Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

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

Naming BLP articles for multiple people with same name

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@ChompyTheGogoat What could we do? ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you do a peer review for a draft?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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:

1. 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
2. He championed a Russia sanctions bill before his death, and he was returning from Kyiv at the time
3. 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
4. There are notable images that can be used for his funeral ([1])
5. See ChompyTheGogoat's answer ([2])
6. In order for his death to qualify for Portal:Current events, it has been recommended that a standalone article is created about his death ([3], [4]).
7. World leaders have attended his funeral

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

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

@~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)

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)

As said, a standalone article works. It has photos and video links. If accepted, copyediting can always be done. If accepted, it can be added to Portal:Current events/2026 July 11 and Portal:Current events/2026 July 28. Also the U.S. senate recently voted to advance a Russian sanctions bill he championed before his death. And if the article is accepted, more updates can always be done to the article. ~2026-42761-67 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello @ChompyTheGogoat.

Did you even read their message?

User:Teluobir

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

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)

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)

@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)

Hello.

I do understand, I said "sometimes".

I get your point.

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

Explain Project Pages Mechanics

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)

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)

The article WP:Content assessment talks about how the ratings and importance levels are set. Ratings below "Good" are set by any editor, including the author, and are not hugely significant. ("Good" and above are set by a community process.) The WikiProject may or may not be involved. Importance levels are similar, though the WikiProject editors are more likely to be involved. M kuhner (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Earning good standing for WP:IPBE?

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)

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)

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)

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

Verify PBS Airdate of Titicut Follies

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rating confirmation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Mass shootings in Canada categoriy 2026 Montreal shooting

Category:Mass shootings in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2026 Montreal shooting TheDinkDummyProdutionTV (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is presenting works for comparison in a table OR?

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)

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)

Notability of a sculpture's vandalism and defamation potential

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I'm currently (very gradually) working on a draft article for a sculpture that was quite famously 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Advice

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)

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)

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)

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)

Feedback requested on draft for Carnatic percussionist Amrit Nataraj

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:

1. The tone strictly adheres to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV).
2. The reliable independent sources sufficiently satisfy WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG.
3. 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)

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)

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

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.

1. 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?
2. 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...
3. Are Habr sources (blog posts) reliable to cite for Wikipedia articles?

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

Hello, EmoryNB, and welcome to the Teahouse!

1. 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.
2. The size of the "History" section is fine.
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Category question from Emmanbotan

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

The article has been reviewed. It passed review. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

Hi Boghog and Mike Turnbull, thanks for the explanation and hints. I have nothing against a tidy referencing style provided it doesn't force me to miswrite author's names in a way that doesn't match what's in the publication, and provided it allows me to include all authors where appropriate, so the extra hints on parameters and display-authors are exactly what I need! Appreciated! Elemimele (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion

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)

@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)

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

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)

Robert Hegyes

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

ZoomInfo - Page Update Request

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)

@~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)

Help and Mentorship in creating first page

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Ambition

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)

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)

@~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)

Requesting Feedback on Revision for Declined Submission

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)

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

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

@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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

1. Visit a Wikipedia page that looks close in size and layout to what you want
2. Using your browser (better on a desktop/ laptop than mobile device), save the page to your local hard drive
3. Edit the HTML of the saved page in your preferred text- or HTML- editor.
4. Substitute any images as needed
5. View the edited pages in your browser
6. Take screenshot

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, this sounds like the best method. It used to be reliably easy too (once upon a time ...), but I think a number of well-known browsers now hide or obscure the ability to save pages as HTML, so getting set up to be able to save as HTML might turn out to be a required step. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

GPWM. Firefox can do it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is my draft article?"

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)

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)

Event Page Registration Challege

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Are you asking if all participants are able to edit the page? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I was asking if edits made after the event page issue was resolved, will it reflect for all participants. Jwale2 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. When you click the button to save your edits, they see the new version. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

How does moving pages work?

