Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nil NZ, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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


User talk:Zozment

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

help submitting draft for gabi glitta

Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Draft

Gabi Glitta Gabi Glitta is the stage name of Australian-American media personality and rapper Gabrielle Rose Grecko (born June 5, 1989).^[1]

=== Career === Grecko first announced her rebrand to "Gabi Glitta" in August 2017, ahead of her planned rap debut.^[1] In 2025, the Herald Sun reported that Edelsten’s widow had launched a career in the music industry as a rapper, with an EP titled GABI GLITTA.^[2]

Grecko operates the Instagram account @gabi_glitta, where she posted about the Herald Sun coverage in February 2025.

<code>=== Personal life === Gabi Glitta is the former wife of Australian businessman Geoffrey Edelsten. She was previously known professionally as Gabi Grecko.^[1]

<code>=== References ===

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Gabi Grecko reinvents herself as Gabi Glitta in preparation for her rap debut". Nine.com.au. 21 August 2017.
^ "Gabi a rapper? It's all Grecko to me – Edelsten's widow reveals guilt of final days as she launches career in music industry". Herald Sun. 2025.

Sources:

Nine.com.au, 21 August 2017, "Gabi Grecko reinvents herself as Gabi Glitta in preparation for her rap debut"
Herald Sun, 2025, "Gabi a rapper? It's all Grecko to me – Edelsten’s widow reveals guilt of final days as she launches career in music industry"

-- ~2026-41380-91 (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:YFA and WP:AFC. WP:NMUSICIAN is also important. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

> "Thanks Andy. Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN, I have significant coverage:

> 1. Sydney Morning Herald, 2017 - Debut single Call My Bluff + interview

> 2. Nine.com.au, Aug 22 2017 - Rap debut as Gabi Glitta

> 3. Herald Sun, 2025 - Exclusive on EP 145TH AND ST NICK and music career

>

> Ready to build the draft. Confirming I’ll work on ."

--- ~2026-41380-91 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Andy for the guidance. Draft is now live at Draft:Gabi Glitta with full sourcing per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.

Major news coverage 2017–2025:

1. The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July 2017 – "Call My Bluff" debut + interview re: EP with Project Pat

2. Nine.com.au, 21 August 2017 – "Gabi Grecko reinvents herself as Gabi Glitta in preparation for her rap debut"

3. Herald Sun, 2025 – "Gabi a rapper? It's all Grecko to me" – covers music industry launch

4. Daily Mail Australia, 22 August 2017 + 6 July 2018 ~2026-41380-91 (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use LLMs to draft article or talk page comments. Fermiboson (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Possible outdated guide regarding Lang-xx

Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello for a eighteenth time! It seems that some guide appears to still be mentioning {{Lang-xx}} instead of {{Langx}}: for proof, I came across Hostun, Armenia in Special:AbuseLog, and the initial revision used these now-deleted Lang-xx templates, so maybe an admin forgot to update some part of the newcomer's guide. Before that, I came across an article of an Israeli politician^{[clarification needed]} and came across the exact same problem: {{lang-he}}. I never heard of any of Wikipedia's guides nor completed any of them (I just started editing with no assist), so I have no idea what is still mentioning {{lang-xx}}. Should this still go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello SimpleObjects-9ei and welcome back to the Teahouse!

I found this: s:Template:Lang-he which indicates that the Lang-he template is still in use on some wikis, though not necessarily on Wikipedia. It's understandable that someone might try to use it. One would hope that they immediately realize the template by that name does not exist and they will search and find the {{langx}} template to use instead. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made an advanced search for possible guide pages (i.e. uses a {{lang-*}} template) gave me these:

Extended content

Be careful with this search-result link, since it uses a regex on around 200,000 pages: [1]

Results:

LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very few of those hits look actionable. Maybe a fix is needed for WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

LLM generated articles tend to use the outdated template. Which articles are concerned? Fermiboson (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Three things

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

1. I’m on mobile, and the three dot button dosen’t appear while reading normally, so i can’t edit the full page on source editing on mobile. Thats a issue that needs to be talked about. 2. The article “Photosensitive epilepsy” needs to include more information, i feel like a Wikipedia article on photosensitive epilepsy would have more info, but alas, it dosen’t really have much information. I do think mentioning the red color as a seperate dangerous color for photosensitivity, if what i said made proper sense, but alas, whatever. 3. The article “Elsagate” needs to be renamed, it is no longer called Elsagate. I saw a redirect titled “Offensive content in YouTube” and i feel like that the title of this article could be renamed to something like that, but isn’t the redirect title, because the redirect title dosen’t correctly describe it. Perhaps “Innapropriate children’s content on YouTube” could be the title, but i don’t know, there needs to be a discussion. I do think that there needs to be more information with new references in the newer history section, newer stuff that isn’t mentioned in Wikipedia. You might say i should edit the articles rather than saying it on the Teahouse, but i have a problem that i said in the first part. So i had to write it on the Teahouse because i coundl’t really properly edit articles. ~2026-41766-87 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I found this reference that was in the “Elsagate” Wikipedia article in 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171119030514/https://www.inquisitr.com/opinion/4619073/youtube-promises-crackdown-on-disturbing-and-sexually-violent-gore-videos-targeted-at-children/ I don’t know if this could be on this Wikipedia article because this dosen’t look too much trust-worthy or notable for Wikipedia. ~2026-41766-87 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @~2026-41766-87, and welcome to the Teahouse!

I have yet to encounter that issue - perhaps you can try a different browser, Chrome, Safari, Firefox; or try editing on a computer. Perhaps someone else will have more precise suggestions.

As for your edit requests, once this issue is resolved, please be bold and make them yourself! Alternatively, you could mention them on the article's talk page - perhaps another editor will apply them. Note: this option will likely take some time and does not guarantee that the edits will be added. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Giovanni Guasconti But the problem is that i can’t edit the Full page on source editing because the three buttons dont appear on some articles. Even on those that have no restrictions on editing the article. ~2026-41910-94 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes - that is a technical error. As I said above: perhaps you can try a different browser, Chrome, Safari, Firefox; or try editing on a computer. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the name of an article: There are different possible meanings when people say "It's not called that anymore". The meaning that matters on Wikipedia is "I can show that the majority of reliable sources agree what the new name should be". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer Requested Birth Date, but No Reliable Source Exists

Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I received feedback on my first draft. The reviewer is asking for the subject's birth date, but I haven't been able to find a reliable source for it. I need some suggestions on how to handle this.

Draft:Ray James Weldon II PageCraftsman (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered emailing him to ask? His email address can be found via the Faculty Bio and Research website links in his Departmental profile, which you have already cited. A third-party Reliable source is ideally preferred, and he might be able to tell you of such a source where his birth date has been published, but if there is none we would probably accept a published source connected to him (which we might not if he was, for example, a film actor). However, a mere email from him to you would not be acceptable since it would not be accessible for verification by article readers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

searched for a reliable published source for Professor Weldon's birth date and also attempted to contact him, but I have been unable to verify it. Rather than adding unsourced information, I have left the birth date omitted in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I have, however, reviewed the draft and addressed the wording where appropriate before resubmitting. PageCraftsman (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your decision to not include a synthesized birth date was a wise decision. If the only reason for the draft decline is the absence of a birth date, I'd post a comment at the top of the draft and say the same thing that you've just told us. Then resubmit. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the suggestion. That's exactly the approach I've taken. I searched the University of Oregon profile, the subject's publicly available CV, and other publicly available sources but could not find a verifiable birth date or birth year. Rather than adding unsourced information, I left it omitted in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, added an explanatory comment to the draft, and have now resubmitted it for review. PageCraftsman (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no requirement to add DOB, in fact considering various privacy etc. concerns, it may even be better not to show one, and certainly not without reliable published source to back it up. The draft shows when he graduated and got his PhD, so we know it's a contemporary figure, not some Age of Enlightenment one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I have left the birth date omitted, added an explanatory note to the draft, and resubmitted it for review. PageCraftsman (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little baffled that the reviewer was more concerned with DOB than potential copyvio. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is something odd about that, unless they had good reasons but didn't mention the reasons. Then again, having reasons but not mentioning them is in itself odd. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A further possibility that has only just occurred to me, PageCraftsman: it is unlikely, but possible, that the subject does not actually know his birth date. For instance, this was the case for the late Isaac Asimov, who was a Professor of Biochemistry, though better known as a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Advice on a draft (Declared COI and notability check for a French musician)

Latest comment: 3 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Hello everyone! I am a new editor and I need some guidance regarding a draft I have been working on: Draft:Thierry Wone.

To be fully transparent, I have a declared Conflict of Interest (I am currently interning at his company, and I have disclosed this on my user page). Because of this, I am strictly following the rules and submitting through the Articles for Creation process.

My question is: Could an experienced editor take a quick look and let me know if my formatting, neutral tone, and sources (which include national platforms like Radio France and regional press like L'Ardennais) meet the general notability guidelines?

The draft was previously declined for insufficient sourcing, and I just want to make sure I'm on the right track while waiting for another review.

I would appreciate any feedback! Thank you! Digitaloutlier (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

From the sources you have now, can you name just three, that if readers would just read those three, then you would be satisfied that they know the whole story of Thierry Wone - so that it doesn't really matter if they read your article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for trying to help! Actually, right after you asked this, another editor unfortunately declined the draft.

However, to answer your question, I'd say yes. And the three sources I was hoping would establish notability were EARMILK (2020) (covering his international collaborations), L'Ardennais (2020) (covering his solo career) and Leral (2014) (covering his early background and family influences).

Since it was declined, I assume these were not enough. I'm trying to figure out how to rewrite to meet the criteria. Digitaloutlier (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

L'Ardennais is paywalled, so I can't review that one, but the EARMILK post is a brief description of a single track and appears to be more of a blog (not considered reputable), whereas the Leral article is an interview, making it a primary source rather than secondary. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, rewriting would just be "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". What's needed is several sources that each tell the full story of Wone's career, without any words from him or his team. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for clearing that up. I genuinely thought that an interview published by an independent outlet like Leral was considered a secondary source since it's not self-published, so that distinction really helps me understand the rules better.

As a Wikipedia reader, one thing that has always confused me is seeing many short articles (sometimes just one paragraph) with only one or even zero sources that haven't been deleted. I'm definitely not pointing this out to argue for my draft! I am just trying to understand how the system works—are those older pages from before the review rules got stricter, or do they fall under a different criteria?

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things to me! Digitaloutlier (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Digitaloutlier Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. For example

the draft process has not always existed. Many inappropriate articles were created in the very early days of Wikipedia when there was a rush to create new articles.
the draft process is not required of all users
standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer

If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles that you see so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

those are called stubs, and it really depends. some are just old, from before things got stricter. some used to be longer but had to be gutted because of promotional content or copyright issues, and others. well. others really should be deleted. if you do see any of those, feel free to propose deletion for them. instructions are here wp:afdhow2. Jackjd0 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The reason I ask this: Sources are not for examples and support. Sources are the whole story, and if we go through the article and remove everything that came from a source, there must be nothing left. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Digitaloutlier I would suggest you read my advice for paid editors and understand that what your employer is expecting you to do is nearly impossible. Athanelar (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Digitaloutlier Note that an intern is explicitly considered to be a paid editor according to the paid editing policy, even if you receive no money; you are being compensated with the work experience. You will need to make the paid editing disclosure on your user page. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Liverpool Airport, 4 new routes need adding from the Talk section

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Liverpool John Lennon Airport

The above airport page needs 4 new routes adding to the destinations section of the page. All links and topics have been added to the Talk section.

