Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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.]

Wikipediholism test

Can someone test my Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test test by using common.js. I am don't know much about common.js. Please ping me if anyone know my score. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

On your User Page in the userboxes section it appears to say "This user scored 591 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 1133240120)" I hope that I helped you out and answered your question. If not please clarify what you mean. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It was test done by me three years ago. Now I have forgot, how to test now through common.js. If you can check, please check. @EzYop ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 19:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Mass CfD/S?

After most userbox categories were moved recently, I have noticed some that have been left unmoved as they were not tagged, or another issue (ex. Category:Aromantic user templates, Category:Eastern philosophy user templates, Category:PlayStation user templates, there's a lot) and I would want to fix these, presumably using CfD/S.

I did this for one of the categories I created, but there are far too many to do for this without flooding it (and my contribs), or being repetitive. Is there any other way to do this, or... what? ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ask this at WT:CFD. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

How to setup an Archive for my Talk page?

Hi everyone, I hope you are all are doing good. I have noticed many senior editors have an Archive boxes on their talk pages, apparently, it holds their previous discussions with different editors. Could anyone teach me how can I make an archive box for myself? My talk page has become too lengthy. Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

We have the simple variant at Help:Archiving (plain and simple), a bit more elaborate one at WP:AUTOARCHIVE...or you can be an old fossil like me and still do it manually :). Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

D @Lectonar Thank you, I don't know how to do it manually, I will look into the links you have provided. Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to set that up for you if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Sure that would be great... However, I won't learn by that. Thank you for the offer. Idr888 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a yeas or a no.

You could learn by examining the code of the edit I'd make. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

O... Right. Okay. Sure please go ahead and set it up. Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Done; see here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thank you so much for setting it up. Idr888 (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Türkiye and WP:COMMONNAME in articles

WP:COMMONNAME

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I have just witnessed at least ten new accounts pop up, create userpages that state they're from Abdullah Gül University in Türkiye, and then change "Turkey" to "Türkiye" in an article.

This:

1. Is rather strange, and

2. leaves me wondering whether this is acceptable. Does WP:COMMONNAME, or a variant of it, apply to the content of articles?

I've seen similar with people changing Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario in article bodies to what the U.S government calls them too, and have not reverted because, from what I can tell, WP:COMMONNAME is specifically for article titles. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's one of them, as an example. I can provide the others if needed. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNUE is what you're looking for, I believe. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

He beat me to it and he is correct. WP:GNUE is what you want. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Also see Q1 in the Frequently asked questions section in Talk:Turkey. CodeTalker (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a class-based activity as part of a Wikipedia-in-education type programme. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

new page

Cathy Auld (community activist) has been threatened with speedy deletion. I was careful to attach citations to almost all sentences. I am researching more citations this week. Why the threat? MisterP93 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@MisterP93: Welcome to The Teahouse. As the first sentence in the template reads:

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a redirect from the main/article space to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. See CSD R2.

Formatting and wikilinks in original.

A redirect from mainspace to draftspace is subject to speedy deletion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The article itself has been moved to draftspace at Draft:Cathy Auld (community activist). The page Cathy Auld (community activist) is tagged for speedy deletion because it's a redirect from mainspace to another namespace (draftspace in this case) which we speedily delete under criterion r2. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@MisterP93 To make things completely clear, Cathy Auld (community activist) is a draft, not a permanent article. That's what the talk about "namespaces" and "draftspace" is all about.

The excellent folks who answer questions here don't always answer in the most straightforward way. Let us know in case you are not clear on the difference between a draft and an article. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

About Bejai bus stand Discussion

Bejai bus stand

Is arguing against damp of information given by user in afd illegal? Shaymmm (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Shaymmm, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you are asking. I see that the article was nominated for deletion, and the result was "keep".

I see that in the discussion you used the phrase "damp of information", which you have used above. When I saw it above, I assumed that it was a typo, and was trying to work out what you might have meant to say. How having seen in in the discussion, I have the beginnings of an idea what it might mean, but not a clear idea (and the comments indicate that I am not the only one who finds "damp of information" hard to understand).

But I still have no idea what you are asking above. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine,The user in afd told it was damp of informatiob.When i asked this is wrong to tell as damp of information another user wrote that "Don't argue with people about their !votes, please. Either present actual policy arguments or new information, or let it go and trust the closing admin can tell a weak argument when they see one.".So do i have no rights to tell this damp of information is useless criteria for deletion? Shaymmm (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

and is damp of information criteria to delete this article? Shaymmm (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I am asking this question because if my article is nominated for deletion and someone tells it is because of damp of information,then will it be considered for deletion Shaymmm (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you by any chance mean 'information dump'? Please note that 'damp' and 'dump' are, in English, completely unrelated words. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No,I didn't know but he wrote dump information Shaymmm (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I've now actually read the AfD discussion. The term "damp of information" was introduced by Geschichte: in the context of the discussion and the article concerned, "a dump of information" does make sense, so I can only assume "damp" was a typo for "dump". Perhaps Geschichte will come here to confirm (or refute) this, or you could ask them on their Talk page.

I'm not aware that an article being "a dump of information" is formally proscribed in our guidelines, but (in any piece of writing) it is clearly not a good thing to be: it suggests an unstructured string of facts with no structure to it, which would not read coherently and would be unnecessarily difficult to use.

Many drafts, of course, are probably "dumps of information" in their early stages of development, while the drafter is still collecting sources. This ought to be rectified before the draft is submitted for consideration, and having looked at the article's state before the AfD nomination was made, I can see elements of it. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly know as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on sourcing for a COI draft before AfC submission

Hello. I have written Draft:Krieshen Ramkhelawan about myself. I have declared my conflict of interest on my user page and on the draft's talk page, and I will not move it to the main space myself; I intend to submit it through Articles for Creation.

Before submitting, I would appreciate neutral feedback from experienced editors on two points:

1. Do the independent sources in the draft (mainly De Ware Tijd, a profile from May 2026 and a 2024 report; the Government of Suriname news site; Waterkant.Net; Dagblad Suriname; Anton de Kom University of Suriname) appear sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, or should I wait for more in-depth coverage?
2. Is there any wording in the draft that reads as promotional and should be removed or rephrased?

Most sources are in Dutch, as they are Surinamese media. I am happy to provide translations of the relevant passages if that helps. Thank you for your time. Krieshen.Ramkhelawan (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

De Ware Tijd seems to be a reliable source, but it is not independent, because they are interviewing you; this basically makes you a co-author of those articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Krieshen.Ramkhelawan Did you use ChatGPT or another AI tool to submit your question here? Or, to help you write the draft? David10244 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

species list with a species that is a synonym of another

i just finished completing the species list in Geometra, and one of the sources i used (inaturalist) lists Geometra munitata as a species. i saw that in the preview, the link to it was blue instead of red like i was expecting, so i clicked on it and it redirected to Xanthorhoe decoloraria. since G. munitata is just a synonym of X. decoloraria, should i keep G. munitata in the species list? -a logged out .sstanleycaris ~2026-52604-06 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @.sstanleycaris, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest asking at WP:WikiProject Tree of Life what is the recommended way to handle this. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you sstanleycaris (SHOO!) 21:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend verifying the rename, and if it is current and correct, then X. decoloraria/G. munitata should not be in a list of Geometra species as it is no longer considered to be part of that genus.

You could consider "species no longer considered part of this genus" as a list, especially if there are several of them, but I personally don't think it's necessary. M kuhner (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Is my draft good enough?

My draft is Draft:Cumberland County League

I have already submitted it for review. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 19:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @EzYop, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since you have already submitted it for review, the reviewer who chooses to work on it will answer your question. Asking here will not get you a quicker review. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it is unfortunately a complete fail. If you want to create articles, you need to read and understand every detail of WP:42. It may be a lot to read, but you can't skip any parts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, Okay thank you for the advice! EzYop (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If I found the pw for a long-abandoned account, is it okay if I still use TAs?