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)

@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)

See also Wikipedia:Moving a page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

When one person thinks it's really obvious that a certain page should be moved, they often misjudge what reasonably disagree means. (It ends up meaning what people who disagree with them might find reasonable.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think « reasonably disagree » would somewhat be that there should be consideration to why might someone disagree to the move in the first place, even when it seems obvious to the mover's position. There's going to be discussion about said controversial move regardless, either first off at RM#CM or BRD. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n (super gay) 16:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Poplars

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)

I added an entry for the Monet series to Poplar (disambiguation), to which a hatnote in Populus alredy points. Deor (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Understanding the biographies of dead people

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:

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

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

Just to make sure - your main point is "biographies with poor references or no references", right? If it is, first, don't just delete them. They might turn out to get deleted in the end, but that shouldn't normally be the first step. And keep in mind that if you find an article that you know you're going to really dislike working on, you always have the option of ignoring it. There's still always lots of work to be done on articles you're more comfortable with.

The first thing to do when there are no references is to find some. Try to assume (like it says at Wikipedia:Assume good faith) that the people who wrote an article without references were rushed or lazy or sloppy, instead of assuming they were sneaky or lying.

I just realized I have to leave for a few minutes, but that's the first step at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Making a new article

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)

I can't help with that, but my main piece of advice would be that if you're writing the article before you've found the necessary sources then you've gone wrong; the article is the sources. Athanelar (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If there's not much about them, then the only option is to wait for a very long time until maybe there is. (3 years would be a reasonable wait time, and no that's not a typo.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For help with Estonian sources, ask at WT:WikiProject Estonia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do people want to delete the Weirdcore and Dreamcore articles.

• Dreamcore (aesthetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi everyone, I recently made an article on Dreamcore and I've been seeing some editors encouraging that they shouldn't really be articles, obviously I feel offended but of course the policies are what to think about first. Recently, on the Dreamcore page, I saw someone say that weirdcore and dreamcore shouldn't have articles. I want to ask if you guys think that is fair? And I did start a page move discussion for it, should I have done that or just changed it myself? CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

According to Dreamcore (disambiguation), dreamcore can refer three different topics - which are you asking about? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The aesthetic, sorry for not clarifying. CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@CarbonatedMilk875 And I did start a page move discussion for it, should I have done that or just changed it myself? If you had moved it yourself, the move would have been undone as controversial, so yes, you did the right thing by starting a discussion. It's at the move discussion where the concerns about the notability of Dreamcore (aesthetic) and Weirdcore have come up. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

One other observation: Dreamcore (aesthetic) went through the Articles for Creation process, where Sulfurboy accepted it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Where are people suggesting this doesn't meet notability guidelines? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: 162 etc.: "Dreamcore (aesthetic) is about a topic of dubious notability with little evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and I'm honestly surprised it made it through WP:AFC."

Courtesy ping: Aesurias: "frankly, I am unsure that either dreamcore (aesthetic) or weirdcore should exist as articles at all."

Pinging if either of you would like to elaborate. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 17:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: Both of the above quotes were taken from Talk:Dreamcore. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 17:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Seems to be pretty bad takes by them. I have no opinion about the merge, but feel very confident about my ability to defend both pages in an AfD. Bare minimum WP:GNG is shown and there's plenty of other sources out there to further establish that. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I get very confused on Wikipedia and I am very happy to have that cleared up. CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Considering that opinions are obviously divided, and that intelligent reasonable people are not all on the same side, you cannot call it "cleared up" at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant for AfD, and the policies he provided, not the pages being moved. Also, no need to use certain adjectives to amplify your claim. CarbonatedMilk875 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I get what you mean. There are a lot of policies to know which ones apply where. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Up to date Gameplay screenshots?

