Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1294

various questions by a TA

Help with writing an Article

How do I request help with writing an article? I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? DS (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Start writing article yourself, see Your First Article.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 05:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

About indexing

Does it always take 90 days for a new article to get indexed by search engines? Are there other ways that new articles get indexed? Mintcookie810 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles get indexed after 90 days or after they have been marked as "patrolled" by a new page patroller. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Mintcookie810, editors with a long track record of writing high quality articles lacking major problems can be granted the autopatrolled user right. Most commonly, this requires the creation of at least 25 clean new articles. Articles created by editors with this user right are indexed by search engines very quickly, usually within a few minutes. I have had the experience on several occasions of moving a new article on a niche topic from my sandbox to main space, and then seeing it appear as the #1 or #2 Google search result for that topic very rapidly. Please read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Login verification broken again

Have tried to log in several times, it keeps asking for a validation code that it isn’t sending. Yes, I’ve checked spam. No, it isn’t there. I’d ask at Help talk:Email confirmation, but it’s semi-protected. Anybody know what’s wrong? ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Just.....why? Why would the page that is for new editors be semi-protected? Just delete the damn page now, it's completely useless to literally everybody who would need it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EDIT IT.

Sorry about that. Not sure what SuperMarioMan (the person who originally semi-protected it) was thinking. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same reaction when I saw it was semi-protected lol. ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The log indicates it's protected to prevent test edits, which seems to be the bulk of edits to that page. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd. Why would anybody put test edits on that page? Either way, the page being semi-protected makes it quite useless now to a good chunk of people that are going to be using it. Why is it still there? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

DollarStoreBa'al, I get the impression that you believe that the page Help talk:Email confirmation is for people wanting help in Email confirmation. But it isn't. At its top it tells the reader "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Email confirmation page." -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sort AfDs

Hello!

How do I sort an AfD page after creating a deletion discussion page? Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting AFD discussions are usually done before the AFD is started. When I create deletion discussions, I use Twinkle. If you don't already use it, I would highly recommend it. While I am sure there are other people at the Teahouse who can explain directly how to sort discussions, you don't have to worry about it. If you would like to, that is fine, but there are people at AFD that sort all of the discussions. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I have seen editors sort after an AfD has begun as well. Re Twinkle: I believe you meant to advise me about starting an AfD with the help of Twinkle? _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Twinkle allows you to sort the AFD before you create it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You can also use this userscript after creating the AfD: User:Enterprisey/delsort. There's also a manual way but it's really annoying. InfernoHues (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Rural cemetery

Rural cemetery is notable but can not get published due to requirements for secondary resources?

First time editor - been trying on behalf of our cemetery board to create a foundational article on Wikipedia (Draft:Redford_Cemetery) about our beloved, historic cemetery. With each decline (3 so far), we revise to address all comments and then a new decline comes along with new concerns not received before with little explanation. Most recently, we're being asked to add secondary, interpretative, analytical, evaluative materials with majority and minority view or legal analysis (secondary resources). By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries. We don't want to give up - we just need some specific guidance beyond general statements and links to very broad guidance. Can an experienced reviewer explain what policy issue is still preventing acceptance and some suggestions for resolution? Thank you so much for anyone willing to offer more direct guidance. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

IntrepidWanderer, I wonder whether the list of the interred would be appropriate, even if referenced. (Perhaps others here will give their views.) And the body of the article seems digressive. Sample: In 1926, the City of Detroit annexed a portion of Redford^[10] which included approximately 7 acres on the Eastern portion of the cemetery. This began along a line 200 feet east of the center of Telegraph Road (US 24) which became a paved two-lane road that year. In 1936, Telegraph Road was expanded to four lanes and in 1963 it was expanded to the 6-lane, divided highway with median crossovers that we know today^[11]. As a result, the dividing line between Redford Township and Detroit is roughly 200 feet East of the middle of the center northbound lane. (Incidentally, if dimensions are worth providing, then they're also worth providing for non-Americans, many of whom are likely to be rather mystified by "acres" and "feet".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Metric measurements are best included by using {{Convert}} (but can be entered manually if you find that more convenient).

The list of burials should not be included (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTMEMORIAL); list only burials of notable people. It is acceptable to say something like "the graves of 23 WWI servicemen and 43 from WWII", if sourced.

However, if there are no secondary sources about the cemetery, it is not, by (Wikipedia's) definition, notable. Remember, though, that source do not have to be online, books and old newspapers can be cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I've now removed references to over 100 veterans as non-notable, removed many details of how the cemetery evolved over the past 200 years, and removed references to measurements. IntrepidWanderer (talk) IntrepidWanderer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntrepidWanderer "By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries." If that's the case, then (as Andy says) the subject is not notable as Wikipedia defines it, because independent, published sources are exactly what makes notability in the Wikipedia sense. Being beloved doesn't actually factor into notability, sorry to say. David10244 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, thanks for your reply. I hope we are beyond the question of notability given we've now found and added several secondary resources and most reviewers have suggested it is notable given several factors including it's status as a Registered Historic Site, notable burials, and it's interplay with early pioneers. I think what's tripping things up here over the past four months and 3 reviews is our initial efforts to submit a larger piece given limited knowledge as a first time editor. It has since been reduced by 80%, simplified, revised based on reviewer feedback, and further bolstered with additional secondary sources. Hopefully, it can proceed. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntrepidWanderer I hope so; good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using different archival services

Hello, I am a novice user and I wanted to ask a question regarding archival services in references. I do quite a bit of translating/expanding articles here on the English Wikipedia from information written on the French-language website, and one of the issues I encounter is with differing archival services in references. On this website, references only use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for archived URLs, while on the French Wikipedia they instead use a service called "Wikiwix Archive", which seemingly functions differently from the Wayback Machine (no interactive scroll for multiple images, etc.) My question is: should I use the Wikiwix archive URLs in English article references, or should I try and find an archive on the Wayback Machine instead? Zach1055 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zach1055 I would just continue to use Wikiwix. The bonus is you'd be raising awareness of the site. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Zach1055 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Need help with citations

Hello, I've just made some changes for the Oneida Independent Company New York Volunteer Cavalry, and I see that there's some issues with the citations I've made, need some help on that, also help is needed on any parts of the article, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You cite something by Eric J. ink [sic]. It's a "PDF" that you "retrieved". I infer that it's on the web. But where? You also cite something by Eric J. Mink. You give its url as chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/armament-aop-chancellorsville2.pdf , which doesn't look like a URL to me; if you remove the mumbo-jumbo that precedes "https", you get an actual, working URL. You give as the date "November 30. 2008". This won't work: change the period into a comma. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I've just fixed some of the citations, but on the infobox, cause Im still not sure on how to fix my citation when its on an infobox, need help, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another link is to https://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://museum.dmna.ny.gov/application/files/5916/1488/7255/IndCavTable.pdf ; again, remove the junk that precedes "https". (Indeed, you'd be wise to search through this draft for the string "chrome-extension", and for any example that you find, to cut the junk.) In various references, you give the domain name of the website as if it were the title of the website. Sometimes the domain name is the title, but more often it is not. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Searching for a Page that doesn't Exit...

I'm a rather inexperienced user of Wikipedia—so I'd rather someone more capable do this than me, but I've noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for The Property of Hate (webcomic), in fact I've never seen it mentioned anywhere...slightly odd, given that I think it'd meet the requirements of Notability, and perchance it could be another situation akin to the likes of Battle for Dream Island, but, as I've stated previously, I don't have much experience in Wikipedia's process, much the opposite in fact. Could someone raise a page for this? Thanks! (Sorry if I was rambling a bit, I can do that sometimes when online...) ~2026-25400-68 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Requested articles, but it's so backlogged that it's useless, frankly. It's unlikely in the extreme that someone else interested in the topic will see this request and take up researching and writing about it. If you want to see an article about it, you're the best person to write it, though it certainly is a challenging task that we don't necessarily recommend new users dive right in to. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't easily find any WP:GNG-good sources, which are the best 2 you know? User:Njacobs6/sandbox might interest you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

How to speed up getting a draft reviewed?

Hello, is there any way to expedite the process of getting a draft reviewed? It says it might take up to 3 months to wait. Do we really need to wait that long? Thanks for answering. Jane1289 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 You seem to have already done what it says in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" part of the submission box at the top of your draft, so I think you'll just have to wait. As a WP:PAID contributor, some of the volunteer reviewers may be less inclined to prioritise your drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 First of all, you need to be more specific about your paid editing disclosure; please see WP:PAID. Simply saying "I sometimes engage in paid editing" is not enough; you need to disclose exactly who is paying you and for which edits. For example, I presume your 16,000 byte expansion of The Golden Dream was a paid edit; you need to disclose that in the edit summary when you carry out edits like that. You similarly need to specifically disclose that Draft:Diego Quemada-Diez was created in response for payment. Otherwise, you are on a fast track to being (rightfully, at this stage) accused of undiscloswd paid editing. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

My paid edits where disclosed for each page.. Jane1289 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Where did you disclose your paid edits to The Golden Dream? It's not in your edit summary nor your userpage, nor the article's talk page. Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I still need to edit it actually..the disclosure will be put there... Jane1289 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to this Draft:Diego Quemada-Diez. The disclose is on its talk page....as for this, The Golden Dream, I still have to edit it..the disclosure will be put there.. sorry, I'm new to accepting paid edit coz my previous ones were written for free...

Thanks for the comment, btw... Jane1289 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:PAID#How to disclose. Per the rules, putting it on the talk page is sufficient, but it's really better to put it somewhere a reviewer is more likely to see it; namely your userpage and on the draft itself.

When it comes to editing already-existing articles like The Golden Dream, the best thing to do is put it in the edit summary for each edit. Athanelar (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much... I'll review things about this matter... Jane1289 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The important thing to realize is that reviews are done by volunteers, for whom this is a hobby.

If your draft isn't on a topic that particularly interests anyone, then you'll have to wait for the people who are motivated more by making sure that every draft gets reviewed. DS (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Jane1289, there are two types of drafts that tend to get reviewed more quickly than average. The first type is an outstanding, well written and well referenced draft on a clearly notable topic, produced by an editor without any hint of a conflict of interest. This type of draft tends to get approved promptly. The second type is a poorly written, poorly referenced draft about a topic of uncertain notability, written in a promotional style by an editor likely to have an undisclosed conflict of interest. This type of draft tends to get declined or rejected promptly. The borderline cases take a reviewer a lot more time and work to evaluate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... Jane1289 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:MILFLAGS and historical flags in military infoboxes

Hi, I'm in a dispute about whether historical national flags should be displayed in a military conflict infobox. The other editor is citing MOS:MILFLAGS and argues that when there are only two belligerents the flags are redundant because they don't differentiate among several parties. My reading is that "differentiate among several parties" is given as one example with "for example" and isn't meant to be the only case where flags are useful. I also think the fact that MOS:MILFLAGS warns against anachronistic flags suggests the guideline's authors saw historical flags as carrying real informational value beyond just the country name in the text. The article in question is the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Both belligerents have well documented historical flags for the 1895-1896 period so there is no consistency issue. Am I reading MOS:MILFLAGS correctly here, or is the other editor's interpretation the right one? Any advice would be appreciated. Habeshakira (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Habeshakira, the two most relevant passages from the Manual of Style are In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended and also flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. So, the baseline practice is to leave flag icons out. If the only two combatants were Italy and Ethiopia, which is easily stated in text, then what additional information do the flag icons convey? If they are for decoration, most editors would probably conclude that they should be left out. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree the baseline is no flags, and that the test is whether they convey additional information. That's exactly why I raised the anachronism warning.

MOS:MILFLAGS specifically instructs editors to use historically accurate flags and avoid anachronistic ones. If flags conveyed nothing beyond the country name already in the text, that warning would be completely pointless. It wouldn't matter whether you used the 1895 flag or the modern one, because either way it's just decoration next to a country name. But the guideline clearly does care which flag you use, which means it recognises that the correct historical flag carries informational value of its own.

In this case the 1895 Italian flag looks quite different from what most readers would associate with Italy today. Showing the accurate historical flag tells the reader something about the period that the text "Kingdom of Italy" alone doesn't. That seems to me like exactly the kind of additional information the guideline is asking about. Habeshakira (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, Habeshakira, I am just expressing my individual opinion as an experienced editor who knows that arguing about flag icons is frowned upon. The article is about a late 19th century military conflict. It is not about the history or the evolution of the Italian flag. Any reader interested in that defunct kingdom can read Kingdom of Italy and if they are curious about its flag back then, we have Flag of Italy which covers all versions over the years. It seems to me that the images most useful to readers would be paintings and photos of the political and military leaders, the most important battles and the aftermath of the war. And sure enough, First Italo-Ethiopian War already contains quite a few images of that type, specific to this particular war. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't read it this way at all, and see it similar to how Cullen328 does. Instructions that suggest you generally avoid flags in military infoboxes and that they should be historically accurate are not in conflict. I believe it simply means that in the rare case in which a flag is an appropriate inclusion then in that case, one should make sure to use historically accurate ones. I don't think that the flag is conveying specific enough information to be one of the exceptions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

New here

Hi there, I have recently joined Wikipedia. I have been here for a few days, and I also worked on two new articles Glanadda and Garth, Gwynedd. But they keep being tagged as AI-written. I admitted Glanadda used AI, but not Garth, which I wrote with AI helping to find and verify sources. I have written about Garth and spent around an hour writing it. Please could some users look at it and offer their help with it? Would I be happy to learn? Yes, and also, is it now a thing that all new articles get slapped with the AI tag? Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using AI to "find and verify sources" is also inappropriate, and one of the worst possible uses for AI, because it has a habit of editorialising or interpreting sources in a way which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

AI generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Seeing as you've now admitted that both of these articles signifcantly relied on AI for their creation, I'm going to move them to draftspace and you can submit them for a review to get them moved back to mainspace only once you have rewritten them without any AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not use AI to write my second article, I said to find sources. I written it myself and most of the sources for Garth were actually okay. Hope this helps, Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"Most" of the sources being okay is not acceptable. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and the problems associated with sources found by AI is one of its biggest issues; although maybe we should specify in the guideline that it's not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So I guess all new articles that are made on Wikipedia are subject to AI tags? Is that what you mean? Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using AI just to find and verify sources is easily one of the worst ways to use it. AI naturally tries to satisfy the prompt and is prone to making up sources out of thin air to do so. Any sources found by AI are by default suspect unless checked by a human - which, coincidentally, takes at least as much time, if not more, than simply doing the research yourself without the AI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I mean. Your articles were tagged as including AI generated text because... well, they did. Many of the editors here are very good at spotting this sort of thing, and check new articles specifically to find and tag AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, Glowr Curt Ryder. Most new articles written by competent editors show no signs of AI use and therefore have no need of AI tags. This is a human written encyclopedia, not a robot written encyclopedia. In 2026, AI tools are incapable of distinguishing between reliable sources and sources that are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. They are incapable of accurately summarizing sources. They cannot properly format references accurately. Their prose is stilted and banal. And until a new editor has a well developed understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms, it is unwise for them to try to use AI tools in any substantive way. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand all the points raised, I no longer will use AI going forward. For help with sources or anything. I will make sure to write it as humane as possible. Thanks all for clearing this up, as I am new here and want to contribute to Wales and articles relating to it. Thanks all Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I going insane?

