Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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.]

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)

You can try now and what do you have to lose besides a 'no', and you'll still be in the same position. Otherwise, I'd suggest apply after 6 months of editing and more than 500 edits. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to respond here. I did try it and was granted an IPBE for 6 whole months to start off! Could not be happier with the speed of response I got, by the way. If somebody else stuck in Russia is reading this, you can absolutely try applying for an IPBE after editing in good faith! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 11:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

User signatures

How do I add pronouns like you all? Thanks —LeastConcern 08:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You should've probably asked this separately (either that or on one of our talk pages). You're probably referring to the pronouns specified in my and TooManyFinger's Wikipedia:Signatures, and by the looks of it, you're already familiar with how to change it in the settings, as I see yours is not standard (and by the way, I'd encourage you to put the talk page link back in your signature, it oftentimes comes in handy!). I just added mine on my user page and in my signature, e.g. mine says this:

— [[User:EmoryNB|EmoryNB]] <sup>(they/them)</sup> [[User talk:EmoryNB|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/EmoryNB|<sup>contribs</sup>]]

Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns has more on the subject; you can also put one of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Pronouns on your user page if you're more comfortable with that. Hope this helps! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 08:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to specify Gender used in messages in Special:Preferences if you hadn't already. Some automatic tools and templates rely on it. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 08:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

TYSM, Emory! — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:09, 7 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)

@TooManyFingers I understand this, and so far, I haven't nominated nor looked into deletion. Currently, I am fixing tones of suggested pages, regardless of their references. The next step in suggestive edits is to Medium level, and the first one is to find the references. I have tried a few, however, for now I think, I need better understanding of the policies, to move towards the next one. At the same time, when I have observed what I have pointed out above.

The first step you advised is clear to me. What should be the next step?

Thank you for your valuable comment. Idr888 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My limited experience has taught me one first important thing for new editors. I don't learn this stuff quickly, so I'm newer than I seem. :)

• If in doubt, don't change it.

If you do nothing to an article, it will be no worse than it was yesterday, and you won't have an unnecessary conflict.

About references and their policies: When you're looking at one of these poorly-referenced articles, what is one of the policy uncertainties that keeps you from acting? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers What I am in doubt is sometimes their WP:GNG, and other times the unreferenced content. Like for example Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi, Leonard Claydon, or Ryūji Miyamoto. There are many others.

The most weird of them all was/is Hospice Palliative Care Ontario, I believe its very deceptive. The references are in actuality refer back to the page itself and the citation are in "notes" section. The references in the "reference" sections are random sources, that doesn't even mention the subject. Idr888 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I see. Here are some suggestions:

• Find sources that show that the person is notable. If you can find sources that prove so, then keep the article. Do not nominate for AFD. Leave a talk page message about why you think it is notable with sources, then list out the areas that you think are unsupported. If there is no response in a reasonable timeframe, contact your mentor or be bold and remove all unsourced materials and replace them with high(er) quality ones. Read WP:BACKWARDS of how to do so.
• If the subject is not notable, leave a comment on the talk page listing that you are preparing to delete it. If there is feedback, follow it. Otherwise, nominate for Speedy Delete criterion A7.
• If there is a dispute, keep your cool and either step out of it, de-escalate, or contact your mentor (or me) for help.

There unfortunately is no easy way to fix these articles. And if in doubt, contact your mentor come to the teahouse for support. Do not do bold changes in that case. I hope my advice was helpful.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @16dvnk for your suggestions, and I will definitely contact you, as my mentor is away for undefined time. Idr888 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Idr888, @TooManyFingers The references in the "Hospice" article are indeed strange. The references are listed under "Notes", and what's listed under "References" should probably be labeled "Further reading".

The ref-like things listed after "notes" don't go anywhere when clicked; the source has "Reflist" in braces.

I would fix all of this if I understood referencing better. Much of the article dates from 2005-2006. I'm not sure the subject is Wikinotable. David10244 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks you @David10244, Let us keep all the comments related to Hospice Palliative Care Ontario on Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is it a deceptive way of creating an article? So that we can reach a consensus. Idr888 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Idr888 You have a number of options:

• First, template the page:

1. If it has no references, add an Unreferenced template
2. If it doesn't have a citation for every statement or it only has one sig cov reference, add a BLP sources template
3. If it doesn't have a citation for every statement and the statement doesn't add anything to the article, delete the statement.

• Look for sources.

• If you can find them, add them.

• If after a due dliligence search, you question the subject's notability, you have at least three options:

1. add a notability template
2. propose the article be deleted (PROD)
3. nominate it for deletion (AfD).

Mme Maigret (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mmemaigret for beautifully structuring them. I have opened a discussion on it's talk page for now, and waiting for other editors to discuss it. Then whatever the consensus is, will proceed accordingly. Idr888 (talk) 07:25, 10 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)

Please read MOS:COLORS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dmdjdu The first half of your signature is unreadable in dark mode. Also, please see MOS:COLOR which gives more info related to what Andy provided. David10244 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I put on dark mode as a test to see if it's true, and I still see my signature. Even in dark mode. Dmdjdu (wanna talk?) 12:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to read in light mode as well. Please consider choosing slightly darker colours. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this good? Dmdjdu (wanna talk?) 15:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw your signature fine all along, and obviously so did you, but the guide is there to make sure everyone can see it, including those whose eyes or screens aren't the same. (I'm on a phone that has an extra-black background, and maybe that's one reason it was fine for me but not others.) If this version works for the people who found it hard to see the first time, then call it good.

You already know who you are; the signature is for everyone except you. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

:) Ok, but should I change it at all for the people who can't see it? Dmdjdu (wanna talk?) 15:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You should follow the guidance at MOS:COLORS and MOS:COLOR, as previously advised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I did follow the guidance on those pages. Dmdjdu (wanna talk?) 15:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had trouble with the previous version but no trouble with this one. I'm somewhat elderly and eyes aren't the best. Thanks for changing it. M kuhner (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) And tbh for me, it looks way cooler than the last one. Dmdjdu (wanna talk?) 14:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on Recreating an Article About Mr. Rafi Butt

Hello everyone, I am seeking guidance before beginning work on a potential article about Mr. Rafi Butt, a historical Pakistani businessman. To my knowledge, an article about him previously existed but is no longer available. Before investing time in researching and drafting a new article, I would like to better understand Wikipedia's expectations regarding recreation and sourcing. Over time, I have identified multiple independent secondary sources, including newspaper features and other published material that discuss Mr. Rafi Butt, his career, and his historical significance. These sources were published independently and are not company publications or self-published material. My questions are: If an article about a historical figure was previously deleted or no longer exists, under what circumstances is it appropriate to create a new article? If several new independent secondary sources have been published since the previous article (or since any previous discussions about the subject), can those new sources justify creating a fresh article? When evaluating notability, is the focus primarily on the quality and depth of coverage provided by independent reliable secondary sources, rather than simply the number of sources? Is there any recommended minimum level of significant coverage that editors generally look for before submitting an article through Articles for Creation (AfC)? Before I begin drafting, would it be advisable to ask for feedback on the available sources to determine whether they are likely to satisfy the General Notability Guideline (WP)? I am not asking for a determination that the subject is notable at this stage. Rather, I would appreciate guidance on how experienced editors assess whether newly available independent secondary sources are sufficient to justify creating or recreating an article. Thank you for your time and advice. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, I wouldn't say that you had "multiple" sources. You had two sources. What else do you have? DS (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Draft:Imtiaz Rafi Butt, i want to bring into your notice that i have two more more sources other than that. And moreover, i want to clarify that i am talking about his father Mr Rafi Butt who died in 1948. I was seeking guidance to create aritcle on him. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

One = singular.

Two or more = multiple.

See wikt:multiple#Determiner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I would appreciate some guidance before I invest significant time in researching and drafting a potential article about Rafi Butt, a historical Pakistani businessman and industrialist.

At this stage, I am not asking whether the subject is notable, nor am I asking anyone to review a draft, as I have not written one yet. My objective is to understand how experienced Wikipedia editors would evaluate the different categories of sources that are currently available so that I can determine whether it is worthwhile proceeding.

From my research, I have identified several different types of material, and I am uncertain how each would be viewed under Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

1. Independent newspaper coverage

There are numerous newspaper articles about Rafi Butt published by independent newspapers over several decades. Some of these articles remain available online, while many older ones survive only as scanned copies because the original newspapers are no longer digitally accessible.

Would these older newspaper articles still be considered acceptable reliable secondary sources if the scans clearly identify the original newspaper, publication date, and article?

2. Historical book written by an academic historian

One of the principal works on Rafi Butt is At Quaid's Service: A Journey Towards Discovery, written by Professor Syed Razi Wasti, a respected historian whose research focuses on the Pakistan Movement and South Asian history.

The book contains historical analysis, references, documentary evidence, correspondence, and archival material. However, it was published by the Jinnah Rafi Foundation, an organization established in memory of Rafi Butt.

In this situation, how would Wikipedia editors generally assess such a book?

Would the fact that the publisher is connected to the subject automatically make the book unsuitable as a secondary source, or would greater weight be given to the independence, academic reputation, and research methodology of the author?

3. Historical documents reproduced by the Foundation

The Foundation has also preserved many historical materials, including:

original newspaper clippings,

correspondence,

official documents,

and photographs.

Many of these documents are no longer available elsewhere online.

If these are reproductions of independently published historical material, how are they generally viewed? Can they be used to verify historical facts, or are they treated simply as primary sources regardless of where they are reproduced?

4. Correspondence and acknowledgements from world leaders

Among the archived material are letters or acknowledgements from several internationally recognised figures, including leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, and others, together with archival footage of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto acknowledging Rafi Butt's contributions.

I understand that such material would generally be considered primary sources and therefore would not establish notability by itself.

However, can these documents still be cited to verify specific historical facts if their authenticity is not disputed, or would editors generally avoid using them altogether because they are preserved by an organisation connected to the subject?

Overall question

My main objective is to understand how experienced editors distinguish between:

independent secondary sources that establish notability,

reliable historical works published by organisations connected to a subject,

archived reproductions of older independent publications, and primary historical documents.

Before I spend considerable time preparing a draft, I would like to better understand how these different categories of material are likely to be evaluated under Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

I appreciate any guidance or suggestions that experienced editors may be willing to share.

Thank you. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Please any editor reply me on this. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

WP:42

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Wikipedia:Notability. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Normally, when an article existed and then got deleted, it's because it had flaws that were impossible to fix.

When that article was about a person, "not a notable person" is almost certain to be one of the flaws. If Mr. Butt is not notable, then seriously the only possibility is to give up and forget about it.

If he had been notable, Wikipedia would have tried hard to keep the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It depends on why it was deleted… in this case, it looks like it was draftified, so it’s possible the problem was something like LLM use or lack of citations where there could plausibly be an article, just not in the form it was in when it was turned into a draft. If there had been a deletion discussion, that would more likely be notability. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I got that wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It's fine no problem. I was actually seeking guidance on Mr Rafi Butt who is a father of Imtiaz Rafi Butt. Mr Rafi butt died in 1948 and had numerous independent sources covering him. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As you have a disclosed conflict of interest with the subject's son, I suggest you create a draft at Draft:Rafi Butt and then submit it through the Articles for Creation process. I can't see any previous drafts under that name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate some guidance before I invest significant time in researching and drafting a potential article about Rafi Butt, a historical Pakistani businessman and industrialist.

At this stage, I am not asking whether the subject is notable, nor am I asking anyone to review a draft, as I have not written one yet. My objective is to understand how experienced Wikipedia editors would evaluate the different categories of sources that are currently available so that I can determine whether it is worthwhile proceeding.

From my research, I have identified several different types of material, and I am uncertain how each would be viewed under Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

1. Independent newspaper coverage

There are numerous newspaper articles about Rafi Butt published by independent newspapers over several decades. Some of these articles remain available online, while many older ones survive only as scanned copies because the original newspapers are no longer digitally accessible.

Would these older newspaper articles still be considered acceptable reliable secondary sources if the scans clearly identify the original newspaper, publication date, and article?

