Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

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

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

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Could you please review the article and, if the issues have been resolved, remove the speedy deletion template?, The current version of the article was translated entirely by me without the use of AI. I can assure you of that. If this proves to be false, I am prepared to take full responsibility and accept any administrative action, including being blocked.Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện highkey cái này là vấp filter markdown codeblock thôi. edit của b có mấy cái đánh dấu ``` như thế này, tức là lấy thẳng từ một khối mã codeblock trong một giao diện có markdown. b có nhập và dịch bảng trong một markdown codeblock r copy sang đây k? [highkey this is a markdown codeblock filter trip. your edit has these marks, meaning that this was taken from a codeblock in a markdown interace. did you translate the table in a markdown codeblock and copied it here?]

vca góp ý chút, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh -> Ho Chi Minh City [also some suggestions,] ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 18:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 I put a expand language template, because i thought there was more to it, however, i have later realized that instead of information it's about sources, like different sources, sources that are not in the English article, hence why i didn't removed the expand langauge template. ~2026-42949-06 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Cảm ơn bạn Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện @.nhals8 Even if all you're saying is "thank you", please write in English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I would like to ask where I should submit this now so that an administrator or coordinator can review my article. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It has a tag basically saying you used help from AI. After seeing that tag, did you delete the whole thing and fully rewrite by hand, or did you try to fix things up? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The article was translated entirely by me, by hand, without the use of AI. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The filter-abuse was tripped when LVT pasted the entire thing at once in the first revision of the article, and the rest of it was them trying to fix it up. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 02:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The tag I saw had nothing to do with tripping a filter. It said that the article contained instruction blurbs from the AI to the user, telling how to use its output. That is, to all intents and purposes, proof of AI-generated material - or at least requires massive explaining. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/44781528 ? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 03:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, if I may, the abuse filter was tripped by "markdown-formatted text" having been added. The filter description states this: (from Special:AbuseFilter/1369)

Creating this filter, that was suggested at WP:EFR to monitor the addition of markdown text, which is often, but not always indicative of AI-generated text. - PI7

Markdown formatting is not a cut and dry sign of LLM use. I myself use a markdown editor when writing (Obsidian, MacDown 3000, etc).

As for the LLM warning tag you mentioned, I can't find that anywhere. If it was from a previous diff, could you link it please? Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing against either of you, and nothing against the article. I just don't want the article to get the fastest "No" in history if that can be avoided. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti, @TooManyFingers Funny, I don't see any markdown at the AbuseLog link. David10244 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It is there. It originates from the chatbots response to the user, not in the wikitext itself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Could you quote and link the Markdown you see? I don’t see any triple ` code block tags. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti: the easiest is probably for you to open AbuseLog/44781528 and Ctrl+F for "```". It's there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Gurkubondinn, now I see it. That definitely looks suspicious. Good catch!

Also, @David10244, follow gurkubondinn's link. The three backticks ("```") are a Markdown symbol for a codeblock, often used by LLMs to demarcate a block of text in a specific computer language, in this case being Wikimarkup. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 16:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, thats actually a really good way to explain that. Feel free to edit the explanatory essay that I wrote and linked to above, because I really struggled with finding a good way to phrase it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I added this phrasing to it. Thanks! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti Yes, I see it now, thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I've already provided the translation but alright ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 02:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Im not new

why are you guys thinking im new? im not. sorry, i just wanted to clarify im not new. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Wikiguythatlikesbiology Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rule #63,282: Anyone who needs to say "I'm not new!" is very new. :)

But you're very welcome! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I started in may 2025, so im more of a intermediate. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Remind me not to tell you Rule #63,283. ;) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok :) just wanted to clarify things Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikiguythatlikesbiology, you have less than 200 edits. So, you are either relatively new or relatively inexperienced. Either is fine. Hang around and edit more, and both perceptions will evaporate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok! thank you! Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You have, at the time of writing, 191 edits since 18 May 2025.

I, for example, have 299,155 edits since 16 October 2003.

While that does not make me a better person than you, it does make you much newer here than me. And than most people who edit here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

wwwooooaaahhh that's genuinely awesome! i joined yesterday so i'm still figuring things out here :) starspark (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Even though i LOOK like im new, i just barely edit. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

What i mean is like i only edit occasionaly Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Convert declined biography to a book article? (COI)

My draft Draft:Alina Wheeler was declined twice on the notability of the person. My strongest sourcing is actually about her book, Designing Brand Identity (Wiley; six editions, 2003–2024; translated into 11 languages), so I'm wondering whether to rewrite it as an article about the book under WP:NBOOK instead. Independent sources I have:

• A peer-reviewed academic review by Ivan Biošić in Communication Management Review 3(2), 2018, pp. 112–117 (DOAJ-indexed) — note it's a combined review covering two books.
• A signed review by DK Holland in Communication Arts (2004) of the first edition. (An editor noted Holland is thanked in the book; that acknowledgment first appears in the 2006 second edition, after this review of the 2003 first edition.)
• A brief capsule notice in Design Issues (MIT Press) 20(2), 2004.
• Adopted as a course text in design programs (documented at Ohio State University via AIGA's teaching resource; also a long-standing standard text in the field).

Would this support a standalone article on the book, or is it still short of NBOOK? There's also obituary coverage (PRINT, SEGD) and an interview, but I recognize those are about the person and largely non-independent, so I'm not counting them toward the book's notability. Disclosure: I have a COI – I co-authored the 6th edition (but was not involved in the first five). Thanks. RobMeyerson (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson I looked at the "Communication Arts" review and it's pretty brief; not sure if it meets the standard of WP:SIGCOV. Maybe the Communication Management Review piece is better, but it's not cited in your current draft so I can't see it.

In either case, even if there may be notability here to substantiate an article, I think it's equally possible that you might not be the right person to write it, at least right now. Your account has existed for a long time, but in terms of edits you're still a beginner. Writing an article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, one that very few people would be prepared for with only 20 edits under their belt (a good few of which are to the article in question), and that task only gets even harder when your COI comes into the mix; since it only makes adhering to WP:NPOV even more challenging.

So, my genuine suggestion would be to leave it for a while and spend a few weeks immersing yourself in the community and learning the basics first. There's no rush to get your article published. Athanelar (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RobMeyerson! Leaving aside the question of whether this particular book is Notable or not, your original speculation is broadly correct – it is not uncommon for a particular book (or several books) by an author to be Notable (because they have been reviewed and otherwise written about) and to have Articles, but the author themself to be not Notable, because not enough has been published about them personally. I have seen several instances of drafts begun about an author proving unviable but being successfully revised as one about their book(s) instead. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar and @~2026-41275-62, I appreciate the direct and candid feedback. All makes sense. I'd like to pivot to an article about the book, Designing Brand Identity, rather than the biography of Alina Wheeler. Given my COI (I co-authored the 6th edition but was not involved in first 5) and that I'm a newer editor, I'm hoping an experienced, uninvolved editor will be interested in taking this on.

In addition to the references in Draft:Alina Wheeler (which may only be useful as content, not notability), I've gathered the following independent sourcing:

• Ivan Biošić, review in Communication Management Review 3(2) (2018), pp. 115–117 — DOAJ-indexed, peer-reviewed; full text: https://hrcak.srce.hr/216831 (click the link next to "Puni tekst:" and scroll to page 115).
• DK Holland, review in Communication Arts (2004) of the 1st edition: https://www.commarts.com/book-reviews/designing-brand-identity (Another editor noted Holland is thanked in the book; that acknowledgment first appears in the 2006 second edition, after this review of the 2003 first edition.
• A brief notice in Design Issues (MIT Press) 20(2) (2004): https://direct.mit.edu/desi/issue/20/2
• Documented course use (e.g., Ohio State via AIGA's teaching resource): https://teachingresource.aiga.org/project/brand-identity-system-development/

Would anyone be willing to write or adopt the book article, or is there a better venue to request it? Happy to share everything I've compiled, and I've reached out to the publisher and others who may be able to find additional sourcing. RobMeyerson (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:Requested articles but do be aware that there are very few editors with any interest in writing articles for other people, and requests are likely to languish there indefinitely. Athanelar (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson Can you find 3 reviews in reputable sources for the book? Where the book is the primary subject of the review? Mme Maigret (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, three dedicated reviews where the book is the primary subject, all in reputable, independent sources:

1. Casey, Russell. Review of Designing Brand Identity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Winter 2004, pp. 100–101. (Full review in a peer-reviewed journal.)
2. Govoni, N. A. Review of Designing Brand Identity (4th ed.). Choice, May 2013, item 50-5098, p. 1676. (The ALA's academic review journal.)
3. Biošić, Ivan. Review of Designing Brand Identity. Communication Management Review 3(2), 2018, pp. 115–117. (DOAJ-indexed, peer-reviewed.)

There's also a brief notice in Reference & Research Book News (Nov. 2009) and a review by DK Holland in Communication Arts (2004). I obtained the first three through university library databases (JSTOR/Gale) and am happy to share full citations or PDFs. Beyond reviews, I have additional supporting material, e.g., the book's adoption as a required text in university courses across several countries, if that's relevant to a WP:NBOOK assessment. RobMeyerson (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson You have posted the same info three times. Is a chatbot doing that for you? David10244 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm answering a direct question from @Mmemaigret: "Can you find 3 reviews in reputable sources for the book?" I listed three, two of which I only found out about yesterday—I had never mentioned them before. They came from a professor via her university library access, so I wasn't aware of them previously. The third I had posted before, but it meets the questioner's criteria. Everything else (e.g., course syllabi that list the book as required reading) is old news, yes. I'm trying to make the case that the book is notable, and figure all of this is potentially relevant, even if it's supplementary.

By the way, I forgot to mention that I'm still waiting to hear back from the publisher, Wiley, about anything additional they may have.

Regardless, I'm still wondering whether anyone without a COI would be willing to write or adopt the book article. @Athanelar basically told me WP:Requested articles is where requests go to die; if no one takes me up on the offer or has other advice, I'll write/post it myself as soon as I hear back from Wiley. Thanks everyone for all the input! RobMeyerson (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment before restoring Draft:DuoCards (declared COI)

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the founder and CEO of DuoCards s.r.o., and I have disclosed this with {{paid}} on my user page.

Draft:DuoCards was declined in June 2022, again in September 2025 and October 2025, and was then deleted under G13 in April 2026. Before I request undeletion and spend more of my own time and a reviewer's time on it, I would like an honest read on whether the sourcing that exists can meet WP:NCORP.

The best sources I am aware of are:

1. Peter Brejčák, CzechCrunch, 4 December 2023 — an independent Czech technology outlet, but the article is built around a funding round, so I assume WP:ORGTRIV applies.
2. Wired, "8 Best Language Learning Apps", 1 August 2023 — reliable and independent, but the app gets only a short entry in a listicle.
3. Roklen24 and AICrunch, both 4 December 2023 — the same funding announcement, apparently derived from a press release, so probably not independent per WP:ORGIND.

I have deliberately excluded App Store and Google Play listings, Reddit threads, affiliate review blogs, and a paid sdělení komerční (commercial announcement) piece in Lidovky, as I understand none of those count.

Is my reading correct that this is not currently enough, and that the right move is to wait for further independent, in-depth coverage rather than resubmit? I would rather be told no now than waste a reviewer's time on a fourth attempt. If there is a category of source I should be looking for that I have overlooked, I would be grateful to hear it.

Thank you. Petrheralecky (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"I would rather be told no now than..."—No.

None of your three "best" sources meet the guidance at WP:Golden rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Petrheralecky. Remember that most companies on the planet do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

The question that occurs to me is why you want there to be an article about your company. Generally when a CEO wants that, they are either wanting to tell people about the company, or to improve their SEO. In either case, this is promotion, and forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.

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. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether this very old statement was originally meant as advice or as a complaint, but it said for an individual to get a loan from the bank they first have to prove they don't need one.

On Wikipedia, when someone wants an article, proving that they already received a large amount of the exact kind of coverage that goes into Wikipedia articles is pretty much what's required. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Pigsonthewing, ColinFine and TooManyFingers. That is a clear no, and I accept it.

To answer ColinFine's question rather than dodge it: yes, my original motive was to have people read about the company. I understand that this is exactly the motive the guideline is designed to exclude, and that disclosing the conflict does not make it acceptable.

So I will not request undeletion and I will not resubmit. If people with no connection to me ever choose to write about the app in depth and of their own accord, it will be for someone else to judge whether that is enough, and I will not be asking anyone to do so.

