing?
• How many independent sources are usually enough?
• Is it better to improve the article first or start a discussion on the talk page?

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks for your help! PuzzlePieceGreen (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PuzzlePieceGreen In practice, notability is shown by citing multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in some depth (not just mentions). There’s no fixed number, but two or three strong sources are often enough if the coverage is substantial. It’s usually best to improve the article first by adding such sources in the draft, and then use the talk page if there are still questions or disputes. Jr·NTR (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

One of the main problems people have is the exact one you're having; people start thinking about being more convincing. OK, they do need to be reliable, but usually the main problem is they have to be big.

You know when one person criticizes another for writing far too much about something, saying "What? You've written an entire novel!" We need those sources where they've "written a novel" that's totally focused on the subject. And they have to be independent, meaning nobody who is on the subject's side had any input to them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I can't see any article you may have created. Please can you link it into this thread if it hasn't been totally removed by an admin? The notability guidelines vary by topic and it would help to know what area/person you are writing about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

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

WP:42 is a summary of the requirements for the main sources for an article.

Starting to write an article without first having located several sources that meet all those criteria is like starting to build a house without first surveying the plot, checking local building regulations, or building foundations: at best you're going to have to go back and redo a lot of your work, and at worst the house will fall down or be condemned and all your work will be wasted.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine @Jr·NTR @Michael D. Turnbull @TooManyFingers Thank you for my advice. What are independent sources? PuzzlePieceGreen (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Independent sources receive no words or ideas or input from the subject, or from the subject's associates, and they don't work for the subject or owe them anything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Independent for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone

I’m interested in contributing more actively as an AfC reviewer and participating in AfD discussions. Could someone please guide me on the correct process and any prerequisites or best practices I should be aware of before starting?Thanks in advance. WordPressReviewer (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't apply to be an AfC reviewer until you have over 500 edits.If you want to participate in AfD discussions, WP:Articles for deletion is the place to be Athanelar (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Information outside the record

 Courtesy link: Draft:Christopher Bennett

Hello. I'm working on an article about a person who recently included in Guinness World Record. There are only a few publication sources about him, and the reviewer wanted more information outside the GWR.

How many reliable references do I need to pass the review? Is the Guinness Word Record not strong enough? Thanks. Jane1289 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You need at least two or three in-depth and reliable sources, not just passing mentions, and although the GWR may sound notable it is just a passing mention, many people with a GWR don’t have Wikipedia pages because outside of the record they aren’t notable, if no other sources (that show notability, not just the GWR), are found them I’m afraid the individual isn’t notable. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the response. I don have 2 other sources, but the information published in both sources seems the same, so the reviewer needs more info outside the record :( Jane1289 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You could make a page for that category of record if there is enough sources on it and previous record holders, but I don’t think a standalone page will work I’m afraid. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

there is an exisiting page Around the world cycling record and he's included there... Jane1289 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 We have a policy described at WP:BLPIE which explains why Bennett probably doesn't merit a biography in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the response.. I'll check on it.. Jane1289 (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi everyone! I’m new to Wikipedia and would like to start editing. What’s the best way to find beginner-friendly tasks or articles that need simple improvements, and how can I make sure my first edits follow Wikipedia’s guidelines?

What are common mistakes new editors make, and how can I avoid them? Taste the spot (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, you've taken the perfect first step by asking questions when you're unsure.

There's a lot of things for you to read and do to get started; you could try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a gamified experience for newcomers. Or if you prefer, you could read Help:Introduction which guides you through a series of tutorials. There's also Help:Editing and Help:Contributing to Wikipedia

Honestly, the best way to get started is to just read articles you're interested in and make small improvements when you see the opportunity. Reword a sentence so it flows better, add punctuation, fix a spelling mistake; and as you get more confident, you can look for tags like {{citation needed}} and try to look for sources to add. Athanelar (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, on your homepage to the left is “Suggested edits” on task board you can customise the difficulty of your edits, and what subjects you would like to edit, I suggest you customise it to Small-easy edits first and make your way up. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia criteria for notability

I drafted a page on The Gay Sisters, a Chicago gospel singing group from the 1950s through the 1970s. They performed at the first gospel concert presented at Carnegie Hall in 1950, had a hit record on Savoy in 1951, accompanied The Staple Singers and The Soul Stirrers, recorded for Dolphin, Decca, and Chess, etc. Their careers are discussed in the most important books on gospel music by Boyer, Carpenter, Heilbut, and Marovich.

My page was rejected by wikipedia for not meeting their criteria for notability. Draft:The Gay Sisters On my talk page, User talk:Stevenbdolins , I explained why I thought this page met the criteria. Any suggestions on what I can do to get the page published? Stevenbdolins (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say they are notable and would have been minded to publish the article had I been the reviewer.

That said, perhaps it would help if you expanded on what you mean by "hit record" - how many did it sell? Did it chart? Get a lot of radio play?

You say on your talk page "Carpenter claims "God Will Take Care of You" would have been a platinum record in today's music world. I didn't quote this because it seemed like boasting and difficult to prove." That is exactly the sort of evidence you should be citing (and probably quoting). You don't need to prove they would have gone platinum; you need to prove that Carpenter made that claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll update. Does it automagically get reviewed again? Stevenbdolins (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No, you will need to resubmit. LMK when you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I published the draft of The Gay Sisters page after adding more information about their hit record, as you suggested. I hope its better and get accepted. Let me know if I should make more improvements/additions. Thanks again for your help and suggestions. Stevenbdolins (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Now published, as The Gay Sisters (group) (The Gay Sisters already exists, about a movie; that title may need to be reviewed). Congratulations, and thank you for your contribution.

You may continue to work on the article, especially should any news sources emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help! I'll try to add a photo soon. Stevenbdolins (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. This does not happen automatically, you need to click the "Resubmit" button on the screen. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Stevenbdolins Also, the lead should make it clear that Gay is their surname. ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Involvement with Topic of Proposed Article

I am new to writing a Wikipedia article and wish input on the appropriateness of one I would like to write. I am on the Editorial Board of an American Topical Association's postage stamp study unit. Am I permitted to write a Wikipedia article about this unit, since I'm so closely involved with it? Mgroesler1 (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you might have conflicts of interest with the topic .See WP:COI. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want to write an article where you have any COI, you should let other editors know about it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Mgroesler1, you are writing Draft:Chess on Stamps Study Unit. Unfortunately, as yet this doesn't look as if it's going to be a viable article. For the draft to be accepted, it would have to be based on material from reliable sources that are independent of the ATA. Do sources independent of the ATA that describe or discuss this study unit in depth even exist? -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The main problem, to get right down to it, is that someone associated with a subject often has a highly inflated idea of IF there should even be an article about their topic. That's much more difficult to get through than the problems of doing the writing.

The decision about whether to include a certain article is based on notability, a word for which Wikipedia has a twisted and incorrect definition but it's what we go by. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mgroesler1. While there are conflict of interest considerations here, you're allowed to write and submit a draft for review. However, as Hoary and TooManyFingers note, it's not clear that the Chess on Stamps Study Unit meets Wikipedia's notability threshold, which is summarised by WP:GOLDENRULE. I wonder if a more productive use of your time would be upating the organisation's own website, which doesn't appear to have published any news since September 2016. Cordless Larry (talk) Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Another way you can help is by improving articles about stamps; or about the topics featured on stamps. You may cite your own or your organisation’s publications in moderation, but be highly cautious of doing so excessively, per WP:SELFCITE.

You might even write articles like Chess on stamps (see Category:Topical postage stamps for examples), but we strongly advise people to get copious experience of making smaller edits to existing articles before starting a new one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Join us

I need to join us ~2026-19186-5 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Usage of files as sources

I am creating a draft for an aviation accident, but the only way to access the NTSB's final report is via a PDF. How do I include this as a source? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 16:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

First, I'll say that the NTSB report itself probably doesn't contribute to notability for the article, since many non-notable accidents generate NTSB reports.

But the way to do this is to include the link where people can go to view the PDF. Don't upload the PDF itself to anywhere. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: NTSB reports are US federal government publications, and so free from copyright, and may usually be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. We already have a number there, in c:Category:NTSB reports.

Please stop giving false advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DollarStoreBaal44. The format of a cited source is unimportant - sources do not even have to be online. What is important is that it meets the requirements for a source (being reliable, and in most cases independent, secondary, and substantial: see WP:42), and that a reader can in principle obtain it (even if that isn't easy) and that the citation gives enough information to allow that (title, author, publisher, date, etc).

However, to echo TooManyFingers, the NTSB report will be a primary source, and can be used only to verify limited information (see that link). It wll not contribute to establishing notability, which requires multiple secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Uff. I'll follow your advice. By the way, while I'm here, is NBC a good source? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NBC. It should be fine but like all sources, it depends what they are covering. For example, an interview with person X won't help establish notability for X. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You can use {{cite report}}, but the more common {{Cite book}} is acceptable. Our various citation tools will provide you with a wizard to fill in the latter.

Another option is to create a Wikidata item about the report, and use {{Cite Q}} to transclude its metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

How to remove a duplicate entry from a category?

I noticed that Ozai from Avatar: The Last Airbender is listed twice on Category:Fictional patricides (he is listed in the O section as 'Ozai', and the F section as 'Fire Lord Ozai'). I want to remove one of these instances of Ozai from this category, but I can't quite figure out how to do it. Can anyone help me out here? Pasta Crab (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pasta Crab. They are both redirects, indicated by being in italics. Click one of them and then click "(Redirected from ...)" below the page heading. Then you can click the "Edit" tab and edit the code of the redirect page to remove the category. I suggest you compare the two redirect pages and remove all duplicate categories, or transfer every category to the same redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thank you so much!! Pasta Crab (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Help.

I submitted a draft article, but it seems to be submitted under the name of my sandbox, not the draft article itself.

Is this a bad thing? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

No, though it is better to use the Article Wizard to create a draft. I'll move the draft to draft space. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Now at Draft:457953 Kejimkujik. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought i was using the wizard. 😅

Anyway, thanks alot, Mr. 331dot! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, could you help me with citing a source for the Orbital Elements and the secondary designation?

I can't cite it, so I used an external link instead. Will that do? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Good source databases

I want to find reliable sources on a topic, like scholar journals and peer-reviewed publications. Are there any (hopefully free) databases available where I could easily find this type of content? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Users who have 500 or more total edits, and who are still active (at least 10 of their edits are recent ones), can use Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DominikTuazon, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If there were, it would make editing Wikipedia so much easier ;-)

There may be for particular fields but in general, tools like Google Scholar and Google books are the best we have.

You might want to look through WP:RS and in particular WP:RSP to get a sense of some sources which are and are not reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've used Google Scholar many times, but I was wondering if there were any additional/better databases available, which it doesn't seem like. Thank you though! DominikTuazon (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@DominikTuazon Note that we have the resource exchange where you can request access to a source you know exists but can't access yourself. Good sourcing varies by topic, so you should certainly look at the Wiki Project pages for the topics you are interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll look there. Thank you! DominikTuazon (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is not specifically academic, but it includes some journals. Check out this collection. It will never guarantee to have what you want, but if you can get past the iffy metadata and awkward search facilities, there is a lot of stuff in it. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! That might be helpful. DominikTuazon (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Social media not being a reliable source

Hello everyone, do you know the reason on why is social media not a reliable source to cite with? Thank you for this. ~2026-20139-4 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably because someone could be impersonating the person and anyone could write what they want Bps2 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-20139-4! We've had this question before so I'm getting a weird sense of Deja vu. But the short answer is: It's not reliable because it is user-generated. There are times where citing social media is allowed (see Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF for example), but usually social media is not a reliable source that can be cited on Wikipedia. As I said before, there are exceptions to this but not too many. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I suspect we've had this exact question, with the same typos. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1277#Social_media_not_being_a_reliable_source. Literally the exact same question with the exact same name. Are we being played here? _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I noticed it specifically was referring to living people specifically. Why is that? Are the rules for articles on dead people any different? Marksaeed2024 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marksaeed2024: The reason for why BLP exists is because of the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, which is also why Wikipedia:Articles for creation exists. As for the rules of biographies of deceased persons, I must admit that I'm not aware of any, but I do think that you should still be careful when making those. (Also see Wikipedia:Notability (people)) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marksaeed2024: I should note that I'm not aware of any rules specifically related to biographies of deceased persons. I'd assume that there's a good chance that some if not all of the guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would still apply to biographies of deceased persons. I could be wrong here and for that I do apologise. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

version original ~2026-20511-4 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If the person has only died recently, like the last couple of years, then BLP still applies. And of course a substantial proportion of biographies of people who died in the last few decades will include biographical information on their living relatives - so BLP still applies at least for that information. Not only that, but the living relatives may not be public figures, hence the concern for caution and strict sourcing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

To be more specific by "recently", Wikipedia:BDP uses the range of "the last 115 years". _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You have misread; the relevant section says:

Anyone born within the past 115 years ([relevant date inserted on-the-fly]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.

[my emphasis] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Another mistake by me. Ignore anything I said in this section because as per usual I am an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm often a literal-minded type, so the question makes sense to me. The answer, as I see it: Living people need to be protected from harm, living people can cause harm (from which we need to protect ourselves), and living people are much more likely to cause controversy or be dragged into it. Taking care of those things is unnecessary (or far far less) for people who died some time ago. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marksaeed2024 One reason for the policy is that in almost all jurisdictions, libelling living people is a crime, whereas in most it is not a crime to libel the dead. See Defamation#Defamation as a crime for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Finding suitable images to use on Wikipedia for lesser-known subjects

Hi, I have never uploaded an image to a Wikipedia article before and I am writing my first article. How do people go about finding an image for older topics that are lesser-known? In particular, I am trying to write a draft for Soccer Boy, a Japanese race horse. It appears impossible to find an appropriate image that falls within guidelines. The existing Japanese article does not have any images of the horse himself. In such a situation am I SOL? Also is it appropriate to use an image for my article that was someone else's original work? Said image is already in the Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. AVSnewscast (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Images are a "nice to have" thing, not a requirement. If you can't find one, don't worry about doing so. If you're going to submit your draft for a review via the Article Wizard, images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Is anything on the Wikimedia Commons just free game though? AVSnewscast (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, images from Commons are fine for use. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks a bunch. AVSnewscast (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the horse in question died in 2011, I would argue that it would be permissible to use one non-free image of him, as 'fair use', in the article once accepted (but not in the draft) if no free images can be found. However, if there is a photo of him correctly submitted in Commons, that would preclude this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the free-use image has been submitted to Commons. If a suitable free-use image exists we cannot claim fair use of a non-free image. Not a concern in this case, but we can't even claim fair use of a non-free image when no suitable free-use image exists but it would be possible to create one. Meters (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I meant to convey that if the image that the OP says is in Commons is actually free-use (though it might not be – mistakes are made) then it necessarily excludes fair use of any non-free image. The same obviously applies if there is a free-use image not (yet) in Commons. I fail to see how, if no free-use image currently exist, it would be possible to create one of a horse that has been dead for 15 years; what have I overlooked? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I should have noticed that you wrote "in Commons", meaning a free-use image. And yes, my aside about any possibility of creating a free-use image precluding any fair-use of a non-free image does not apply here. That's what I meant by Not a concern in this case. Meters (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiple small edits vs one big edit vs doesn't matter

I suspect multiple small edits trigger "vandalism". On GitHub, everyone subscribed receive a notification for each small change, and they get annoyed with that. Does someone with a higher role or something receive a notification for each edit I (temporary account, or "permanent" account) make? Is every single change literally each user makes analyzed in its smallest details? Hard to think a volunteer-driven site like Wikipedia would have so much work force, but I've already seen it happen in other volunteer-driven places, so it's 100% possible. What about users? Can normal low-rank users subscribe to a topic too and therefore getting annoyed with the notifications they receive from my small edits? Doing "atomic" changes is my habit because it's better to control, better to let summaries, and because otherwise I'd not be doing anything at all (I'd be in that constant "always preparing" stagnant situation when I'm always with a draft and never sending it because I don't want to annoy other people or send something imperfect, while it would be GOOD if I sent it imperfect because other people could collaborate and correct it, which is another reason of doing small changes). I also sometimes only spot mistakes some time after I publish them. This fear of getting tagged as vandalism and having my edits reverted may dis-motivate me from making future edits, but since I'm new I may learn to adapt with time and this thoughts may be temporary.

Context: I'm afraid of getting changes reverted again like it was on my changes on the SimpleX Chat page, the sources were there, I just had to reorganize them (I think it's possible to refer to the same source across multiple sections of the article), and I saw that the page is with activity from other people too, so they would be able to help me to organize better my edits, and that information I added is well known so I trust they would quickly edit. I was literally still working on that page reorganizing the sources in the same moment when my changes got reverted, so I lost my climax, and now I'm just waiting until my will is good again so I try it again

New Wikipedia editor, but reader for ~1.5 years ~2025-41312-06 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I make a lot of small changes. I don't know if that bothers anyone, but it probably isn't bothering anyone badly, because I've done thousands upon thousands of them, and people only complain when I'm actually wrong.

I think it's probably best to NOT do huge complex multiple-aspects-multiple-changes edits all at once. Breaking those into reasonable chunks makes it easier to find any mistakes that crept in. But even if you do a large all-at-once edit, it's not bad, just not my preference. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The general advice, especially for newcomers, is to make relatively small edits. For example, for each source you are citing make the relevant edit which will summarise the information from that source. Then move on to the next source. The advantage is that other editors who disagree with what you have added from any single source can revert just that part and leave untouched your other contributions. Most editors have WP:watchlists where they follow changes to articles they are interested in but can set up the filters on the list to only show the latest revision. Hence they will only in effect "see" the last of your edits, not all the earlier ones, until they actually visit the article and look at its full history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Lots of single issue edits are much easier to deal with. This is particularly true when a combined edit affects multiple sections of an article. Meters (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The only time I'd do multiple sections is for really simple stuff, for example one person's name being misspelled many times throughout. Stuff that's easy and very unlikely to need reverting. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

bias in talk sections

obviously editors can't be biased in arcticles, but is it okay/normal to state your opinion, bias, and even background in talk sections? and what are the rules for innapropraite behavior in talk sections? sorry if this is already answered somewhere. thanks! 295rain$drop (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on talk pages is only about how the page can best be improved according to Wikipedia's regulations and guidelines, not for discussing the topic itself.

Does that help? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

To answer the title, indeed it's allowed: if it wasn't, our articles would be terrible because of the lack of varied view points and different discussions (alliteration unintentional). The most important rule is to be civil and respectful to your fellow editors (it's policy!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMrCarZigzag (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. The aim is to document facts. It’s not an outlet for opinions. So no. While it would certainly be good to know any biases you have, people are more likely to take them into account in reverting your changes. You can put a (brief) explanation of your background on your own user page if it’s relevant to your edits. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers is correct in that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not it's topic. ImMrCarZigzag (talk|contribs) 03:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Messed up a table and don't know what to do

I genuinely just messed up a table on the page for Grand River Transit and have no clue how to fix it. If anyone knows how or has any tips please let me know. ~2026-20993-7 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I was attempting to correct some outdated information in the section concerning the bus system routes ~2026-20993-7 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you @Cuteseal1906? Please sign in every time. You can stay signed in on more than one machine, it's OK.

If you are Cuteseal1906, first sign in, then go to the normal (not editing) view of the Grand River Transit page, and find where it says "Last edited by" or gives a link to the page history. Click on one of those, and you'll see your own edit listed, with an Undo button beside it. A weird looking page will pop up, which is where you confirm that you intend to undo the edit. One line on that page says it's for the reason, and will be already filled with a bunch of stuff. Keep all that stuff there, go to the very end of the same line, and add on your short reason for why you are undoing. (Such as "formatting error" or whatever makes sense.) Then hit the "Publish" button. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

just undid the change, thanks for your help! Cuteseal1906 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Direct mentions of self-published books

or "I may have restarted an edit war"

The edit war in question is on Fake memoir, concerning the book "Daddy, an Absolutely Authentic Fake Memoir" by Andrea Troy (iUniverse, 2008). There's extensive discussion on the talk page, which I'm linking directly. I removed the book because it was self-published and did not appear to recieve extensive coverage, making it feel like an advertisment. I'm working on overhauling the page for structure and negative tone issues. If the book should be mentioned, I'm happy to restore it, as I'm adding a new section where it would fit better..

Context: "The controversy over falsified memoirs inspired Andrea Troy to write a satiric novel, Daddy – An Absolutely Authentic Fake Memoir (2008).[citation needed]"

Arguments to keep:

• Self-published works can be sources for themselves
• Notability guidelines do not limit article content
• It's a satire of other memoirs mentioned in the article

Arguments to remove:

• User who added the book the first time only edited things about the book (and made a spelling correction)
• No independent coverage
• Current placement in the article doesn't make sense, implying users adding it don't care about where it's going
• Low review counts, which imply low readership

Thanks in advance! You've been really helpful. SenshiSun (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I don't see evidence of edit warring on Fake memoir--that usually specifically means that people are repeatedly reverting the page. It seems like there were issues back in 2011 but it doesn't look like your edits restarted it. If the problem does reoccur, you could try following some of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I feel like it probably will. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right. Nobody's reverted that change yet. I'm still not sure if it should be used. SenshiSun (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If it’s been uncited for a long time and there’s no independent coverage, I think you’re right to remove it. Others may disagree, in which case you can follow WP:BRD. I wouldn’t stress about it too much! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I be careful about not getting IP banned?