Am I going insane or were the articles for UEFA Euro 2016 and UEFA Euro 2020 expanded and than reverted? I remember going on the article for the UEFA Euro 2020 and noticed somebody added a whole segment (for lack of a better word) detailing the qualification process, which seemed redundant as there is already an article on the qualification process for each European Championship, FIFA World Cup, etc. I checked the version history and it seemed this segment had always been there, even though I remembered it not being there. Later, I checked the article again and that segment was gone and, just like the last time, no revisions contained this segment. Has it ever happened before where the same article, for whatever reason, looks different depending on settings or the device used or something like that? Cheeky91021 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find anything in the history, you might have just not being paying attention to something or your memory is deceiving you. I have experienced incidents were edits cause issues or bring back information that was deleted without me adding it, but that appears in the edit history. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

how the hell do i change my name

I want to lowk change it to "userbox man" because i love userboxes Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

See Special:GlobalRenameRequest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Advice for Draft: Phulgenda Sinha

Hello Everone!  I am looking for some advice regarding Draft:Phulgenda Sinha

This draft is based on varifiable independent newspaper coverage and library of congress catalogue references. However, it has twice been declined at Articles for creation citing the use of LLM to generate the content. At the first decline, I revised the wording strucuture manually before resubmmitting but the second review raised the same issue again and there is no specific feedback.

I would really appreciate adcive from expericened editors before resubmitting agian. Thank you in advance for your time and help. Factualresearchers (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the most important question is; did you use any AI or LLM tool, including both chatbots like ChatGPT and 'writing assistants' like Grammarly and DeepL Write, to write this draft? Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I did use language tools during initial drafting, but all references were added and manually checked against the original sources. After the initial feedback, I also revised the article manually before resubmitting it.

I understand the concern regarding machine-generated prose, which is why I came here to seek advice before resubmitting again. Factualresearchers (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

When you say you 'revised the article manually before resubmitting it,' what does that actually mean?

Does it mean you rewrote the article from scratch, ensuring that all of the AI generated or assisted prose from before was fully replaced by entirely human-written prose? Because that's what we require. AI-generated text is not allowed in articles. Simply 'revising' the AI generated text is not sufficient. Athanelar (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I understand the concern being raised.

To clarify, during the initial draft I mainly used language tools for copyediting grammar and spelling, which I understand is acceptable under the guidance you linked. The references and citation links were added manually from the original sources.

During the second submission, I rewrote the article manually, but it was still declined for the same reason. The article itself is also relatively short.

I will go back to the cited sources again and take a fresh look before rewriting it once more. What I would appreciate are a few practical pointers while I am rewriting. Factualresearchers (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Factualresearchers. Is this Wikipedia account for one person or for several? When I read your draft, the impression that I get is "just another moderately successful yoga teacher mentioned occasionally in reliable sources". In my opinion, your draft does not make a compelling case that he was a truly notable person, as Wikipedia defines that term. Please read WP:NPERSON, which says, For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen328. This is a single user account. Also, your feedback is indeed helpful for writing the next iteration. I found substantial coverage spanning several decades, and your comment also makes me realise that I should draw more directly from those sources while rewriting the article. Factualresearchers (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be correct. A Wikipedia article is merely a summary of what other sources have said, with no extrapolation and minimal editorialisation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Jéské Couriano Factualresearchers (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For your offline sources, I would also recommend following this list of what to include:

• newspapers and magazines: Publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1925), article name, article byline, page(s) the article is on
• books: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or the WorldCat catalogue number.

These are the minimum metadata we need for a reader to look the sources up in a library or offline archive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Many Thanks @Jéské Couriano. Your advice is very helpful. Factualresearchers (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Error during image upload

Hello, I am facing an issue while uploading images from my PC. It says "You don't have permission to upload this file". Can you guide me on this, what makes me eligible to upload an image on my draft article. Bhavishjan (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bhavishjan. This usually means that you are not autoconfirmed - either your account is not four days old, or you have not made 10 edits.

At present you have made 15 edits, but when you posted this question it was your thirteenth edit. I don't know when you tried, but is it possible that it was before you have made your tenth edit?

Note that images will not play any part in getting a draft accepted. You may add an image to Draft:Akhuwat_College_Kasur, but I advise you to spend your time finding the sources that are absolutely necessary to establish that the college is notable - sources where people wholly unconnected with the college have chosen to publish significant material about the college in reliable publications (see WP:42). At present, you do not have a single independent source, and there is no chance of your draft being accepted.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

What ColinFine says above. Also: What would make you eligible to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia for use in a draft would be a credible explanation either (A) that the image is in the public domain (in the legal sense of this term) or (B) that the person (whether you or somebody else) who owns its copyright has copylefted the image in a (very permissive) way that is acceptable to Wikimedia (Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, etc). (As the image is for a draft, no claim of "fair use" would be relevant.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

Hey, sorry for asking on the English Wikipedia. But is it allowed to be an editor of the Russian Wikipedia anonymously?

On Russian Wikipedia, articles can be created by anonymous users. I usually create them for redirects. On here I often have to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. That is why I made Геймовёрс on the Russian Wikipedia redirect to Glitch Productions (but English Wikipedia has an article, Gameoverse.) I am not fluent but I do use dictionary resources like OpenRussian and Wiktionary and machine translation (i.e. DeepL.) Also, I have to use a word declension tool (СловоРул or similar), a grammar website, and a dictionary. I'm pretty good at reading Russian Cyrillic because I can pronounce some words in my head. I frequently look at Russian Wikipedia articles, and even English Wikipedia for Russian phonology. I am not Russian or from Russia, but I use a variety of resources to study it. If you can, can you relay this information to Russian Wikipedia translated into Russian? Sorry for asking about Russian Wikipedia here. But i do know a few words and continue to learn with dictionaries. I've been an anonymous user, but I plan to edit the Russian and English Wikipedias. Does it matter if an English Wikipedia editor also edits other languages' Wikipedias or creates redirects, if their grammar can be fixed. I may have broken grammar in non-English languages. Sorry if I asked here. Thanks ~2026-29694-34 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate you asked this in good faith, ru.wp advice is out of scope for the English-language Teahouse. We don't know what their policies, standards, and practices are, and it would be foolish for us to blindly assume them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Translation of the German wiki about Euphrosine Aue into English

Dear all,

Last week I translated the German Wiki about Euphrosine Aue (de:Euphrosine Aue) from German to English. This was rejected the first time around as the subject apparently did not meet Wiki's notability criteria; a decision I found curious, given that a German Wiki about her already exists, and that I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue, who was one of the few women I know of who wrote Latin verse in seventeenth-century Prussia, and was certainly a celebrity in her time, as witnessed by the numerous funeral orations printed in her honour.

I subsequently revised the article by finding new secondary literature, as well as reading the various funeral orations that were delivered about her, adding to the English draft details that are not even in the German version. Logging on today though, I have found that the second draft seems to have been deleted without any further commentary. Again I find this difficult to comprehend: why is someone with a Wiki in another language not notable enough for English? And what were the reasons for deleting my second draft?

Yours sincerely,

SK Samkenn2 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The German Wikipedia, in some areas, has very different policies than the English Wikipedia. They encourage the use of accounts that represent a business, whereas that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia, for example.

You have no deleted edits from your account; did you create it under a different account? 331dot (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and apologies - I have since found the second draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Euphrosyne_Aue). I am still getting used to the backend of the site, hence the error. Samkenn2 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue I'm not sure who gave you that impression, there are no special considerations or exemptions to the criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BlueStaticHorse, you declined the translation on grounds that secondary sourcing didn't indicate notability. The draft appears to have very substantial sourcing. Would you be able to elaborate on your grounds for believing this sourcing is poor? I must admit I'm struggling to believe she's not notable. For a 17th Century female poet to have any work still extant, or to be remembered at all, is quite unusual. Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can i remove stubs?

Hello, while i was looking through a List of Wisconsin units in the American Civil War, I saw that some articles have their service been expanded, but the problem is, I see that there is still a stub for these units, can i remove them incase they've been expanded? Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can reassess them and remove the stub tags if they’ve been expanded. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Help editing page

Need help editing page ~2026-29969-73 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific. Wikipedians are not mind readers :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 14:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please check out Editing or Introduction to editing. This should also be relevant: Contributing to Wikipedia. Also, remember to use common sense. Since you did not specify any pages, I have left you with these links. Happy editing! BoxOfThings123 (The inside and the outside) 16:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

would I be allowed to edit the "On This Day" for May 14th for this?

• 2026 – Weezer's self-titled debut album is inducted into the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress, which is one of few alt rock albums to be preserved in this way.

^ this is what I had typed out, but I don't want it to be reverted, so I'm going to ask before I do to make sure that I can safely add it without it being reverted -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about the main page, the items that go in the OTD there have to be approved and then go into a queue. See WP:OTD.

You could just put it on the article for May 14, though (with a reliable source, of course) Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you! I will do that -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm i wonder if your a weezer fan Nerd-in-history (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

i love weezer lol -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not so sure... maybe they're a Weez3r fan, but I've never heard of Weez3r. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah weird.... Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah I mean people who haven't heard of weezer still might check them out if they hear they're inducted into stuff -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 21:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

we just joking with you Userbox-man (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The main article associated with this event has to be of sufficient quality (sourced throughout, no plagiarism, neutral etc); I assume the album is the main article, it's GA so probably meets that criteria. It probably is fine for OTD. Add it to May 14 & OTD, when it gets closer to the date someone looking at the queue should (theoretically......) do a double-check just to be sure. It's another year now lol. Also, OTD is like, the least monitored place of the main page, from my experience. I've seen many worse, hardly cited articles appear, and sets are rarely swapped out year to year so we get the same events over and over. I tried to extend my hand but got pretty busy due to a war. Anyway my ultimate point is that from my experience, I was struggling finding new events with well-cited pages. So anything's more than welcome. There was the 'notability' thing some people believed in (not even really enforced) but with how few articles there are to the point where there has to be repeats in most sets, I think this is the last priority of OTD right now. Good article + variety, imo, most important. jolielover♥talk 08:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

alright! thank you :) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Article Ideas for Creation?

Hey all! After editing some articles I've been challenged by some people I know to create a new one entirely! Overall I'm just trying to find a good topic right now and figured I would reach out to see if anyone here had some ideas. Anything y'all have been meaning to write about or wished there was an article for? I'll be doing my absolute best to research then create the best article that I possibly can, not just trying to put minimal effort in. Any and all ideas are appreciated! I may not even select one here, just looking to brainstorm if possible. Thank you! JT U26 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Requested articles has quite a lot for you to look through if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As a disclaimer: Requested articles are not very well maintained, and many topics there might not be notable. If you're interested in Canadian topics by chance, I do maintain the requests board at WikiProject Canada, and every topic there is confirmed to be notable. MediaKyle (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The other piece of advice I've been given is to just find something your interested in. If you've ever seen something and thought "odd that his doesn't have an article" or something like that, go back to it. See if it may pass the notability guideline(s). That's how I got my first draft started, and while it's not finished yet, I would say it's pretty close. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are interested in a specific area, check for a WikiProject on that area. They may have a list of articles they would like to see. For example, WikiProject Chess has a list of Grandmasters who don't have individual articles and it would be very natural (if one is a chess geek) to pick one of those. This is a good way to make sure your topic is notable, and save you sweating while it goes through review--I just did this with a chess article on a less well known player, and I was biting my nails! (It did get approved but I really had to dig for sources.) M kuhner (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@JT U26: Here is a link to drafts that are expiring. Before jumping to creating an article, why don't you see if you can rescue one of more of these and get it/them accepted. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

i want a article on forest "Yeo" sterling, i put in my own request, shouldn't be too hard. im new and dont want to try making my own article yet though Bob the 67th (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Any interest in biology?

User:EmergentAnarchy/Species articles I have a list of species I'd like to make pages for (mainly plants). Feel free to take some. There's also loads of lists of plants and genus pages with redlinks. List of the largest genera of flowering plants has thousands between each list. And extant eukaryotes are inherently notable. EmergentAnarchy (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiProjects project resources.