One thing I would like to get right. I have a copy of the draft sitting in a userspace sandbox on another Wikipedia. Is it better practice to blank that now rather than leave a promotional-looking draft lying around indefinitely with no realistic prospect of sourcing? I would rather tidy it away than leave the impression that I am waiting for a chance to slip it in. Petrheralecky (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Following up on my own message, and I hope this does not read as pushing back — I accept the answer above and I am not asking anyone to revisit the deleted draft.

After posting it I searched Google Scholar, which I had honestly never thought to do. There is academic literature I was unaware of:

• Soyoof, Reynolds, Rassaei et al., "The Effects of Mobile, Gamified, and Paper Flashcards on Vocabulary and Collocation Learning in Young Language Learners", International Journal of Applied Linguistics (Wiley), 2026, doi:10.1111/ijal.70095, open access. A quasi-experimental study in which the app is one of three conditions, with a subsection describing its features and a figure of screenshots.
• Sabila and Salmiah, "Improving EFL students' vocabulary acquisition: a phenomenological study on the use of the 'DuoCards' mobile application", Leksika (Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto), 2025. Here the app is the sole subject of the study. It has been cited a number of times since.
• Rohatiuk and Vargic, "Application for Effective Memorization of Learning Material", Redžúr 2025 (Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava) — a short comparative description of the app's scheduling mechanism.

I also found a Czech weekly "best apps" roundup in Živě/MobilMania from December 2023, but I assume that is trivial in the same way the Wired listicle is.

My question is narrow. Does academic literature of this kind count towards notability, or is it discounted because the app is largely being used as a research instrument rather than written about as a subject in its own right? I do not know, and I would rather ask than assume it helps me. If the answer is that it still falls short, that is genuinely fine and I will leave it there. Petrheralecky (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we need sources that give the app significant coverage itself, not just merely document its usage. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How can i improve my comma usage and general writing?

I always put capitals after commas, And i would like to know is this bad or good?

᛫ Also this looks like a bullet list but im using runes

HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, commas are not usually followed by capital letters unless the word is a proper noun (like a name or a place).

I'm not sure what you're saying about the runes thing, sorry. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks, also the runes thing is a special character. HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I can infer that, but I'm not totally sure why you're pointing it out. Do you have a question about it? ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No, sorry lol im just new to wikipedia HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@HelloImYourNeighbor, you can make a proper bullet list using * to start each line.

This:

* This is a bullet point

will display as:

• This is a bullet point

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 23:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true if they're editing using the source editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

VisualEditor also recognises an asterisk at the start of a line as starting a bulleted list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Pick up Strunk and White's Elements of Style. It's like 80 pages and it's everything you'll ever need to write well in English presented essentially as a series of bullet points. It's a godsend. Conas.Lans (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians

Dear Wikipedians. I want to discuss that I am concern about my friend who used to edit Wikipedia. He used to be active on Wikipedia (mostly the Icelandic and Danish) until he got banned. He is diagnosed with autism and I am afraid that the administrators did not understand his needs. He got banned frequently for failing to edit Wikipedia properly and he constantly asked for help to be a better user but the administrators did not help him when he needed it the most. I would like to ask someone to give me some advice about how I can help my friend to be a better user because that is what he wants. He study at the University and he has good relationship with his professors who always find solution when he ask them to do. However when he ask the administrators on Wikipedia to find solutions they seem uninterested to finding solution and my friend deserve help from someone who is willing to find good solutions. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-43812-89. Did your friend get WP:BANNED or WP:BLOCKED? They are two different things and might determine the types of responses you get. Was your friend banned/blocked from English Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia or Icelandic Wikipedia? If he was blocked/blanned on English Wikipedia, please provide the name of their account so that someone can try to see why. There is some general information on what someone can do when their English Wikipedia account has been blocked found at Wikipedia:Appealing a block and for users who have been banned at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans, but it will be hard to give you a more specific answer without knowing the ame of the account that was blocked/banned. If, on the other hand, your friend was blocked/banned from one of the other language Wikipedias, then there's not much that can be done for them here on English Wikipedia. Each of the different language Wikipedias is a separate project with their own respective policies and guidelines, and their own way of dealing with blocked/banned users. You or your friend will need to ask for assistance on whatever Wikipedia has blocked/banned them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a job that people volunteer to do, but still, it is a job. A person who chooses to take a certain job might be expected to need some help and guidance as they start, but if they appear to be ignoring the guidance and help they receive, and especially if they continue to make very serious errors or cause significant disruption despite having been instructed how to avoid those things, at some point they will not be allowed to continue.

There's also a political or at least social element to everything that people do in groups, and a group that has already excluded someone is often inclined to refuse to even consider taking them back. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure he did many errors over a long period of time both on Icelandic and Danish Wikipedia but the thing is that he sometimes simply don´t understand instructions and he needs different method of help to understand them. He currently studies at University like I said and he often needs help from his professors but when he ask them for help they always find solutions and it helps him alot. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is good, but the professors have two advantages: they know him, and they are being paid to help him. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure they know him well and they understand him and so do I. Regardless if people are getting paid or not for helping other. My friend simply need help to be a better man and then he can return to Wikipedia as an honorable man. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43812-89 In the same way that jogging might not be a good hobby for a person with no legs, Wikipedia editing is not necessarily a good hobby for everyone, particularly for people who chronically struggle to follow instructions or otherwise flourish in a collaborative environment.

I believe I remember the editor you're talking about, and this was an editor who was constantly editing disruptively and then responding to warnings by insisting that other editors take the time to walk them through everything step-by-step so that they could understand it. This is simply not sustainable on Wikipedia. A certain level and type of competence is required to edit here (or rather, to avoid accidentally editing disruptively) and being able to internalise and act upon written instructions is one of those requirements. Athanelar (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense to think "Wikipedia seems to be a benefit to my friend", and it very well might be true. But it's probably less usual to think "I wonder if my friend is really a benefit to Wikipedia". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I might remember this conversation. Did you ask a similar question a very long time ago? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My friend is serious when it comes to ask for help. I agree that his behavior was unacceptable but people can change and so can he. He do regret his behavior and is willing to do better in the future. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43812-89: Welcome to The Teahouse. If this concerns the Icelandic or Danish Wikipedia projects, you would have to refer to their processes on appealing blocks and/or bans. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

But ... it was you who asked a similar question in the past, right? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I do remember this conversation. The previous "installment" of it was very similar to this one. It could have happened on the Teahouse, the Help Desk, or the Reference Desk. The autistic "friend" (which appears to be that old classic "asking for a friend"), the university with the helpful professors, the expectation that wikis should go above and beyond to support the friend, the fact that it was specifically the Icelandic and Danish wikis, it all matches.

I just wonder why this closely duplicated conversation is happening. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to be too specific without knowing the specifics of the case. While I can't say anything about other Wikipedias, I know on English Wikipedia, we have a lot of highly accomplished administrators and editors who are neurodivergent. Many admins and non-admins spend a lot of time trying to help editors with problems. Indefinite blocks and bans are last resorts or for particularly egregious behavior that is dangerous to the encyclopedia.

That being said, while people will generally try and be understanding and helpful, the core project here is to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia factory, and this is a factory floor. Unlike someone's family members or teachers, we don't directly know the vast majority of each other, and there are limits into what we can do. While we hope that people on this project find the work enriching and sees personal growth, the primary mission here isn't akin to the mission of preparing students for the "real world." I don't know if your friend is in this category, but in the end, some people just aren't suited for this particular project. And there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia isn't life; it's just another project, and we all have projects that we are suited for and projects that we are unsuited for.

We sometimes have to block good people, for no other reason than that the community feels what they can bring to this project doesn't outweigh what they cost the project in time and energy. For example, earlier this year, I was trying to help a probably very young editor learn about the sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. But unfortunately, they could never understand what sourcing even was, and every sentence they wrote in English was almost unreadable. The disruption this editor caused on their frequent pages was a massive time sink for the community, so now they're blocked, and I think it's unlikely they're ever unblocked. And this editor seemed like a perfectly nice person, who really wanted to be a Wikipedia editor. It's sad and unfortunate, but the decisions sometimes have to be made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocked on eswiki

Working a bit on 2024 Villa María del Triunfo explosion (help from MinT translation from Spanish Wikipedia) but there are some problems that I came across. Because I mostly obtain stuff while on private browsing, there are probably some pros and cons about what I'm experiencing in the draft:

• Apparently my IP was blocked by Stïnger on the Spanish Wikipedia, supposedly for "Abuso a largo plazo (LTA)" (Long-term abuse (LTA)). This is a bit weird because I can still edit while logged in, the IP block was made on July 25. Was an IP block exempt given in the spirit that I would continue editing? Maybe.
• Is there an outage in MinT servers right now? Attempting to click the Translate button even with the default text ("Jazz is a music genre that originated in the African-American communities of New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...") will still time out and throw an error.

I have no idea if this shall also be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but despite that, it may or may not be some kind of poison that came while editing enwiki or something, because I'm more focused on my drafts than what I'm meant to fight: vandals. — (this page isn't responding) (HTTP 500) SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 14:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocks are frequently done anon-only, meaning editors with accounts can still log in to edit. You do not have IPBE on es-wiki. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Yeah... but what about MinT? I still can't translate anything. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 16:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SimpleObjects-9ei. I've never heard of MinT, but as far as I can see it has no connection with Wikipedia or any Wikimedia projects, so I don't understand why you're asking about it here.

Note that translation tools are rarely of much use in translating Wikipedia articles, and are not allowed unless the result is then carefully reviewed by somebody proficient in both languages: see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the maintainers of MinT. It's not obvious to me who they are, I'll see if I can find out. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the team in charge of that is mw:Wikimedia Language and Product Localization, so I'm not sure what the best way to get in touch with them is, on account of how seriously out-of-date that page is. You could try the talk page there, or perhaps mw:Talk:MinT. Maybe they're active in their Telegram group? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Gerard, the product manager for the Language and Product Localization team at the foundation. Our team maintains https://translate.wmcloud.org/. Thank you for flagging this issue, the incident is now resolved and the service should be working as expected. But please, let us know if you encounter the same or any other issues when you try again. GGalofre-WMF (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

May I move an article to main space after it is reviewed and rejected?

If someone say, submits a draft to the review page (I forgot what it's called) and it gets rejected, can they just ditch the review and move it into the article space? Abudefduf221 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless someone has a conflict of interest, is partial blocked from creating articles, under editing restrictions, or using a temporary account, the AFC draft process is voluntary. You could move a draft into mainspace and disregard the reviews. However, this increases the chances that the article would be subject to a deletion discussion or moved back to draft. Unless you have experience in having drafts accepted, it is best to use the draft process so that you figure out any problems first, rather than after the draft is moved, when it is assumed you knew what you were doing. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a lot of accepted drafts. What I care about the most is if I'd get in trouble for it. Abudefduf221 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You wouldn't "get in trouble" for doing it once or a few times, but if you make a habit out of moving drafts into mainspace that are continually moved back or deleted, that wastes other editor's time and and some point you would be asked to stop. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you really mean two questions:

Can they? Usually nothing stops them.

Will it be allowed to stay there? Very doubtful IMO. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abudefduf221 If you're confident in your ability to write articles to an appropriate standard then you don't need to bother with AfC anyway.