It's happened to me in the past (I want to say around 5 or so years ago?) and November 27, 2025, I was finally able to make an account again. I don't want this to happen again because I was immature and didn't know what I was doing. I had made a new Wiki page titled "Rowlet" or something and tried to add information on the Pokemon a couple of times, but then I got IP banned for multiple years. I looked for the page recently and saw it was deleted. How do I avoid getting banned though?? I want to keep my account - Weez3rforever (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If someone disagrees with you, you have to actually listen, and you have to start by assuming they're probably right and you're probably wrong. That's the biggest part. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Makes sense, I think I had thought I was doing right even though I was probably just putting something random like "rowlet is a grass type pokemon!!" Weez3rforever (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Weez3rforever: It would be nice to know the IP to see exactly why it was blocked for multiple years. Since IP addresses are private information, I highly recommend not sharing it here, and rather emailing a trusted admin or checkuser privately instead. You can find active admins here and active checkusers here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen I don't remember the IP, I might have screenshots but I'd have to do a somewhat deep dive. Thanks for the help though Weez3rforever (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Presumably, your IP is fairly static if the IP block affected you all the way to the end (or perhaps it was a large rangeblock), so you may simply wish to share your current IP to checkusers or admins. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with deletion nomination for Academy Award & Emmy winner

I am the subject of the page Perry Kivolowitz. It has been nominated for deletion (notability and other issues). I submit I've earned a modicum of notability.

• Academy Award (Sci-Tech) winner - tech behind Forrest Gump and Titanic morphs, for example
• Emmy (Engineering) winner - SilhouetteFX really is a backbone of the VFX industry
• Author of first documented software key logger
• Author of first recoverable RAM disk - made development on the Commodore Amiga more livable
• Author of early USENIX paper on WORM (e.g. CD and DVD) file systems
• Founder of multiple businesses over a period of 40 years including one acquired by a public company (AVID Technology)
• A CS Professor and Department Chair for 9 years at Carthage College and 10 years (non-tenure track) at University of Wisconsin.

But the page really has become a time shifting mess as folks added and changed things.

While many independent citations are provided, it needs more.

I am looking for an experienced editor to help improve the sourcing and ensure the page meets notability and sourcing standards.

Thank you very much!

(p.s. I have demonstrated some effort in the spirit of Wikipedia by providing photographs of famous Computer Scientists such as Dennis Richie and Gene Amdahl) Pkiv (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're the subject of an article then you have a conflict of interest and should not be involved in the deletion discussion. I'd advise that you just let it run its course. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not correct. While they generally shouldn't directly edit the article about them(making edit requests instead) they are allowed to participate in a deletion discussion just as anyone else can, as long as they are open about who they are. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for any contributions of photographs you may have made to Commons, Pkiv. Now, as for "an experienced editor to help improve the sourcing and ensure the page meets notability and sourcing standards", don't be surprised if you receive applications from people eager to help you (for a fee). Please read and digest Wikipedia:Scam warning. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pkiv. I am neutral, and remain uninvolved, on the question of deleting or retaining the article (though I wish you luck), but I feel I should clarify one matter.

In terms of Wikipedia articles, "Notability" (an unfortunately misleading piece of Wikipedia jargon) is not so much a question of what you have done or achieved (other than perhaps receiving awards which are themselves notable – which in practice means the awards already have Wikipedia articles about them); it's more a question of whether multiple Reliable sources have actually published material of substantial length about you independently of any involvement by yourself or any person or establishment directly connected to you: see the essay WP:Golden rule for a longer explanation.

It's not infrequently the case, particularly for scholars, scientists and technicians, that although they have significant achievements, no-one unconnected with them has published very much about them. This is a sad reflection on society's, and journalists', attitudes towards such areas, and unfortunately makes it harder to get a Wikipedia article over the "notability threshold."

So, for example, if nobody has written at some length about you being the author of the first documented software key logger, the fact that you are may well merit mention in the article, but it cannot contribute to that article proving your "notability" in the Wikipedian sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Pkiv (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are designed to be "a time shifting mess as folks add and change things" - that's how it works. No person is in control of an article, and most especially and scrupulously not the person who's the subject. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I properly add a citation to an existing article?

Hi everyone! I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work.

I’d like to improve an article by adding a reliable source, but I’m not sure about the correct way to do it. Should I edit the article directly, or is there a preferred process for suggesting sources first? Also, are there specific citation templates I should use? Thanks in advance for your help! RoyalHotel30 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

In most cases you should edit the article directly. Template:Citation is a common citation template, and in Visual Editor there's a cite button on the top dashboard that makes things easy. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 04:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to Article Sources

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1277#Article Sources

I reviewed the advice on the article sources I got from Teahouse, aside from the profiles, which are indeed from independent secondary sources. Most of the news article sources cited are independent, secondary, reliable, and from national news coverage, with stories fully on the subject. Therefore, I am confused about the points raised. I would love some clarification, as I see many equivalent politicians have profiles approved without even a third of the notability. I would love some insight into how I can remediate the identified issues.

Draft:Scott Singer. Lawandpolicy27 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I examined the first dozen references and there is not one good one out of those twelve. High school newspaper - trash. Originally written by the subject or his associates - trash. Really about Mamdani - trash. Not one of the first twelve fits the criteria. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It IS a semi-OK start if you were writing an article about Mamdani though, so that's kind of good I guess. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs three very big articles that all carry the plain simple title "Scott Singer", and that do not contain a single word from Singer himself or his publicity people. Or as close to that as possible. Wikipedia does NOT need "Florida Man Dislikes Some Mayor Somewhere Else". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Etiquette for large edits

Hello. As a relatively inexperienced editor (~150 edits and haven't been around for c.1 year), I have just made a large edit to the page Cripping-up primarily due to it being written as an essay. I then detailed all of my changes in the talk page. I've realised this may not have been the best etiquette, with the page's main (historical) author likely to be unhappy (regardless of no ownership). I would appreciate any guidance on whether the edit is okay by policy standards, or if (and how) I should go about undoing it and going about it better.

Thanks. Nonovix (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! First, forget about making one other editor happy, no matter who that one editor is. That's "a fool's errand", as they used to say. Second, sure OK it might have been easier to manage if you'd done several smaller edits, but now it's done, so let's see what happens. If an angry mob descends and undoes it all, then you decide what to do next. If there's no angry mob and it mostly gets accepted, then ... you still decide what to do next. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not look at how the article was before your changes. But looking at how it is now, at least in terms of the basic text, it looks right and reasonable to me. (I didn't run to check your references; if they're in order then I think no one can complain.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

(Maybe this type of edit, where all or most of the article is replaced, does work better all at once. I've never done one.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with my draft- No.2

My draft Draft:497593 Kejimkujik currently redirects to the the list of minor planets.

How to stop that? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a contradiction.

There is already a Page with the same name, but its a redirect.

Will i have to do something about that page for my normal draft to get accepted? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't do anything to try to fix this. Just do your own work the best you can do. If your draft gets accepted, the people who know how to fix article names will take care of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank alot Mr. TooManyFingers! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

CC 2.0

Is it possible to use images with Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license without permission from the author on another Wikipedia page? Given that attribution is given (image by [author name]) ? Babin Mew (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Babin Mew You can't put such a license on someone else's work, they have to do so themself. If they did, then that is an ok license, see Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses, and you can use it where it may fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that can an image with such a license be used on wikipedia pages without permission (for example, can an image with CC 2.0 license be used on e.g. the article "Teahouse")? I have no intention of changing licenses. Babin Mew (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The license is the permission, so yes. Attribution, if any, is given on the filepage like File:Old-man-and-the-cat.jpg, and is almost never added to the actual article, unless we're talking stuff like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

So if I add an image licensed with CC 2.0 on a Wikipedia page without permission from the creator (not mine), would it be ok? Babin Mew (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Of course, in our environment, someone might disagree with you that that picture should be there, or discover that that picture didn't actually have that license and nominate it for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

As an example: . They have added a license we can use, so we go ahead and do that. We don't ask again and again for every image and every article. Or this:. He only has to say it once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

After a move, should related pages have their contents updated to reflect the new name?

I recently moved the article for Java bytecode to JVM bytecode after the move request passed. I updated some immediately related articles to use the new name, but I'm wondering if I should seek out other articles that use the term "Java bytecode" and change instances of this to "JVM bytecode". Moiré (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, especially when they're links to the renamed article, but other uses where they're obviously referring to this thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess links are less important because there will be a redirect.

Watch out in case there are times when Java bytecode doesn't have to mean JVM bytecode. I only said that because I don't know the facts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like case-by-case according to context. Is the real topic specifically Java or is it any JVM-compiling? There's a redirect Java→JVM, so if the topic is Java, a link to the Java term is WP:NOTBROKEN and still gets the reader to the target. That WP guideline page gives several rationales for why that is often preferable to updating the link. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Submitting an article for review.

Hello - I am trying to get my article, which now sits in my sandbox, submitted for review. What should I do next. Jlibbra (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jlibbra: I checked your sandbox. First off, the biggest issue that I can notice is the formatting, but aside from that, the sources used are not good. Do not cite Wikipedia as a source, Wikipedia (rather fittingly) does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source of information, so citing it is not allowed. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Jlibbra (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jlibbra I suggest you take your sources which meet our golden rules for good sources and use them to expand the article List of John Deere tractors. It is often best for new editors to learn how Wikipedia works by expanding existing articles rather than trying to write a new article from scratch, especially when there will be overlap to topics we already have. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

But this article is not the same as any Wikipedia article. It is primarily about the research and development project named "The New Generation of Power" that John Deere embarked upon over a seven year period to overtake the competition, primarily International Harvester - the leading tractor manufacturer at the time, to become the world's leader in tractor sales. It is widely regarded by farm machinery historians as the single most import event in not only John Deere's history, but perhaps that all tractor manufacturers, that drove modern farm tractor technology forward into the modern age. The tractors mentioned in the article are only a result of the research project that propelled John Deere forward, as well as competitors in response to the technology that resulted from the research project. Jlibbra (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I have written a Wikipedia article before back in 2017. It's called the "John Deere 4010" which is about the single most important tractor that came out of this research and development project and changed everything for John Deere and its competitors. Jlibbra (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jlibbra: I'm assuming that means that @Jmlibbra is you then? Why did you make a new account then? I'm just curious, btw, because the probable answer is that you may have lost access to it. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a new account because it had been so long since I had authored it I could not remember my login and password. And, I no longer have access to the email addressed I used back then. Jlibbra (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for telling me! Good luck with your draft. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Just for information, Jlibbra, it would do no harm to place notes on the Talk pages of both accounts to the effect of "I lost access to this account and now edit as Jlibbra" and "I previously edited as Jmlibbra but lost access to that account". This would both obviate the same enquiry being made by others in the future, and maintain a more complete picture of your editing achievements. It's a relatively common situation. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay great! Thank much for the advice. Obviously I don't have much experience at this so any help I can get is much appreciated! Jlibbra (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

i want to move from sandbox to article

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.

---

Extended content

F Killa

F Killa
Also known as	F Killa
Born	Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed 29-05-1989 Egypt
Origin	Cairo
Genres	Hip Hop - Rap
Occupations	Rapper and Songwriter
Years active	2006

Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, known as F Killa or Flow Killer ( اف كيلا ) AKA El Moukatel born 1989, is an Egyptian rapper, musician, and songwriter from Cairo He achieved success in Egypt and the Arab world due to his distinctive style of old-school rap. He is considered one of the top rap stars in Egypt. He has released two albums: the first with Mak-D and the second solo, which was very well-received by Egyptian and Arab listeners upon its release.

His Career and Works

He began his artistic journey in 2006 when he met his colleague, Mak D, and together they formed a group called EgySkillz. They released their first album, consisting of eight songs, before splitting up for artistic reasons.

In late 2006, he released his first solo single, "Leh Ehna Keda" (Why Are We Like This?), featuring Palestinian artist Jasmine. This song addressed the political situation in Palestine and the Arab region.

In 2007, he met the renowned artist MC Amin, and together they collaborated on the compilation album "Arab Rap Soldiers," featuring prominent names such as Mr. Kordy, E-Money, Gad El-Gallad, Mohamed El Deeb and Afret El-Kalam.

In 2008, he released several songs, including "El-Faqr" (Poverty), "Qoum Ya Arabi" (Rise Up, Arab), and "Mozakarat Muslim" (Muslim's Diary). He also performed in numerous concerts, considered among the first of their kind for Egyptian hip hop, marking the beginning of a new generation of rappers in Egypt. Audiences were always eager to attend and enjoy his performances. Seeing all these artists on one stage

In 2009, he released his first music video, "El Moukatel" which the public subsequently nicknamed him. The song resonated widely with Egyptian and Arab audiences, bringing him considerable fame at the time. That same year, he released the song "Enty" with the rap group Asfalt and DJ Feedo, which impressed audiences with its unique romantic style. Also in 2009, he collaborated on "Violence" with Mr. Kordy, the Lebanese-Swiss artist La Gale, and the American artist Benzosa, a song that continues to be popular. He also released a song with the distinguished artist E Money titled "Daman El haa" and collaborated with the Zero group on a music video titled "Slums," which addressed the problems faced by young people in impoverished and marginalized neighborhoods. In late 2009, he joined the Arab League, a group that included some of the biggest names in Arabic rap. However, a disagreement arose, and the songs he contributed to were never released. He later returned to work with them. New in 2011, he performed several concerts together, most notably at the American University in Cairo and the Planet Festival

In 2012, he released the song Kafana Men El Wooud "Enough of the Promises," which reflected the political situation at the time

In 2013, he released two songs, "Egmady" and "A Message to Every Harasser," in which he attacked harassment in all its forms, describing harassers as a plague and a lack of morals and values. "Egmady" premiered at a concert by Zap Tharwat and Masar Egbari at the Cairo Opera House . He subsequently released several songs, including "System Fall," "Syasa Fargha," and "El Aalam El Sofly." He also collaborated with Arabian Knightz on their song "Fokkak Remix," which featured a selection of top rap stars from the Arab world, such as Don Bigg, Shadia Mansour, and Mahmoud Jreri from Dam. This song was originally scheduled for release in 2007 but was released recently.

In 2014, he released a music video for the song "Nadam" which achieved significant success. It was a huge success and is one of the best songs in the history of Egyptian rap. After that, he released a song titled "Lamma Arhal" , which was also a huge success.

2015 was Killa's last concert, in which he sang unreleased song called "Betwanes Beek" . Then he released a music video for his song "Shbh Mostaheel," and this song was Killa's last work since then.

Reference

External Links

• F Killa Channel on Youtube

• F Killa on Facebook

• F Killa on Instagram

Dr mohamdd1 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Dr mohamdd1 I have added a banner at the top of your sandbox (User:Dr mohamdd1/sandbox) where you can submit your draft for review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2026 (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.

Issue on my draft

How can i fix the link on my draft:Draft:Ferraria (Campo Largo)? ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ~2025-40346-02. Is there a reason why the access date on the citation is set to 9 October 2019? Is that when you accessed the source at the URL given? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Basically its because i made this as English version of this: pt:Ferraria (Campo Largo) ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the source is no longer available at that URL (presuming it was back in October 2019). When translating content between editions of Wikipedia, you need to check that source links in citations both work and verify the content they're supposed to be supporting. You're also required to credit the Wikipedia article you're translating - see Wikipedia:Translation#Attribution requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay... ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

My edit

Someone reverted my edit to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Template:Not a forum/doc and on my talk page they said it wa svandalism. Come on, it isn't vandalism. i just literally rewrited it. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree your edits are not vandalism. Perhaps User:Materialscientist has not read that page.

Nonetheless, if your edits are not accepted, please follow WP:BRD (i.e. start the "D" part of that process). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Image

I need to change the main image on this page sv:Christer Strömholm. Stesod (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Den här är den engelska Wikipedia-n. Fråga på sv:Wikipedia:Fikarummet. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Notability question (Rebrickable)

Per the earlier thread, I submitted Draft:Rebrickable for review. While it waits for review, how is the sourcing so far? Is it notable enough to warrant a page? As I stated earlier, I think it is, although the sources take a bit of searching to find, and there were others I didn't list in the article. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Rebrickable is a notable topic for inclusion to Wikipedia WP:ORGIND. The actual issue that that your article is just a stub. Add more information and sources.And also make sure that your sources are reliable and independent. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NewAccount7295. Wikipedia's notability policy requirement is that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Are there two or three sources (either amongst those you've cited in the draft or others you've found) that you think are independent and provide some depth of coverage of Rebrickable? If so, could you identify them here so that we can take a closer look? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe so. I added this source to the article from The Direct: https://thedirect.com/article/lego-sets-alternative-builds NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That source appears to use Rebrickable itself as a source, but I'm not sure that counts as coverage of Rebrickable. Putting that aside though, I asked for two or three sources, and that's just one. Are there others that provide depth of coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The article from The Direct makes two statements about Rebrickable, aside from mentioning it many times to discuss MOCs from there:

"Luckily, the website Rebrickable allows LEGO fans to look up the sets in their collection and discover new ways to rebuild them."

"All of the instructions for these alternate designs and more can be found on Rebrickable."

Here were some others I didn't list:

• Technabob (/blog/2011/09/10/rebrickable-lego-website/); defunct website
• https://www.wired.com/2015/04/lego-master/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/parenting/interactive/2023/lego-bricks-colors-history/
• https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/sep/25/how-lego-bricks-went-from-five-colors-to-nearly-20/

NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wired source is good and is the sort of coverage you need to demonstrate notability. It's an article about Rebrickable, whereas some of the others just mention it in passing. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Which sources are the most significant (both here and in the article) for notability? NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't inspected them all in detail, but I'd say the Wired source looks like the best one. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd consider The Direct source to be a significant source since it is about MOCs from Rebrickable and mentions the website twenty times. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wired one tells us more about the website and how it works though, so I think it's more useful for basing content on - which is ultimately what the need for significant coverage come from. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I used The Direct source in the paragraph discussing MOCs. Regardless of if you can base content from it, I do think it can help establish notability. Would you agree with that? NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If something doesn't provide much content, then it's not providing significant coverage on its own, though it may contribute to significant coverage when considered in combination with other sources. See WP:WHYN on this. Anyway, let's see what the reviewer makes of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I need to move an article

I need to move this article User:Bps2/sandbox and call it "BE MORE GRATEFUL (Studio Album)", but it tells me that the name is blacklisted: I'm sure it's not, what's happening? Bps2 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bps2: I'd recommend moving it to the draftspace instead (ie. Draft:Be More Grateful). Also no need for the (studio album) or (album) distinction, there is no article named "Be More Grateful". Now as for the title, DaBaby's article writes it as "Be More Grateful" (in case caps) and the DaBaby discography article also writes it with case caps so I'd assume that is the correct way to stylize the title, unless another editor says otherwise.

I'll be helping you move it to the draftspace now. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, also I'm sure it is in caps because every source + Spotify tells it, also I need help: it has been submitted for speedy deletion or something, but there was nothing wrong with it. How do I make it a normal page? Right now I only have the draft. Bps2 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bps2: I put that tag there because it's now a redirect to your draft (see your talk page for more information, also, redirects to draftspace articles are usually deleted for R2). However, as for the title, I think you can ask for help on that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok: I removed a source that they told me doesn't count (streaming service), now I think that the page is ready: I can't move it as "Be More Grateful", but I would like to do it (and in a permanent way) and make the page stay on the site. How do I proceed? Bps2 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bps2: I still recommend against moving the article. You may think that it is ready, but I, and very likely a few other editors will disagree and move it back to the draftspace. The draft won't go away from Wikipedia that quickly, in fact, unless you don't edit it for six months, there's a low chance that it will be deleted (or tagged for speedy deletion). The best thing to do when making a new article is to take your time with it instead of rushing it to the mainspace. Otherwise, you may have to go to Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. I will be giving you a few more handy templates to use when making an article about an album, but I also recommend looking at other articles about albums by DaBaby so that you can compare them to your draft and see what they're like. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

SignedInteger is right about the title; MOS:ALLCAPS states to Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. As for moving to mainspace, seconded on the above comment. Jolly1253 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks! Bps2 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of BBC

How reliable is BBC, compared to others? ~2026-10251-8 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-10251-8! This is not the place to ask that question (at least I think it isn't, could be wrong here), but according to Wikipedia's own discussions about the BBC's reliability, the answer is "generally reliable". _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is rarely the only place, but it is always a suitable place for newcomers to ask questions about Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa, @SignedInteger, Thanks for your answers! Very true. (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC))

In the future, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a great place for questions regarding the reliability of a specific source. You can also check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see past discussions regarding a source, and a helpful chart for the consensus of sources that are frequently used. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Add information to Denise Dowse bio page

Add to Denise Dowse: An endowed scholarship fund to benefit theater and theater technology students at W.T. Woodson High School (now C.G. Woodson) in Fairfax, Virginia was funded by Denise’s high school friends and family: https://www.cfnova.org/scholarship/denise-dowse-drama-scholarship-fund ~2026-22972-6 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done—In future, please use WP:Edit Request Wizard, and be sure to declare any connection you may have to the subject, the school, or the fund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

um.