I'm unaware how to action this otherwise I would complete.

Could someone help please? ~2026-29417-14 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello and welcome! You can just be bold and add them yourself. If you need technical help at the editing screen, check out this tutorial. Feel free to ask any more questions you have. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What the process

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey! I'm interested in becoming a Wikipedia editor. Could you please guide me on how to get started and what the process is? Angrybirdsuperstar (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Angrybirdsuperstar, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You are a Wikipedia editor - you've just edited a page (but not an encyclopaedia article, it's true).

I suggest you start with Help:Introduction.

Then find some areas of knowledge that interest you, and look at some articles in those areas, and see if you can improve them. Copy editing is a place to start; and far and away the most valuable thing you can do for an article is to add citations to reliable sources, where these are not provided. Finding sources can be challenging, but it is the core of what we do here, and a worthwhile skill to learn. See Citing sources and reliable sources.

A couple of notes of caution:

Don't worry too much about making mistakes: we all make mistakes, and if you are obviously editing in good faith, the worst that will happen is that somebody will revert your edit. If that happens, have a look at the edit summary they left (you'll find it in the History of the article), and learn from what they say. (If they don't give an explanation, or you don't understand it, put a polite question on their User talk page, asking them to explain).
Don't run before you can walk. A distressing number of new editors plunge straight into the most challenging task there is in editing Wikipedia: trying to create a new article. I advise leaving it a good few weeks or months before you try that. Remember that that is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia: I've made nearly 30 thousand edits over twenty years, but I've only ever created a handful of new articles.

Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Angrybirdsuperstar, I agree with ColinFine, but would comment on his remark far and away the most valuable thing you can do for an article is to add citations to reliable sources, where these are not provided. Finding sources can be challenging, but it is the core of what we do here, and a worthwhile skill to learn. I'd say that finding sources for what's already written is usually challenging, where it's even possible. If it seems easy, then you are unusually bright or unusually lucky -- or (sorry!) doing it wrong. A source presented as a reference for an assertion mustn't merely say something similar to or compatible with the assertion; instead, it has to say the same thing. If you can't find a sound reference, don't be tempted to add a "kinda, sorta" reference. Instead, (A) leave the assertion unreferenced, (B) adjust the assertion so that it does reflect a source that you add as a reference, or (C) delete the assertion. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Naming BLP articles for multiple people with same name

Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm looking to start a new article about Chris Kohler, an Australian financial journalist (and YouTuber, podcaster). There's currently an article for Chris Kohler, a Scottish writer. I figure that once the Aussie Chris Kohler article is established and promoted to main space, the existing Scottish one would probably get moved to "Chris Kohler (writer)", and Aussie would probably be named "Chris Kohler (journalist)".

But for completeness' sake, searching the web for possibly more notable people with the name, there's a Chris Kohler who's an American, former video game journalist (cited several times in WP video game articles), who is now "Editorial Director" at Digital Eclipse video game studios. He's probably notable enough to justify his own article. What would be the best name for his article? "Chris Kohler (journalist)" would probably make sense, if that's his most notable role. But what's the best article names for the Aussie financial journalist and the American games journalist? Should it be something like "Chris Kohler (finance journalist)" and "Chris Kohler (game journalist)", or "Chris Kohler (Australian journalist)" and "Chris Kohler (American journalist)", or something else altogether?

I'm just looking to minimize the amount of potential renaming of the articles by getting it right up front. — sbb (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I get the feeling that it's better to not try to predict the future of article naming, and instead to name what we now have.

Also, I don't know whether one of these people is much more well-known than the others overall, but if one of them is, it's possible that that one should be titled "Chris Kohler" without a further designation. (Being equitable by making all of them have a disambiguator is not necessarily part of the process.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. I suppose the issue would be resolved (if it's even an issue) at article promotion time anyways. Thanks! — sbb (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia term for this concept is disambiguation. The WP:DAB guidelines talk about how to name each specific article about different topics with the same name, when to create a separate disambiguation article listing them all, and how to decide whether any of them is a primary topic for that name. DMacks (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've been around a long time, so I'm well-aware of WP:DAB. I just haven't written any BLP articles. If I'm just writing the first article about C. K. (the Aussie financial reporter), I'd assume the existing and new articles would be named

Chris Kohler (writer); and
Chris Kohler (journalist).

However, doing my research I found that a 3rd C. K., also a journalist, is likely WP notable. So my question (and sorry to be blunt, but your answer to me is overly generic and not really instructive at all) is "what's the most logical disambiguation when 2 articles are already logically disambiguated the same way?"

As I said in my OQ, which is likely preferable?

Chris Kohler (writer)
Chris Kohler (Australian journalist)
Chris Kohler (American journalist)

or

Chris Kohler (writer)
Chris Kohler (financial journalist)
Chris Kohler (games journalist)

or

... something else entirely?

— sbb (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying. A journalist are a type of writer, so "(writer)" is not a good disambiguation token for the first person's article (not any less ambiguous than the person's name itself). Given he's Scottish and appears to write several types of fiction, "(Scottish writer)" or "(fiction writer)" would be the parallel options for your two approaches. The WP:NCPDAB guideline recommends "what the person is noted for being", so that says to me the latter idea (what kind of journalist) is preferable to their nationality. DMacks (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Contesting G15 speedy deletion nomination, all content based on verified published sources

Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor (AcousticPeace) and the subject of Draft:Emanuel C. Perlman, which I submitted in May 2026. I have declared my conflict of interest as required. The draft has just been nominated for speedy deletion under G15 (AI-generated content).

I want to be transparent: I received assistance in formatting and structuring the article, but every single claim is based on independently verifiable published sources including the Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Deseret News, Congressional Record, UCSD-TV, Hawaii News Now, TVC News Nigeria, the Library of Congress, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. No facts were invented or fabricated.

I have already filed a contest statement on the draft's Talk page. I am asking for guidance on the best way to proceed and whether an experienced editor would be willing to review the article on its merits.

Thank you for your help.

AcousticPeace AcousticPeace (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"I received assistance in formatting and structuring the article" – this is part of the issue. As is your use of AI to format this message. Please see WP:NOLLM for further information. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@aesurias Thank you for your quick response. I understand your concern. I want to be completely transparent, I am a 73 year old clergyman and the subject of this article. I used AI assistance to help format and structure content that is entirely based on my real, documented life. Every single source cited is independently published and verifiable. No facts were invented.

I am willing to work with any editor to rewrite the article in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines, as the underlying sourcing is genuinely strong. I would welcome guidance on how to proceed constructively rather than face deletion of a well sourced biography. AcousticPeace (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

AcousticPeace, it is likely that you will be contacted by a person or company offering to do the work for you, for a price. Such individuals and companies tend to make promises they cannot keep, and are often incompetent, dishonest, or both. Do not respond to any such offer. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hoary Thank you so much for the warning. I became aware of this practice a few weeks ago and didn’t respond.

I appreciate that you are looking out for me. ~2026-42147-63 (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

generally, making a wikipedia page about yourself is not something which should be done. its very likely to get deleted, and its got ethical issues- but warning users of this rarely stops them- so instead i will redirect you to some relevant information you should know before you attempt to do it again, if you decide to do so. please read at least these two- the wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, as well as neutral point of view.

other useful essays which aren't essential but may help include Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia:Writing better articles Jackjd0 (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, an article written using AI is generally regarded as not having any merits at all. The only feasible way to rewrite it would be to delete it entirely, and to start again from the beginning with no use of AI. The only thing worth saving would be the list of references. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond to my question. I am new to Wikipedia and have learned a great deal from this experience. I understand now that the article cannot remain in its current form. Rather than have it deleted, I would like to ask if it is possible to have the draft moved to my user space so I can keep the references for any future use. I appreciate everyone’s patience and kindness in helping me understand how Wikipedia works.

AcousticPeace ~2026-42147-63 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're free to start a new draft (either in your userspace or on your local device) and copy the references over so you can work from them in the future. The AI content itself will need to go however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the references, please be aware that AI can invent fake references. A lot of the references in the current draft seem to have made up titles and/or urls. CMD (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @AcousticPeace, and welcome to the Teahouse (please remember to log in!).

One of the things that makes it so monumentally difficult to write about yourself in Wikipedia is that your knowledge of your own life, far from being a help, can actually be a hindrance!

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.

It follows that, having found the reliable independent sources that you require (see WP:42), you will effectively need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary only of what those sources say. Even if they leave things out that you think are important. Even if they are critical or even downright nasty to you. Even if what they say doesn't match your memory or understanding.

Do you see why few people have ever managed to do this successfully? ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

ایجاد صفحه برای آرش دبستانی

Latest comment: 3 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

با سلام،

از خوانندگان آثار نویسنده‌ی ایرانی آرش دبستانی هستم. می‌خواهم صفحه فارسی وی را ایجاد کنم اما امکان دسترسی ندارم. ممنون می‌شوم صفحه را ایجاد کرده و/یا به من اجازه دسترسی برای نوشتن صفحه را بدهید.

آرش دبستانی نویسنده ساکن نیویورک است. مدارک تحصیلی اش را از دانشگاه برکلی و دانشگاه نیویورک گرفته است و آثارش به فارسی و انگلیسی چاپ شده اند. Sulzbi-240 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

From Google Translate: Creating a page for Arash Dabestani Hello, I am a reader of the works of the Iranian author Arash Dabestani. I would like to create a Persian page for him but do not have access to do so. I would appreciate it if you could create the page and/or grant me access to write it. Arash Dabestani is a New York-based author. He holds degrees from UC Berkeley and New York University, and his works have been published in both Persian and English.

@Sulzbi-240: No we cannot create a page for you at another Wikipedia. You will need to ask for help there. RudolfRed (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:ENGLISHPLEASE. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is The Teahouse. Novice users should not be criticised for posting here in their native language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing any criticism? Theroadislong (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is the English language Wikipedia. To work on articles, you need to have a enough of an understanding of English to ask a question. If someone can't understand English, they can work on the Wikipedia of a language they can understand. I wasn't criticizing them, just stating the talk page guidelines. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The guideline you linked to says:

Use English: This is the English-language Wikipedia; discussions should normally be conducted in English. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation, or get help at Wikipedia:Embassy. Do not expect readers to translate your content themselves, not even when modern browsers have machine translation built-in.

"normally" implies exceptions. Like the Embassy which is mentioned, the Teahouse is one of those exceptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined for foreign-language sources

Latest comment: 2 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion

This isn't my draft, I just randomly came across it, but I noticed this AfC decline with the comment: Also, some citations link to a Russian website. We don't accept websites outside of English. This is the English Wikipedia, not Russian. That's not true, is it? Foreign-language sources are totally acceptable as long as they meet WP:RS standards, right? Or am I missing some nuance? ^purring_maggot (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Purring maggot You are correct, the references don't need to in English. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 03:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sources in English are preferred when available, but sources in other languages are definitely accepted. I have to presume that this means if a non-English source is more complete or relevant or reliable than available English ones, it should be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've left the reviewer a note. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should we ask the draft's owner to re-submit it? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

LaundryPizza03, Draft:Lev Makov now has a couple of new comments; I think that these suffice. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A sincere question: in English Wikipedia, we do not write articles only related to or about Western topics. Also, not every country in the 'West' speaks English. Let's say we want to write an article about a French person who is quite notable, but very few (or no) high-quality sources exist in English. In that case, common sense would be to use whatever verifiable sources exist in French and translate the information into English. So why sometimes even well established editors get confused? Morris (talk with this worm) 10:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Morrisworm. I was with you until the last sentence; but you suddenly seem to be asking about the mental state of some unidentified editors.

