Wikipedia:Teahouse

Anachronist, 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.]

Adding/editing a maintenance template?

I wanted to add to the Dahara Vidya page some signal to other editors that this page has very few reliable citations and some borderline original research (much of the cited material is primary sources). I saw there is already a template about jargon, but I think it should include signals of the sources needing to be reevaluated. What's the best way to do that? Oraclesto (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You probably need the "More citations needed" template. The "Original research" template also exists, but it's for when the original research is obvious and prevalent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Oraclesto: Welcome to The Teahouse. You mentioned that much of the cited material is primary sources. In that case, I suggest you might want to consider using the {{primary sources}} template.
If you go down to the bottom of that page, you will see a navbox list of citation and reliability maintenance-related templates that might also work for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks so much! Oraclesto (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

One follow up question: how can I stack the issues so that it lists several problems within one maintenance template, instead of adding another template below the existing one? Oraclesto (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

so theres an easy and a hard way to do that. which one is which honestly depends on your computer skills. if you want to make it automated and are ok with a little very easy setup, you can use a tool called twinkle, which has a ton of great tools including a way to easily put on maintenance templates without finding their names every time. to use twinkle, just turn it on in the gadgets section of your settings- assuming you are on desktop. then you will get access to a whole bunch of tools. the relevant one is documented here Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Tag

if youre not the type to like automation and would rather just do it by hand, the template for multiple issues is here. the text is

{{Multiple issues|section=|

{{Issue 1}}

{{Issue 2}}

{{Issue 3}}

}}

with the issue bits replaced with appropriate maintenance template names. you can use as many or as few as are appropriate, just get rid of the placeholders you dont use. Jackjd0 (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Missing reference / wanting to add more articles

Emeryville mudflat sculptures I am looking at the article on the Emeryville mudflat sculptures and noticed that one of the early artists mentioned in the article has several published sources that are not currently included as references. May I add those citations to the existing article? I have also found some relevant newspaper articles that are not available online (only in newspaper archives or as scans). What is the recommended way to cite or add these sources? For transparency, I should mention that I am related to Wayne Saxton, the person discussed in these sources. ~2026-41011-95 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41011-95, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are related to Saxton, you probably have a conflict of interest, and so should use the edit request wizard rather than editing the article directly.

Offline sources may be cited: see WP:REFB for how.

What would be your purpose in adding these?

Generally, the purpose of citing a reference is to provide a verification for a something claimed in the Wikipedia article; and mostly the claim should relate to the subject of the article, not to anything else.

So if there is a claim about Saxton in connection with the mudflat sculptures that is not supported by a citation, it would be good to add a citation if you have one. Similarly, if you are suggesting adding information about Saxton in connection with the mudflat sculptures. But if you have found some sources about your relative that don't relate to the mudflat sculptures, then the question arises whether they belong in that article at all. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. My purpose is to improve the sourcing of the verification and historical coverage of the Emeryville mudflats.

I have found reliable contemporary sources documenting Wayne Saxton's role and the attention his work received. Some of these sources are already in the list of references but are not cited in the list of artists, while others do not appear to be reflected in the article at all.I understand the conflict-of-interest guidance and will use the edit request process rather than editing the article directly. ~2026-41011-95 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

help submitting draft for gabi glitta

Draft

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

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

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

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

<code>=== References ===

References

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

Major news coverage 2017–2025:

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

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

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

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

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

Georg Glockemeier: Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Günther, Leipzig & Wien 1936. (Auf Grundlage der Volkszählung 1934.) (in German)

How can I best edit the page History of the Jews in Vienna? Specifically, there is a table there that lists "Jewish contributions to Vienna's economy (1934)". The source for the figures presented in that table is Georg Glockemeier: Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Günther, Leipzig & Wien 1936. (Auf Grundlage der Volkszählung 1934.) (in German). This source is unreliable and deliberately presented figures to sow hatred against the Jewish population of Vienna. I put a note to this effect on the page, which was undone by one of the Wikipedia editors, "because it did not appear constructive". What is the best way to get the figures removed or at least the source identified as unreliable? It does not seem very constructive to me to present those figures as truth. (I came across the page after having read a book that presented these very statistics as true figures. But they seemed so unlikely (given that just 9% of the Viennese population was Jewish at that time) that I started to look more carefully at the source material.)

Below a summary of my dialogue with Google AI about this.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

SUMMARY: SOCIO-ECONOMIC REALITY AND PROPAGANDA IN INTERWAR VIENNA (1934–1936)

1. Historical Classification as Propaganda

In historical scholarship, Georg Glockemeier's book Zur Wiener Judenfrage (1936) is objectively identified as a work of ideological, anti-Semitic propaganda. Major international repositories, including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), explicitly categorise this text within their collections alongside Nazi pamphlets and historical hate speech literature. In this specific historical context, the term Judenfrage ("Jewish Question") was used to frame the presence of Jewish citizens as a societal problem requiring a political "solution."

2. Reliability and Manipulation of the Data

The baseline figures used by Glockemeier—sourced from the official Austrian census of March 22, 1934—were statistically accurate in their raw form. The Austrian government utilized reliable, modern tracking and enumeration methodologies at the time (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). However, the source is classified as propaganda because these accurate data points were fraudulently manipulated and interpreted to falsely demonstrate that a minority population (comprising approximately 10% of Vienna's residents) completely dominated the capital city (Glockemeier, 1936; Wikipedia).