2. Historical book written by an academic historian

One of the principal works on Rafi Butt is At Quaid's Service: A Journey Towards Discovery, written by Professor Syed Razi Wasti, a respected historian whose research focuses on the Pakistan Movement and South Asian history.

The book contains historical analysis, references, documentary evidence, correspondence, and archival material. However, it was published by the Jinnah Rafi Foundation, an organization established in memory of Rafi Butt.

In this situation, how would Wikipedia editors generally assess such a book?

Would the fact that the publisher is connected to the subject automatically make the book unsuitable as a secondary source, or would greater weight be given to the independence, academic reputation, and research methodology of the author?

3. Historical documents reproduced by the Foundation

The Foundation has also preserved many historical materials, including:

original newspaper clippings,

correspondence,

official documents,

and photographs.

Many of these documents are no longer available elsewhere online.

If these are reproductions of independently published historical material, how are they generally viewed? Can they be used to verify historical facts, or are they treated simply as primary sources regardless of where they are reproduced?

4. Correspondence and acknowledgements from world leaders

Among the archived material are letters or acknowledgements from several internationally recognised figures, including leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, and others, together with archival footage of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto acknowledging Rafi Butt's contributions.

I understand that such material would generally be considered primary sources and therefore would not establish notability by itself.

However, can these documents still be cited to verify specific historical facts if their authenticity is not disputed, or would editors generally avoid using them altogether because they are preserved by an organisation connected to the subject?

Overall question

My main objective is to understand how experienced editors distinguish between:

independent secondary sources that establish notability,

reliable historical works published by organisations connected to a subject,

archived reproductions of older independent publications, and primary historical documents.

Before I spend considerable time preparing a draft, I would like to better understand how these different categories of material are likely to be evaluated under Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

I appreciate any guidance or suggestions that experienced editors may be willing to share.

Thank you Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hassnain Raza786 You do not need to repeat your entire question again. A volunteer will answer it when they have time. Please be patient. David10244 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you noted Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hassnain Raza786 I replied, under the first copy of this same question. Your request was both wide-ranging and quite specific, so to avoid misleading you I gave you direct links to the most relevant guides and rules I could think of. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers yeah, i found it. Thank you very much. I am working on it. They are very detailed pages. I will get back here if i still anything confusing. Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the main thing is that almost no material that originates with Mr. Butt (or anyone associated with him) can appear in the article; the vast majority of what goes into the article must be from reliable published sources that were free from his influence. When that is taken care of first, everything else tends to be much easier. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

How to cite a date and location of death on a biography page

The subject of this biography article passed away in February 2000 in a small town in California. The journals that likely printed the obituary at the time are not available online. I can find the social security death record in Ancestry.com, but that's not a good source to cite, correct? Any suggestions? Thank you. Lmfelton (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Sources do not need to be online, as long as you can provide sufficient information for someone to theoretically locate the source, such as publisher, title, author, publication date, page numbers, etc. Referencing for beginners should have information on this. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! Unfortunately I'm not certain which if any of the local papers printed an obituary at the time, as none of them are searchable online. Ancestry.com definitely confirms the death information, citing their source as "U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007." What can I do in this situation? Do I need to remove the line stating the date and location of death? Thank you. Lmfelton (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If you can't source it, you do need to remove it. However, there are several things you could try to get a usable source: you could see if you can get to the Social Security records directly, you could contact a library or historical society in the area that might have newspaper archives, you could use your limited free tries at newspapers.com or ask someone with a subscription for help, you could talk to the editors at WP:WikiProject Genealogy. M kuhner (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft: Martin J. Dain

Btw: you're not citing Ancestry, you're citing the U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007 via Ancestry. You can use the source but you just have to understand that it's a primary source and not a reliable source but, for a death date, it should be fine. In fact, unless it's an obituary written by the newspaper staff, the death notice is also a primary source. There are three ways you can insert the reference: as a regular citation, a regular citation with an independent citation needed template immediately following it, or, probably more preferably, as a note. But a better question is why you can't find a source for the death of someone notable. However, having looked at that article, it needs a good copyediting and it's already suffering from ref bombing. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lock Upp Season 2

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

---

Lock Upp (season 2)#Inmates status

what should i do if i feel like someone is doing disruptive editing and will not do a BRD, but will continue without talking?

I've reverted their editing twice already and i won't go more than that, but when i did the first revert, I opened a BRD in the talk page. They proceeded to revert again just a few minutes after the BRD. So what can I really do in this case if someone is using info that's not available, continuously reverting (with different info each time) and not discussing why they're doing this? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If they aren't engaging on the talk page and repeatedly reverting edits, you can report them at WP:EWN. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a rundown of many possible avenues for dealing with content disputes at WP:Dispute resolution. If you can't pick among them, feel free to post back here and we can try to help. M kuhner (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t ignore the discussion. I was simply busy and have a life outside Wikipedia. My edits were always based on reliable sources, not speculation, and my information remained consistent throughout. Subsequent events confirmed that the information was correct. In the future, please wait for a response before assuming bad faith or making accusations. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

your first edit i reverted put the winner as Yogesh. Your second one put the winner as Shreya. Is that not speculation? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure? Can you provide the specific diffs you’re referring to and verify your claim? Tenshi Uisu (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Uisu When you say subsequent events confirm the correctness of your information, what you really mean to say is "I made a lucky guess". Guessing, predicting, and looking ahead are unacceptable. You have to wait until reliable sources have published their analysis, before you can put anything at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! By “subsequent events confirmed that the information was correct,” I meant that the information I added ultimately proved to be accurate. My edits were not guesses or predictions; they were based on reliable sources.

Ironically, it was Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 who speculated on the Talk:Lock Upp (season 2) by stating that “the finale is being held instead on the 8th, not the 5th (August)”, which later turned out to be incorrect. I don’t make “lucky guesses,” please verify your claims. Thanks! Tenshi Uisu (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If I got an insider tip- just hypotethically- that Tesla was going to get a trillion dollars and put that in two days before it happened and than it did happen, would that not count as misleading information before confirmed or not?

Am I G-d that I should know whether the info was GOING to be correct? Was it correct in the moment? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, when you don't lay out exactly what your sources are, you're guessing. (Or less polite words could be used.) Nobody trusts you here, and they shouldn't either - not because there's anything wrong with you, just because they can't fact-check you.

Nothing goes on Wikipedia until it has ALREADY "later turned out". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Im simply going to end the discussion with this @Tenshi Uisu, that the finale is over so we should just let this go but even if you did know for a fact through leaks or insider information that Shreya would win, that violates WP:NOR, so it's not as much as just saying "it was correct, so yay", cause there were 5 finalists and 3 (yogesh, shivangi, shreya) allegedly shot dummy victories so you had a 20-33% of guessing and getting it right. Either way, whether through leak or guess, it goes against established rule on wikipedia Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, move on! You wrote: “There were 5 finalists and 3 (Yogesh, Shivangi, Shreya) allegedly shot dummy victories, so you had a 20–33% chance of guessing and getting it right.” “Allegedly” says it all. You’re taking an unverified assumption, turning it into arbitrary odds, and then presenting that as an argument.

It’s you who keeps speculating and then accusing me of knowing the winner through leaks or insider information. If you’re also claiming “(I) edit with different info each time” because I supposedly had insider knowledge, show the evidence. Otherwise, it’s just an accusation built on your own speculation.

After your edit here: Diff/1367708936, I waited to edit article further: Diff/1367851912. The edit History speaks for itself.

I’m not disputing that Wikipedia does not allow editors to use leaked or otherwise unpublished information as a basis for claims. My point is that it is false to characterise my position as “guessing” and then assign arbitrary odds to it after the fact.

The finale has now aired. There’s nothing more to discuss ;) Tenshi Uisu (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

ok then end it. What a strawman. The 20-33% chance doesn't matter, the NOR matters.

Also the edit thing was a mistake. Sorry, but it doesn't change the fact that your edits violate WP:NOR. Nothing more to say, it's glaringly obvious :/ Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Closing this: please discuss content of specific articles on that article's Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Forum Inquiry

According to the header Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought page WP:!, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I respect this decision, however, why can someone ask a specific question when they have got one about travel in the travel forum but cannot do the same thing in Wikipedia? 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Because that site is separate from Wikipedia, and has its own separate rules. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is more informal and serves as more of a forum-like site than Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 23:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@LavaSalt402 If you read the part of WP:! at WP:NOTFORUM, you'll see that Wikipedia has reference desks where it is perfectly acceptable to ask questions, with few limitations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Style of Writing

Hi all,

I am writing to ask about style of writing and how to do writing on the article: Pacifism in France.

Should I have stuff grouped by time or by topic inside a section. I.E:

This:

The French pacifist movement began to merge into a movement against Nuclear Weapons testing along with Neutralism and Communism during the 1950s and 1960s. The French Government's relationship with these protesters was generally negative. The French intelligence service, the DGSE, bombed the Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985. The vessel was owned by Greenpeace, which was used in protests against the French Nuclear Tests in the Pacific. There was little domestic opposition, although internationally the act was criticised as a selfish nationalist action. It was also reported by Foreign Affairs that there was rising discontent in the region and internationally with the French presence in the Pacific.

A law was passed in December 1963 which gave conscientious objectors a legal status; this was campaigned for by many but especially Louis Lecoin, who went on hunger strike in order for this law to be drafted.The main provisions of this law were introduced into the Code du service national in 1971. This allowed people who did not want to serve in the military to serve in civilian service. In a report in 1991, Amnesty International said that:

In recent years several conscripts have received insufficiently detailed information on the procedures to be followed in order to obtain conscientious objector status and the right to perform alternative service. As a result, their applications for conscientious objector status have been rejected on the grounds that they were received outside the stipulated time limits and they have been imprisoned for refusing to perform military service.

France has not required military service since 1997, which nullifies the worry in this report. The government announced in 2025 that it would begin voluntary military service.

There were protests against the expansion of a French Military base in Aveyron in October 1971. Local farmers protested to stop the expansion. During the protests, the farmers deployed sheep, which government forces were unable to contain. The French president, François Mitterrand, announced that the base would not be expanded in 1981 in response to the protests.

As soon as he came to power in 1981, the president of France, François Mitterrand, said that peace depended on the balance of forces. He used this as a justification for the American deployment of missiles across Europe.

Greenpeace and Mouvement De La Paix joined protests aimed at ending the French nuclear testing programs in 1995. In a protest against France's biggest and most recent Nuclear test, in January 1996, Greenpeace protesters were stopped and arrested by the French Navy.

Or this:

The French pacifist movement began to merge into a movement against Nuclear Weapons testing along with Neutralism and Communism during the 1950s and 1960s. The French Government's relationship with these protesters was generally negative. The French intelligence service, the DGSE, bombed the Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985. The vessel was owned by Greenpeace, which was used in protests against the French Nuclear Tests in the Pacific. There was little domestic opposition, although internationally the act was criticised as a selfish nationalist action. It was also reported by Foreign Affairs that there was rising discontent in the region and internationally with the French presence in the Pacific.Greenpeace and Mouvement De La Paix joined protests aimed at ending the French nuclear testing programs in 1995. In a protest against France's biggest and most recent Nuclear test, in January 1996, Greenpeace protesters were stopped and arrested by the French Navy.

A law was passed in December 1963 which gave conscientious objectors a legal status; this was campaigned for by many but especially Louis Lecoin, who went on hunger strike in order for this law to be drafted. The main provisions of this law were introduced into the Code du service national in 1971. This allowed people who did not want to serve in the military to serve in civilian service. In a report in 1991, Amnesty International said that:

In recent years several conscripts have received insufficiently detailed information on the procedures to be followed in order to obtain conscientious objector status and the right to perform alternative service. As a result, their applications for conscientious objector status have been rejected on the grounds that they were received outside the stipulated time limits and they have been imprisoned for refusing to perform military service.

France has not required military service since 1997, which nullifies the worry in this report. The government announced in 2025 that it would begin voluntary military service.