Hello, I was wondering if it was reasonable to update a games wikipedia page in which the gameplay screenshot is very out of date and replace it with my own current screenshot?? Walter (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright on gameplay screenshots doesn't belong to the player. I don't know how all the rules are applied, but very often with copyright it's necessary to intentionally use small low-quality images that just barely give people an idea. All I can say is wait for experts to explain how this is done on Wikipedia, because it's pretty likely to not be obvious. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Enkaro. There are two issues to consider when it comes to wanting to do something like this: the copyright status of the screenshot and the encyclopedic need to update the existing screenshot. For some general information on the first, please take a look at c:Commons:Screenshots and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Generally, most gameplay screenshots (assuming you're talking about video games) are under copyright protection unless the entire game itself has been released under a type of license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. If you're not sure about the game you're asking about, you might want to seek input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Wikipedia prefers freely licensed content (both text and images) whenever possible in which very few or no restrictions are placed on reuse; however, non-free content can be used when certain conditions are met. As for the encyclopedic need for a new screenshot, you might also want to ask the members of WikiProject Video Games about this; what you might see as being outdated, might actually be historically relevant to game in question or it might be the best example available for the intended use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you! these are very helpful resources Walter (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Draft - Samvedna Suwalka

Hello everyone,

I recently submitted Draft:Samvedna Suwalka, but it was declined with the comment that the references are interviews and PR pieces.

Samvedna Suwalka is an Indian actress who has worked in Hindi and Gujarati films, television, web series, and theatre. She has been part of projects like Bey Yaar, Drishyam 2, Fighter, Jee Karda, Gyaarah Gyaarah, and Meri Gudiya. She is also listed in the cast sections of several existing Wikipedia articles for these films and series.

I want to improve the draft before submitting it again. I have tried to find reliable sources, but I'm not sure which ones are acceptable for Wikipedia.

Draft - Draft:Samvedna Suwalka

Could someone please have a look at the draft and let me know:

Which references should I remove?

I would really appreciate any advice. Thank you. Shah198 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk Teahouse. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then the Articles for Creation help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

   Athanelar: This is not the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

   I know, I have that comment as a template in my userspace for responding to AI generated questions at the actual AFCHD. I didn't feel the need to tweak it since the actual informative part (and the point about AI) remains the same. Athanelar (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

   Please either change it or fork it. This page is for inexperienced, naive and confused new editors. The lest thing we want to be doing is confusing them about which page they are on, or its purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The main concern here is whether she is notable. For that purpose, here are some things that are not helpful:

• being listed
• being mentioned
• being interviewed
• proof of working

This is because every actor has those - such things are merely part of the film business and do not make anyone notable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Shah198, your draft has four references. The first and third are to breezy, gossip type sites that are reporting on rumored upcoming film roles. The second reference is to an acting program that she attended. The fourth is to a clickbait site that is almost impenetrable. What is required are references to indisputably reliable sources that are completely independent of the actress and provide significant, in depth coverage of her. Please read Paid news in India for some insight into unethical practices, especially regarding up-and-coming entertainment industry figures. Cullen328 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Forgot password and don't have email connected to account

Am I cooked? ~2026-42709-55 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sort of. If you can't get your account back, though, there are other alternatives. You can create a new account and link your old account on the user page, for instance. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It's so over 😔 rip to my old account ~2026-42709-55 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So sad! Though you can still drive by and wave at it. In any case, link an email next time so you don't lose another one! M kuhner (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Articles created from redirects after I had worked on the drafts