Is it allowed and possible to create a page in a WikiProject with recommended relevant sources as a project resource? LumenArchivorum (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. I recommend you ask other members of the WikiProject if they think it would be useful before you go through the effort, though. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@LumenArchivorum We do what you are suggesting at, for example, WP:CHEMISTRY. Not all Projects are active, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Files for improvement

Is there anywhere like articles for improvement for files? I've noticed that File:Mobile Phone Evolution 1992 - 2014.jpg has high encyclopedic value, contrast, and general technical quality, and I would say is almost featured picture material. However, the one thing that brings the image down is those dreadful shadows around the first half of the phones that show where the old image was stitched with the new ones. I know it is a Commons photo so I'll probably need to ask on Commons, but where? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is commons:Commons:File requests. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I suggest C:COM:GL/I. ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot @ColinFine Thank you both! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 18:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Graphics Lab. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Content assessment on Wikipedia

Hi there. I have recently contributed a moderate amount of content to KakaoBank. I see that it is WP:ASSESSed as a stub right now, reflecting its state from several weeks ago. I was wondering, is it poor form for an editor to assess an article to which they have contributed significantly, themselves?

I have gone over the content assessment criteria, and I feel that KakaoBank is currently probably WP:CCLASS. Although I have not yet looked at other financial articles in great detail, I suspect there are probably notable gaps in discussion and/or areas where an additional graphic would be helpful, which prevent the KakaoBank article from reaching B-class. But it would be great to get a second opinion on this, before I even consider assigning my first content assessment grade.

EDIT: I see now that my question is very similar to @Vicccqh7's, just above! Sorry about that. Still, I'd appreciate a bit of individual feedback here, if possible. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is no inherent issue with editors reassessing articles they have worked on between Stub, Start, C, and B-class. If you think it matches C-class then you can change it, at a quick look it has expanded beyond a stub. CMD (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you for the quick reply! I shall reassess it to C-class, for now. NeuroJasper (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If an article is decently long (1500 bytes of actual written text is a common guideline) it's generally best to remove the Stub tag and reassess it as something higher, yes. I would recommend using the WP:RATER script for helping to judge this, too. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the recommendation! I have just installed the WP:RATER script to my custom js page. I gave it a little test, and it seems intuitive enough to use. Thanks again. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation Needed, curious

As I am still new to editing wikipedia, I occasionally will use the randomized button on the wikipedia app just to read something new and different, but to also see if there are any articles I come across that I could edit. I am constantly seeing the [citation needed] and I guess I was just curious, is there a general or acceptable amount of time that the citation needed tag would be in place before the information should be removed? Tacotyler (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tacotyler. No, there isn't. Many tags stay forever, because it is much quicker and easier to tag an article than to fix the problem (whether by finding a source, or by removing the information). (And I've often been guilty of "drive-by taggings" myself). ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tacotyler. You can remove unsourced information at any time. A "citation needed" tag is useful when you believe the information is likely to be true and think it deserves to be in the article, but don't have the time to look for a reliable source yourself. See WP:BURDENWAIT for an explanation. 🍅 fx (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Tacotyler, it is important to use good editorial judgment in such situations. Unreferenced content that is implausible or that violates our policy regarding biographies of living people should be removed as soon as you discover it. If the content seems plausible and useful, please attempt to find a reliable source verifying the material and add a reference if you find it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Basic process clarification

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Bike fitting

Ive been trying to create a page defining Bikefitting as a topic. The content is simple and accurate but I cant seem to get it passed off and none of the comments left by those blocking its publication really help me understand what the problems with the article is. Is there a simple to understand guide for us newbies to help us create simple and obvious topics such as this one. Hidden Nation (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Your first article has guidance on writing articles, but given that you're a very new editor, it's really better to get some more experience in other areas of the encyclopedia before you try writing new articles; precisely because it's quite a difficult task. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you just requested for the article to be undeleted; if that's approved, I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can help clarify what the issues are. Just looking at your talk page, it looks the first decline was for sourcing. That means that while it might be a simple and obvious topic (in Wikipedia terms, it might be notable), you need to include more high-quality sources that back up the things you're saying. It's hard to give more specific feedback without seeing the article, but if you'd like, you can leave a comment on my talk page once it's restored and I'll look at it. There will be a link to my talk page after my name. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hidden Nation, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that creating a new article is not a "basic process", but advanced work.

I can't see your deleted draft, but I'm guessing that, like many new editors who embark on this challenging task, you have written what you know about the subject.

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

The job of writing an article consists of, first, finding independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the specific topic of the article; and secondly, summarising what they say. If there are not sufficient such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've undeleted the draft. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Based on the draft, I can very clearly see why this wasn't approved. @HiddenNation: It seems like you've found at least some sources, but you also have whole sections of the article that don't cite anything. I'm wondering if you wrote this article first from what you knew about bike fitting, and then tried to find sources that match it. As ColinFine said above, that's backwards of the process that you want. If you want a better chance of having this approved, you'll want to start with the sources, and then write down only what those sources have to say.

If you've already done that--great! In that case, you'll just need to show your work a bit better for the reviewer. For each major point you're making in the article, let us know which source you got it from. (You will see articles that don't have consistent in-line citations, but it makes the reviewer's job a lot easier when you do. I'd make especially sure to do this in the benefits section. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Edits to various fungus articles

Hey there! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this (I apologise if it's not), but thought it couldn't hurt to try. In patrolling recent changes, I've found a TA making edits to various articles, particularly articles of different fungi. I have found similar past edits under a different TA identifier in some of the article histories. I think the edits may warrant removal based on a lack of citations provided in making them, but I don't know enough about fungi and the content in the edits to evaluate more thoroughly. I wanted to ask if users more familiar with fungi and the general formatting of fungi articles on Wikipedia could review the recent edits. To save on the length of this message, I'll hold off on listing the articles in case my request is more appropriate elsewhere. If the Teahouse works, I can list them in a reply. Please let me know, and thank you for any help anyone can give. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 01:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pikkupapupata, welcome to the Teahouse!

It depends on what the TA is doing and what sort of information they're adding. I'm not much of an expert on fungi either; you might want to bring it up at the talk page of WikiProject Fungi if you aren't sure. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 03:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

The TA in question has been blocked now with their edits reverted, but there are identical edits from another TA earlier in the month that I think should be reviewed (in some instances, they were adding unsourced information about some fungi being edible, which is what raised my concern most). I will visit the project page and see if I can ask for some assistance there, that is an excellent idea.

Side note: fantastic username.

Thanks for your help! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced information that says a fungus is edible is so dangerous, I would recommend removing it right away. If you want a second opinion on that, I'd be happy to take a look (am a biologist though not a mycologist)--you could put the TA or a list of affected pages on my talk page. M kuhner (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, and thanks! I'll make a post right now. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I brought this to the attention of the admin who blocked and reverted the first TA, and they have dealt with this one as well. Hopefully that's the end of the matter. Thank you for bringing this up! M kuhner (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh awesome, thank you so much for helping! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 23:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Help plz?

I tripped Abuse Filter 1157. What does this mean? AZenit3 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Generally, tagging of socks should be left to SPI clerks, Admins, and Checkusers. This filter just logs if someone not in one of those groups tags a sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I was going through Wikipedia:SPI, and I saw this case was closed, and nobody had tagged the sock master User:Md. Shahid Ullah Bhuiyan, so I did it... AZenit3 (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Its best to just let the clerks handle that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember that next time... AZenit3 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3, you asked just earlier, #How do I help on the teahouse?, and were advised to gain more experience first (and I agree). Identifying and reporting sockpuppets is a more advanced skill than editing content, and you definitely should not try to do the work of an SPI clerk. Please take things slowly and stick to editing content in your areas of interest for now. WP:TASKS is a list of the kinds of editing and maintenance tasks that always need attention, sorted according to editor experience. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I did that yesterday. I only noticed the filter today. AZenit3 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised my above comment is very confusing.

Yesterday, I tagged that user. Today, I started the topic above, and noticed I'd tripped some kind of filter. I triggered it on 00:31, 18 May 2026, which was yesterday. AZenit3 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Biography Question

Hi! I was browsing a biography article and came across a inaccurate timeline. Will somebody please lead me through the process of editing a biography timeline? Thanks and have thebest day :) :) :) QueenBeeeeee (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you link the article that you’re asking about, and/or specify what kinds of changes you’re hoping to make? Right now I’m not clear how to answer your questions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, there are a few but let me check back. Oop, now I have another question. Thanks SomeoneDreaming QueenBeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Am i allowed to edit while drunk

Is there a rule against this? Merasmous (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No, but it’s quite discouraged. Though, there is a humorous essay about this.. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If this is a serious question, see WP:DRUNKEDIT. The rest of us on the internet can't know if you're intoxicated, stoned, over-medicated, under-medicated, or in any other condition that affects your editing. We can see and assess what edits you actually make, and disruptive editing will be noticed and dealt with. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I am a aware of this. Merasmous (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep a notepad next to you and write down things you want to edit on Wikipedia. Or use your personal sandbox instead.

Go back to the notepad/sandbox and make the edits when you're sober to see if you think it's still a good idea.

You're probably going to miss things out, maybe misspell some stuff etc. so come back to your ideas in a few hours after you've had some sleep. Blue-Sonnet 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I help on the teahouse?

I want to help editors on the teahouse. How do I join? AZenit3 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you’re talking about being a host, you need to meet a lot of requirements like having a certain amount of main space edits, BUT you don’t need to be a host to answer questions. I myself am not a host. I recommend getting at least some experience before answering questions, however. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, where do I get experience? AZenit3 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Editing articles, reading the policies. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

oh. Well, I've done the latter a lot. Former, not as much. AZenit3 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you need things to edit try joining a wikiproject (I'm currently trying to revive Wikiproject feminism if you want) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I already participate in many. How do I find things to do within them? AZenit3 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Each wikiproject is different which ones are you in? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Military History (aviation and land vehicles task forces), Rocketry (seems to be dead, no one's done anything on the talk page since 2025), and Spaceflight. AZenit3 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If rocketry is inactive you can attempt to REVIVE the wikiproject if you want

Wikiprojects will typically have a to do list:

• Wikiproject spaceflight's to-do list:
• Wikiproject Military History's to do list:

If you are unsure where you want to start you can always ask on their respective talk pages Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Military history, AZenit3? Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks. Military vehicles? Look in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force for the string "needed". (What I wonder is: You say that you participate in many WikiProjects. For any that isn't moribund, how do you not find things to do within it?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't know where to find them in the WikiProject. AZenit3 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wikiproject spaceflight's to-do list:
• Wikiproject Military History's to do list:

Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I would highly recommend gaining more experience before continuing to respond to people. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. AZenit3 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Newcomer tasks or Wikipedia:Things to do, you can also check out things on the Community hub tab & ask your mentor if you need help.

Try to only answer questions here if you're absolutely 100% sure of the answer.

Have fun editing! Blue-Sonnet 02:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How to post a contribution

Hello, I’d like to ask about contributing content to Wikipedia.

What is the proper process for creating and publishing a new article on Wikipedia?

I would also like to know:

• What requirements does a topic need to meet before it can be accepted?
• How can I avoid my article being rejected or deleted?
• Are there any guidelines for writing neutral and verifiable content?
• Can I create articles related to a company, website, or brand if I provide reliable sources?
• Which types of references or citations are considered trustworthy by Wikipedia editors?

Thank you for your support. Tranngocanhvn (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tranngocanhvn: You should read the following first: WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMCHAT. Then, read the summary of our content and behaviour guidelines at WP:Everything you need to know. You need to read these yourself – do not try to get an AI to summarise them. After you have been editing constructuvely for a few months, you might then start thinking about creating a new article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Tranngocanhvn, what's the relationship between the subject of the article you hope to create, and yourself? -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Inactivity vs death

Bit of a morbid question and I'm sorry for that, but how do wikipedians know the difference between a wikipedian who has died and someone who has just been inactive for a long time Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

As a general rule, there needs to be some form of external confirmation for a Wikipedian to be marked as dead, either from a close family member or friend or from an obituary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If nothing is given and they just... disappear, they are marked as missing, if they said they were leaving, they are marked as retired, if proof is given that they are dead, like Jéské Couriano said above, they are marked as dead. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats all very sad. Thank you Starlet and Jéské for your answers Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I find this sad too, The Ars Goetia, and sometimes struggle with not knowing what's happened to someone. See User talk:Iryna Harpy#Is there any news on Iryna? for a case in point. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I'm very sorry for your loss I hope Iryna is still alive and just inactive, but it doesn't seem so, I'm new here and I already wish for the wellbeing of many people I've met here. I can imagine how hard it is to not be able to say goodbye or even know if you needed to say goodbye. What a sad thing Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:DWG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you in turn, @Goetia, for bringing up this question. I've had a similar one for a while now, which I'd like to piggyback on yours because it's related. My question:

Are there designated individuals or a group in the Wikipedia world who could receive word of the news when an editor dies? When I went to the guidelines that @Andy Mabbett added — WP:DWG — I didn't find anything specific about that, although there is a Project Members tab.

If there is a designated place to contact, and it could be shared Wikipedia-wide, it could save a lot of guesswork and time on the part of not only editors but also our friends and families. We could include it on a list of our wishes for what should be done when our time comes.