Historians demonstrate that the text serves as a classic example of "weaponized statistics" through the implementation of several distinct techniques:

• Definitional Shifting: The official census tracked demographics strictly by registered religious affiliation (Konfession) (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). Propaganda writers weaponized this data by conflating it with racial Nazi theories, selectively ignoring or including tens of thousands of secular, converted, or intermarried citizens to fit their narrative (Wikipedia).
• Geographical Isolation: The publication isolated specific statistics from the city of Vienna (approximately 176,034 Jewish residents) to manufacture a narrative of an overwhelming demographic takeover (Glockemeier, 1936). In doing so, it intentionally omitted the fact that the Jewish population across the entirety of Austria accounted for a mere 2.8% of the national total (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934).
• Omission of Historical Context: The high concentration of Jewish individuals within Vienna's liberal professions, such as law and medicine, was the direct result of centuries of legal exclusion under the Habsburg Empire (Wikipedia). Because Jewish people were historically barred from owning land or entering state civil service bureaucracy, families heavily prioritized independent, university-level education (Beckermann, 1984).
• Statistical Distortions: Within the published tables, vague "up to" thresholds or maximum ceilings (≤) were applied to certain arbitrary sectors (such as the scrap metal trade or candy shops) instead of providing exact counts (Glockemeier, 1936; Wikipedia). Furthermore, high percentages were displayed for highly localized niche markets—such as advertising bureaus—to inflate the perceived scale of ownership beyond what the low absolute raw numbers actually represented (Glockemeier, 1936).
• Selective Omission: By focusing exclusively on roughly 35 handpicked sectors where Jewish business owners maintained a visible presence (Glockemeier, 1936), the author completely concealed the remaining 80% of the broader economy. This hid massive industries—such as heavy manufacturing, agriculture, transport, and public utilities—where Jewish employment was virtually non-existent due to structural barriers (Silverman, 2012).

3. Independent and Non-Jewish Sources on the Economic Reality

To verify the actual socioeconomic landscape without relying solely on the archives of Jewish organizations, historians utilize three independent, non-Jewish data streams that confirm widespread poverty and systemic unemployment:

1. Official Government Census Volumes (1934): The comprehensive publications from the Austrian state statistic bureaus prove that the overwhelming majority of Viennese Jews were registered as Angestellte (salaried white-collar clerks) and Arbeiter (manual wage laborers), rather than wealthy business owners (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). During the Great Depression, consumer retail and textile sectors collapsed first, triggering disproportionately high unemployment rates among these Jewish wage earners (Silverman, 2012).
2. Nazi Asset Declarations (1938): The most direct non-Jewish refutation of universal Jewish wealth comes directly from the administrative records of the Nazi regime following the Anschluss. Extant records from the Vermögensverkehrsstelle (Asset Transfer Office) reveal that over 60% of the Jewish population in Vienna was so impoverished that their global assets fell below the mandatory registration threshold of 5,000 Reichsmarks (RM); they were legally exempt from filing because they possessed virtually nothing (Austrian State Archives (ÖStA), 1938).
3. Municipal Records of "Red Vienna" (1919–1934): The non-Jewish, Social Democratic city administration maintained meticulous municipal registries for public housing and relief allocation. These public documents prove that the Jewish populations in the working-class 2nd (Leopoldstadt) and 20th (Brigittenau) districts lived in the exact same overcrowded, state-subsidized public housing blocks (Gemeindebauten) as non-Jewish laborers and depended heavily on municipal winter relief subsidies (Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, 1919–1934).

4. Internal Jewish Sources on Poverty and Welfare

The internal administrative registries and annual audits of the Jewish community itself corroborate and add granular detail to this severe socio-economic crisis:

1. Charity and Payout Registries of the IKG Wien: Preserved annual reports from the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien show that between 1934 and 1936, nearly 30% of the registered Jewish population in Vienna was completely dependent on communal welfare, emergency financial aid, or free soup kitchens to survive (Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP)).
2. Class Stratification by District: Internal demographic surveys indicate that Vienna's Jewish population was deeply divided by socio-economic class. The absolute majority belonged to the working-class proletariat (artisans, tailors, shoemakers, and petty traders). A significant portion consisted of Ostjuden (refugees from Eastern Europe fleeing WWI fallout) who experienced severe destitution in Leopoldstadt and Brigittenau, while only a small, highly visible elite resided in affluent districts like the Innere Stadt or Döbling (YIVO Institute; Beckermann, 1984).
3. The True Nature of Business Ownership: Financial Ledgers from the communal relief agency Wirtschaftshilfe demonstrate that the vast majority of Jewish-owned enterprises were micro-businesses, such as single-room family shops or artisan workshops (CAHJP). These self-employed individuals frequently earned less than factory laborers during the Great Depression and possessed zero structural influence over Austria's macroeconomic framework, which remained under the control of heavy industry and state monopolies (Silverman, 2012).

---

Complete Bibliographic References:

• Beckermann, R. (1984): Die Epoche der Skrupellosigkeit: Über die Erpressung der Wiener Juden durch die Nazis. Löcker Verlag, Wien. [Accessible via the Findbuch.at Database].
• Bundesamt für Statistik (1934): Die Ergebnisse der österreichischen Volkszählung vom 22. März 1934. Bundespressedienst, Wien. [Historical overview sheets available via Statistik Austria].
• Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP): Archival Holdings of the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde (IKG) Wien, 1930–1936. Records of the Wirtschaftshilfe and communal welfare distributions, Jerusalem. [Accessible via the CAHJP Online Portal].
• Glockemeier, G. (1936): Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Johannes Günther, Leipzig & Wien. [Archived and categorized under document control number irn521945 at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM)].
• Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA): Archival records of the Vermögensverkehrsstelle (Asset Declarations, 1938), Vienna. [Accessible via the Archivinformationssystem of the ÖStA].
• Silverman, L. (2012): Becoming Austrian: Jews and Culture between the World Wars. Oxford University Press. [Cited via the academic repository of the University of Illinois].
• Wienbibliothek im Rathaus: Handbuch der Stadt Wien & Kommunale Berichte (1919–1934). Digitized municipal records of "Red Vienna", Vienna. [Accessible via the Wienbibliothek Digital Portal].
• Wikipedia: History of the Jews in Vienna. [Accessible via the English Wikipedia Portal].
• YIVO Institute for Jewish Research: Interwar Austrian Jewish Demographic Surveys. New York. [Accessible via the YIVO Online Archives].