• I got way too into Wikipedia for ~14 months 20 years ago and abandoned my account cold-turkey. Editing was not good for my mental health. (I wasn't contentious at all IIRC, I was just obsessive, completionist, and kept staying up until 4AM writing pages).
• Recently I learned that trolls break into old WP accounts to make trouble, and I wondered if my old account was using one of my re-used, long-since pwned passwords from before the days of ubiquitous PW managers.
• It was. I logged into WP to change the PW to something unique and harder to crack.
• Now I worry that it's technically socking to ever use a TA. For context, in the last 20 years I've maybe used TAs or IP accounts to edit talk pages something like 3 or 4 times at most, probably only to request edits for unequivocal, absolutely inarguable vandalism. And none of those edits were in places where I used to edit regularly and consider myself a subject matter expert.

I don't want to go back to that old account; even looking at it and contemplating blanking the user page and requesting a name change gives me anxiety. Writing this teahouse question gives me anxiety! I also don't want to break any rules. Now that I know I could log into the old account, does that mean I musn't use a TA ever? I really don't intend ever to use TAs for anything other than once-a-decade edit requests when I notice a serious problem on an unmonitored page. ~2026-52806-50 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ALTACC. Using alternate accounts, including TAs, is completely permissible. The charge of sockpuppetry requires that the alternate account is being used for rulebreaking purposes like giving the false impression of support in a discussion, anonymous vandalism ("bad hand" socking), block evasion, etc. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

oh thank goodness. and thank you for answering. ~2026-52806-50 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

And in fact, "I lost the password" is a legitimate reason to spin up a new account or edit as a TA until you recover it, if ever you do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Please review a article and need a guidline to remove warning tags.

Hi,review the editing history of this article Daffodil International University.I would appreciate your feedback on recent removal of some content.Also I made a request for peer review. 0ximjub43r (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

A review of the article would duplicate the peer review that you say you've already requested. Duplication is wasteful. This is a series of edits, each deleting material, and each accompanied by an edit summary. Among these edits, which one edit most concerns you? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Concerned regarding these section: Department and faculties, removal of campus photos, Residential Hall. 0ximjub43r (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Also need a guidline to remove warning tags. 0ximjub43r (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You haven't specified the one edit. (The individual edits are listed in the "history" of the article.) The article is headed by a template that says in part "Learn how and when to remove these messages" and links to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Have you read this? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I would appreciate an independent review of some recent content changes to the Daffodil International University article.

Several sections containing information about the university's faculties, departments, and residential facilities have recently been removed.The discussion is currently at Talk:Daffodil_International_University 0ximjub43r (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

IMDb links for Youtubers

Are Youtubers or any other streaming platforms of content creators allowed an IMDb link on their pages

Okey doke so I came across the late Lito Sousa who was a YouTuber as well as an aviation expert. Can those who show their faces on popular social media platforms or use to show their faces on social media platforms have their IMDb pages on their pages? Just want to make sure while editing.. Vlove1 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source and in most cases cannot be used as a reference to support content in the body of an article. However, a link to an IMDb page can appear in the External links section. See WP:CITINGIMDB and WP:IMDB-EL. CodeTalker (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking EL, for people who are not actors, consider if there's any reasonably extensive stuff there, that the imdb page exists is not enough. In this specific case , I wouldn't add it, there's pretty much nothing there. There is a board specifically for EL:s, WP:ELN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Vlove1 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Bracket integers at the top of a page on the left side

These footnote-like "markers" seem to repeat attempted footnotes that failed for one reason or another. They have since been correct and published but there isn't any indication of how to get rid of the markers once they become obsolete. LevelingtheBS (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

^[1], ^[2] and ^[3] appear at the top left of New Jersey Institute of Technology. They're indices for the first three references. If you want any one of these to appear immediately after the assertion(s) that it backs up, you can move it (cut and paste it). But if you just want to remove any one of them, you can simply delete it. If I've misunderstood, please explain the problem again. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent feedback

I am working on Draft:Leon du Preez.

I have disclosed that I have a professional affiliation with the subject and Encounter Church, so I have a COI.

I have not yet submitted the draft to AfC.

I would appreciate an uninvolved editor checking whether the current sourcing appears sufficient for WP:BIO, and whether the draft has any obvious BLP, NPOV, promotional-tone or citation problems before I submit it.

I am not asking for expedited approval, only independent feedback.

Thank you so much. BrainStormer75 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@BrainStormer75 A brief glance shows that much of the content of the draft is based on interviews with its subject, so not independent of him. You need about three decent sources which meet the golden rule and it would help the AfC reviewers if you commented at the top of the draft which ones they are. They are the ones that need to convince reviewers that WP:NBIO is met. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. That is helpful. I will identify the strongest independent secondary sources at the top of the draft for AfC reviewers and will continue looking for additional sources that meet WP:NBIO before submitting. I appreciate the clarification. ~~~~ BrainStormer75 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@BrainStormer75 One of the main problems is right at the first sentence of the article. If we need to use an interview to determine what his name is and what he does, the article takes a sharp turn toward being a self-promotion piece. We need to see him identified and introduced by reporters who didn't interview him and who don't necessarily support his message, but who still consider him worth writing a major story about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Advice on finding elusive sources

I recently tried to edit Texas Senate to add the roles of the Republican and Democratic caucus chairs as unofficial party leaders. I was unable to find a source, but made the edit anyway because:

• the article lists the current caucus chairs (Tan Parker and Carol Alvarado) as the majority leader and minority leader, even though I haven't seen them referred to by those titles
• the Texas House of Representatives article has a similar statement about caucus chairs in that chamber, also unsourced
• I know the fact to be true from personal knowledge

Understandably, though, the edit was reverted by @Nrlref013 on the grounds that it was unsourced and did not comply with the verifiability policy. They suggested that I ask for advice here.

I did a little digging for a source that mentions that the Senate caucus chairs play the role of party leader, but couldn't readily find one. I plan to do some more research in my spare time and maybe see if the local public library has a book on Texas politics that would contain the claim. Do you all have any other advice for how to find sources for claims you just know are true but can't easily source? MetroFjord (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MetroFjord. Claims you just know are true (how do you know that?) but can't easily source must, as a matter of policy, be kept out of encyclopedia articles. You can maintain a personal sandbox with this content as you continue searching for reliable sources. As for finding sources, writing more detailed and specific search queries may be useful, as well as good old fashioned library searches of paper sources. Countless reliable sources are still not available online. In California where I live, the California State Library has a massive collection of sources related to the state legislature. I assume that Texas has a similar library. Cullen328 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips.

You might also find WP:Referencing for beginners useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

archive.org can be useful. You can ask an AI of your choice a question like "do Republican and Democratic caucus chairs function as unofficial party leaders?" and see what sources it comes up with, but BE VERY AWARE that a lot of what you will get will be crap from the WP-POV, if related to your question at all. But sometimes you can get a usable source that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I'll look into some of these resources. MetroFjord (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing better drafts

Does anyone here have guides for writing better drafts? I have been involved in 5 drafts (give or take) for 13 days, adding more reliable & notable sources, and not a single one of them got accepted. I can't stop thinking about drafts in my head. I am burned out and stressed from the constant thinking and the worry that I won't ever get a draft accepted.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 05:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft you've edited most recently, Dare2Leap, is Draft:Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber). This has been declined several times for use of an LLM. How can you write a better draft? Unsurprisingly, don't use an LLM. And more generally: Start by checking that your proposed subject is "notable" as defined by and for Wikipedia and that you'll be able to demonstrate this. Then read reliable sources, taking notes. Then draft the draft. And then copyedit your draft, again and again. (Do this over a period of several days.) And only after you've done all that, submit it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap There's pretty good advice in the essay WP:backwards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap From a different angle - the thing that's going wrong is you're trying to find sources that YOU call "reliable & notable". Forget about that, because it doesn't help. The important thing is to find out what kind of sources Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia's definitions are very different from yours. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I base my opinion on Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, but sometimes I extrapolate based on my intepretations of the Wikipedia rules that I read, such as the number of paragraphs/words needed for something to count as notable. And maybe that is what is wrong with me? But I am still learning. Just recently, I read about WP:100WORDS, which would've been really useful had I read it when creating drafts.