If your sincere question is whether in that case we would prefer (in fact, require) using those French sources, then Yes, absolutely. ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

One thing that might contribute is that communication about things on English Wikipedia - article talk pages, this page, and so on - really is expected to be in English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Somali Future Council

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Article (Somali Future Council) needs major expansion and/or restructuring. WP:TH are welcome to help out in its construction by editing it as well. QalasQalas (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lots of articles need work; The Teahouse is a place to ask for advice on how to do things, not to recruit volunteers.

Is there any specific issue on which you need such advice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @QalasQalas, and welcome to the Teahouse.

WT:WikiProject Somalia may be a better place to ask, though there are no guarantees that any volunteer editors even there will choose to come forward and work with you. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My First Article

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello I am wondering because I am writing my first article still in review, the topic is the Libyan protests in 2026 which I found lacking and thought its notable enough. I have near no relation to the protests with the sole exception its happening in my country Libya. Now I wanna uhh add info to my article to make it a little bigger so I was wondering if anyone here can help -3 NCL TRICOLOR (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are free to continue to edit it now that it is in the encyclopedia.

I am a bit surprised that it was accepted with only a single source, though. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello @NCL TRICOLOR, I am not going to edit the article because I am an expert in Libyan topics, but I can help you find sources. But I don't understand why you only added one source when I found plenty of them.

I will send the sources to your User talk page. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Link in lead of American studies

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the link at the beginning of American studies? It was added in this edit and then changed in this one.

For clarification, the lead goes American studies *link* or American civilization is an.... I've never seen an external link in the lead before. Is this in violation of policy? ESB5415 12:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Esb5415, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In general, external links are not allowed in the text (see WP:ELNO).

That particular link actually points to another Wikimedia project, Wikidata; so it would be better implemented as a wikilink [[:d:Q470125]], which displays as d:Q470125.

However, I cannot see any possible reason to insert a wikilink to the Wikidata item in the text, considering that the link is automatically available in the sidebar, as "Wikidata Item".

I will remove it. Thank you for pointing it out. ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requesting review/removal of an "LLM-generated content" tag on Julian Jootaek Kim

Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I'd like guidance on a maintenance tag indicating that parts of Julian Jootaek Kim may be LLM-generated.

The originally flagged passages were written in English based on multiple Korean news sources. Because many of those sources were written in a dramatic entertainment-journalism style, some of that tone unintentionally carried over into the wording.

For example:

[85] "제2의 김주택 찾아라…'팬텀싱어3' 최초 유럽 오디션". 한국경제 (in Korean). 2019-10-31. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

Original wording in the source: "이번 유럽 오디션은 '제2의 김주택'을 찾는다는 점에서도 의미가 크다고 제작진은 강조했다“ (lit. translation: "The production team emphasized that this European audition is significant in that it seeks to find 'the next Julian Kim'“)

The corresponding sentence in the Wikipedia article: “They held auditions in Europe to recruit participants for Season 3, emphasizing the importance of 'finding talents like Julian Jootaek Kim'”

[78] 기자, 김미리. "팬텀싱어2' 윤상, '성악계 비와이' 김주택 등장에 "왜?". 마이데일리 (in Korean). Retrieved 2024-05-08.

Original wording in the source: “김주택은 “팬텀싱어 시즌1을 봤을 때 가슴이 두근두근 거리더라. 제가 0부터 다시 시작하고 싶은 마음에 이런 결정을 하게 됐다”고 ‘팬텀싱어2’에 출연하게 된 이유를 밝혔다“ (lit. translation: ”My heart pounded when I watched Phantom Singer Season 1. I made this decision to join 'Phantom Singer 2' because I wanted to start over from scratch“)

The corresponding sentence in the Wikipedia article: “He mentioned feeling his heart race while watching Phantom Singer 1, leading to a realization that he needed a change in his life”

That said, since the tag was added I've substantially revised and condensed the article to match Wikipedia style. The flowing, narrative-style phrasing that likely triggered the LLM-tone flag has been cut down to concise, individually cited factual statements. The passages that were originally flagged no longer exist.

I also revisited every reference, repairing fragmented citations and replacing archived ones where appropriate.

Given that, I wanted to ask: what's the appropriate process for requesting the tag be reviewed and removed at this point? I understand articles aren't owned by any one editor and welcome any further copyediting — I just want to make sure the tag reflects the article's current state. ~~~~ Rosuacamus (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rosuacamus

Did you use an AI-based translation tool like DeepL or Google Translate to perform the translation from the original Korean text to English?

Are you using any AI-based correction tools like Grammarly to help you write?

Even your comment here has all the usual hallmarks of AI generated questions that we get here every day. Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not use AI to write the text. My explanation was straightforward. I rewrote the question addressed, explained the logic behind the original writing, and further stated that I have made substantial changes to the article to match Wikipedia style writing.

I have been writing scientific papers and patents for more than 30 years in English. I modeled my question after previous Teahouse discussions.~~~ Rosuacamus (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

LLM is not a tone - it's a lack of reasoning. The things it provides do not make sense, even though they give the impression of making sense. It's this combination - writing that looks like good quality but is actually insane - that makes it so difficult to fix. When people do try to fix it, it's like this:

An inspector visits a new building, and there he meets the owner and the owner's son. They tour the building together, as the inspector takes notes. The inspector first discovers that the upstairs toilet does not flush down the main pipe, but into the downstairs bathtub. When they get to the other side, he notes that the outer west wall is facing north, leaving the entire west side of the building uncovered and also blocking part of the road outside. He searches for the electrical panel and cannot find it, but it seems it must have been installed in the floor, where concrete has been poured over it. Some of the electric cable is installed inside the plumbing pipes. After the inspection is finished, the inspector places a large official notice on the main door. After he leaves, the father says to the son: "Before the next inspector comes, we must repaint so they won't notice these little details." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess in the era of AI, It is a fair question and I intend to answer with a clear logic.

1. I used Korean articles as sources to compose sentences. An editor suspected that they are based on false or exaggerated information. I give two representative evidences that they are direct translations from cited articles.

2. I've also made substantial revisions to the article. Please take a look — you'll see the text is pared down to bare, individually cited facts. Rosuacamus (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reliable Sources

Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello! My submission was declined - the reason given was that multiple published secondary sources would be needed that provide significant coverage, are reliable and independent. I have read the guidelines regarding the criteria for reliable sources, but I am confused because I believe I have been using sources that meet those criteria. I used multiple independent and reliable secondary sources from reputable outlets with editorial oversight that provide significant coverage. They include a recognized independent museum and books published by reputable independent publishers. To give some examples: one of those sources are books published by new academic press (https://www.newacademicpress.at/) with the ISBN 978-3-99036-003-3 and by tandem Verlag: Diesseitige Malerei (https://www.edition-tandem.at/) with the ISBN 978-3-902606-20-4. Articles from Karl-Markus Gauß have been used, he is a well-respected leading expert on Central European culture (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Markus_Gauß). Peter Baum is also a well respected art historian (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Baum_(Künstler)). Articles from both historians provide significant coverage about the person I have been writing about. Wiener Zeitung is an independent newspaper (https://www.wienerzeitung.at/). Another source that I used is Wien Museum, a well established reputable independent museum (https://www.wienmuseum.at/). So I am unsure what I need to change to ensure that the article uses sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements and I would greatly appreciate your advice. Sylvia1001 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy link: Draft:Hermann Kremsmayer 2. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 14:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

From the comment given by the reviewer, it seems that the article does not show that even one of the criteria given at WP:CREATIVE has been met. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply! I understand that the article does not seem to meet the required criteria concerning the sources, but I don't understand why. I thought I had used suitable sources following the criteria which I studied, as stated above. And I struggle to understand how to find out why the sources have been rejected... Sylvia1001 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If your best sources really are independent and reliable, then it means they simply don't contain convincing evidence.

But it's possible that some sources may not be independent, and that may be part of the problem. Examples: Any article that contains interview answers (even if not printed in standard interview style) has come from the subject and is therefore not independent. And anything that appears to come from an employer, a client, an associate, or anyone who has promoted or supported the subject in the past, is also not independent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your reply! Sylvia1001 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe part of the problem here may be that 4/6 of your references are offline, which is entirely permissible but can complicate the AfC process if reviewers don't have access to the sources. I also ran into a security error on your first source, leaving kunstnet as the only one that I could access, and that page does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV.

You have quite a lot of additional sources under further reading - would any of those be useful to support the article? The exhibition catalogues won't help with notability, but others might. You'll want to try to flesh out the article itself with information directly from the sources explaining why he's notable, not just describing his style.

The pre-existing draft is a factor as well. As the reviewer noted, it's better to continue working on the original draft so that all the changes can be viewed in one place, rather than starting new versions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for taking your time for this detailed answer. Your explanation was very helpful, I understand it much better now. I really appreciate your help. Sylvia1001 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Capitalisation of initial word of quote

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Assume someone said: "The more, the merrier". How should this be rendered:

1. He said "The more the merrier".

or

2. He said "the more the merrier".

? Loris Bennett (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

When you directly quote the first word of a sentence, it gets a capital letter just like every first word of a sentence does. But if the quotation doesn't include the first word of the sentence, then no capital (unless it's a word that's always capitalized anyway).

There can be more complicated cases to consider, but that is the basic answer. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Examples:

He tried to interrupt, calling out, "Wait, that's the ...!" (Not a complete sentence, but there is the first word of a sentence, so capital.)

He told me they were "like two hammers in a tree". (The first word of my friend's sentence is not quoted; also he seems weird.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not if the hammers were Yellow. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two yellow hammers in a red cedar? We'll need two cans of paint. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loris Bennett (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Article features a link to a YouTube video that no longer works

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Article “Euthanasia Coaster” has a link titled “Urbonas explaining his design”, however when i clicked on it, the YouTube video dosen’t work because it’s no longer around. Therefore i suggest Wayback Machine for this. ~2026-42283-17 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence. See WP:DEADLINK. Archives are a great option when available, but it's a lot of work tracking them down for every single dead link on all of Wikipedia. If you're able to find one but don't feel confident enough fixing the citation yourself you can drop a note on the talk page for any given article with the archive link, and a passing editor can add it in whenever they have time. Otherwise just a quick mention to alert anyone else who might be willing to look for it themselves is fine too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question on reworking draftified LLM translations

Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since I'm new to English Wikipedia and the relevant discussion (Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 9 § User:DddsDD) was already closed, this page looked fitting to post.

I discovered some of the articles that got deleted, cleaned, or draftified back there through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Russia/requested_articles, since I speak Russian natively and English fluently and could help translate and review translations. I'm interested in reworking and un-drafting the LLM-assisted translations that were sent to the Purgatory :) But I'm a bit confused as to how I should go about it. WP:LLMTRANSLATE mentions Template:LLM-assisted_translation being a thing, but those articles are marked with Template:AI-generated. I can interpret this in two ways:

The template was mismatched as context shows that these articles are LLM-translated from Russian into English and are unreviewed for problems; or
The template was intentional and actually meant that the text of the draft needs to be removed due to being AI-generated..? which would probably be odd considering these articles were draftified and not just removed.

I applied the first interpretation when reworking the translation for Draft:Leonid Selyakov (my edit). I was careful to check all of the sources and remove unsourced (most likely hallucinated) details from it, but I did not start from scratch.