Ioberski (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ioberski, bring up the matter on Talk:History of the Jews in Vienna (which I notice was last used six years ago). There, make the point that you (and not "Google AI") have made above. Be sure to ping the user who reverted you (WikipediholicRat), just as I am pinging you in this message. Do not cite "AI"; instead, cite reliably sourced historical facts. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 20:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Ioberski (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible outdated guide regarding Lang-xx

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

Results:

• Module:Lang
• Module:Lang/sandbox
• Module:Lang/data
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation
• Module:Lang/utilities
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Gallery
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell
• Module:Lang/documentor tool
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)
• Module:Lang/data/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 161
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/January 2013/GAMO
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AM
• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2020-07
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1078
• Module:Lang/documentor tool/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/April 2018
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82
• Portal:Soviet Union/Intro
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 25
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 3
• Portal:Philosophy/Selected article/5
• Portal:History of science/Article/13
• Portal:Soviet Union/Selected biography/5
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive1
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 13
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75
• Portal:Communism/Selected biography/38
• Portal:Middle Ages/Selected biography/4
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/5
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/2
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/2
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/4
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/3
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/3
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/1
• Portal:Poetry/Selected biography/15
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13
• Portal:Serbia/Selected bio/August
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/5
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/4
• Portal:Society/Featured biography/25
• Portal:Soviet Union/Selected biography/2
• Portal:Jazz/Selected biography/6
• Portal:Ireland/Contribute
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 18
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon
• Portal:Turkmenistan/Selected article/1
• Portal:Serbia/Selected bio/April
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 15
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immediate Action Unit
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendery
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nazi Germany
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle/Archive
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rai Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatian Spring/archive1
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Kulua
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Republic of Guria/archive1
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cukiger
• Module:Sandbox/Ivan Štambuk/lang-ex-helper
• Module:Sandbox/Erutuon
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Podokesaurus/archive1
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 21
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Information/Intro
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 August 25
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Related Projects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject China/User requests
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 April 24
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 January 12
• Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Balboa Creole French
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 August 23
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 October 28
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/January 2011
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 August 14
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 August 11
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/April 2011
• Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 552 dump
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantynopolitańczykowianeczka
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/December 2010
• Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiFundi Content/Help:Write a Wikipedia article about a school
• Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests/Fulfilled/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June 4
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice/sandbox
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/May 2011
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RaBOTnik
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/June 2011
• Help:Books/Feedback/Archives/2016/November
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Log/2010-08-27
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review/Johny Mera Naam
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Log/2010-02-08
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Help:Write a Wikipedia article about a school
• Module:Lang/sandbox2
• Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/langx
• Module:Lang/configuration
• Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/test
• Module:Lang/langx
• Module:Lang/configuration/sandbox
• Module:Sandbox/Erutuon/Unicode
• Portal:Saxony-Anhalt/Article of the Month/Archive
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 8
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 27
• Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2024/Red Sea with a sea of red
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1203
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 214
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Po Methodist School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive/Featured Eurovision Article Archive/2023/July
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Fast article reviewers
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 June 16
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 17
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 267
• Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing/Examples/Aleftina Evdokimova
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Development Initiatives Institute (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tairex Agent Hospital
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/05
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Xu
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hö'elün/archive1
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan Lai So Chun Memorial School
• Template:Lang-x/doc
• Template:Lang-zh/doc
• Template:Wu-style tai chi lineage
• Template:Old Chinese
• Template:Lang-zh/testcases
• Template:INSEE
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil in Love (opera)
• Template:Lang-x/doc/parameters
• Template:Lang-x2/doc
• Template:Old Chinese/sandbox
• Template:Language with name/testcases
• Template:Lang-Deva
• Template:Lang-ka/doc
• Template:Lang-rus/doc
• Template:Lang-sh-Cyrl and Lang-sh-Latn documentation
• Template:Lang-mnc/doc
• Template:First Council of the China Television Artists Association

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

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

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

Three things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About an Editor Disrupted edits

CurtisPalazola has been doing disruptive editing, even after repeated warnings by multiple editors (User talk:CurtisPalazola) including me. The editor is not responding to the warnings nor are engaging on the talk page. What should is the correct way to handle such editor/s? Idr888 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for raising the concern at the teahouse. I would suggest you gather diffs and links to the disruptive editing and the warnings other editors have put. Then, read the Boomerang essay before reporting the editor to WP:ANI. 16dvnk (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @16dvnk. I will do that. Idr888 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about duplicate pages

While editing the page for my hometown, I wanted to create redirects for several nearby villages. However, I noticed that on the English Wikipedia there are currently two pages related to Dongsheng Town. And I am pretty sure they are the same place.

Dongsheng, Guangdong and Dongsheng, Zhongshan

According to what I know, Dongsheng Town has been merged into Xiaolan Town following an administrative adjustment a few years ago. This made me wonder whether the duplicate page should be merged into the existing Xiaolan Town article, or whether it should be handled in another way.