I think it is generally inappropriate and a bad idea to move a draft to mainspace after it's been declined. The whole point of the decline is that the reviewer is telling you it's not fit for mainspace yet. If you put it in mainspace anyway, then you're first of all essentially saying the reviewer's judgement is wrong (in which case you should discuss it with them rather than just ignoring them) and secondly you're potentially wasting editor time by subjecting the article to a possible AfD discussion etc, (not to mention wasting the AfC reviewer's time by submitting the draft for a review that you had no intention of abiding by anyway) Athanelar (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you? Yes. Should you? No. Draft's don't get declined/rejected for no reason. If a draft gets declined or rejected then it doesn't belong in mainspace in its current state (for a decline) or ever (for a reject). Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

While the process is entirely open, the effect is seen is seen as disruptive by AFC folk and it tends to lead, even over the short term to conflict and hassle. The whole point of AFC is improve the quality of article and process of writing articles, i.e. to professionalise the editor in their writing "career" on Wikipedia. It is an effective process and a worthy process. When its done your effectively saying the AFC folk's judgement is valueless or useless and that makes people angry, as those folk generally have much more experience in reviewing articles than you do. If the article is rejected, its seen as being worthless and not worth spending any more time on it. Moving something like that to main-space is really problematic on its own, as shows a complete disregard for the Terms of Use and the interests of Wikipedia folk in general. It indicates a problem with the editor -- an ideological bent, a coi, UPE, pushing a particular view or some promo thing, who knows. Many different things can be wrong. Its tends to attract admin and that can lead to own problems. The process is left open to try and attract good editors and promote good practice, but the result is its continually abused. Best leave it alone. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

What is #BOI AI?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse, In patrolling recent changes, I have come across some edits by new TAs with the edit summary "#BOI AI". What is meant by this? Seeing these was what prompted me to ask this question, but I remember seeing the same thing yesterday, though I don't have a link. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 08:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

BOI AI is an AI company, however it doesn't make sense that a company of its caliber would be involved with TAs vandalizing Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

My first guess would be that they were using AI to make the edits, although clearly doing a very poor job of it (even for how bad AI is in the first place). Or maybe they're just a bro trying to smear the name around? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The edits seemed to reference nonexistent templates, which I could imagine AI doing. Not sure though. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 09:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't even begin to guess what they were trying to accomplish. If it was a hallucinated template in a larger body of slop that would be more typical. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's some kind of spam campaign? Or maybe some kind of AI scraper for some kind of future search engine? ConstructiveEditor2015 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:BOI_Archiver

Possibly related?? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding a Geographical Map to a Wikipedia Article

Hi everyone! I would like to add a geographical map to help readers understand the location being discussed. What is the recommended way to add a map to a Wikipedia article, and are there any guidelines or templates I should follow when choosing or creating one? SimplyAdvanced10 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SimplyAdvanced10, and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:Maps for Wikipedia. (Hint: when looking for information about a topic in editing Wikipedia, it often works to put "WP:" on the front of it. I typed "WP:Maps" into the search bar, and autocomplete gave me that link). ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@SimplyAdvanced10: Many articles use infoboxes with a feature to include a map. Which article is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

New sports play creation!

Hi! Yes I'm excited to have invented/discovered a simple but profound concept that has allowed me and my volleyball community to create a whole new way to play that is ideal in all key ways. I've never submitted anything to Wikipedia, nor copyright and patents (maybe I should get that first ???). But I want the world to know and benefit from it. So I'm looking for help, advice, companionship with this project. James Boulder, Colorado. ~2026-43988-01 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@James, sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia does not publish original research. You will have to use some other outlet for your invention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43988-01: Welcome to The Teahouse. If sources that Wikipedia considers reliable pick up this concept, it might warrant a mention on an existing article (or maybe its own if there's substantial information). Until then, I'd suggest looking at some alternative outlets. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

About other parts of your plan: You can't own or protect a scheme for playing volleyball. Everyone will always be free to copy you. (There might be ways around this, but if you succeeded, then your team would be disallowed from playing.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43988-01 Please see also WP:MADEUP. David10244 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I create a new sandbox?

I create sandboxes for myself to help organize different projects I am working on for Wikipedia. Currently I am working on a specific military unit.

I used to be able to search on wikipedia at User:(your username)/sandbox, now it says this is blacklisted? Are we not allowed to create sandboxs for ourselves anymore? Or is there another way to create them? Thanks. (:

Historyguy1138/sandbox51 Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138: Welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like you were looking for your sandbox in articlespace, and page titles cannot have the string sandbox. If you're trying to look for subpages under your username (which includes your sandbox), you can try typing User:Historyguy1138/ and let the search bar look for specific pages.

Perhaps the easiest way without installing any scripts would be to go to User:Historyguy1138, clicking on the three vertical dots button in the top-right corner, and clicking "Page information". From there you can the link that says "Number of subpages of this page" to get a list of all subpages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi thanks :) .

I am trying to make a new sandbox, I know where my other sandboxes are. I think up until recently you could create more than one sandbox.

This is a recent development not having the string sandbox before as I have been able to do it several times in the past.

Is there another way to create a sandbox or something similar that you know of?

For example could I just try to say User:Historyguy1138/testzone or something instead of Sandbox? Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use any page name that is not egregiously offensive or disruptive (subject to the usual technical limits), within your "User space". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm I think that solved the problem. Thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138: Your original post had a link to Historyguy1138/sandbox51 which is missing User: so it's in articlespace where names with sandbox are blacklisted. You should be able to create User:Historyguy1138/sandbox51. Do you get an error when you try? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm I did. But it looks good now. Maybe it was just glitching out or something. Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Christian Science Editor

I'm not sure where to take this to, so I figured I would take it here. The editor, @Soderstromverrier, created their account in April and since then have edited almost exclusively the Christian Science page around 100 times. The editor seems to have a connection with Christian Science, from their user page, "Worked at The Mother Church in the Office of the Archivist 1971-1977", which I presume refers to the Christian Science Mother Church. Their edits seem quite biased, including such gems as, "From the 1890s, the liberal section of the movement became known as New Thought, in part to distinguish it from the more Scripturally based Christian Science.", and an uncited section that seems to try to argue against a common criticism of it, "Quimby did not publish articles or books about his theories or methods for healing; he made cursory handwritten notes but left no manuscripts in his own handwriting. The closest documentation available of his approach to mental healing was his advertisement (cited above), which is noticeably lacking in reference to the Scriptures." This user had their edits reverted at least 5 times, but kept readding them.

What is the best way to deal with this? Would it be wise just to revert to the last edit before Soder started editing? It seems like it would take a ton of work to go through every single edit made and figure out whether each is reliable.

Thanks so much for any advice- Therealdoomcat (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a general discussion of content disputes and what steps are available at WP:Dispute resolution. Has this been discussed with the editor, either on their Talk page or on the Talk page of Christian Science? If that hasn't been done it is an essential first step. If it has been done and problems continue, one of the noticeboards is a likely next step. I'm not sure the COI noticeboard is going to be appropriate for a connection that deep in the past: I'd look at either dispute resolution, edit warring, or as a last resort ANI, depending on your judgment of the situation. Feel free to ping me if you'd like help navigating the noticeboards. M kuhner (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Two different users have brought it up on Soder's talk page back in April, but the behavior continued after that. I only just stumbled upon this page and these issues today and so haven't personally reached out to them yet, but I definitely will right after this. Therealdoomcat (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Any way to cancel a speedy request

Is there any way to cancel a speedy rename request because when I tried to request a rename to a category, I accidentally placed the wrong deletion type (C2A) and it’s supposed to be C2D, is there any way to cancel it and re-do it again? SBF2004 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? It's since been fixed, but for future reference all you need to do is edit that single character, since it appears with this type of nomination it only affects that text line. In other situations if the nomination is entirely wrong you can just self-revert and redo it correctly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

10 That Changed America

Would 10 That Changed America be a massive copyright violation based on Wikipedia:Copyright in lists or no? 781h (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Why can’t I put critical information about Sam Cooper on his 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.

---

I’m trying to include legal issues and controversies surrounding Sam Cooper and his journalistic reporting why am I unable to do it? Zaytovenati (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's at least partly because you are creating intentionally biased material by changing the article to say what you want to say about Cooper.

If you're planning to stay on Wikipedia instead of getting blocked or banned, what you'll need to do is quit having opinions while editing. Your opinions only count when you're not on here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would ask.....why are you here? To help us build this encyclopedia? Or to tell the world your views about Mr. Cooper's reporting? If he wasn't involved in what you deem controversies, would you still have come here to edit about him?

Please read WP:BLP very carefully. Writing about living people is a very difficult task to dive into as a new editor. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the WP:BLP concern, but I think you’re making an assumption about why I’m here. Yes, I have an opinion about Cooper’s reporting. I also actually read the reporting, looked into the underlying sources, and found documented issues that I think are relevant to his biography.

I’m not asking Wikipedia to publish my opinion that Cooper is a bad journalist. I’m asking why court findings, an inquiry, lawsuits and an actual retraction are apparently off-limits when they’re directly relevant to the subject’s journalistic history.

If the wording is biased, let’s fix the wording. If a source doesn’t support something, point it out and I’ll remove it. But telling me to “quit having opinions” isn’t really addressing the material I’m proposing.

That’s exactly why I requested a third opinion. Let someone who isn’t involved in this disagreement look at the sources and decide whether the material belongs and how it should be written. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

... And if what you were putting was the truth, then that means you don't even understand what an opinion is - and in that case you'd have a very tough time succeeding here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, since all it says on there about him is that he’s an award-winning journalist and talks little to none about his controversy. There’s clearly some type of biased already there. How would you address it? Zaytovenati (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You know what they say about pointing fingers, the more you point the more that are pointing back at you haha let’s try to remain lighthearted guys Zaytovenati (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There are proper sources that discuss the awards he's won. Not what you deem a controversy. If you have independent sources that report on the results of a lawsuit or official inquiry, let's have it. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 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.

Talagrand's Convexity Conjecture

What should I do, if I recognise that there should be an article about a specific topic, but do not have the skills to create one?

This is specifically about Talagrand's Convexity Conjecture (now solved) in Math, usually I would ask my mentor, however they haven't been active for the past 300 days. Kirby123456 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

At the foot of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, you might suggest article creation. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You can request a different mentor if yours is no longer active, FYI. But we're always happy to help over here too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Is a poor source better than no source?

I'm looking at Marty Haugen. It says it needs citations and I am not an expert but I thought I'd try to find sources to verify some of the claims.

I was specifically looking into the claim

> He holds a position as composer-in-residence at Creekside United Church of Christ in Minneapolis.

Ideally I would like something like a published resume or staff page at the church in question, but I couldn't find either. I could find articles about him that fact, including this one from Reformed Worship: https://www.reformedworship.org/resource/minister-word-through-music-interview-marty-haugen. To me at least, they are not the kind of household name that I trust them to not have copied this from wikipedia themselves (I can certainly find low quality "articles" that are just a carbon copy of the wikipedia page itself). They don't themselves cite any sources or even have like an author line, which makes me even less confident of its quality.

In a situation like this, is it better to add an imperfect source to back the claim in the article, or leave it without a source cited, or do something else entirely. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As church musicians go, in the denominations with which he's usually associated, Haugen is about as close to being a famous celebrity as anyone. If it says he works at a certain church yet you find no sign of that, it may mean that since this part of the article was written he has started working somewhere else. It doesn't have to mean that, I don't know. But I would look around for a better or newer source, leaving the article as-is while looking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible that this composer-in-residence thing was an ad hoc arrangement and they don't exactly consider him a staff member there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860: the answer to your question is that there should be no information in an article on a living person (WP:BLP) which isn't supported by a reliable source, therefore you should ideally take such information out.

If, for whatever reason, you opt to leave it in, then I'd say it's better to have it tagged with {{citation needed}}, than 'supported' by a poor quality source, because the latter gives to a casual reader the impression that the statement is properly supported, which it isn't. Or you could support it with a poor source and tag it with {{better source needed}}, which might be marginally better than leaving it entirely unsupported. (This is just my drive-by take on the matter, not necessarily grounded in any of that policy stuff I keep hearing about.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm going to track down the provenance of the source I do have that mentions him. The couple places I can find online that reference this composer-in-residence appointment trace back to an Emily R Brink who shows up as a researcher/editor in the field of Christian worship music (so she probably knew what she was talking about) but also having retired in 2021 (so who knows if it is still the case). I'm going to see if I can find which book or original publication of hers they're all citing and then I'll at least have a reliable source for when it was published.

I also had the idea that I might just send an email to the congregation office and ask if he is employed there (or if they have some other formal arrangement with him that isn't "proper" employment), but if I were to do that could I even cite the result? Packrat3860 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Emily R Brink is/was associated with a major website associated with church music in general, but not associated with individual churches, and (as far as employment information for an individual) likely to have been already out of date on the day we first sourced it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(And if she's still with us, she is now over 85 years old.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you can't cite personal communication as a source. Also, I think you have things a bit backwards in your initial post. Something like a published resume would be less reliable than an unaffiliated news article mentioning him having that position. In this case, I'd say the claim is pretty uncontroversial, so I'd be okay with something published by the church as a source (published, though, not emailed) but something to keep in mind as you're editing. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying that.

