Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 ([1])
5. See ChompyTheGogoat's answer ([2])
6. In order for his death to qualify for Portal:Current events, it has been recommended that a standalone article is created about his death ([3], [4]).
7. World leaders have attended his funeral

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback requested on draft for Carnatic percussionist Amrit Nataraj

Hi everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:EmoryNB/sandbox/VK_Music

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

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

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

Hello, EmoryNB, and welcome to the Teahouse!

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

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

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

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

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

Category question from Emmanbotan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are we using Vancouver style referencing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Hegyes

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

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

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

LTA evading block. Athanelar (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZoomInfo - Page Update Request

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

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

Help and Mentorship in creating first page

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambition

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

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

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

Requesting Feedback on Revision for Declined Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is my draft article?"

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

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

Event Page Registration Challege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does moving pages work?

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

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

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

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

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

Poplars

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

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

Understanding the biographies of dead people

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a new article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up to date Gameplay screenshots?

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

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

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

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

Request for feedback on Draft - Samvedna Suwalka

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

Draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samvedna_Suwalka

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

Which references should I remove?

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

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

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

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

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

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