I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, or whether I have the authority as a regular editor to carry out such a merge. Could someone advise me on the appropriate way to handle this situation? BayridgeG22 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, we certainly don't need both Dongsheng articles. I believe the correct way to handle it would be to merge those two (if there's anything worth merging, given how short both pages are) since it did exist as a historical entity, then hopefully add a sourced statement for the adjustment and link to Xiaolan Town. Any relevant content that happened after the adjustment would go in that article. Can you look for any reliable sources covering it? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.zs.gov.cn/zwgk/gzdt/tzgg/content/post_1969637.html

This source is from Zhongshan City Government. It is reliable and also shows that Dongsheng is now been part of Xiaolan Town. And also I suggested merge those two pages few minutes ago, should I just wait for a week and merge them together if there is no one reply? BayridgeG22 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Need advice and criticism

Hello,

I have started a preliminary draft about DZDubai, a vehicle rental platform based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

At this stage, I am mainly looking for feedback on the introduction. Any advice or criticism would be welcome, especially regarding whether the opening paragraph is neutral, properly worded, and appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

I would also like to disclose that I have a connection with the subject, so I would prefer to receive guidance from independent editors before developing the draft further.

Draft: User:DeserEditor/sandbox

Thank you. DeserEditor (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

So far there is zero indication that the business passes WP:NCORP, you will need to submit for review. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you have written an introduction while you still have no valid material to write about is probably the main thing I notice. The two references given so far are only the company advertising itself; this is confirmed by the sources when they write phrases similar to "company representatives say ..."

So, you don't need to polish the introduction - not yet. First, visit the link already given by Theroadislong (WP:NCORP), and find sources for your article that meet those requirements. Until you find enough of those, you won't really be needing this introduction for anything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Further to what Fingers advises: you have made the very common new editor's error of starting to write the Draft backwards: please read that linked essay before continuing to "do it the hard way".

But take heart! You have learned this at a much earlier stage than many do, so you haven't lost very much time and effort. We all learn from our mistakes, and we all made many early in our Wikipedia careers, which is fine, because they're all easily correctable. Carry on and good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@DeserEditor I would strongly suggest you read my advice for paid editors. Also be aware that AI-generated content is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Athanelar, i am not a paid editor. I am the founder. DeserEditor (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

DeserEditor I presume that you founded your company to earn a living and not as a hobby in your free time, that you derive income from your company; that makes you a paid editor, no different than if you instructed an employee to do what you are doing. 331dot (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand now. In a way, that actually makes things easier, because it helps me understand the process and realize that I need to dedicate the necessary time, effort, and resources to succeed.

Based on what I'm learning, I understand that this will probably take several years, but I'm ready for the journey @331dot DeserEditor (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DeserEditor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Given what you have said, I strongly suggest that you devote your time, effort, and resources to your business, including promoting it in places that permit promotion, unlike Wikipedia.

I suggest you totally forget the idea of creating an article in Wikipedia about your business, and wait for somebody unconnected with you to decide, on their own, that enough independent reliable material has been published about your business that a Wikipedia article is possible, and they are interested in writing one. ColinFine (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there somewhere to raise whether someone should be on the mentors list?

I was just assigned a new mentor as my previous one had retired, but my new one has "I dislike LGBTQ+ or whatever you call it" written in their userpage. I don't know if that violates any Wikipedia rules but it certainly makes me uncomfortable and I wouldn't want a new(er) editor to be scared away by this. Gladdening✉ 19:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Gladdening, if you wish to raise this in terms of an abstract discussion of how we determine eligibility for Mentor status, that may be worth bringing to Wikipedia talk:Mentorship; my understanding is that the assignment process is almost entirely unsupervised and there’s been concerns in the past that this is inadequate, both for reasons like what you identify here and simpler questions of ensuring baseline competency and a level of actual experience. If instead you want to raise a complaint about a specific editor, that should be taken to WP:ANI and they should be notified per the instructions at that board. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Link to mentor: User:Tornado Elliott SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'm going to leave a polite message on their talk page explaining that I'll be reassigning myself and to consider removing the statement as nonconducive to the mentor programme's purpose of welcoming newcomers. I checked user page policy and I don't exactly know if WP:POLEMIC is being violated here, but I'd rather approach them before going straight to ANI. Gladdening✉ 20:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that is a very appropriate path forward, and regret that you ended up in this situation in the first place. Based on prior discussions about user page propriety, I think that Tornado Elliott’s user page text is skirting a bit shy of the line of where we would consider unilaterally removing the text or blocking them from editing, but it does raise valid concerns of the propriety of having them be a “mentor” and we regrettably don’t have an established process for reviewing mentors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed content. thanks for the warning TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 21:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I saw you also removed your religion, which was not the content in question and that I'm sure would still be welcome on your user page should you wish to keep it. See you around, Gladdening✉ 21:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tornado Elliott Please be mindful of the fact that Wikipedia is a diverse community which welcomes people from all backgrounds and walks of life. Nobody can stop you from holding a particular opinion; but we can certainly request that you keep those opinions to yourself. You are welcome here, queer people are welcome here, everybody is welcome here - the only people who aren't welcome are those who make others feel unwelcome. By all means hold whatever opinions you hold; but any prejudices on others' identities must be left at the door here. Thanks for removing that statement, and thanks for being part of this diverse community. Athanelar (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

I have been on Wikipedia for a bit now but I'm unsure whether or not to use the Christian or scientific dating "titles"? Key^{lux ★talk★} 20:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:BC. Both are used, although individual articles should stick to a single convention within their text. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you ! Key^{lux ★talk★} 20:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Best Practice for adding event to table

Greetings, I'm trying to edit this article to include the first American television airing of this film. Under the "Events" section, there is already an event where the date of the airing occurred. Do I add another row with the same date, and explain it there? Do I add to the existing row? Thanks! This Name Isn't Available (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Templates can be very confusing at first, so let me give you the exact source code for what you need to do.

|-

! rowspan="2" |(Date of the event)

|(Event one)

|-

|(Event two)

|-

Just plug this into the template where you need to do that! If you're still confused and want to tell me the specific edit you'd like to make, let me know and I can give you the code for that!

‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Look at January 26 with the rowspan=2 parameter. That way you can split the cells on the right. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Need Your Help re: Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion

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.