Is my approach okay and is the first interpretation correct? Can I do the same for the rest of DddsDD's draftified articles on that list? Thanks! ~2026-41956-73 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

P.S. to be clear, I'm asking because a lot of articles were processed there, and considering the long discussion, I doubt I can assume the template choice to not be deliberate..? ~2026-41956-73 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is only my opinion: When your ease with Russian and your ease with English are both high enough to really succeed at what you're describing, you could create a superior article with less work if you analyzed the references, kept the good references, deleted everything else, and wrote a new one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean translating from scratch (LLM-lessly) or just writing an English language article based on good references without looking at the Russian one?

I did see ways in which the original article could be improved while doing the edit (and will gnome on the Russian Wikipedia counterpart later). However, I lack the expertise in military aerospace engineering to write an article on Selyakov in English from scratch even with the references (WP:CIR?). I do feel confident enough to translate though. ~2026-41956-73 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean translating from scratch (LLM-lessly) or just writing an English language article based on good references without looking at the Russian one?

I think either one of these is far better than trying to repair the LLM garbage. I can see why translating is better than writing your own in this particular case, where you're not an expert on the topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. To fix the existing drafts you would have to not only remove unsourced material, but verify that every single existing statement does match what the source actually says, as the details can be hallucinated while cited to a real source that doesn't support them (which is at least as common as hallucinating the sources themselves). Translating an existing article that was human written and appears accurate to en-Wiki standards sounds easier to me. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your responses, I decided to pass my (now refined) question onto the original AIN/LLMPROD nominator (User talk:Gurkubondinn § Draft:Leonid Selyakov).

As for verifying every statement, while it did take up a lot of work, both the original and the draft article were small enough and had fine enough references that this was easy. I can see how having to only check 3-5 instead of 4-6 texts is less work for myself though. ~2026-41956-73 (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Demonym standardization?

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I see that for some articles regarding yugoslav people/works, the demonym „yugoslavian“ is used. for others, „yugoslav“ is used. yugoslav is the more common and traditional word in the former yugoslavia. is there any standardization of which to use? is it worth changing the occurences of „yugoslavian“ to „yugoslav“? Enkaro (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If there is a standard to adhere to, then I believe the standard would not be what's used in those languages or those countries - it would be what's used in the majority of reliable English sources.

But first, I don't even know which word is used most in English sources, and second, there may be an exception that I'm not aware of. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The usage should ideally be consistent within a single article, and in the assumed absence of any specification in the WP:MOS (I can't find one; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) is probably closest relevant guideline), should probably follow what that article's original creator introduced.

There is less (arguably no) need for consistency between articles (though arguments are welcome).

Overriding other considerations, quotations from sources should always follow what the sources say, even if the article's general practice differs.

That said, if you conclude that the exercise is worth undertaking, you are free to Boldly do so: the worse that can happen is that someone Reverts you, in which case the two (or more) of you can civilly Discuss the matter and reach a consensus, per WP:BRD. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Permissibility of changing templates applied to other users' talk page messages erroneously

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

Occasionally, I browse the list of semi-protected edit requests and see contributors with a COI that have mistakenly applied the {{Request edit}} template thinking that it is a catch-all template for requesting edits of any nature (behaviour seen here). Is it acceptable to change it to the {{Edit COI}} template for them? (behaviour seen here) If so, should/need I inform them of this change? I assume it's frowned upon to edit other users' messages as they represent their individual perspectives, but am unsure whether fixing template issues counts as doing this. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 19:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it is ok but you need to add a note saying that you made this change. Ruslik_Zero 20:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well intended fixes are acceptable in some situations, if they improve comprehension of the situation and aren't unnecessarily pedantic - I've fixed broken templates/links/etc, but I wouldn't go around correcting someone else's typos in talk spaces. As Ruslik said, just be sure to leave them a polite note so the editor understands why it was changed and knows which one to use in the future. It's a common mistake. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. I've gone ahead and explained the change in a reply to the request. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 23:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like that was a different request - make sure you mention it on the one you've linked here as well. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I forgot I did it twice! Thanks for the heads up. I've notified the other user now. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 23:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you do a peer review for a draft?

Latest comment: 1 day ago15 comments8 people in discussion

I have a question. Can a peer review be requested for a draft? Because if so, I would like some feedback on the Draft:Death and funeral of Lindsey Graham. It has been recommended by another editor that in order for Lindsey Graham's death to qualify as a entry for Portal:Current events and its guidelines regarding deaths that has has a significant impact, a standalone article about his death would help that. Regards! ~2026-42293-02 (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the state that it is currently in, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My question is, can a peer review be requested for a draft, yes or no? Because there is always feedback to add and improve on ~2026-42293-02 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You can submit the draft for review, but we don't do pre-review reviews. I didn't fully read the draft for my previous comment, I just skimmed through the references. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Inviting people onto a sinking ship to help paint it is not a good idea, even if that's allowed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What can be done to have the draft meet Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE then? ~2026-42293-02 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing. The event has happened too recently to be notable. Sometimes people try to create articles too soon. The great thing about Wikipedia is that we have time. If Graham's death and funeral are being talked about by sources in a few months, then we can assess his notability then. Until then, you can polish the draft in hope that it will be notable in a few months, or you can work on another project until the draft's notability is more clear. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wait three to five months. Meanwhile, remove the repetition (e.g. Iranian state media reported [the death] in hostile terms, calling him a "warmongering and anti-Iranian" senator. ... Iranian state television ... [called] him a "warmongering" and "anti-Iranian" politician). Add references to material about the death that was published at least a couple of months after the death. Submit. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If accepted as a article, copyediting can always be requested. ~2026-42477-38 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll repeat here the comment I made at the previous incarnation of this (Draft:Death of Lindsey Graham):

Without in any way wishing to disrespect the dearly departed, what is so significant or remarkable about Graham's death that it requires a separate article? People die, even politicians. AFAIK he wasn't assassinated, nor is there some great mystery surrounding his death; it was by natural causes. Most of this draft is about 'reactions', which is just standard practice among the political classes of eulogising a departed peer (friend or foe); by this time next year it'll mostly be so much water under the proverbial bridge.

Expanding the scope to cover also the funeral doesn't fundamentally change things, except in that it introduces more ROTM content about the funeral and arrangements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

For comparison, an existing article: Death and state funeral of George V. Not only was he a British monarch, but the controversy over his physician-assisted death makes it particularly notable (there's additional content about that on his primary article that should probably be moved over). And after nearly a century there's been ample coverage in reliable sources to support said notability. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alexei Navalny has an article about his death and he was an opposition leader. Coretta Scott King has an article about her death too. So does Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she died from pancreatic cancer (see article). As for Lindsey Graham, there are reasons why it's notable:

Lindsey Graham's foreign policy has had a significant impact on the U.S. and across the world, and his death has had a significant impact on Ukraine
He championed a Russia sanctions bill before his death, and he was returning from Kyiv at the time
His death wasn't a assassination like Charlie Kirk or Shinzo Abe but still shocking considering how it happened, and how unexpected his death was
There are notable images that can be used for his funeral ([2])
See ChompyTheGogoat's answer ([3])
In order for his death to qualify for Portal:Current events, it has been recommended that a standalone article is created about his death ([4], [5]).
World leaders have attended his funeral

~2026-42477-38 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My example wasn't in support. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-42293-02 This is the third time you've asked about this draft and the third time you've been told there's no need for a standalone article. I'm not sure why you insist on continuing to waste your own time instead of heeding the advice and dropping the stick. Athanelar (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the point was missed that it doesn't qualify for current events UNLESS a standalone article is approved as notable - the comments are being interpreted as "Write the article and it will qualify". The fact that it would no longer be current once WP:PERSISTENCE is met is admittedly a bit of a catch 22. (I'd argue that we may have missed the window already, but I don't know what the standard is for inclusion.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Creating new artical

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello

I'd like to create a new artical for the (Nothing) CMF Watch series of products as well as the Nothing watch series of which it is a spinoff from. I think they are relevant enough to be included with there now being 3 main iterations as well as a few spinoffs of the CMF watches and more from the Nothing watches as well as them being from a major tech brand that already has its own artical but not specifically on the watches as it mainly focuses on the phones and headphones MorroTheCoder (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, @MorroTheCoder, is your question whether the watches you’d like to write about are relevant enough to merit an article? Without a clear question, the Teahouse editors won’t be able to help you much. Augnablik (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The one and only benchmark on whether such an article should exist is whether there is significant coverage about these products in reliable, independent sources; in other words, whether the golden rule is satisfied. Significant coverage here means that some reviews by tech blogs about the features of the watches wouldn't be significant; take a look at articles like iPhone and G-Shock for examples. These products are notable because they're unique within their industry and so they received significant coverage about the history of their design, release, their impact on the industry etc. Athanelar (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Really? I'd say: "These products are notable because they received significant coverage (from reliable, independent, secondary sources) about the history of their design, release, their impact on the industry etc." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 09:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok so I'd assume they are as they are featured by sources such as TechRadar, Wearable, Mashable, Tech Advisor and Trusted Reviews and has notable features such as their proprietary os, unique software design low price and hardware design as well as the fact that they are present at retail stores worldwide. How do I start an article for them in that case

Thanks MorroTheCoder (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

they are featured by sources such as... Okay, but what do those sources SAY about them? Like I said, this needs to be more than just routine coverage of their features etc.

and has notable features such as... None of that has anything to do with notability in the Wikipedia sense. Athanelar (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Criteria met, article rejected ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Latest comment: 21 hours ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I have an article rejected twice although it meets all required criteria. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen

When rejecting, I was told:

This is asserted to "Meet[] Notability_(academic_journals)", which may well be the case, but in what way does this satisfy WP:NJOURNALS, and what evidence is there to support that? We really need a bit more than just a library catalogue record showing this exists/-ed.

However, the journal appears to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS through Criterion 2 and Criterion 3. It is a historically important scholarly journal that published influential research and continues to be widely cited in the academic literature more than a century after its publication. Its enduring use as a reference in modern scholarship demonstrates a lasting impact on its field beyond the mere fact of its existence. It is archived on wikisource. The article itself is a translation from a Spanish wikipedia where the article existed before… This journal is a historically significant publication, and the fact that it lacks modern secondary sources is largely a consequence of its age, not of its importance. Many comparable historical journals already have Wikipedia articles, often created years ago under less restrictive review practices. The review asks for multiple independent secondary sources demonstrating notability… My difficulty is that, for a nineteenth-century scholarly journal, such sources may simply not exist in the form expected by current AfC standards. Its significance is instead reflected by its continued citation in the academic literature and by its role in the history of scholarship. The catalogue record shows it is kept in at least 64 libraries. If those forms of evidence are considered insufficient, first of all I am in shock, secondly I would appreciate guidance on what kind of sources would satisfy the requirement in this particular case. Teluobir (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

With respect, it does not meet all required criteria. It is very sparsely referenced, so we've no way of knowing whether the (relatively little) information is correct. And whilst you are saying that it is notable, I was asking for some evidence of that, by way of reliable sources. For you to say it is "historically important" or "significant" etc. isn't what we need – those are claims of notability, not evidence.

As for the other things you bring up, being included in a different language version of Wikipedia is neither here nor there; each version is their own separate project with their own rules and requirements, and being included in one does not automatically give a free pass to all the others.

There may well exist articles in the English Wikipedia which are in a worse state still, in what comes to referencing and notability (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but that does not mean we should create more such problems; all new articles must meet our current standards.