There were protests against the expansion of a French Military base in Aveyron in October 1971. Local farmers protested to stop the expansion. During the protests, the farmers deployed sheep, which government forces were unable to contain. The French president, François Mitterrand, announced that the base would not be expanded in 1981 in response to the protests.

As soon as he came to power in 1981, the president of France, François Mitterrand, said that peace depended on the balance of forces. He used this as a justification for the American deployment of missiles across Europe.

Thanks Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Similar articles go both ways. I think this is a place where you can use your creativity and judgment as an editor. You could also take this question to the Talk page of the article, where it will be visible to the editors most directly involved with the topic.

I appreciate the thought that went into this question, but now I think you can be bold and pick the one you personally think works the best. M kuhner (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Removing bare url warning when all bare urls are dead

I'm working on fixing bare urls by going through Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations. Occasionally I will find a page like Coscom Entertainment, which has a Cleanup bare URLs template at the top, but the only bare url in the references is one that has been marked as a permanent dead link. In situations like this, is it acceptable to remove the Cleanup bare URLs template since there is no further cleanup possible? Quetzalquill (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a kindness to future editors who will visit the page hoping to clean up bare URLs, but be unable to do so. (If you can fix the dead link, that would be amazing--but you certainly can remove the tag either way.) M kuhner (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the url has been archived, in which case it can be "rescued" with the archive-url. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Confronting abnormal edit patterns

Hello! I was recently patrolling recent changes and I came across an editor who's edits seemed abnormal. They were making edits very very quickly. In a 10 minute span, they made approximately 30 edits to over 25 different articles, or almost 20 seconds per edit. They edited at or near this pace for only a short while (20 mins), but their edit history shows that they regularly edit at this pace. All their edits were relatively small (less than 100 bytes), with the vast majority being grammar copyedits and/or removal of blatant promotional language.

I was apprehensive about asking the user about their editing. They have less than 500 edits and I did not want to bite them. Their edits all seem constructive, but I felt like the pace seemed unreasonably high for any single person to edit at. I suspected perhaps an unauthorized bot or similar, but that's a very substansive accusation to make based solely on edit speed.

I initially thought they might be making trivial edits to game extended confirmed protection. Upon review of their edits though, they all seem to be genuinely constuctive edits.

I have intentionally not included the user's name in case they're innocent, but if other users think that it warrants further investigation, I can provide it.

My question is, given the circumstances, would it be biting if I asked the user about how they were able to edit so fast? I'd appreciate y'all's thoughts. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 15:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it would be reasonable. to ask, but in a non-confrontational manner, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ended up doing some more digging, and finding a handful of socks, all appearing to do automated/semi automated edits. Not sure what their motive was but it was weird. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 13:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Possibly testing a tool before using it for more nefarious purposes. Good spot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

What the heck does "sans" mean in Wikipedia?

Found this word laying around in this hilarious contribs page and the deletion log of User:椿/TWA/Earth/2. What the actual heck does "sans" mean? It's not even in Wikipedia:Glossary. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 20:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sans is a French loanword commonly used in English. It means "without", but with a flair of panache and je ne sais quoi. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It means 'without' I think. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"Last scene of all, / That ends this strange eventful history, / Is second childishness and mere oblivion, / Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." —Shakespeare Deor (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@SimpleObjects-9ei "Sans" means "without" in French ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 23:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comic Sans, Sans Souci... and so on. Oops, I see that the question has already been answered. All the world's a stage... and have I mentioned that I love this movie to bits, recently?--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See also sans-serif; sans-culottes, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sans (Undertale) ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 11:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

corresponding article q

hi ! was going for a recommended pg edit and saw this guy smack dab at the top:

"You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Spanish."

Can someone provide general "dos" and "don'ts" before I dive in? I previously asked Teahouse how to link to other language Wikis, but I don't exactly know how to access the Spanish version of the pg I'm trying to edit now ~ Miss Dominican Republic 1993. lmk! thanks Spindella000 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ooop ok I see now languages are literally at the top right of the pg. however, the Spanish version only has one ref and it's this FB link https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=698454533501876&set=gm.578189488908618&type=1&theater

any guidance on how to tackle this would be appreciated! not sure it even makes sense to pull info from spanish to english bc both pgs don't have refs...is the tag misplaced in this situation? Spindella000 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right that you shouldn't add translated text to the English article if it wouldn't meet English Wikipedia's standards, in this case Wikipedia:Verifiability. As for whether that's the case with this article, have a look at WP:FACEBOOK, specifically: The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (Go there and read the linked pages too!) So if those conditions are met, using it as a source for something like the results of the competition would be acceptable. Though if I could help it, I probably would use another source, like the official website or a news article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Since I can help it, if I wanted to improve some article, I'd choose one on a different subject. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

references

I have a draft ready in the sand box and have five references to add but do not see how to add these? ~2026-43405-48 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for a starting point. Also, I cannot see any edits on your temporary account prior to this post. Did you perhaps get logged out of your user account? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

scammed by writer who promised to upload my article

Hi I paid a third party to write my entry and then they never uploaded the agreed upon entry. Guess it was a scam Her name was Zoey Anderson I hope there is someway to report it. Question: How can I get what was written and agreed upon to be reviewed and uploaded.kaym ~2026-43282-06 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

A: No going back unless you have the emails or such.

B: see WP:SCAM

C: see relevant guidelines Tankishguy 22:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43282-06 If you still have the receipts then please forward the whole conversation with email headers to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. (mailto) ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 23:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I doubt this person was actually called Zoey Anderson. Presumably they used a fake name. Wikipedia has nothing to do with those scammers, so we can't do anything about the scammer or find the draft contents unless you have some more information like a username or draft article title. If you only talked outside of Wikipedia and the draft was never uploaded here, you're out of luck. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43282-06 As for How can I get what was written and agreed upon to be reviewed and uploaded, the unfortunate reality is that if you have to pay somebody to publish it, then it's almost guaranteed to be unsuitable for Wikipedia: because if it were really suitable a volunteer will do it for free. Athanelar (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Tone fixing

I am a new editor. I would want to know what to do to become a professional editor. I have heard I need to edit 50 articles a day and I need to dominate easy, medium, and hard levels side quests on the wikipedia account thingy. Also I heard that I need to create a new article. Is there a guide of steps in order to become a proffesional editors? What do you think people should do? Are this advices rigth? Joe10232310 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Where did you read the word "professional"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joe10232310, You could see: Wikipedia:There is no deadline. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 00:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is different, too. I've been here for several years and never created an article, and so far I'm happy with keeping it that way. If I'm a "professional-anything" on Wikipedia it would have to be professional nitpicker. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joe10232310: Welcome to The Teahouse. I have no idea where you heard that you need to do X, Y, and Z to become a "professional editor", whatever that entails. People have different comfort levels as to how much they engage with Wikipedia as a reader or editor. There is no clout from becoming a "professional editor"; people's reputations are built on the quality of their contributions—less so on their quantity.

My primary focus in articlespace is copyediting; in all my years here I've only created one article that remains at start-class. Making meaningful edits to 50 articles a day is a Herculean effort that many people won't bother with. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Even 1 new article a day is impossible for most people. I can't imagine 50 a day. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess there are different possible standards, but I have taken two already-finished articles that I thought had poor writing style and given them "full makeovers". The medium-sized one took almost a week; the large complex one took a month. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The simple difference between a professional cellist/muralist/cook/writer/editor/whatever and an amateur ditto is that the former does it for money (or some similar currency) whereas the latter does it for personal enjoyment. Wikipedia discourages editing for money (with exceptions, notably editing for the Open Knowledge Association), and in this way discourages "professionalism". So what you say you've heard is very strange. But at least it's comprehensible, unlike "easy, medium, and hard levels side quests on the wikipedia account thingy". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I would even venture that side quests - which make perfect sense in certain games where they provide added difficulty/extra adventures/bonus points/whatever - make no sense at all on Wikipedia. On here, "make Wikipedia better" is the only goal, and either you're doing some bit of that or you're not. And nobody really cares which parts you do, as long as you're making things better and not worse. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Or perhaps by "professional" you mean something like "as competent at the job as somebody who'd charge money for doing it, and whose performance at it wouldn't disappoint (let alone infuriate) the paying customer". Anyway, Joe10232310, practise your abilities in gauging the quality of sources, examining the good ones carefully and at length, and summarizing and citing accurately and informatively. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Im not new

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles

Are you allowed to create articles on Wikipedia that were deleted quite a while ago, because it was created by a sockpuppeteer/future vandal? (Sorry if I am asking a silly question, but I am new here and I just want an answer). HGKY (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there are no bars on creating articles under names that were previously deleted, but they may have been deleted for a reason that continues to be relevant (eg. lack of notability). Do you have an example? CMD (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The only exception is that if an article was recreated over and over until it got on everyone's nerves, that article name may be barred from use ("salted"). If you write a good, well-sourced article it's generally not hard to get the admins to unbar the name for you. I suggest writing as a draft and submitting to WP:Articles for Creation. Do not try making clever variations on the article name to get around the salting, though, as this will further annoy people and may lead to your article suddenly being deleted. M kuhner (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM use

 Courtesy link: Draft:Open systems theory

I disclosed LLM use in the initial drafting of a page (per WP:LLM) and documented that the content was substantively revised by a subject expert. An AfC reviewer has interpreted this as 'not allowed on Wikipedia' and tagged the draft. Is that the correct reading of WP:LLM, and if so, what is the recommended path for legitimate expert-collaborative drafts? Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLM says in bold the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited. The solution is to remove the text and start over from scratch without the use of an LLM. Don't use LLMs to assist your communication with other editors either (WP:LLMTALK). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Followed your advice and have started fresh and have a basic version in the works, written live here instead of locally as the previous one for better tracking. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I just saw this idea the other day, and its brilliant simplicity might be helpful:

Revising LLM material is trying to get the rat poison back out of the soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I might almost say that on Wikipedia expert-collaborative drafts are never legitimate. That may be going too far, but it isn't crazy.

Wikipedia articles are never new material, and must not be new material - we intentionally only recycle what has already been REpublished in secondary sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a rumor that says Wikipedia hates and rejects experts.

The rumor is not completely wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You say I disclosed LLM use in the initial drafting of a page (per WP:LLM) but that's not "per WP:LLM" at all since, as Helpful Raccoon has helpfully and raccoonily pointed out, WP:LLM pretty explicitly says that such "initial drafting" with LLMs is not allowed. It sounds like you've made the common mistake of having the AI summarise the policy for you rather than just reading it yourself, so consider that a lesson learned and please heed the actual requirements here; in this case meaning you need to delete everything the AI generated and start over with your own human brain in charge. Athanelar (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

per WP:LLM

Thjortel: where does it say that? Did you read somewhere here that LLM use is fine if you just disclose it, or did you get it from somewhere else? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Never thought it would be considered AI-generated as it is collaboratively written by two experts in the field, both authors and one is regarded as the top expert and has developed the field since the 70s. When the claim was made by one of the editors, I Googled and figured I needed to be honest about the use of it in the initial phases. Not as a writer, but as an editor and support for structuring the initial draft. It is a massive body of work that needs to be condensed down to a short Wikipedia page after all. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are top experts wasting their time working on a Wikipedia article? Their talent and knowledge is ... well, it's not completely useless here, but any new information or innovations they publish here are going to be deleted within hours - if not minutes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The expert in this case is not interested in Wikipedia, but I am, as a supporter of both. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My point, in that case, is why is the expert postponing valuable work to look up copies of secondary literature for you? Wikipedia is a meta-review of available secondary literature, where the power of expert opinion is limited to knowing which journals (or other sources) to look in. The expert's own knowledge is going to receive no exposure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct, but I want the topic to be as precise as possible, as they do. Makes the Wikipedia content better IMHO. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

An expert coming to take the science and technology world by storm through publishing on Wikipedia is like a Formula 1 driver showing up in a railroad caboose. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is a correct reading of the guideline. The way to fix it is the same as if you accidentally pour drain cleaner into a pot of soup: you dispose of the soup and start over.