By the way, Goetia, I didn't find your original question morbid at all, considering that passing on is a natural part of life's journey, even if teary. Augnablik (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, mostly close friends of the editors who know personal information about them and are either contacted by the families or contact them. Or people who put the puzzle pieces together and find someone deceased matching the Wikipedia identity, and then verifying with family. jolielover♥talk 07:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topics

Hey my dear all respected editors i recently started taking Wikipedia editing more seriously and have been reading a lot of the important guidelines and policies. One thing I noticed after a discussion with another editor was that some contentious-topic areas require extended-confirmed access (500 edits + 30-day-old account) My account is already around 4 months old, but I still havent reached 500 edits yet...So I wanted to ask is there any issue if I complete the remaining edits more actively in a shorter period of time as long as the edits are constructive and policy-compliant? Or is there any informal expectation to gain those edits gradually over time instead of quickly? GovHP (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@GovHP: Thanks for having this question in mind. Contentious topic restrictions exist to protect the encyclopaedia, and the hope is that new users will gain practical experience by spending some time editing in less contentious areas. The relevant guideline here is Gaming the system, and § Gaming permissions in particular. It's best to approach all your editing with the goal of improving the encyclopaedia, rather than aiming to reach extended-confirmed or other permissions. In my opinion, while people might feel very strongly about certain contentious topics (that's why they are CTs), they are rarely time-sensitive, so taking the long road to EC shouldn't feel like a disadvantage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I understand your point now i dont want to rush just for permissions. Ive actually started learning more about maintenance and anti-vandalism work as well especially around vandalism detection AI-generated content and Twinkle-related guidelines. Im still editing mostly from mobile so Im trying to learn the practical side step by step first before getting involved in more sensitive areas. Appreciate the guidance. GovHP (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing sources for a song

Can Apple Music be used as reference for a new single or a song if no other sources mentioned the release of the music? ~2026-29893-73 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think so. Just don't take band descriptions from it. AZenit3 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3 Please don't supply an answer that you are not sure of. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are referring to using Apple Music to create a new article, please don't do that. Apple Music is an unreliable source due to it being self-published. Apple Music doesn't confer any notability, and, if you solely use Apple Music to create an article, it will likely be deleted. If you are referring to using Apple Music in an already existing article, I would refrain from doing that. If there are no reliable sources talking about the single/song, it is likely not worth including in the article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29893-73: WP:MUSIC/SOURCES is WikiProject Music's guide to reliable sources – there may be sources there that can help you. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

automated edit of numerous articles

The project group i am in have made many draft articles wih numerous categories, but they are not draft categories. How do i automatically make the categories draft categories? it would be incredibly tedious to do it by hand. Merasmous (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Wrap them in the {{draft categories}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

My page and adding to draft

Hello, my page John Sheehan (Gaelic Footballer From Kerry) is currently in the AfC submission queue and shows a warning that it should be moved to Draft namespace. I’m not autoconfirmed yet, so I can’t move it myself. Could someone please move it to Draft:John Sheehan (Gaelic Footballer From Kerry)? Thank you! Randomjejejene (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:John Sheehan (Gaelic footballer). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Randomjejejene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so extraordinarily difficult to do successfully that you are strongly discouraged from trying it - see autobiography

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

In order for there to be an article about you, it would have to be a summary of what several independent reliable sources said about you: not you or your club or the organisers of Gaelic Football, but people unconnected with any of these; and they would have to have published about you, not about your team or particular games. Having found several such sources, you would need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and your career, and write a summary of only what those sources said.

Your current draft does not appear to have a single source which comes anywhere near the criteria, so it has no chance of being accepted. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

hello there Colinfine, please do your research on the differences between a autobiography and biography. A autobiography is a account written by you about your own life and a biography is you writing a account of someone elses life. I submitted my draft as a biography so therefore did not write about myself thank you, Randomjejejene (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Randomjejejene. I apologise. I misinterpreted "my page" as "my article about me". ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Article Declined

I spent 5 days working my butt off to get into Wiki. I cannot meet the requirement of inline sources. I gave all I have. I give up. Malinn66 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Malinn66, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that that is a common experience for new editors who plunge straight into the advanced work of trying to create an article without first learning how Wikipedia works.

If you wanted to become a car mechanic, would you build a car from scratch as your first project? And if you tried to, would you expect to understand the feedback you got from experienced mechanics?

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you looked at Help:Referencing for beginners? You currently don't have a single inline citation, so I'm not sure you understand what's being asked of you. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you Tommy Hunt? Only you've uploaded his artworks and described then as your own work.

If you are, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If not, he will have to give permission, per c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Doubt on sources for my trial reduction for my Sandbox list

I'm trying to add reliable sources for my edit requests for my proposed trial reduction of normal geography articles of WP:CT/SA as per my sandbox. Altough I've already added my citations to districts in the sandbox and reliable sources about news updates on suburban pages (Andheri, Girgaon Chowpatty, Juhu, New Town, Sikkarayapuram, Girgaon, for more see article talk page at 'edit request' section for noticing my sources I have to add for reliable), and I have to look for more better citations for other tourism articles listed in my sandbox, also states, govt. bodies/regions, cities (since Smart city or 2021 seemed incomplete or unreliable in major city articles as per the AN, I am looking for PCA or better reliable source that can be added newly), so that my proposed trial reduction from indefinite to temporary could be finalized. Also, I'm confused that for towns and cities (PCA), to add whether the main page with download links, PDF or CSV or a District Handbook. What should I have for them? Satipem (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible to Remove English Link from Interlanguage Link?

I edited the article Grand Theft Auto VI to remove an Interlanguage Link, because the English Wikipedia link redirected to the same section of the same article the link was in, potentially confusing readers. I'm wondering if there was a better way to do it, which could have potentially kept the other language links, but removed the English link. How would I do this properly? LaurenIpsumDolores (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LaurenIpsumDolores, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You could use a (deprecated) H:FOREIGNLINK, that would look like [[:fr:Zenglen|]] and display as Zenglen, though there is then nothing that shows the reader that this is going to a French article, which is not ideal.

If you do use this, make sure you start with the colon (":"), otherwise it will link the whole article to the French one and display nothing inline.

If you left out the pipe ("|") at the end, it would display as fr:Zenglen, which would have the "fr" appearing, but I suspect that most readers would not realise that that indicated the article was in French. It might be the best solution, though. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Add |display=1 to the template instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Questions on a reverted edit of mine

Hello, I am new here, and I have some questions on this edit that I made on the MD900 Explorer page. I added the SRCA as a former operator of the MD900, but the edit was quickly reverted. The editor that reverted it told me that the website that I used as a source in my edit was made with Wordpress, and that I can't use blogs as sources. My questions are:

1. The website that I cited (www.aeroboek.nl) is already used as a source multiple times in the page, therefore I assumed that there would be no problem. So why was my edit reverted?
2. The website had images of the MD900 in SRCA livery, shouldn't that be enough to verify my claim?
3. There are Youtube videos showing the MD900 flying in SRCA livery, can I cite one of those videos as a source?

Thanks, YankeeZulu (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For your 3rd question it would be helpful to check out these links Wikipedia talk:Videos as references, WP:NOYT, Wikipedia:Video links

Long story short: Video links especially from youtube are very iffy Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Reverted you. Perhaps they can kindly address your first point? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

1 - aeroboek.nl is very clearly a self-published source - just look at the about-us info. Just because it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it's right. WP:SPS

2&3 - user-contributed images and videos, e.g. on sites like aeroboek, youtube, flickr, etc. are user-generated sources and are not reliable. WP:UGC 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Revert edit question

Hi everyone, I accidentally deleted an infobox in the article United for Latvia. I published the edit, not knowing about my mistake, and now I cannot undo or revert it. Can I get some help? Powerplay11 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, Please feel free to try again.

You might find it helpful to preview your edits before saving them Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this article even true at all?

Hello, i came across this article about the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873), and I'm wondering if this is real or not, since I'm not sure if they were ACTUALLY mustered in 1873, and that it claimed they fought in multiple battles in the Civil War,keep in mind, there's already an article for ANOTHER 27th New York Infantry Regiment, need an experienced editor to check on this, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy3523, the article has a curious history. (Consider this edit, for example.) This "1873" article started as a write-up of the subject of today's article 27th New York Infantry Regiment. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeRandomGuy3523, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article of the 27th New York Infantry Regiment that it was "Mustered out May 31, 1863", and then "reformed following the Civil War to replace the 3rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment that was disbanded." That re-formation was presumably in 1873, after a 10-year gap, as the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873).

I can't speak to US 19th-century military practice, but I do know that in the UK, when a regiment or Corps was/is disbanded, a few members of the Officers' Mess (which may in itself be a legal entity with often valuable assets and property) usually remained nominally on its strength so that it could if necessary be reconstituted as the same regiment with a continuity of its history, including retention of its former battle honours.

I agree that both articles could make this clearer than they currently do, and I would not argue against them being merged, with suitable redirects created. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly knwon as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Hoary@SomeRandomGuy3523@~2026-27434-43 It certainly needs work as, as written, a regiment active from 1873 fought in battles in 1862. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

suggestion: i think 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873) should be merged with this article: 27th New York Infantry Regiment. SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I made this edit: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Nice one! the edit removed the battles mentioned, but now comes to the article itself, and whether it should exist or not, ive already discussed this on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military History, and one of the users, @Hog Farm, said that he has already " listed the redirect for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 17" SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hog Farm had already edited the article by adding a notability tag on the article, SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Scottish Rugby Union Logos

Could someone please help update the Scottish Rugby Union logo. The current logo doesn't have the trademark 'R'.

The updated logo can be taken from Scottish Rugby's website here: https://scottishrugby.org/wp-content/themes/scottishrugby/assets/img/logo.svg?1234

Thank you. Christiancannarellasru (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to What do I do?

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1293#What do I do?

Hi, so I've been having a discussion with the experienced editor on their talk page, and they have told me something that I cannot believe can be true, and I would love a second opinion to understand the rules. I made one real revert (what I consider a revert) and second one, which I thought was just a mistake on their part (I did not realize that red links are sometimes allowed, so I removed the link). They reverted three times.

They then said that "all of your edits [my edits] would be considered reverts" and "Removing content is likely considered a revert." They then gave as an example an edit that someone had made in August of last year, which I deleted. Is this really a revert? I think it would be so onerous to have to go back through the history for nearly a year to figure out if I'm allowed to edit it or not... Slava570 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:REVERT, Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, so removing content is technically a 'revert' of the edit which added it, yes.

However, I'm not really sure what you mean by I think it would be so onerous to have to go back through the history for nearly a year to figure out if I'm allowed to edit it or not... If you're allowed to edit what? Athanelar (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Meaning, I deleted something, and then it turned out it was added to the article nine months ago. How far back in the history of the article do I have to go back before I can delete something? Or are just all deletions reverts? I think that makes it very difficult to edit. Slava570 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Specifically a revert is an edit that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. Can you please provide a diff of the edit in question? I will say that it's really best to err on the side of caution here and not argue with other editors about whether what you did was a revert but if you post a diff of the edit in question I would be happy to give a third opinion. There is no time limit over what counts as a revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as you're not engaged in an edit war, there's nothing wrong with removing content, as long as you have the proper reason. The other editor you're dealing with shouldn't object to you removing some content that was added by a third, uninvolved editor nine months ago. Yes, it is ultimately a revert, but no, that revert isn't a problem. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

My new file

Article class upgrade?

Could the Soviet space dogs article be upgraded from C to B class perhaps? I've been working on improving it for some time, In my opinion it meets the criteria for a B-class article now, but since I've made lots of changes to it I might be biased, so I wanted to ask for other opinions. I know I could just update it myself without bothering to ask, but that feels... weird, so please let me know if you think it's okay to upgrade it! Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vicccqh7 There's nothing weird or biased about changing or updating articles even if you're the OP or just an improver. If you think an article meets a certain criterion be WP:Bold and make the change yourself. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's also not judged very harshly (I've many times seen quite blatant class-fraud, it's common) and no one will fault you for getting it 'wrong'. jolielover♥talk 08:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

For an article to reach GA-, FA-, and I think A-class (which is rarely used), the article must judged by others. I would be more hesitant about upgrading from C to B than say Start to C due to the more strict criteria, but it is also not too grave and, like Jolielover said early, you will not get reprimanded for it if you get it off. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I also do know of an editor that was blocked who was blocked for mass class fraud at the GA-level (I think there were hundreds of articles affected) but that was a very extenuating case. I doubt you would do anything like that, so I would not worry too much. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course not, I just wanted to upgrade one article, I wouldn't do something like that cause to me it's just... why...? Anyway, thanks for the reply! Vicccqh7 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure question before submitting a new article

I am a new editor considering submitting an article through Articles for Creation. I have a professional relationship with the subject — I do website development and maintenance for him — but I have not been specifically compensated for creating their Wikipedia page. Before submitting, I want to make sure I use the correct disclosure template. Should I use {{paid}} or {{connected contributor}} given my situation? KlipperNate (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Connected contributor. Paid is used when you are paid to write the article. Connected is used when you have some connection to the subject, like you.CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, users who are (or who expect to be) compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Reasoning for archiving topics on talk pages

A while ago I agreed with a user on the Hokkaido [talk page] about moving a massive table of ALL of the villages to another article or something. 3 days ago it was removed/archived without a change to the article. I still think the table should be moved because it takes up like 1/4 of the article, but mostly I just want to know why the topic was removed. Thanks! Aperture LENS (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If a discussion is inactive for too long on a page, it will usually be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Either way, I've moved that list to List of villages in Hokkaido for you. AZenit3 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much! It was removed by a user. I guess it has been like a year at this point. Aperture LENS (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

AZenit3, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia when forking the article. Please do as such, as in its current state List of villages in Hokkaido is a copyright violation. WP:PROSPLIT may also be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oooops... What should I do then? AZenit3 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The pages I linked to have guidance on what to do. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Aperture LENS. Not about your question, but you don't need to use a URL to link to any page in Wikipedia. To link to a talk page you just type [[Talk:Hokkaido]] (which displays as Talk:Hokkaido).