Finally, being included in a number of libraries' collection doesn't in and of itself make a publication notable.

Now, FWIW, my gut feel is that this particular one actually is notable, alas my gut feel counts for naught here, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is, either via the WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS routes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Teluobir.

Maybe make it longer. I want to try to contribute to the article, but it seems that the sources are in German (I don't speak German nor can I read it) and for some reason I am banned from the sole reference. It appears that the administrator who declined the draft said that this may be notable, but they want proof and a larger article. They don't want a Wikipedia article just saying it existed, talk about its significance and go into more detail about the botanical drawings.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I won't spend time doing that because there is no source that will "discuss the importance" of this journal. Sources cite this journal —up to this day— without discussing that they have cited it. YIt is a bit sort of how the science works. So I understand only two options are possible:

Finding sources that "discuss the journal", which won't happen. No journal has a paper discussing it as such.
Include tons of references of the important articles which, until today, use this journal as a relevant source

One is impossible, the other is absurd, time consuming, and goes against other rules —and common sense.

I am also asked to provide more efforts for writing more text, knowing the chances of this text being deleted/placed in draft are 100%.

I am sorry, I am not a masoscist. I am here for knowledge and Ir egret admins' first reaction is deletion before other alternatives —banner on top, message, trying themselves to find additional sources, or go beyond gut-led administration.

I am as all of you volunteers and honestly this is going to far for me. This wikipedia is becoming full of tiktoper's pages but we can not pass this journal? Won't fight against something way bigger than me. I already submitted it twice and it was rejected twice. In the country I was born in they say "never 2 without a 3rd"

best Teluobir (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Try looking up other journals (especially older ones) and see what types of sources they use that show notability. It doesn't have to be modern sources - older ones from its heyday, including offline sources, are perfectly acceptable. If you're not willing to make that effort, why would you expect others to do it? There's already a massive backlog at AfC, and if reviewers spent all their time trying to fix submitted drafts they'd never make any progress on it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello @ChompyTheGogoat.

Did you even read their message?

User:Teluobir

Thanks. LightningThrower (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't make a habit of checking userpages just to reply to discussions. I suppose if they're going to rage quit over this one article we can consider the matter closed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Fair enough. Sometimes I don't fully understand deletes either, and regardless of policy, aren't you supposed to add to the encyclopedia? I think WP:IAR should be used more often, but it's not. LightningThrower (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LightningThrower If you don't fully understand why this wasn't accepted, after you already gave one of the main reasons yourself, then that would be a problem for you. And IAR never says when you ignore rules it will always be accepted just because you quote the letters IAR - that would be ridiculous. An article just proving that some journal exists is, unfortunately, a garbage article, and no you're not "supposed to add to the encyclopedia" by throwing in garbage. If this article was improved, including in the way you described plus whatever else it needed but didn't have yet, it would be fine; that doesn't make it already fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I do understand, I said "sometimes".

I get your point.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

IMHO IAR is pointed at all too often, as if the rules shouldn't exist in the first place, rather than an exception when existing rules interfere with significant improvements to the wiki. While I'm inclined to agree with DG that this probably is in fact notable, the article in its current form does not prove that nor measurably improve en-WP. It's a two sentence stub with one quasi-reference that essentially amounts to "Trust me bro" in terms of notability. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Teluobir @ChompyTheGogoat @LightningThrower: If there are known-good references that have been left out because they're in German, and if they're free to access online, then I'd be happy to read them and provide translations of the parts that are relevant. My German is not fast enough for free-form conversation, but I'm OK when reading slowly. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Generous of you to offer, but it appears to be moot at this point (unless someone else with access to sources steps up). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh. That there is quite the Abhandlung. :( TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe the appropriate vernacular is "flounce". ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Feedback on my draft page for a Catholic church

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I’d be really grateful for any feedback regarding a draft page I’m making: Draft:St William of York, Thornton. This is a page for a uniquely designed Catholic Church near my hometown, but to which I am not financially or otherwise connected. It is the sister church of St Mary’s Little Crosby which already has a fairly detailed page. I have submitted the page for approval twice and was declined both times. Do you have any pointers as to what I am doing wrong? I thought that I’d start with a simple page and then build it up with detail after it was approved - do I have to add more detail in the draft edition? I have also provided three sources - are there any issues with these? Many thanks in advance for any assistance. MsKingfisher (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Have you read the information provided in the decline notices, including clicking the links they contain and reading the pages they refer to? The decline notices seem to be fairly clear in explaining the decline. Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @MsKingfisher, 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..

On a brief look, it does not appear to me that any of your three sources is unconnected with this church.

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) 18:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nominations/Pépé Bradock

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello everyone!

I have been working on a DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Pépé Bradock

for a recently published article - for some reason I did not receive notices that editors were discussing it, so it fell behind schedule. In any case, I have been working on it and it is ready to go with an image etc. but it needs a promotion to go forward. How do I do this?

It's quite a fun DYK and I am trying to encourage more people from the electronic music scene to edit.

… that French edm producer Pépé Bradock, opened an album with a track-name tribute to Abul-Abbas, the white elephant gifted to Charlemagne by Harun al-Rashid?

Source: https://ra.co/news/43496

with imagehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P%C3%A9p%C3%A9_Bradock_%E2%80%93_6_Millions_Pintades_EP_vinyl_-_6_Millions_Pintades_Atavisme_logo.jpg

Any insights would be appreciated!

Best regards, I&I22 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aha progress yay! But also help?

Approved DYK just needs another another nominator/promoter or will be Timedout and all work lost booOoooo!

Is anyone looking for something to do?

I have a DYK that has been approved and needs to be promoted ASAP as it will be subject to TIMEOUT but it needs an uninvolved nominator/promoter.

I have no idea if I can ask editors directly to do this?

Learning and don't want to have wasted my time on this fun fact just due to being missed in the queue.

Thanks so much! I&I22 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok this traffic issue was resolved, yay!

So please feel free to archive this chat with myself as you need.

All the very best and hope everyone is a having a fun time editing, I&I22 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maniac, TV series

Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Duplicated at Help Desk

Hi, I've requested that Maniac (Norwegian TV series) be moved to Maniac (TV series). I'm not familiar with the relevant naming conventions, but it seems to me that a TV series is not ambiguous with the miniseries Maniac (miniseries). Any clarification or input would be appreciated at Talk:Maniac (Norwegian TV series). ~2026-42304-89 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Editing a title to an article

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I feel a little silly because I've been editing for, geeze, 7 or 8? years. But I created a new article and I want to edit the title, and I can't figure out how to do that. Help appreciated. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 13:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You want WP:MOVE. DS (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Explain Project Pages Mechanics

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Also, can someone explain the mechanics of project pages to me? The top of the project page's talk page always includes a list of articles to be improved: how do those get there? And pages that meet qualifications to be included in the project receive a rating and an importance level related to the project: how is that managed and then implemented? pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 13:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Pickalittletalkalittle, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not an expert on WikiProjects, but as far as I know, there is no mechanism: the project pages get edited by members of the WikiProject as they see fit. ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lusaka Times

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone do some maintenance on a page? This should be either drafted or speedy deleted.. no real references or media coverage.

I think it’s a sock puppet account as well,

Lusaka Times. ~2026-42422-32 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

LLM Content

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am pretty sure this is LLM generated, you can tell by the abbreviations in parentheses. Logistics in South Africa. ~2026-42422-32 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A good place for this type of concern is the AI noticeboard. Editors there have a lot of practice determining whether text is LLM, checking other edits by the same editor(s), and taking appropriate action. M kuhner (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I created a disambiguation page on Wikipedia - is it any good?

Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Recently, I created the disambiguation page Magical Adventure (disambiguation) after noticing it in the title of two films. Is this okay for Wikipedia, because both films have the subtitle "Magical Adventure" in them. I wanted to know as I usually create redirect pages, but this is my first Wikipedia disambiguation page. Unopened VHS tape (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We usually don't make 'dab' pages when there are only two entries; in such cases each can have a hatnote to the other.

I added {{Disambiguation}} to the foot of the page.

Otherwise, it looks fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh, sorry. So you mean The Wiggles Movie (because its international title says Magical Adventure and not A Magical Adventure) should have a hatnote to Winx Club 3D: Magical Adventure and vice versa? Or should it be a disambiguation page? Unopened VHS tape (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

i added hatnotes to the Winx page on the Wiggles one and the Wiggles page on the Winx one. So should the disambiguation page stay? Unopened VHS tape (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Preliminary feedback requested for Draft:András Lénárd

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello,

I have submitted Draft:András Lénárd for Articles for Creation review.

The draft is a full English translation of the reviewed Hungarian article: hu:Lénárd András

A Romanian-language version has also been published: ro:András Lénárd

Could an experienced editor please check whether there are any obvious issues with the draft’s sources, notability, neutrality or formatting that I should correct while it is waiting for formal review?

I understand that the existence of articles in other language editions does not by itself establish notability on the English Wikipedia. I am not requesting priority review; I would only appreciate preliminary guidance on any clear problems.

Thank you. Gráncsa Zsolt (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have submitted it for review; the reviewer will do exactly what you are asking for, so there is no need for a pre-review review. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use multiple forums to seek help. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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.

Earning good standing for WP:IPBE?

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am subject to Internet restrictions in Russia, which hinders my ability to see a large portion of media on Wikipedia (CDN blocks?), and as such, to edit. I usually use paid VPN services (that still get blocked from editing as open proxy), but right now I use DPI bypass services and Tor whenever I need to see restricted content. It is inconvenient to have to switch around to look at media and edit simultaneously, and as such, I would like to request for an IPBE as described in Wikipedia:IP block exemption § Used for anonymous proxy editing. However, I am a (very) new editor, and my good standing (or grounds to believe I'm not a raging maniac I guess) may not exist yet.

Is there a rough estimate of how long my account should exist and how many edits I should make on Wikipedia before I can apply for an IPBE, or can I try right now? — EmoryNB ^(they/them) ^talk ^contribs 15:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware, the standard for "trust" is actual trust, and that can't be estimated by looking at any kind of numbers or statistics. (Someone may say they won't trust anyone whose numbers are a certain way - but that is who they won't trust. Who they will trust has no number estimates.)

Also, as far as I'm aware, there is never permission for Tor, not even for administrators. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, as far as I'm aware, there is never permission for Tor, not even for administrators.

I don't think that's true: Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor (this essay also points to IPBEs being grantable for Tor)

Either way, I read on the matter a little further and I guess I'll wait before at least getting autoconfirmed, and then I can hopefully be granted an IPBE for a short timespan to start off. — EmoryNB ^(they/them) ^talk ^contribs 03:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I hope it all turns out well. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Sunil

Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Sock

Draft:Sunil

I selected some of the articles. Could someone's please check whether the sources used in it are appropriate? As you mentioned, the page could be deleted if the sources aren't sufficient. Angrybirdsuperstar (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The subject's name appears to be "Sunil Gehani" not just "Sunil".

Which three sources meet all of the requirements at WP:Golden rule?