There's also no discrete category called "expert-collaborative drafts" so I'm unclear why you're referencing it. Articles written by subject-matter experts have the exact same requirements as those that aren't; that someone is an expert doesn't change the sourcing requirements or the applicability of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Can someone restore this draft?

There is a draft called Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) that was deleted just because, and there are some users that have deleted what I've added to the draft, saying something about a "G5". By the way, I didn't create the article, I only added some things. The users who have deleted the draft should have common sense because there are another 2 articles about the soundtracks of the other Fantastic Beasts movies which are: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (soundtrack) and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (soundtrack). If there are 2 articles about the soundtracks of the first 2 movies, why not an article about the soundtrack of the third movie? Regards ~2026-43600-42 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If it was really G5, which I don't know for sure, then G5 means it was not deleted "just because" - it means the article comes from someone who was already banned (or at least blocked) and who was caught trying to break back in. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably they referred to me, but I've already explained that my IP changes itself in the UTRS, so it is not my fault if I appear unblocked with another IP. I am just asking for it to restore it, and as I said before, I didn't create the article. ~2026-43600-42 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess part of the problem is everyone knows that when someone says an article "was deleted just because", they really mean "was deleted for good reasons that I want to keep hidden". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're blocked on any IP, you're not allowed to post here under any other IP. Blocks are of you the person, not just an IP address. That you're not physically prevented does not mean that you are allowed; I do not have any more right to drive my neighbor's car without permission if he happens to leave his keys in the ignition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The deletion log is publicly available at Special:Log/delete and indeed, this draft has been speedied 4(!) times for G5. Athanelar (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Convert declined biography to a book article? (COI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance with Draft Title Rename

Hello! I would like to ask for some assistance regarding a draft I originally created back in 2023, which I recently decided to continue working on in 2026.

I didn't realize that there was already another person with the same name, Charlotte Austin. I only discovered this after I retrieved my draft (it had previously been deleted) and started editing it again.

I was hoping to get help changing the draft title and the subject's name from Charlotte Austin to Thanwarat Charlotte Louise Austin. The draft is currently under review under the title Charlotte Austin, and I think that may be one of the reasons it has taken so long to be approved, since the name is shared with someone else.

I would sincerely appreciate any guidance or assistance with renaming the draft to avoid this confusion. Thank you so much to anyone willing to help! Kitamhal (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft name has nothing to do with how long it's taking to review. That's entirely to do with the fact it's sitting in a pile with 2,585 other drafts also waiting for review. The draft title is irrelevant anyway, since if your draft were accepted then the reviewer can move it to mainspace under any title they consider appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kitamhal I also see that your references are all in Thai. This also increases the time it'll take to get reviewed, since it's more challenging and time consuming for a reviewer to check the sources.

In other words, be patient. There's no rush to get your article published. Go edit something else in the meantime. Athanelar (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

noted! thank you Kitamhal (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Kitamhal. The Draft title will have no bearing on the draft being approved. It is a routine task for a reviewer who accepts a Draft, and moves it to Article space, to rename the Draft appropriately as necessary, and take care of any ambiguities by adding hatnotes to two similarly named articles or creating a disambiguation page if there are three or more, if the creator has not done this already.

So don't worry about changing the Draft title (this would actually be done by moving the draft).

Note that until the Draft has been accepted or declined again, you are free to keep improving it along the lines suggested by others. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

okay.. thank you so much! Kitamhal (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the main reasons to not pay much attention to the name on the draft is that the writer's preferred name for an article often has to be changed anyway. The real names of articles are not given to be "official" or "best" - instead they are given to make sure that readers who are looking for the article will really find it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

How to find sources that critique a work?

I'm working on Lionel Tiger's page and need to find what made one of his books controversial. Specifically, what actual scientists have to say about theories he kind of just made up. Thanks! —LeastConcern 08:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use academic search engines like Google Scholar or ProQuest. If you're affiliated with a university they will probably provide you with more tools as well (some libraries can do that too), and if you edit enough you can get access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. But Google Scholar is free and not a bad starting point. Not sure about what the restrictions are for ProQuest without a subscription, since I've only ever used it while logged in, but it's worth a shot. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have any university creds and I tried GS and nothing came up. It probably has to do with the fact the book is from 1969 or that I didn't use the right terms.

Are there any good places to search through newspaper scans by text or article title? — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You might try googling tiger "men in groups" site:archive.org -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 09:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I tried that and all that came up were copies of the book itself, unfortunately. — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Have a gander at these search results: https://stabikat.de/Search/Results?lookfor=tiger%20men%20in%20groups&type=AllFields

Looks like there's some reviews there. If you need help finding the full text for anything, e-mail me and I can send you a copy. Or if you need several, you can sign up for a free online account. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Maddy. I kind of gave up on the search of articles but I will use a blog post by some of his colleagues (https://sunynewpaltzpsychologydepartment.blogspot.com/2008/02/did-he-really-say-that-closer-look-at.html). Your userpage is cool and I relate to basically all of the userboxes. — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 05:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How about English articles for ...

LTA Athanelar (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...“小山車両センター”, “日本の車両基地一覧”, “都道府県独立国家論”, and “日本の分割統治計画”

What do you think about it? ~2026-43532-12 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant how about creating English articles from these Japanese articles that don’t have articles on English Wikipedia? ~2026-43532-12 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Vladimirovich Papyan

Hi everyone!

I'd like to ask for some advice before creating an article about Dr. Andrey Papyan (MD, PhD, Associate Professor), a pathologist and academic. Before I start working on a draft, I'd like to understand whether the available sources and achievements are likely to satisfy WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. From what I've found, he is the President of the Armenian Association of Pathologists and Histopathologists, has been teaching at Yerevan State Medical University for about 19 years as an Associate Professor, and is also the Head of the Pathology Service at a major laboratory network.

There is also independent coverage in the Belarusian state medical publication Medvestnik, which covered his presentation as an invited international expert at the 4th Congress of Belarusian Pathologists. In addition, he has peer-reviewed publications, profiles in academic databases, and has participated in international research collaborations. Do you think this would be enough to support a draft on the English Wikipedia? In particular, would the leadership role in a national professional society and the independent coverage in professional media be considered strong evidence under WP:NPROF or WP:GNG?

I'd really appreciate any advice from editors familiar with biographies or academic notability before I start working on the draft. Thanks! Jambojosh (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you read the guidance at WP:Golden rule? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy! Yes, I'm familiar with WP:GOLDEN. The main source I have is an in-depth feature in the national medical publication Medvestnik (medvestnik.by), along with official academic databases. However, since independent secondary coverage is limited to a couple of major pieces rather than a broad selection, I understand that it sits right on the edge of WP:GNG. I appreciate the reality check! ~2026-43392-48 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

As "Jambojosh", you have made a total of two edits, both in this very thread and therefore none to any article. To me, it seems both odd and unwise to essay a new article on any subject despite having no experience of editing existing articles. (And this is on top of the doubts about notability-as-defined-by-and-for-Wikipedia.) What do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment before restoring Draft:DuoCards (declared COI)

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

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

The best sources I am aware of are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding footnotes to navboxes

How do I add a footnote to a navbox, such as this one? Like a small cross next to a label, with text at the bottom. Fortek67 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't see a footnote on the page you link to, but you can use {{efn}} to add footnotes; with {{Notelist}} at the foot of the page where you wish them to be displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The template I linked was just the navbox I was talking about, sorry. Whilst for the efn template, I already know about that, but before in the past I've seen a more proper way to do it, with the footnote list at the bottom of the navbox. Maybe there's a better place to ask about this? Fortek67 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind I've got it working now -- how does this look? Fortek67 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating Wikitext testcases for a module

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask about this topic but I could not locate a module specific help forum so I'm posting my query here. Please redirect me to a better location if there is one!

I'm trying to create Wikitext testcases for my module at Module:Sports attendance/sandbox in the style of Module:Sports table/testcases wikitext, at Module:Sports attendance/testcases wikitext but it's giving me errors since it appears to expect a Lua script instead of Wikitext. How do I go about resolving this issue?

Thank you for your attention! RobinL-CA (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Module:Sports table/sandbox appears to contain the Lua code for that module. I discovered this by going to Module:Sports table/testcases wikitext and clicking to edit the whole page (of course without actually editing anything).

(I hope that's not the opposite of what you wanted to know.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TooManyFingers, thanks for taking the time to respond!

Yes, Module:Sports table/testcases wikitext does indeed use code from Module:Sports table/sandbox, as well as code from Module:Sports table. What I'm stuck on is how Module:Sports table/testcases wikitext appears to use Wikitext, whereas Module:Sports attendance/testcases wikitext appears to expect a Lua script. Is there any way to have it use Wikitext instead? RobinL-CA (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand Lua, but Module:Sports table seems to have a large Lua "infrastructure" spread over a number of subpages, and I can only think that some of that Lua functions as a parser for the kinds of Wikitext it expects. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I've figured it out! You can change it at Page Information --> Page content model (change).

Thanks again for taking the time to help! RobinL-CA (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

references

 Courtesy link: User:Emccons/sandbox

I have a draft ready in the sandbox but need to know how to add references. Do the numbers have to be in superscript. If so I do not know how to do that. David Emccons (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emccons Please also read Wikipedia:No original research; I can't be certain about this, but I think the "no original research" requirement might unfortunately eliminate every single thing you have there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No the find has been published in two reputable sources and so is not an original thought in Wikipedia.

David Emccons (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Emccons, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

This crucially means that if Weston is the discoverer, then any article should be almost entirely based on material about the phenomenon wholly unconnected with Weston or his associates.

This is why Weston's career is absolutely not relevant to this proposed article: a Wikipedia article on it should report what people unconnected with its discoverer have published about it, and if there are not yet any, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Little about its discoverer is of any relevance unless those independent commentators chose to talk about him.

Given your actual name that you have signed with above, I'm guessing that you may be David Weston. If so, you need to be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest, particularly the section "Citing yourself".

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Well Thanks for all that. obviously Wikipedia is not the correct venue for my find.

David Emccons (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

references

I have a short draft in the sandbox and want to add references. How do I do that?

David Emccons (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Answered above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Archiving your own Talk Page

What is the easiest way to archive one's own Talk Page? Is it the Quick and easy method, Manual archiving (User talk:YourUsername/Archive 1), or? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I believe most editors would say that automatic archival by bot (usually through User:Lowercase sigmabot III) is the most pain-free method of archiving. I personally do a manual archive twice a year as I don't get a lot of frequent additions to my talk page to begin with. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maineartists, I just set up bot auto archiving myself. You can check User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for instructions. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 19:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I can set the bot code up for you, if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Wow! Thanks, everyone! All of this is extremely helpful and simple directive responses! Andy Mabbett, thank you! I would love that if you could / would! I really appreciate it! Maineartists (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Done; a bot should sweep up within the next 24 hours or so, and then regularly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy Mabbett! That is awesome! I really appreciate your help on this one! Cheers, Maineartists (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Link to the member article in the group article

My article about a member of j-pop group was recently accepted to the English Wikipedia. Articles about him exist in Japanese and Indonesian Wikipedia. How to add English language to the list?

K (&TEAM)

Mirenathecat (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mirenathecat You wrote K (&TEAM). Who is the TEAM? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

His group is called &TEAM. Mirenathecat (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh! I get it. K (&Team) is him, not you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You add the article to the relevant Wikidata entry. In practice, I think if you go to either one of the existing articles (Japanese/Indonesian) and go to the language selection menu, there should be an option to add another article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See also Help:Interlanguage_links. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ~~~~ Mirenathecat (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added it to Q116226143 on Wikidata. @Mirenathecat, I can see that you've translated the article from Japanese, which is allowed, but you should always provide attribution to the original page. I've added a template to the talk page attributing the article, you may use this as an example for future translations. See also WP:TFOLWP. Fortek67 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thank you! ~~~~ Mirenathecat (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I translated the article from Japanese manually, and checked all the links, doing my best to find English language references, added some facts, some more links, changed some sentences. ~~~~ Mirenathecat (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed?