Alright, I’ve been reverting vandalism for about two years now, but this is first time I have ever gotten a death threat on my talk page before. What am I supposed to do here? (On my talk page, it’s the latest topic, titled Idiot)

help Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m aware it’s most likely an empty threat, but I don’t know if I want that just sitting there on my talk page, so. Am I allowed to revert it or something? Should I report them to AIV? (my cvua training never got this far so I have no clue what to do-) Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474: You should report them ASAP. They're going to get blocked anyway since they're clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE and are only here to troll others. (See their talk page). This can happen since...well it's the Internet unfortunately but the best thing to do is to not take it seriously, relax, remove the personal attack from your talk page, and then report it at WP:AIV. There are few times where this shouldn't be the course of action, like for example where it gets serious (ie. the vandal tries to out you by leaking personal information), then you should contact an oversighter for help on removing that. I know I'm a bit late here, but yeah. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Luckily, they’ve already been blocked. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Though, yeah, I will definitely revert that stuff and report those people from now on, now that I know I can. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but in case it ever happens again, just don't take it seriously. Obviously you should get it purged from the edit history (theoversighters are here to remove things like that). There are few times where it should be taken seriously. It will probably happen again but eh, to quote a user essay: "If a vandal insults you, it is a reliable indicator that you are doing something right." _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Like I said earlier, most of the time they’re just completely empty threats. (but wow, that was unexpected) Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems it's already been reverted by Materialscientist but yes, you are more than entitled to revert that sort of thing (you can remove whatever you want on your talk page, but stuff like this you should remove no matter where you see it) and absolutely do report them to AIV Athanelar (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll do that from now on. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You can also take a look at WP:REVDEL since stuff like that is 100% eligible to be revision-deleted (i.e., purged from the edit history so nobody can see it) Athanelar (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:SOS. CodeTalker (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Coi on a article about the historic Light Gallery.

Hi im the son in law of Tennyson Schad, ive created an article about The light Gallery that im sure meets all the requirements for an article .

Im unsure if I should submit for AFC or if another editor would be willing to take a look and advise..

THANK YOU..

Best

MARK Mark Simon Mann (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I moved that to Draft:Light Gallery.

Please submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC, using the big blue button for that purpose. 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 20:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much

Best M Mark Simon Mann (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Reversing a redirect: LETS and Local Exchange Trading System

New academic research () reveals that the redirect from Lets (disambiguation) to Local exchange trading system is inappropriate, and much of the content on the Local Exchange Trading System may benefit from updating in light of the published research. The linked research is announced on the page as starting in 2019 and published late 2025.

Advice on strategies to manage the realignment of pages (and content) to better reflect the relation between LETS and the Local Exchange Trading System would be appreciated. Very appreciated.

Just for clarification, there are LETS, and LETSystems. LETS is short for Local Exchange Trading Scheme. LETSystem is short for Local Exchange Trading System. There appears to be much confusion between the similarities and differences between the two and the newly published paper will help to distinguish (the history between) the two approaches to developing community currency. Each may benefit from having its own separate page on Wikipedia. Thank you. Pattern.Detail (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The linked paper explicitly uses "LETS" as an abbreviation of "Local Exchange Trading System"; this seems to be a standard abbreviation after a brief search, so the link from the disambiguation page seems fine to me. The paper uses "LETS" and "LETSystem" almost interchangeably, using "LETS" to refer to the general concept and "LETSystem" to refer to a particular implementation. I also can't find any description of a distinction between "Local Exchange Trading System" and "Local Exchange Trading Scheme"; are there any sources that describe such a distinction? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Advice with balance in an article.

Hi, I'm looking for advice on getting an article accepted. I admit, it's a learning process and things are moving in the right direction with the article. There's some further changes I could make, to the article to (hopefully) get it over the final hurdle. As I see it, where I'm a now with it is balancing the validity of the subject/topic against the article seeming promotional. Am I being overlay cautious? Where should the line be? The software was the first serious application of it's kind for Android platform and widely praised and hugely popular.The article is Draft:Caustic (DAW)

It's a piece of software, very different from, say, an article on a historical event. For reference, I've been using the sister software articles as models... Reason (software) and LMMS

Any help will be gratefully accepted here! Pounds Kitchens (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Pounds Kitchens Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, I've fixed this. (you just need [[LMMS]]) I wanted to caution you against using any random article as a model, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is guided by coverage in reliable sources. Every claim must be verifiable. This should guide your content: if it did not appear in a reliable source, I caution against including it. Also review WP:SS and WP:NPOV for more guidance. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles are promotional because of who they're written for. Potential customers or investors look for quite different things in an article than history-book readers do. To be not promotional, cater exclusively to the history-book readers; make the article intentionally useless for investors and customers. One possible way to accomplish this could be to take strategies used by people who intend to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool, and check off step by step that the article is a complete and utter failure by their standards.

Of course this can't be done cleanly or accurately, because some of the relevant information does still belong in a history article. But you've seen history books before, so you probably know the difference better than you realize. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I forgot my password.

I am User:Cliavn the anagram user but I forgot my password a while ago and just now discovered the teahouse. I do not have my passwords saved anywhere. Is there any way I could get my account back? ~2026-23420-4 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

When you're trying to sign in, at the bottom there's a link "Forgot your password?" Wondering if you've already tried that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for Russia article: Cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation

Hello — I am a new editor working on a university assignment and have prepared a neutral, sourced subsection proposal for the Russia article regarding cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation. The Russia talk page is extended-confirmed protected, so I cannot post it myself yet.

Would an extended-confirmed editor be willing to review and, if appropriate, post it on Talk:Russia on my behalf? I am happy to revise it based on feedback. Thank you very much.

Draft subsection:

Please make an edit request at Talk:Russia

=== Cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation === Since 2022, international sanctions and export controls have affected Russia’s cybersecurity sector, including access to security software, hardware, and international cooperation frameworks. Restrictions on advanced semiconductors, networking equipment, and cloud services have limited Russia’s ability to procure foreign cybersecurity technologies and infrastructure components, increasing reliance on domestic or non-Western alternatives.

Legal and regulatory measures such as data localization requirements and the “Sovereign Internet” framework have expanded state control over digital infrastructure. Analysts have noted that while these policies aim to increase digital sovereignty and continuity of operations, they may also reduce interoperability with global networks and limit participation in international cybersecurity information-sharing and incident response mechanisms.

Workforce migration has also affected cybersecurity capacity. In 2022, Russian officials estimated that more than 100,000 information technology specialists left the country following economic uncertainty and mobilization orders. Industry observers have reported that this outflow included software engineers and cybersecurity professionals, reducing domestic expertise in vulnerability management, incident response, and secure systems development.

International cybersecurity cooperation has declined as Russia’s participation in Western-led information-sharing, joint exercises, and capacity-building initiatives has been reduced. Research institutes have noted that Russia has increasingly shifted cybersecurity and technology cooperation toward non-Western partners such as China and Iran, reflecting a broader realignment of digital and security partnerships.

These developments have been cited as influencing the structure and performance of Russia’s cybersecurity sector, particularly in areas dependent on access to advanced technologies, skilled labor, and international coordination mechanisms.

References

EntropyWarden (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi EntropyWarden, welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, Talk:Russia isn't protected; the article is, but you should be able to post to the talk page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi 45dogs, thanks for responding! Would it be possible to later move my post up from the Talk:Russia to the article? EntropyWarden (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi EntropyWarden. I would recommend first bringing it up on the article talk page. But yes, I could see it being added to the article. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Philippines

How do I contribute to WikiProject Philippines? But, how can I get the Filipino company, person, and city article featured in good articles, where can I find Filipino news sources to cite with? UniqueWorld2026 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

UniqueWorld2026, by improving articles related to the Philippines, and by looking now and again at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines and responding helpfully when you are able to do so. Incidentally, the notion of getting an article "featured in good articles" is rather confusing, as there are "Featured" articles, there are "Good" articles, and there are of course good articles. And alas there are very, very many poor articles (over the last few days I've been wrestling with one myself, and it's still poor). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Pointers for Draft on U.S. Soprano Opera Musician

Curious if anyone is willing to review this draft (Sydney Kucine) before submittal. I reviewed guidelines, but would love a second opinion. Thanks! DimTheLightsTV (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not going to "pre-review" it. But I did glance at it. "Selected Operatic and Concert Repertoire" lists seven items. Six of the seven are unreferenced. Why should the reader trust that the six are factually correct? -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I can add the references for the repertoire items. thanks! DimTheLightsTV (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the spirit, DimTheLightsTV! -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Anonymity of temporary accounts

Why are temporary accounts less anonymous than a named account? Are temporary accounts anonymous by their username? Could they be recognizable for sure? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-23709-7! To partially answer your question, they are less anonymous because there are users (admins and non-admins alike) who can see the IP addresses that these accounts belong to. See: Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information. There's probably more information that I'm missing here, but that's the first thing that popped to my mind. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 03:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger Why would they see the IP address of a temporary account? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-23709-7: I assume that you mean why would they want to see the IP address of a TA. The answer to that is Criteria 4 mentioned on Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer. Agree to use the IP addresses in accordance with Foundation policy, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege. The people with this right (as well as admins) are expected to only use it to prevent long term abuse by TAs. That, and when an admin blocks a TA, they're in effect blocking the IP address that the TA was editing from as well. As such, TAs that do not make non-constructive edits do not have to worry about this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

As a TAIV, no it isn't expected to only use it to prevent LTAs. But yes, if you are making constructive edits you shouldn't worry about being looked at. You could also just create an account in order to have further privacy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

As a TAIV, no it isn't expected to only use it to prevent LTAs. Ah, yet another mistake by the most inept user to ever live, me. I'm such a god damn idiot, sorry for slipping up for the ten billionth time. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect a non TAIV to perfectly describe the policy. Thankfully, the policy gives quite a bit of wiggle room. I would also recommend against self deprecation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No offense, but your recommendation is highly unlikely to be accepted. (Nothing to do with you personally, I'm just not mentally well, on top of being inept). _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger @45dogs How would this unlikely be accepted? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-23709-7: Uh...I'm afraid you're mistaken. That was not referring to any comment made by you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record, there are also CheckUsers who can see IP data for registered accounts but it's a small trusted group with strict rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

25th Anniversary!!!

In a few days (exactly on the 25th — or the 26th in my timezone), Wikipedia will celebrate its 25th anniversary.

I’ve heard mentions of global celebrations, but I’m curious how these usually work from an editor’s perspective. Are they typically real‑life meetups, on‑wiki discussions, or more individual contribution drives?

For those who were around for previous anniversaries, what were they like? And based on your experience, is it generally worthwhile for someone who focuses on technical content, images, and article improvement to get involved?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

We need to add a Main Page banner to the Main Page as a honor of its 25th annivesary. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

When you work in Wikipedia on your computer rather than your phone, you’ll see the banner. I was surprised not to see it on my phone because some editors seem to always work on their phones, but then again a banner would take up precious screen real estate. Augnablik (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait … the banner is here on the phone after all. Just had to clear up a little problem to see it. Augnablik (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Xyqorophibian See meta:Event:Wikipedia 25 Virtual Celebration for what is planned. Your watchlist should have a banner with that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

... sorry, I now see that you were already aware of that link. I don't recall previous anniversaries but they should be described in the archives of the Signpost. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Watchlists are only available to registred users. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow…… ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I translate a page?

I wanted to translate this Czech page but it says I don't have the appropriate qualifications. How do I meet that criteria, or alternatively, can someone please create the translation and I can add the necessary details? Exiasprip (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Exiasprip: Please note, on the English Wikipedia this tool is restricted to editors that are extended-confirmed. You're currently at 485 edits, extended confirmed rights are given after you pass 500 edits (and have an account that's past a certain age but your account has been on here since 2013, so that's a moot thing to mention...) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You can just do it manually without the content translation tool, and link it to the Wikidata page. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

And following Help:Translation#Attribution requirements when it's translated. (Most people new to translating articles forget that requirement). – Quinn ΘΔ 04:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Exiasprip See also guidance at Wikipedia:Translation#Content. If your translation doesn't meet en-WP standards (in-line citations etc) it may be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't think that en:WP requires in-line citations for articles about 19th-century rail disasters. (I wish it did, and would be delighted to be told that I'm wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Recommended, then. And "they are required for featured articles, good articles, and A-class articles.", so having them is a good idea in any case. But sure, WP:N and WP:RS more important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Navigating topic activity following a topic unban

Hi, I was recently topic unbanned from pages relating to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I want to be especially careful about process and tone going forward. I’ve reached an impasse with other editors in an ongoing discussion where I was advised that consensus would be needed before making a change. Given differng interpretations of relevant policies, I’m considering opening an RfC to seek wider community input, but I want to make sure I do so in a way that’s constructive and not disruptive. Is there any best practice around timing or approach in this situation, especially after a recent unban? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Best practice after an unban is to admit you're wrong and let it slide, instead of running straight to RfC. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The whole reason you got banned was you kept insisting you were right. You need to stop insisting. That's literally the point.

It's not easy to become that person who immediately folds as soon as they smell an argument, but that's what to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If consensus on the issue has not been established, I'd recommend seeking a third party opinion at WP:3O. If someone weighs in, they will be a neutral, uninvolved third party and can help settle disputes between two people.

I disagree that you are forever prohibited from seeking to generate consensus on a debate, or from hosting an RFC. Just ensure that you follow the listed procedures at WP:RFC and read the page thoroughly to ensure your situation is appropriate for one. Ensure that your wording is fair, and your options fully represent the range of reasonable beliefs regarding the dispute. A biased or titled RFC can be off-putting and draw undesired attention to yourself and your involvement.

Happy editing, Jcgaylor (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say (and didn't think) "forever prohibited", and it really does seem disingenuous for you to claim that I did. I think "Don't make the stupid move of rushing back to doing exactly what got you banned" is unarguably excellent advice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12 If there IS an RFC, be gracious in your own comments, and don't WP:Bludgeon the discussion. Starting with WP:3O sounds like good advice. And, as @TooManyFingers says, try to understand that you might be wrong. Will the difference of opinion really matter, say, 10 years from now? David10244 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insights (same with you, TMF and Jcgaylor). I agree that 3O sounds optimal for what I'm really looking for here - especially since the other user seems to view RFC as an escalation, which is not how I want it to be utilized or how I want to come across. My concern is that this topic may not be eligible for 3O, as there are more than two of us who have been involved in the discussion. Is there an alternative like 3O that I can utilize, or would RFC be the best way, heeding all warnings and advice from this thread and on the WP:RFC page? ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

New Year's Day

Goodbye 2025 and New Year 2026 Noahnainggol (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

11 days late my friend, better late than never I guess. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Noahnainggol may be invoking the Julian Calendar, or one of its derivations such as the Berber calendar's New Year of Yennayer, or the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar's New Year of Malenka.

Chinese New Year is also coming up in ten days' time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see, I completely forgot about other calendars, well then Happy New year to you @Noahnainggol Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry on Citizenship Counts…

I believe there is an unannounced COI on Citizenship Counts . The talk page shows that a deleted user by the same name of the organisation has prominently edited on this page. Furthermore, there are little to no sources which back the evidence of the page up, and there isn’t a lot of content on this page to begin with. This leads me to query the notability of Citizenship Counts. What should I do? WorldwideParasol (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, well the article does seem to lack sources on the Notability front, if you want you can put the page up for deletion (AFD or PROD). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for review and improvement suggestions on draft articles

Hello, I’m still learning Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards, and I’d really appreciate your help. If you don’t mind, could you please review the following drafts and let me know what improvements or changes are needed?

• Draft:Friedrich von Luxburg
• Draft:VolkLocker

-- ItsEthanP (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

For the first draft:

You can’t have the person’s company website to establish notability but you can use it in minimal amounts for mundane things (like the company’s founding or employee count). For a living person notability requirements are tougher, however I do like the last source, so if there were a couple more of those ones (a full rundown on the person), then that’d be great. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

any suggestion for second one? ItsEthanP (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

i did edit on that article i added about his interview with Al Bawaba. thanks for your advice. ItsEthanP (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Interviews can’t be used too often, if it is a mundane thing (such as his birthday) then it can be used but primary sources (from the person/company being described aren’t to be used too often), if you can find more secondary sources (EG. A business magazine/article or a newspaper on the figure, or a book etc.) that would be great.

For the second one I’m not sure as I’m unaware of notability requirements for Ransomware, perhaps direct your queries to a Wikiproject on coding or hackers (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hacker and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Help reviewing Draft:Attero Recycling – notability, sources, and tone

I am requesting guidance on my draft article: Draft:Attero Recycling

I have made several attempts to improve the draft, but it has not yet been accepted. I would appreciate help understanding what specific changes are still required. In particular, I am looking for feedback on:

• Whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies
• Whether the current references are sufficiently independent and reliable, or if additional sources are needed
• Whether the article still appears promotional and how to improve neutrality
• Any sections that should be rewritten, removed, or expanded to align with Wikipedia policies

I have tried to follow Wikipedia’s content, sourcing, and neutrality guidelines, but I may be overlooking important requirements. Detailed feedback would be very helpful.

Thank you for your assistance. Thegreatidea (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thegreatidea Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Attero Recycling]].

If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. General employment is considered paid editing.

Your draft just tells of the existence of the company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary about what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You ask us to tell you Whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies but ultimately as the article creator that is your job to prove to the rest of us. If you don't know whether your subject is notable, you shouldn't be bothering to write an article about it in the first place, because the entire way we're supposed to write Wikipedia articles is by finding sources which support notability and using them for information. What you're doing right now is writing your article backwards, which means you're writing the article first and then trying to prove notability later, which is counterproductive.

The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and you should pay particular attention to the section WP:CORPTRIV (which tells us that run-of-thw-mill press releases about ordinary corporate activity like expansions, mergers, acquisitions, product releases etc cannot be used to support notability even when reported by a third party) Athanelar (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

My name was miss spelled Lore supposed to be Lord

Can I get my name changed please to Lord not Lore thank you Lore Bruce de UBC (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The above is your sole contribution so far. In view of this, simply abandon "Lore Bruce de UBC", register as "Lord Bruce de UBC", and make sure you're logged in as the latter when editing. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME. rfqii ^talk 09:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: Don't see WP:RENAME. Instead, do what I suggest. This will waste less time. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

how to keep a change I made

I tried to change my grandfather page and was told what I wrote is wrong but I'm literally the most qualified person to fact check his page.. what should\can I do to fix this? Sobrielle (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem, Sobrielle, is that anyone can claim to be an expert (or even "the most qualified person"), and such claims are therefore not taken seriously, regardless of who makes them. What to do? You were told: "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (To "reliable, reputable", I'd add "disinterested".) So try searching online and, if time and energy permit, in libraries; and post your findings (complete with which-bit-comes-from-which-source) in Talk:John Paris Jr. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd shout, but you need a reliable source WP:RS - Walter Ego 10:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You were not told what you wrote is "wrong," you were told that it could not be verified because it was not sourced to a reliable source.

Imagine that what you wrote was changed by somebody else also claiming to be Mr. Paris' othet grandchild. They say that he actually has 5 children and that you're a liar. Which one of you are we supposed to believe?

This is why verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. All factual information here must be verifiable, and that means it must be referenced to a source that somebody could go and check to see if it's true. It doesn't need to be online or easy to access, it just needs to be theoretically possible for someone to go out, find that source and make sure the claim is actually true. "Trust me, I'm his grandchild" is obviously impossible for any of us to certify. Athanelar (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Moving an article on mobile

Is there a way to move an article on mobile? Mesocyclonic93 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Use the link at the bottom of the page to switch to desktop view. There will be a link in the same place to switch back to mobile view.

Or make a request per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mesocyclonic93 @Pigsonthewing It's entirely possible to move pages on mobile. In the top right of the page you'll see 3 dots right next to the edit button. Hit the 3 dots and you get a dropdown of tools including the 'Move' button. Athanelar (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for experienced editor to draft article

Hello,

I am a newer editor. I attempted to create a draft article about Dakota Tipi First Nation, but my drafts were declined and deleted.

I understand that I should not continue drafting this article myself. I am asking whether an experienced editor would be willing to create or oversee a neutral draft using independent, reliable sources.

I am happy to provide source links if requested, but I will not write the article text.

Thank you for your time. K83873 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This request should be made at Requested Articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness; it's not likely a request like this will persuade a volunteer to take up the topic you are interested in.

Your draft was deleted as unreviewed LLM content- meaning that you used an AI/LLM to write it. As long as you are willing to do the work yourself, you may create and submit a draft yourself. It is true that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, you should first gain experience and knowledge by using the new user tutorial and editing existing articles in areas that interest you, after a time, you will be then better suited to attempting article creation. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You might also consider joining a relevant Wikiproject and placing your request there. Having done a very quick search, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America might be useful. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. So long as you are not relying on AI to do the hard work for you, there is nothing stopping you from writing the article.

Editing existing articles, reviewing the user tutorial, reading over the WP:MOS and other policies like WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, are great ways to build the skills necessary for article creation. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering your article was deleted for consisting of unreviewed AI output, you would think you'd find it counterproductive to post an AI-generated question about it.

Please communicate with us in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Why did my draft of a micronation get disaprooved?