Similarly for project pages [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] (or the shortcut [[WP:Help desk]]) for WP:Help desk. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Does [[Talk:Hokkaido]] have the revision easily accessible? Or is there a way to link directly to the individual revision/revision history of the page? Aperture LENS (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Shawn Tibbitts I'm a new editor trying to get help with article focus

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m working on Draft:Shawn Tibbitts. I’m not sure whether this counts as a conflict of interest, but I have been to his restaurant before and I posted on the draft talk page that I know the restaurant owner. I’m trying to be careful and follow the rules. One editor said the draft was unclear because some of the coverage was more about the restaurant than the person. I revised the media coverage section so it summarizes what sources say about Shawn Tibbitts’ background, cooking, and community work, instead of listing media mentions. Could someone please advise whether the draft is now better focused on the person rather than the restaurant, and whether there are any obvious issues I should fix before resubmitting? I’m not asking anyone to approve it, just looking for guidance as a new editor. Thank you. Tacomamarket (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing repetitive info for closely related species

I am new to the site, so apologies if this is a silly question. I am planning to expand the article of a species that is within the same genus of a species whose article I recently worked on. I would like to mention in both species' articles that they have spiral-shaped large intestines. Would it be gouache to cite the same source on both species' articles, or should I cite a unique source for each species? Babacoote (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now realized that I said gouache instead of gauche. How gauche of me. Babacoote (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Babacoote.

If the source specifically confirms the information for both species, then by all means cite it in both articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not letting me make redirects

Wikipedia isn't letting me make pages. It keeps showing a "Your First Article" page and it's frustrating me. Why does it keep making me see this? MrDNERAD (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MrDNERAD, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your account is not yet autoconfirmed, so you cannot create pages in article space, even redirects.

Once you have made ten edits and your account has existed for four full days (96 hours) you will be able to.

In the meantime, you can propose a redirect using the redirect wizard. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I want to edit articles that are random or articles that are in different topics. Like, Arts, Sports, Entertainment, Games, etc. Is that possible or allowed? 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, as mentioned above you are allowed to edit different topics. If you want to find a article in a specific topics you may want to look through articles listed under that topic. If you just want a completely random article you can hit the random article button, should be ALT X if I remember correctly. Happy editing! - Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @7SecondSurgery, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It certainly is. But please remember the fundamental Wikipedia principle of verifiability. You should not add information just because you know it is true: you need to be able to support this by citing a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I'll remember that. Thanks! :) 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

festival page

trying to get a page for a local festival approved, but a lot of the celeb and press stuff is only on social media which doesnt really count as reputable sources, so any tips? Jenbul13 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's not any good sources outside social media, it may just plum fail the event notability standards. Sorry. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

there are other links, like local news. it was on local radio and local telly but theres no links to show it other than reshared socail media posts. there is a link to a colab with a museum, some celebrity, etc and a few reviews on websites, woulf google reviews count? Jenbul13 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Local media likely doesn't count towards notability, see WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:ROUTINE. Google reviews also do not count, either for notable or as reliable sources. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What would? Its even got Hollywood celebs attached…. :0 Jenbul13 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (events)? That should give you a good idea. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have but equally my adhd makes it challenging Jenbul13 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Essentially, it's not realistic for Wikipedia to have an article about every time a local area has a festival of some sort, especially since articles are supposed to cover subjects in their broader historical context. If you're interested in film festivals in general, there are a lot of articles about bigger ones at Category:Film festivals that you can contribute to. Or if it's the local area you're interested in writing about, there are articles about Penistone at Category:Penistone that you might be able to find sources for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I check if a page got deleted?

I can't find Barebow but the page existed just yesterday Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars Goetia The notice on the page Barebow says exactly why it was deleted. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see the notice thank you, Barebow is a pretty common form of archery but I was worried it might have been deleted for somehow not being notable and I've had the page linked on my userpage forever now, if someone just used AI and thats why it was deleted than I can remake the page from scratch no problem Goetia [She/They] (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it was deleted because it was AI-generated, not for any notability concerns. If you find it to be notable, feel free to make the page again. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 20:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's very surely notable I'll put it on my list of articles I'll make when I'm not busy Goetia [She/They] (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo question

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bella_Maclean.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

• Is there any evidence this photo is "Own work"? It's been around for 5 months but the uploader simply said "Her IMDb picture" which strikes me as odd if they own the copyright.
  

Edit: I have nominated the file for deletion. Thanks everyone. Handsome Ellis (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, seems unlikely to be own work. It's definitely from the IMDB page; unfortunately that doesn't say who owns the copyright or what the license is so it's difficult to tell. I'm not really familiar with where IMDB gets its images from, so it's possible that it's free, but likely a copyvio. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 21:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Could be; but doubtful. A reverse Google Image shows this dating before August 2025. The Times and The Sunday Times posted it on April 4, 2025 with photo credit given to photographer "Pip Bourdillon" - website; and the Times Culture posted it on Instagram April 7, 2025. So for the "uploader" to give a date of August 9, 2025 with a description as "Her IMDbpicture" does not add up. I would place it up for deletion. Maineartists (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If the image's status is ambiguous, it must be assumed to not have an appropriate copyright. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Single-use plastic page?

I've been reading a book about single-use plastics (Plastics, Beth Gardiner, 2026) and I was surprised to see there isn't a page on single-use plastic. There is a "disposable product" page with a section on single-use plastics, but it seems like single-use plastics warrants its own page given the widespread environmental impact (esp. marine ecosystems) and efforts by the fossil fuel industry to promote single-use plastic products. There's a "marine pollution" page, but that's also different than just single-use plastics.

Should I start gathering info to make a page? Any reason not to? It will probably take me a while. I've got to finish this book and probably another one. Naturedata (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If it's really notable enough for it's own page with good sources mentioning them I see no issue WP:BOLD Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Naturedata (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Naturedata, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would guess that there are enough high-quality sources establish that such a topic is notable, and so, there could be an article.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, thanks. I was curious about how disagreements are handled, so thanks sharing the BRD link. Now I'll need some experience. Thoughtful discussion it sounds like. Naturedata (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I second ColinFine's advice of getting a feel for editing, but I agree single-use plastic could very easily be its own article. My suggestion would be, should you end up writing it, to make sure it's an impartial overview of the topic, including why and how it's developed and used, rather than straight criticism. I worry that sources like Gardiner's Plastic Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil's Biggest Bet would lean toward criticism and polemics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah for sure. I recognize the benefits and need so I'd find more sources. ...when I get around to writing it in a month or two. Thanks. Naturedata (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want when you start writing It I'd love to help it sounds like a fun article to make Goetia [She/They] (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool. I'll let you know once I've written a first draft. Naturedata (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Article appears to be full of hoaxes

this article Saint-Avertin brings up a lot of big names, such as Thomas Beckett and Henry II. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and the article has remained this way since 2012, when this edit occured: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint-Avertin&oldid=476640411 The user who made this edit has a number of warnings on his talk page. there's no citation for any of this and i couldn't find any reliable sources backing up any of the "information". I did find some websites that make the claims, but they are of no notability and their reliabily is dubious. Do i just delete all of it? Merasmous (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Merasmous, the problematic wodge of text is rather older, dating from this edit of 2010. I'd revert the article to the immediately preceding version (a mere stub), being sure to supply an informative edit summary, and then in two tabs, or two windows, open your freshly resurrected 2010 version and the bulky version that immediately preceded it. Copy anything that's relevant, useful and sourced from the bulky version into the old stub. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No edits yet (since 12 March), Merasmous. My reply above made certain assumptions, notably that you'd understand "revert" in this context and would know how to revert. If you're baffled, don't hesitate to say so, and somebody (very likely me) will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

done Merasmous (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not done, Merasmous. All you did was revert to the sixteen-year-old version. This of course lacks the pile of junk (good so far), but also lacks constructive updates made since then (e.g. to specifying the mayor). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How to edit on wikipedia

How do you edit on Wikipedia? ~2026-30044-06 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You might start by reading and digesting Help:Introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You could also try The Wikipedia Adventure!

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to but in but yes definitely. All of this was very helpful when I first started. Welcome to Wikipedia @~2026-30044-06 happy editing!!! :D :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Over linking? One link per mention?

Hi Folks, I'm just getting back into editing and reviewing an article I wanted to work on years ago, League of Left-Wing Writers, and noticed a lot of over linking in the page. I reviewed the manual of style, particularly MOS:DUPLINK which states "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there".

I was always under the impression that the first mention of something with a page should be linked, but if the page is long enough multiple links may be necessary. On a shorter page such as League of Left-Wing Writers, would removing the extra links to pages like the Chinese Communist Party, Kuomintang, and various writers mentioned be appropriate? DyinRich (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes that would be best Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I will make some edits! DyinRich (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

TAs and vandalism

If a TA does vandalism what should I do moving forward (after reverting) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Goetia! If any editor, not just a TA, vandalizes, warn them on their talk page. 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be so honest I didn't know TAs had Talk pages, good to know! I'll send a warning Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Usually you make the month and year the title of the section (e.g. May 2026). Twinkle does this automatically and makes reverting vandalism and warning users a lot easier. There are other vandalism reverting tools like RedWarn but I do not trust them as a Twinkle user :P 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 01:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know what to put there, will note that for the future. How do you use twinkle? I've heard a bit about it Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle allows you to do stuff like reverting, reporting, and deleting faster. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Twinkle. Used twinkle till getting rollback, then I switched to CVPI. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks yall I'll give it a look Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle and Ultraviolet (RedWarn's successor) is a good combination in my opinion. I use Twinkle whenever I would like to provide a custom edit summary, Ultraviolet for common reverting reasons, and mediawiki rollback for most vandalism. RedWarn and Ultraviolet pretty much just provide a lot of quick buttons for common revert reasons. Twinkle is a very good general purpose tool, though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll check them all out I've really been liking Twinkle so far. Thanks dogs Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I label a sentence as 'confusing'?

Hi there, I recently noticed on the big year bird-watching competition page that the 'World Big years' section is a little confusing, specifically this sentence:

"Because Dwarshuis primarily used the IOC Checklist and Strycker the Clements Checklist, their totals are not fully compatible, as the IOC checklist lists a greater number of species. However Dwarshuis and Strycker have both compiled checklists for each list."

I want to create a small label for the "checklists for each list" sentence to list it as 'confusing' or unclear or unfinished or something, but I don't know how to do that. Specifically the part that is confusing for me is: what do the checklists do? The article doesn't elaborate - but then again I'm not a birder. Maybe I'm just missing something very obvious? Cornonthehunt (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really understand what this sentence means either (although I don't have much context and I'm not a birder either). You can use Template:Clarify if you like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 03:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Cornonthehunt (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cornonthehunt: you can also take a look at the other templates listed in Category:Inline cleanup templates. There is quite a lot of them, and sometimes it can be a bit fiddly to figure out which one fits in any particular situation. But I agree that {{Clarify}} is probably a good choice for this. --Gurkubondinn 03:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm, alright. Thanks for the extra resources Cornonthehunt (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome? :) --Gurkubondinn 04:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

-]!! Cornonthehunt (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It didn't send but I was trying to send a smiley face.. sorry lol thanks again! Cornonthehunt (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ceasefire in the 2026 Iran war

Curious about a blacklist

Hi all. I'm working on a page for the Core Contest and ran into an issue when publishing one edit on account of a link to Vision IAS. I won't post a link on that account, but have not been able to find any previous discussion for the blacklist, so am just curious as to its origins. I'm aware that it's an Indian training academy, I assume for a government or university entrance exam. The document itself is innocuous, though, just talking about the history of trade in the Arabian Sea. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it than that, though. Any help is appreciated.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

A common reason for a site to be blacklisted is because someone was spamming links to it (usually advertisements). That would be my first guess: your innocent document is suffering from being on the same site as a spammed advertisement. Any possibility you could get access a different way? Might someone else be hosting that document? There are a few Help Desk postings that suggest one can petition to have a site removed from the blacklist, but that sounds like a fairly challenging process. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it was added to the blacklist last year after years of promotional spamming. If you want to use a particular link that you believe is reliable you can always ask for that specific URL to be whitelisted. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Accessing an article

I can't find the place to type in the name of the subject I want to consult. How do I get to it? ~2026-30338-39 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be at the very top of the page. Are you accessing Wikipedia from a mobile device? Toast1454_TC 16:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Editor blocked on another language Wikipedia

I'm after advice about how to proceed with concerns about an editor (who I prefer not to name right now) here on en.wikipedia who has been blocked for problematic behaviour and subsequent sockpuppetry on another language Wikipedia. Reading their WP:ANI equivalent entry on that Wiki shows me that their behaviours here are similar. So a couple of questions - does an editor blocked elsewhere (including for sockpuppetry) have the right to edit here at all? Should I decide to take them to WP:ANI here, should I reference their history on the other language Wikipedia, or does WP:FRESHSTART apply (cross-wiki) and therefore there should be no reference at all? I'm starting to think that doing nothing about this editor isn't an option but would like advice on where I might go next. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless an account is globally locked by a steward, merely being blocked on another Wikipedia does not automatically mean they cannot edit here; in fact, here we sometimes ask people to edit another Wikipedia to show that they can follow its policies and be productive, to use as evidence of the same in a future unblock request here. However, if a user is repeating behavior that got them blocked on another Wikipedia, yes, that is relevant towards being blocked here. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will think on what to do next. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Networth in biographical articles?

Is it common or well- advised to put the "estimated net-worth" into an article about a living person? Where do you put this within the overall structure? Xeon0309 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't put it in unless it is very notable to the person and important (eg. elon musk) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is rather hard to grasp where or for whom it would be appropriate. BTW do PR -Team of so called VIPs (Elon, Rosalia, Donald J. etc) edit the articles of their employers? Xeon0309 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Xeon0309 How would you keep that updated, say, over the next 10 or 20 years? This kind of changing info at least needs "as of (date)" if it does get added. If I wanted to know this info about someone, I would use a search engine instead of looking to an encyclopedia. David10244 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well reasoned. So it would have to be checked for accuracy on a regular basis. Xeon0309 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are there categories like "C-class- Women" or "Low-Inportance Women"?