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. In general, I don't see many pages with the diacritics in the title. Do you think this page (Vidyāraṃbhaṃ) should be renamed to remove the diacritics? Coradpuge7 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No; see WP:DIACRITICS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s a very useful question, @Coradpuge7, and glad to have Andy’s answer. If I had noticed that sort of discrepancy before, it would have made me wonder too.

As I began writing this message, some playful little leprechaun put it into my head to wonder what diacritics critics are called … Augnablik (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, they may be called "But on the cob", in honour of the French distinction between "mais" and "maïs". Or, punningly, "They hate my but", from the above plus the similar sounds of "maïs" and "m'haïssent". :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also punningly, that title would be a bit corny (ducking and running, with a promise of no more contributions to this thread). Augnablik (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability of an event covered in an article that is only sourced primarily

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I really should know this by now, but where can information be found on the coverage of an event required to warrant inclusion in an article? To be clear, I'm not (or at least I don't think I am) referring to WP:N, which is about whether something warrants it's own article. Events are being added to Tally Hall that are only covered primarily, and, while I feel like that means they do not warrant inclusion, I am uncertain as I am not aware of the relevant guidelines.

The answer to this is probably going to be really obvious. I apologise if it is. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, it seems like at least a quarter of them are primary. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

While secondary and tertiary sources are preferred, WP:PRIMARY (part of a policy) allows for primary sources in come cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

More than once I have mistakenly told people that primary sources are no good for this. My own error was that I was misapplying the notability criteria; notability is required of the subject of the article, but not also required of all the events, actions, or items described inside the article.

It would be wrong, in an article about "person A", to try to embed an off-topic mini-article about non-notables "person B" or "event C"; but if you're only mentioning them as they're duly relevant to the life & career of "person A" then it's fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with its concept of "due weight", therefore becomes important. If my "person A" created an obscure non-notable invention, I can mention it if it's in the sources but I can't go on about it for several paragraphs. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Crtbob, I think WP:UNDUE WEIGHT also comes into it: if something has not been mentioned by an independent source, is it important enough to go into the article? Sometimes the answer will clearly be "Yes", and sometimes pretty clearly "No"; but there will be editorial discretion, and the possiblity of disagreement. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(... which is one section of the NPOV page, but the most important one for this purpose) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses!

Since posting this, there actually has been independent coverage of the event, though I don't know how reliable it is. It seems accurate based on primary sources I've seen, but I can't rely on WP:RSP as it's not listed there. The site mostly just seems to discuss celebrity drama.

Regarding undue weight, it's more an announcement than a viewpoint; the band has been on hiatus for about 15 years, and the announcement floated getting back together. I do feel like that's an important inclusion in the article.

I do have another concern though; the announcement was made by only four out of five members, as the other has been accused of sexual misconduct, which they do not condone. A lot of the fanbase of this band is very young and knows little of Wikipedia's policies, and they are interpreting the announcement as meaning that the member has been officially evicted from the band, which they do not say in the announcement. Edits made to the page have been demoting him to past member of the band, calling it his "formal removal" from the band and similar. I opened a thread on the talk page explaining my view and asking for others', but I suspect that most of the TAs making edits don't know what a talk page is.

I've three questions that also function as a summary:

• Is the independent source I found reliable/suitable for inclusion?
• Can the vague Twitter announcement that never explicitly states eviction from the band be interpreted by editors as eviction, or is this WP:SPECULATION? That he is no longer a member of the band cannot be WP:VERIFIED.
• Was opening the thread on the talk page the correct thing to do? Is there a more common way of resolving things like this and getting people to take part in the conversation without canvassing?

I apologise if this is unsuitably long; I struggle to be concise. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I can say for sure that Wikipedia treats all fanbase reaction (and all fan comments) like they never existed, unless reliable publishers come out with stories that discuss those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this. I assume you're implying that editors drawing the conclusion that Hawley is evicted from the band is fanbase reaction. If I interpret you incorrectly, please let me know, as I am autistic and struggle with social cues.

If this is true, then is it accurate to revert edits suggesting he is a past member? I did this here and here, and recent changes patrollers appear to have interpreted it as unsourced. Would continuously reverting count as an edit war? Does this warrant page protection? ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

When this kind of messy news event happens, people can respond in unusual ways. One of those is to try to distort the truth; another is to desperately engage in senseless bickering. I think many autistic people have a strong natural dislike for those things, and while this might be one little reason why I tend to like autistic people, I suspect that some autistic people might become frustrated interacting with a lot of people at once who want to distort the truth, want to bicker senselessly, and who might get offended if asked to stop doing those things.

If I were you, I'd abandon this article until people's stupid reactions naturally wear off. It's probably not worth the stress; the article will end up substantially the same anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I don't think that anyone involved is acting in bad faith; a lot of the fanbase is very young, and unaware of our editorial guidelines. I'm going to unwatch the page, as I realise that dealing with this is causing me more stress than satisfaction. I appreciate your help. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 23:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Crtbob. While this may no longer be relevant, PrimeTimer do publish their "editorial policy", at https://www.primetimer.com/editorial-policy, and it seems to be reasonably robust; which suggests that it probably is a reliable source. It doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN: for future reference, you can always ask about a source at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. I'm going to bookmark RSN for if I ever need it in the future. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I can also say that if you're calling something a "vague Twitter announcement", Wikipedia is almost certain to call it "worthless". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

References

References

Too many images?

I removed a bunch of images from Illegitimacy in fiction, because it was genuinely difficult to read the article. This has been a problem for decades now (see the talk page), but my edit was undone and the pictures were added again the next day. Is there a limit as to how many pictures can appear before the content of an article? ExtantRotations (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ExtantRotations. I guess you have a narrow screen which gives a poor layout for that article. You probably see the images centered without text around them. Wider screens display them to the right with text to the left. That looks OK on my desktop screen. I have made an edit which I think improves the situation a little on narrow screens by splitting the images into the corresponding sections. It's still a poor layout but there are fewer images in each group and they are closer to the text about the portrayed people. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thank you! I should have stated that I am on mobile, which displays all the images in full size. They have to be scrolled past to reach the text. ExtantRotations (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a form of content dispute, and one or more of the suggestions at WP:Dispute resolution may help you. There is some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images but a lot of it is "Not too many" rather than a hard rule.

Also worth noting that if the person reverting you has a wide screen, the article may look fine to them, even when it is truly terrible for you. Knowing this can sometimes help avoid futile arguments. M kuhner (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My own response when hearing the question "Too many images?" and the title "Illegitimacy in fiction" is that these are fictional characters whose appearance is more or less unknown in any case, the article is not about their appearance, and therefore I would expect no more than two or three images in the entire article, and that more would not be serving any purpose, let alone an encyclopedic one.

But I haven't read the article, and maybe if I did I would see exactly why they did it, and even agree. I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

As @M kuhner said, the guideline at MOS:IMAGEREL recommends quality over quantity. When I looked over the article myself, I definitely think some images should be trimmed. Aside from layout issues, they're not all relevant (@TooManyFingers, they are photos of most of the authors of the fiction referencing illegitimity). Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

... to which my knee-jerk reaction (maybe just "jerk") is that those are all off topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to be too radical myself, but I have to say I agree! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

+1. They fail MOS:IMAGEREL. By having so many about only a few sections, it presents a visual bias towards those topics. By having so many in each of several consecutive sections, it creates an increasingly bad image-stacking layout problem that even gets worse on wider screens, an effect contrary to the MOS:SECTIONLOC intent. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(From my own point of view, the concept of "illegitimate" children is a historic curiosity rather than a functioning idea, and I prefer not to dignify the concept by giving it a softer noun form. Way back when, they did mean to say "isn't a valid child", "shouldn't exist", and all the terrible stuff implied by the ordinary noun "illegitimacy". My modern equivalent term is "child". And now it's me who's off topic.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your historical interpretations. Historically, marriage was considered a cornerstone of ordered society not least because it strengthened the likelihood that children would be properly cared for, and children not born to parents married to each other potentially threatened that order. Being "illegitimate" usually meant not having a legal right to inherit from the father (if known): this was not necessarily a stigma on the "illegitimate" persons themselves, and often fathers could and did choose to support, and give or leave property or goods to such individuals (a well-known supposed case in point being one Yeshua ha-Notsri).

It is as well not to confuse modern sensibilities with the different social norms of the past. William of Normandy was in his time widely known as "William the Bastard" because his parents were not formally married. Although this posed him some legal problems, he nevertheless inherited his father's Dukedom, and went on to conquer England and become King William I. As far as I am aware, his 'illegitimacy' was not considered socially demeaning by anyone (although if they did, they would have been well advised to keep quiet about it). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Article is accepted

 Courtesy link: Draft:Infinityfree

My artical is accepted but Not move main space.How many time Draft to Main space? ~2026-43720-58 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It has not been accepted. You somehow have an accept notice for the already existing article about the letter A. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact, you have been keeping a fake acceptance notice on your draft from the very first day. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft has now been declined, its "references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(It had also already been declined, and the improving edit before resubmission was to paste the fake acceptance back into place.)

"Fake it till you make it" really does sometimes work for a person who has underestimated their own competence, but it's not effective for those who have overestimated, and this wasn't the right kind of faking anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And a bogus acceptance notice has also been added to User talk:~2026-42602-89 by ~2026-42479-74, who is either the same user or a colleague. STOP DOING THIS, person from InfinityFree: if you carry on this way, you are going to get yourself blocked.

I suggest you have a careful read of WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I removed the bogus acceptance note SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Request an account page too lengthy

Wikipedia:Request an account this page is too lengthy imo, is anyone interested in shortening it? It's way too much detail for an average person that just like... wants to make an account. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not for an average person making an account though - is it? Isn't it for when normal creation of an account has failed? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

They need that entire sidebar about the username policy? Most people pick usernames that are fine; it's usually exceptions where they pick a wrong username. I'm of the opinion that they should be told about the username policy in an even more brief fashion, and if they happen to trip up, an admin should inform them in more detail that they broke the username policy. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Grapesurgeon,

I don't think the page is too lengthy, to be honest. It's technically detailed enough to describe a serious process, and doesn't wander into unrelated topics. What's more, as @TooManyFingers said, the average person trying to create an account will start with Special:CreateAccount anyways.

If you can be more precise on your suggested changes, perhaps that'll change my opinion.

See also: similar discussion on article Talk page

Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 05:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

See my reply above. Some further detail; when you press "find my password" or "change my account name" at a commercial website, that's a pretty unusual process, right? Not for the average person. Do you receive literally thousands of words in technical documentation in reply first? Do you receive a TOS-level page about username policy? You don't, because 1. who would read that and 2. it's not relevant to most people. You're presented options to do what you need, and if there's an issue you get informed of that.

Also, respectfully I think Wikipedians tend to have a pretty distorted view about how much instruction is helpful/necessary to users. Look at like, any of our policy/guideline/tool pages. We have a serious problem with being verbose and outsiders notice and (imo often rightfully) mock us for it. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon

I beg to differ, because "find my Password" or "Change Username" aren't the cases to land on "Request an account". BTW when one creates an account on any other commercial website, there are very "wordy" Terms of Use, Disclaimers, etc. to read. Nobody wants to read them either, but there they are.

So, as the others above me, I don't think there is any reason to shorten "Request an account". Maresa63 ^Talk 10:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Terms of use and disclaimers etc exist but their usage is significantly streamlined. We don't provide any streamlining.

Also, I'm a bit shocked that you and others can read the prose there and think that it's concise enough and also think that every detail there is completely necessary for anyone using this to know. A chunk of stuff there does not apply to most people who just need an account created to get around the IP block. Again, if they encounter a problem, why can they just not be informed of it?

I'm repeating myself, but Wikipedians have a severe misalignment with normal people in sensing how verbose something is. IMO defending the wall of text there is really not a normal reaction. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think on the websites you're using for comparison, no comparable function actually exists.