---

Dear Friends,

I apologize if this is an inappropriate request... yet would benefit from the insights from your collective experience.

Help: the Clark Unitive Effect draft is being denied review for inclusion (“This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources…)  Try as I may, I can’t seem to understand what edits need to be done to meet this threshold. I have added just a few of the papers citing/supporting/referencing the theory that I understand meets the "criteria for inclusion."

Your edits of the draft, or counsel to me would be so helpful.  This theory is important to researchers, policy-makers, civic leaders, educators and so many others. The theory, in ways that can be understood, identifies how to understand and overcome errors in thinking, decision-making, and understanding, and actions to take.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory

With humility and deep appreciation,

Petuniabaa Petuniabaa (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The main problem, as far as I can see, is that far too few of the references - maybe none? - are both independent of the origin of the theory and giving their own in-depth analysis of the theory. We refuse to publish what the authors of theories have to say for themselves. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm…food for thought. Thank you. Petuniabaa (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please only use one forum at a time to seek assistance, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Got It. Thank you! Petuniabaa (talk) 00:40, 28 July 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.

mapframe Infoboxes are broken?

Hi, The mapframes embedded in these articles were previously functional but are now displaying this error mapframe: Title "Bolton bus line.map" is not a valid map data page

I'd appreciate any help or info about this :)

Affected articles: Bolton_line_(bus_route) Line_1_Yonge–University Line_2_Bloor–Danforth

Thanks! SpectacularSeashoreOriole (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a bug in Wikipedia's mapframe code, and the right people have already been alerted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much :) SpectacularSeashoreOriole (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor keeps vandalizing

User:CurtisPalazola keeps vandalizing articles about year (XXX) in film SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 23:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor stoped vandalizing right now. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 23:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that user; can you link their contributions? You could report them to WP:AIV or just ask them on their talk page to stop, if they aren't acting in bad faith. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 23:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I made a typo. Special:Contributions/CurtisPalazola Courtesy ping: CurtisPalazola ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 23:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Numerous people have tried to get through. They've never responded to any talk comments. AIV probably called for. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As this seems to be a persistent problem (given the user's talk page), ANI might be a good option as well. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 03:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sillcosisgogol, three hours before the editor allegedly stopped vandalizing right then, they made this series of edits to 2023 in film. It doesn't look like vandalism to me. It's informative, relevant to the article subject (even if arguably not necessary), and provided with a reference, and the source referred to indeed says what it's presented in the article as saying. There could of course still be some kind of problem that I fail to notice (I haven't even glanced at the article's talk page), but I have trouble believing that the editor "keeps [present tense] vandalizing articles about year (XXX) in film". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

They're back with this, which might not be vandalism but feels like they're just padding their edit count. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Protracted in-universe editing from one or more temporary accounts

Hello! I have been watching Galactic Empire for quite some time. It contains large amounts of in-universe language, WP:EASTEREGG (or overlinking), and lacks references for many of its statements. I attempted to fix some of these issues quite a while ago, but honestly I'm out of my depth.

Does some kind of action need to be taken against the temporary accounts? I'm probably overreacting; I think I'll just remove it from my watchlist and forget about it.

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 02:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

hey. so, this does look like a pretty messy case. first off, i went in and added some maintenance templates to help draw some attention from people who have specific skills in fixing articles like this.

when it comes to ip accounts- it really depends. its easiest to get rid of content right when it comes in- so what i would recommend is, if you see someone adding something without sourcing or which feels non constructive, you can revert the edit and put a warning on their talk page. the easiest way to do this is probably going to be through twinkle. im not sure if you use this, but you can turn it on in your settings (under gadgets). then, when you see this and have reverted the edit, you can go to their talk page and click warn (in a dropdown menu labeled user on some layouts). this will open up a ui that will let you pick from about a bajillion different temlates to give them a warn with, just pick whatever feels appropriate. start with level one, and in the case of repeat offenses, move up each time until you reach 4. once it goes past 4, thats when you would bring it up to staff- but honestly thats probably unlikely from anyone whos not deliberately vandalizing. Jackjd0 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into getting twinkle... I tried to install it a couple of months ago but I couldn't figure it out. I'll have another crack at it. Thank you!! :) JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That was way easier than I thought it would be. I guess I was looking in the wrong spot earlier! JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

im glad youve got it figured out! i wish you luck in getting to know it and hope galactic empire attracts some interested editors Jackjd0 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there a template for automatic inflation-adjusted prices?

Like the sentence "He bought a chess set for $1 (worth $10 as of 2026)". I vaguely remember seeing such a template, but can't find it. Banedon (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Inflation has what you're looking for, but please take care to read the instructions carefully because it can easily give wrong results if used incorrectly. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I need a 3rd opinion

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.

---

Someone keeps saying my sources are wrong for Draft:Learning lodge. MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage, Sulfurboy has pointed out that in order to demonstrate the notability of "Learning lodge" (LL), you need to cite sources that (i) provide significant coverage of LL (that discuss LL in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements; and (ii) are reliable (are from reputable outlets with editorial oversight); and (iii) are independent of LL and of each other. Which three sources that the draft cites do you think score well at all three of (i), (ii), and (iii)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok will update now MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 06:23, 28 July 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.

Possible bug?