Why do these categories (low, mid and high) exist and on what kind of scalable standards are they being based upon? Xeon0309 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Xeon0309 they are categories for WikiProjects - in this case, WikiProject Women. The 'class' categories are governed by grade and the 'importance' categories are governed by priority assessment - I couldn't find the scale for WikiProject Women specifically but the typical scale is linked above. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I think the wording is very dehumanising and highly irritating, especially in the context of a so called "WikiProjectWomen". Can these categories be changed freely or is consultation necessary? Xeon0309 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a Category:Low-importance women. Nor is there a Category:C-Class Women. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There are C-class articles. They are mostly very good indeed. I dream of having one of my creations (many about women) rated "C-class". Doug butler (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes there are. Check the box and the bottom of the talk-page. Talk:Róisín Murphy Xeon0309 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think the wording is rather off. Just imagine categories like "C- Class Men in Parenting" or "Low -Importance Men in Contempory Dating culture" for example. No really nice nor objectiv, I would guess. Apparently the categories seem to be compiled of separate tags. I don't think this is a very good way to categorize people. Xeon0309 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are parsing the category names incorrectly. For example, Category:C-Class Women in music articles the "C-class" modifies "articles". The class is a judgement on the article, not the subject. That is why this kind of category is kept on the article talk page, and not on the article itself. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Like quality-wise or importance-wise? Xeon0309 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You can follow the category trees up to Category:Articles by quality and Category:Articles by importance. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This categorization is used site wide to grade articles and isnt just about people (for example a wikiproject for rocks Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals still uses this ranking) It is in no way meant to be sexist in fact wikiproject WIR and wikiproject feminism also use this categorization for articles for inprovement Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars GoetiaJust because something isn’t meant to be offensive/problematic, dosen’t mean it’s okay in a sense that it is unintentionally offensive/problematic and may unintentionally enforce the idea that some women or women are “lower-class wise”. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As Duncan already said and so did I the ranking is not ranking the women it is ranking how well made the article is

For example if an article was just 1 source and "Jane doe is a famous musician"

Thats a far worse article than one with a bunch of sources and multiple bodys of text

These articles both about women are simply not the same level of quality so they are ranked to show the difference in the articles quality not the subject

Did I explain this well? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as the specific concern here is the framing WP:WikiProject Women in music's category (noting that WP:WikiProject Women and others stopped using these ratings a while ago), this would be best brought to that project's attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Music. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Xeon0309 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's in no way in relation to a woman personally! We are not grading women here, just the articles! It is helpful, since I could browse 'C-class' articles and try to bring it up to a B-class- aka, make the article better, maybe by introducing sources, rewriting content more neutrally, etc. jolielover♥talk 14:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly this thank you jolie Goetia [She/They] (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, checking the talk-page, I presume that it is about the "importance", like the cultural importance of certain persons? Xeon0309 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am new to wikipedia and the wording struck me immediately, and I am not the feminist kind of guy. The categorization of articles in a logical and handy way is a rather complicated affair, I guess. But I am curious, how it works. Xeon0309 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles are inanimate and do not need to be humanized. They're either well-written or not well-written, and they are classified accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

To template or not to template?

Since WP no longer allows an "Expand Article" template, what would be recommended for this article Rosedale Diner that just went up? In relation to all the other diners that have significant history coverage and expansive article content: List of diners, a defunct diner that was once on Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives (along with over 800 other places in 19 years) seems a stretch. Is it notable for inclusion or just a poorly written stub article? It seems that the See also links create a notability by association; which is circular without the actual notability. Yes? Maineartists (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're questioning the notability of a subject, you should start a discussion at AFD (customarily at least 24 hours after the initial creation of the page to allow time for the creating editor to add content). You can also ask the article author, etc. for their notability justification if you're not sure. I mostly agree with your assessment, but I want to add that if the closing of the diner generates enough coverage, it could still be notable (as in the case of Technoblade, whose article was only created after his death). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem that the creating editor has a habit of this style of article: Lunch Lady without drawing upon WP:GA. I'm still questioning the notability since there are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) that fit the simple criteria of either being given an award or featured in some way in the media. Is this all it takes to get an article at WP? Seems a bit promotional at best. The particular aforementioned seems to only be famous for closing. At least with this Toronto, diner: Lakeview Restaurant has some notoriety associated with it. I probably won't place the above up for AfD. Seems to slippery a slope and too big a can of worms to open. Maineartists (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Certain editors have a bad habit of creating as many articles as they can, regardless of whether they're helpful contributions, to add to their article creation account. This is an ongoing problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As Duke Ellington once wrote and Ella once sang: "I'm beginning to see the light". Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How can I edit categories?

I was reading Category:The Doors and I noticed something missing, and when I tried to edit the subcategories didn't appear and nothing else either. How can I fix that?

Freakydentist411 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't edit the category. Edit the page that you want to put into the category, and then it goes into the category automatically (not necessarily instantly--might take a little while). Just add Category:category name, in double square-brackets, to the very bottom of the page which should belong to this category. Subcategories will take care of themselves. And don't feel bad about this--I am able to answer this question because I did the exact same thing (tried to edit the category) about 2 weeks ago! It is not obvious. M kuhner (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!

Freakydentist411 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Need Help with Creation

Hi All,

I am trying to create the article about Kalina de Moura, she is a great indie filmmaker who is making global impact with her films, and now she is also part of animal rights movement. There is alot oc great things so far, and just like any celebretity I think, she earned her space with wikipidia now. However, I am confused with the rules, I tried my best, but , it seemed we still did not provide the write stuff. Can you guys help ? Thanks. Frances2025x (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, your contributions surrounding this artist seem to indicate a conflict of interest. Are you in any way connected to this filmmaker? Pyrrhic victor (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Notability. You must find sources independent of her (not a personal website or the like) that provide significant coverage (not just a quick mention). If you cannot find any sources like that, the subject is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia (which is not a reflection on the person; I'm sure she is wonderful, but if she isn't notable, she can't have a page). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 17:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Frances2025x irl notability is not the same as notability for Wikipedia purposes. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, the subject needs to be the subject of significant (ie in depth) coverage (eg. a feature article, more than 200 words) in two or more independent (unrelated to the subject, including employers or schools), reliable (ie reputable) sources. Alternatively, the subject needs to meet the criteria for presumed notability. Suggest read WP:42 and WP:NCREATIVE. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:4 May 2026 Khartoum International Airport drone attack

What’s the soonest this draft can be reviewed? I created it about the May 4 drone attack in Sudan’s Khartoum International Airport. ~2026-30288-68 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that some reviewer will review it mere _______ from now. (Insert one among milliseconds, seconds ... fortnights, etc.) Chances are that its use of "bare URLs" will reduce their enthusiasm for doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@HoaryI mean, the Sudanese civil war in general has way less interest than the 2026 Iran War and the 2026 Lebanon War. Despite the fact that nearly 25 million people are affected by a famine caused by war, and a genocide currently happening in Darfur. Media don’t talk about it. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general lack of interest in this civil war. But I don't see how this general lack of interest is related to the difficulty in enticing anyone to review this draft. (If you want to speed up the review, then one step you could take is to provide the references more informatively.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary: I just refilled the rest of the bare URLs (12 bare URLs). ~2026-30379-59 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You've improved the references. Thank you. But I have to say that the improvement seems half-hearted. I've re-improved a few. Ah, I notice the name ReFill: that explains. (I re-improved "manually" -- didn't you notice that "ReFill" does a feeble job of filling in what's missing?) Should I do all the others as well? (Couldn't you?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There are thirteen discrete references. I've redone one of them. Perhaps you can do the other dozen. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the template "Infobox military operation" a better choice?

Hello, I was just browsing when I noticed Operation Aphrodite. To be honest, I'm not particularly impressed with any of it but I don't know enough (and don't really care enough) to fix most of it.

Regardless, I was hoping someone could let me know which of these templates would be preferred for this page:

• Template:Infobox military operation
• Template: Infobox weapon

It is difficult to tell given that the current template makes use of the "warhead" field to include the kind of weapons used in the operation.

Thank you for your help! JordyGrey _talk🧸 22:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something obvious, the Manual of Style page on infoboxes doesn't say anything about strictly needing one or the other. Seeing as the article seems to be focused on the operation itself, I'd personally lean towards the military operation infobox, but maybe it's best not to remove the current weapon infobox, in case the information isn't easily reformatted into prose nicely nor covered aptly in the military operation infobox. Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 23:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the military operation one and just left the other alone.

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 00:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Antarctic settlements fix

Ehrman

Is ehrman a Jew ~2026-30313-46 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

uh, maybe check the refererence desk? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 12:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ehrman is a self-described agnostic atheist.^[1] Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondPerhaps they meant Jew as a ethnicity and not a religion? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Who meant that? Please cite the source you are talking about. You have just added an uncited statement about someone's religious beliefs into an article repeatedly after being reverted; that isn't productive. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondActually, i said that the user (2026-30313-46) perhaps meant Jew as a ethnicity and not a religion. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry! I mixed you up with the other TA. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondNo worries, anyways, i think we should both consider Jew as a ethnicity and a religion. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondI meant not that a Jew person would be both, but that we should considering either ethnicity or religion or both. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Professor Bart D. Ehrman (presuming that's who you mean) was raised in the Episcopal Church, so has certainly never been religiously Jewish. In the last few years, I have watched many of his YouTube talks and interviews on his own channel and as a guest on those of others, and have never heard any suggestion that he might be of ethnic Jewish descent (which I would have found mildly interesting, having Jewish relatives by marriage, and hence would have remembered).

Ehrman/Ehrmann is a German name. Some emigrants to the USA may have been German Jews with the name, but most will simply have been German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

User keeps deleting edits and retroactively deleting entire sections

Have encountered a situation where user has deleted verified updates to a few songwriter pages, specifically updating discographies. The discographies look like they have all been active for at least five years. Not only are the updates deleted by one user, but they have gone out of their way to delete the entire sections, despite being accurate, verified and follow all of the rules of WikiProject Discographies. When asking why they were deleted, instead of specific suggestions to "fix the problems", have been met with hostility, wild accusations of running multiple accounts (I do not) and stopping just short of "name calling", troll like behavior. How can I get these pages at the very least back to where they were a week ago? Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Who are they, and what pages? I can Twinkle Rollback them for you. AZenit3 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ilsey Juber - entire discography has been deleted.

Suzy Shinn - entire discography has been deleted.

Anthony Rossomando - discography updates have been deleted. Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you aren't sure why something has been removed, look at the edit summary. If you still aren't sure, ask the person who reverted your edit (usually on the Talk page of the article, by pinging the other person.

In this case, @Drmies has left clear edit summaries to explain why you edits were removed. Blue-Sonnet 02:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't rollback edits unless you're sure of what you are doing - they might be legitimate edits but you need experience to be able to understand that. Blue-Sonnet 02:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Either way, I took a look at the edits. The other user is established, and seems to have removed them in good faith, not to mention all of Muppetgraybies' edits seem to be flagged with potential BLP violation, so I decided against it. AZenit3 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I agree these shouldn't be rolled back and appear to have been removed legitimately. Blue-Sonnet 02:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. It's nice to know my judgement in reversion isn't fundamentally flawed :) AZenit3 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Curious why a discography should be deleted entirely when it has been on the page for many years? Seems deleting something that has been around and had multiple users updating, with verification, does not feel constructive, feels destructive.

User comments were:

"That's not how it works and you know it--you are clearly not new here", I am literally brand new to Wikipedia editing, and asked for constructive criticism to fix the issues, and accused me of burner accounts which I do not have.

When I asked for feedback, the only reply was "LinkedIn or Wikia may be the thing for you".

Re Ilsey Juber "unverified resume information. nice looking table, but how could have have "uncredited" information, unverified. " - , All Music is listed as a credible source via WikiProject Discography guidelines, can we not fix the "citation" and not just delete the entire table?

Re Suzy Shinn "this is nothing but a resume, and it's all unverified" - Again, Discographies are well within Wikipedia guidelines as acceptable.

Re Anthony Rossomando " none of this is verified and its encyclopedic value is highly doubtful. one of the two notable songs is already mentioned in the text; put the other in the text as well, cause there's no need for this resume table" - Again, completely within Wikipedia guidelines.

If I need to do something to fix the citations, would love to do that.

Songwriting and Production discographies are very common on Wikipedia and everything has met the standards of WikiProject Discographies. Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Muppetgraybies, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has huge amounts of information, and even articles, which should not be there by our current standards, either because they were created long ago when we were more concerned with getting information in than with its quality, or because somebody slipped them in under the radar.

Having been here for a long time is absolutely not a consideration in considering whether something should be removed. (For this argument in the context of whole articles, see LONGTIME). ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, appreciate the insight. Still feels like the person who deleted the updates and then after the fact decided to delete whole sections was a power move and done out of spite. But will move on. Thanks again Muppetgraybies (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Those "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tags are just because a filter was triggered. It doesn't mean they are BLP violations or vandalism. False positives happen frequently. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I still thought it was a bit unnecessary to add the entire list of all the songs they've done. That belongs more on an album's page rather than a BLP. AZenit3 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

All well within guidelines from

Infobox producer discography

WikiProject Songs

WikiProject Discographies

Producer and writer discographies link to the appropriate page (for the song or album) within the discography if the page exists, as was done so in the updates. Muppetgraybies (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You are amazingly well-informed (even if incorrectly) for someone who claims to have made only a few edits. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not well informed, but the articles for some random artists I found did include a discography, as described by Muppetgraybies. Some also have a filmography table too.

Why isn’t removing that, for the articles referenced by Muppetgraybies, vandalism exactly? ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft feedback before submission

Hi! I have a COI with this subject and would appreciate feedback on whether the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards before I submit it. Appreciate all feedback! Alansmithh (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansmithh/sandbox Alansmithh (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alansmithh I think you might struggle with Wiki-notability. Suggest peruse WP:42, WP:CORPTRIV, and WP:WWIN. Mme Maigret (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you will have issues with notability. While the first few articles have nice sounding titles, when you go into them, they are essentially interviews or press releases--there is little sign of independent analysis. It will probably be necessary to search further for independent, substantive coverage of the company. The rest is either background or WP:CORPTRIV.