I had read a bit about "Biographies of living persons", and I had seen that there was an explicit carve out for self published sources where the publisher in question is the subject of the article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source. I interpreted that to mean something like a self published resume would be a usable source (assuming it's otherwise within those guidelines) for things like current or past employment (academics for example frequently have a site that lists the specifics of their teaching positions and publications). Are you saying that I should not use a source like that for a biography at all, or just that it's backwards to describe it as superior source (because an unaffiliated reputable source would be better)? Packrat3860 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own special definition of "backward": it means an editor writing whatever they choose to write and then trying to find confirmation for it, instead of gathering the best source material first, and not even starting to write until they've found it all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860: Welcome to The Teahouse. The question is how far removed the source is from the subject. It's very hard to write neutrally about oneself, and self publications tend to be self-serving. While resumes could be truthful, it's self-serving in the sense to impress prospective employers; a university mentioning the subject's past employment is more palatable. With all that said, just because it's possible to use, it doesn't mean that it's a good source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary ones (that are published). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm saying that an unaffiliated reputable source would be better, sorry that that was unclear! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You could see if the editor who added that statement is still active, and if so ask them how they know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Utor (2001)

Can you check your authorship of Tropical Storm Utor (2001)? Anubis blocking me "Oh noes!". Should be disabled Anubis? Thank you. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 03:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ampil,

What do you mean by authorship?

As for Anubis, it shouldn't be a problem. Try reloading the page (Cmd/Ctrl + R); if this fails, try using Incognito mode, a different browser or a different device.

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti:, Storm Utor (2001) Here Check if Ampil more than 10 percent authorship. Iframe showing

Oh noes!

Your browser is configured to disable cookies. Anubis requires cookies for the legitimate interest of making sure you are a valid client. :::Please enable cookies for this domain.

Go home

Protected by Anubis From Techaro. Made with ❤️ in 🇨🇦.

Mascot design by CELPHASE.

This website is running Anubis version 1.25.0.

I don't want to enable cookies. still having error. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 04:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If you don’t enable cookies, which are presumably required by Anubis to verify your session, you will likely keep getting the same error. I don’t know of a workaround myself. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I can. This shows that I've made no edits to it. However, this (an attempt to show how many you've made) brings a 500 error: "You shouldn't be seeing this page. Please report this to User:Σ on enwp." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Use Xtools, not Sigma. I will nominate for GAN. Thank you. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 04:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

My Xtools gives 25.5%. Do not reply on this section. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 05:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Do the sources in Draft:EazyDiner meet WP:NCORP? (COI disclosed)

Hello. I have a disclosed conflict of interest — I work at EazyDiner (stated on my user page, {{paid}}) — and I wrote Draft:EazyDiner through Articles for Creation. It was declined on 8 August for corporate notability and promotional tone. Since then I have revised it: the only company-website citation was removed (all 15 references are now independent publications), and wording was neutralised. My mentor kindly did a quick read and felt the wording is now neutral, but did not have time to assess the references, and suggested I ask here.

Before I use the resubmission, I would be grateful if someone could look at whether the sourcing meets WP:NCORP. The references I believe count towards notability (the rest are used for routine facts only):

• Business Standard, "How EazyDiner is carving a niche that Zomato can't enter" (26 August 2015) — dedicated feature on the company's model
• Forbes India, "Eating Out? Reserve Your Table With EazyDiner" (14 April 2016) — ~1,000-word feature
• Business Today, "Table for All" (3 July 2016) — magazine feature on the business model and unit economics
• The Ken (2022) and The CapTable (April 2025) — analytical pieces on India's dining-out market that discuss EazyDiner's position

My specific questions: (1) do these amount to the "multiple, independent, significant" coverage NCORP requires, and (2) if not, which of them fall short and why, so I know what kind of source would actually close the gap? If the honest answer is "wait for stronger coverage", I would rather do that than resubmit prematurely. Thank you. Hemantt001 (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hemantt001 Please don't use AI to talk to us. We have no way to determine whether you actually understand the requirements or the feedback being given when we see the same AI generated question about notability, with identical wording, that we've seen from 100 other users.

In short; like the vast majority of other companies in the world, this one does not seem to meet our requirements, largely for reasons of WP:CORPDEPTH. Athanelar (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Would "Gambling and Finance" be a good article?

Hi, lately I think there's been an increasing convergence of the financial world with gambling (re: prediction markets, rising popularity of 0dte options, r/wallstreetbets and its meme stocks, etc.) and I was wondering if having an article dedicated to documenting the relationship/history of the two (particularly in the last decade or so) would be an appropriate addition. Thank you ~2026-37166-79 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Have reliable sources "[documented] the relationship/history of the two (particularly in the last decade or so)"? If so, somebody could distill these -- citing them scrupulously, of course -- into a draft that would have a good chance of being accepted as an article. If such sources weren't cited, then a draft would be doomed. So, first amass the sources; then create the draft. "No original research." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you'll find most or all of that is already covered on various individual articles. I suspect you'd have difficulty finding sources that discuss them all as a single phenomenon. Combining them when sources do not would be a violation of WP:OR. You are however free to expand on the existing articles such as prediction markets, and maybe improve the coverage at gambling itself.
I may be wrong however, and if there are multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail it may indeed qualify for a separate article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that sources probably do exist for such an article; I've definitely seen video essays on the topic (but we can't use those as sources) - as the others have said, though, the question of whether such an article can exists depends entirely on whether such sources can be found. Athanelar (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If you decide to go ahead with this, I suggest that you don't limit the article to "particularly in the last decade or so". The overlap between finance and gambling goes back many decades. Here are a couple of sources that you might find useful:

• Sorkin, Andrew Ross (2025). 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in History. Viking Books. ISBN 9780241479421.
• Kucharski, Adam (2016). The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465055951.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Others have already said this, but I have a feeling that different words may help.

You know about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For some topic to be worth a Wikipedia article, reliable sources have to literally show you that it's worth a Wikipedia article; they do that by publishing their own articles that are on the exact topic. In the case of "combined-topic topics" like this one, then their articles need to be explicitly about both at once; you as an editor can't choose some single-topic sources and fit them together. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How do i make teto talk?

Im trying to make some video of teto alking and it dosent let me in ANY WAY Someonewholovesteto (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Someonewholovesteto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Is this relevant to using or editing Wikipedia? I don't quite see how. If not, then I'm afraid this is the wrong place for the question. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Someonewholovesteto. The Wikipedia Teahouse is a place where you can ask questions related to Wikipedia, but it's not really a place to ask question about non-Wikipedia stuff. So, if by teto, you mean Kasane Teto, then you probably need to search online for some official website or forum directly connected to that particular software/product/thing for information on how to do what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Notibility

is it possible for someone with three article to have Wikipedia page? Mayommugezi (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings @Mayomugezi, What three articles are you referring to? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 12:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mayommugezi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What do you mean by "with three articles"?

If you are talking about three articles that the person wrote, these do not contribute in any way to establishing that that person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

This does not necessarily mean that they are not notable, just that them having written articles does nothing to support this.

On the other hand, if you mean three substantial, secondary, independent, reliably published articles about them, with no involvement from them or their associates, then it is possible that that might be enough to establish notability, so there can be an article about them based on those three independent articles: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mayommugezi Your talk page shows that you've had many many failures and no successes. A simple little question like this is not going to solve anything. Please really read what they said when they reviewed your articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

CopyVio or not

The content of this article around the History of metal casting was taken from "Doru Michael Stefanescu (2023-02-10). "A Succinct History of Metalcasting Knowledge". International Journal of Metalcasting. doi:10.1007/s40962-023-00971-5. ISSN 1939-5981. S2CID 256797492." I have contacted the author on ResearchGate, and since then, we have been in contact. He kindly then contacted the journal to get the rights to his own work, and they could not change the license on the main without a retraction, but allowed him to upload the article publicly to ResearchGate. I am finalizing the typesetting, making sure the text can integrate with other articles that mention pit and pieces, and then he was suppose to contact Wikipedia to donate the text but am not sure if that will even work given that what is indicated in the Journal published article's Rights and permissions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If there's going to be permission, it can only come from who the law thinks is the owner of the copyright. If the author gave his copyright to the journal, then the journal owns the work and he doesn't. In the same way that I can't give people permission to live in a house if I already sold that house to you, he can't give permission if the rights aren't his anymore.

(If he succeeds in making some kind of deal with them, then it depends on what the deal actually says.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Make sense. I do not think there is anyway around it. Its a copyVio. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma Also, text can't be donated for Wikipedia's use only. Text can be put into the public domain, in which case we could use it verbatim, and so could everyone else in the world. The copyright owner is the only one who can place text into the public domain.

On the other hand, once something is published, we can cite it as a source, and paraphrase what it says. Most of our sources, including articles in major newspapers and books, are copyrighted. We just can't paraphrase the material too closely. David10244 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Text can be donated (not for Wikipedia's use only, which is something I have never stated), see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma It sounded like you were following the attempts for the author to get the copyright back so that Wikipedia could use the info in an article. But my point was that if we don't copy it verbatim, we don't really care who owns the copyright. And Wikipedia would not publish the entire article as-is.

So his attempts to get the copyright back don't really affect us much...

But the other answers below are completely correct about primary vs. secondary sources; I had glossed over that important distiction. And ColinFine's summary is something that some new editors are not clear about. David10244 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Stepping back a moment: A Wikipedia article is not a scientific journal paper. Even if this were legally possible (and once it's published by a journal, it very likely will never be possible), it wouldn't be desirable. The best approach is for someone to write a Wikipedia article based on this (and other) sources. Just to point out one difference (as someone who writes science papers professionally): science papers prefer primary sources, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. M kuhner (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The main/original article was written so it can be accessible to the public. Not technical at all. But I get your point FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

But a Wikipedia article is different from any other kind of writing that I know. 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.

Looking at User:FuzzyMagma/History of metal casting, I see the line "It was the dawn of the Iron Age", with a citation to - a report (apparently - I get 404) about two bronze age axe-heads.

That sentence is an example of the sort of editorialising which is appropriate for a magazine article, and entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma It's not anything about accessibility for the average reader - it's to tell you that Wikipedia refuses material that comes straight from an expert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Corrections needed to Wikipedia page

The Wikipedia page - https://w.wiki/BkK5. On top of the webpage following message appears: This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing it from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve this article by replacing such sources with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent sources. My question is what need to be done to fix these errors? Can you guide me to fix these errors, or someone at Wikipedia will look into it and fix them? Please suggest, looking forward to hearing a response, thank you Ashok Jain ~2026-44058-77 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The page you're referring to, Ashok Jain (biotechnologist), appears to be about you. Is that true? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, they said thank you Ashok Jain at the end of their post, so I think so. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 16:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44058-77.

I'm afraid that the error is that the article was created by @HRShami, who at that time clearly did not understand how to create a Wikipedia article. (I hope you didn't pay them anything).

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.

But Ashok Jain (biotechnologist) does not appear to have a single source which is independent of him (you?). It is like a house built without any foundations, without even surveying the ground to see if it is fit to build on.

The most pressing problem is that the article does not show that Jain meets the criteria for notability, or the more specific criteria for notability as an academic. If he does not, then the article should be deleted. If he does, then the article should be rewritten, probably from a blank start, as a summary of the required independent sources (see WP:42).

As for what you can do: not a lot, if you are Jain: see WP:AUTOPROB - but that is mostly about an article which is adequate, but needs updating or correction. Finding sources that demonstrate that you meet one of the criteria linked above would be the strongest thing you can do, but you will still be dependent on a volunteer editor choosing to work on the article. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a potential get-out clause for academics: a really good publication record is enough to satisfy the first criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, one of the links that ColinFine provided. The author's own publications do count towards this, and therefore generate notability. Although they are not independent of the author (they were written by him and his associates!), if the publication is in a respectable peer reviewed journal it counts as independently-validated as relevant and impactful, and if there are enough publications sufficiently widely cited, this can indicate that the academic has influenced his field enough to be considered notable in Wikipedia's sense. In this situation, it's also okay to provide the bald facts of the academic's career based on institutional websites, because we have a touching faith in academic organisations to be truthful about their staff. The bottom line is that at the moment it reads like a CV intended to impress; it would stand a much better chance of surviving an AfD deletion discussion if it were reduced to a minimum of facts, worded in a totally neutral manner. To the original poster of the question: if you are Ashok Jain and you actually want a Wikipedia article about yourself (it's not always an advantage), you can post edit requests on the talk-page (make them really specific, and backed up with sources) - and you are also allowed to join in with the deletion discussion if the article is nominated for deletion; the deletion discussion is also a place where you can bring up additional sources if you think they would help. Please don't be too down if the article does get trimmed or deleted; Wikipedia has a very strange and specific definition of notability; many, many fundamentally good people doing very important things (and doing them outstandingly well) nevertheless don't meet Wikipedia's definition. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Unidentified User

A user by the name of Pageturner3 has been editing one of the pages I manage. This person has removed my references and put in his own in place of them. I believe this individual is one who has used aliases in the past to edit my page and who is in disagreement with my researched findings. Because he does not agree with my historical findings (all documented) he feels entitled to remove them. This is part of an effort of three people to discredit the clan and myself, their historian. Who do I report this to? I was under the impression that Wikipedia required login and user identification pages to edit. But this person has no personal page or anything that identifies them. I can tell by the content who I believe it is. Pheigi (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Pheigi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Without looking at the details, I can say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as "a page I manage". All pages in Wikipedia - articles, talk page, even user pages - are the property of Wikipedia, and (with certain restrictions) anybody in the world may edit any of them.