The level we're at here is comparable to, for example, an imaginary screen at Amazon called Create Account/What if I don't have a valid card to pay from? Can I just mail you a check? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

COI tag review after prior disclosure — next steps?

I'm the subject of an article Joshua Chiang with a declared COI (disclosed 2 April 2026). A COI tag was added 29 June, after my disclosure. I've filed a Request edit — is there anything else I should do to get this reviewed? Joshua Chiang (artist) (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It's exactly right for the article to be tagged this way. If you really need to get that tag removed, you'll need to quit touching the article and wait until other people have deleted all your material and replaced it with their own version. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This is because the tag doesn't mean "be suspicious, he's sneaky". The tag means "be suspicious, he wrote some of this" - which is true. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(Note that this means the tag will likely stay up for years. If a group of editors soon starts changing the article to get rid of the tag, you'll immediately be suspected of sending them. So just sit back and let everything stay as it is.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, because the requirements for adding it:

if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

were not met. (Note that it's "explain what is non-neutral about the article", not "say that a COI exists".) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Chiang (artist) @Pigsonthewing Sorry my answer was wrong. I try to make sense of this material to remember it, and that obviously failed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very big; none of us can remember all of its intricacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Edits in My Area of Knowledge

Request for Guidance on Building Edits in My Area of Knowledge

Hello Wiki Tea House, I mainly have knowledge of South Indian history, particularly the Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Hoysalas, and related dynasties. I don't have sufficient knowledge of other subjects, so I can only make meaningful contributions to South Indian history articles. I would like to reach 500+ constructive edits by improving existing South Indian history pages with properly sourced additional information, rather than making edits on subjects I don't know well.

Recently, I have been told that I cannot edit certain historical topics until I become extended-confirmed. I understand the requirement, but if I cannot contribute to the subjects I actually know, I am unsure how I can build my editing experience. I am only asking for the opportunity to improve existing South Indian history articles by adding properly sourced information from reliable secondary sources. Could you please advise me on how I can continue contributing constructively within my area of knowledge and build up my edits? Vasilystepanov (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vasilystepanov First, you don't need relevant subject matter expertise in order to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Considering we require factual claims to be sourced to reliable sources, even when it comes to editing directly factual matters, your subject matter expertise really only helps you to find relevant information rather than being directly applicable. If there are subjects you're interested in outside of South Asia, I encourage you to branch out into those. Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict rule called No original research, which includes the concept of "no writing from your own knowledge"; every scrap of historical information requires a citation to a published impartial secondary source, and statements based instead on "I know this subject" are deleted as invalid. The essential reason for this is that Wikipedia has no way of assessing expert credentials and therefore cannot trust claims of expertise. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

there is a big list of things here Wikipedia:Task Center that can be done, and many of these require no knowledge of the topic. for example, copy editing is primarily going to require knowledge of English spelling and grammar rules. each task also has a rating on what level of editor skill it takes to do it, so you might like to go check out some beginner tasks. these can build your edit count as well as help you build a working knowledge of wikipedia's manual of style and policies and such. Jackjd0 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My edit was removed because I didn't add a source

Today I decided to add the birthday of a musician on the articles about his date and year of birth. I didn't provide a source because I saw a lot of other submissions not being sourced on those articles, so I thought it was fine if I didn't source my edit either. A few minutes later, I received a message saying my edits were rejected because I didn't submit a source. I read everything it said and I understand why they keep the rules that way, but if that's the case, why weren't all the other unsourced submissions also rejected?

(I did find a non-Wikipedia source in the meantime and I'm going to add his birthday again with that source I'm just curious why nothing else was rejected) LostmindRH (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In short, because nobody happened to revert those. There is no systematic review which would approve or reject new edits to Wikipedia. Your edit was likely seen by someone watching recent edits, but this too is an informal system and given the volume of edits, there is no guarantee that each edit will be checked by someone. And even if, the person checking might just be looking for obvious vandalism, might overlook the problems with the edit, and so on. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

See also this: Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT. To a first approximation: over the years, the requirements in English Wikipedia for information to be cited have become stronger. Many articles started a long time ago still retain old, unsourced content, but today's requirements for new content are stricter. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Independent editor requested for Rive (MARSUG song)

Hello. I have a disclosed conflict of interest because I am connected to MARSUG. I am looking for an independent volunteer editor who could evaluate the independent coverage of the song “Rive” and determine whether it qualifies for a standalone Wikipedia article. I do not want to write the article myself and I am not offering payment. Could an experienced music editor please review the available sources or point me to an editor who might be interested? ~2026-43717-71 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-43717-71, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have no idea what MARSUG means.

The chances of somebody volunteering to work on such an article are small - not zero, but small. People generally work on what interests them.

The fact that you want there to be an article on the song where you have a COI immediately suggests that your purpose is promotion (which has a wider interpretation in Wikipedia than generally). This is another reason why it is relatively unlikely that anybody will want to put on this work.

Unless you have a very strong reason to think that the song is notable in Wikipedia's sense, I advise you to give up this idea, and concentrate on promoting your song in places which permit this. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

MARSUG is a musician (about whom we currently have no article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It would need to meet the criteria at WP:NSONG which, from a cursory look, it does not seem to do.

If you disagree, please provide sources as evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How to Publish Breaking News Articles

Hey, I am new and am hoping to publish the Draft:Bald Range fire as soon as possible because it kind of goes without saying its explosive and sudden occurrence is beyond notable. Please help. Thank you! AnxiousVictimoid (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AnxiousVictimoid, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a news organ, and WP:there is no deadline.

You have submitted your draft, and in time a reviewer will get to it.

Well done for citing sources, but I suspect (without looking closely) that they are all primary sources, which is not enough to establish notability in the special sense we use it in Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody would publish it soon, like other breaking news. AnxiousVictimoid (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I get it. But Wikipedia is very slow, and people who really want breaking news basically just don't come here - they know it's not our thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@AnxiousVictimoid Wikipedia doesn't publish breaking news, that's the point. We only write articles on events that are likely to have lasting significance. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think nobody likes me now

so I just stumbled Upon A Link to a page by this guy called Cyrobyte on Talkomatic. And I did some edits and I didn't know what sources I added so I just left it with LOL then I got a message saying that my changes were reverted because I did not tell him the source I added so now I'm left with only one question that is does anybody on Wikipedia really love me? JadenTheEditorAlt (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

When your changes were undone, it was to do with your edit, rather than yourself as a person. Probably no one here knows you, let alone loves. For facts on Wikipedia we want to know where they came from. If you were the first person to know the information, that is original research. Also copying stuff between pages that are not related is not helpful. If you want to play around and test editing, please use the WP:Sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation: Work on your own user page. Within reason, you can put what you want there, and as long as it isn't advertisements or copyright material no one is likely to bother you about it. As you've found, practicing on articles other people care about doesn't work out so well. M kuhner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How can i improve my comma usage and general writing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This:

* This is a bullet point

will display as:

• This is a bullet point

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

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

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

Where to chat?

Where can wikipedia users chat generally, not like for questions but like where you have chats and improvements and anything HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to talk about improving an article, the talk page is a great place for this! You can find the talk page of an article by going to the article and clicking "Talk" below the heading of the article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a social network though, so stick to discussing improvements to articles. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Each article has a Talk page, only for discussing how to improve that article.

There is nowhere for general chat. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks, i just wanted to know! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Social. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Change sentence from "scheduled to received" to "received"

The sentence is written incorrectly in anticipation of an event and needs to be edited as noted above to show that the event occured. Since the event is about me I can not make this change. I am hopeful someone will correct the language on my page. DBBorenstein (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@DBBorenstein: The sentence in Daniel B. Borenstein#Education and professional activities currently says:

On August 1, Daniel is scheduled to received the Lifetime Achievement Award from Los Angeles Country Medical Association.

That's a mess. The year (presumably 2026) is missing, "scheduled to received" is wrong grammar (your request would fix it), "Los Angeles Country" should probably be "Los Angeles County", and worst: The alleged source says nothing about it. Please give a source. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed the typos and changed the tense to "was scheduled to".

I've also tagged the statement as needing a better source. It is liable to be removed if none is provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Luiza Prado

Hi, am concerned that this big edit here by a new editor is created by llm /artificial intelligence and is also promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Welcome to The Teahouse. If you believe content was generated by an LLM, please bring it up at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

will do, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft declined for accusation of AI use?

Hi,

I recently wrote and submitted my first draft of an article. I spent over an hour on it and researched all the information myself including references. My draft was declined about forty minutes later stating it appeared that I used AI/ChatGPT and in order to resubmit, I needed to make changes to it.

Has anyone else had this happen before? I am firmly against AI and I do not use it for anything. How can I fix this?

Thank you Smallpockett (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Brooke Archer

See also: Smallpocket's talk page

The LLM use issue does seem quite real seen the <ref> tags accumulated at the end of the article instead of being placed inline and the #REDIRECTs placed before every wikilink.

Aside from that, though, the notability issue is more pressing. Only two of the sources provide non-trivial coverage of the subject; the Gelfman Schneider guest list is no more than a passing mention, and the three cited Penguin pages restate the same author details. An non-notable subject basically defeats the purpose of a Wikipedia article, and that won't change until there is more independent, reliable coverage. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the use of #REDIRECT and bunched-up references is not an indicator of LLM usage; it's someone who hasn't yet learned proper formatting. "Bizarre wikitext" is listed as an ineffective indicator at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Ineffective indicators. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am very much inclined to believe that it's not AI. But it's unfortunately an extremely weak article because the sources are all associated with the subject in some way or another. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

... and the non-trivial-looking sources are both interview-based, which makes them less valuable than normal sources

. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Number one piece of advice: once you write the draft, look it over carefully! Why does it say REDIRECT all over it? Why are the References completely blank? This is something you would be expected to catch before you submitted. Whether it is LLM or not, it's not ready for publication. M kuhner (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Edited to add; there is no shame in getting the wikitext wrong (I just botched my reply to you, forgot that "#" is a special character at the start of a line....). Wikitext is not intuitive for most people. But if you see something wrong, ask for help fixing it. M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I would easily make these mistakes if I had no experience of Wikipedia at all.

To which a good response might be "Then why are you immediately writing an article, instead of first taking some time to learn how things work?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I was using the "preview" function to check the progress and misunderstood the coding. I made this account to make articles... I have been a Wiki user for years, I didn't think I messed it up that bad. But I see that I got the formatting wrong for linking other wiki articles. I am not sure what you mean by the references being blank though? I used other articles as an example when writing this one. Smallpockett (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

They're not actually blank. The formatting mess is not very hard to fix, don't even worry about that.