On two different redirects where I had done work on the drafts with prior TAs (Emotional Junglist and Terrified), other editors ignored the automatic warnings not to create the article from the redirect and did it anyway. On the Emotional Junglist article, it looks like a pretty clear-cut mistake, even if it is frustrating. On the Terrified article, it looks like the editor who did it knew what they were doing because they took the exact (unconventional) formatting for the track listing credits. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41404-95: I'm not sure which warning you refer to but autoconfirmed users can both convert a redirect to an article and create articles directly without having a redirect first. This is normal. If you work slowly on a draft about a current event like a recently released album then there is a big risk somebody will create an article during your work. If you submit the draft quickly then it may wait a long time for a review and somebody else may still create an article in the meantime. If you don't want to be scooped then I suggest to avoid current events or create an account and work to become autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I did not get a warning that a draft already existed when I started the Emotional Junglist article from the redirect. I've only seen such warnings when starting an article in mainspace from scratch, but it would be a helpful feature to display on redirect pages. I still should've checked draftspace beforehand, so that's my bad. It would make sense to submit a WP:HISTMERGE request for Terrified as it looks pretty clearly copied from the draft. मल्ल (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey man, no worries. I've seen other people make this mistake. I took this to Teahouse (which I've never posted to before) instead of AN/I because I just wanted some advice on what the best course of action is from here, rather than being like "PUNISH THEM" (although I'm a little bit annoyed at the copying with the Fakemink article, which wasn't you). If I go to Armor Wars (film) for example (just picked randomly from the draft suggestions when typing "Draft:" into the search bar) and try to edit it in Visual Editor, I get a little red box pop up in the top right telling me that there's a draft. If I switch to source editor, it's a red banner above the editing window. I was under the impression that this is automatic whenever there's a draft with the same title as a redirect, although I may be mistaken about that. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh looking at your example I do see that notice, though it is a bit inconspicuous. I guess I just missed it and need to be more careful in the future, sorry about that. मल्ल (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

YouTube Links don't Work!

YouTube Links don't Work!, can any users help Me get the Links to Work? GlammySammy (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Which links, where? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

On Draft:GoGo SqueeZ. One of My Drafts. GlammySammy (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A sample URL: "https://youtube/aFivVLK5tQM?si=GEbs36XopQ8uxEGo". However, plain "youtube" is not Youtube's domain name. (Instead, it's "youtube.com".) Incidentally, for each of your Youtube references, aren't you going to specify the Youtube channel? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Nationality

Why nationality isn't on writer, author and artist's infobox but, I swear it on editing Jean Paul-Laurens infobox I added a nationality parameters, but isn't there, but why some fictional characters do, why is this? フィリピン人 (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The nationality field on infoboxes is deprecated; see WP:INFONAT. There is a citizenship field, though. Athanelar (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Greek Article help

I have created F-16 Demo Team Zeus, which is a page about the HAF air display team. Can anyone with experiance in this field help out to expand the article ? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"HAF" turns out to stand for "Hellenic Air Force". Or perhaps "Hellanic Air Force" (yes, this also appears). Something that you can do for yourself: Enable a spelling check for English. (As I write or paste "Hellanic", Firefox gives it a wiggly red underline, which is Firefox's way of commenting "Are you sure?") -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@4-RAZOR 01 What do you think is missing from the article? Or, why do you think it's not good enough yet?

Often when people ask for help to expand an article, they basically mean that the topic is important to them but they can't find good sources. Unfortunately, that can mean it would be better to have no article.

The Greek air display team will certainly be best known in Greece, and I guess the team's main purpose is to impress the public at air shows - not exactly a military mission. I'd suggest that you probably don't need military aviation experts, and that it might help much more to find people who read Greek. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Unknown Category Finder

I have edited here before and I'm pretty sure there was a way to find more categories faster, I forgot the name of it though, what is it called? UselessAccount21 (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21: if you mean gadgets etc., maybe one of these: Category:Wikipedia categorization tools? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall any of these at all, I'm pretty sure there was a plus sign added at the end of the categories, where you can add categories faster UselessAccount21 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:HOTCAT! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's the one, thanks UselessAccount21 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

HotCat is in the category I linked to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Arabic CG Astroganger sequel

LTA block evasion Athanelar (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The question for finding the Arabic CG Astroganger sequel asked by the blocked user interests me

I would like if we could find the Astroganger sequel ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Atsroganger was very popular in Arabic-speaking world, and was also kind of popular in Spain and Italy. While i’m not from either of these countries, i do know Astroganger and i am interested about finding the Astroganger sequel. So this blocked user isn’t the only one talking about the Astroganger sequel in the Teahouse. ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42678-73 This page is for requesting help with using and editing Wikipedia. I suggest you seek an answer on the Entertainment reference desk. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Shantavira I have wrote it and posted it on the Entertainment reference desk. ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Shantavira I’m wondering if there are other overseas adaptations/sequels of japanese anime/media? ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Shantavira I have also posted it on Wikipedia:Help desk. ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Computer operating system .