There are also sourcing issues. The second half of History is unsourced. The second and third sentence/paragraphs of Operations are unsourced. It is tough to avoid this when you are writing about a topic you know well, but everything MUST be sourced (you can have sentences in the lead without citations, but the supporting source must be in the rest of the article and clearly identifiable).

The two citations which are about "sneakers are collectable" seem like straining for sources a bit. That part is also very choppy: why not put them in the same paragraph? Why bother with a section on finances with only one sentence?

Finally, I hope that the short paragraphs are not a sign of having used an LLM here. If you did, rewrite it. Wikipedia is very unwelcoming of LLM/AI text. If you used an LLM you will also need to check every single statement to make sure the source actually supports it--I didn't see any problems in a quick review, but more will be needed. M kuhner (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Need help moving AfC draft to Draft namespace

Hello. I submitted an AfC draft and it is currently awaiting review, but it remains in my userspace because my account is not autoconfirmed and I cannot move pages. Could someone please help move it to Draft namespace with the correct title while preserving history? Current page: User:Srivp2012/sandbox

Requested title: Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan

Thank you. Srivp2012 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Srivp2012 (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazingThis article might be biased, i think that’s a important thing that must be mentioned. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. Initially this draft has been declined for the improvements related to the source or say notability. I will try my best to do the needful as per the suggestions of the reviewer. Srivp2012 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple changes

Hello!

My question is, if I have been editing an article and published my changes. Am I allowed to go back in to the same one and make more changes or is there some kind of time limit on how often I can be in the same article? Singer80 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Singer80 Not at all! It's very common to make several edits in row, because you're doing different things, working in different sections etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I have several articles that I have been working on i sections. Better to stop while the brain is still working and then go back to it. I wasn't sure how the ruling was. Thanks for your help! Singer80 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

can admin restored deleted fair-use image? Not a request. TBB (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Thebaldball Context matters, but if there is a WP-good reason, yes. The first step is often to talk with the admin who deleted the image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Self-referencing (circular) link?

RAF Ansty
At the end of the #History section, there is a dubious RAF unit, No. 2 Basic Flying Training School RAF which links straight back to RAF Ansty. This circular link is worrying enough, but there is more. The citation supposedly supporting the existence of this unit and the dates (aviationarcheology.org.uk), does not in fact mention this unit at all. I cannot even follow the methodology of the existing situation, let alone remedy it. I'm guessing I have been bamboozled by a redirect. TBH I feel a little out-of-my-depth here, and I might settle for the simplest solution which is to un-link the unit on the RAF Ansty page. But that still leaves the re-direct as a loose end. What is your advice please?

Two notes of caution;

1. there is also a No. 2 (Basic) Flying Training School RAF, which legitimately links to a current RAF training unit.
2. there is also a No. 2 British Flying Training School RAF, which has its own issues (because it's not actually RAF !)

Any or all of the above might be abbreviated to 2 BFTS, which I am happy to say is a red-link, and it can stay that way!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader The link is only circular because of a redirection. If I understand it correctly, there was a flying school at the base that might warrant its own page. (In fact, a lot of pages link to "2 Basic FTS"). But there is no page so the flying school redirects to the base. You can either delete the internal wiki-link since it's circular or leave it so that, if a page is created for the flying school, the link works.

As for the second (Lancaster, California) flying school "2 British FTS" this seems like a red herring. It is also a redirect because it doesn't have its own substantive page. Mme Maigret (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Cite for the unit added - which isn't the same as No. 2 (Basic) Flying Training School RAF.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about declining "inactive" requests

My name is Justin and I work at ADP. I have posted several requests about updating the ADP article on that Talk page. I also asked about these updates here at the Teahouse last month, and received some useful feedback.

One of my requests was recently declined for "inactivity" since no editor had responded for three weeks. I confess to being puzzled by this action. I have reached out to multiple editors about this and other requests, posted at the Teahouse, and engaged in discussions on the article Talk page.

The COI edit request queue is currently around 500 and the template says to "be extremely patient." I have tried to follow this advice! Is there a Wikipedia guideline somewhere that states that requests should be closed for "inactivity"? Could you point me towards that page so I can learn more?

And what should I do if this keeps happening? I can certainly reach out to more editors, but do I need to do so every two-and-a-half weeks or so in order to ensure that my requests aren't declined? Justin at ADP (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't seem to find an official policy for the closing of edit requests based off of inactivity. It seems to be an attempt to clear the backlog, rather then an action based off policy. @Spintendo, could you explain why you do this? I have seen edit requests sit around for months before being answered before, but they were beneficial to the article even though they took a long time to be answered.

The likely reason for the inactivity is that many editors hold anti-paid editor views. Many of us, including myself, don't like donating our limited time to Wikipedia for a company's or singular individual's benefit. Thus, your requests take much longer to be responded to. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Worried I did something wrong...

Hello, it's me again. I've been here a few times with questions, and here I am again. To put it simply, I'm worried I might have "overdone and overthought it" when it comes to editing this Soviet space dogs article. I've been working on it for months, making lots of changes and decisions, and, well, this page isn't very high traffic, so I haven't been getting any feedback or responses on my edits or the talk page. I tend to overthink a lot, and I'm worried that some of the changes I did were too bold or straight up wrong or unnecessary. I did all my edits in good faith, but I'm still new here and this is the first article I've been working on. I've made around 40 edits to the article, so the edit history also looks kind of messy which bothers me too... Could someone take a look and give me some feedback or advice, or tell me if I should change something? I want this article to be the best it can be, but I don't want it to look like I'm taking ownership of the page or something like that. Sorry, I know it's kind of weird, but I would like to be sure that I'm doing it right. Vicccqh7 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about the edit summaries. It's totally okay for one person to put a lot of work into an article and dominate the edit summaries for a while. It's not WP:OWN unless you are discouraging others from contributing, and I see no signs of that. Talk page looks fine.

I enjoyed reading the article; I like the balance between plain facts and reported analysis. Two critiques: (1) What are the little superscript non-linked numbers after cites in the Training section? (2) The article is long enough that a bit of overview near the start could help readers. I thought I was at the end and then there was another section I wasn't expecting. Just one line indicating the article is divided into sub-orbital and orbital flights could help. You could add a count of dogs involved in sub-orbital and orbital flights to that line as well, giving the reader an idea how much material is to follow. (It's an impressive amount of material!) M kuhner (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'm so happy to hear that! Now for the points you described:

1. The small numbers are pages for the source cited before, that's how I learned to cite pages at first, and I had some trouble using "sfn" for that specific citation, I think because there are multiple authors, but I'm not sure, so I did it using "rp".
2. I'm not quite confident and not sure how to expand on that properly, and honestly speaking, I am also quite scared about the whole citation and synthesis thing, I don't want to make any claims that aren't supported below or anything of that nature, although I remember reading somewhere that lead sections usually shouldn't have citations (or they don't need to be there as long as the facts in lead are supported below), I don't know how it applies in practice. And by "one line indicating the article is divided into sub-orbital and orbital flights" do you mean it literally? Like, a simple sentence saying "this article is divided into 2 major sections: sub orbital, and orbital...")? Or do you mean something else? I would like to improve it more, but for some reason this feels kind of underwhelming. Perhaps you could help me or do it in my stead if you have some free time, if it's not too much to ask?

Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried to do it myself, and...you're right, it doesn't fit very well.

I'm biting my nails on the exact same "no citations in lead" thing, so I feel for you!

Counting the number of dogs listed in the article, as far as I can tell, should fall under WP:CALC and not be original research. But it doesn't fit in your lead, so probably this was a suggestion that doesn't quite work. M kuhner (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me out! I think I will leave it as-is, cause as you said it's a little complicated. Maybe one day someone will come up with an idea on how to do it and they'll improve it. I hope it's not a big issue and people can still enjoy the article. Thanks for your help again! Vicccqh7 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Can you please add the "Parkdale railway station" article link to the recently created Simple Wikipedia page of the same name please? I don't know how to translate it (so it says 3 languages [Urdu, Simple Englsh, Bahasa Indonesia] and I think only extended confirmed users (I am auto-confirmed) can only do it... Rioooooooo9 (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If, after logging in to WikiData, are you unable to edit the WikiData record, Rioooooooo9? -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't get how WikiData works, and the instructions and the extended confirmed things are a little too complex for me. Can you summarise it? Rioooooooo9 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rioooooooo9 I've added the simple English link to Wikidata now. The process is as simple as navigating to the bottom of the Wikidata item (link above) and editing the "Wikipedia" section bottom left. You can look at the page history of the Wikidata page to see the actual changes there, just as you can on most other Wikipedia pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

submission denied, requesting assistance

Hi. I have submitted an article for review and was denied: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. I thought I carefully cited the information. I am looking for direction on how to improve in accordance to the guidlines. Please help, SueMont5 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, as the decline notice instructs you to do, have you read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Citing sources? Moreover, have you read Help:Your first article? Athanelar (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@AthanelarI have left you a message in your talk page. ~2026-30469-30 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@AthanelarOh, you have already responded to my message, sorry for asking you, i didn’t knew you alraedy responded. ~2026-30469-30 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Insert button not showing

My account is verified and I am on mobile. Lime-fish22 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've never noticed the presence of an "insert" button, Lime-fish22. What does it do? (What kinds of insertions does it make, or what kinds of insertions are you currently unable to make?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lime-fish22: VisualEditor has an "Insert" button in Desktop. I don't see it in mobile but don't know how it usually works. You can insert a template by typing {{. You can switch to desktop on "Desktop view" at the bottom when you view a page but not during an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently the insert button allows you to insert pictures. I just want to be able to add pictures Lime-fish22 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lime-fish22: The insert button in the desktop version of VisualEditor can insert pictures. I don't know why the button is missing in the mobile version. Maybe I was unclear before. If you switch to the desktop version before starting an edit then you can use VisualEditor there and get the insert button, but it's not designed for small screens. In the mobile version you can use the source editor instead of VisualEditor by clicking a pencil icon at the top right during an edit. Then you can add images but you have to write image code to do it. See Help:Pictures. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Twisted (Roblox)

Can someone make a page about Twisted, Roblox? I don't really know how and I think it would be cool ~2026-30517-94 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, i have seen Wikipedia articles that have only 1 or no source at all, i don't even know how they're still up or how they got created and allowed in Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has been around for a long time. In the early days, the rules were very relaxed. But over time things have, rightly, tightened up, so now there is a decently high "quality bar" that new articles need to achieve. See WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Twisted isn't a game that would be notable enough to feature on the List of Roblox games; a cursory search doesn't show anything that would be reliable coverage of the game. ^EF₅ 15:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Important issue with article "Hare and Wolf"

how do I add an image to an article?

how do I add an image to an article? MissBVCC (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@MissBVCC: See Help:Image. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much!!!! MissBVCC (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Got to the article click insert > images and media > and then search for the image as its titled in wikimedia commons (If its not uploaded to wikimedia you will have to upload it make sure its not copyrighted)

If there is a image already then gain consensus on the talk page of the article to change it Goetia [She/They] (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

On Talk:United States, a discussion appeared on "Why Tung Tung Sahur should be president"

I think that user ~2026-29101-67 was right

Feedback on my first AfC submission

Hello, I am a new editor and have submitted my first draft through Articles for Creation: Draft:Rohan Shrestha. The article is about an Indian photographer and includes 27 references from publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter India, and NDTV. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my talk page. I understand the review queue is quite long, but I would appreciate any general feedback on whether the draft meets Wikipedia's standards, or if there are improvements I should make while I wait. Thank you for your time. ~~~~ Rohanshrestha1 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rohanshrestha1, I've checked the first few references cited, and they're all based on what Shrestha has said about himself. Such sources are not independent of the subject, and so do not help to establish that he is notable in Wikipedia sense. Sourcing is judged on quality not quantity: three good independent sources will count for more than 27 of the kind you have used. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rohanshrestha1.

Are you Rohan Shrestha?

If you are, then please be aware that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so monumentally difficult that very few people have ever done so successfully, and therefore we strongly discourage you from spending time trying: see autobiography.

If you are not Rohan Shrestha, then you need to change your user name immediately: see Changing username.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Israel articles

"Greater Israel should have a Template:ExpandLanguageHebrew, and article "Zionism" should mention or have a section on Greater Israel

how do I create a page for a userbox?

i have created a userbox but I don't know how to make it like userbox/weez3rforever/example ??could someone help -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Weez3rforever. If you want it associated with your account then pick a name starting with User:Weez3rforever/ like User:Weez3rforever/Userbox/Example. You can make a red link like I did and click it, or you can enter the wanted name in the search box. Then you get an option to create it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

oh thank you -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 17:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright investigation on draft

One of the drafts I'm currently writing has just had its entire content wiped by a copyright investigation. The linked URL is one I was using as (currently the only) source, but my plan was to read other sources and combine information together before I was done drafting. A couple of the paragraphs were probably still word-for-word the same as the source because I was planning on adding information from other sources before editing it down to the relevant information. I assumed a draft was allowed to be in a messy state, as long as I tidied it up before publishing it. E.g. I like to copy text into the window so I don't have to keep swapping between tabs, but the entire thing would be my own words before I finished the draft. Am I using drafts wrong? Is there something I can do to reinstate the page to continue working on it? Kimbarrett92 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict copyright rules, and copyrighted content cannot be hosted anywhere on the website. I would recommend that you take a glance at Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and that you put the draft in your own words first. Also, if what you are referring to as "tidied it up" is close paraphrasing, that is also not allowed. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realise drafts were held to the same standard. By "tidied it up", I meant removed my notes and text that I hadn't processed yet. It sounds like I should write my drafts privately and then go directly to publishing them. Do you know what will happen with the article that's been tagged? If it gets deleted, would I be able to recreate it from a fresh draft (with no copied text)? Kimbarrett92 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that EVERYTHING on the site is public, so you are creating copyright violations by putting copyright material here, even in a draft or on your user page or sandbox. That endangers Wikipedia, so it is strictly enforced. If you need to keep a copy of copyrighted material around as a basis for your article, it must be somewhere else (and private), not anywhere on this site.