When you have cited three such sources, and not before, please submit the draft for review, using the process described at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

~~Could you please change the draft title to Draft:Sunil Gehani? I'm not sure how to move or rename a draft page. Angrybirdsuperstar (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Angrybirdsuperstar I've made the move to Draft:Sunil Gehani. Please note MOS:SURNAME. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

... I checked the first 2 citations and they do not mention Sunil Gehani. Did you use a chatbot to draft this article and. if not, how do you explain this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Curiosity killed the North Korean

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The knowledge of notability following my first article (WP:EASTEREGG) has led to me wondering what happens to North Korean news and what do WP volunteers do there lol -3 NCL TRICOLOR (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We're just about as in the dark about North Korea sources-wise as everyone else outside of the Korean peninsula. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Verify PBS Airdate of Titicut Follies

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

According to this user, there is a non-free source that contains the true airdate of the aforementioned Documentary. I was told to forward this question to the Teahouse in hopes someone could either pay for the source and access the airdate, or verify elsewhere that the airdate is September of 1992. Thanks :) This Name Isn't Available (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @This Name Isn't Available, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It is possible that somebody reading this will be able to help; but a better place to ask is at the Resource Exchange ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, new to asking for help on wikipedia! I appreciate your patience. This Name Isn't Available (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to apologise for, @This Name Isn't Available: there is a huge amount to learn about Wikipedia, and we all had to start somewhere! ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rating confirmation

Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I've edited for a bit now but, I still do not fully understand the rating process.

Is there anyone specific who does it, or is just everyone who wants to?

I would like to ask how would you rate this article which I've recently put into the mainspace and advice on what to change.

I hope I'm not asking in the wrong place.

Thanks. Edit: this article Pacifism in France Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean class ratings (start class, C class, featured, etc.)? Or in regard to WikiProjects (low importance, mid importance, high importance, etc.)? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Class ratings and also just general quality (i.e just how good/bad it is).

Thanks for your quick reply. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't already, you should read Wikipedia:Content assessment. As an AfC reviewer, I personally start with the sources to assess its general quality—if the sources are low quality/unreliable, the article is low quality. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have read it but, it left me a little confused-is there any set process other than option of asking for a review which has backlogs (not a criticism but just an issue) as it seems to say you can upgrade up to B class.

To be honest, I think my sources are good but, please correct me.

Thanks for everything. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my comment wasn't meant to throw any shade on your sources; a cursory review seems to show that you've got a decent collection. I'm not sure if there's any other process to upgrade your rating, though, apologies. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Genuinely, I was just asking, sorry if my tone was off. So the process is to just add my article to the page and wait for the review, do you have a timescale (ish of how long it will take)?

Thanks for all your time and help-I really appreciate it. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I was worried about my tone. Yours was fine, no worries! I'm not sure how long that would take (I'm not usually involved in that process). You could ask on the talk page? Thanks for being clear in your messages, and sorry I couldn't offer more details. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate the work you do in helping people. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mass shootings in Canada categoriy 2026 Montreal shooting

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are you looking for 2026 Montreal shooting? This is the Teahouse, where you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. If you're trying to search for articles, the search bar is usually at the top of the screen next to the magnifying glass icon. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, I just wanted to ask if 2026 Montreal Shooting deserves to be in the category of Canadian shootings. TheDinkDummyProdutionTV (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is a Canadian shooting, so I don't see why not? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is presenting works for comparison in a table OR?

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I am looking to expand Wikipedia coverage of Haitian Vodou lwa" spiritual nations (nanchons) into its own article. However, one of the issues is that sources widely vary in what specific nations there are, and how many there are, etc. I was considering that I could present this as a table, with nations as rows, the source author as each column (with reference in the header), and a note of whether the author includes that given nation as one of the constituent '13/17/21 Nations' of Haitian Vodou, plus any transliteration differences - maybe by coloring the cells for readability. Would this be considered original research, if I am just presenting the differences and the list preamble keeps distance from any synthesis (i.e. along the lines of "authors have different lists, here are some")? Thank you for your time, chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Showing that reliable sources differ, without mixing the sources' separate messages into one message, and without any conclusions from you, is not original research. (But make very sure all the sources are reliable ones.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notability of a sculpture's vandalism and defamation potential

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I'm currently (very gradually) working on a draft article for a sculpture that was quite famously^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] vandalised last year. Is it considered appropriate to include this in the article, and, if so, how should I go about referring to the vandal? She is named in most of the sources, but I'm unsure of policies and procedures regarding whether it is appropriate to include her name.

References

~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 22:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Crtbob. We do not include the names of people who have been accused of relatively minor offenses, especially when they have not been convicted. Please read the relevant policy language at WP:SUSPECT and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice. While the vandal has been convicted, I'll still abide by the guidance of Wikipedia:NPF and exclude the name. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 00:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

logo shown is incorrect for St. Mary's College of Maryland

Latest comment: 16 hours ago8 comments5 people in discussion

On St. Mary's College of Maryland there is a logo of a College seal depicted as the logo for the college. However, the college brand style guide (reference #4) explains that the College seal is reserved for presidential use and is not the general College logo. The correct College logo is the name of the College, explained in the brand style guide (reference #4) is at this page: File:St_mary_college_md_logo_motto.png.~2026-42174-60 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The correct place to discuss this issue is Talk:St. Mary's College of Maryland. Please provide a link there to the style guide. Please also be aware that Wikipedia is not bound by style guides published by the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, it indeed is not bound by style guides. But when, as for File:Smcm-seal.png, it claims that its use of conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") material is "fair", it does have to follow Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This college has been applying its seal to diplomas since 1877. Unless the seal has been completely redesigned, it is almost certainly in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This just came up on a different article recently. For reasons I don't understand (but that have almost certainly been discussed somewhere on here at some point in time), using the seal as the primary logo appears to be the accepted standard on en-WP. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The weird thing is that the info-box doesn't actually specify what the top image (the seal) actually is. There is no title saying "logo", and the "real" logo does in fact appear further down the infobox. If you look behind the scenes, you will find that the seal is supplied as a parameter to "image=", while the logo is actually in a section "logo=", so the info-box does know what it's doing. Unfortunately the reader doesn't know what it's doing! Maybe this is a problem with college info-boxes, and that the image at the top of the info-box should be correctly labelled as a seal rather than a logo? Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's how they all are. Like I said, I don't know why either, but it's definitely established practice and not just a standalone mistake. You could try asking at WP:WikiProject Higher education.

(It also appears that poorly rasterized text is an established practice, so.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The suggestion there was that it might be helpful to use the "Caption" parameter to indicate that the image at the top of the infobox is a seal (and not the logo). I've done so, I hope it's more clear? I can't think of a way to show readers looking for a logo that they need to go further down in the box. The actual logo is unfortunately not labelled as such. Elemimele (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Advice

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Bit random but I wasn't sure where else to ask. I've been editing Wikipedia off and on since January 2022. Recently I've found that it's frustrating me and I've been letting my emotions get the better of me. I mainly edit in the football space, which is constantly changing (especially during the transfer windows currently opens)

What should I do? Do I need to take a long break or is it that I need to scale it back slowly? Or something else? I appreciate it's a bit random but I wasn't sure where else to ask. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That depends on the person. Some people might find it beneficial to completely take a break from Wikipedia (see WP:Wikibreak). Others might just want to slowly decrease their activity on Wikipedia, or just edit in a different area of Wikipedia. It's entirely up to you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've tried wikibreaks but always come back, haha. Maybe I do need to scale it back at the moment, it has become frustrating. Thanks for your response :) RossEvans19 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Frustration and heightened emotional reactions happen for different reasons. In some cases, "cooling down" of the symptoms is enough; in other cases, it might be necessary to wait until the underlying causes get resolved, or reduced to a more manageable level.

I don't follow the sport, but I'm sure there have been cases where a player returns to football too soon and ends up aggravating their previous injury. A visible example for all to avoid if possible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Feedback requested on draft for Carnatic percussionist Amrit Nataraj

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone!

I have prepared a draft for Indian classical percussionist Amrit Nataraj (also known as Bangalore Amrit / Khanjira Amrit), available at Draft:Amrit Nataraj.

The draft covers his background in Carnatic music, international collaborations, discography, and teaching work, fully cited using coverage from sources like The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Bangalore Mirror, and academic publications.

I would greatly appreciate it if an experienced editor could review it to ensure:

The tone strictly adheres to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV).
The reliable independent sources sufficiently satisfy WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG.
The infobox and citation templates are properly formatted.

Thank you so much for your time and guidance! Krisys (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use AI to communicate with us, nor for that matter to create articles. I have declined your draft as it appears to contain AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Questions I got while working on User:EmoryNB/sandbox/VK_Music

Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion

User:EmoryNB/sandbox/VK_Music

VK Music was one of the articles that were apparently AI-generated / poorly translated by DddsDD in the past (see this AINB thread), so I decided to take translating its Russian counterpart (ru:VK Музыка) for the English Wikipedia from scratch, as the original draft was LLMPROD-deleted either way.

I've been translating post and article titles in my cited references for both of my last translations. Is this okay or should I instead leave their original names in Russian? Should author names be transliterated or not?
User:EmoryNB/sandbox/VK Music § History takes up ~2 A4 pages already and all 23 references of the draft are used there. Should it be split, should some developments be left out, or is it fine to have a History section this long for an otherwise stub-y article? I have the idea of moving user/subscriber figures into tables/graphs and collecting more for every year/quarter to be placed in a different section ("Statistics"?), but I don't know how to do that yet...
Are Habr sources (blog posts) reliable to cite for Wikipedia articles?

Thanks! — EmoryNB ^(they/them) ^talk ^contribs 08:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, EmoryNB, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Citation templates allow passing both the titles of references in the original language and its translation. For example, see description of script-title and trans-title at Template:Cite web#Title.
The size of the "History" section is fine.
No, as these blog posts are user-generated, quote: Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources.
- If written by employees of VK Music, these would be primary sources, but it can be hard to confirm that such blog posts are self-published, i.e. that it's not someone pretending to be an employee. Even with confirmation, such sources must be used extremely carefully (see policy), and cannot be used to establish notability.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Is it okay to leave out the romanization (i.e. not fill out title=... itself) and just go with script-title=ru:... and trans-title=...? I kinda don't wanna bother with it lol — EmoryNB ^(they/them) ^talk ^contribs 09:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm still not sure whether author names should be romanized or left in Cyrillic, the documentation seems to be silent on that. — EmoryNB ^(they/them) ^talk ^contribs 10:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

While there's nothing inherently wrong with the length of the History section, basic statistics presented in tables do make for a cleaner look than writing them all in prose, so I think that would make for an optional improvement. The remaining prose would focus on the most significant events in their history that justify a more detailed explanation. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category question from Emmanbotan

Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why a categorie isnt showing up Hey so i was searching for a category in wikipedia from google called endemic flora of samoa, but its not showing up, even though the page exists, and you fix it? Emmanbotan (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Emmanbotan, hello and welcome to Teahouse! The category page you are talking about is Category:Endemic flora of Samoa.

What issue with the category are you seeing? On which page is the issue visible? Please include a wikilink. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alright so everytime i search up the Endemic flora of Samoa category on google, It didn't show up, which is weird because it showed up before that, and also i made a page called Clinostigma warburgii which has been accepted but wasn't shown in the google search results. Emmanbotan (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Emmanbotan We can't control how search engines index Wikipedia categories but we do control their access to new articles. Google's bots are not allowed to index articles until they have been marked as reviewed by the WP:New Pages Patrol, or after 90 days. The logs for Clinostigma warburgii show it has not yet been reviewed (see link at top left of its history page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

ohhhh Emmanbotan (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can't edit. What's going on?