I have given up on making new drafts until I better understand the notability guidelines and have shifted to improving existing articles.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 06:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

That last sentence seems like a good idea. I'm sure you'll get there.

My recommendations for understanding notability:

• Any article announcing anything gives zero notability
• Any article containing interview answers gives zero notability (probably)
• Anything that looks like a CV, or looks like a prospectus, or looks like maybe the subject helped write it, gives zero notability
• WP:42 has some very good answers, but remember that every source has to cover every requirement of the whole WP:42

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Undue instructional language

The article Graph structure theorem has this sentence in its introduction: "Its proof is very long and involved." This does not seem like a thing that should be noted, especially without any secondary sources one can point to.

However, I am unsure of what I should cite as a reason for the change. Is this MOS:INSTRUCT, WP:NPOV, or something else?

Thanks! OpFez (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, OpFez. There is nothing wrong with the statement per se. The problem is the lack of a source. However, a source is not required in the lead section if the content is discussed and properly referenced later in the body of the article. You can remove it if there is no source anywhere in the article and if you cannot find a reliable source that makes that observation. Cullen328 (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@OpFez This is a case where the WP:LEAD of the article is brief and cites no sources directly. However, it explicitly states which sources later in the article do give the proof. On the grounds of WP:NPOV you could remove the "Its proof is very long and involved" part but this may be in the sky is blue territory! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Users can't post on Talk:The Mosquito Bowl

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.

---

Oh no! this can't be happening! On the Requested Move for the Mosquito Bowl, The users never vote "support" or "oppose" or reply to this user! ~2026-52852-35 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There have been two votes, TA @~2026-52852-35, so it seems users can reply and voice their opinions. We do not vote on Wikipedia, we instead build concensus. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 12:08, 2 October 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.

Fix talk page of ISRO

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.

---

User already asked this at the Help Desk. Please ask a question at only one venue to prevent duplicating user effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Can someone fix this? The topic is not getting closed, even it has been closed already. I asked for help at Wikipedia:Help desk, but no one answered. Someone please fix this. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Fixed at the help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 2 October 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.

Advice on talk page

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.

---

Hi, I'm a fairly new editor and could use a second opinion. I made several separate edits to Battle of Saint-Omer that got reverted by Johnbod, an experienced editor. The edits were fixing a pp= vs p= formatting issue in the citations, I corrected each reference as I found it instead of batching them into one edit because of warning tag, which ended up looking like a burst of changes. I posted an explanation on the article talk page Talk:Battle of Saint-Omer,addressing why I made those changes, but it's been 11 days with no reply. I've also left a note for my mentor, but their user page says they're on a break, so I'm not sure if or when I'll hear back from them. Is it reasonable to follow up directly on the other editor's user talk page at this point, or should I keep waiting? Did I go too far at some point? PalimpsestEditor (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

My mentor got back to me, even though they're away, and suggested I reach out directly to Johnbod on his talk page rather than asking through them. I'll do that next.

Part of my hesitation in following up was that Johnbod has been editing for a long time, so I wanted to check I wasn't doing something wrong before going directly to them. PalimpsestEditor (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with doing something 'wrong' if you simply haven't learned how to do it 'right' yet.

Wikipedia (like life) is very large and complicated, and nobody is expected to learn how to do everything perfectly correctly before trying to do it; having somebody else correct a mistaken attempt is a normal part of learning how to do things 'right', and does not carry any stigma, unless one continues to repeat the mistake after being told how not to make it. Also, 'right' and 'wrong' is sometimes a matter of interpretation, or dependant on context.

The Wikipedia Project is intentionally co-operative and collaborative, and any user more experienced in doing a particular thing should be happy to explain why doing it in a particular way is correct, or even merely better. I'm sure Johnbod (who may also be pausing their editing and may not have seen your Article Talk page message) would not mind if you politely asked on their talk page why they reverted you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 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.

how to report a broken category

Hi This is a repost since my old post did not get answered

the category, Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions doesnt work. Based on the talk page this has been broken for at least 5 and a half years, disambig pages and template pages aren't getting added to the category

as I saw in the old thread, PrimeHunter pointed out the submisison must have |type=template or |type=dab to be added, which I would assume are auto added for AfC pages that use the disambig category (I'm not too sure if a template category exists, never checked) or ones that have Template: or (disambiguation) in the title, but I can confirm the are not auto added thank you ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48026-60: I have added code to automatically add Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions if the page name starts with "Template:" or ends with "(disambiguation)". There aren't currently any such pending submissions. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help fixing a link for a source

I'm a person who does not know how to spell most words I'm trying to add a link to Wpan as a source for a change of affiliation but it is not the correct format for a source ~2026-53057-83 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

done ~2026-53057-83 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:SEMI for Flydubai flight

was this article automatically set to ECP. Is there a place to request a downgrade to Semi? Please see Talk:Flydubai Flight 1073#c-YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere-20261002142900-Why is this on ECP? Dw31415 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately Flydubai Flight 1073 is a Wikipedia:Contentious topics, article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict and cannot be downgraded to Semi Protection. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Translating quotes

Hello friends. What is the current guidance on machine translation and/or where might I ask for help with human help with an Italian-to-English translation? I might want to use a couple of direct quotes from this Italian-language article and I know to include the original language in the reference but after that...help? jengod (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The current guidance is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION and WP:LLMTRANSLATE. In summary; Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. Machine translation should be used as an assistive tool for people who are already proficient in both languages and can verify that the output of the machine translation is accurate.

If you want human help with translation, the WP:EMBASSY has a list of English-speaking editors proficient in various other languages who can be contacted for help with those languages. Athanelar (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Athanelar! This is what I was looking for but I cornered myself in a dead-end before I found it. I will read, and save all these links on my personal collection of "how wikipedia work" documentation. Thank you v much for taking the time.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

coffee houses

I hate tea! ~2026-44142-71 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous editor, and welcome! The Teahouse is just a name picked to indicate the atmosphere this page is intended to convey; it's a somewhat more casual place to ask Wikipedia editing questions than some other noticeboards on Wikipedia. You could just as easily consume coffee while you ask questions at the Teahouse or variations of that nature – the particular drink matters less than the editing help. Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia we can help with? Best, Perfect4th (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Punctuation

I don't know if this belongs here, but: Does this seem like correct punctuation?

I just edited the article Charles Addams and fixed punctuation in the Personal life section of the article. Does this seem like correct punctuation?

• Original: By April 1943 shortly after the death of Addams mother, the couple were engaged
• Current version by me: By April 1943, shortly after the death of Addams's mother, the couple were engaged Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I am asking this because someone reverted my edit where I fixed punctuation on another page and they said the rendered sentence was nonsensical, and I am now always paranoid that my punctuation fixing edits will get reverted as a result. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The structure of a sentence as a whole is a bit odd (and was before you edited, I should add). I'd probably just rephrase the whole sentence to something like "The couple were engaged by April 1943, shortly after the death of Addam's mother." I'm not entirely convinced the death of Addam's mother is sufficiently relevant to that particular sentence so as to warrant inclusion in it, but that's a separate matter. Perfect4th (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I almost forgot to add: Welcome to the Teahouse, Gaming Fan 23! Perfect4th (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gaming Fan 23, for this particular case, I would say your version is definitely clearer, but whole-sale rephrasing would probably work better as Perfect4th said.