basek ~2026-42852-22 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42852-22 Can you tell me what do you want to say? ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42852-22 Do you mean a operating system called “Basek”? I tried finding information about a operating system named “Basek”, but coundl’t find anything, can you link web pages and websites? ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean BASIC? It was the computer language that shipped with early MS-DOS computers. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42852-22 I’m now thinking if “basek” means something in a different langauge. I tried finding it, and asked duck.ai about it, but i coundl’t find “basek” in a different langauge. Did you meant “based”? ~2026-42678-73 (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

basek may just be the name of the poster. If you want general information then see Operating system. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's some sort of question about the programming language "Basic". (For this, see the article "BASIC".) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

i dont understand what you are mining <s@[[User:jo@J (James) Stewartt ~2026-38129-30 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sharing

Can I share and how do I share a wiki page with a friend Carmahaz (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Carmahaz: Welcome to The Teahouse. You can just copy the URL in your browser. If for some reason you want a shortened link, you can get a shortened link by clicking on the icon in the top-right corner and then select "Get shortened URL". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to download articles and print them out, that's also fine: there is a tool to crate .pdf files. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for general advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Overwhelmed

How do people pace themselves here? I've been officially here for two days and I've already had so much interaction and provided so much feedback. I have limited time but there is so much to do here. Any feedback on pacing would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks! ZionistischeSauterParamilitar (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZionistischeSauterParamilitar There is a general essay at WP:There is no deadline. My advice is that whenever you feel pressure to do something today, you should definitely leave it to tomorrow, or later. Editing here should be fun, after all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

How do people pace themselves here?

By stopping more often. That may sound too obvious or like a joke answer, but it isn't intended like that. Any solution that's more sophisticated is fine if it works for you, but in this case "more sophisticated" just means other more creative methods for stopping. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

L'Estaque, disambiguation

L'Estaque is a neighborhood in Marseille, but there are also some paintings: Houses at l'Estaque ; The Viaduct at L'Estaque ; L'Estaque, Melting Snow ; Seascape. L'Estaque ; Trees in L'Estaque. Is it necessary to create a disambiguation page for L'Estaque at L'Estaque (disambiguation)? ~2026-42680-57 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42680-57 My opinion is "no". If we did, it would be logical to create a similar DAB page for "London", where we have 8,405 articles (including redirects) with that word in the title. A DAB page for them all is clearly not sensible. For more, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and note that the Wikipedia default search bar does a pretty good job already in the L'Estaque case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

No, because none of those names is likely to be confused with plain, unadorned "L'Estaque". But I wonder if "Category:Marseille in art" or similar might be worthwhile: Category:Cityscape paintings shows that Category:Brussels in art is a singleton, and that Category:Paintings of Paris and Category:Paintings of Venice are the only two of that pattern. And if "Category:Marseille in art" would be worthwhile, then whether it would fit within Category:Works set in Marseille. Incidentally, although there's no "Category:Paintings of London", there do exist Category:Paintings of London by Claude Monet ... and Category:London in art (so Category:Brussels in art turns out not to be a singleton after all). Perhaps this primarily shows that impulsive category creation is bad practice: exploration around a tentatively proposed category, and hard thinking, are needed. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation audio?

i see some names have audio files showing their pronunciations. i was wondering if anybody was allowed to add these files and what the threshold was for a name needing pronunciation?? Walter (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Exact colors

At WP:SIGNATURE TUTORIAL, how do I get exact colors for my signature (like 00ff00)? Dmdjdu (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Try using the exact same format, but where the color name goes, put #00ff00 instead. Does that work? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yup! Looks sick! 😎 Dmdjdu (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Should I comment?

A while ago, I was in an ANI started by User:Jerodlycett. I tend to check the recent AfD's page, and completely independently, I have seen an article he put up for deletion which I wanted to comment on. This has actually happened twice now. I am worried that it would look like WikiHounding or some other form of following someone, but this was legitimately me looking through the recent AfD's.

Should I comment on the AfD's?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)