It was notable to me and a community of multiple people. It would be nice to see it approved. Hopefully, a time will come when Alternia has a page on here! Lemurik the Historian (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lemurik the Historian, and welcome to the Teahouse and to 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.

Notable, in Wikipedia terms, mostly means that there are adequate sources to meet that characterization - i.e. that it has been noted.

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) 13:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Restoring of 2 articles I had previously created

Dear Wikipedia,

This is a request to restore the 2 English Wikipedia articles. Those are the 2 at the bottom of the list https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Vincent_Mia_Edie_Verheyen namely Thomas Chan and Chung Wah School. Note that the first has been "re-created" meanwhile, but not actually as the subject is a different person. The original article mentioned a politician and businessman from Solomon Islands. Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Info: both were actually deleted under criterion G7, asked for by yourself on 14th of november 2015 ("As this article's sole author, I request, in good faith, to have this page deleted, under Criterium G7: Author requests deletion. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen, since you were the person who asked for them to be deleted, you could try making a request at WP:REFUND. It would probably be a good idea to ask for them to be made into WP:DRAFTs so that you can check to make sure they still meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and add any new information, before they go back to the main Wikipedia space. The criteria for both people and schools have definitely changed since 2015. The articles are easy to get back now since you asked for their deletion, but will be much harder/impossible to retrieve if they get deleted via a deletion discussion. Meadowlark (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeking help regarding the expansion of my draft

I am seeking help to expand Draft:Jeff Clune this draft is about a well known and notable computer scientist who has made significant contributions in Artificial intelligence and is currently works as researcher at Deepmind. I am requesting for a help to expand this article because I m new to this field. If any experienced editor is there it would be great if they can help to expand this article with proper, reliable and neutral sources that adhere Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you Shamsheer Singh Rajput (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the reviewers on this one. If you can find more reliable, secondary sources which focus on him, it may prove notability, but it doesn't at this point. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shamsheer Singh Rajput You certainly should include his PECASE Award using this citation. That is probably enough to show his notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You can also use his Google scholar profile to list some of his highly-cited articles. An H-index of 61 is pretty good evidence of his impact. I can also see over 100 mentions of him at newspapers.com, if you have access to that. Many of these are based on interviews, so not independent but several are usable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks for your help I will surely act on the all of the suggestions you gave.

Thank you Shamsheer Singh Rajput (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Palau images issue (MOS:SANDWICH)

Hello, I've tried to fix the MOS:SANDWICH issue noted in the article for Palau. I know sometimes edits like this go unreviewed AND I am also not very familiar with the policy/guidelines regarding images. I'd appreciate someone more pernickety to look at what I have done and improve/revert as needed. My diff is here. PS: (The infobox was the real source of pain there) Komonzia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page

Hi, please forgive my lack of knowledge on how this process works. I'm a Retired Navy SEAL of over 20 years, a counter terrorism expert and multi-published author. I wanted to create a page for my public profile as I recently took on another hat of being a CEO. In this process it directed me to write an article for submission. I did that and it was denied, with no reason given and I was told I could not resubmit it. I have articles written about me, but I can't see where I would be able to submit those, if that's even allowed. I say all of this to simply ask for help on how I can go about getting my page created and how to navigate the article submission part. Any feedback, advice or assistance is greatly appreciated. MartyStrong5326 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Seriously, dont bother. Trying to write a wikipedia article about yourself is one of the most difficult things you can attempt here.

It is also positively discouraged by WP:COI Walter Ego 17:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MartyStrong5326. Your draft, at User:MartyStrong5326/sandbox, bears no resemblance to an encyclopaedic article. It's pure spam, which is not what Wikipedia is for. qcne (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

(and I have now marked it for deletion) qcne (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Marty. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not host resumés or "public profiles" such as the one you've written for yourself, which seems to be designed purely to promote yourself, something which is forbidden here.

This is rather like wondering why an architectural magazine won't publish photos of your dog, or why you can't get a blurb about your career published as a foreword in a quantum physics textbook. There is no better answer to give than "you're in the wrong place entirely". The kind of thing you're looking to publish is probably better off somewhere like Linkedin or Substack. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I would have been so much more bold in my response above if I thought this pile-on would occur. I'll be far less timid next time. - Walter Ego 17:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MartyStrong5326, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Do you see how difficult that will make it to write about yourself? You would have to start by finding several places where people completely unconnected with you, and not prompted by or fed information on behalf of you, have chosen to publish at some length about you.

Assuming you can find such sources (which is not true for most people in the world), you would then need to forget everything you knew about yourself (!) and write a summary of what those sources said. Even if they left out something important. Even if they said nasty things about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I misunderstood the purpose, process and guidelines. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. MartyStrong5326 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to the encyclopedia elsewhere, we'd be glad to have you :) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Page for Sugar Foods LLC

Can someone help me edit my draft for Sugar Foods LLC? It has gotten declined 4 times and I cannot fix it. Dillonfontana (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You were given very clear feedback in a comment on Jan 8th. If, after giving that feedback due consideration, you cannot find any better sources, you may unfortunately have to consider that the subject of your article is simply not notable enough for inclusion, and go ahead and edit something else. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Too many tabs!

Hi all! A bit of a trivial matter but I figured I'm not the only one experiencing this and I figured there may be some wisdom out there from more well versed editors.

Any time I'm contributing to discussions, I end up middle clicking plenty of tabs to investigate matters thoroughly.

It doesn't take very long until a very large amount of browser tabs have been opened. And I just can't stand having that many tabs open!

How do you guys manage your browser tabs? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 20:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@MEN KISSING: Truthfully, I don't. My poor RAM cries every day and every night because it has to deal with so many browsers...

Okay, jokes aside, I only have my watchlist open usually, but my browser has nearly crashed in the past due to too many tabs being open.

I recommend closing tabs after you're done with them and only saving the ones that you think should always be open (watchlist, bookmarks, etc), hope this helped :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It gets so annoying when you have so many tabs that the 'x' disappears, and you have to manually click through each tab to close it. Also, while I'm here, I also don't manage my tabs. And I have only 4GB of RAM. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think at some point it is faster to just press Alt F4 and restart the browser. But then you risk losing the tabs you actually did want to keep open, and then when you look through your history you realize that the tabs you wanted to close are actually very important still, and you still want to keep them open and somehow you end up with even more tabs open instead of less tabs. I know that was a mouthful, I remember that something like this happened to me like two years ago and my poor dinky little laptop crashed. Moral of the story: If the tab count is past 50 tabs, you might have a problem. (I know I do...) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

FYI to everyone on this thread, in most browsers now you can group tabs into collapsible groups that only take up the space of 1 tab. Athanelar (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I use the OneTab browser extension on Firefox. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming: Oh my God, thank you! This is a RAM saver. (Akin to a life-saver, I guess...). I'll keep this nifty little thing alongside all the other nifty little things I have on my browser. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I can already tell this is going to be an absolute lifesaver. Thank you so much! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Terry Yorath

Terry Yorath died around 10.30pm on January 7th My daughter Gabby Logan OBE had a press release put out at 9am on the > 8th but he died on ward J16 at St James hospital Leeds on the 7th > having been there since December 12th. > > Any published obituaries have taken the information from one > inaccurate piece of information. > > It is well published that Gabby left a live tv programme,MOTD, when > my son called her to say we were at the hospital where Terry had just died. > > If Wikipedia keeps the wrong info available then others will use that > source of information and it will continue to be inaccurate

Please can you change the date of his death to January 7th Thank you Christine yorath (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I've move this here from Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. Can a kind editor please help this grieving family with the article Terry Yorath? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of sources either have the 8th or list no date. Does "night of the 7-8" (current phrasing) work? SenshiSun (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun: That's WP:SYNTH. None of the sources given contains a specific date or range of dates, so neither should Wikipedia. I've removed the specific date from the article until a reliable source stating a fact can be found. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, @SenshiSun: This is being discussed at Talk:Terry Yorath § Date of death. There is currently only one reliable source which states a date (The Daily Telegraph gives 8 January). I have removed the unreferenced information but Govvy has replaced it, apparently unaware of the requirement for such information to be sourced properly. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I am happy to continue discussion there if needed. SenshiSun (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss and the additional stress that this is causing, Christine yorath. While it does put some of the burden on you, I reckon that the best way for this to be fixed is for you to tell a newspaper or other online news source what Terry's correct date of death was, and for them to publish it. Wikipedia is reliant on what published sources say about something, so getting it correct in a published source is the easiest way to correct it here. If there's a newspaper that you know is still to publish an obituary, for example, maybe they'd be willing to include the correct data if you request that? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Or wait. The article about him currently states just "January 2026", which is accurate. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I think at least two reliable publications will be needed to counter the single one I've found which states 8 January. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's true about the interim solution. I was considering mentioning that. I've been looking for sources that specify that he died on Wednesday night (instead of specifying the date) and have found this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I've now used these sources to include the correct date in the article. Pinging Christine yorath. Thanks for highlighting this issue and sorry again for your loss. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Draft:Openly, Inc.

Hello everyone, I recently submitted a draft article Draft:Openly, Inc. that was declined because the references were not considered independent. I researched this topic for about a month, and my understanding is that independent sources should not be owned, published, or controlled by the company itself.

Could someone please confirm if my understanding is correct and share any examples of sources that are usually acceptable?

I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines correctly, as I am still learning. Thank you for your time and help. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WhiteFactLoom, and welcome to the teahouse. If you want a full list of everything that makes a source 'independent', please see WP:INDEPENDENT. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WhiteFactLoom, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I recommend you also read WP:CORPTRIV.

The great majority of companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and cannot have articles written about them. I don't know whether that is true of Openly or not, but your current sources do nothing to establish that it could.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Unless you cite several sources that meet those criteria, you cannot establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

AFC

hi there, I have an article pending approval, it seems to be taking a while and i am just wondering if i have done verything correctly as i have made minor edits afew times after having submitted it initially. Dr.micahel (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dr.micahel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, you successfully submitted Draft:Patrick Casey (cyclist) ten days ago, and it is awaiting review (it suggests at the top that it might take 2-3 weeks, though there is no guaranteed time). ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Dr.micahel, I've made minor changes to one section of Draft:Patrick Casey (cyclist); you might make similar minor changes to the other sections. -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about when its appropriate to send WikiLove.

Hello! I wanted to send a wikilove/food of appreciation thingy to my mentor to introduce myself, but I was unsure if this was an appropriate use of this feature. :) Minnoweu (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Minnoweu, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, that is a perfectly fine way of using the Wikilove feature. Its just a system designed to allow editors to easily show appreciation to other editors. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you! Minnoweu (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

As long as you're using it for a real reason, and you're not making anyone think "OMG why is this person spamming", then you're fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft

I created Draft:Brickit because I found a lot of sources mentioning it while researching Draft:Rebrickable (still under review if anyone cares). I think Brickit undeniably passes notability with all the in-depth, independent sources that discuss it. However, I was advised to submit it through AfC over at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. What would you recommend? Does it require an AfC review in its current state? NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NewAccount7295, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As yours is a new account (not yet four full days old) you are not autoconfirmed and do not have access to the Move function to move the draft to mainspace.

In about eighteen hours, you will have the technical ability to move a file. But I very strongly recommed that you use AFC for new articles until you have a track record of successful new articles.

In some ways your draft isn't bad. But a draft that consists of one paragraph, supported by ten different one-paragraph reviews, is not up to much. (I haven't looked through all of them - maybe some are more substantial. If so, jettison all the trivial ones).

While you have rightly kept to what those sources say, there really not much you can say. A Wikipedia article should be based on multiple independent in depth coverage - if that is all there is to say, then I don't think Brickit is notable. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine In many cases, Brickit is the main subject of the article, so there is significant coverage and more than just one paragraph talking about it. If you scroll down on their website (brickit.app), there is a row showing media coverage. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage has to be independent - it can't use any info from the company. If the company is showing links to things that really are independent, and that really are significant - no interviews, no announcements - then that material would count to making the article better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Footnotes referencing album liner notes

Are album liner notes appropriate as footnote sources? If so, can anyone point me to a good example? Rdog2010 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the purpose of the footnote. Which liner notes are you talking about, and what would be in your footnote? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rdog2010. Yes they are. See Template:Cite AV media notes and use the parameter "type=liner notes". I wish the template had some nice examples of this, but check articles that link to the template. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Rdog2010, using liner notes as references is OK for non-controversial information such as the composer and lyricist of a song, and which musicians performed on a track. Promotional fluff should be left out. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia help?

Learning ~2026-26241-3 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free knowledge project. It is a tool to help you learn. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm finish

Already had a moment to research and realized I am what I mind myself to appreciate and approve me all by my honesty and self control ~2026-25444-5 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

help me

i’m very scared. i don’t know what to do. everything seems so hard. how do i edit football. i want to edit football. i’m scared and i need help badly. how do i do it. my mentor no answer me why is this happening to me. help Jerodrodman (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It's normal to feel scared when trying a new thing, like editing an encyclopedia! Have you read any of the introduction guides, like Help:Edit, or played the tutorial game The Wikipedia Adventure? I'd advise you start out with small edits and take time looking at what kind of edits other people do, as well as reading essays and policies in the Wikipedia namespace (pages that start with Wikipedia:) and Talk pages as well -- that helped me get a good grasp on how people handle problems on Wikipedia and find ways to make the best articles. But if that feels like too much now, just start out small with minor tasks like fixing typos! Here, I'll help you -- edit out the typo in this sentence. ;) ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

did i do it right? wait, where do i edit football articles? are there articles about syria i like syria i support ac milan Jerodrodman (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you did it right!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has info on football articles, and Category:Association football has pages and subcategories related to football you can edit.

There are articles about Syria, but because it is designated a contentious topic, you can't edit them yet until you have 500 edits-- you can make an edit request on their talk pages but only for typo fixing and stuff like that.✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@OmegaMantis: Just as a quick note, I think they probably meant Serie A, the top-flight of Italian football. Serie A is sometimes mispronounced as "Syria" and the two words can sound similar. The reason I think they meant that is because they mentioned supporting AC Milan, one of the biggest clubs in Italian football. There is a task-force focused on Italian football here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force.

@Jerodrodman: Does this help? :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

oh thank you. yes, i meant serie a. where are the best sources for football articles? Jerodrodman (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Such in what you need? ~2026-25444-5 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How to create a new article, I have the draft I'm just trying to Ctrl+c Ctrl+v it

uh TheDailyWall (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You can make a draft using the wizard at WP:AfC. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 21:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

TheDailyWall, I have moved "User:TheDailyWall/sandbox" to Draft:Greüv Draagen. Please do not submit the latter for promotion to article status until you have thoroughly revised it, bolstering it with references to reliable sources that are independent of this seemingly obscure rock band. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have added some wikilinks to your comment :) CiaPan (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is social media unreliable?

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.

---

Please explain, and what happens if you cite them? What about press releases? ~2026-25369-8 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Social media is usually unreliable for most purposes. but there are exceptions. For example, a verified social media account of a notable person can be used as a reference for uncontroversial information about that person. Examples might be their date and city of birth, the high school they graduated from, or a recent marriage or divorce. See WP:ABOUTSELF. The problem with most social media posts is that there is no fact checking or reputation for accuracy. Any random person can post any deranged crank theory, such as perennial "Einstein was wrong" nonsense. That does not belong in our articles about Einstein or his discoveries. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

As for press releases, similar caution is called for. They are worthless for establishing the notability of any entity. But a press release announcing a new CEO issued by a notable company that is already the subject of a Wikipedia article is an acceptable source for that fact. Typical promotional language used in most press releases has no place in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2026 (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.

Editing articles

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’m new on that, how do I edit articles and pages, but where can I start with? CrystalBall5081 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@CrystalBall5081 You can click on the "edit source" button located at the top of the page on desktop or if you are on mobile, click the pencil button. You can start on whichever article you want to edit. See WP:HEP for more information. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 23:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

To add to that advice: Don't ever edit anything that's about yourself or your business, and don't edit any controversial topic at all until you have a lot of editing experience first (I'd recommend months at least). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:07, 13 January 2026 (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.

Article for my upcoming projects

:(
Radica1Rex (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Radica1Rex: We have no interest in being a marketing outlet for you. We also generally do not want articles on upcoming projects unless those projects have already come into some form of notoriety (such as with Rust (2024 film) or Deadpool 2). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

But it's not marketing and it's also for me; I'm just talking about my stuff, it's nothing important. Radica1Rex (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for you to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact that even you said it was “nothing important” demonstrates that your article is not notable enough for creation. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 21:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web host for your personal use, sorry. Athanelar (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Alternative outlets for a list of places where you can write about your projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Brodells SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It was rejected, not deleted. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. Please use actual social media for that. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

English

I want to practice my english ~2026-26580-1 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not the place to do that, other than by reading its content. See WP:Social for places where you can chat to other Wikipedia editors.

Another way you can improve your English vocabulary is by translating articles from English into your native language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

That can be very helpful for learning, I do that sometimes to learn, or read foreign articles, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Bhutia request to protection from IP Edits

Bhutia

please see this edit, this IP address continuously damaging this page. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@獅眠洞 - What is wrong with that edit? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry I mean this one edit, I have updated it see with quote. When you look previous edits, you see this happens simultaneously by new/ip users. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Am I understanding it right, that this person deleted a source just because they say the source author isn't one of the group who the article is about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

And Scheduled Tribes Census 2011- India, also give stat on Muslim population amang bhotias. It's clearly conflict of interest. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking if they're telling the truth, I'm asking if they deleted a valid source just because they think it was written by non-Bhutia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

i can't say surely,i feels that that ip user can't accept that among the natives group of Sikkim have some followers who are Muslim. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I know, some people have do it, they can't digest it. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

An IP user should not be editing articles about Indian social groups anyway, because they're extended confirmed restricted by WP:CT/SA Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RPP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about AI on user pages.

Hello, I have a question about this. If you find AI on a user page, can you remove it? I know you can't use AI on normal pages, but I don't know about on a user page. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is like those normal Wikipedia pages, except, It's just lazily done with a prompt. I'm not talking about the normal pages still. I mean like "They are based in [region]", except [region] is not replaced. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BoxOfThings123.

There's nothing about it either way at WP:User pages, as long as it is not substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia or material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Can you give an example? ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think they mean lazily pasting in boilerplate text without bothering to replace "[region]" with "Middlesex", for example. If I saw this in an article or a draft I'd mark it for WP:G15 speedy deletion, but finding it on someone else's user page would give me pause. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It's impossible to give a meaningful specific answer to a general question. Please tell us which page concerns you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I will just link the user page (talk page because of deletion) User talk:LION RANGE BRAND. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-admins, User:LION RANGE BRAND was a promotional article posing as a user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I figured it was BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

That account is already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, It was before they were blocked. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

redwarnRules.json

My watch list tells me that I have updated my User:Langcliffe/redwarnRules.json page. What exactly is this page, and how is it used, please? Langcliffe (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be a Subpage of yours. If you did not create/edit this page, then change your account's password immediately, and make sure that every device with access logs out when you do so. That is, of course, unless you gave somebody explicit permission to use your account. In that case, ask them if they created it first before changing it. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Langcliffe. Don't worry. In 2021 you created User:Langcliffe/common.js with a command which loads a counter-vandalism tool called RedWarn when you are logged in. RedWarn sometimes makes automatic updates to settings for the tool in User:Langcliffe/redwarnRules.json. It happens while you are logged in so the edits are assigned to your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Guys. I thought that I had better check.Langcliffe (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

They really should just have it be a bot with it's own page, instead of it looking like your account was hacked. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44 No need for you to panic or scare other new users. Experienced editors who have spent some time doing anti-vandalism or using user scripts would recognise or be able to guess that this is a configuration file for a well-known anti-vandalism tool. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was truly trying to help and It seemed odd that his account had edited the page but he didn't know. Again, really sorry. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

South Korean humidifier disinfectant case

Help, there is a problem with a link in "south korean humidifier disnifectant case", where the link after the 10th source shows text instead of embedded and i dont know how to fix it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I finally fixed it myself, anyways i highly reccomend to look at this topic ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Well done for helping out, perhaps consider editing and helping out around Wikipedia some more. Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, i also did some digging into this topic to find stuff about the South korean humidifier disinfectant case, most horrible case of health neglegience by dozens of companies and corporations by the way, along with Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center, yes it's a real skyscraper project in Phnom Pehn, Cambodia that will be 567 meters despite how dubious it sounds and it is a kind of a mystery on its own because there isn't much information about it along with it being in a coma state due to lack of money and they stopped it to wait so that the money will come in to have enough money to restart construction, which led to some misinformation about it being cancelled despite it not being cancelled at all, but i did found lots of stuff about it and i wrote my findings of mostly chinese but also khmer and english news articles, web pages and videos in the talk page and in the user talk page of Alalch E., the reason for saying this is because it would be too much for me to edit Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center because of how much stuff i found, so i ask you to help me and Alalch E. with it, what do you think about it? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:DO

I have a question about WP:DO.

When you click the 'Random orphan page' button, it usually redirects me to a page with links, and without any orphaned page template.

How do I stop this? SomnambulantLobster (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomnambulantLobster Orphaned pages are those without incoming links from other articles. They are in an orphan category and won't necessarily have an orphan template. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant links coming in.

I checked them, they have quite a few incoming links. SomnambulantLobster (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomnambulantLobster: can you give us an example of such an article, so we can see what you're talking about?