I was trying to place an image by surrounding the filename with 2 square brackets on each side in the wikitext editor. The image was too big so I went and tried to make it smaller in the visual editor. The arrow showed up, but it didn't let me resize the photo. I use a phone to edit Wikipedia. Fence127 (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

what is the image? im not sure how photo formatting works on mobile but i can try to do it myself if that works Jackjd0 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is File:Picket fence simple.jpg Fence127 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

where is the instance you're trying to change the size of? and what size would you like it? Jackjd0 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

On my user page Fence127 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I dont know how to align my user boxes to center and not left Fence127 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

so where do you want the fence? also- the userbox thing i figured out literally today. try this

{{Userboxtop

| toptext =

| align = center

| toptextstyle =

| textcolor =

| left =

| bordercolor =

| backgroundcolor =

| extra-css =

}}

{{userbox template names here}}

{{userbox template names here}}

{{Userboxbottom}}

with all your userbox templates in there. this will make a single column of userboxes in the center of the page, kinda like how my page has, but centered instead of on the right Jackjd0 (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Fence127 (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Because I want stuff below them. Fence127 (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for second opinion before resubmitting an AfC draft

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Hi y'all!

I'd appreciate a second opinion on Draft:Social Justice in the Baháʼí Faith, which was recently declined at AfC on the basis that the draft did not maintain a sufficiently formal and neutral encyclopedic tone. The decline notice referred generally to promotional, personal, or informal language, but did not identify any specific examples.

I'd like to revise and resubmit the draft, but I want to make sure the next version addresses the actual AfC concerns rather than making broad changes.

The draft is substantial and is based primarily on academic secondary sources, including works published by Brill, Routledge, NYU Press, SUNY Press, SAGE, Praeger, and other academic publishers.

I also included critical and qualifying scholarship, including discussion of:

• Restriction of membership in the Universal House of Justice to men
• Limited extent of economic reform within Baháʼí communities
• Scale and duration of Baháʼí social and economic development projects
• Scholarly criticism of Baháʼí engagement at the United Nations

I get that the use of academic sources and the inclusion of criticism do not automatically establish compliance with WP:NPOV. I also understand that neutrality can be affected by framing, synthesis, attribution, and the way conclusions are expressed in Wikipedia’s voice. However, because the decline did not point to representative passages, I am having difficulty determining what's wrong 😑

For context, I've used Catholic social teaching as a inspiration/guide for presenting the social teachings of a religion through academic secondary sources.

Could an experienced editor please review the draft and identify a few representative passages or structural issues that should be corrected before resubmission?

I am particularly interested in concrete advice on how to tighten the article so that it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and the AfC acceptance criteria.

Thank you for any help!

ABehjat (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ill take a look, see what i can do. i enjoy digging out npov stuff so ill probably focus on that and tone, someone else will have to give input on verifiability tho Jackjd0 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Jackjd0! ABehjat (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ok so, it very much feels like it's written from the point of view of someone who already believes in it. this shows up in a lot of ways- most prominently- your word choice. it very much feels like im reading a pamphlet from a church. the sentence structure and word choice are just. idk how to word it besides- old fashioned? like.

in the first paragraph of the lead, you write "Recurring themes include the elimination of prejudice, the equality of women and men, the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty, universal education, and universal peace within an international order."

i think a more neutral way to write this might be "Common themes include the elimination of prejudice, gender equality, the elimination of wealth inequality, universal education, and anti war sentiments.". try to use words and phrasing that would seem natural and normal if you were reading about an ocean or a brand of chip or something you have no investment in.

my honest advice is this

- the grammar structure and vocabulary in this article, while not technically incorrect, is very old fashioned. cut out 99% of instances of phrases like "among the highest virtues", "the oneness of humankind" "rendering to each person" etc. replace them with "very valued", "a belief in a oneness of humanity", "making sure each person has"

- go through and rewrite this start to finish, asking yourself with every sentence "would i say this if i was writing about a religion i dont believe in". if the answer is no, dont write it.

- cut out like, half the details, especially in the lead. a lead should be a broad overview, summarizing the content in the article. i shouldnt know the year of a conference or the fact that it has been compared to but found different from neoliberalism during the lead. it should be something like "this is an important thing in this faith. core principles include this this and this. there has been efforts by members to enact these, including (the 2-3 most notable examples, each summarized with 1-2 sentences).

some useful readings might include Wikipedia:Writing better articles, WP:LEAD ,Wikipedia:Be neutral in form , Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Let the reader decide

if you like these, feel free to dig around Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Article writing for more Jackjd0 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jackjd0, thank you for the detailed feedback! This is great information and there's a lot to go through from here. Grammar wise, the examples you gave called out few things which I'm seeing are closely attributed to Baha'i scholars that I need to remove because they use a specific vocabulary that's very old English-like/formal. I agree on the trimming, I added a few chronological details and fluff inside the racism section, for example, when it just needs a very brief overview. Thanks again for the feedback! ABehjat (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ABehjat, the section on "Elimination of racial prejudice" has too much of a United States perspective. In general, your draft relies almost entirely on the work of Baháʼí scholars writing about their own religion. I recommend seeking out commentary from scholars of comparative religion discussing Baháʼí social justice practices. Catholic social teaching is a delisted former Good article, and its talk page includes criticism that it over-relies on Catholic scholarship. A truly neutral article about a Baháʼí topic must incorporate the perspectives of non-Baháʼí scholars, or else it belongs on a Baháʼí website or publication, not in a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 - I had to do a lot of edits around Garlington's because his work was limited in scope to US view and not expanded on more holistic view. I drew on comparative scholars religion scholars including Margit Warburg and Peter Smith. With regards to Baha'i scholars, that's noted, and I'll remove the views from Journal for Baha'i Studies, for other Baha'i scholars who publish through non-Baha'i channels, would that still not be applicable? I'd imagine they'd have to go through the same peer-review process as anyone else within the publishing houses they're publishing from. ABehjat (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to other editors, including to fornulate questions like this one. We have no idea whether this question is actually coming from you and represents your own understanding because you wrote it with a chatbot. Athanelar (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted @ABehjat that if there is any AI generated text in your draft (which given your use of AI here, I would imagine there is), that is expressly forbidden and you'll need to remove any such text from the draft. Athanelar (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @Athanelar. I'll admit the first version of my draft was with AI but I go through a lot of steps of writing multiple versions of my draft locally before publishing (which I saw in your essay it isn't allowed either).