Latest comment: 12 hours ago23 comments6 people in discussion

It started at Franz Kafka, which, next to each section has [edit | edit source]. Other articles have just [edit]. But none of them allows me to edit. When I click on [edit] a blue line goes across the top of the page and the entire article becomes faint. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the page zoomed in to see it better? Shrink it back down to the smallest it will go, and see if there's a message on your screen somewhere. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The size looks normal. I've never zoomed in and wouldn't know how. How do I shrink it down? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ctrl+0 (or Cmd+0 for mac) on most browsers should reset a page to its default size. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 11:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but Ctrl+0 (I have Windows 10) doesn't do anything. Since the size looks normal, maybe it's already at its default size Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any trouble there or elsewhere. Can you try using a different browser or device? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I get the same result with both your suggestions. If it's not the browser and not the device, what could be the problem? I spend too much time editing anyway.☺ Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Maurice Magnus That blue line is the WP:Visual editor firing up. I've just tried this on Franz Kafka and it takes a few seconds to kick in. You would be better to edit that article usng the WP:Source editor, checking in you preferences that you have the option to use both. See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, now I see it. I don't use visual often but I've never seen it this laggy before. It loads eventually if I'm in mobile, but totally froze in desktop mode. Possibly server issues? Source editing appears fine. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I switch from visual editor to source editor? I've never used visual editor, but that's what comes up now. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, the catch-22 is that the editor has to actually load in the first place - then you can click on the pencil icon in the top right to toggle between them. The edit source links might take you there without toggling, but it appears to still have to load through visual in order to get there, and it still just hangs for me when I try it in desktop mode. I'd recommend switching to mobile (which will work regardless of your device) and going to edit > toggle source mode from there. It should remember your choice even if you don't actually save an edit, and source editing will be fine when you swap back to desktop. The mobile/desktop option is at the very bottom of any page. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suspect part of the issue may be the extremely long list of both references and sources on that particular article. I just tried on a shorter one and visual was still boggy, but did eventually load instead of just locking the page up. I'm getting intermittent lag even when I'm not editing so it definitely seems like the servers are a bit hiccupy today. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your instructions. It's working again. I've never used visual edit, and I don't know how I got there. I also never knew what the pencil icon was for. But I just made an edit to Franz Kafka, so thanks again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was equally confused when I somehow toggled desktop mode by accident the first time ;) Glad it's working for you again, and hopefully someone gets the servers back on track soon so everyone who does usual visual editor on purpose won't be running into this! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The following is not a problem, but an oddity. What I wrote in the first line of this Teahouse comment -- that at Franz Kafka, next to each section is [edit | edit source], but other articles have just [edit] -- remains true. It is not a problem because I know now that, if I click on [edit source], I'll get to source editing. I just have to remember not to click on [edit], or I'll get visual editing, which I don't use. It would be nice if Franz Kafka, like all other Wikipedia articles I've checked, had just [edit], but I can live with it as it is. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Maurice Magnus: I guess you have "Always give me the source editor" under "Editing mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. It appears this setting is not respected by articles in Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages. I don't know why. It may be a bug. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing I have "Remember my last editor," which I didn't choose, because I was unaware of this page. (Despite having made 24,000 edits over more than 8 years, I have not educated myself much in the technical aspects of Wikipedia.) Would it be to my advantage to change it to "Always give me source editor"? Also, "Enable the visual editor" is checked, again, not by my decision. Should I leave it checked? Thanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

To make things even more interesting, at one point while I was testing it the "edit source" link changed and they both said edit. I don't know if it was a glitch while the page was attempting to load or what. In mobile there's only the single edit icon (rather than text), that loads to whichever I used last. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that @ChompyTheGogoat is wrong, in that source editing doesn't first have to "to load through visual [editor]". So, @Maurice Magnus, if you hardly ever edit using the visual editor, you would be best to disable it in your preferences. Another useful tip is to check the gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, under "Appearance" which allows you to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page", hence not having to open the whole source code just to edit a WP:LEAD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I took your advice and disabled visual editor and checked "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page. What about my question whether I should retain "Remember my last editor" or change it to "Always give me source editor"? I really appreciate your help. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Maurice Magnus: The whole "Editing mode" selection with those options should disappear if you disable VisualEditor and save preferences. If you still see it but don't want VisualEditor then select "Always give me the source editor". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it disappeared, so my question was unnecessary. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know it does, because it sat there attempting to load visual when I clicked on that. For whatever reason. And that article didn't want to behave in desktop/visual regardless of which part I tried to edit. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, disabling visual editor got rid of "[edit | edit source]" at the top of each section of Franz Kafka. It now has just [edit source}, as it used to and as I preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs)

Why are we using Vancouver style referencing?

Latest comment: 7 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I've always been in the habit of using the cite-journal template to produce references to journals, this using the last1=, first1= format, and allowing unlimited authors. I've just had a couple of my references written this way corrected to use Vancouver-style referencing, with vauthors=.... This would be fine, but I note that Vancouver style truncates the author list at 6, which is a really bad idea for our readers when, as is often the case, the last author is the most important person in the list, the person who ran the group, directed the research, had the original idea, planned the entire thing, wrote the grant proposal, recruited the (also super-important!) first author, and wrote most of the manuscript. It's often really useful to know the last author as it identifies what "stable" the work comes from. Wouldn't it be better to allow inclusion of all authors where possible? A second question, if I must use Vancouver-style referencing, what am I supposed to do with hyphenated first-names. Hans-Joachim Schmidt should normally be written H-J Schmidt, not HJ Schmidt, but Vancouver referencing doesn't permit this. What are we supposed to do? Elemimele (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that style of referencing is required anywhere, unless you were adding to an article that has already been using Vancouver style for a long time and they were making yours fit in with the rest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation; that was probably the case. I think it's a pretty crap style of referencing, but I know it's one of the accepted schemes, so there we are... still useful to know about hyphenated names though, if anyone knows? Elemimele (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

From what I've seen, such names do come out Schmidt HJ, and everyone acts as if it's normal. I could be wrong because I don't read this kind of thing very much. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification! Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Elemimele There are bots run, for example, by User:Boghog which will turn the |last= |first= author style into Vancouver style if the first-used style in the article was Vancouver, justifying this as "consistent citation fomatting". I know that others have complained about this especially as the citation expander tool and citer at toolforge both default to |last= |first= and as far as I'm aware there is no bot used regularly to go in the reverse direction. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is important to note Wikipedia does not have a default citation style. Truncation at 6 authors is not a Vancouver requirement nor is it unique to the Vancouver style. If you want to display all the authors, simply remove the |display-authors=6 parameter. If you want to display hyphenated first names, wrap the the author in double parentheses, for example |vauthors=((Schmid H-J)). No major general-purpose referencing system uses the senior (last) author's name in the standard parenthetical in-text citation. Almost all author–date systems are based on the first author, because that is the conventional sorting order in bibliographies.

Many of the biomedical (disease, drug, enzyme, gene, etc.) articles were created with the help of the Wikipedia template filling tool. So Vancouver is the established style in many of these articles. The |vauthors= parameter is much more compact, produces consistent author formatting, and provides better validation. Any |vauthors= data that does not conform to the Vancouver format will trigger an error, whereas |last= and |first= accept virtually any text, including nonsensical input such as "!@#$%^&*". Finally, while this is a matter of preference, I find that Vancouver-style author formatting gives citations a cleaner, more modern appearance. Boghog (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion

Latest comment: 21 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I have had a draft submission declined due to the references not showing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. I was a bit unclear on what the issue was, but I have updated the draft page for Draft:Motorpoint with different / additional references and wondered if anyone was able to sense check whether the additional references meet these criteria please before I submit it for review again? Rainu Bhele (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rainu Bhele The thing to pay attention to is WP:CORPDEPTH. It looks to me like your sources seem to be reporting on the routine business activities of the company rather than providing any significant coverage (i.e., unique, in-depth attention to the company's history, impact on its industry etc.) The vast majority of companies in the world do not attract this kind of coverage and so do not meet our requirements. Please also see WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Athanelar thanks for getting back to me, I'll take a look Rainu Bhele (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not always - but most of the time - the kind of material that's needed for this is long articles that were written for the general public, and that do not quote anyone from the company.

Most of the time, trade and industry publications cover things that are insignificant to anyone outside that business, and they also avoid giving negative coverage to anyone in their field, making them automatically biased; interviews are strongly influenced by the subject, and therefore not independent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Robert Hegyes

Latest comment: 21 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His claim to fame was Welcome Back Kotter which wasn't noted or mentioned on his page!?? ~2026-42587-78 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What? It's in the first sentence, with a link! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help, i’m desperatly trying to find the 2021 CG Arabic Astroganger sequel

Latest comment: 16 hours ago8 comments5 people in discussion

LTA evading block. Athanelar (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

I know this may not be appropriate to ask on the Teahouse, but it is related to Wikipedia. I read this information in the Japanese Wikipedia article of Astroganger and i may have read it somewhere in English Wikipedia about middle eastern anime, although it may have most likely featured different middle eastern anime, and not about this CG Astroganger sequel. The following text on the Japanese Wikipedia was: “2021年には中東のスタッフによるCG続編アニメが製作され、YouTubeで公開された。本編の10年後の世界を舞台に展開され、カンタローはガンガーのペンダント内でコードに繋がれた生体ユニットと言う解釈がなされている。“, which when translated is “In 2021, a CG sequel anime was produced by Middle Eastern staff and released on YouTube. It is set in the world 10 years after the main story, and Cantaro is interpreted as a biological unit connected to the cord in the Ganger's pendant.”. Despite information about the Astroganger sequel being on multiple websites on the Japanese internet, i for the life of god coundl’t find this sequel. I searching it online and asking duck.AI to find this sequel, but it coundl’t find it. Can someone help me find this sequel? ~2026-42464-31 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could it be vandalism? DS (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@DragonflySixtyseven No, this information is in multiple Japanese websites. ~2026-42464-31 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You could try asking at WP:REFERENCEDESK, but this sounds pretty niche and it might be hard to find anyone who can answer it. Sometimes I have better luck with things like that on Reddit. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@ChompyTheGogoat But i need a Wikipedia account to post on WP:REFERENCEDESK, and i don’t have a Wikipedia account nor a Reddit account. So what should i do? ~2026-42464-31 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@ChompyTheGogoat Also, Astroganger isn’t niche at all in Arabic-speaking world. But even stuff that isn’t niche at all can get difficult to find or be obscure or become lost media. ~2026-42400-97 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@ChompyTheGogoat And by “not niche at all”, i mean that Astroganger was very popular in the Arabic-speaking world, so it is well-known in the Arabic-speaking world. So it does make sense why a CG sequel would have been made in the Arabic-speaking world. ~2026-42400-97 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

ZoomInfo - Page Update Request

Latest comment: 17 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I am submitting page revision requests for some of the content on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoomInfo) via the Talk page and was hoping to have an experienced editor assist in this process. I want to ensure my feedback aligns with Wikipedia page and topic standards. Really appreciate any support or assistance you can provide. ~2026-42346-67 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-42346-67 You haven't submitted your edit requests properly. Please use the WP:Edit request wizard to help you. Athanelar (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help and Mentorship in creating first page

Latest comment: 11 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi All,

I'm a music fan and new to wiki (been a month), I've been editing pages for musicians and music labels that lack correct or updated info such as Pritam/Tarkan etc, I tried creating a page recently and wish to create pages for many such record labels and musicians.

I keep getting feedback on the page and so would like to ask for mentorship in creating my first article and guidance so that i can create pages for musicians that are well known but for some reason not yet on the platform.