It's worth noting that many articles are linked to from user, talk and/or project pages, but those don't help most readers find them, so for the purposes of de-orphaning you should only consider incoming links from other articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Should there be a page for all of SZNZ by Weezer?

I've noticed that all of the SZNZ have individual articles (SZNZ Winter, SZNZ Spring, SZNZ Summer, SZNZ Autumn) but the overall albums don't have a collective article, which would be something like SZNZ (Weezer album series). Does one actually exist that I haven't noticed ?? Weez3rforever (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. Are there writers who have discussed the whole seasons series as a whole (besides this one that sticks out to me and was published before any were released)? -- Reconrabbit 20:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit Fair point, it's just that on the actual Weezer page they bring up the concept SZNZ and the four albums, but it doesn't link to the actual like pages with similar titles (I don't know how to describe it, I only started actually editing like yesterday). Weez3rforever (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

While the lede mentions the EPs without links, further down in the article they are linked within the text. I would argue, that they shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all, linked or unlinked. -- Mike 🗩 20:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

We already have SZNZ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing oh whoops. thanks for letting me know Weez3rforever (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Good evening, I am thinking about creating an article :)

I would like to make an article for the 1994 Powerman 5000 album True Force, but I fear I may find myself once more thwarted by my seeming inability to find anything of note enjoyable. So I ask here: would the notability for True Force be sufficient to warrant an article's creation? I have found something interesting to use for the article and the album is frequently referenced in brief overviews of the band's history and sound, but likewise I have found similar things for Bombshell, Supernova Goes Pop, and Dorian Heartsong, all of which have had their notability challenged (Supernova Goes Pop still is, though I think, with due time, it should leave that status). With this in mind, should I get to work on an article, or should I simply add it to the PM5K article proper? TheSaturnLover (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

TheSaturnLover, your "something interesting" is an interview with a member of the band and thus not an independent source. And you seem to be saying that the album is frequently mentioned. That's nowhere near enough. It may be no less than what somehow has, until now, sufficed for a number of other articles; but, notoriously, en:Wikipedia has many feeble articles and their number should be not increased but reduced. If you have reliable, independent sources about this album, you could add what you derive from them to the article about the band. -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TheSaturnLover, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

So you need to start by finding examples of sources that meet that description: if you can find some, it's probably notable, and worth continuing. If you can't (or can only find one or two) it's probably not notable, and best to stop and do something else. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is different. I sometimes just enjoy the editing itself, just to improve something. The two articles that probably contain the largest number of words typed by me are one on a scandal decades ago in American college football, and one on a deceased Brazilian politician. I have no interest in American college football or in Brazilian politics; I stumbled on the articles at different times and said to myself "This could really use some fixing up, and unlike some other articles, this one I think I can actually handle".

But it's totally fine to edit only things that interest you, as long as you don't have a conflict of interest on them. (Conflict of interest is when an article is about your friend, your enemy, your business, your business associate, or when you're such a big fan that you might refuse to lose an argument.)

It's really possible that a lot of what you like already has a Wikipedia article. You can almost always make those articles better though, especially for topics that are less well known. Topics with extreme popularity and a huge fan base are often the hardest to improve, because tons of work has already gone into them and there are lots of opinionated people involved. So if the only thing you like is Star Wars, ... <grin> TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Rob Reiner

I saw here on Wikipedia that Rob Reiner had been murdered. I wondered if there is a place here on Wikipedia to discuss things like that? I know people want to discuss things. There is a natural tendency to want to discuss things like that on here. It would be a very popular aspect of your site. People just want to discuss things. Foundation360 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Imagine if people randomly walked into the editorial office of the Encyclopedia Britannica and said "yo guys did you hear Rob Reiner is dead?" There are plenty of other places to discuss things on the internet—that's mostly what it was created for. Try Reddit or Twitter. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No; Wikipedia is not a social network. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Discussion forums for a list of some places where you can chat to other people about topics of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You asked basically the same question just under a month ago, right? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Reddit. Reddit is literally the perfect venue for this. jolielover♥talk 17:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How to a add a qualification bit on the final rankings table

Hi, I just rehauled the 2026 European Men's Handball Championship Final ranking table so that it is more detailed. However, how do I add the qualification part of the table on the right as done here to the new table? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

One suggestion: go to the one you like, click Edit, and copy their work. (Then close without saving.) There's no copyright on how to make a table - re-using it is fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I think you might have misunderstood. What I mean is how can I add the qualification part without deleting the final result bit? Essentially, how can I merge them? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right - I misunderstood. I'm over my head in a table like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

If someone is repeatedly vandalizing a wikipedia page, is there a way I can protect the page, or ban the vandal? Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Thefrogofthenight! To answer your question, if something like this happens, you should report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. As for protecting the page from editing, that is something that an admin decides on doing if they feel that it is appropriate. Same goes for "banning" a "vandal", though technically the admins don't ban them, they block them. Hope this helped and happy editing :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the info Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Thefrogofthenight, hello! To add to the answer above, if you want to request page protection, you can do it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Thefrogofthenight: To add to this, it must be heeded that unless there have been multiple instances of vandalism or disruptive editing or any other cause that I may fail to mention, it is unlikely that an admin will protect a page from being edited. Oh, and more importantly, you should try to acquaint yourself with what is vandalism and what isn't vandalism here: Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM. This is very important when dealing with vandals because a bad call can seem like a failure to assume good faith on your end to other editors, as labelling another editor a "vandal" can easily be taken the wrong way if it is clear to others that their actions are not vandalistic in nature. Again, hope this helped and happy editing :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my requests. Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem :) Just remember to be careful, sometimes an edit that seems like vandalism may just be a mistake that another editor made. Again, consult the page I linked in my comment and if you still need help, feel free to ask me or other editors for it. I'm sure they'll be glad to help you. Also, if you are interested, you may want to check out the Counter-Vandalism Unit. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

AI pages

What should I do if I encounter an ai page? Should I delete it, or mark it some way? Is there a standard procedure I should follow? and what should I do if I'm not entirely sure? Thefrogofthenight (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Thefrogofthenight! There's a few things that could help here, here's Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. If you're not sure if an article was made by an LLM, you should ask another editor what they think. Also as for deleting it, you can mark what is a clear AI generated article for speedy deletion under G15. As for marking an article that may not be deleted under that, you can use this template: Template:AI-generated to mark it as being likely AI generated. Hope this helped :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you, again. Thefrogofthenight (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You should be careful here as well though. G15 is not for anything that's AI generated, it is for something that was clearly generated by an AI and was never reviewed by a human, amongst other things. There are times where things that seem AI generated are not AI generated, and in these cases, it is best not to jump the gun. Again, other editors will likely be willing to help you with these sort of things. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated content by itself is not a deletion criterion on Wikipedia. What matters is whether the article complies with core content policies such as verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality, and notability. If a page appears to be poorly sourced, promotional, or contains factual errors, it should be tagged appropriately or discussed on the talk page. Deletion should only be considered if it meets existing deletion criteria (e.g., WP:GNG failure, copyright issues, or other policy violations). If you are unsure whether content is AI-generated or policy-violating, it is best to avoid acting unilaterally and instead seek input from other editors through the talk page or relevant noticeboards. Anonymous FASE (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How can I be able to make an article about "waterdrinker4life"

How can the article of "waterdrinker4life" be created? My request has been denied within a span of a few minutes, and to create a biography it seems very promotional, which is not what I choose to aim for. How can I make my article sound more neutral and allow for it to be accepted? Waterdrinker4life|2w5bottle 02:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Before creating an article, the subject must meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. This requires multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage (not social media, self-published sites, or interviews controlled by the subject).

If the draft was declined as promotional, it likely relied on primary or self-authored sources or used promotional language. To improve neutrality:

• Write in a factual, third-person tone

• Avoid praise, marketing language, or claims of importance

• Base every key statement on independent reliable sources

• Do not write about yourself or someone you are closely connected to (see WP:COI)

If such sources do not exist, the subject may not yet be suitable for a Wikipedia article. Anonymous FASE (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I was the one who declined the draft. Please do not recreate the content. It had to be oversighted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiple accounts not being allowed to edit the same article unless disclosed

According to Sockpuppet policy, this lists Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people.

Is there a clear reason on why this is considered to be Sockpuppetry, and doing this will result in a block? Why should alternative accounts not be editing the same article, unless they are disclosed and revealed? What happens if undisclosed accounts were used to contribute to the same page? ~2026-21649-7 (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I am only using one account and am asking for assistance because I am not extended-confirmed yet. EntropyWarden (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Was it you who asked the sockpuppet question? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not. Somehow it appeared inside my question right above my references. EntropyWarden (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@EntropyWarden And please don't make comments both logged in and not logged in, as you apparently did here. That can look like two different people. David10244 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

EntropyWarden has written above that it wasn't them who asked this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't it obvious to you? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

In the simplest terms, this behavior is deceptive. Another editor would be led to believe that perhaps three different people are contributing to a series of changes to an article when it is only one person in reality. This is an impediment to honest collaboration that could deter an editor from disagreeing because they may incorrectly perceive the situation as three against one. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the type of thing I would have said, though you said it better. I started a response in that general direction, I stopped short when I suddenly wondered how it could become necessary to explain this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Remember to AGF. You're a very active teahouse contributor, be conscious of burnout. Athanelar (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Thank you. Your comment was exactly the truth. Not the kind of burnout that ruins people's lives, but a temporary frustration-burnout from not staying conscious of where my personal limits are. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• It is very likely that if someone contributes to the same page under multiple names, it will artificially create the appearance of more support for anything they're advocating (this can happen even if you don't intend it to.) Likewise, it can result in the perception of WP:BADHAND activity where one account is used for controversial stuff and another one isn't, or can come across as trying to evade scrutiny by dividing things between multiple accounts that would collectively add up to more serious problems if people realized they were the same person - and again, since editors won't always realize their positions are controversial, this can occur even if you didn't intend it. Often these can make the line between legitimate and illegitimate uses of alt accounts blurry; not using multiple alt accounts on the same page serves as a clear-cut red line so we don't have to spend ages digging into the intent of every individual potential sockmaster. --Aquillion (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The Devil and the Daylong Brothers

Hello! I recently created the article The Devil and the Daylong Brothers. This is my first full article, and the review/assessment seems incomplete. I’m more interested in working on sensitive topics, but since this account is still new, I felt that starting with a film article would be good practice. I’d appreciate any feedback on structure, sourcing, or areas that need improvement. Anonymous FASE (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

On first look it looks pretty good, you have used sources directly about the film in question (as opposed to trying to fill the article with sources on the makers and other miscellaneous things which I’ve seen many do before), the review sites are good because they are secondary sources, and I believe all the sources aren’t deprecated (but don’t quote me on that, I checked the RSP list and none of the sources seemed to be on there in a negative way). Overall I think it’s a good page for your first Wikipedia article. Well done! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can upload the movie poster to Wikipedia (directly to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:File upload wizard) to be used on the article page, per WP:NFCI. It just has to be resized, as explained in WP:IMAGERES. I've done it for the article you created, but it's something to keep in mind for the future. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater and @TurboSuperA+ thank you both for the feedback and encouragement. I’m glad the sourcing and overall structure worked well, especially as this is my first article. Thanks also for the tip about uploading film posters under WP:NFCI and WP:IMAGERES — I’ll keep that in mind for future articles. Anonymous FASE (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Remove Tag?

Someone had put a "needs citations" tag on an article. I've added a lot of context and links to it, but I'm not sure if it's enough to remove the tag. Could someone take a quick look and remove the tag if they feel it's good enough now (or let me know what I should do to make it better). Thanks!

Brooklyn–Queens Greenway. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Are there any facts in the article that a reader would not be sure which source they came from? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The stuff that I added all has a lot of citations and I feel it's well sourced (let me know if you disagree).

There is some older stuff that talks about the route. It is correct information. I don't know how that would be sourced, other than just pointing to a map, which doesn't feel right. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right that if you read the sourcing rules, and think about them for a while, you can conclude that pointing to a map should not be how Wikipedia does things. There was a fairly recent case in which another editor reached that conclusion and, being a rules-are-above-reasons type, he quickly went around deleting anything he found that was based on a map. He didn't misread the rules; he just failed to think. He got blocked from doing that anymore, hopefully before he caused too much damage.

So, you're right to let that map stuff just be how it is. Use of maps is an area where Wikipedia's official rules are not really reasonable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Robin the Bobbin I'm confused already, in the very first paragraph. First it says "is", then it says "would be". Why is it written this way? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think my problem is that the article is very unclear about what kind of thing the Brooklyn–Queens Greenway is. Is it an unfinished proposal to connect some things that already existed? Is it an unfinished project that was newly planned from scratch? This type of information needs to be in the very first sentence, so people will know what they're reading about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize the first paragraph was so confusing; thanks for your perspective from someone who doesn't already know about the project! I've re-written it; does it make more sense now?

In short, it's an old plan that has had infrastructure added in fits and starts, but as of yet is not fully completed. The "path" already exists in the sense that you can travel from one point to another along the route, just like any other path you could draw on a map. But the infrastructure to separate people from cars (the "greenway" aspect of it) only exist in certain sections.

Let me know if this helps get the tag off or if you need anything else. Appreciate the help! Robin the Bobbin (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It still starts by saying it's a complete path (with unprotected parts), and then says what the path would connect IF it was complete, seeming to prove that it isn't complete after all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I re-wrote it so it's super clear from the first sentence that it's a plan. Let me know if it's looking better. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Saving useful pages

Hello! I originally came to ask the question "Am I allowed to remove a tag once it's no longer applicable?" but then I found this page (Help:Maintenance template removal) IN one of those very tags. I want to keep this in a place (not just my bookmarks) where I can refer back to it (and other pages, too), can I put something like that on my userpage or is that not allowed? Thank you kindly. Itsaclarinet (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Itsaclarinet: yes, you can include helpful links on your userpage(s). You may also want mark WP:Glossary or WP:Index. MKFI (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This is super helpful, thanks! Itsaclarinet (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete a page on Wikipedia

 Courtesy link: Leon Angel

hello Im sorry for the inconvenience but can you delete (Leon Angel) page on Wikipedia. This is my maternal great grandfather and he is Egyptian Greek Jewish actor and used to be called Chalom and my father and family are asking me to hide his identity or keep it private and if you don’t mind deleting it or putting it in draft section. I’ve tried many times to edit - delete on it but didn’t worked out. Olmenfun (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You may nominate the article for deletion, but, frankly, why should we? He appears on the face of things to have been a notable and public figure, whose biography is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored, especially on the whim of one descendant.

If you have concerns about a specific aspect of the article, ask for a change on its talk page, citing a source or sources for the change you wish to see made.

You must also abide by our conflict-of-interest policy when it comes to editing that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately "someone asked nicely" isn't really a reason to delete something. You can see WP:DEL-REASON for a full list, but if someone is a notable public figure, they deserve an article and thus it won't be deleted. Imagine if any celebrity's family could ask for their relative's article to be deleted — there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll add one more thing: Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published. There shouldn't be anything in this article that doesn't come from such a source (and if there is, you may make an edit request to point that out). Therefore, even if we were to delete this article, those sources would still be out there, so deleting this would be the equivalent of locking one of the doors in your house but leaving the others wide open. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Leon Angel is a deceased historical figure (died in 1973), so privacy-based removal does not apply under Wikipedia policy. The article content is drawn from published academic and historical sources about Egyptian cinema and Jewish cultural history. Wikipedia’s role is to document historically sourced information, not to suppress it, especially when the subject has long-standing scholarly coverage Anonymous FASE (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

you might also want to think about how you are now bringing attention to the article. For example, I had never heard of this man before. Now I read the article and learned all about him due to this message. Best thing might be to simply give up :) Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

My first article Lemon water

Hello! I created this article and have since improved it with proper formatting and multiple reliable sources. Could someone please review it and, if appropriate, assess it as Start-class? Thanks for your time. Jr·NTR (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused with this article. It seems very Wikipedia:BACKWARD to me, that you began with no sources at all, and now you have fifteen (!) - this is a small article, it's not going to get much bigger, and it seems to be mainly original research followed by a huge list of sources that have questionable reliability.

Could you please try getting rid of all the health-magazine-type sources? They're generally not likely to be reliable, they often contain false medical claims which means we can't endorse them, and anyway they're totally unnecessary. You'll get much better and more honest information from food publications anyway. I mean, maybe the Cleveland Clinic is reliable, I don't know, ... but not health magazines.

And you have a ton of sources that seem to be just sitting there unused, which seems odd. Were you planning to expand the article using health information? Any time you write about health and medicine, you have to follow WP:MEDRS, which is extremely strict about what sources are allowed to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe you could have (and maybe should have) started and finished this article with just two good sources, instead of starting with zero and then throwing in everything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify my workflow: I didn’t start by writing content without sources and then search for references afterward. I first collected and reviewed sources offline, noted the information, and then added content incrementally as I formatted and structured the article. The sources were added alongside the relevant content during that process.

That said, I understand the concern about source quality and WP:MEDRS. I’m happy to trim health-magazine-type sources, remove unused references, and keep the article focused on basic preparation, usage, and nutrition from higher-quality food or nutrition sources. I’ll revise accordingly. Jr·NTR (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please, with the health magazines: slash and burn them all, don't just trim a little :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If you did plan to use the good sources to expand the article more, then do keep them. I don't want to stop you from continuing to improve this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

😄 Got it — now i am confused briefly, enlightened eventually. Health magazines are gone. Thanks for the nudge. Jr·NTR (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"Health", "Fitpass", and "Dash Water" are that kind too, unfortunately. Maybe even a few more. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Done ✔️ Jr·NTR (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The "Economic Times" one is making health claims, so cut it too. Same with "Medical News Today", "EatingWell", and "Vogue". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ve removed EatingWell, Medical News Today, and Vogue entirely. I’ve kept The Economic Times only for the single factual statement that >Lemon water is low in calories< all other health-claim sources have been removed. Jr·NTR (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it - Cleveland Clinic already has calorie info TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of that.(: Jr·NTR (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

To me, eight sources still seems like a lot, when the article is basically "Water. Lemon. Mmmm, nice." :)

But since the sources I thought were bad quality are gone now, I'm happy enough.

(And by "bad quality" I mean only that they aren't qualified to make health and medical claims, but they do it anyway. A very common type of source to always avoid.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

One of these days I'll make a wiki for people to write these kinda stupid infodumpy articles, since I like reading them mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jr·NTR, unfortunately it looks like the image you added can't be added to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia because the source shows no indication that the author released it under a Creative Commons licence. If you are not the author, you should add {{SD|G7}} to the top of the file page so it can be deleted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This is kind of crazy, as my articles have more sources than a common grocery item. Congratulations, new user. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

What should I do if someone is advertising using their username?

What should I do if someone is advertising using their username? Should I use a standardized warning template or should I report them. If I should report them how would I report them?

Core1223e (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Core1223e, welcome to the teahouse. If you are referring to promotional usernames, then you should report to usernames for administrator attention. It seems like you do some anti-vandalism work; I would recommend getting twinkle, as it makes combating vandalism a lot easier. It also allows for easy reports to UAA and AIV :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A promotional username combined with promotional editing leads to a block. You can report such situations to the Usernames for administrator attention noticeboard. I am an administrator. If you give me the username, I will investigate. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It username has already been deleted but I still don't understand on how to report something to the Usernames for administrator attention noticeboard yet. Could you explain how?

Core1223e (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Core1223e, I suggest using the source editor on the desktop site. When you click on "edit" in the "User reported" section, you will be presented with a simple template to fill out. Speaking as an administrator who frequently processes these reports, specific information is better than vague information. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, install and use Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with my draft No.3

In my draft's Orbital elements template, the absolute Magnitude is different depending on the source, with it being 17.25 according to JPL, and 17.27 according to IAU.

Or should I just write it as '~17.26'? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 14:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Pick one or list both, but definitely don't put an average like that as that's original research/synthesis Athanelar (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'll list both.

Thanks Athanelar! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, as a general question, in WP:CITEIMDB, I didn't clearly understand if we could cite it when stating the general public's opinion on the film/series. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content is listed under 'inappropriate uses,' so if you can't list user reviews and ratings then I would say you also can't use it as a source for public opinion. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ROTTENTOMATOES is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV, if you can find them there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Warning system

Sorry If this is the wrong place to post this, I'm new here. If it it the right place to ask this, I just wanted to know how you correctly add the warnings when reverting. The describe your changes page is full of text and I was just wondering where to put the warnings. Thank you. Abscondrespite (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abscondrespite, hello! Warnings are placed on the vandal's talk page. You can place them manually, using templates such as {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, or using gadgets, such as Wikipedia:Twinkle, which I recommend installing as soon as possible if you are fighting vandalism. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

What Deltaspace said. Twinkle automatically puts you through the usual necessary steps. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales talk page

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.

---

Is this page unprotected? How? ~2026-26901-9 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No. As it says on that page, "This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,

you can leave a message here" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2026 (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.

AntWeb Images

AntWeb is a huge ant database, providing information about ants, images and more. The article I've been working on recently (hypopoponera punctatissima) could do with higher-quality photographs in profile. AntWeb states it's content is stated as being under a Creative Commons Attribute licence (linked). Just wanted to double check that I can upload these images? I've seen them uploaded before but didn't know whether or not there are any other prerequisites to uploading. I want to be especially clear, as I am aware of Wikipedia and Wikimedia's strict copyright policies.