In general though, you can always open a discussion with the person reverting your edit and ask them to elaborate. I actually got involved in a disagreement about a comma on Among Us (TV series) before, but we managed to talk it out . You can always boldly change first and discuss later, as outlined by WP:BRD. LkL-70547 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Article On Poetry Seems Incorrect But Conflict Of Interest

Tough one here, I'm 74 year old guy - not the best at this. Marty Watt. Asking about the article on Performance Poetry Some dates are wrong. But I think it's a conflict of interest for me to make any edits or changes. I was a "Performance Poet" back in the Nineteen Seventies and Eighties, the general concept in that area is that I was the first. Seems like it, but who knows. I have all the Mainstream Press reviews with the dates etc and whatever would be needed. There is an article / page about ME already on Wikipedia Marty Watt . Strange that there's an article on me as a "Performance Poet" but I'm mentioned once in passing - my name misspelled as "Watts" not how it is: "Watt." And it's hard to imagine what the brief mention of me even means : "Marty Watts was connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." "connected?" "to the term performance poetry?" "through his physical expression of recited poetic works." I simply WAS a "Performance Poet," I wrote my own poems to be performed from memory for a live audience. The definition of the modern term: Performance Poetry. The 1976 mentioned refers to the article about me in The Washington Post that year. Earlier dates - 1973, 1975 documented in reviews of my shows from the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin aren't mentioned for some reason. Even 1976 puts my work far earlier than anyone else, but I did start earlier than that. The mention of me was just recently added. It was all I got after months of working with a mentor and supplying them with all documentation asked for. . . . Best I can tell, the problem here is the conflict of interest: I would be part of any corrections, and I would be the one suggesting the corrections. Other problem is that no one has been on the "Talk" section for two or three years.

Is there ANYTHING that can done ?

Thanks for any help, Marty Marty Watt (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Marty Watt, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If there are reliable sources for the earlier use of the term, then it can almost certainly be added. Thank you for your concern about conflict of interest - I suppose if it was your performances that they were about, that is a COI. In which case, I would advise you use the edit request wizard to create a {{COI edit request}} on the talk page, which will come to the notice of a wider set of editors than those who watch that page. Be as specific as you can in your request, and cite the sources fully. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Problem is NO ONE watches that page. Only help it would be to me is that when Google is asked about "Performance Poetry," "Spoken Word," etc my name doesn't come up - because Wikipedia is what the Internet scours. Fascinating. What happens when things / arts like this just get so forgotten? Does any misinformation just stay how it is? I guess I could try to find someone halfway knowledgeable about that time and subject. Marty Watt (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Marty Watt.

I perhaps didn't make it clear: if you use the {{COI edit request}} template, then it will be on a quite separate list of edits, which will be seen by people who patrol that list. It may take time for them to get to it, but they will.

But the other side of the question is that, unfortunately, your personal knowledge may not be used in any Wikipedia article unless it is verified by a reliable published source. Please see the essay WP:verifiability, not truth. ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "verified" by newspaper articles reviews. Mainstream press: Washington Post, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, more. Just to be clear: would they be reliable published etc sources? But is it that if it's ME that presents them - that makes them MY knowledge and therefore disqualifies them ? Yes, I just checked: I did mention in my original post / question that I have it all documented: the published sources etc, the Wikipedia article already about me. "Seems like it, but who knows. I have all the Mainstream Press reviews with the dates etc and whatever would be needed. There is an article / page about ME already on Wikipedia Marty Watt ." I kind of understand how weird it would be for me just to saying stuff off the top of my head. I just want to do what's right, the right way, and only get done what can be done. Nothing special or extra. Marty Watt (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: what I'd write on COI edit request? Of, course like we've talked about: all dates etc anything I say would be verified by Mainstream newspaper articles. Would it help to send the articles or one to here for you to evaluate?

Thanks so much again,

Marty Marty Watt (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed the spelling issue.

The most important thing, if you request further changes or additions is to supply reliable, independent sources

While you're here, you may find WP:About you useful. We would particularly appreciate a recording of your spoken voice, as explained there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources?" Mainstream newspaper articles and reviews? I've supplied them - got me nowhere except my name misspelled.Are newspapers not what you mean? Washington Post, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin - now gone - I have the archived reviews, others if needed. I must have something wrong about sources. Yes, there are recordings. Best is 1972 event with Patti Smith, first the public saw "Performance Poetry" the style of verse and the memorized delivery, and Where as Patti Smith takes the stage, she says "I'm from the old school where we READ our poems." I even stared (one of four principles) in a major film : Almost You, early eighties, where I get to perform a whole poem. Marty Watt (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Supplied them where? And yes, newspapers are fine.

As I said, I have fixed the spelling issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much about the spelling fix! Who is Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) ? Marty Watt (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, @Marty Watt, I added my last reply before I saw this. Yes, major newspapers are exactly what we mean. But which of those sources specifically talked in some depth about "performance poetry", or "performance poet"? If they did not use the phrase, then they are not relevant to this particular article.

But if they used the phrase in passing, but did not talk about it as a subject, they would support your claim of an earlier use of the phrase. ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll have to look and see which ones say specifically "Performance Poet," "Performance Poet." These articles were supplied mostly for the dates - verifying me "first," or one of the earliest. Many years - a decade before anyone else mentioned there. There are later mainstream press articles that use the term "Performance Poet," etc and talk of me specifically as being the first. The issue of the term "performance poetry" is very strange in this subject and in this Wikipedia Article. MANY people are cited throughout the article: all the back to way in the past and others long after - ie: SLAM that in no way use the term "Performance Poetry." That specific term did not exist till 1972, interview - Carryout Magazine, Victor Bockris and Patti Smith - though Patti Smith was not technically a "Performance Poet" yet - she was energetic but still reading her poems off a page. Performance Poetry came to be strictly considered poetry written to be performed, memorized, and the performed live for a live audience. Many people throughout history have done variations on this - ie: Oral Tradition etc, The Beats but the term itself (the actual title of the article) was never used till 1972 and soon came to apply only to certain artists mostly in the Seventies and Eighties. Soo, it morphed into things like SLAM and Spoken Word. Then there is the debate of whether music effects the definition "Performance Poetry." Patti Smith before and after she started memorizing her poems performed with an electric guitar behind her. I performed with no music - just me and the poems. Things like that are all debatable. I think later on almost all SLAM events ban music accompaniment. The rise of Rap later also confused the whole "Performance Poetry" with or without music issue.

Reviews of me - if they don't use the term specifically make it clear that I'm performing poems live in a theater from memory with no music and that it is some kind of VERY new thing. The articles go out of their way to paint my shows as unique also because of the large theatrical settings, large audiences - different in their words from anything else that might have happened in the past in bookstores and coffee houses. In that way, even more documenting me than many people mentioned in the article. The Performance Poetry article as it now exists is more about something called The Oral Tradition - not anything called "Performance Poetry." Homer - the ancient Greek storytellers were never referred to as "Performance Poets," neither were The Beats. It really is a weird thing having to do with poetry. Needs a rigorous defining. I just invented it (allegedly) and did it, but I'm not an academic. Marty Watt (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you might get some discussion if you post at WT:WikiProject Poetry. The project page says that WikiProject is "believed to be semi-active", but there may be people still watching the talk page who have input for you. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yea, Thanks, I'll give it a try. I just have to rest up between attempts. Each move is SO fraught with the possibility of people getting triggered. I was just reading the article itself again, and then researching names I didn't recognize from around my time - listed as performance poetry types. Each research takes me down a labyrinth that eventually ends with them not even being "Performance Poets." Vague statements are around: "they thought of poetry as a performance" but not that the performed their poems, even " they though of any performance as a poem." Things like that. I think they probably belong in "Conceptual Art" or "Performance ART." I'm just saying that "talk" in the "Poetry" section - jeez, where will that go. I stayed out of all that when I was young and working. Now I'm old, have the time, and there's an internet. I just have shows where I packed theaters with my memorized poems performed and then reviewed by actual newspapers, with the dates. No academic linguistic voodoo, vague proximities of the word poetry and performance almost always with no citations, no dates. The article itself has a big sign n it " This article may lack focus or be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting it or creating a disambiguation page. Marty Watt (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

How to avoid an edit war over contentious topics?

Someone reverted three of my edits over hot-button contentions. The phrasings in question are:

"Male/female" over "assigned male/female at birth" in Amitriptyline. A logged-out user changed it to male/female and I reverted the edit, @Plantbaseddiet then reverted my edit.

The "rise in antisemitism" since the start of the Gaza war in March of the Living and Berlin Holocaust memorial stabbing, which I feel need to be contextualized, as anti-Zionist speech has been conflated with antisemitism by some sources. I included that context, citing the Diaspora Alliance, in the Berlin Holocaust memorial stabbing article. The March of the Living article before my edit read: "The 2024 March of the Living took place in the aftermath of the Gaza war, and the rise in antisemitism worldwide." and I edited it to "The 2024 March of the Living took place eight months after the onset the Gaza war, which started after the October 7 attacks." I recognize now that I could have included context for the "rise in antisemitism" instead of outright deleting the claim. @Plantbaseddiet reverted my edits, writing "It is not for you to decide what constitutes antisemitism and what doesn't."