If another editor disagrees with you about what should be in an article, they have precisely as much right to edit the article as you do. If you disagree with their edits, then you need to discuss it with them, according to the procedure in WP:BRD; and if you are unable to reach a consensus, dispute resolution will tell you some ways to proceed. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that Pageturner3 has used the talk page of Clan MacLaren. It would be a good idea to address the issues there. Reading the comments, there are several people writing things that are basically "I know because I'm an expert"; that's not how Wikipedia works. When a Wikipedia editor "researches" something, that can only mean "reads a range of books/articles/etc. written by other historians", not "forms his/her own opinion based on looking at primary sources, talking to people and deducing stuff".

There is also a slight awkwardness, Pheigi, when you describe yourself as "their historian". If you consider yourself as having an official capacity related to the subject, you should not be editing the article at all, because this is a conflict of interest. You should probably be placing edit-requests on the talk-page instead. Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

First, thank you everyone for the responses and the welcome - much appreciated.

I apologise for using incorrect terminology. I edit the page in question and a couple of others that fall within my knowledge and research interests. I realise I don't own it or really manage it. I just didn't quite know how to phrase that.

I will continue to address the issues on the page itself. But my question really related to people using alias to edit - is that kosher?

Thank you. Pheigi (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pheigi There is no requirement to create an account or to use your real name when editing Wikipedia: it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, even temporary accounts now have user talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. That answers my question.

Pheigi Pheigi (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You may also want to have a look at WP:SOCKPUPPET. If you have substantial evidence (beyond just a gut feeling) that someone is using multiple accounts inappropriately you may file a WP:SPI request. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pheigi Added note: If you do decide to take something to SPI, make sure that before you begin, you have every single piece of evidence already prepared and ready to hand over. The process doesn't work well if you have to go look something up again, and the SPI people can't do it for you because they don't even know what you mean until after you show it to them. No SPI person has ever complained that someone's evidence was too specific. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have more than a gut feeling in the sense that I've seen this person do this before on the same page. He is someone who hates the clan and tries on every social media platform to discredit it. Facebook is his favorite rant location but he has done it twice on Wikipedia under two different names. The content is always the same which is what I mean by more than a gut feeling. But alas I have no evidence that would stand up to the level of scrutiny that you have noted. But one quick example of what he does: he removed a reference that I had put in to a published book. He claimed that book was self-published and therefore broke Wikipedia rules. But it was not self-published and I had included the full citation including the publisher, its location and the book's date of publication. In place of that he put in a link to a blog post that he writes. Now that I have a little better understanding of how Wikipedia works (thanks to all who responded), I'll make my own edits. Pheigi (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that OP is Historian, Clan MacLaren Society of North America, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest in the Clan MacLaren page.

I don't believe that they should edit that page at all. - Walter using an LLM? Ego 15:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Making similar comments or edits can sometimes be considered sufficient behavioral evidence to run a checkuser - you don't need to prove beyond a doubt that it is the same person, there just needs to be enough likelihood of it for them to justify looking up IP data to compare. The links above should have more information about the process. Whether or not specific comments meet that threshold is up to the judgement of admins who work SPI. As TMF said, it's best to provide as much evidence as possible for them to evaluate that likelihood, and so there doesn't need to be more back and forth (unless the user in question makes additional edits after you file that you think should also be taken into consideration). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I was the historian I am no longer - it was a temporary position until the new chief appointed a new historian which he has now done. The new Seanchaidh does not edit the page. Since I am no longer the historian, I assume this means I am free to edit the page without being in a conflict of interest status? Pheigi (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. You are still closely associated with this topic regardless of whether or not you hold an official position. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Article With Improper / Erroneous / Misrepresented Citations

Hi! I'm excited to join the volunteer crew.

I wanted to ask about an article that biases strongly against a psychological professional consensus--specifically, the article on Attachment Theory. I looked up some of the sources cited to support its (extremely long, extremely verbose, extremely leading) controversies section, and many of them do not contain any of the cited information in the text. They may be being used to bolster the criticisms of the phenomenon at the expense of veracity, perhaps assuming that no one would read the sourcing.

The page also has an extremely biased use of language when describing the consensus view on attachment theory which borders on disparaging and mocking. The article also sets up lines of argumentation in its descriptions and leads the reader into the conclusions generated by that lead.

So, in a situation like this, what's the best way to call these problems out? Should I create a Talk page that lists each of the bogus citations and why they don't work? What's the way to best call out the biased language on the page to warn readers against a minority, non-consensus opinion? What's the best course of action here? Conas.Lans (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Each article has an associated article talk page, in this case, Talk:Attachment theory. You may use that page to raise any concerns about the attachment theory article and generally collaborate with any other editors that may be following that article. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds as if you know quite a bit about attachment theory, and it sounds as if that might be a problem. Wikipedia articles must mainly represent the mainstream view of everything, including that if secondary sources in mainstream psychological literature question or reject something, Wikipedia must question or reject it too. (If mainstream opinion is split, then we say that, and show the sources to prove it.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

About argumentation in the article: if that argumentation is shown to come from reliable sources, we have to keep it. But if it's a renegade editor making things up, that's totally different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for the quick replies! I started a Talk thread in that article, and hopefully I can get some response. However, this does appear to be a case of a rogue editor--all of the additional nonsense added was by this one person in the past 10 months or so, with no real activity on the article previously since 2009. Is there an ideal way to address this kind of off-the-handle conspiracist point of view? Conas.Lans (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Conas.Lans

You always have the option of simply editing the article. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts your edit, then in order to pursue it, you'll need to open a discussion on the talk page: if you think there is likely to be pushback, then you can start by opening the discussion without making the chane first. See WP:BRD for how this works.

I advise you not to use phrases like "nonsense" and "conspiracist" in the discussion, as that is likely to inflame things: focus on the content and its compliance with Wikipedia's principles, and attempt to reach consensus.

If you are unable to reach consensus with other editors, dispute resolution gives possible next steps.

If an editor persists in tendentious editing after discussions and warnings, then you can take them to WP:ANI (but read the matter at the head of that page carefully first). But this is about another editor's behaviour, not about their views or beliefs. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I started a Talk thread in that article, and hopefully I can get some response. It's good that you started the talk thread. But no, one can't assume that editors who might well respond constructively (whether or not they'd agree with you) will even notice that the talk thread exists. I suggest that on WT:WikiProject Psychology you make a brief and nonpartisan announcement of the thread Talk:Attachment theory#Improper Citations and Original Research. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

creating attributions

I wonder if I could have some assistance with my Sandbox. I have pasted a draft in, and in the original there are small icons that look like paperclips next to statements that will allow anyone to confirm their veracity. However, when I pasted in the text, the icons no longer appear in the document Norbo1952 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 You have pasted the draft from where to where? You do not have any edit history showing a draft in your sandbox or anywhere else. Be sure to hit "Publish changes" if you're trying to create a draft in your sandbox. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See also: associated discussion

Hi @Norbo1952,

If you can link to your sandbox, that would be great since I can't find it.

Also, according to your conversation with Raihanur, you used AI to "verify" the statements in your draft. There are two problems with this.

1. It sounds like you're writing your draft backwards. This is extremely difficult and not recommended at all.
2. It also sounds like you're using an LLM (AI) to verify information. This is not allowed since LLMs tend to hallucinate - make up - sources, claims and other information.

My honest advice is to 1) save your draft so we can see it; 2) start afresh. The one case where LLMs are technically allowed is in finding sources to start with, as long as you stop using the LLM after finding your sources. Even so, most editors would recommend using a search engine, academic database or library instead to find reliable source material. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 19:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I will save my draft, Will you then be willing to look at it.

To clarify, I did not use AI to verify. The verifications are legitimate such as actual chart notifications and actual recordings that exist in real time posted on Youtube. Everything related to this band has legitimate and important cultural relevance. Norbo1952 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is a link to my sandbox....

User:Norbo52/sandbox. Norbo1952 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 If you've written this because you know it yourself, then unfortunately Wikipedia won't accept it.

But if you can show exactly which publication each detail comes from, and if those publications are ones that Wikipedia considers reliable, then it would have a chance. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to look at my Sandbox? Before I pasted it in, there were small Icons that looked like paper clips that brought the reader to actual verification. Once pasted into the Sandbox those were gone. (I can show you a screenshot of the original document with the citations present) The first and second notations took the reader to actual recordings of the song mentioned posted on Youtube one. The third notation took theb reader to a site called Discogs. all of them are legitimate Norbo1952 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've opened the sites from the links that were posted in the original document and tried to paste the URLs into my sandbox but the system will not allow this. It seems that there are insurmountable obstacles every time I attempt to accomplish anything, and no one here has been able to offer me any assistance that I am actually able to utilize. Norbo1952 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've been having technical difficulties. In terms of your sources, recordings of the songs and Discogs are not generally considered appropriate sources for Wikipedia. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This is patently absurd. Please explain to me the logic of this decision. What on Earth could be more tangible evidence of the existence of Something than the actual existence of something. The records exist and the chart positions of the records exist. Furthermore Here is the actual Wikipedia page of Craig Kallman who was our manager and head of Big Beat records and is now the CEO of Atlantic.

Craig Kallman. Norbo1952 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia page on Kallman mentioning the existence of Kraze and the record, The Party.

"In 1987, Kallman formed his own independent record label, Big Beat Records out of his bedroom with the label's first artist, Taravhonty. He distributed his first single "Join Hands" out of a supermarket shopping cart personally selling over 5,000 copies to independent local record stores. For the second release, "The Party" by Kraze, Kallman sold the records out of the trunk of his father's car driving throughout the Northeast and distributed the single throughout the rest of the U.S. by shipping records to all the independent Mom and Pop record stores. Soon after Kallman had traveled throughout Europe licensing the single to independent companies in each country, the single; “The Party” became an international hit, selling over 250,000 copies."

Next, you're likely to tell me that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. Norbo1952 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

a) We're not looking for just evidence that something exists; we're looking for information about it, which must come from reliable sources.

b) Anyone can edit Discogs, so it's not a reliable source for charting.

c) Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, which means the information is not sufficiently reliable. See WP:Circular for a more in-depth discussion.

d) If you're writing about your own band (as suggested by the phrase "our manager", you need to declare your conflict of interest. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I give up.

Have a nice day. Norbo1952 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 You didn't tell us where you pasted the information from, so it's a little hard for anyone to help you. Sorry if you are frustrated, but writing a complete, Wikipedia-compliant encyclopedia article is hard. David10244 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Norbo1952, 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.

Start by finding several sources that meet all the conditions in WP:42: independent, secondary, reliably published sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Don't include any sources where the subject or any associates of the subject had any involvement.

If you can find several such sources (and only then), continue by setting aside everything that you know personally about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.

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) 21:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The pages you need are WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:COI - the latter because you are apparently trying to write about a group of which you were a member. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Norris Burroughs Sandbox

Here are the links that the Sandbox did not transfer when I pasted my document into it

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtKt5DCMjYg
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jisTsqB2jA&list=RD_jisTsqB2jA
• https://www.discogs.com/release/117958-Kraze-The-PartyNorris
• https://www.discogs.com/label/1965-Big-Beat

Burroughs Sandbox Norbo1952 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 As mentioned above, and especially in the blue links from ColinFine, Wikipedia requires independent, not-user-generated sources to show that somethingis notable. So, Discogs can't be used as a reference.

Wikipedia wants to know why something is important, and why it has been "widely taken notice of", not just that something exists. Yes, it can be frustrating. David10244 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really understand much of what any of you has said here. Very little has been encouraging and mostly discouraging. Your policies and rules are confusing and contradictory to me. It really has been a frustrating endeavor, but from the discussions I've had with nearly everyone outside of your organization, this is a fairly common reaction to your policies. I can't think of anyone I've spoken to who feels that trying to post something on your site has been a clear and coherent path. Norbo1952 (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This is usually what happens when people jump straight in to doing the hard part with no experience and no knowledge. Like running on stage with Frank Zappa while holding drumsticks for the very first time. It helps to do some easier things first. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I can see, they was no easy route in.