• Link to the licence (the exact one linked by AntWeb)
• AntWeb's "about" page covering their policies regarding re-use of material

Apologies if this query is better suited to a MediaWiki help forum or a Wikipedia photo forum. This is my first upload of another's work, so I am especially nervous. FranticSpud (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It will depend on the individual image. The "about" page says:

Photos and drawings with CCBY, CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA can be used without further permission,

Anything using "NC" in the licence is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons.

The other two licences are fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Primary topic

Hello everyone,

Not sure if an RFC is needed, but I figured I'd start here. A huge thank you in advance for reading. An editor suggested starting an RFC even though the redirect to Washington University has long led to Washington University in St. Louis has the primary topic. Is an RFC needed for Washington University to be the main topic for Washington University in St. Louis or can this be solved elsewhere?

Full context: For over 110 years (1856-1967), Washington University was the official name. There are currently 100 wikilinks that appear to refer to Washington University in St. Louis. There have been no other schools known as Washington University. Washington University in St. Louis

For 5 years, Rochester Christian University was known as Rochester University. Rochester University now redirects there instead of University of Rochester.

Based on the redirect history, Washington University redirected to the following:

• June 2002 - January 2007: Washington University in St. Louis was originally located on the Washington University page
• January 2007 - February 8, 2013: Redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
• February 8, 2013 - Editor changed redirect elsewhere but editor self-reverted due to many redirects to Washington University in St. Louis
• February 8, 2013- May 12, 2015 - Redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
• May 12, 2015- redirected to DAB
• May 13, 2015 - another editor undid this
• May 13, 2015 - November 8, 2025 - redirects to Washington University in St. Louis
• November 8, 2025 - December 16, 2025 - redirected to DAB
• December 16, 2025 - January 12, 2025 - redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
• January 12, 2025 - Redirected to DAB

Previous redirect conversation reguarding another school by Washington University in St. Louis can be found here: Talk:Washington University School of Law#Requested move 16 April 2023

Wozal (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say the DAB page is the best target, but if this is disputed, we cannot resolve that dispute here. An RfC, or, perhaps preferably, WP:Redirects for discussion, is the way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing - Thank you for your reply. Given it's 100+ year old history, I believe this is the primary topic. Would Redirects for discussion be better equipped to handle this than an RfC? Wozal (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion is a more lightweight process and uses up less editor time than an RfC. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

other than RfD, WP:Requested moves is another venue for moving articles. – robertsky (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Can COI editors participate in consensus?

Here's the situation:
1. A COI editor requests a change to an article.
2. I agree, and post an explanation to the talk page. There are no other comments.
3. I make the change.
4. The change is reverted four hours later by the original author.
5. I restore my change.
6. It is reverted again, five minutes later.

Do we have consensus? Is either of us guilty of edit-warring? Julian in LA (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Julian in LA, welcome to the Teahouse! I'd call that a very minor edit war. I think that, if the original author is the one who reverted it, you should've kept it reverted. Clearly, the author didn't want it on the page. However, the author would be in the wrong if you had made other constructive changes with the page during the same edit, and if anybody else had edited the page in those four hours. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, it seems you wanted to make a list here. In this case, if you use <br> at the end of a line, you should be able to get that line break you were looking for. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

My question is whether there is a consensus. Your answer seems to be that it doesn't matter, because the original author got there first and is entitled to keep their wording, and the desire of the COI editor is meaningless. Does it matter if the original wording is not WP:NPOV or is libelous?

There is a page called WP:STATUSQUO which suggests adding tags instead of making reversions. That doesn't work, because the tags get reverted within minutes and the author is then accused of tag-bombing. Julian in LA (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Julian in LA First, "the original author doesn't want it" is not valid. That part of @DollarStoreBaal44's response is unfortunately wrong. Original authors of Wikipedia articles have no status and no rights. Especially, they have no right to protect the article from being changed. The article isn't theirs in any way; see WP:OWN for the details.

But "somebody doesn't want it" might mean the consensus wasn't as solid as you thought, and just as original editors have no rights, COI editors have no rights either. It depends whether this person reverting what you did is actually doing it for a valid reason, or whether they're doing it because they have a long obvious pattern of pretending they WP:OWN the article.

Basically, you need to talk to them, while assuming they're acting in good faith. If they won't talk reasonably, then you find out where to make an official complaint using Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Must have misread. I thought it was the COI editor that reverted it. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 23:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That's OK, a reasonable mistake to make - the situation is a bit unusual. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your statement that "COI editors have no rights" is the heart of the issue. You are saying that they cannot participate in a consensus, no matter how well-reasoned the request is, and no matter how completely I agree with it. Julian in LA (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Julian in LA They have no special rights, the same as the first editor to work on an article has no special rights. I'm sorry that what I wrote was sloppy and unclear.

I think there's possibly a bigger issue though, that even if it is two against one, that doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me, because I'd hope for noticeably more than just three people to be in on the discussion. I'm not sure if the COI person should be counted or not, but even if they are counted, it's a really tiny sample. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

So let's assume it's one against one, and hope that more people have something to say. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Funny you should ask about what others say. The subject is a practically-unknown consulting firm that has become a target for a right-wing pressure group. And yes, I have gone through third opinion, dispute resolution, etc., etc. You can get a flavor of the contrary consensus here, if you're interested: Talk:Arabella Advisors#Removing Fiscal Sponsorships section. There are other pages with the same situation, where a COI editor is blocked by ideologically-motivated opposing editors. Julian in LA (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you're really right that the consulting firm is "practically unknown", then it should be easy enough to get the article deleted and call it a day.

But maybe that wasn't what you meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with any rules about a COI editor (who of course must themselves stay out of any debate), and is really a content dispute that also involves some editors' bad conduct, where those editors happen to have some skill at concealing their bad conduct and just enough "strength in numbers" to get away with it.

And, phrasing it another way, I think it would be very wrong for a COI editor to serve as tie-breaker in a content dispute. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of the consensus policy is that it is not based on majority vote, but rather on agreement following discussion. I am not aware of any rule barring a COI editor from participating, since this discussion began with a detailed post from a COI editor. The problem with these pages is that they attract very little interest from disinterested editors, but a lot of interest from ideologically motivated editors. There are four in this case, and I suspect they know each other and have an undisclosed connection to the right-wing attacker.

As for whether this practically-unknown organization can have its page deleted, its attacker succeeded several years ago in having a story published in the New York Times and syndicated to the Boston Globe. I don't know if that's "sustained coverage" but I doubt that an AfD recommendation would succeed, and these four editors would immediately create a new page. Julian in LA (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

So, here's my opinion:

1. COI editors are getting blocked from changing their articles. Good, I'm glad.

2. Some editors appear to me to be engaging in underhanded tactics to influence article content. They seem to me to amount to COI editors themselves, but opposition ones. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

COI editors are not being blocked. They are being asked to follow the COI procedure. Sooner or later, they will realize that their requests are not being treated in good faith and only fools follow the rules. Julian in LA (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It was you who said they were being blocked, I just repeated it. (You wrote "There are other pages with the same situation, where a COI editor is blocked by ideologically-motivated opposing editors.") But I understand the distinction you're making.

I don't know how to try to solve this other than to take it to dispute resolution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The current backlog of COI edit requests is found here. It's shameful that they have to wait so long for a response, and then be treated so shabbily. User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable Julian in LA (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I personally think COI editors should be fully shut out of Wikipedia rather than just filtered through requests. But I also think that what's going on on that page is severe tendentious editing and opposition COI and should be shut down and reverted. But I'm not an administrator and I don't make rules. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Here is an example of a page that I improved based on a conversation with a COI editor. Don't miss the link where His Lordship's dog got a full-page picture in the Daily Mirror. Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle

Here is a meaningless article whose COI editor wanted to update the name of the current CEO and their reported earnings. My deletion request was rejected. Articles for deletion#Rackspace Technology Julian in LA (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that the very first thing at any dispute resolution is "prove how hard you tried to work this out on your own". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Broken link on home page

https://wikipedia25.org/en/?utm_campaign=wp25cn&utm_source=wp25cnout&utm_medium=out ~2026-29718-4 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29718-4 Please report this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors but note that the URL you quoted does not work properly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#https://wikipedia25.org/_banner. It seems the inclusion of this link was mistaken and has been reverted by the WMF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

citation source

Please help me by telling me the names of citation sources for living people like if I am editing an Indian actor's awards, then should i not use imdb or youtube. I got a disallowance to cite source youtube or imdb. I am a new editor ~2026-14011-4 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSP has many examples of sources that do and do not meet our reliable sources criteria. Per WP:PHALKE, please stop trying to add references to DP International Film Festival; it's not notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Not receiving email notifications for Watch List

I have strong indication that I am not receiving notification emails when changes are made to articles that I am watching. This has been the case for some time. I *am* receiving some notification emails but not from the majority of articles I am following. Is there a technical issue or a limit on the number of watched articles? Jp2207 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn’t a fixed limit on the number of articles you can watch, but email notifications can be affected by user preferences and system behavior. I’d suggest first checking Preferences → Email options to confirm that watchlist email notifications are enabled for all relevant actions. Also note that not all watchlist changes trigger emails—some notifications are shown only on-wiki. If settings look correct and the issue persists, this may be a technical problem, in which case reporting it at Phabricator (via “Report a bug”) would be the best next step. Anonymous FASE (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Anonymous FASE. I'll follow up with your suggestions. Jp2207 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a test email, to check you can receive Wikipedia emails in general. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Pigsonthewing, I received two emails: One titled 'Wikipedia email from user "Pigsonthewing"' and one as notification for your reply here. I have also double checked that under Preferences > Email Options, this is checked: "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". Jp2207 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with creating a wikipedia page for a company

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 would like to create a wiki page for a football club. Please assist. Maryfelsports (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Maryfelsports I have already commented at the Help Desk. Please don't ask in multiple venues as this just wastes volunteer time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2026 (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.

What's wrong with the top left Wikipedia logo?

Going to the top left of any page, where it says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia", there is a blank square where the logo should be. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Same with me too. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it works now; it's the new 25th anniversary logo. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Glad they fixed it. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Try purging the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait, now the logo still doesn't display, just the WP 25 years thing. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

How long for edits to appear?

Hi everyone. I've just made a basic edit on my band's Wikipedia page. I've updated the line up. How long does it take to come through on the page? All the best GB Kiosk2 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It was reverted because it didn't have a source. Please check your talk page for more details. SenshiSun (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kiosk2, and welcome to the Teahosue.

You refer to "my band's Wikipedia page". Please note that, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit that article at all, but instead should make edit requests for changes you would like to see, and an uninvolved editor will review these, and implement them as they find appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Although you should heed the advice of the other replies, to answer your primary question, it should show up instantaneously, but other people may need to refresh their page to see it. Thx56 | Talk to me! 23:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Would i be blocked for spamming if all of my drafted pages get accepted all at once?

So, my articles were drafted, as my pages formerly had unreliable sources or in-general a bad article. However i have fixed those pages and submitted it to AfC — but an important question, am i getting blocked for spamming articles if all of articles get accepted all at once. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope! You did exactly the right thing by submitting through AFC. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

No - you can't choose when drafts are reviewed, so if one or more reviewers happen to accept them quickly that's not something to worry about! For the sake of the reviewers it would be great if you worked on and submitted one draft at a time though, that way we don't get flooded :) Pay attention to any feedback given to you and always try to edit the draft to fix up whatever was mentioned before resubmitting. If someone is genuinely trying to improve their drafts we'll keep reviewing them, but if drafts get resubmitted with no changes they'll sooner or later get rejected - and that's much harder to overcome. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

the cause

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.

---

Extended content

it is crucial. نرى كل شيء (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2026 (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.

Moving an article from my sandbox to the mainspace

I have created a new article (Systematic phonics) in my sandbox and want to move it to the main space. When I open the MOVE page there is no place to put the title. What am I doing wrong?John NH (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro It was moved by another editor to Draft:Systematic phonics. You should be able to move it on from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi John NH. Special:MovePage/User:Jnhmunro/sandbox#movepage should say "New title:" which applies to two fields. The left is for the namespace and the right for the pagename within that namespace. Both default to the current name and can be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I am being blocked by a redirect to "Systematic phonics" on the Phonics page that I likely set up. But I don't know how to delete the redirect. Can you help?John NH (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

You can request a technical move at WP:RM. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Make Edits to an Article

How can I make edits to an article? Thanks! Ilovebread7271 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

There should be an "edit" button on the top right. I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page, also. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like you have been able to edit articles. Can you be more specific about what you need help with, actually? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean make proposed deletions. Ilovebread7271 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I use WP:Twinkle. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

I found an image for my draft, but I don't know whether it's copyrighted or not.

Where can I find non-copyrighted images for Wikipedia? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

That image is simply a machine rendering of the data that is in a table below it. Such data, and machine renderings of it, are not copyrightable, so you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons as "PD-ineligible".

Also, NASA images are free from copyright, so you may be able to find an image which they made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded it! Thanks Andy! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 04:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

De facto.wav

File:De facto.wav

Shouldn't this file be on Commons instead of Wikipedia? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 05:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This file cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons because Commons only accepts freely licensed media. File:De_facto.wav appears to be copyrighted audio and is therefore hosted locally on English Wikipedia under the non-free content policy with a fair-use rationale. If a freely licensed version becomes available, it could then be moved to Commons. Anonymous FASE (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

But Commons does accept CC-BY-SA files, not just public domain files. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 05:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Commons does accept CC-BY-SA files. However, this file does not have a verifiable CC-BY-SA (or other free) license from the copyright holder. In the absence of an explicit free license, it must be treated as copyrighted audio and is therefore hosted locally on English Wikipedia under WP:NFCC with a fair-use rationale. If the rights holder releases it under CC-BY-SA or another free license, it can then be moved to Commons. Anonymous FASE (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the file usage to a reference, as it may only by used on article pages (and then only with a justification). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Great work for updating the file usage and for the clarification. That makes sense under WP:NFCC. Anonymous FASE (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

As it was a self-uploaed file, what is your basis for claiming it "does not have a verifiable CC-BY-SA license from the copyright holder"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

How does this file meet the "non-replaceable" (no-free-equivalent) criterion of NFCC? The IPA and respelling are there, so anyone could record themself reading the word and release that recording with free license. DMacks (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

But it is self-published. Also, this is the only file this user has uploaded to Wikipedia and under the the CC-BY-SA license. Otherwise, all of this user's files are uploaded to Commons under the CC0 license. Pinging the uploader @Eshaan011. I concur with Andy. Also, compare the voice of this audio sample to this Commons file for example. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 03:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I assume you're replying to Andy (indentation/threading of this discussion is getting confusing). You (plural) are raising good points about its licensing. My point is that if it does not have a valid free license, then per NFCC/fair-use policy it should not be retained even on enwiki. So either it can (and possibly should) go to commons or else should be deleted altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

When inserting a new #1 citation in a current article . . .

I notice that the succeeding citations do not increment by the next number. Has anyone a suggestion on how to fix it?

This is on the page Mihail Chemiakin

Thanks

Alan Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Citation numbers update automatically. If they don’t change, the article is likely using named or reused references (<ref>). New numbers appear only when a reference is first introduced. Make sure your new citation is a unique <ref> tag and the numbering will fix itself on save. Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw it this and you don’t need to fix the numbering manually. Wikipedia numbers references automatically. If the numbers don’t change, it’s because the article is using named or reused references (for example <ref name="paris">). Reusing the same reference does not create a new number. To get a new number, add a new, unique <ref>, or give the reference a different name. Once saved, the numbering will correct itself automatically. Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I am certain you are right but I think I managed to screw this up anyhow. :-( ~2026-30117-3 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Check it i will fixed citation Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that as well. For me, it would always update to the new correct numbers when I published the edit and the page reloaded. Hope this helps! DominikTuazon (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Because of the way the automatic numbering is implemented, you can't see the true and correct updated numbers until your edit has already become final. But because it's automatic, then unless you've done something non-standard to confuse the system, it will come out right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Single use profiles

I have come across two Wikipedia users who have edited exclusively two articles (a husband and wife). For various reasons, which I can explain, I suspect they have created and edited their own pages.

Should I raise this somewhere? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You can take this to the conflict of interest noticeboard if you believe that users have a COI and are improperly editing autobiographies. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I might do that. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

But can I suggest that you politely ask the users on their user talk pages first? Many people are simply not aware that editors are should edit articles where they have a COI. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A highlighted caution at the top of that noticeboard says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with my draft No.7

Not really needing some help, but could you check the picture in my draft and tell me if you can see it?

Thanks! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 04:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

"Machine rendering of data etc"? I see that, looks good. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

But for some reason, the picture is broken on a mobile/tablet view. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I fix that? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Android phone here, and it still looks OK to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding something ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I see the issue, the image is in the infobox incorrectly, so the user has put the full code of the image when uploading it, creating a double image box thing. (Can’t explain it well). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. regarding comments at the head of the draft: Other Wikipedias (Italian, etc) have their own separate standards for what to include, so the argument that if this isn't accepted the Italian one should be deleted too, is not true at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Nils Molin

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nils Molin

Hello! I wrote article about Nils Molin, Swedish vocalist, but my article was denied. They said that I made unreliable references. What can I do? I have to proove notability of subject but I see only interviews and can't find reliable articles. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Now I found website with discography, made a reference and submitted one more time. But I'm not sure that it solved a problem. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts the parts of a person's story that have already been published in reliable independent sources. Here's a silly but important example: If the independent published sources don't say he loves football, you can't write that he loves football. Everything you wrote that didn't come from reliable published sources, must be cut out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

"If the independent published sources don't say he loves football, you can't write that he loves football."—Yes you can. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Evgeniia Kaplan Sorry to bug you again ... One of the requirements is that sources are independent of the subject. When Molin gives an interview, that does not count as independent, because it's him giving the information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Such sources can have some use per WP:ABOUTSELF, but they don't help with WP:N. Also, in WP-article text, it's "Molin", not "Nils". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that no reliable sources exist. Most people do not qualify for a Wikipedia article, and Nils Molin might be one of these people. Sometimes they will qualify later on in their life, even if they don't at the moment. But if you can't find any good sources, it's time to give up and move on from the draft. Sorry. Meadowlark (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the notability criteria listed at WP:NMUSICIAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a reference on discography. You can look. That website shows that there are many music labels where Nils Molin made the records. Why don't you think that it's a significant proof? Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We aren't looking for proof that he did it. We're looking for proof that reliable publishers noticed it for themselves and decided to write about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Evgeniia Kaplan, please read through WP:42, which will tell you what you're looking for in a source. It's not enough for something or someone to merely exist. We need to see that other people have independently thought that this subject was interesting and important enough to write about, at length and in depth, and that those people and the source that publishes their thoughts are experienced and credible. WP:BLP would also be a good thing to read, as well as WP:REFB to cite your sources properly.

You also need to know that if you keep resubmitting this draft without making any effort to improve it, sooner or later a reviewer will decide that it's not possible to improve it and that reviewing it again is a waste of everyone's time. When that happens the draft will be rejected, and you will not be able to submit it again unless you can find a whole new set of sources and write the entire draft again starting with a blank page. Meadowlark (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

All that shows is albums by bands of which Molin is a member; none in his own name.

Discogs is not a reliable source, as anyone can add to it. We are looking for things like articles about Molin himself in magazines like Kerrang!, NME, Q or the Swedish equivalent; or in national newspapers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that this user has a habit of asking the same question here and at AFCHD, and also on their talk page. Respondents (myself included!) may want to check if the question has already been answered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I know if a source is considered reliable for Wikipedia?

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.

---

Hello! I’m editing Wikipedia for the first time using a temporary account, and I want to make sure I’m doing things correctly. I’ve read about the reliable sources guideline, but I’m still a bit unsure how to apply it in practice.

For example, are news articles, blogs, or organization websites usually acceptable? And how can I tell when a source is not reliable enough to use in an article?

Any guidance or simple rules of thumb would be really appreciated. Thank you for your help!

— Temporary account ~2026-29228-6 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The guide at Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives a lot of information about this. Not sure if that's what you already read.

An organization's or person's website, or their blog, is not reliable about them, because it's advertising for them. (Except for little facts that have no advertising value.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? It provides in-depth explanation of what is considered a reliable source, as well as examples for common source types.

Generally, news articles are considered reliable, while blogs and organization websites aren't, since they are self-published and not fact checked in any way. But this really depends on the specific source and the context in which it's used, so it's better if you get familiar with the full reliable sources policy I linked above.

Good luck! 🍅 fx (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want examples of how to analyze sources, you can skim the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The very rough basics: they must have paid staff who fact-check every single item, they can't allow editing by the public, and they must have a widespread and strong reputation for telling the truth. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 15 January 2026 (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.