I'm unsure of how to proceed and I obviously want to avoid an edit war. Thanks in advance. — LeastConcern ^{(they) talk contribs} 15:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow the process described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; but only after reading the notes on restrictions on edits around contentious topics, which I have left on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

LeastConcern, it is important to realize that edit warring behavior is never acceptable under any circumstances. It can easily be avoided by never, ever, ever engaging in edit warring behavior. As Andy Mabbett correctly points out, there are always other acceptable methods of dispute resolution available to you. Use them. As for your edits to Amitriptyline, you relied on WP:LGBTQAVOID which is a shortcut to Wikipedia:LGBTQ+ phrases to be avoided. That is a user essay that does not have widespread consensus as can be seen by discussion on its talk page. It is not a policy and not a guideline. In general, language formulations that many readers would consider as contrived or "politically correct" should be avoided unless clearly necessary. In my opinion. there is no benefit to readers in using this "assigned male at birth" type of language in this specific context. If you disagree, the first place to make your case would be Talk: Amitriptyline. On the broader point, you should familiarize yourself with the limitations and social norms around editing contentious topics, and proceed with caution. Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@LeastConcern The first dispute is a fantastic example of WP:BIKESHED in action. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the words "male" and "female" in this context. It's very obvious in context that the article is referring to peoples' birth sex considering, for example, one of the places it uses 'male' says Amitriptyline-associated sexual dysfunction... seems to be mostly confined to male patients... predominantly as erectile dysfunction. I would be fascinated to see the post-phalloplastic trans man whose erectile function is perfectly intact were it not for their taking of this drug. When changing things like gender terms, pronouns, whatever it may be in an article, consider the following;

1. What do the sources say? We should generally lean towards using whatever the sources use.
2. Is somebody's personal gender identity involved? If so, MOS:GENDERID applies and we should use what they prefer, even if the source we're using uses something else.
3. If GENDERID doesn't apply, would using the more 'politically correct' terminology improve the reading experience at all? If so, do it. If not, just follow the sources.

If the source here refers to male and female patients, just use what the source refers to. It's not talking about any specific people, nobody stands to be offended by a lack of specificity. If you do change it and somebody else changes back, then refer back to WP:BIKESHED. There are way better things to spend your valuable editing time on than griping over the specificity of gender labels in the side effects section of an article about a drug.

As for the other issue, WP:PIA applies; you can't edit anything relating to the war in Gaza, Oct 7 etc until you're extended-confirmed. Athanelar (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The other editor "can't" edit PIA articles either. So, what now? Can I raise the issue about the two articles somewhere where authorized people can resolve the dispute by making their own edit?

I understand about the other article. — LeastConcern ^{(they) talk contribs} 19:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

On the WP:PIA issue, you can't raise the issue anywhere in Wikipedia, or participate in any discussion of the subject until you have extended confirmed rights. The only thing that you can do is make uncontroversial WP:EDITREQUESTs. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

AfC resubmission feedback: Albert Mailiantz biography — sourcing and disclosure

Background:

Previously declined here on 20 June 2026. I have substantially revised it and want Teahouse feedback before resubmission.

What I changed:

• Mapped all claims to original Soviet press sources (7 newspapers, 1945–1975)
• Verified every citation matches its source material
• Removed unsourced specifics (exact birth/death dates, birthplace)
• Simplified prose to reduce LLM-flagging patterns
• Added all 7 properly formatted citations

AI Disclosure:

Per WP:LLM, I received editorial assistance from Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic AI) for fact-checking, citation verification, and copyediting. No article text was generated by AI; I wrote all content by hand after reviewing sources.

Feedback I need:

1. Does the sourcing feel solid for AfC resubmission?
2. Any remaining tone issues that read as AI-generated?
3. Are there gaps or unsupported claims?

My draft: Review here

Thanks for your time. VMailiantz (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not thoroughly reviewed your article, but I have a question based on my cursory review of your request. AI should not be used to verify citations or facts, as it is prone to hallucinations.

You said you verified that every citation matches its source material, but then you said that AI helped you verify citations. To clarify, did you use Claude to verify, or did you verify by looking at the source yourself?

(Let me know if I need to clarify, I didn't phrase that very clearly). ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@VMailiantz Given that this very comment is AI generated, I seriously struggle to believe that No article text was generated by AI. I'm also not sure how these two statements can be true at the same time: I received editorial assistance from Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic AI) for... citation verification, and copyediting and I wrote all content by hand after reviewing sources.

So... did you review the sources and then write all the content, or did you have Claude review the sources and then you wrote something and had Claude "copyedit" that too? And what do you mean you Simplified prose to reduce LLM-flagging patterns? You seem to be admitting that AI was used, so why would you need to "simplify" anything?

Remove everything your AI wrote and start over with no AI, that's the only way forward. Athanelar (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your important clarification question. To be precise: I verified all citations myself by reading the priginal Soviet press source documents. I manually checked each claim against the sources and ensured citations matched their material.

Claude's role was limited to : formatting citations in Wikipedia's template and copyediting prose for clarify. Claude did not verify facts or check citations against sources – I did that work entirely by hand.

I understand that the distinction matters, and I should have been clearer about this in my initial post. I appreciate you catching it. VMailiantz (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@VMailiantz To be precise, your initial post wasn't just unclear, but based on what you say now, you initially said the wrong thing.

As in "I received editorial assistance from Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic AI) for fact-checking, citation verification, and copyediting". David10244 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Claude did not verify facts or check citations against sources So when you said the direct opposite above, I received editorial assistance from Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic AI) for fact-checking, citation verification... what did you mean?

copyediting prose for clarify isn't one of the exceptions allowed under WP:NOLLM. Remove everything that the AI wrote and start from scratch with no AI. Athanelar (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. By “editorial assistance” and “copy editing” I meant simply checking mistakes in grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, and other simple things. This is permitted by WP:NOLLM since it’s explicitly said right in the beginning: “…Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes…”.

So, none of text in the draft was generated by Claude or any other AI, again, it just simply proofread. Thank you again! VMailiantz (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar and David were asking why you said I received editorial assistance from Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic AI) for fact-checking, citation verification..., because you later said Claude did not verify facts or check citations against sources. Which is it, and why did you say the former if the latter is true?^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Dear JohnLaurens333, Athanelar, and David, I apologize for the confusion. My first description was the accurate one, and my later replies understated it. Claude did fact-checked, flagged errors in the draft, and suggested rewordings. My replies conflicted, because I used AI to help write my earlier replies and I didn't catch the contradiction. So I won't claim copyediting exception, I fully accept your remedy, and will remove everything and start over with my own words. Thank you so much for your advise! VMailiantz (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Dominique Tronc on Wikipedia

 Courtesy link: Dominique Tronc

Dominique Tronc viens de découvrir à sa grande surprise une notice sous son nom !

Elle s'avère très correcte et honnête - mieux rédigée que je n'eusse pu le faire sans aide technique ! A conserver donc, en complétant des références.

Si elle fut rédigée à l'aide de l'intelligence dite artificielle (IA) qui peut assumer la responsabilité humaine nécessaire ? Je serai prêt à prendre cette responsabilité si son auteur ne se manifeste pas.

Merci pour votre avis et aide.

~2026-53144-31 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53144-31

(Ceci est une traduction automatique avec Google Translate ; veuillez m'excuser si elle comporte des erreurs.) L'article concernant Dominique Tronc a été proposé à la suppression car il a été rédigé à l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle, ce qui est contraire aux règles de la Wikipédia anglophone (voir WP:NOLLM). Pour « assumer la responsabilité » de l'article et éviter sa suppression, vous devriez être en mesure de démontrer qu'il répond à toutes nos exigences ; or, comme vous ne maîtrisez manifestement pas l'anglais, vous ne seriez pas en mesure de le faire. Peut-être souhaiteriez-vous rédiger un article sur M. Tronc pour la Wikipédia francophone ? Vous pouvez la consulter à l'adresse fr.wikipedia.org. Athanelar (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Spurious death claims, etc.