Every step seemed fraught with complications. There was never any sense that there was anyone in your organization that understood the difficulties and was willing to assist in any tangible way. It takes a certain kind of individual to be able to persevere in such circumstances. I see a sort of smugness in the attitude here "Oh, you just wern't able to follow directions, Too bad, Come back when you've learned your lesson." Well you've asked for criticism here but as far as I can see, you are unwilling to be flexible enough to actually benefit from it. Norbo1952 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please take it easy. Nobody is trying to discourage you. What @TooManyFingers means is to start by editing existing pages to add new sourced information, or make other improvements. There's lots to be done! (Take a look at WP:TASK for some things to do.) Then, once you have a bit of experience with Wikipedia policies, you can create a better article with a better understanding of the core requirements and which will have more chances to be accepted. If you have more questions, just let me know! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 01:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain to me the logic behind the policy that sourced and verified information already in Wikipedia that is directly related to the topic being submitted can not be used to support the verification of that topic. It seems academic that your own verification should be sufficient to validate a claim. Norbo1952 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the lengthy thread above. But as for your 02:03 comment, Norbo1952, I think you're asking "Suppose I wanted to augment the article Willys with material that's already in Willys MB. The material seems well sourced, so I'd add it, referencing Wikipedia's article 'Willys MB'. But I'm told that I mustn't do this. Why ever not?" One reason is that Wikipedia's quality checks are far from thorough: we hope that material in it is sound but cannot assume so. Another is that the article 'Willys MB' is malleable: a year from now it might be very different from what it is now. Another is that if the article 'Willys MB' is any good it will be scrupulously referenced; and the would-be augmenter of 'Willys' can examine the referenced sources directly and cite them as appropriate. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, In the case that I was referring to, I know that the information on Wiki on Craig Kallman and Big Beat records was correct because I was there, but of course as an interested party, my experience is not valid.

So as I said before, I give up. Norbo1952 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't get discouraged! To expand on what @Hoary said, your experience, or my experience, or anybody's experience is not enough. It can help you understand concepts and find reliable sources, but you need to provide reliable sources in the article. An analogy: imagine I go to the grocery store and buy two boxes of cereal for $5 a piece. At the cash register, they charge me $10 a box. I'll want to know why! In other words, they need to prove the higher price in a way that any unrelated person could verify. It's the same here. If a reader comes along and wants to know why X information on Big Beat records and Craig Kallman, they need to be able to verify it. If you add a reliable reference - or a few - to the article, then they can.

In the same analogy, imagine the cashier says: "The cereal costs $10 a box because that person said so". I'm not going to trust them unless they show me the paper that says it costs that much. The same goes for reliable sources. Anyone can come along and edit Discogs (or Wikipedia), so we don't know if what's written there is true, or just made up entirely unless we can trace the information's source.

I hope this helps! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 You, like many "outsiders", have a fundamental understanding of what Wikipedia does and how we work.

Above, you complained that you didn't understand why your article couldn't be published, because you had successfully proven that the subject exists. But Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect articles about subjects just because they exist. We do actually have minimum criteria for inclusion, namely notability. I.e., we require that other reliable, independent sources have taken notice of and written about a subject in detail before we have an article about it. In this sense Wikipedia is more like a "hall of fame", let's say. You wouldn't expect a musical hall of fame to accept your band merely because you can prove the band exists; you'd have to meet their criteria. The same goes here.

Second, as for what information goes in those articles, it's not about what any of us as individuals knows to be true, because obviously "I was there" isn't something any other person can fact check. Rather, our standard here is verifiability. It is entirely possible (and indeed quite common) for a person to know with absolute certainty that a piece of information is true but still be unable to include that information on Wikipedia because there is no published source to verify it. This is just the way of things on an encyclopedia. Why? Because then any individual reader can follow the information in the reference and verify the origin of that information. Nobody needs to "trust" anything here, or take any of the claims on faith. Athanelar (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate you taking the time trying to explain your reasoning to me. There really is no point in me trying to make my case here any longer. I was present in a moment in time and I have enough evidence to make the case that the group in question was groundbreaking, but for various reasons it's impact was minimized over time. The evidence I have is in the form of magazine articles, existing music tracks, performance videos, interviews and such as well things that can be verified with Wikipedia as well, but I can see that that will not suffice. House music itself has never been recognized in America to any significant degree and had much greater impact in Europe and that was the case with Kraze as well. We were enormously popular for a very brief period overseas and also impactful in America as well but this is clearly not something that I can prove to your satisfaction with the evidence that I have. If this process with Wiki was organized differently, I could just submit everything that I have into some database but this is clearly not possible, so I'm just going to let it go and approach this problem from another angle at another time.

Thank you for your time. I do appreciate that I was instrumental in insuring that my father Eric and grandmother Wilianna have Wiki pages. Norbo1952 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The evidence I have is in the form of magazine articles, existing music tracks, performance videos, interviews and such as well The problem is that these things aren't really relevant to our criteria. For example, you may well have a performance video of this band showing them playing in front of a packed arena with 5,000 people in it. That would certainly make any band 'significant' as far as the average person is concerned; but it still wouldn't be usable as a source to demonstrate notability here on Wikipedia.

The relevant criteria are at WP:NBAND if you're at all curious. Athanelar (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952: Please note that when the term notability gets thrown around here, it does not have the same common meaning used elsewhere. The band sounds like it is notable in the general sense, but not necessarily for Wikipedia's use of the word. (This is why I prefer using the term wikinotability)
I would also strongly caution against copy-pasting wholesale across programs, as formatting is likely to get lost. It sounds like formatting from whatever program you were using to draft doesn't play well with MediaWiki; I strongly suggest reading WP:EASYREFBEGIN to learn how to properly cite using wiki markup. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar, this thread has my head spinning. "The evidence I have is in the form of magazine articles, existing music tracks, performance videos, interviews and such as well" The problem is that these things aren't really relevant to our criteria. Yes, it's true that a lot of magazine articles are based on interviews, or are just lazily recycled PR flatus, or are vapid. But plenty are not. Substantial coverage of a subject by one or more writers independent of that subject, published in one or more reliable sources, was, I'd thought, highly relevant to notability criteria. How deluded have I been? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I should've given the caveat that the magazine articles might be suitable (depending on who wrote them, what they say, and indeed what magazine they're in considering WP:TRADES) but I thought it best to stick to the broad strokes. Plus, considering the other examples this person gave of the 'evidence' they have as well as the general state of their understanding of our requirements, if the magazine articles are suitable sources then it'd be more due to luck rather than diligent selection. Athanelar (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have two follow up questions: Have you previously edited under a different account, and have you disclosed your conflict of interest with these subjects there? Your only contributions from this account appear to have been a question for your mentor and this thread. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I've never edited under any account. Only been consulted on my family history. Norbo1952 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're telling the truth. But you've seen enough in your business, and just in life, that you know there are bullshitters in the world. They are strongly attracted to getting their fake stories put up here, and we have to have very strict rules to keep that from happening. If we didn't, this place would become Bullshit Central within a week or two, the true and useful articles would be drowned out, and a lot of the good people would quit trying to fix it.

Those rules also stop ordinary honest people from saying what they want to say, which is not a good thing, but we have no way to go out and verify what each individual is saying. The only decent workable bullshit-prevention rule anyone has ever been able to come up with is "it has to be put out by a responsible publisher, one that has a good reputation to keep up". That shuts out some real stories, and I know it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

My draft

Draft:2027 Major League Cricket season I have added all the information that can be confirmed . 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 00:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CricketPlayer233, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like most future events, this season is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and no article is possible at present: it is simply WP:TOOSOON.

Once it gets to the point where people completely unconnected with the competition choose to write at some length about it - i.e., there are sources which each meet all the conditions in WP:42 - then it may become possible to create an article about it. ColinFine (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

... and it's good to keep in mind, just generally, that there are a lot of things that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. For many of those it's because they're just not important, and those are often easy to recognize, but being unimportant is not the only reason. And normally, most of the time, "things that haven't happened yet" is a whole category that shouldn't be here.

Exceptions exist, but there's almost always an easy way to tell an exception: when reliable sources are telling feature-length stories about the exact topic already. Usually, those feature-length stories on future events are not actually about the future, but about things that already happened during the preparation, like "New venue millions over budget after disaster - may not be finished in time for the season", "Officials locked in bitter battle over changes for 2028", or that type of thing.

"Being prepared" by creating a mostly-empty article ahead of time is, by human nature, a very common mistake. People excited for the coming event, wanting to be in before, or things like that. But for a well-known long-established sports season, Wikipedia is already fully prepared, with a sophisticated method we've developed and honed over many hundreds or thousands of articles: we copy last year's and change the numbers. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Notifications when logging in

Every time i log in, I see 35+ notifications about a talk page discussion (this one, if it helps.. I don't even remember subscribing to the discussion, although the page is on my watchlist). The discussion has been archived, and there are no new comments, yet this appears as an unopened notification every time I log in even though I keep marking it as read. How can I make this stop? Let me know if there is a better forum to pose this question. Drew Stanley (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried unsubscribing, and then marking it read again? I'd also recommend clearing your cache. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Drew Stanley Try navigating to Special:TopicSubscriptions and unsubscribing from that discussion, and others you no longer want/need notification about. These subscriptions are quite separate from Special:Watchlist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed it seems! Likely the cache Drew Stanley (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft Declined - Feedback wanted

Hi,

I have made this draft and it got declined for sounding like a press release. I don't believe it sounds promotional, I need a second perspective. Please let me know what you think.

Draft:Social Innovation Academy Sea2sky (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It is very obviously just a promotion piece and it's true that it sounds like a press release. The entire sections "Overview", "Operations", and "Principles" are irrelevant on Wikipedia and need to be completely deleted. There might need to be an Overview section someday, but nothing like the one you've written.

Go through the references and find the ones that contain information that comes from the organization itself. Delete those, so that only sources independently written by outsiders, without interviews or contact from the organization, remain. Then delete the parts of the article that came from the deleted sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Making it not promotional is easy: just make sure nothing is written about the organization unless it was independently written by complete strangers who work for reliable publishers and who don't know the organization. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sea2sky: Welcome to The Teahouse. I have to agree with the reviewer's stance that the draft sounds like a press release. A question for you to ponder would be: "Would you use these words verbatim for a presentation for potential stakeholders?" If the answer is yes, then your intent is persuasive rather than informative, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

(I would amend the question to "Is there any way that a potential stakeholder could make use of this information?". But I still agree.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a little too far--a stakeholder would certainly want to know the name of the company and what they sell. But, yes, keep in mind that the audience isn't stakeholders. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sea2sky, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing for Wikipedia is different from any other kind of writing I've ever met.

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. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at my revised draft?

Hi everyone, i've rewritten the draft from scratch, added more reliable sources and cleaned up the wording and tone. I'd really appreciate it if someone could have a quick look and let me know if there is anything that still needs improving. thaanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oussama_Assli Salmou (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Salmou, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted it for review. What you are essentially asking is for somebody to do a pre-review. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine, understood. @EaglesFan37 had invited me to the Teahouse, so i thought i'd ask here after rewriting the draft to make sure i hadn't missed anything. Thanks again. Salmou (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a great place for specific questions if you're running into trouble updating your draft, but we don't usually do reviews as it just duplicates the efforts of the AfC reviewers. They are having a backlog-clearing drive right now so with any luck, review will be quick. (They've cleared nearly 3000 queued articles in 12 days, not bad! Ongoing for the rest of August.) M kuhner (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Word document

One of your articles has some wrong information contained within it. I have annotated corrections and have it in a word document. Can email if desired. I use Wikipedia for most of my research for books I am writing.

I use Wikipedia for research on the books I write. On one of your entries, there some errors. I have made a copy of the article and annotated the corrections. I can email the page if desired. ~2026-44439-27 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless said corrections are accompanied by sources that corroborate them it's unlikely they'll be incorporated into the article, and nobody is going to have content discussions via email. You should be suggesting these changes on the talk page of the article in question. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You can just tell us the title of the article here and it can be checked. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

What should I do when a topic area has bad "local customs"?

I've been frustrated a few times on discovering that there are topic areas on Wikipedia where - not officially, but in fact - entrenched "local custom" is to ignore WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:NOT or some other basic principle. "This is how we've always done it" sometimes leads to situations where consensus is against any editor who suggests a move towards whichever one of those basic principles seems to be lacking.

So far, my reaction has been to complain once and give up lest angry tumult ensue, but this "COAGULATE" method, while fairly safe, leaves the situation unchanged.