This forum was advised to me by 'gurkubondinn' to seek someone to help create the page with me.

thank you! :) , Sasha Sasha2026 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sasha2026 You would be most likely to get help by asking at one of the Talk Pages of WP:PROJDIR/MUS, our Project on music. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes i had last week but no one replied, seems that specific page of record labels isn't active :(. Hence asking here Sasha2026 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sasha2026 I don't edit in this topic area very often, but I recommend you take a look at the criteria laid out at WP:MUSICBIO as a first step. While you do your research for suitable sources, keep in mind that the musician needs to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, published works that are independent of the artist themselves. Further guidance regarding these general criteria as they pertain to musicians is also found at WP:MUSICBIO.

To get a sense of how a good article about a musician might look like, I recommend reading through as many featured articles about musicians as you can (your article doesn't need to be as comprehensive, of course). Once you're confident you can write up a decent article, I suggest creating a draft through WP:Articles for creation and submitting it for review once finished. If you have further questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ambition

Latest comment: 15 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, do you think Ambition should be deleted, or does it have the potential to be expanded? Is the topic encyclopedic? In its current state, it reads more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. ~2026-42488-29 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, basically any article can be expanded with reliable sources. As to if that one should be deleted as dictionary definition? I think the article would survive that discussion. LightlySeared (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-42488-29 There are literally thousands of Google scholar hits with "ambition" in the title and written after 2020. Surely the Wikipedia article could be improved with some of those, for anyone who has the ambition to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requesting Feedback on Revision for Declined Submission

Latest comment: 8 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello - my submission Draft:Adrian (company) was recently declined. I have a revised version, but would like feedback before resubmitting if possible. Any direction or feedback would be appreciated.

Revised Version posted on my talk page: User talk:AndyHendricks#c-AndyHendricks-20260731174600-New Adrian Draft

Apologies if this is not the best way to share a revision! AndyHendricks (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Per Feedback I edited Draft:Adrian (company) with the new version rather than my talk page AndyHendricks (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@AndyHendricks I suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE, WP:NOLLM and WP:NCORP; in about that order. Athanelar (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Andy The article isn't encyclopedic. Reading the article, I have no idea what's special about this company. Half-way-around-the-world, why should I care about this random company in Michigan? For that matter, if I lived in Lansing or Detroit, why would this company be interesting? (Besides that your boss probably thinks it would be good for the company to have a page.) Most of the History section is really about Bob W. When you delete that, what do you have besides a directory listing? ~~You might actually be better off trying to write an article about him.~~ Mme Maigret (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see there is an article on him. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do I make a convincing looking 'fake' article for an art project?

Latest comment: 8 hours ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Looking to do some unfiction involving Wikipedia screenshots, including talk pages. I fiddled around with the sandbox, but it's not quite convincing enough, there are some giveaways that the article is fake. Plus, I want to include some talk pages and I'm not sure how I would spoof that. Is there any way that I can create or host something akin to a source code mirror to make 'real' Wikipedia webpages that I can screenshot?

I am not trying to trick anybody. The information in the articles will be clearly fictional. None of the articles will be posted publicly, I'm only going to be taking screenshots of them.

For those interested, here are the specifics: I'm making a diagetic 'shitpost' for the web-game corru.observer. It will be in the format of a video, with screenshots edited over music. These articles will be about the history of a fictional race of aliens. I am also going to include talk pages and a single user page. I need to be able to spoof all these document styles from the perspective of someone who is not signed into Wikipedia. (Also, as the video will take place in 2103, I think it would be cool to include a banner saying 'CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF WIKIPEDIA' or similar to place the video distinctly in time, but that's optional. Would be very handy though!) Dearlacy (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, this very much not what Wikipedia is for, so please don't do this here or in your user space.

There's no such thing as not posting an article publicly here.

If you really, really, need it to look like Wikipedia without getting in trouble, you will probably need to install MediaWiki (the software we run on) on your own device. Here's the manual on how to do that. LightlySeared (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! This is what I was looking for. Dearlacy (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Dearlacy Wikipedia is very much a real service that provides people with real information about subjects, so if you were to make some creative fictional content and frame it as an article, it would put Wikipedia's credibility at risk, and people can pass the article on as real information, especially if the content has real names and real people.

If you're somewhat familiar with graphic design, you can replace the Wikipedia logo with a mock design (e.g. Wakahpadia or whatever), but otherwise please make it clear that it's fictional content. You may see how media such as Do Not Feed the Monkeys handled this. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n (super gay) 03:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. How does this help us build the encyclopedia? There are no private areas on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did something similar to this once, just for fun. If you go to your sandbox, you can edit your fake Wikipedia article in, and then click Show preview. Then, if necessary, you make more edits, and you keep doing that until you have it the way you want it (you can keep this editing window open for a couple of days without it reloading itself and deleting your fake article). Then you take your screenshots, and click Cancel. (Just make sure you don’t click Publish changes.) That way, you don’t have to load MediaWiki into an entirely new website, and the article never has to actually exist anywhere on Wikipedia, thus avoiding being WP:NOTHERE (since that only applies to published edits). That’s the way I went about it, anyway. Hope that helps! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 00:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where is my draft article?"

Latest comment: 10 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I created an article last week called "Solar-Thermal Hybrid Automobile" but it still needs citations. How do I find that article? I've checked in my Sandbox and it isn't there. Thanks Carolyn Annellacarol34 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Solar-Thermal Hybrid Automobile (in the future, you can always check your contributions to see what you were last working on). ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 02:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Event Page Registration Challege

Latest comment: 3 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I am working on football project called From Continent to Cup.Participants are struggling to register for the event, the error feedback they get is "The course Wiki_Update/From_Continent_To_Cup1 is not connected to this event, and therefore it cannot be synchronized."I would be grateful if you could assist. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You've already raised this issue at meta. Please wait for a response. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n (super gay) 04:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well noted. Jwale2 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jwale2, in your request above, you mis-spell "Continental" as "Continetal" and as "Continet". Maybe some such mis-spelling explains why some link you've provided isn't working. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Maproom, thanks for the feedback, it was a typo from my end, I have made a swift edit.Jwale2 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Maproom, the issue has been rectified now after I made the edits, thanks to everyone for the support, I am grateful 🙏. Jwale2 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

A quick one will any edit that has been done by participants refelect. Jwale2 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

How does moving pages work?

Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone, newbie here. I just want to understand how uncontroversial and controversial page moving works. When it's appropriate to move a page yourself or when to start a discussion and how does the process of moving a page work? Thank you! CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@CarbonatedMilk875 For uncontroversial page moves, the page move itself is relatively simple, essentially choose a new pagespace (if needed) and new name, and state why, and is usually done by clicking on the « Move » button on the side toolbar. However, for page move proposals that (potentially or not) have controversy, if 1) there has been past debate about the best title of the page, or 2) someone can reasonably disagree with the proposal, a discussion of this may start using the WP:RM#CM procedure. If you're unable to do a move yourself for technical reasons, however, you can request a technical move at WP:RMT. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n (super gay) 10:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Poplars

Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, could someone add an hatnote to Populus? The redirect poplars points to that entry, but there is also an article on Poplars (Monet series). ~2026-42470-60 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understanding the biographies of dead people

Latest comment: 34 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been seeing more and more biographical pages about dead people, who don't have many references, their page are still live, and a lot of information without citation. I did find WP:BIO and a it's sub-section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead, however, I don't see how it address the people who are confirmed dead. I have two questions:

Is there any policy or essay that address my curiosity?
What should I do if I come across such pages?

Idr888 (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Making a new article

Latest comment: 28 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm making an article for the Estonian rap duo Clicherik & Mäx but I'm struggling to find other sources about them and I was thinking Estonian sites like ERR but I don't think that they'll have much about them, does anyone know any other websites from Estonia that can help me to get some reliable sources? AWEDDEWA (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

[nine2017-1] "Gabi Grecko reinvents herself as Gabi Glitta in preparation for her rap debut". Nine.com.au. 21 August 2017.

[heraldsun2025-2] "Gabi a rapper? It's all Grecko to me – Edelsten's widow reveals guilt of final days as she launches career in music industry". Herald Sun. 2025.

[3] ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-04/mount-gambier-blue-blob-googly-eyes-vandalism-charge-court/105964692

[4] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wl5jp94eno

[5] ttps://7news.com.au/news/sa/mount-gambier-teen-amelia-vanderhorst-charged-over-allegedly-sticking-googly-eyes-to-cast-in-blue-statue-c-20605888

[6] ttps://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/teenager-charged-over-allegedly-sticking-googly-eyes-to-136000-blue-blob-sculpture-3281048/

[7] ttps://7news.com.au/news/blue-blob-vandalism-teen-charged-over-mount-gambier-googly-eyes-prank-asks-for-help-to-pay-legal-fees-c-20676038

[8] ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-09/mount-gambier-cast-in-blue-googly-eyes-court/106114750

[9] ttps://7news.com.au/news/mount-gambiers-amelia-vanderhorst-accused-of-sticking-googly-eyes-on-136000-blue-statue-appears-in-court-c-20956516

[10] ttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/10/googly-eyes-cast-in-blue-blob-sculpture-mount-gambier-ntwnfb

[11] ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/mount-gambier-blue-blob-sculpture-googly-eyes-graffiti-convicted/106405276

[12] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwydx34kzlvo

[13] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-blue-blob-sculpture-googly-eyes-conviction-b2945881.html

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

A page that knows where it met you.

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

help submitting draft for gabi glitta

Possible outdated guide regarding Lang-xx

Three things

Reviewer Requested Birth Date, but No Reliable Source Exists

Advice on a draft (Declared COI and notability check for a French musician)

Liverpool Airport, 4 new routes need adding from the Talk section

What the process

Naming BLP articles for multiple people with same name

Contesting G15 speedy deletion nomination, all content based on verified published sources

ایجاد صفحه برای آرش دبستانی

Draft declined for foreign-language sources

Somali Future Council

My First Article

Link in lead of American studies

Requesting review/removal of an "LLM-generated content" tag on Julian Jootaek Kim

Reliable Sources

Capitalisation of initial word of quote

Article features a link to a YouTube video that no longer works

Question on reworking draftified LLM translations

Demonym standardization?

Permissibility of changing templates applied to other users' talk page messages erroneously

Can you do a peer review for a draft?

Creating new artical

Criteria met, article rejected ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Feedback on my draft page for a Catholic church

Did you know nominations/Pépé Bradock

Maniac, TV series

Editing a title to an article

Explain Project Pages Mechanics

Lusaka Times

LLM Content

I created a disambiguation page on Wikipedia - is it any good?

Preliminary feedback requested for Draft:András Lénárd

Earning good standing for WP:IPBE?

Draft:Sunil

Curiosity killed the North Korean

Verify PBS Airdate of Titicut Follies

Rating confirmation

Mass shootings in Canada categoriy 2026 Montreal shooting

Is presenting works for comparison in a table OR?

Notability of a sculpture's vandalism and defamation potential

logo shown is incorrect for St. Mary's College of Maryland

Advice

Feedback requested on draft for Carnatic percussionist Amrit Nataraj

Questions I got while working on User:EmoryNB/sandbox/VK_Music

Category question from Emmanbotan

I can't edit. What's going on?

Why are we using Vancouver style referencing?

Help with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion

Robert Hegyes

Help, i’m desperatly trying to find the 2021 CG Arabic Astroganger sequel

ZoomInfo - Page Update Request

Help and Mentorship in creating first page

Ambition

Requesting Feedback on Revision for Declined Submission

How do I make a convincing looking 'fake' article for an art project?

Where is my draft article?"

Event Page Registration Challege

How does moving pages work?

Poplars

Understanding the biographies of dead people

Making a new article