Are there any automated checking processes that might flag bogus edits like this because, if there are, they weren't working on this article (David Ettridge) that's recently been researched & corrected, & that seems a bit of a worry. In this case, there was a first clumsy attempt to shoehorn a dodgy death claim into the article starting on 19/Feb/2026 here (9 months after the claimed death). That was deleted, but death details were later inserted into the article's infobox on 9/Jul/2026 here & remained until 4/Oct/2026, more than 12 weeks. Surely there must be automated tools that can pick up these sorts of questionable edits? Bluevista99 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

How would such tools discover that a certain person is alive or dead? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If that's going to be assessed, Wikipedia's software tools need to determine whether there is credible evidence (e.g. a citation, or other reports from reliable sources) that a recent death claim is true. In the above example, the claim was not, & in the article's edits there were multiple 'red flags' that could have been picked up by automated tools, such as:

• no citation
• clumsy edits made by random IP accounts
• edits that were not done or placed correctly
• the death claim contradicted other parts of the article
• the death claim came some 9 months after the supposed death date
• the death claim has apparently never been added to Wikidata

In addition, it's now possible to get AI tools to do wide-ranging searches & make useful assessments. Requests put to Claude, Copilot & Google search (in AI mode) all resulted in skepticism about the claimed death, with Google going so far as to suggest that a posting on X (Twitter) announcing the death along with an obituary (supposedly from the Daily Mail) may be a fabrication, including the posting's 'snowflake ID'.

Given the extraordinary sophistication of common software tools (like spam filters) now supercharged by machine learning & AI, it must surely be more than possible to automate checks on recent dubious edits & to flag (or auto-revert?) the ones that raise alarm bells. It's surprising that that never happened in this case, so how many other seriously dodgy edits slip past scrutiny? Hopefully the powerful new tools can help stop more of this. Does anyone know what sort of automated checking capabilities Wikipedia currently has or is developing? Bluevista99 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bluevista99. I'm very dubious that such a system could be made the slightest bit trustworthy, given that it is well established that LLMs are in general not trustworthy, and are perfectly capable of making up both "sources" and "facts". Furthermore, they are, at least so far, entirely incapable of evaluating the reliability of a source - that is one of the reasons that we don't allow them to be used in writing articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

AI can't tell the difference between lies and truth. Asking AI if something is true is like asking a totally-blind person if they like the new picture you just painted; neither of them is equipped to give the kind of answer you're hoping for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Bluevista99, I suggest that you check out User:ClueBot NG for information on the current generation of vandal detecting bot software. These tools are getting more accurate and more sophisticated, and I can attest that this bot prevents a lot of vandalism. But 100% reliability is not possible and false positives can damage the encyclopedia in general and have a negative effect on editor retention in particular. New editors do not take kindly to having their contributions falsely labeled as vandalism by a bot. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Help reviewing my biography draft and Talk page

Hello,

I’m Martin Warner, the subject of a Wikipedia biography, and I would appreciate some guidance from an experienced editor.

I have been working on a revised version of my biography to improve its structure, accuracy and independent sourcing. However, I have encountered some difficulty with the editing process, particularly with the existing article and my revised material appearing as separate versions rather than replacing the earlier content.

I am unsure of the correct way to resolve this and ensure that the proposed revision is reviewed appropriately. I would also appreciate guidance on whether the sources and structure meet Wikipedia’s requirements for biographies of living people.

I recognise that I have a conflict of interest as the subject of the article, so I want to ensure that any changes are handled transparently and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I am happy for an independent editor to assess the material and make the final editorial decisions.

Could someone please advise me on the best next step?

Thank you for your help.

My Article Martin Warner. ~2026-52417-70 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The current version of the article does not meet Wikipedia’s requirements for biographies of living people. The only accessible source cited is based on an interview with you, and so does not help to establish that you are notable in Wikipedia's sense. I see from the article's history that it has been deleted twice. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I realise I am best not to edit my own article, I had simply used tools search the many external media written about my technology and film industry endeavours. In these two fields, I am certainly notable, and provided many links missing from the first attempt in 9/28 edit on the talk page. I am seeking help for an experienced Wikipedia author to review these links and publish these different artefacts to my page. The original issue was that links hadn’t copied over correctly, according to Wikipedia’s rules, the additional information about my bio provided on 9/28 meets requirement. Please help me, I would be very grateful. Thank you. ~2026-52417-70 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52417-70 Considering this AI generated comment, I have no doubt that whatever 'revised version' you've prepared is also wholly AI generated; which is against the rules.

If you want to change something about the article about you, please follow the WP:Edit request process. Do not edit the article directly. Athanelar (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I simply used the tools to track down my press links as there are many over a number of years, and I could not recite the name of all the most relevant articles. I realise I am no experienced Wikipedia editor like yourself, and given it is my bio, I am not best to write it. But my additions provided in the talk page on 9/28 are relevant and meet Wikipedia rules. And give readers answers to their questions re my book or entrepreneurial endeavours, and achievements. As mentioned in my reply to the previous response to this article, I would be very grateful if you or another Wikipedia editor would review these addition’s all with notable press links and are correctly sourced, and publish them to my page. Please let me know if you need anymore information. Thank you. ~2026-52417-70 (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

To answer your original question, the correct approach is to make an edit request on the article's talk page, which you appear to have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-52417-70, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You say "I am notable", and in the normal sense of the word, you may well be. But one of the reasons that writing a Wikipedia article is so difficult for an inexperienced editor (leaving aside the question of conflict of interest) is that Wikipedia's concept of notability is very different from the conventional meaning.

Notability, in Wikipedia's sense, has nothing directly to do with what you are, or have done, or have said, or whether you are popular, influential, important, innovative, or any other quality. It depends almost entirely on what several people have independently published about you with no input or involvement whatever from you or any associate of yours. If you have some of the qualities I mentioned above, that may make it more likely that somebody has written appropriately to establish notability, but it in no way guarantees that. Most people on the planet, even many public figures, do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have checked and selected independent, well known, range of articles that simply describe the correct history of my bio. They meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, in fact, I have had a page for over a decade, and 5+ years with a bio 4x the length of what it is now, and still don’t quite understand why it was reduced after 5 years. I’m not sure you’ve read my supporting links to my articles, but they more than establish notability for the information represented. I was advised it was hear someone might help guide me through it or look at the detail and publish what they thought met the guidelines. ~2026-52417-70 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52417-70 What do you mean by "notability"? Please give your exact definition. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Do I have to be new?

Ive been on Wikipedia for 6 years and rarely edit, is it okay if I do ask questions here in the future? (I dont have any right now) Ilikememes128 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

additionally, I know theres the help forum thing however I feel more comfortable here. People explain stuff like Im 5, which is nice. Haha. Ilikememes128 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ilikememes128: Yes, you can ask here, The Teahouse is for anyone to ask questions. RudolfRed (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Ilikememes128. I've been an editor for almost 20 years, and sometimes I ask questions here. This is a nice, friendly place to get a little Wikipedia help. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Justin Gold submission

I recently submitted an article on a living author, and it was declined on account that “This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model.”

I wrote the article myself based on the sources listed in the References section. I’m reaching out to ask if you can tell me specifically what type of changes or what sections of my article I need to change to meet Wiki standards. I would very much appreciate any direction you can offer before I start re-working the text with the aim of resubmitting it and getting Wiki approval. Thanks!

Here is the link to my draft: Draft:Justin Gold#cite note-:0-1

~2026-52671-69 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: EaglesFan37 ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Your article lists attribution repeatedly, which automatically causes suspicion of LLM usage. The capitalization of headers is also indicative of LLM.

Even if I WP:AGF about LLM-usage, the article reads as extremely promotional. @Jéské Couriano made a bunch of comments over at the AfC help desk, but to be completely honest, you may be better off just starting from scratch. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I rewrote a couple paragraphs to address what I believe you mean by “promotional.” Am I on the right track?