My question was inspired by another recent question from an editor who had waded into an area I might call "modern manufacture of spurious genealogical 'tradition' as it relates to clans", in which there seem to be enough like-minded editors to maintain a united front of non-adherence to WP:RS, and perhaps WP:NOT and WP:NOR as well. But there are other areas where ignoring some basic principle seems to be condoned and widespread, such as certain types of sports articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:DR or WP:NPOVN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is an explicit policy which forbids exactly this sort of thing. The rules are very clear that local consensus cannot decide that sitewide consensus does not apply to specific topic areas. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That seems to tie into a broader issue I've noticed across all of Wikipedia, where experienced editors will default to "that's how we've always done things" even when it's clearly established that there's a problem. Getting consensus for any solutions is an uphill battle. And when it comes to live articles, if the only people who care about that subject are a POV-pushing group with majority "consensus", who's going to bother enforcing policy? Someone has to not only notice but take action, up to and including handling the cleanup even if they manage to acquire external consensus. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Or get ArbCom involved. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you know they don't just accept cases based on lack of action elsewhere. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We do accept cases if action elsewhere has been unsuccessful. So your first move has to be to honestly and AGFfully try to solve the issue yourself and find consensus. If that totally doesn't work at all, depending on what's not working, you'd want to try WP:ANI, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, or the relevant Wikiproject, switching methods if any of those fail utterly. I usually recommend WP:3O first, but it doesn't work if there are multiple editors, so I would next try the Wikiproject. Sometimes "this is the way we've always done it" actually has very good reason behind it that's just not legible to a topic-area outsider, so you want to turn your AGF up to maximum to try to work things out first. But if, eventually, you run through all the other options, arbcom is the court of last resort. I cannot stress enough how important it is to work collaboratively and with AGF in this kind of situation. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking in a very general sense. It's an ongoing trend across all aspects of the site. 2001 build with a 2001 mindset (and then you why editors who weren't even born yet are discouraged). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Strategies for answering the question: "Has this been discussed before?"

I searched the archive of Talk:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and was surprised there had not been a discussion to create a section (or separate article) on controversies or criticism. The history section is overflowing with what would usually go in such a section and there's at least two (1) (2) categories attempting to index everything. My question is not necessarily how to approach this organizational issue, but if there's any tricks to track down discussions of X or Y topic. Especially if it seems likely that a topic has already been discussed. Gebble (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There are several subsections relating to protests etc, and multiple discussions both on the main talk page and in the archives here, here, and here (among others). From a quick skim it appears there was a controversies section at one point that was later subsumed into the history. I'm inclined to agree with you - that section is very sprawling and controversies can absolutely be discussed in NPOV as long as we follow the sources, but you'd need to get consensus on that TP first. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but WP:CRITS (that essay is an essay) may be worth considering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Unsure if this is the right place, but better than doing nothing.

People keep editing the page for Underscores (musician) to put her deadname at the top of her page rather than her actual name. I'm hoping somebody with actual knowledge of wikipedia can help as this is incredibly transphobic & obviously being done in bad faith. ~2026-44331-58 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a cited statement in the "personal life" section saying that she "does not consider Devon to be a deadname". Do you have any reason to doubt that it is correctly sourced? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You can see a recent related discussion at Talk:Underscores_(musician)#does_the_page_have_to_include_her_government_name?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Getting the Excerpt template to correctly excerpt references

Hello! I am working on Draft:List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026, which utilizes the Excerpt template. Unfortunately, said template somehow messed up many of the citations, meaning many are flagged with "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." and "Cite error: The named reference [inser here] was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."

I do not know why this is happening, and I would appreciate anyone's help. Thanks! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lightbulb Noob. <ref> tags without content is because it's transcluding the ref tags but not the citation templates inside. I'm not familiar with the templates parameter of {{Excerpt}} and it's not clear from the documentation but it appears that if you use it then you have to list the used citation templates like ,Cite web, or say |templates=.* to include all templates. It looks like this would also fix the other error. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This worked, thank you so much! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I've figured it out. I'll explain with an example. In this particular source section, there are these ref tags, evidently defined elsewhere in the article: <ref name="DAT" />. When the excerpt is defined in your draft, it contains this ref tag that doesn't mean anything out of context. I tink the best way to fix it is probably using the special formatting explained at Template:Excerpt#Refinement using inclusion control. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Update: I tried to fix one in the #Three Rivers–Centreville, Michigan section. Let's see how it turns out! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I tried PrimeHunter's method first and it worked, but thank you for your help as well, I really appreciate it! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem :) Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Liking a page

how do I go about liking a page? ~2026-44521-72 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44521-72: Welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have a "like" feature for articles, as it's not intended to act like social media. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only be liked in real life. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You could also send a supportive message (or perhaps even a barnstar) on the editor’s Talk page. Or use the Thank feature on the article’s History page.

Although these are less public ways to “like” an article by another editor, they can mean a lot … maybe much more, because they’re not just an anonymous addition to a numerical count. Augnablik (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

"Japanese manga" and "Japanese anime"

Hello, I wanted to ask this question because I noticed a lot of pages about manga or anime say the thing is a "Japanese manga" or "Japanese anime", however both the definitions of "manga" and "anime" specifically say they are things from Japan: Manga is "comics or graphic novels from Japan" and anime is "animation from Japan". It literally says these things on the Wikipedia pages for manga and anime. So what I am asking is, isn't it redundant to call something a "Japanese manga" or "Japanese anime"? Can't we just say "manga" or "anime"? ~2026-44298-54 (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Arguably there are such things as Original English-language manga and Anime-influenced animation. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the limit?

What is the limit on gore images/videos that can be published on Wikipedia if they are in the public domain? What about material that may cross into illegal/unethical material, like the one on the Virgin Killer page? Morris (talk with this worm) 08:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored in any regard, but the image must have encyclopedic value in the context it's presented and not merely serve to shock, offend, or sensationalise. Athanelar (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're interested, see Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia and Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You're not the first to bring up that image and won't be the last. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to say. I usually don't have a problem with these images, and this is proof of that. Unfortunately, I have seen enough CP in my life using Tor. It would be good if you replied with something of value or didn't reply at all. As for the other comment, I have read WP:CENSORED and other related pages, but none of those mention what I am trying to understand. I just wanted to learn what the general consensus (not bare-bones guidelines) is here regarding these materials. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You got exactly what you wanted, in the very first response. Athanelar told you exactly what the full consensus is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

(You might have meant "Isn't the actual consensus more specific?" - and no, it isn't.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Vishwanath and Son

Can someone fix this? I don’t know why Vishwanath & Sons has a separate section. In

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film Raunka sonkar (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done you can do this yourself by changing the header level if you see a similar problem; see also Help:Wikitext ~2026-44251-08 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE

Hi. I need help in reinstating our page pls. Draft:American Hat Makers Hannalini22 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hannakini22 and welcome. Please review the paid editing policy. Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about its routine business activities and offerings. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what sources wholly unaffiliated with the business view as important/significant/influential about it.

Please also read this page with advice. In short, you're not likely to succeed at writing about your company, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Improvement of draft page

Hi there, if i could get advice on improving this draft, it would be great. Neither editor went to great detail about the rejection. I understand it may be a question about notability but it was not clear. They have been reported and mentioned, but also interviewed with longer articles and radio programs. Draft:Sergei Mosunov Raisedbygeeks (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Raisedbygeeks You removed the decline notice, contrary to instructions. I have reinstated it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this, it was accidental. I appreciate your help. Raisedbygeeks (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Interviews do not improve notability. Notability happens when reporters are choosing to write the article by themselves, with no interview and no press release. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this viewpoint and your civility. Do you think the Financial Times is not an independent report? The long article by Conrad Quilty-Harper, I mean. Unlike the news articles which were likely press announcements. I am grateful for your guidance. I was not aware that the radio program would necessarily be involuntary. Thanks for your thoughts in advance. Raisedbygeeks (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The Financial Times article by Conrad Quilty-Harper is not independent, because Sergei Mosunov had a very large influence on what Quilty-Harper decided to write. (Consider some things you might want to say about an opponent of yours. Now consider what you might say differently if this opponent was across the table from you.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I’ve been a journalist for a long time. The reality is more nuanced when writing a profile on someone and interviewing them. Just because they refuse to pose in front of something, doesn’t mean they control the article. In fact, Quilty-Jones openly stated what was happening in that moment, and did not spare Mosunov any questions or embarrassment. Independent media reporting is about the institution not just the nature of the article. They obviously decided to independently do a profile on him in their Arts and Lifestyle section because luxury brands are huge news in London. I appreciate your perspective, but it is a real concern to me that editors may be making a very quick judgement on complex situations. The Times is also not an opponent of the person they are interviewing. If he was a politician perhaps they would have to hold him to account for something, but that is not the nature of a profile feature in newspapers. That’s the role in the politics section. Raisedbygeeks (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this interview is worth noticeably more to me than most interviews are. I can't say how much more weight a Wikipedia reviewer will give to it than they do for the average interview, because I don't review articles. On some "scale of independence", this FT article is at neither the top nor the bottom, and is in some sense a judgement call (not the kind of call I'm able to make). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding YouTube excerpts to Wikimedia Commons

Hello everyone,

First of all, I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, so could you please direct me elsewhere if this isn't the case?

I understand that we can upload excerpts from YouTube videos to Wikimedia Commons if those videos were uploaded before August 2025.

Did I understand correctly?

Thank you very much in advance for your input.

Best regards.

Lecrion (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The best place to ask for advice about the policies and guidelines of Commons is at Commons. Try c:com:Help desk. Athanelar (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Lecrion (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment for a company draft before submission (paid editor, declared)

Disclosure: I am a paid editor. My employer and client are declared on my user page using {{paid}}, per WP:PAID. I intend to go through Articles for creation and will not edit any affected article directly.

I am preparing a draft about PlentyONE (formerly plentymarkets), a German e-commerce software company based in Kassel. Nothing is saved yet — some figures are still with the client's legal department — so I would like an assessment of the sources only, not of any article text. If the sourcing does not hold up under WP:NCORP, I would rather stop now than waste a reviewer's time later.

What I have, described as honestly as I can:

1. Three long portrait pieces in the regional daily HNA (2010, 2012, 2015), all from the same recurring business-profile series. They carry advertorial markers: the URLs sit under an /anzeigen/ ("advertisements") path, each piece is signed with two-letter initials rather than a named journalist, and each ends with a box listing the company's address, phone number and website.
2. One ordinary news article in the same paper (December 2024) about a private equity firm taking a stake in the company.
3. Trade-press items about that investment, which appear to follow the company's own announcement closely, and which I understand fall under WP:ORGTRIV anyway.
4. A 2016 WirtschaftsWoche feature on ransom DDoS attacks, in which the company appears as one case example rather than as the subject.
5. Product mentions in comparison round-ups and in German e-commerce textbooks — a sentence or a table row each, with no discussion of the company itself.
6. Commercial register data.

My two questions:

(a) Does anything above meet WP:NCORP — is there a source here with significant coverage and Independent Content under WP:ORGIND?

(b) Am I right that the three portrait pieces do not count as independent? My reading is that the /anzeigen/ path, the contact box and the initials signature point to sponsored content, so they fail WP:ORGIND regardless of the paper's general reliability.

I can post full citations for any item you would like to look at. Thanks for any guidance. MoritzLehmann (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost; Please don't use AI to talk to us. We have no way of knowing whether you actually understand the feedback we give you if we're talking to a chatbot. Please don't ask it for advice on the process, either. AI is famously bad at understanding our policies and guidelines.

Secondly; the vast majority of companies in the world don't meet out criteria for inclusion. Yours is highly unlikely to be the exception; and even if it is, you as a paid editor with no experience writing for Wikipedia are astronomically unlikely to be successful in writing an article about any subject, let alone one you're affiliated with. Please heed WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, got it! I just used it to summarize all of my points in a proper way.