How am I vandalizing wikipedia

I was accused by user @Arjayay of vandalizing the List of Universities in Nigeria page, but he failed to point out how I am vandalizing it, and from the article WP:Vandalism, I have not violated anything that could be counted as vandalism. Because I wouldn't want trouble, I would like further clarification on how I've "vandalized" the page so I won't make the same mistake later. Thank you. NetReader75 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is adding universities that do not have Wikipedia articles. I agree that it's not vandalism, because it seems like it's in good faith. But as a general rule, if you notice your changes are getting reverted, please ask about it on the talk page (either for the article or the user talk for the person who is reverting you) before reinstating the changes. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Please note WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

my rejection

i would to know why I was rejected by @[[User:Bobby cohn Lw2311 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Because we already have an an article on Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Read the rejection notice at User:Lw2311/sandbox/la las angeles: "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Los Angeles instead.". Bazza 7 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you Lw2311 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Photo Rights

If I find a picture I would like to add to wikipedia article, but it is under a CC 4.0 license, not totally open, how do I go about adding it? Do I add it into wikimedia first with proper accreditation and then search it through wikimedia in the article? Or do I simply add it straight to the article?

And just to confirm, proper accreditation for something is to link the CC 4.0 license and then to credit the original photographer/owner? Is there anything I'm missing?

I just want to make sure I go about this properly. Random Dyke (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Random Dyke,

Could you clarify if the image is already uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons and you are just asking about using it in an article, or instead if the image is somewhere else on the internet? DMacks (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It is from elsewhere on the internet. In this specific case iNaturalist, but I'm also just generally interested in best practices Random Dyke (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Random Dyke, my understanding is that CC 4.0 does not refer to a specific license but rather to a group or "suite" of licenses released in 2013. It would be necessary to know the specific license for this image to determine whether or not it is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. CC-BY-4.0 is acceptable, and the -SA variant is also, but the -NC or -ND variants are usually not. Creative Commons license#Types of licenses discusses the variants. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, I understand much less than I thought I did then. But uploading through the wikimedia wizard is the right process then? Sorry for the confusion. Random Dyke (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Certainly the easiest for most cases. Just be sure you are exact in the information you enter, such as the license exactly as it's specified on the source where you got it. After you upload, feel free to ask for second eyes to check that everything is in order. No harm in making a good-faith effort that needs tweaks or winds up overlooking some major aspect you didn't even know was relevant. DMacks (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Random Dyke (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

In the wikimedia software, an image is actually its own page. It has the image itself and also a regular text space like any other article. In that text is where the uploader states among other things the source wher the uploader got it, the author and other details of the original image, and license. If it's a standard license, such as CC-BY-4.0, there's a standard way to link to those terms. The Wikipedia:File upload wizard walks you through the process, including entering the required details. Once the image is uploaded, it can be used in any article. The exact way to use it depends if you're using the Visual Editor vs wiki-source vs some other editor tool. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Random Dyke If you are uploading an image from iNaturalist, there are tools to make that easy. I prefer inat2wiki or its old version - just copy the ID of the observation and paste it into the "parse observation" page and it will give you several options. For example, if you wanted the pictures from this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/28146420 you would type in "28146420". -- Reconrabbit 15:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Your opinions

In this discussion, I and the other user decided to invite other users' opinions at determining some sources' reliablity. Could you guys share the opinions about it? Thanks! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The best place to ask would be the reliable sources noticeboard which is specifically for discussion about whether a particular source is reliable. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Well the discussion I asked for particiate is actually in the reliable sources noticeboard :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft in process

Hello! I currently have a draft page in process that was originally rejected so I made changes to it. I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved or not. Here is the link to the page: Draft:Pamela Drucker Mann. Mdwyer89 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

A message will be left on your talk page. You can use your "preferences" to get email notifications, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mdwyer89 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

...but first you need to use the big button to resubmit it for review! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

(Possibly final) Help with my draft No.8

Ok, one last thing.

In the “Orbital elements” section of my draft, should I add the extra elements which don't have a checkbox-thingy for them in the template?

Thanks! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I already think that the article is good enough for publishing.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

When unsure which details to add, ask yourself if this detail is important enough or interesting enough that the article is honestly improved by putting it in - that it's not just bloat and not just a distraction. In this case, I say "You know the topic better than I do, so you decide". Either way, it's a minor detail that won't affect acceptance of the article.

The general guide to that whole topic (no need to read it right now, you should judge for yourself about these elements) is at WP:DUE. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Verizon outage

Would it be reasonable to write an article on the current Verizon outage, assuming it passes the relevant notability guideline? Seems a little bit boring and clear cut but it’s very widespread and it seems like a lot of reliable sources are talking about it. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless it's happening for a unique and extremely interesting reason, it's not a worthwhile topic at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin You could summarise your best sources at Talk:Verizon in case it is worth a mention in the main article. I don't know the details of this outage and whether its inclusion would be WP:DUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this point. If it turns out that the outage has long-term significance for the company, then adding it there would make sense. But most outages have initial anger and blame, followed by return to normal and quick forgetting.

It might be hard to say if it has long-term significance yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt it does. But if it does, I will. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Source charged for fraud

If a source is charged for fraud, regardless of whether it necessarily reflects in the quality of the source's information itself, should that source be considered unreliable?

For example, I saw someone cite this source before this charge: SEC.gov | SEC Charges App Annie and its Founder with Securities Fraud

Intuitively, I would avoid such a source, but I wanted to make sure. Ash.tahno (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

While asking them "Did you commit fraud?" wouldn't get a reliable answer, and older publications of theirs that relate to something in the fraud case shouldn't be counted on, I don't think their older publications about something else are changed by this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

And keep in mind that a charge is not a conviction. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

don’t ban me

i changed a photo so what leave me alone don’t ban me ~2026-32458-7 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Changing a photo would not make you banned. If there is someone that wants to ban you, tell me details about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Your edits so far have been only junk. If you switch to doing good edits, then it will be OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to delete a image

i want to delete File:LinnMao.png from commons, first I didn't draw this, and secondly, I don't have a license, or at least I don't know if it did. PixelWhite (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@PixelWhite This is handled on Wikimedia Commons. Go to File:LinnMao.png and options should be displayed on the page to allow you to request it. If they are not, please check out c:help:deletion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@PixelWhite I have flagged it there as 'no source' which makes its lifetime there finite.

Please do not upload pictures you find on the internet. They are almost always under copyright 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

If you did not draw this, I assume you do not have the rights to the image and thus cannot freely license it. In other words, it is technically a copyright violation. I will mark it for speedy deletion as a page created in error and as a copyright violation. Looks like FiddleFaddle beat me to it.

When uploading images to Commons, please be careful when uploading files to make sure they can be or are freely licensed. This is explained in the Wikimedia Commons licensing policy, which contains everything you need to know about copyright, licensing, and what can be uploaded to Commons. Thank you! South of the Tongass (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Readable prose size

How do I find the readable prose size for a page for things like WP:DYK? I didn't see it in the tools. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi FloblinTheGoblin. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has "Prosesize" but see WP:DYKPROSE for DYK purposes. . PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Updating maps

How would one update or change the colors on a map image, for example this one? DominikTuazon (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi DominikTuazon. It varies so thanks a lot for posting a link. Click "More details" to reach commons:File:Visa policy of the USA.svg. There may be a link "Upload a new version of this file" at the end of the "File history" section. Othwerwise you cannot update it on your own. I don't know a Commons process to overwrite files. Maybe Wikipedia:Files for upload would accept a request. You have to create a new version of the file with a tool outside Commons or Wikipedia. See commons:Help:SVG#Editors. You could also try posting a request to a user who has uploaded versions in the file history. The two most recent were uploaded by Heitordp after your post. Did they by any chance include the change you wanted? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! Yes, the file page does have a link to upload a new version of the file towards the bottom of the page. What I was wondering was how to edit the map directly, can it be done on Wikipedia, or do you need some kind of third-party software for that? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Third-party software. That's where Commons:help with SVG editors comes in. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for sharing! DominikTuazon (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

And yes, the most recent update was the change I was going to make. But how would I do this in the future? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

School Recognition

Hi! Full disclosure, I work at The Willows Community School and was wondering how to get the notable award from Hollywood Reporter linked to the school: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/local-news/best-private-schools-los-angeles-2025-1236438580/?utm_campaign=31620676-The%20Hollywood%20Reporter%20-%20L.A.%E2%80%99s%20Best%20Private%20Schools%20-%202025&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-87Hk74ZVOZuWBH2quD8_zE3Dg1W78o8Qza2bALAPBSx0_mGweqywC93MSfR8mh7PafUlOvj5Pt-F7QSvrutLvmQ8k9VQ&_hsmi=393848462&utm_content=393848462&utm_source=hs_email.

I believe the schools meets notability. Please let me know how to proceed! Thanks everyone. ~2026-33061-4 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! For an article to meet notability regulations, it needs multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject in substantial detail. While there is no standard minimum number of sources, I personally use 3 or 4. Also, those sources should probably have enough information to cover at least a paragraph or two. I suggest you look for other reliable sources about your school and then create a draft at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation (you will need to declare a conflict of interest). From there other editors can assist you in improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before being ready for a move to mainspace. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Lost Kids Animation – Help Identify

Platform: Netflix (international, likely removed)

Era watched: Unknown (possibly 2010s)
Status: Possibly lost / delisted media

Description:

I’m trying to find a kids animation that I remember watching on Netflix, but it no longer seems to exist anywhere.

Animation style was very simple, humanoid figures (almost stick-figure / line / clay-like) Characters were often pink and blue The setting was a dark city / nighttime urban environment Episodes sometimes showed the characters driving cars Music was synth / electronic, very atmospheric Felt retro / 80s-inspired, but I don’t think it was actually from the 80s Made for kids, not adult Not La Linea, not Angry Kid, not Abney & Teal, not Charlie’s Colorforms City It may have been: A short-form series An international show Something Netflix licensed briefly and later removed I can’t find any screenshots, clips, or listings online, so I believe it may be lost or undocumented media. Any help identifying this would be appreciated. Pooiey135 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Pooiey135. This is the help desk for editing on Wikipedia, nothing else. Your best bet it to ask on one of the many Reddit.com subreddits about trying to identify media or try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. qcne (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess they don't have a reddit account and perhaps they don't want to create a reddit account because it would have been difficult for them, not to mention putting a email on it, creating a username, etc. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia's problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, i'm talking about the individual, and the possible reason why they used Wikipedia instead of Reddit. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Mystery of the lack of japanese coverage of Sogen Kato's case

Sogen Kato's case is a case where a japanese man named Sogen Kato, born on 22th July 1899, was thought to have been Tokyo's oldest man until 27th July 2010, when his mummified corpse was found in his bedroom, it was concluded he had likely died in November 1978 , aged 79, and relatives had rebuffed attempts to see Kato in prepeartions for respect for the Aged Day later that year, citing many reasons from him being a "human vegetable" to becoming a sokushinbutsu (a type of buddhist mummy where buddhist monks while alive were observing asceticism to the point of death), his family had never reported his death to collect pensions, After the discovery of Kato's mummified corpse, other checks into elderly centenarians across Japan produced reports of missing centenarians and faulty recordkeeping. Tokyo officials attempted to find the oldest woman in the city, 113-year-old Fusa Furuya, who was registered as living with her daughter. Furuya's daughter said she had not seen her mother for over 25 years. The revelations about the disappearance of Furuya and the death of Kato prompted a nationwide investigation, which concluded that police did not know if 234,354 people older than 100 were still alive. More than 77,000 of these people, officials said, would have been older than 120 years old if they were still alive. Poor record keeping was blamed for many of the cases, and officials said that many may have died during World War II. One register claimed a man was still alive at age 186, One of Kato's relatives was found guilty of fraud, his relatives claimed 9,500,000 yen (117,939 US Dollars) of the pension meant for Kato, in addition, after Kato's wife died in 2004 at age of 101, 9,450,000 yen (117,318 US Dollars) from a survivor's mutual pension was deposited into Kato's bank account between October 2004 and June 2010, Approximately 6,050,000 yen (75,018 US Dollars) was wdithdrawn before his body was discovered, however despite having coverage in english-language media and having a english wikipedia article, there isn't a single japanese reliable source in the english wikipedia article, not only that, but even if a searched his japanese kanji name as is written in the english wikipedia article, the japanese wikipedia dosen't have a article but it dosen't even mention it once, and also i haven't found a single japanese news article about it, not sure if the kanji in the english wikipedia is wrong because japanese is notorious for multiple different kanji for same-sounding words, of course it dosen't mean it's fake, in fact there was a report on Nippon Television's program Bankisha, so what does that mean? Honestly, i don't know, maybe in Japan stuff like this don't get covered because of out of respect, also is Sogen Kato even a real name? Japanese media have sometimes used fake names out of respect for the individulas rather than the real name, and perhaps the english-language news articles had mistaked it as his real name, honestly it's a mystery of its own, and i don't know what to say more about it, what do you think about it? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The fraud is well covered in the article Sogen Kato. If you have concerns, please raise them at the relevant talk page. The wall of text you placed here is in danger of breaching WP:NOTFORUM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I meant like how there is seemingly a lack of japanese coverage about it like i found no japanese news article when i searched his japanese kanji name, it could be that the kanji is wrong because japanese is notorious for having multiple different kanjis for same-sounding words, and it could be a fake name out of respect because it's something that the japanese media has done before and perhaps the english-language news has mistook it as his real name and we need japanese reliable sources to make the article more trsutworthy or i don't know what word to use, also this is not a forum but a help to make the article better ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A detailed answer would require deep knowledge of Japanese media, language and culture that I do not have. And also expertise in searching Japanese sources. The English language sources in Sogen Kato seem solid, and that is all that matters. The general principle to keep in mind is that not all reliable sources are readily available in a quick Google search. Vast amounts of reliable sources require expertise, access and much deeper digging to find. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, then maybe we'll wait until someone on the Teahouse will search through it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say that you could check the ja-WP article, but for whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't a single mention of it in the japanese wikipedia, not to mention the fact that i coundl't find a single japanese news article and japanese youtube videos about it, only chinese news articles and youtube videos about it, when typing his kanji name on youtube and google or bing, i don't know which one of the two search engines i used or maybe i used both, maybe it's possible that the kanji name is wrong because japanese has multiple different kanji for same sounding words/sounds, but still the fact that i coundl't find information about it in japanese is unusual. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

When I searched his name in Japanese, I found a news articleand a japanese wikinews article. Wimwamble (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

This news article and all of the sources in the japanese wikinews article can be used in the english wikipedia article. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Inflation tag

Hello. I added a sentence and then a source (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wettern_House&diff=1333144708&oldid=1290049697). However, I'm aware that 2005 £ would be much different than today and I have seen other pages put (from memory, in parentheses) what it would be worth more recently. I found on the Manual of Style that there are inflation tags but I couldn't figure out how to make them work. The visual editor says that parameters haven't been added yet (or something) for them. How would I improve my edit? Should I also put, after £1 million, "(2005)", to show it's from that year? I hope this is understandable. Thank you so much for all your help. Itsaclarinet (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Added inflation figured to Wettern House as requested. visual editor says that parameters haven't been added yet (or something) may mean that no one's filled in what's called the TemplateData, which—to my admittedly limited understanding—allows VisualEditor to display the template as a form. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

For Template:Inflation specifically, the TemplateData exists, so perhaps some error occurred where the values for the parameters are empty, so the parameters weren't added? I have no idea in that case. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for this, I really appreciate your help. :) Itsaclarinet (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Earthquakes

Why does the introductory statement in the "Earthquake" article say 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake instead of 1976 Tangshan Earthquake?

The statement "Significant historical earthquakes include the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake in China, with over 100,000 fatalities, and the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile, the largest ever recorded at 9.5 magnitude." should be changed to "Significant historical earthquakes include the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in China, with 242,469-779,000 fatalities, and the 1960 Valdivia earthquake in Chile, the largest ever recorded at 9.5 magnitude.", because it obviously has a higher death toll than the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, there were also indirect deaths in the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake, but they don't count there. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-43053-85. You have suggested this on the article's talk page: that is the right place for it. Please wait several days to give people a chance to respond: if nobody has answered in say a week, feel free to make an edit request.

I note that the text says "Significant", not "The most significant"; so your proposal is a question of editorial discretion, not accuracy. You feel it "should" be changed: others may disagree for some reason. Or they may all agree with you. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually it is the most significant, because it used to say 830,000 deaths but was fixed to 100,000 because it included indirect deaths which was incorrect so they fixed it, however the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake had more deaths than 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake, therefore it should include the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake instead of 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake because of it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We already have lists of largest or most destructive events; ranking things by the largest should not be the only way we discuss them in all the other articles too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it was supposed to mean the largest if you've seen the previous edit of the Earthquake article before it got changed to remove indirect deaths, however the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake is larger than 1556 Shaanxi EWarthquake in terms of direct deaths. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying it's useless to argue "this other one is bigger" when being bigger was never the point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

And when the article is not called "List of largest earthquakes", then being bigger is not the point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

But it was supposed to say about the largest, both in death count and magnitude, this was what it was meant for, it you looked at the previous edit before the change, this what what it was uspposed to be. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about one previous edit, but about the article. We already have a "largest earthquakes" article. It's better to NOT make this one also about being the largest, because then it's a waste of everyone's time to write it and to read it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, in the article, this sentence is supposed to say about the largest in death count and magnitude as evidenced by how it previously was, but when they removed the indirect death count, then it no longer is the largest, i guess it could be because everyone treates this sentence differently on what this sentence is actually supposed to be, or maybe after the edit, everyone treates this sentence differently on what this sentence is actually supposed to be. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

What the article is not supposed to be is a list of largest earthquakes. It's different. It's not the same. It's a separate article. Largest isn't important in the article you're looking at. Stop pretending it's a list of largest anything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I meant, "Actually it is supposed to be the most significant". ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-43053-85 I'm only guessing about what they were thinking, but the way I read it, they wanted to emphasize the fact that there's a very long history all over the world, and that it happens more often than readers might have realized. In my opinion, it would be a disservice to readers if we always stuck to only mentioning the most extreme and most famous cases, because it skews their view of reality if they think the top few are the only ones that ever happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

How to get a real-time preview window when editing in source-mode?

Hey there. I've been editing for some time, and when in source mode, usually on talk pages, there used to be a split view. On the left would be the editable text, and the right would be a window that reflected my edits in real time, prior to publishing.

Now, there is no split view and my window is solely the editable text. How do I get that real time preview back? Did I mess something up in my preferences?

Thanks for any help! Jcgaylor (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jcgaylor. Do you have a "Preview" button at the top right of the edit area like in File:How to edit a page Edit box - 2025 with preview and syntax highlight.png? PrimeHunter (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! No, unfortunately. Here is what my edit screen looks like on source mode. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey! One thing you can do is press publish, and then in the popup menu that opens you should find the preview button.

Additionaly your edits seem to indicate that you are using the Wikipedia:2017 wikitext editor which does not support the split view only the normal preview. Should you want to deactivate that to get the split view back you can follow these instructions:

"You can disable it by going to the Editor section of the Editing tab of your preferences, clicking the check box for Use the wikitext mode inside the visual editor, instead of a different wikitext editor, then clicking Save."

Hope this helps, Squawk7700 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Promotional draft creator, may be NOTHERE

I was checking stuff at WikiProject Singapore when I came across Draft:Chin Hwee Tan, which had been submitted for review by an Elara Whitcombe (talk · contribs)

After reading a bit more into the draft's history and the user's contributions, I found that the page as displayed to non-administrators was a re-creation and that the creator had complained about their inability to get it published at a now-archived Teahouse thread

In the thread, they denied that they had used AI (a reason used to deny the fourth submission) for anything other than "the reference links" (direct quote), and were told that AI-generated references were prohibited and to read WP:NPOV

They do not appear to have, given the re-creation (previously deleted for blatant AI use, see log) and capitalised section titles characteristic of AI; I believe that their claim of not using AI for much was a blatant lie

Elara, would you like to say anything? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I would contact the user directly, and not via the the teahouse. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Video of Jeju Air Flight 2216

I would like to upload video of the South Korean airliner that belly-landed and crashed into a barrier at Muan airport, December 2024. I am uncertain about licensing. When the article, Jeju Air Flight 2216, was still new, I linked to the video on an external source, which is:

https://cf.eip.telegraph.co.uk/store/vid-media/7e56e18f/fallback/7e56e18f-mp4-fallback.mp4

That link remains in the article and still works; the video is still available.

The Telegraph article which contains the video seems to be at:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/29/video-moment-south-korean-plane-crashes-muan-airport/

I don't have a subscription, so I can't confirm if the video actually plays on that Telegraph page.

I originally found the Telegraph source on this Yahoo page:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-moment-south-korean-plane-123033498.html

The full video plays within that Yahoo page, and the video has an embedded link to download it from the Telegraph source with no apparent restriction. I have downloaded it to my computer with no issues.

The video, or parts of it, also appears on multiple Youtube pages. The most complete may be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW71FrX8t_g

I could not find a licensing message for that specific video.

Multiple sources that have the video show a credit for Lee Geun-young, who, as I remember, is the local business owner who recorded the video.