This is my original text:

J Jaye (Justin) Gold is an American author, speaker, and founder of the nonprofit The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies, which engages in service projects in the United States and internationally. Gold’s work has focused on the study of human behavior. His books have received coverage in publications including the Los Angeles Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram,The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Dallas Observer, and the Santa Barbara Independent.

This is my revised version:

J Jaye Gold (Justin Gold) is an American author and founder of the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS), a nonprofit organization that does international service work and natural disaster relief. (1)

This is another section of the original text:

The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS)

Gold founded the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, in 1983. CCNS international service projects have included building an eye clinic for Burmese refugees in Thailand, a birthing clinic in rural Cambodia, and upgrading a school for Syrian refugee children in Turkey. In addition to participating in hurricane relief work in the US and Puerto Rico, CCNS helped newly arrived Afghan refugees settle in Sacramento, California, after the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. They also perform puppet shows for children as part of their outreach.

This is my revised version:

The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS)

Gold founded the nonprofit the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies in 1983. CCNS international service projects have included assisting Burmese refugees in Thailand and Syrian refugees in Turkey, in addition to hurricane relief work in the US and Puerto Rico. CCNS members have also performed puppet shows for children as part of their outreach.

------------

I cut out some specifics and listed fewer details. Is this in the right direction for sounding less "promotional"?

Thank you so much for your help! ~2026-52671-69 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, EaglesFan. As for repeatedly using attribution: I was trying very hard not to insert any personal opinion and aside from direct quotes, I was under the understanding that anything other than very simple facts (like the title of a book and publication date) needed to be carefully and specifically attributed to the source where I found the information. I’m concerned that if I eliminate the attribution, how do I document his notability? If there is a preferred way to do this on Wiki, please give me a suggestion. Much appreciated. ~2026-52671-69 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52671-69/presumably @RenGV, you say I wrote the article myself based on the sources listed in the References section. Did you or did you not use AI as part of that process? Athanelar (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

References

merging articles?

Hi, I haven't merged articles before so I want to make sure i'm doing this right. I have come across two articles on the same thing, the Hydrus and Ichneumon are on the same topic (the reason there are two names for the same thing is a translation error) both pages are low urgency,

how does one go about merging articles together, should I propose it first? if so where.

Assuming its OK to merge them how do you merge them without losing the edit history of any info that needs to carry over ? Aberrant construction (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

There are full instructions over at WP:MERGE including when and how to merge; hope that answers your questions? Athanelar (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aberrant construction: You should definitely seek consensus for the merge (see WP:MERGEPROP) before performing it. Personally, I don't think the articles are about "the same thing", since Pliny, for example, refers to both beasts. Deor (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I will propose it then, thanks for your help. Aberrant construction (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources for music albums?

Hi, are Discogs & MusicBrainz reliable sources for retrieving information about an album? I'm working on some articles for albums that dont have pages and i want to double check, thanks in advance. N1ghthwk (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @N1ghthwk. Both of those sources contain user-generated content, which makes them unreliable. Discogs in particular has a strong consensus among editors against its reliability. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weather Article Question

So I published an article named: List of Turkey tornadoes and I wanted to know how can a weather article get a good article badge? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 05:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @StormL00ver. Only articles can be listed as a good article, so that list is ineligible. It can still be a featured list, though. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates has steps for nominating it to be one, in the green box labeled "Nomination procedure". The first step is to make sure that it meets the criteria for a featured list, so I recommend you complete any major edits before you nominate it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer Turkey has 700+ tornadoes that happened. Do I need to add all of them before I nominate? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I would assume yes, if practical. One of the criteria is as follows: It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items... Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

But how can I keep up tho? I am the only editor who edits this page. Also since ESWD blocked access to the public only a few people can look at the tornado archieves in eswd. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I think one good reason for the completeness requirement is to keep out stupid topics like "list of all houses in the world" or "list of long things" - the first because the list would be much too long to create, the second because there's no agreement on how to define "long things" so it's impossible to know if it's finished. They're also both useless. "List of tornadoes in Turkey" is - as far as I know - a useful list with a reasonable definition and a reasonable expectation of finishing it. BUT: The fact that it seems like a reasonable project doesn't mean it must be done, and it certainly doesn't mean that you must be the one to do it. You always have the option of doing less, and you always have the option of not working on that project. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise, but I imagine the "where practical" bit is important. You might want to ask this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help! ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 07:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver I'm not sure what a Turkey tornado is. 'List of tornadoes in Turkey' would be clearer and more consistent. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

How can I Change its name? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 08:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It can be done by moving a page. You’ve already moved it. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Requests for perms

I have requested Rollbacker permissions, my request has been stuck in an administrative backlog for quite a time now. Are there any tips to get it reviewed faster/how long should I expect it to take? Strongshorts (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Strongshorts. Your account is a little over a month old and you've made a little under 600 edits so far. Is there any pressing reason why you need rollback permission sooner than later? Is there anything you really can't do now through just regular editing that requires you having this permission? I'm just asking out of curiosity, not to be mean. Lots of new users seem to think that a special user permission means some kind of special status, but it doesn't really. Wikipedians tend to be assessed by the quality of their edits, not how many special permissions they have. You requested the permssion less than a week ago on Septemeber 30. Will waiting to an admin gets around to reviewing your request somehow make it hard for you to continue to seek out and address vandalism? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, sorry... Strongshorts (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I was wanting it to use tools such as AntiVandal and huggle Strongshorts (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

For now, the closest thing you can get to rollback is installing RedWarn. 16dvnk (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that while I wait for it to be reviewed. Thanks, Strongshorts (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with proposed changes to an article about me

•  Courtesy link: Anja Al-Erhayem

Hello. I am the subject of the Wikipedia article about Anja Al-Erhayem, so I have a conflict of interest and do not want to edit the article directly.

I have posted proposed updates on the article’s Talk page and disclosed my COI. Dennis Brown kindly suggested that I ask for help here, as the Talk page may not get much attention.

Would an independent editor be willing to review the proposed changes and advise whether they are appropriate for the article?

Talk page: Talk:Anja Al-Erhayem Aja Jessen (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aja Jessen. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests for general guidance on making edit requests. You seem to be requesting a major rewriting/expansion of the article, which is something that's almost never done. Even though the current article about you is bascially nothing much more than a WP:STUB, it would probably be better to focus on small requests that are easy to answer and easy to understand. The main issue is that it's not clear how you satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people), and a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that really can't be WP:OVERCOME. (It's a bit surprising (at least to me) and perhaps a bit lucky that the article has lasted as long as it has since it's basically the same as it was when created back in 2009.) Anyway, try to assess which of the sources you cited in your request meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and best demonstrate the type of Wikipedia:Significant coverage that a subject is considered to need to for a Wikipedia article to be written about it/them. Once you've done that, make an edit request using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to add content to the article based on those sources. This might be a better approach to asking someone else to basically rewrite the article from scratch. You might also want to seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark since the members of those WikiProjects might be able to help you assess your Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again 😊Thank you, this is very helpful.

A significant part of the independent coverage of me and my work dates from the early 2000s, when much Danish newspaper coverage was still primarily in print. For example, my book Solen græder over Irak was reviewed in several major Danish newspapers, including Politiken, Jyllands-Posten and Weekendavisen, and there was other press coverage connected to my documentary work.

Some of this material is registered in Danish library databases but does not appear to be freely available online.

Would such offline/archived newspaper coverage count toward establishing notability, provided that the publication details can be documented?

If so, I will focus first on identifying the strongest independent sources before making any further edit requests. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't need sources to be online (see WP:OFFLINE), provided they are from reliable published sources. Websites like newspapers.com are now excellent for scanned and searchable content but I don't know whether there are any Danish equivalents. The template {{cite news}} shows you the sort of information we like to include, including translations of article titles and any quotes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. That’s very helpful. Denmark does have newspaper archives, including Retriever (formerly Infomedia) and the Royal Danish Library’s Mediestream archive. I will look into the older coverage there and make sure to record the full publication details for any relevant articles I find. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. This was very helpful.