Fair enough, and thanks for the direct answer and the pointer to the WP:PAIDADVICE.Just to make sure I understand: if there were more national or international tech press coverage, would that improve the chances? MoritzLehmann (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

What you need is multiple sources that meet all of the requirements at WP:42. Athanelar (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The LLM problem has been discussed already, but while it's hard to say for sure without reading, the description does not sound like sufficient sourcing. Advertorials are worthless, routine reporting on the investments is WP:CORPTRIV, passing mentions aren't helpful, and the last one is primary and in case, only shows existence, not notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Novice badge

Is it okay if I can display the novice service badge on my userpage or do I have to get it from someone? ConstructiveEditor2015 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean the registered editor badge ConstructiveEditor2015 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned on Wikipedia:Service awards it is intended to be given to yourself although it may be given by someone else..so go right ahead. Lectonar (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ConstructiveEditor2015 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

First Article

Hi, I have a hatnote/disambiguation question. I'm working on a draft about Captain Kalingalan Caluang, a Tausug historical figure. The municipality Kalingalan Caluang in Sulu, Philippines is named after him, and my draft's title has had to be disambiguated from the municipality's article. A few questions: What's the right hatnote to add to the Kalingalan Caluang municipality article once/if my draft is accepted — something like "For the Tausug leader the municipality is named after, see X"? Is a hatnote enough here, or since the place is literally named after the person, would a disambiguation page make more sense? What's the best title for my draft to disambiguate it from the municipality — should it be something like "Kalingalan Caluang (Tausug leader)" or another format? Sidicalcaluang (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sidicalcaluang. A DAB page is not normally used when there are only two options, whatever their relationship.

Your suggestions for the hatnote and the DAB title seem fine, except that I would not even put "that the municipality is named after" in the hatnote: if somebody is looking for an article and finds another with the same name, I don't see why the reason for the names being the same should be of importance to them at that point. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hockey World Cup

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk)

I used the draw video for the 2026 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup and 2026 Women's FIH Hockey World Cup as a reference for the seeding of the teams at the World Cups. However, you need to create a free account to access the draw. An editor is telling me that because you need a log in, the video isn't valid enough as a reference as he can't verify the seeding because he doesn't want to make an account. But I have seen the official FIH draw video and it explicitly says who is seeded in what pot etc. Is my reference good enough even though you need a log in? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ILoveSport2006. Sources are not invalid just because they require an account to access them, or even because they require payment: see WP:PAYWALL.

But that sounds like a primary source: a secondary source would be better, if you can find one. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about an article for the profession of a person

in this article Manos (YouTuber), can I also put that he is a musician alongside "YouTuber"? He has released a lot of parody/comedy songs and recently released 2 serious songs and probably plans to do more. He is primarily a youtuber, but i think putting that he is also a musician, or musical artist, is also good. I'm not sure tho, so I'm asking here

Thanks Zisimox32 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Zisimox32, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The sole purpose of that term in parenthesis in a title is to distinguish the subject from other subjects with the same name: nothing else.

So, either "YouTuber" or "musician" would be fine, depending on which he is known as, but not both (unless there were another "Manos (YouTuber)" who is not a musician).

In the lead of the article is the place to say the different things he is known for, not in the title.

By the way, he does not appear to be listed in the disambiguation page Manos, or in Manos (name), though he should probably be in one of the two. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant for inside the article, not the title, but still thanks for letting me know! I just asked if he is allowed to be called a "musician" in the article, based the work he has put out. Asking this because most of his songs are parodies and un-serious, and only 2 new songs are serious. Maybe some people wouldn't consider him an actual musician, like other notable musicians for example.

Also thanks for telling me about the disambiguation page, I will add him there Zisimox32 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zisimox32The article already says he's known for his music & songs. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zisimox32 I presume that you're asking whether it would be appropriate to change the lead sentence ...better known by his pseudonym Manos, is a Greek YouTuber. to be "YouTuber and musician" or some such.

The answer—as with most things on Wikipedia—is "what do the sources say?" If sources primarily or entirely refer to him as a Youtuber, then that's the only thing we should label him as in the lead. If a decent proportion of sources also refer to him as a "musician" then there's nothing wrong with throwing that in there.

Not everybody should be referred to as a musician just because they make music, and what makes somebody a musician for Wikipedia's purpose is that other sources are referring to them as such. Athanelar (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok then, thanks Zisimox32 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

hello im new

can someone pls tell me about how to edit wikipedia basics thanks HTNSikh (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@HTNSikh See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@HTNSikh or try the Wikipedia Adventure! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 01:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Making Edits

I am looking for some advice and guidance on how to make some edits to John Hope Bryant's Wikipedia page. I first want to disclose I am an employee of Operation HOPE of which John Hope Bryant is the Founder, Chairman, and CEO. In past attempts to correct information we have been partially successful but have also received warnings and threats of being blocked or removed from the system. We are not trying to break any rules, but only want the information on his page to be up to date. In addition, what we thought were successful updates, over time, were reverted back to old versions and we are not sure how to mitigate that problem either. Anything that we've added has had the appropriate supporting links without policy violations. We are looking for advice on how best to accomplish this. Rachaeldoff (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rachaeldoff, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for making the formal declaration of your status as a paid editor on your user page.

Please read about conflict of interest editing, and the essay WP:BOSS.

In short, you should not edit the article directly, but should make edit requests, for an unconnected editor to decide what to do about your request; and any information you want to add should be accompanied by a citation to a regular published source that verifies the information, and preferably to a source wholly unconnected with your organisation.

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.

If the article is, or reads as if it might be, what Hope or Operation HOPE wants people to know, then it is almost certainly promotional, and unacceptable. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Donna Luethe wants help

I can’t sign into the donnaluethe55@Gmail.com97 ~2026-44428-46 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-44428-46.

We don't seem to have a user named donnaleuthe55. The way you've written it make it look as if that is part of your email, rather than your user name.

What exactly is the user name you are trying to log into Wikipedia with? ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

References different when in edit mode?

On the page Cecilioides acicula, references 1 & 2 are not used, so I was going to edit the page. When I went to edit in visual mode, the references changed. In read mode, ref 1 is Kapps and #2 is Natureserve. In edit mode, #1 is Adam, W. and #2 is Marshall b. Further Ref 1&2 are cited under "Description" in edit mode, but not in viewing mode. I tried this in Chrome and Safari browsers. This problem is way above my editing pay grade.

PlantPoet (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PlantPoet.

References 1 and 2 are used - they are cited in the speciesbox.

I can't quite duplicate what you are seeing, but I'm guessing that you are somehow editing a section rather than the whole article (I don't use the visual editor, so this is probably why I'm not seeing what you say).

But if you are editing the section "Description" only, then Kapps and Natureserve (and Muller, which is also cited in the speciesbox) are not relevant, and are temporarily left out of the numbering. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

huh. That's wild that references used in the box are not listed in the references when editing in the article. (And thanks for the reminder to look at the speciesbox for citations!) Thanks for taking the time to figure this out and explain to me. Much appreciated. PlantPoet (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Problem with a template

Hello everyone. I have significantly improved the "Rivers of Germany" template—which I have meanwhile added to the pages of all German rivers longer than 100 km. While the old template was merely an arbitrary, random, and completely illogical collection of rivers (many of which were very short), my new template includes all rivers with a total length exceeding 100 km; I also sorted them by length and listed the length based on the longest headstream. Unfortunately, another user simply reverted the template. Since that user makes edits primarily related to the Czech Republic, I suspect they were bothered by the inclusion of Czech rivers in the list. Now, the user is trying to get me to redo the whole thing using flimsy arguments, though I believe their only real goal is to have the Czech rivers removed from the list. Please compare the two versions of the template and tell me if my version really represents a step backward. Please watch the template Rivers of Germany before user FromCzech deleted my version:

Si9mon (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Si9mon, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you have here is a content dispute, which is a normal part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.

According to WP:BRD, your job now is to discuss with other editors including any editor who reverted your change, to try and reach a consensus. If you are unable to reach consensus, dispute resolution will suggest ways to continue - which do not include canvassing on a general-purpose discussion page. ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Si9mon: {{Rivers of Germany}} uses {{Navbox}} and is a navigation template. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates says: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Note "facilitate navigation". It's not to provide information by itself. Lists do that like those in Category:Lists of longest rivers. You might make a list for Germany. I think your version has far too much information for a navigation template instead of just providing easy navigation to the river articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating a preexisting article in a new language

Hello! I just made my account today and finished reading through introduction material, which made me curious about the protocol for creating an article that already exists but in a different language.

For example, the Russian painter and artist Andrei Konstantinovich Sokolov already has an article started in Spanish, but not English.

If I wish to create an English version of this article, or create existing articles in new languages in general, how should I go about this? Do I create a new article entirely, should I try to copy the structure of the other articles in their respective languages, or is there a special translation feature I need to utilize.

Any pointers or feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks! Emergent Digital Corvid (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Emergent Digital Corvid, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The general instructions are in Translation.

In summary: you may translate an article from another language, but different language Wikipedias have different policies and procedures, and it is your responsibility if you do so to make sure that the article (or, rather, its translation) is acceptable to English Wikipedia: that it has adequate appropriate sources to establish notability, and faithfully summarises what those sources say.

Often, an article in another language does not meet those criteria (most other Wikipedias are less strict, and indeed English Wikipedia too has thousands of articles which would not be accepted if they were offered for review today). In that case, you really need to treat this mostly as creating a new article from scratch: finding appropriate sources (which do not have to be in English, or online), and summarising them. You may draw on the original text, but you need to make sure it is suitable for this project. ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you translate, make sure you give an attribution to what you translated. Also please check for bias, as many languages are dominated by one country, and reflect inhabitants point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Schools

I made this post earlier on he schools page, but it seems that questions there are not answered frequently.

I wish to add a list or table of state championships for high schools in GA based on the data from the GHSA and other sources. Would this be a good idea and fit with current style guidelines? If so, should the level they were achieved at be included and what style should it be presented. I have already made a spreadsheet that automatically sorts all of the data and formats it, so I can change it to anything that would be recommended. For examples, North Atlanta HS has a style of list and Midtown HS has a table. BabaYagaUSA (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi BabaYagaUSA. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and some WikiProjects are more active than others; so, the best place for you to get an answer for this is probably at WT:SCHOOLS. You could also try looking through project's talk page archives to see whether someone else has asked something similar. WikiProjects occassionally have their own project-wide style guide that's based on WP:MOS but also has its own little tweaks. Since consistency can be important for a particular genre of article in addition to Wikipedia as a whole, it might be a good idea to wait to see what other members of the WP:WPSCHOOLS project think before making wholesale changes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I edit on another language's Wikipedia, and get the same edit suggestions including articles from that Wiki too?

Title. Basically I know multiple languages and I'd like to be able to edit on other language Wikipedias and have suggested edits from those Wikis on my homepage. How do I do that? PeaceGoose (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi PeaceGoose. Each Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines as well as its own editing community appying them. They all work the same way in priciple and overlap in many ways, but there are also some important differences depending on the Wikipedia. If you're competent in the target language and capable of communicating easily with others in it, you can probably just starting editing (as long as your account is a global account, which it most likely is); if you're not confident in your ability to do so, you might want to try using the Wikipedia's help pages or article talk pages to ask questions or make suggestions first. Either way, though, you should familiarize yourself with the basic formatting, style, and other things related to editing on another language Wikipedia before you start to make sure you're doing things the way that Wikipedia wants them done. Just for reference, a one-to-one correspondance between English Wikipedia and the other language Wikipedias isn't really required; some articles and content might exist in another language that don't exist on English Wikipedia and vice versa; so, if you do edit another Wikipedia, you might be better off taking the point of view of editing that Wikipedia as if you were a native speaker just starting from zero and not really the point of view of someone just translating content on English Wikipedia into another language.

Finally, you can set your WP:PREFERENCES to receive certain notifications from other Wikimedia projects via your English Wikipedia account, but you will also be have a separate user page and user talk page for each Wikipedia you edit that you should use for content specifically related to that Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@PeaceGoose: I guess you refer to suggested edits on Special:Homepage. Is the page activated on the wikis? Which languages is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Re-sizing lead image

Hello! How do I change the size of the infobox image on this page? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryOtter. Infobox images are, I believe, automatically sized to best fit the device being used by whoever is reading the article; so, trying to force one size on everyone is generally not a good idea. There is, however, an |image_upright= parameter for Template:Infobox person which might be OK to add and use as explained in MOS:UPRIGHT. My personal opinion, though, is that the infobox for this article is more of a WP:DISINFOBOX than not; so, unless you're able to populate more of the parameters in the infobox, it has no real encyclopedic value to readers of the article and should be removed. The image could then be formatted as a simple WP:THUMBNAIL image at the top of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Table or search trick

I use this table WP:Content assessment#Statistics which is helpful. But I seek a version where I can click the cells. I want to browse for the intersection of high importance and low quality, for example. Does this table exist? Or a way to search for the overlap? Thank you. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 00:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Just regarding the exact example you gave, the following pages are at least somewhat relevant: Category:Articles by quality and Category:Articles by quality and importance

But I understand you were probably looking for something that's useful in more flexible, general ways. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)