The problem is you've got almost nothing to write about because of the type of sources they are. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I did a bit of fixing on the draft and left a note on its Talk page; hope that's helpful. The fact that references don't go in the Reflist is a surprise to just about everyone--I made an article that looked like that too! Best wishes for your article. Please bear in mind that it's declined, which means "fix and retry", not "we never want to see it again." M kuhner (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! "Show don't tell" is probably more useful than my massive infodumps. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I just went back in and fixed the mistakes with your help (and the editing course on Wikipedia haha). It looks so much better now. I really appreciate it! Smallpockett (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It does look better. What you need now is reviews. Check the author's web site--you can't use it as a source but reviews may be linked from there. Check the publisher(s) and agent(s) for the same thing. M kuhner (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it looks better is great, but on a scale of 1 to 10 it scores about a "1" or a "2" for quality of sources. The problem is that the sources come from the author, or from her publisher. You'll need several large sources that have no connection with her (not publisher-sourced, not announcements of anything, and where it's very obvious they wrote without interviewing her or getting information from her). Without those, the article remains just "Author Proudly Announces Herself", which Wikipedia will certainly refuse. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Smallpockett § Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooke Archer (August 9), but to address the AI accusation: one of the downsides of doing AI cleanup work is that we can get too trigger-happy and interpret newcomer mistakes as copy-pasting output from unintelligent chatbots. @Smallpockett: I apologise for the hasty accusation, and I'm glad to know you are opposed to AI use. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all! I was more concerned about my writing coming off as AI generated. Thank you for all your help Smallpockett (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing speed

How does B.J edit so fast? i get the fact that he is a good wikipedia editor but HOW? he can instantly edit anything and im just curious! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:B.J is using Huggle as a counter-vandalism tool. (based on edit summaries) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Discord

Is it just me or is the discord 100 times stricter than the main wiki?, i got banned for asking a simple question and the mods are "tyrants", the source for this info is https://www.quora.com/I-keep-on-getting-banned-from-the-Wikimedia-Community-discord-server-by-tyrant-mods-who-are-abusing-their-powers-and-the-admins-on-Wikipedia-keep-blocking-my-accounts-for-block-evasion-every-time-I-try-to-discuss-my?top_ans=2346204, i just honestly feel its unfair for regular wikipedia editors who do not want to pray and obey to all moderators like they are god HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HelloImYourNeighbor, welcome to wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I know who posted that Quora comment - anyone who was a Teahouse host two years ago will remember him too. His idea of "discussing" his ban was to spam the Teahouse with graphic threats of rape and murder. So, that's why he was blocked every time he made a new account to "discuss" it, and that's also why he was banned from the Discord server. As for you, you were timed out for asking the same question four times in five minutes across two different channels, after having been warned about that already. When your timeout expires, you're welcome to participate again, but not like that, please. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ohhh well i didnt know THAT sorry HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article - question

Hey! Frequent article creator, but first time running into this. I stumbled upon someone interesting who I think meets notability standards on WikiProject Women In Red, where she'd submitted a request on the talk page. She provided a list of PDFs of independent sources in a Drive folder - I independently verified their existence (but some of them I couldn't verify the text on - they're not online accessible) and also found more sources. I'm planning to write an article on her entirely on my own. Is there any major policies I should be aware of when it comes to this - is it okay to create this in mainspace? Are there any policies that I should make her aware of as well (besides, ofc, WP:COI aka she should not edit the article about herself but should instead ideally do edit requests and always disclose who she is)? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: Policy is here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Beware of an unbalanced point of view (WP:NPOV) if you rely on information she provided. It is usually better to start off as a draft or your own sandbox to prevent issues arising while it is under construction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Great. So there's no special COI things or anything like that that I have to watch out for in this situation? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have a COI, you'd have to declare it of course, and having a COI makes it really hard to write well - it's hard to un-know the things you know.

If you're not sure whether you have a COI, then you do have one.

As far as the subject's own COI regarding herself, I think you covered it already. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense - for clarity I don't know her personally, professionally, financially, etc, only in the context that she requested an article on her on WikiProject Women in Red and provided her personal archive of her sources, which I independently decided, together with my own research, would likely meet notability - is that considered a COI? sorry for all the questions, i just wanna make sure. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara That should be fine, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_103#Author_want_WP_article_about_her for another example. And beware WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep my eye out. Thank you so much for your help! Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

For the ones you couldn't verify the text of, you might consider asking for assistance at the Resource Exchange. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense - i'll consider that. For clarity, she provided the text, I just can't independently verify that that is the text other than her provided text. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Typhoon Dolphin (2026)

Draft:Typhoon Dolphin (2026)

Hi. Just linking it here as this is an ongoing event starting to making headlines since e.g., yesterday. (I'm very bad at writing weather-related articles and want some helps.) There are some press coverages / citable materials in the talk page. Thanks! 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The best place to solicit co-editing is a relevant WikiProject, in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on a draft allowed?

When a draft of mine is declined, and I don’t agree with the reasoning, is it good practice to leave a comment and resubmit the draft to ask for a second opinion? ~2026-43665-69 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Draft:Jean Novo?

Either way, this would be better asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, where AfC experts hang out.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Good practice would be to discuss the issue with the reviewer and/or explicitly ask the question to the community here if you need further feedback. Just resubmitting the same draft, without changes addressing the decline reasons, is the express route to getting a draft rejected rather than just declined, meaning it will no longer be considered for publication at that time.

If you are referring to the Jean Novo draft, I wholeheartedly agree with the decline. It's very thin and loosely written, and tells us very little about Novo. What the article only really focuses on is descriptions of what happened during sporting events. The sources are given are simply passing mentions of Novo at best, not significant coverage that is about Novo. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: No, unless you first discover that several experienced reviewers strongly disagree with the first one. Most of the time when people disagree with the review they got, they're mistaken. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How to find articles

I have recently joined Wikipedia.

Is there a conducive way to search for music related content? HendrixGarfield (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Use the search bar on Wikipedia to look up articles about music. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 11:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@HendrixGarfield Welcome! Nothing comes to mind, but perhaps article categories like Category:Argentine heavy metal musical groups will be of some help. These categories are not necessarily including everything they should, it depends on if an editor added the category to the relevant article. Perhaps the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music have some tricks they can share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Look into the many subcategories of category:Music. ~2026-43665-69 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Further to earlier answers, at the foot of many articles you will find links to categories. The Dark Side of the Moon, for example, has the links:

• 1970s concept albums
• 1973 albums
• Albums produced by David Gilmour
• Albums produced by Nick Mason
• Albums produced by Richard Wright (musician)
• Albums produced by Roger Waters
• Albums with cover art by Hipgnosis
• Albums with cover art by Storm Thorgerson
• Capitol Records albums
• EMI Records albums
• Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients
• Harvest Records albums
• Pink Floyd albums
• United States National Recording Registry albums

and you can use those categories to find related items.

Above those you will see templates (which you may need to expand)), with many links. They look like what you see at Template:Pink Floyd (which I won't include here due to its size.

The catch is, none of these appear in mobile view, so if that's what you are using, you will need to switch to desktop view (that's a setting on your device's browser, not Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing question: Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein

Hello, I hope it's okay to ask for guidance here. I've been working on Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein and it has been declined three times with the feedback "all sources are about the company, not the person."

I believe the draft does contain personal sources, and I'm hoping an experienced editor can tell me whether I'm misunderstanding the standard. The key source is:

• Beverage Dynamics (February 2, 2007) — "Raising The Bar" — a full personal profile of Rosenstein as CEO of Liquor Barn, with direct quotes from him including: "We made a transition in the '80s to become a one-stop party shop." The article caption identifies him as "ceo of the chain." It is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126154850/https://beveragedynamics.com/2007/02/02/raising-the-bar/

Supporting sources also naming him personally:

• Market Watch (2015) — names him as a Market Watch Leader
• Smiley Pete Publishing (2012) — Lexington local press, names him as CEO since 1986
• Market Watch (2023) — confirms his 1987 Retail Leader of the Year award

Robert Rosenstein founded what became Kentucky's largest independent beverage alcohol retail chain and won Market Watch's top annual retail honor. Does the Beverage Dynamics profile meet the "significant coverage" standard, or is a newspaper feature specifically required? Any guidance would be hugely appreciated. Jamier93 (talk)

None of these sources are useful. Only awards that are notable themselves help with notability, and simply mentioning that he's a CEO is not enough since CEOs aren't inherently notable. The Beverage Dynamics piece is absolutely not a "full personal profile of Rosenstein." It's a passing mention that says little about him, and being quoted doesn't mean anything for notability.

Wikipedia articles are written about what independent, reliable, published sources say about subjects while providing significant coverage of the subject.

There are also some serious LLM/chatbot/AI signs here, with text that doesn't match the source. For example The same profile identified him as "ceo of the chain" and described his hands-on leadership style, The Ultimate Party Source. is absolutely untrue. The profile says nothing about his "hands-on leadership style" and "The Ultimate Party Source" is a branding subheading for the store itself, not a description of Rosenstein. This is common LLM hallucination, and if it isn't, it means that you're not reading the sources themselves; both are problems.

Are there any conflicts of interest that you need to disclose about this individual? If so, sooner is always better than later. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what CoffeeCrumbs said, or maybe just oversimplifying it: all we can be certain of from this material is Rosenstein's existence and what he does for a living. But I also exist and do something for a living; it takes much more than that for a Wikipedia article. (What it takes is several different analyses of his career, put out by reliable publishers who have no connection with him.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite web?

this page Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL recently jumped from ~100 pages to over 1,100 pages over a couple days. That seems to be caused by a template or something of the sort.

Cite web possibly? I checked one of the listed pages Twenty-fifth_Amendment to the United States Constitution#cite ref-A2essayPS 22-0

which shows the error {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

and the reference being listed as an error has both the |access-date= AND the |url= listed

Quebec99 (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You're saying that the reference does have a valid url, but Cite web is giving an error for missing url? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quebec99: Welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not sure if it's because heritage.org and archive.today were blacklisted, or if it's because |url-status= was set to unfit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hi, I'm trying to edit Manchester City F.C. but it says I need to be autoconfirmed, how do i do that please? Imharold (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Autoconfirmed. Meanwhile, you can leave a request on the article's talk page, Talk:Manchester City F.C.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocked on eswiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to speed up how long it takes for a Draft to get made into a article

I have made my own Draft which is Draft: Hong Kong Football Festival and it has been a Draft for nine days now is there anyway to speed up the process? Puppygray (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Newspaper citations that link to search results

Hi! I initially got this question back when I was still unregistered (Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême § Broken citations under "Personal life"), but it seems to be a far more frequent occurrence than I thought.

A lot of articles seem to cite search results from the British Newspaper Archive website as URL sources for newspaper issues. In some cases, like reference no.1 for Wuthering Heights, the ranges are specific enough that the search results just lead to (what appears to be) every page of a specific issue. But then reference no.3 for Elstree Studios (Shenley Road) greets you with a whopping 46,460,323 matching newspaper and publication articles, as the actual filters just set some keywords in a date between January 1st, 1900 and December 31st, 1949.

Search links: Special:Search/insource:"britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results"

My best guess is that the citations where the search queries are very broad are either just laziness from their submitters or an artifact of their in-progress research. Maybe the search function on BNA used to work differently (though I couldn't find any of those queries on Wayback Machine). Either way, the website seems to have very bad OCR with a lot of artifacts that ruin searching.

As such, two questions:

1. What can be done about the citations that point to a wide range of matches but still mention a title, a date, and a publisher? Is it okay to just remove the unhelpful URL?
2. What can be done about those same broad citations that do not mention anything (plain URLs), like the ones I mentioned on the Louis Antoine talk page?

Thanks! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's definitely a problem. @EmoryNB, if you don't get useful replies here, try WP:VPT. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure VPT is the correct venue for this? I just don't know if this is a technical issue about Wikipedia, more like a widespread citation bug... Maybe I should try reporting this to WikiProject Reliability? — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 07:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give me some tips on my article?

User:HelloImYourNeighbor/sandbox I am writing a article about the Xi3 Piston and i would need some tips for it i am trying to improve on wikipedia and its formatting and all of that "Xi3 news". Games Industry.

HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is a basic one: Wikipedia is not for news, it's for history. I would suggest dropping the whole idea until the Piston has become a mature product. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

What counts as a "mature product" as in it is in the free domain and doesnt have copyright? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@HelloImYourNeighbor My understanding of your draft is that you are describing something planned for 2013 but that didn't make it to production, or if it did was not very successful. Is that correct? If so, your content could go at Steam Machines#Vendor support. The current citation #2 in your draft is prnewswire, which may be unreliable (see WP:PRNEWSWIRE). "Mature" in the sense used by Wikipedia is that several people have published extensively in reliable sources about them: see WP:42. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

hmm thanks also it wasnt very succesful you are right HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I misunderstood because you were showing announcements as if it was a brand new product maybe not even out yet. If it WAS a brand new not yet out product, my thing would have made sense. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, also Steam Machines#Vendor support is vague on what was it so that is why i am making a article for it HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @HelloImYourNeighbor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Second tip: Start creating an article by finding several sources each of which meets all the conditions in WP:42. That way, if you can't find several such sources, you'll know that there is no point in spending any more time on the subject at present.

Third tip: If you've found at least three such sources, then set aside everything you know or think about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Interlinks, is it possible to change the destination of a link between 2 languages?