I have now gone through some of my old press material and found several pieces of substantial independent coverage that are not readily available online.

For example:

• Politiken, 15 January 2003 – substantial coverage of me and my documentary work in Iraq.
• B.T., 28 April 2004 – Jytte Kjærgaard, “Vi blev alle en del af løgnen” (“We all became part of the lie”), a substantial profile about me, my documentary work and my book.
• Femina, no. 22, 27 May 2004 – a multi-page profile/interview about me and my work.
• Weekendavisen, 19 May 2004 – Pernille Bramming, “Næste år i Bagdad” (“Next year in Baghdad”), covering my book and work.
• Frederiksborg Amts Avis, 15 January 2003 – Toni Rasmussen, “Bagdad før bomberegnen” (“Baghdad before the bombing”), about my documentary work in Iraq.
• Kristeligt Dagblad, 25 August 2007 – Kristine S. Hestbech, “Rejse til den anden side af fordommene” (“Journey to the other side of prejudice”), covering the six-program DR television series I made in the Middle East.

I have the original printed copies of most of these.

There also appear to be reviews of my 2004 book in Politiken, Jyllands-Posten and Weekendavisen registered in Danish library databases.

Would these be the kind of independent sources that could help establish notability? If so, I can provide fuller citation details and brief relevant quotations from the strongest sources before making any further edit requests. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aja Jessen, please log in before you comment, so editors will be able to see all your edits. Temporary accounts like ~2026-53362-82 are device-specific and only last 90 days. These sources could well be good, provided they aren't based on interviews. We want significant coverage from people who have chosen to write about you without prompting. At present, you have a large group of suggestions at Talk:Anja Al-Erhayem, which will be a bit daunting for anyone to follow up. Better to choose one suggestion at a time, using the edit request Wizard and giving the full citation using {{cite news}} that backs it up. You could offer to send scans of the originals by email to editors who wanted to verify the source. You may find this tricky, and slow, if Wikipedians need to be fluent in Danish. It might be better if we WP:DRAFTIFY the article, or even delete it entirely, and start again via the WP:articles for creation process, when you would be allowed to edit a draft directly even with your COI, before it was reviewed by an experienced editor for potential re-inclusion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Computer science degree

Help people build real things without getting scammed Rabiu Ayuba (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Is there anything that we can assist with? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rabiu Ayuba: Welcome to The Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikitext equivalent of <details> <summary>?

Is there an equivalent of the <details> and <summary> html elements in wikitext? I've seen those collapsible sections in Wikipedia articles and would like to learn how to add them. -)Anypup(- (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @-)Anypup(-, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see WP:COLLAPSE - but note that it says: Templates should generally not be used to store relevant article text, as it interferes with editors' ability to find and edit it. Moreover, content in an article should not be collapsed by default ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Article too old for DYK

Wrote up Krzewina Zgorzelecka railway station almost a year ago so unfortunately it's too late to nominate for DYK. Any tips to get it nominated in a different way? There's nothing much to add in terms of expanding. Fortek67 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If 5x expanding isn't a realistic option, you can nominate an article for DYK within a week of it being listed as a Good Article, after passing its peer review process. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

article marked as orphan

Dear community, my first English article was marked as orphan. As I can't find a direct wikilink to Mr Ernst, what should I do? Any help is much appreciated by this newbie, thanks in advance. Best regards, Hubich Hubich (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Lots of articles about people, especially academics, can be successfully de-orphaned by adding them to a list of alumni of their place(s) of higher education (college/university/etc). Additionally, as a professor, he would likely fit into a list of academic staff like the one at University of Zurich § Notable alumni and faculty. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. Best, Hubich Hubich (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I linked the article to its dewiki counterpart (de:Karl-Heinz Ernst (Chemiker)). I had hoped from there I could check "what links here" to find inspiration for German-site articles that could help us find where to mention him here in English. All they have is from a list of biographical articles. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you please upgrade the refs to journal articles? They are currently using {{cite web}}, which means they are regular webpages. Instead, {{cite journal}} has the correct fields for page and volume. Because there is a DOI, you can also omit the URL altogether, further simplifying things. See for example this edit of mine.

Overall, this article really needs cites to independent sources describing his work, not just lots of cites to his own articles themselves. The awards are a start, but having additional secondary refs would help readers understand the context or impact of each of his areas of work. For example, if there is a review article that highlights his work on molecular motors, then it would be reasonable to mention his work in the molecular motor article. Adding links to his topics (and other generally relevant terms) in the article would help readers understand those topics and possibly find places to link this article. See for example part of this edit of mine. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This brought another possible link to my mind to be added, and thank you for the citing tips (this was due to my newbie ignorance). Best, Hubich Hubich (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

A user keeps changing my talk page heading

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Panther_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1378581245

Is he correct in doing this? ~2026-52125-29 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. As explained in the edit summary, the section headings are shared, and you should not assert any form of ownership over them.

Thank you. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 03:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

And is "Should be changed to far-left" an inappropriate heading? ~2026-52125-29 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Per these guidelines, that heading is inappropriate and should be avoided. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 03:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

question on language inclusion

Of pages of sports events, the infobox would include official language(s) of the host country(-ies) translations of the event name. What is (or is there any) standard on which languages should be included? Please see the discussion. HEY! Hindi (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HEY! Hindi, welcome to the Teahouse! As the editors already replied in the discussion page you linked, there is no official material for the competition in the language you would like to add. If those sources exist, please link them in the talk page to build consensus for the inclusion. The right place for such discussion is the talk page itself and not the Teahouse. Broc (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about the absence of an article on W. G. Waters

I have been researching William George Waters (1844–1928), usually cited as W. G. Waters, an English historian of Italian Renaissance art, translator, writer, and biographer.

He published a number of books, including The Novellino of Masuccio (1895), a seven-volume collection titled The Italian Novelists.(1901), Piero della Francesca (1901), Five Italian Shrines (1906) and Italian Sculptors (1911). He was also the subject of an obituary in The Times (18 June 1928).

I was surprised to find that he appears not to have a Wikipedia article. Given that many far more obscure Victorian translators and antiquarians already have articles, I am wondering whether there is a specific notability concern regarding Waters, or whether his absence is simply an oversight. Clio XIX-XX (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Clio XIX-XX! Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and therefore there is no obligation to write an article on any subject. If you believe the subject meets the notability criteria, you can write an article yourself by using the article wizard. You can also check out Help:Your first article to familiarize yourself on the best practices for article writing. Broc (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

can pigeons talk with mice?

ive seen pigeons do their burp thing and my pet rat always responds with a squek im getting worried bcuz my pet rat is having full conversations with pigeons Dfssdcds (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This is definite not the place for such questions Piccionaia (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't the best place for this kind of question; perhaps the Reference desk can better help you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Similar named webpage - Generate information for my page which does not exist yet.

My webpage is called "thepeoplesvoice.online", based in the uk, an ideas generating forum for the government to access from the general public. It has nothing to do with "thepeoplesvoice.tv" an American fake news tv site from 2014. I knew nothing about them when i bought the domain name.

I would like to generate a webpage explaining the difference between the two sites, as an AI bot has already linked us together. so a primary source such as yourself would help to address this issue. I would have no problem in someone else making a page for us. We have been operational since 16 August 2026.

Many thanks for your suggestions.

Ivor Cogdell

Web Admin

Ivor Cogdell (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ivor Cogdell That's not what Wikipedia is for. We are not a "primary source" either. The best place to put such a disclaimer of non-affiliation would be on your own website. Athanelar (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome the Teahouse, Ivor Cogdell. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which summarises what secondary and (to a lesser extent) primary sources say about topics. See WP:PSTS. In this instance, your website would be considered a primary source and Wikipedia would only have an article about it if significant coverage in secondary sources (e.g. media coverage) about the website existed. 12:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

A7 on a draft

Hello, I found a draft that meets the criteria for A7. However A7 isn't applicable to drafts, so what should I do with it? Strongshorts (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have answered your own question. A7 isn't applicable to drafts, so unless a different CSD applies (one of the Gs) there's nothing to do. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)