In this case, I'll just re-write the draft from scratch. ABehjat (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your transparency here, and your obviously human-written response. If there's any other edits or creations you've made with AI that we might need to look over, I would appreciate if you could let us know at WP:AINB#User:ABehjat. Athanelar (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good - I think I may need some guidance here because I didn't do it out of ill-well (like the example for Ric Wake) :( I've been going through random articles by clicking on Random Articles, and trying to see if I can improve articles as I find them by sourcing their information via Internet Archive, news articles, and Anna's Archive for copies of journals or books and tried to expand them. I'm worried that all that effort was not worthwhile and would appreciate any clemency or guidance for future edits.

If it's ok, can we discuss more about how to approach this before I list it in the link you provided? I can head over to your talk page or we can discuss more in mine. ABehjat (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, the main question is to what extent you've been using AI to assist in that process. Have you been using to generate actual article text? Athanelar (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's my process: I sourced all information from the places I've mentioned and put them in a directory, where I also run OCR for anything that's like PDF and fix OCR issues. From there I built a RAG layer against all these sources so I can query against it like "Where was Ric Wake born?" or "Who are the artists that Ric Wake worked with?" etc. which returns the sentence/context for the question (using HuggingFace sentence transformers to build this out). The goal here is that it only retrieves information from those sources with the goal to absolutely not hallucinate and make its own content.

From these I create starting points for the LLM to work with to build the first draft. Basically I have all the sentences/points from the sources in one file and then asked the LLM to translate it into a prose-written document. You can see the evidence of heavy LLM in the first draft because it's doing the thing where it's like "Scholar A says...." or "Person B states ....", etc.

From there, I go through a lot of editing to clean the content up and verify again that there's no hallucinated content. ABehjat (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, so then the answer seems to be that yes, all of your prose is AI generated. That's unfortunate; because hallucinations or no, and regardless of how complex your workflow is, AI generated prose isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles, as you're now well aware.

So the question now is; how do we go forward from here? My suggestion would be that you identify any articles you've generated in this way and we put them up for AfD and let the community decide whether NOLLM should apply or whether the articles are of sufficient quality that we should WP:IAR and allow them to remain (as we've done with Shit flow diagram and Malacca dilemma)]]

In either case, you will need to retire this workflow going forward. Athanelar (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll include the articles in Wikipedia:AINB#User:ABehjat :(

For future - can I use the the process up to the point where I retrieve insights from the sources but not LLM write the prose? In essence, use LLM/transformers as a retrieval tool and then I write the prose? ABehjat (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. We have no way to police what you do offwiki as part of your thought process; I will caution that it's a bad idea for various reasons, but it's not against our rules. It's only the AI generated prose which is against the rules. Athanelar (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

For sure. Thank you again for walking me through this, @Athanelar and appreciate your time. I hope the community will keep the articles I shared for now and I'll work out a new workflow for improving/writing articles. ABehjat (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I need to reference too many publications made by the subject of my draft biography

There are too many individual papers published, can I just refer to Google Scholar and what is the method, I don't think I have done it correctly. Thank you Rzevski57 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rzevski57 Assuming this refers to Draft:George Rzevski then I suggest you limit the publications to his most highly cited articles, up to about six. An encyclopedia article should be a summary of someone's notable achievements, as discussed in reliable, published sources. Your key task is to demonstrate how this academic is notable as defined here. Adding huge lists of publications does not help: it is the demonstrated impact of papers that might do that, which is what citation count and the h-index are for. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I notice that aside from one citation in the lead paragraph, your only other citations are in the sections about his publications. However, a Wikipedia Article requires that every fact in it is cited to something written by someone unconnected to the subject and published in a Reliable source. Moreover, since the Lead paragraph should only summarise matter presented (and cited) at more length in the main body of the article, the Lead should not really need any citations at all.

To take a random example, you write ". . . he left Yugoslavia in 1965 with his wife, Jelena and daughter, Tamara, for England . . ." – in what source has this fact been published? If it hasn't, but is known to you only because of your personal connection to him, it cannot be included in a Wikipedia article.

I suggest that before proceeding further, you should read the advice at WP:Golden Rule and WP:Backwards.

That the subject is, as you have explained, your Father means that you have a Conflict of Interest in writing the article. This is allowed, but it does make your task difficult, because you effectively have to forget everything you personally know about him and only base the article on material published by other, unconnected persons.

As for publications, a selected list of a scholar's most important papers, in a section towards the end of the article, is appropriate: it is up to you to either decide which to include, or to find a disinterested source who has already made such a selection: a dozen would probably be ample. A complete or comprehensive list is definitely not appropriate: a Wikipedia article is not a Curriculum Vitae or a place to host the complete academic bibliography of a long career. I hope this helps, because the subject obviously qualifies for an article, but as you will by now have realised, writing one is a difficult and lengthy task for someone unpracticed at it. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is most helpful but would you kindly clarify the 2 follow on questions: how can I get around the fact that cite information is not available on Google due to the subject’s foreign provenance? I omit the info as non-provable, right? Also I can find cite information which is a professional CV on various academic sites, I presume that is not acceptable?? Thanks Rzevski57 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rzevski57.

Google is a useful tool for finding sources, but it is not the only possibility. Sources do not have to be online, and they do not have to be in English (though English sources are preferred if they are available). They do have to be reliably published, and hence in principle available to an interested reader (even if it may cost time and money to get hold of them). The important part of a citation is the bibliographic information like title, date, author, publisher, journal etc.