I was trying to change the interlink between "Campionamento casuale" (Italian wiki) and "Sample (statistics)" to "Simple random sample", which to me is a more correct translation of the Italian page. This is because there already is an Italian version of "Sample (statistics)" and it is called "Campionamento statistico". However, I wasn't able to do this and it gives me an error. I don't know if I missed something. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks :) MiniFeather (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You will need to edit the wikidata item itself, go to the article click on the "Edit Links" button then scroll down to the wikipedia section, find the languages code you wanted to edit then edit it and then type in the new destination article name and then publish/save it, no need for thank yous! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I tried but it gives me this error:

"Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

The link itwiki:Campionamento statistico is already used by Item Q49906. You may remove it from Q49906 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic. If the situation is more complex, please see Help:Sitelinks."

The code Q49906 refers to the page "Sample" MiniFeather (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

scroll down to the wikipedia section again repeat everything except before doing the campionamento statico creation you must delete it then retry again, if it still does not work try merging the two HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Does this count as a off-topic/not the right channel thing?

I just wanted to show you something interesting i found with Unicode, if you use Variation Selector 15 [U+FE0E] with a emoji, it will turn it monochrome, ☠︎ with the variation selector, ☠️ without, this could be useful for emojis on your profile that are not needed to stand out with color, i just think this is cool HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes @HelloImYourNeighbor, that is completely off-topic. This page is only for requesting help with Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Words

Like what is the max words you can have in an article. Is it 2000? OrangeCow735 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

While there is no maximum, the recommendation of Wikipedia:TOOLARGE is that articles should not exceed 15,000 words. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a page for advice on how to construct an infobox template?

I have a requirement for a very simple infobox. Is there a page for advice on how to construct an infobox template? Or can anyone think of an example that I can plagiarise? (I have template editing privilege but have barely used it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Answered at the above-linked thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Easy way to count contributions by namespace?

I'm committed to making quality edits, and want to track my progress toward joining the ranks of extended-confirmed users, which, as I understand, requires 500 edits in mainspace. My homepage edit count includes edits in teahouse, edits in my userpage, etc. I can filter my contributions page, but still have to count manually. I did find this tool which shows me counts by namespace and tells me only 57% of my edits have been in mainspace. Is there perhaps an edits-by-namespace template I can put on my userpage that will update automatically? Gebble (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble: The first link above states after the account has made at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia and after 30 days have passed since the account's first edit. It has no qualification for mainspace. So edits to teahouse, user page and all the other places that you mention all count towards the 500 total. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, weird, I thought I saw some policy somewhere saying that access would only be given after 500 non-deleted Mainspace edits. Is anyone aware of a policy like that? Gebble (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Various user rights, such as rollback and new page reviewer require a certain minimum of mainspace edits. In this case, you are probably referring to the new page reviewer criteria. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Redrose64 is right, but while we're at it, maybe you'd be interested in the meta:MoreMenu gadget. It adds a menu with a bunch of useful links, including one that takes you to XTools, when you're on someone's user page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Have i improved my article?

Im a newbie at wikipedia so i am asking you guys, i think i have improved my sandbox page but i dont know myself i need second/third party reviews, it is a WIP so i will gladly accept any tips or inquerys you have! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

the sandbox is User:HelloImYourNeighbor/sandbox HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me take a look! I'll reply once I've read it. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have a few suggestions for you, but overall, this is extremely well-written for somebody so new to Wikipedia! Major kudos. I'll start with what I'd like to suggest and then move to what you did well.

First of all, I noticed that the entire beginning is one great big run-on sentence. Many of those commas need to be replaced with periods! My usual recommendation is that the absolute longest a sentence should go is 35 words, but you can go up to 40 if that is absolutely necessary.

Second of all, the article needs more interlinking to other articles. The paragraphs should not be barren, but some of the words should link to the articles about them; if they do not have articles yet, the red link is fine! (Some examples are: Jason A. Sullivan, Motherboard, Mini-PC, circuit boards).

Now for what you did right. The sufficient addition of sources is something I'd like to point out, especially for a new editor. I understand that grabbing sources can be tedious and learning how to add them can be hard, so I'd like to applaud you on that! The article is also very well-written, and you are already very good at writing with an encyclopedic tone.

Overall, you're off to a brilliant start! Just one more thing from me: I'm a new pages reviewer, so if you'd like me to review your draft once you're ready to submit it to become a fully fledged article, just let me know and I'll get it done for you! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Touched up the page based on your suggestions, should i submit it? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you review my page again? i edited it to be better, thanks, reveroise HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Guidance sought: Pico-Burnside Baths draft — business vs. historic property framing

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello Teahouse. I'm working on Draft:Pico-Burnside Baths and would appreciate some guidance before resubmitting. The draft has been declined three times (nn → adv → corp), and I'd like to make sure I'm addressing the underlying issue rather than repeatedly resubmitting.

The subject is a Russian-style bathhouse in Los Angeles that opened in the mid-1950s. It has operated at the same location for roughly 70 years and was renamed City Spa & Health Center after a change of ownership in 1989. The site is also associated with the origins of WET: The Magazine of Gourmet Bathing; Leonard Koren held a bath party there in the 1970s that he later identified as the inspiration for the magazine.

SurveyLA identifies Pico Burnside Baths as a locally significant historic resource (status code 5S3).

Independent sources I've found include:

• a 1996 Los Angeles Times feature devoted to the bathhouse;
• a 1998 Jewish Journal feature;
• a 2005 Los Angeles Times feature discussing the bathhouse and its history;
• a 2025 Los Angeles Times article discussing the site's connection to WET;
• the SurveyLA historic-resource record; and
• additional discussion of the Pico-Burnside/WET connection in the Los Angeles Review of Books and other publications.

The most recent AfC decline cited WP:NCORP, which made me wonder whether I am framing the subject incorrectly.

My main questions are:

1. Given the SurveyLA record and the site's documented history, should the subject primarily be evaluated as a historic building/site under WP:GNG / WP:GEOFEAT, or as a currently operating business under WP:NCORP?
2. Are the 1996 Los Angeles Times and 1998 Jewish Journal standalone features the type of independent significant coverage that would help establish notability here?
3. A reviewer objected to the full street address in the lead, which I have removed. Should an address be omitted entirely from a draft of this type?
4. More fundamentally, does this appear suitable for a standalone article, or would the historical material be better incorporated into an existing article such as Wet (magazine)?

I want to avoid another resubmission until I understand which notability standard experienced editors think is appropriate. Any guidance on framing or sourcing would be appreciated. Yitzhak Eliezer (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage generally boils down to the reporter for a reputable publication expressing the reporter's very own major extensive & intensive analysis of the whole subject, or at least a very significant chunk of it.

If you have that, see which of these orientations the reporter seemed to think was the "best angle". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a repeat question but

I would like to know if i have improved on editing, i am trying to publish my article about the Xi3 Piston, you can view it on my sandbox

i would just like some inquerys and tips, thank you! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're missing the most important kind of sources. A lot of your sources are just announcements, and they don't help much. Reliable publishers with articles about "I used one for a week and here's what I think" - or that type of thing, where they talk for a long time about their opinions of the real item - that's what you need. Lots of them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason: If there aren't any articles like that, it is close enough to proving that nobody cared about this machine and that Wikipedia should avoid having an article about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The "big-picture" reason: In every article on Wikipedia, having quality sources that really analyze the subject is FAR more important than quality writing skills. If you have excellent sources and your style is bad, hundreds of people like me know how to fix the style. But if the sources aren't good? Either you find good ones or you give up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It got accepted! Xi3 Piston HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Well that settles that, doesn't it :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

User page

on my subpage, I am using a table. I don't know how to use a third colum 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Every time you want to start the next row of the table, you need to add an extra line with just this on it: |- TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

So add an extra line just after Sri Lanka, and put that on it TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

i did 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is that what you wanted? Or did I miss the point? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It works 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

miss world bulgaria, miss universe bulgaria

Hello, 

I am the creator of the "Miss World Bulgaria" page. Unfortunately, my original account was deleted. I would like to regain the ability to edit and manage my pages. Could you please guide me on how to restore my access or link my new account to the page? 

Thank you for your assistance Star Models (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Star Models, welcome to the Teahouse!

You can simply go to Miss World Bulgaria by searching for the article or clicking on the underlined blue text above - like any other user could - and click "Edit" or "Edit source" in the top right corner. You have no special privileges by being the creator of the article.

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Star Models, the history of the article Miss World Bulgaria shows that the article's creator was Vivian kk, an account that hasn't been deleted, or even blocked. Are you saying that you were previously (and would like again to be) Vivian kk? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Star Models It should also be noted that you have no right whatsoever to "edit and manage your pages", you do not own or control any page on Wikipedia, even articles you created. Athanelar (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is "Star Models" the name of a business? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Im a newbie soo

Is is allowed if i make a media section on my page which features a disassembly of the device/thing that is made by Bringus Studios? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you're working on an article? Or that you want this as a permanent feature on your user page (or a subpage of it)? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

nevermind figured it out HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey just a question, if a youtuber describes a computer in a video about the product negatively does it affect their opinion on the device itself? thanks its for a page HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article? Usually, the youtuber's opinion doesn't count and can't go in the article, because YT isn't a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers This is not really accurate. Youtube is not an inherently reliable source; it depends on who on youtube is saying the info. If it's from a channel which is verifiably associated with someone who we would consider a reliable source, then it can be used as a source. It's just that you can't use Joe8638383629's video with 3 views as a source. Athanelar (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

How should I handle conflicting information between different sections of the same Wikipedia article?

Hello everyone,

I am currently working on improving a Wikipedia article and noticed that different parts of the article appear to give slightly different information about the same subject. For example, the lead section says one thing, while a later section provides information that seems to contradict or qualify what is stated in the lead.

I would like to correct the inconsistency while making sure I do not unintentionally change the meaning of the article or introduce my own interpretation. What would be the best way to handle this situation?

Specifically:

1. Should I first discuss the discrepancy on the article's talk page before making an edit?
2. If the information can be reconciled, should I rewrite the relevant sections so that they are consistent?
3. How should I decide which wording is appropriate when the existing text is ambiguous?
4. If another editor disagrees with my proposed wording, what is the recommended way to resolve the disagreement?

I would appreciate advice on the usual Wikipedia practice for dealing with internal inconsistencies and disagreements over wording.

Thank you! DefaultActually2453 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

This post is the only edit you’ve made on this account. Are you using any additional accounts or temporary accounts? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It is better to fix the information or discuss it with others, but if you are unable to fix it yourself or don't get replies you can mark the article with {{Contradictory inline}}. MKFI (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it allowed to directly put an article into the main space after it is reviewed and rejected?

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

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

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

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

I think you really mean two questions:

Can they? Usually nothing stops them.

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

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

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

What is #BOI AI?

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

Seeking feedback on "neutral point of view" in draft

Hi all, new editor here. I've recently had a draft declined "This draft is not written from a neutral point of view" citing the following: promotional language, personal commentary, and informal language.

I've re-worded a line that previously contained "denied" as that was one of the words flagged that could introduce bias. I'm interested if there's any specific feedback on this draft that can help me edit?

Draft article here: Draft:Judah Smith

Any guidance appreciated. Kv0033 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kv0033 Have you clicked the link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is attached to the sentence you've quoted? That page is our relevant policy on the matter. Athanelar (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Yes, I've read it, along with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch linked from that page. I saw that "denied" was potentially loaded and have since reworded that line in the draft. The decline cites promotional language, personal commentary and informal language as categories, though each paragraph is cited to independent reporting rather than the subject's own material, which is part of why I'm unsure what's triggering it.

Is there feedback on the specific elements that fail the test?

I'm wondering whether it's a weighting problem rather than sentence-level, e.g. too much space given to the controversy (critique) or to his books (promotional). An example would help me learn and apply the same standard across the rest. Kv0033 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot include content like "Smith's preaching generally emphasizes divine grace, forgiveness and acceptance." in Wikipedia's voice. Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)