Rather than depending on the external source, which might eventually become unavailable, I want to upload the video to Wikipedia so we can use it directly. I seek advice on whether it can be uploaded for legal use either on English Wikipedia or on Commons. Thanks. DonFB (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi DonFB! Unless the video is explicitly released under a free license, it cannot be uploaded to Commons. It may be uploaded to English Wikipedia under our fair use policy if it has no free equivalent -- you can read the policy for more information here. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's definitely one-of-a-kind; no equivalent exists. Usually for fair use, image quality is minimized, but I don't think that can be done in this case. DonFB (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! There's a different meaning of "no free equivalent" -- it means if there is no media that will serve the same encyclopedic purpose -- so, for example, if the purpose is to show the trajectory, and there already is a free trajectory graphic (even if not a video), it would have a free equivalent. As for quality, the fair use policy says that videos must be: "limited to less than 10% of the length of the original work or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter, encoded in a lossy format and resized to meet all other NFCC#3 factors." ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Damn that was really sad watching that, RIP to all those poor people Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

How to report a COI

I was doing some NPP work and AFC reviewing and came across an article which was about a system made by a company, and the user who made this page had the same name as the company mentioned; an obvious COI, shall I tell the user that they must declare it or is there a process regarding this. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

More info at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. Essentially it's more or less up to you how you WANT to handle this. Personally, I am inclined to assume good faith until proven otherwise, so I would talk to them first before reporting them anywhere. Not everyone knows all the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia from the get-go. Lectonar (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure I thought talking would be the better option, I’ll go tell them promptly. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater More advice at WP:BADNAME. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are concerns

There are concerns among some people in the talk page of "List of pedophile advocacy organizations" that there is "misinformation" and "disinformation" and some people are wanting to "correct" the information in the article, that it needs to be resolved by top administrators and needs to be talked about it, i'm not gonna write here what exactly everything i wrote because originally what i wroted got flagged as "potentially unconstructive", because my grammar and my style of writing sucked, so my message didn't got sended because of it, and i'm not going to write a long text about it because it would take me a lot of energy, time and effort, so i'm gonna leave it up to the administrators, including top administrators and other people in the Teahouse about it, like there were many cases of people editing to "correct" the information in the article (whatever or not they actually corrected the information, is of course heavily debatable and heavily controversial), honestly the whole thing is more complicated than it seems based on the research about this topic i done myself, also considering the heavily controversial and heavy subject matter, this discussion would/will be and feel heated up, heavily controversial and heavily debatable, so i guess be prepared or something?, i don't know what to say. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-43053-85 If you look at the dates associated with the threads on that Talk Page, you'll see that all the concerns are more than a year old (except your contribution today). Hence they have all already been dealt with. Admins have no more rights to determine content than any other editor, although they may be more aware of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually there is more than me in the talk page, and also the dates don't really matter that much because there isn't much activity in the talk page and also they haven't been already fully resolved or something?, i don't know how to properly describe it, i guess instead of looking at the talk page, it is in the editing history of this article and the talk page. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-43053-85 You wrote: "... based on the research about this topic i done myself ..."

That's called original research, and it's something that Wikipedia always rejects. All of the research you mention in Wikipedia talk pages or articles has to be research that was already published by reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

But i think that there are information that can be used as reliable sources. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

... then I suggest you place citations for these sources on the talk page so that the 100 editors who have that article on their watchlist can assess them and come to a consensus about what information should be included in the article itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

help

I have an issue.can someone check my drafts. they stopped reviewing it.

• Binu Pulikkakandam
• Indian Socialist Janata Dal

-- TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It is waiting for review, you just submitted 2 days ago. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ohkkk, well it used to be reviewed the same day earlier, I guess I have to learn to be patient. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing is fluid in terms of time, I’ve reviewed pages swiftly, and had pages that have taken many months to be reviewed. All In good time. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting removal of a blacklisted link

Hello. This edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_Gore&curid=36096971&diff=1333208931&oldid=1328448465

Randomly removes part of a paragraph, breaking a citation and the article. I tried to revert it, but I can't, because the page previously contained a link to Best Gore, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. The article itself is about the website though, so I assume it's allowed to have the link there. What should I do in this case? Do I request the url to be allowed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, and then revert the edit? 🍅 fx (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This has already been fixed by @Isaidnoway:. Thank you. Lectonar (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

reverted edits

I just saw my contributions tab and saw that a lot of my most recent edits were reverted. What did I basically do wrong? Phong062474 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Phong062474. If you check the page histories of the articles you edited, you can see a lot of your edits were reverted because you made the grammar worse. qcne (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

OK I get it. I have only joined 2 months ago and I haven't known how to make ethical edits in Wikipedia without ruining the article structure. That's because I'm good at speaking English but I'm having quite some trouble with English grammar. Phong062474 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I might pay attention more when copyediting. Phong062474 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You must pay attention more when copyediting. You really do need a strong grasp of the English language and grammar to successfully copyedit - if in doubt, do a different task which doesn't need this strong skill such as finding sources. qcne (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Where to put source on list

Where should I put the citation here? It applies for all the info - I placed it after the last entry. Is there a standard? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I usually do that like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks good, thank you. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a number of edits, with lots of help, to the page of Mihail Chemiakin

But it seems that those edits did not stick and the page seems to have reverted to an an earlier version that needs work. The primary problem is with the comment [citation needed]. I provided the information that should satisfy the citation requirement and someone helped me publish that. Unfortunately that modification has disappeared.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Mihail Chemiakin. Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Alan Lamb - USA, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your edit was reverted by an editor who has now been blocked, and your edit has been restored, by @Yamla.

In future, if this happens, you can look at the article's history to see who reverted your edit, and you can then open a discussion with them - see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you. but when I reload the page the old incorrect page seems to still be there. should I just be patient to wait for any changes to take effect? Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible you need to clear your browser cache. See the instructions at Help:Purge. qcne (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I purged the wiki data but I still see the pre-corrected page. Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If you check the article history, you can see you made quite a few edits in November - then there were lots of other edits between November and 14 January when you made another edit "attempted to add a citation where that was requested". A blocked user then undid your edit, and on the 16 January that edit was reverted back to your latest edit on the 14th. qcne (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to need help in assigning a citation number where it says '[citation needed]' and to place the citation in its proper place. The blocked editor or someone else perhaps helped me do that before things were reverted.

Is there someone who might be able to help with that? Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

So, the article only has the one [citation needed] tag. What source did you have for it? I can add it if it's appropriate. qcne (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I listed the source directly after the [citation needed]:

https://www.moypolk.ru/soldier/shemyakin-mihail-petrovich

Thanks very much. Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I create a coloured map

such as the one at File:Visa Requirements for United States citizens.svg?

I'm confused because there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia tool to colour the countries, or to make the legend. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on the edit history for commons:File:Visa Requirements for United States citizens.svg, I infer that people download the svg file, edit it in a vector graphics program on their device, and upload the updated graphic back to Commons. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

See also a similar question above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, just got Inkscape and everything makes sense now. Thanks. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

VidanaliK, if you are comfortable doing that, then just go ahead. Otherwise, mke a request at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Maps. Mathglot (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well now there is another question. How do I overwrite files? There are some on Wikimedia Commons that say "all autoconfirmed users can overwrite this file" but I don't know how to do that technically. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Editing carefully on Wikipedia

How can I edit on wikipedia carefully without making the article and grammar worse? Can you provide me some ways to make ethical edits to wikipedia? I am quite new to this website and I need help. Thank you. Phong062474 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

learn more on WP:NPOV ~2026-31993-5 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If you need better grammar, the only way to get that is English lessons - in a class, or learning from someone (like a tutor). Studying by yourself is the hardest because then you don't have anyone to guide you. Some people do succeed at studying alone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! There are other ways you can edit that don't involve directly changing the text of the article.. For example, you can find and add references for unsourced claims. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ term

I found this message on the talk page of "LGBTQ (term)" titled "There is no "LGB". It never existed. The reference in the first line is wrong." written by 2601:600:9280:D3B0:69DE:F93:4DC0:A2D8

The message reads "Somehow this utter nonsense has been inserted into the article: "In the 1990s, gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists adopted the initialism LGB. Terminology eventually shifted to LGBT, as transgender people gained recognition." You'll note the lack of citations, because it is of course completely made up. There was an acronym **GLB** but that is not "LGB". GLBT was used very, very briefly, but LGBT came during the AIDS crisis, as lesbians were switched to the front in recognition of how much lesbian women had done caring for gay men dying of AIDS. How this falsehood entered a prominant wikipedia article uncited is completely unknown. You will find NO photos of "LGB" from the 70s because it was "Gay," "gay and lesbian" or occasionally "GLB". Never LGB, as ordering the Lesbians first ONLY happened during the AIDS crisis, and happened after Transgender was added to the acronym.", they also added that "Edit: A creep has tried to remove this. This is a factual inaccuracy, heavily pushed by the hate group "LGB drop the T". Given this comment was removed within hours of being posted on a talk page, I think it's obvious how this inaccuracy got added, and who is keeping it around.", reading this made me decide to write it on the Teahouse for answers about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2025-43053-85. What do you want answers on? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

To discuss about it and resolve it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The original comment is from October. There doesn't seem to be a reason to discuss or resolve it. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 23:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-43053-85 If you have read through the history of the article, you would have noticed that that sentence has been changed , with the editor opening a discussion at Talk:LGBTQ (term)#Improving some historical inaccuracies in the lede and some vagueness in "Variants" section. Jolly1253 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

But is it still good nowadays? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The teahouse isn't the place to discuss the content of individual articles, that's what article talk pages are for. If you have questions or clarifications about the article content, you can ask them at Talk:LGBTQ (term) and maybe try asking at a relevant wikiproject like WP:QUEER Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not good right now and nobody would talk there because it isn't that active. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Abebaw Tadesse Asres

I want to move Abebaw Tadesse Asres to Abebaw Tadesse because it was moved by vandals (, ) who want to violate the common name usage in Wikipedia (WP:COMMONNAME) and disrupting by moving the article with inappropriate titles.

Accidentally, I request the move but no one in the discussion and I want to make technical move because I can't move it by myself. What should I do? AsteriodX (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it for you as a one-time courtesy. Next time, please post your request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

medical term "Dependent"

New to editing - found a definition for a medical term "Dependent" trying to edit and replace - gotta go thanks and thanks for Wikipedia

dependent drainage

de·pen·dent drain·age

drainage from the lowest part and into a receptacle at a level lower than the structure being drained.

Synonym(s): downward drainage

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012 Tobyw (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear which article you think this applies to, or why, but Wikipedia is not a not a dictionary; try Wiktionary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

How to find the appropiate tone template?

For the tone of the text. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The template you're looking for could be Template:Tone or Template:Tone inline. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 23:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Like for the entire article. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

In that case it's Template:Tone. It would be implemented with {{tone}} which produces Does this work? VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think so, maybe also neutrality, but i don't know, can you show me the code for it so that i can put it in a article? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

{{tone}} toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 20:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

How about neutrality? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

{{POV}} VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

What to do about best refereces behind paywalls

Hi, have had a new page I have created rejected as not having enough references. My problem is that some really worthwhile references - a full page of coverage for the subject in a national newspaper, and an extensive review of the subject in a different national newspaper, are both behind paywalls, so it is impossible to link to them in a meaningful way. I don't know if there is a way round this? Tom Canavan (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tom Canavan. Paywalled sources are fine to use, and drafts shouldn't be declined for this reason alone. If you have paywalled sources, cite them as normal (with full bibliographic information to allow a reader to find them), then wait for a reviewer who has access to come along and review the draft. qcne (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Tom Canavan, you can also include a highly relevant quotation from each paywalled source in your reference to that source. I suggest limiting that to two sentences. And you can describe the depth of coverage of the paywalled sources on the talk page of the draft and offer to email copies to AFC reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful - thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Many reviewers will have access to the Wikipedia library and hence resources like newspapers.com and other newspaper archives. The key is to give a full citation, preferably using the template {{cite news}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Second that. Also, if the Wikipedia Library doesn't have it, the Wayback Machine (often used for dead links on Wikipedia) removes paywalls automatically so you can see the entire content. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be good. Many thanks. ~2026-35113-4 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft of a new article, trying to make it completely neutral

Hi- I’m working on a draft article about a company I’m affiliated with and want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia’s neutrality & notability standards. I got feedback that earlier versions were too promotional, so I’ve significantly shortened and neutralized the draft (removing any funding and awards entirely). Could someone take a look at this sandbox draft and advise whether it’s appropriate, or what further changes would be good to make? I’ve disclosed my conflict of interest and am looking for independent editor guidance.

Here is the draft: User:Willetling/sandbox

Thank you Willetling (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I've placed your draft at Draft:Swoogo, draft space is the preferred location for submissions, which can be accessed via the Article Wizard.

Please disclose your status on your user page; if your affiliation is employment, you are considered to be a paid editor, see WP:PAID.

Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their routine activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage offers critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what tbe company views as its own importance. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. Frankly, most people in your position fail at what you are attempting, because it is difficult to set aside what you know about your company and limit yourself to summarizing what others say. Are you one of the rare people who can? Possibly, but the odds are against it, especially without prior experience editing. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Neutral is good, and required of course, but neutral-sounding promotion is still promotion.

Making an article where the boss shouts "This is no use at all!" is exactly what's needed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Willetling, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

If it tells what the subject wants people to know, and not (almost exclusively) what people unconnected to the company have said about it, then it is promotional

Unless it cites, and is almost entirely based on, several sources that meet the requirements above, it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Willetling!

Currently, your article contains no references. For a subject to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it must have multiple independent (not from the company), secondary, reliable sources (you can learn which sources are considered reliable and not reliable at WP:RS) that cover the subject in reasonable detail, not just a passing mention. While there is no specific minimum of sources, I personally use 3 or 4 as a baseline.

You will also need to declare a Conflict of Interest on your user page and when creating the draft at the Article Wizard. Once you've created a good article that explains some of the basic facts about the company and can establish that it's notable, you can go ahead and submit it. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

After mulling over the requirements in everyone's responses, I reckon the company doesn't currently merit a Wikipedia page. While we have a real presence in our particular industry, and some very notable companies use our products, I can't point to any noteworthy media coverage that would meet these guidelines.

Almost 20 years ago I was in a band - back then we just slapped a Wikipedia page up and it was good to go, lol. I think the world of Wikipedia has changed, and that's probably a good thing. So, thank you for all that you do Wikipedians, I will shelve this idea for now unless something changes. Thanks for the insight. Willetling (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy International Mentoring Day, Wikipedia mentors & Teahouse staff!

Did you know 17 January is an official day worldwide to recognise mentors and all they do ? It began as an extension of National Mentoring Month in the US throughout the month of January, but it’s now celebrated on just one day.

Navigating the twists and turns of becoming Wikipedia editors is so much easier with the help of a mentor. Here in the Teahouse, as well as at other Wikipedia help venues, we also get quick, insightful, and ongoing help—day in, day out from tireless hosts, who, like mentors, receive no pay other than the happiness that comes from helping. So ...

◆ Let's "think and thank", pausing to consider all we receive from them and perhaps sending them a few words of gratitude.

◆ Perhaps this occasion could also be a time for some to think of becoming a mentor or a help venue host themselves as a way of giving back.

◆ This year seems a perfect time to begin a new annual tradition on 17 January, as it's the 25^th anniversary of Wikipedia and mentors have been a large part of its success story! ~2026-35535-5 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Why did someone removed my message about the Pictairn Islands?

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

---

There was a reason in my message. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Can someone put it back? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It's there, and someone replied that it's an incomprehensible wall of text. You didn't suggest an improvement, you just threw a bunch of stuff at the talk page and assumed others would sort it out. That isn't how one communicates in a collaborative project. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The user posted the same wall of text both at Talk:Pitcairn Islands and here. I responded there. It was deleted (properly) from here. Largoplazo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2026 (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.

Seeing Deleted Page

I wanted to view the a prior deleted page (Tyson Apostol). I wanted to review what the old page looked like so that I can fix any mistakes and make it into an actual page instead of a redirect. Likely was just deleted as it wasn't created correctly. Dresq23 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Dresq23, try a WP:REFUND request. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Tyson Apostol is a redirect, and protected. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination). You can already read the deleted article, here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone removed my message in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

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.

---

It got removed for "remove WP:NOTFORUM comments", however it wasn't meant to be a forum but to help Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for discussing the topics, so no it was not really meant to help Wikipedia. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

But i wanted to help Wikipedia by finding information that isn't on Wikipedia, that is the reason behind it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Finding information so that it can be used on Wikipedia. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't improve Wikipedia by throwing a bunch of stuff at a talk page and expecting others to sort it out. You communicate suggestions for improvements. You didn't do that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2026 (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.

Draft:Xiaomi sound pocket

can anyone help me with this article. because I written it and I don't know if is meets NPOV ~2026-31993-5 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well if it is a device that you have no connection to, then it should pass NPOV, I read the article and all you did was state the facts, seems pretty neutral. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-31993-5, NPOV is not the problem. You need to find at least three sources that discuss the subject independent of Xiaomi and its employees, in reliable sources, and at some length. See WP:42 for more. Meadowlark (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Can someone create a WikiProject for household appliances?

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.

---

This is because during the discussion on "Can someone improve and expand "South Korean humidifier disinfectant case"" in the Teahouse, someone thought about a wikiproject of household appliances, they didn't knew if it exitsed, and someone else tried to find it but it apparently dosen't exist, so i have a idea for someone to create a WikiProject on household appliances, like "WikiProject:Household appliances". ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The closest thing to it would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living, in which one member editor expresses an interest in editing about appliances. The Wikiproject is inactive (as most are these days) but there's nothing stopping you from joining and being active in it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2026 (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.

Can someone improve and expand "South Korean humidifier disinfectant case"

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.

---

It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article, by the way, it's the most horrible and largest case of corporate public health neglegience by dozens of corporations. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You don’t need to do it all at once, you can do small edits every so often to fix the page, which could be more manageable for you. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a How about you contribute to editing this article? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Because, as i said before, it would be too much for me to improve and expand this article, i know that i did edit this article many times before, but they weren't like major edits. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

So how come you expect Mwen to do it for you? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 23:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I have other topics I’m more interested in, and South Korean Humidifiers are really my strong point, perhaps there is a Wikiproject which could assist you. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

What wikiproject is there for south korean humidifiers? I would like to know. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

😂 Unfortunately for you there aren’t ones specific to South Korean humidifiers, Perhaps,Wikiproject Korea could help you or a Wikiproject households appliances (not sure if that exists, if it does then it would be very boring) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Can someone find a wikiproject of household appliances? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I skimmed through the List of WikiProjects and didn't see one, though I'm a bit low on time so you're welcome to look further there or elsewhere yourself if you like. I suspect that such a WikiProject would be a bit too esoteric to sustain long-term activity if it did exist, though I've been surprised before. It might be easiest to start a conversation about improvements on the article's talk page, though. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps, why not create it? WikiProject:Household appliances ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are stuff other than the South Korean humidifier disinfectant case, so why not create WikiProject:Household appliances? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a corresponding article in Korean with applicable references and sources. WikiProject Intertranswiki Korean might be able to help you since its focus is on translating articles from Korean Wikipedia, which has substantially more information on the article you are referring to. In that case you're not just asking for a vague "expand this article for me please", but specifically asking for a translation from Korean from those qualified to do so. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:16, 16 January 2026 (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.

Can someone improve and expand "Dennō Senshi Porygon"

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.

---

It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article, by the way, at least it was accidental and they didn't knew about the harmful effects of flashing lights, so it wasn't a case where they knew about the harmful effects but still put flashing lights anyways to save money, time and effort, unlike the South korean humidifier disinfectant case where dozens of corporations put toxic chemicals in humidifier disinfectants, at least i hope that is the case here, but i think it is most likely accidental rather than knowing about the harmful effects and still using it anyway. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no request for advice in your post, that we can answer here.

We operate on the principle that we have no deadlines; we all just do what we can, when we can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It isn't because of this, but because so that people can edit it to improve and expand the article, if anyone is interested in it, they will edit it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2026 (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.

Can someone improve and expand "YAT Anshin! Uchū Ryokō"

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.

---

especially the "Incident" section

 Courtesy link: YAT Anshin! Uchū Ryokō

It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article and the section, the reason why i'm writing this is because compared to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there is way less information in the English Wikipedia article, but especially the "Incident" section, which on both on the Japanese Wikipedia and in the English article, there is way less information in both languages of the wikipedia article than the amount of information in the sources (the Japanese wikipedia article on itself dosen't have much information about this incident, so therefore, sources is a more important comparison compared to the Japanese wikipedia, and also there are different sources about this incident in the Japanese Wikipedia article, so therefore, these additional sources in the Japanese Wikipedia needs to also be put in the English article as well, we might as well find new web pages about this incident that are considered reliable sources for the English article) therefore, this article and especially the "Incident" section needs to be improved and expanded by a lot. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The article is now tagged with a Template saying "You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Japanese..." Sooner or later, someone who speaks that language will come and do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, i did added it, but still, i decided to ask it here on the Teahouse and WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Medicine. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2026 (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.

There is a discussion in the user talk page of Alalch E. about Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center

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.

---

So if you want to contribute on improving and expanding Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center, go there if you want to. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, there is also a discussion in the talk page of Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center, however the main discussion is in the user talk page of Alalch E.. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-43053-85, I've just left a message on your talk page. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:01, 16 January 2026 (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.

What wikiproject is there for south korean humidifiers?

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 would like to know. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, for context, it is for the South Korean humidifier disinfectant case. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject South Korea & WP:WikiProject Health and fitness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

For the article you are referring to, in order to expand that article the folks at WikiProject Intertranswiki Korean can help you because there is already a lot of information in the corresponding Korean article, it just needs to be translated into English. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:31, 16 January 2026 (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.