A professional CV, irrespective of who publishes it, is generally not independent of the subject: it can only be used to support limited information, and does not contribute to establishing Notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Is TorrentLeech notable enough to have a wikipedia page?

I noticed that there's quite a few articles about BitTorrent trackers like Karagarga and T411. Since TorrentLeech is one of the oldest continuously operating trackers around, I think it would make sense to create an article about it but I'm not sure if it really fits the notability criteria.

The site doesn't seem to ever appear in the mainstream press, but it articles have been written about it in specialized blogs like TorrentFreak (example) and its functioning has been the subject of academic studies (example). WikiSeto (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@WikiSeto I haven't looked far for sources, but the first one you linked is of little use to establish notability, as it is from the company itself. Academic sources are fine and you should aim to find about three that each meet the key criterai and are not just duplicating the same information, Google scholar may help e.g. this search. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd look into the sources that are used on the existing articles, and as long as they do qualify for reliability I'd see whether they've published anything about this one. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I use this person as an example too often, but he's famous and obvious so I don't care. :)

My imaginary goal is to learn the history of Albert Einstein. When I do a web search for him, I find a lot of sources right away, but a lot of them are garbage - for example, there are fake quotations of things he never said, and Einstein-wannabes using twisted interpretations of his work to prop up their own bad ideas.

Another category that I dump out right away is name-drops; many people have name-dropped Einstein, and of course those aren't really about him. The same goes for any source that's not truly about Einstein, and even for sources that are about him but only contain one important fact. It's not literal name-dropping that's the problem, it's just getting rid of sources that don't actually have a lot to say about him.

After the obvious garbage is removed, still, the sources are not all equal, and there are a few important ways to sort them. For my goal, there are probably two main things: First, things written by Einstein or the people close to him are going into a separate category to read later. Second, I'll sort by size; I'm looking for his full history, so I put aside all the shorter items. (They're probably good for something, they're just not complete.)

After that, sorting the long items by who their publishers and authors are is helpful, because reputations count - specifically, if any author or publisher has a bad reputation, or if their reputation is hard to know or undefined, I'm going to reject them. Any that are long and have a good reputation are going into the "Read These First" pile.

_____

I guess you see where I'm going with this. :) To make a Wikipedia article, basically what you need is a "Read These First" pile that has at least three big complete items in it; if you don't have those yet, go find them before you even start. If you really can't find three big histories of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (or at least close enough to being "big histories"), your only possibility is to give up until somebody writes those.

You also need to reject all sources that name the subject but aren't really telling a history of the subject - for example, an announcement isn't a history - and reject all that have a bad or undefined reputation.

Sources that come from the subject (or someone near the subject) can help a little, but they can't be the focus. For example, none of your three big histories can be based on things the subject said or wrote, even if the reporter has woven their own comments into it as well.

And reliable short sources are fine for adding in an important item, but you can't make an article from a bunch of short sources: short sources don't provide context, and - here's a big thing that many people miss - you're not allowed to fill in the context from things you know. The idea of "you're not allowed to explain, all explanations must be already in the sources" often turns out to be pretty hard to do. (There are times when you do have to explain something, for example if reliable sources disagree and you're pointing out the disagreement.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer Requested Birth Date, but No Reliable Source Exists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liverpool John Lennon Airport

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

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

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

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

What the process

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

Hello, @Angrybirdsuperstar, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

I suggest you start with Help:Introduction.

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

A couple of notes of caution:

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

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

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

Naming BLP articles for multiple people with same name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

• ... something else entirely?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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

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

ایجاد صفحه برای آرش دبستانی

با سلام،

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guideline you linked to says:

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

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

Draft declined for foreign-language sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somali Future Council

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

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

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

Hello, @QalasQalas, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

My First Article

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

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

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

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

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

Link in lead of American studies

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

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

Hello, @Esb5415, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Rosuacamus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalisation of initial word of quote

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

1. He said "The more the merrier".

or

2. He said "the more the merrier".

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

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on reworking draftified LLM translations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demonym standardization?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you do a peer review for a draft?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating new artical

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When rejecting, I was told:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @Teluobir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @ChompyTheGogoat.

Did you even read their message?

User:Teluobir

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

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

Hello.

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

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

Hello.

I do understand, I said "sometimes".

I get your point.

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

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

Feedback on my draft page for a Catholic church

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

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

Hello, @MsKingfisher, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Pépé Bradock

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

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

• Source: https://ra.co/news/43496

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

Any insights would be appreciated!

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

Aha progress yay! But also help?

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

Is anyone looking for something to do?

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

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

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

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

Ok this traffic issue was resolved, yay!

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

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

Maniac, TV series

Duplicated at Help Desk

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

Editing a title to an article

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

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

Explain Project Pages Mechanics

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

Hello, @Pickalittletalkalittle, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Lusaka Times

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

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

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

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

LLM Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary feedback requested for Draft:András Lénárd

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

---

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Draft:Sunil

Sock

Draft:Sunil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curiosity killed the North Korean

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

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

Verify PBS Airdate of Titicut Follies

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

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

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

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

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

Rating confirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass shootings in Canada categoriy 2026 Montreal shooting

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

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

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

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

Is presenting works for comparison in a table OR?

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

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

Notability of a sculpture's vandalism and defamation potential

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

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

References

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

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

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

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

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_College_of_Maryland there is a logo of a College seal depicted as the logo for the college. However, the college brand style guide (reference #4) explains that the College seal is reserved for presidential use and is not the general College logo. The correct College logo is the name of the College, explained in the brand style guide (reference #4) is at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_College_of_Maryland#/media/File:St_mary_college_md_logo_motto.png ~2026-42174-60 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback requested on draft for Carnatic percussionist Amrit Nataraj

Hi everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, EmoryNB, and welcome to the Teahouse!

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

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

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

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

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

Category question from Emmanbotan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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