I believe that if your article is deleted, you can make a new article with new, clean text. I strongly recommend submitting through AfC (articles for creation) and getting a review on it. I also strongly recommend making it very good before proceeding. If the same article causes trouble too many times, re-creating it will eventually be blocked. You don't want that, so do your best on the next version. M kuhner (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Review request for FizzUp draft

Hi everyone! I've just finished putting together my first article draft in my sandbox about a French fitness app called FizzUp: User:Lbmbdm/sandbox

I tried my best to follow the guidelines by adding an infobox, some internal wikilinks, and reliable sources like newspaper articles and official sports ministry recommendations.

Before I hit the submit button, could someone take a quick look to make sure the formatting is okay and that it doesn't look messy? I want to make sure I'm doing this right. Thanks a lot! Lbmbdm (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no point asking for a pre-review review; submit it, forget about it and let an AfC reviewer get to it in due course. Athanelar (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lbmbdm: Moved to Draft:FizzUp. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You are probably going to have issues with promotional tone: in particular "Health and Scientific Approach" reads like a press release. Also with relevancy: what is the point of that bulleted list of exercise recommendations? Finally, if you used an LLM (including Grammarly) to write any part of this, please rewrite in your own words. M kuhner (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined for appearing AI-generated — request for feedback

My draft at Draft:Klover Products, Inc. was declined in January for appearing AI-generated. The original was written by a freelancer I hired, and yes, it probably was AI-assisted. I rewrote it myself and it was declined again for the same reason. I'm an engineer by background. I'm starting to wonder if the way I naturally write — organized, structured, fairly clean prose — is just going to keep tripping the AI flag regardless of who actually wrote it. A few things I'd appreciate honest input on: 1. Is there a realistic path forward for this draft, or am I better off waiting for more independent coverage to accumulate before trying again? 2. If experienced editors look at the current draft, what specifically reads as AI-generated versus just well-organized? I'd genuinely like to know what the tells are so I can either fix them or accept that my writing style isn't going to clear that bar. 3. I have a disclosed COI as an employee of Klover Products, with the {{Paid}} template template on my user page. I'm submitting through AfC. Is there anything else procedurally I should be doing? Thanks for any honest feedback. I'd rather hear it's not going to work than keep spending time on submissions that get declined. PdTerp (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

In order:

1. You're probably better off stripping it down to the studs and starting from scratch, with an eye to WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of your sources appear to be routine coverage, which doesn't help for eligibility. I'll likely do a Bastard Helper From Hell assessment as a follow-up to this post.
2. We have an entire page dedicated to explaining how AI unwittingly outs itself as an author. I'd recommend giving it a read, then looking back over your article. I will say the promotional tone does not help (as AI tends to be at best vaguely laudatory of the subject).
3. No, you're doing what you should be doing in that regard.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

As promised, the source assessment:

• https://www.kloverproducts.com/ - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://www.npr.org/2014/10/25/358662327/from-the-stadium-to-your-stereo-behind-baseballs-biggest-sounds is a non-sequitur. The source itself is about sound production for live sporting events and would likely otherwise be a poor fit for this article anyway.
• We can't use the PDF of the website (copyright violation). The article itself wouldn't help for eligibility (wrong subject); a review of a company's product is generally not going to be considered coverage of the company proper.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/07/10/fox-sports-revamps-mlb-all-star-production/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop of one of Klover's products, no discussion of the company.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/07/10/the-mlb-all-star-game-promises-sound-surprises-for-all/ is a non-sequitur. I will note that it's very likely all these non-sequitur sources were provided by the AI as sources to support the article out of a mistaken belief that they'd be acceptable. AIs understand as much about how Wikipedia works as I do about the inner workings of a Dyson sphere's power-generation mechanics.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/10/04/turner-fox-gear-up-for-mlb-postseason-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2014/10/22/world-series-sound-is-all-about-more-microphones/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/07/14/sound-for-recent-u-s-opens-promises-new-approaches-for-postseason-baseball/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/03/17/a-9-in-parab-to-capture-the-music-of-march-madness-audio/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). This article is more about sound production at sporting events; neither Klover or the parab the article is ostensibly about are discussed overmuch.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/10/05/mlb-postseason-preview-three-networks-gear-up-for-big-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/07/13/politeness-pays-off-for-canadian-onfield-audio/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover. (noticing a theme?)
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/09/15/football-sound-improvements-are-incremental-now-rather-than-monumental/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/content/entry/2399/when-it-comes-to-parabolic-mics-larger-is-not-always-better looks okay.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/09/08/nfl-continues-to-extend-boundaries-in-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/03/03/march-madness-promises-tons-of-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• We can't use https://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews/250000/klover_products_celebrates_successful_ibc_debut (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). This appears to be some form of native advertizing.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2024/01/12/nfl-playoffs-2024-broadcasters-to-bring-out-their-audio-games/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.ibc.org/create-and-produce/klover-pushes-parabolic-pickups-for-social-distance-reporting/5838.article is 404-compliant (redirects to website homepage).
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/10/06/mlb-postseason-2021-tbs-preps-for-big-sound-wild-card-game/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/09/04/fox-sports-readies-encore-other-enhancements-for-nfl-coverage/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://wisconsinlife.org/story/meet-the-janesville-microphone-maker-capturing-kicks-and-goals-around-the-world/ is fine.
• https://sites.duke.edu/ddmc/2022/10/24/audio-engineering-society/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject) and is otherwise borderline as it is effectively a listicle.
• https://www.radioworld.com/tech-and-gear/parabolic-microphones-for-radio doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Review of a specific Klover model; no discussion of the company proper.
• https://www.broadcastbeat.com/klover-products-even-the-audio-playing-field is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page).
• https://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2018/07/klover-parabolic-collector-microphone.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Review of a product, perfunctory discussion of the company.

You have two usable sources. The AI did you dirty by pulling up a tonne of sources that hardly discuss Klover or its products. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input.

Would this be considerd a worthwhile source?

https://www.ibtimes.com/klover-mik-parabolic-microphone-changing-game-3779471 PdTerp (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@PdTerpI don't know. Your message dosen't describe what Klover Products, Inc. is. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

International Business Times is not a reliable source. See WP:IBTIMES. CodeTalker (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Silesian Railways

Take a look at this article. It is very long, and doesn't seem constructive. I assume it was machine translated from its Polish article, possibly by an LLM or something like Google Translate. After looking at the article's authorship, it seems that it was expanded by a now inactive user named KolS AHK just under one year ago, they made 85% of the contributions to this article, which accounts for over 135,000 bytes or over 108,000 characters.

Could I possibly delete all of this information? I don't think leaving it as it is for another editor to fix it up is a good idea, as it has been left that way for almost a year. So, what do I do? Fortek67 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you can go ahead and boldly delete the parts of the article that seem excessive or that are poorly written. If you think some of the information is important, though, and is sourced, I would leave that in. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

To agree with Fortek67, deleting some of that information is warranted however a complete page deleting might be excessive. ― Rodogg715|✉  19:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

AI-Generated content featured on the teahouse

hello all, I just checked my notifications to see that one of my edits on here was archived. that I don't care about. however, somehow I clicked the difference between revisions and on the "revision as of xx-xx-xxxx" whatever showed an ai generated image of a lemur using a computer and the text "User (i'm not saying who in case), a Teahouse host" as a caption. now, I don't know the policy on ai generated media on wikipedia, but as an artist, I don't appreciate ai generated slop being on my screen. especially on wikipedia. isn't wikipedia supposed to encourage the truth and genuineness? #screwai -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 19:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Those photos are chosen by the users they represent as a kind of 'profile picture' to represent them as a teahouse host; there's nothing in our current AI image policy which prevents that sort of usage. Athanelar (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

ah. okay. good to know. thank you for telling me -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Can we not use AI-generated images in the "featured hosts" area?. -- MediaKyle (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation on my singing monsters article

Hey, I'm AzazelFan. I have been a fan of My Singing Monsters for about 6 years now. I know a lot of things about the game, including a fact that T-Pain does not voice the character T-Pirahna in MSM. I saw on Wikipedia that it said T-Pirahna was voiced by T-Pain, so I changed it to say that it wasn't (and the reason why) but it got removed. I dont know what you guys can do about it but im just writing to say so. Thanks! AzazelFan (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this here Goetia [She/They] (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@AzazelFan The article states this in a list of resemblances to real-world people, it is not supposed to list the voice actors. Athanelar (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Could Critterz be mentioned in article “Marché du Film”?

How to cope with edits that degrade a Wikipedia article?

Last August I became a Wikipedia author, doing an extensive rewrite of the article on “SignWriting” (the deaf writing system, not the billboard occupation). Since then the article has been remarkably stable, with only a few outside edits made to the article. But in the past few days, someone edited the SignWriting article by deleting the list of example sign languages from the second sentence in the article, and simply stated as a reason for their edit, “Why is this here?”. For the record, the answer to their question is “there are many good reasons for it being there”, which I’ve subsequently tried to convey to the editor in the article’s Talk section. But our communication in the Talk section has been unproductive, because the author of the edit has so far not offered any substantive reason to justify his deletion, just a focus on side issues (such as telling me I should add more content to explain one of the examples he deleted, when in fact such content already exists in the article). And the deleted examples implicitly clarify that the writing system is for the signed languages of the Deaf, and not for abstract “sign languages” which may refer to arbitrary systems of semiotic signs wholly unrelated related to Deaf communication. The listed examples also emphasize that SignWriting is unique in its ability to write multiple sign languages, and not just one.

In sum, my attempts at resolving this issue have become increasingly frustrating, as the person who made the edit seems to be acting in bad faith, rather than trying to work with me to achieve some sort of compromise. I’m suspecting their motivation for the edit may have been that for personal reasons they didn’t like one of the example sign languages that was listed – I specifically asked them if this was the case, but they have studiously ignored my question on this.

What do I do in such a situation? If this kind of interaction happens regularly in Wikipedia, I may give up on trying to maintain the integrity of the article I worked so hard on writing last August.

Thanks in advance for your advice on this matter, Luxpoiesis Luxpoiesis (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I do think Ltbdl was fully correct to cull that material; it's extraneous. One of the things we should aim to do in writing Wikipedia articles is to be concise. You've already said "it can be used to write any sign language", what many good reasons exist to then specify a handful of sign languages when we already know it can be used for any sign language? You say the deleted examples implicitly clarify that the writing system is for the signed languages of the Deaf, and not for abstract “sign languages” which may refer to arbitrary systems of semiotic signs wholly unrelated related to Deaf communication., but this is already established when just a few words earlier you have a wikilink to Sign language. As for The listed examples also emphasize that SignWriting is unique in its ability to write multiple sign languages, and not just one, that's obviously already communicated by saying it can be used to write "any sign language."

It's like saying "You can paint your wall any colour, including red, blue, green, yellow, and many others."

More broadly, you should be aware that you do not own or have any specific authority over this article because of the work you've put into it. Be openminded to the feedback of others rather than focusing on maintaining your preferred prose. Athanelar (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The nature of wikipedia is that other people edit the articles you create, so you cope by accepting that.

As this is pretty much the only article you’ve worked on, refer WP:SPA, the reality is if you stopped editing, it would only affect this article. So my sincere advice is to find something else to work on. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Charles City Iowa National Guard unit in 1975

The Charles City Iowa unit was a Combat Support Company, not an artillery detachment in 1975.

I know because I was the Captain Company Commander in 1975.

Captain Duane R Bennett USAR Retired ~2026-28393-52 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-28393-52, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have an improvement to offer to an article, then the article's talk page is the best place to propose it. (I'm not sure which article you're referring to).

Note that all information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source: "I know because I was there" is not acceptable (see verifiability); so in making your suggestion, it would be helpful if you would point to somewhere where the information can be verified. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you know you were there? SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not helpful to pose silly questions to a serious user unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. Please don't do this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion about GNG

I am willing to create an article about a person. Can this, this and this count towards GNG? The person is not alive. SatnaamIN (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be a stub SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 22:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. It would be a stub as I can grab some content from searches. But is it good to go? SatnaamIN (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The Assam Tribune piece seems to be... fawning, to say the least, so I would be wary of relying on that to establish notability. The Indian Express piece and the Scroll piece seem to be okay. Athanelar (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There are more sources from The Hindu and Book search. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The Assam Tribune piece is not ignorable as it is written by Harekrishna Deka. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This piece and this piece are also there. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather that asking about individual sources piecemeal, it might be more efficient for you and everybody else if you just created a Draft (see WP:YFA and WP:AfC) and then invited opinions on it, either informally here or preferably by submitting it for review.

It might be declined on first submission (as are most drafts) but the reviewer will likely give detailed advice on where it needs to be improved. No stigma arises from a draft being resubmitted a number of times as long as clear improvements are evident each time. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Better portrait

Hello, I am wondering whether it would be appropriate to replace the portrait of Xavier Serra with

I think this one is better because it is direct and front-facing; however, I am not sure what the official policy is. QueueSevenM (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it is openly licensed, so I think you can go ahead and WP:BOLDly add it. If someone objects, they may revert your edit, and then you can talk on the talk page about what is best. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming I am asking more specifically about kind of image is preferred. QueueSevenM (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@QueueSevenM MOS:LEADIMAGE does not give very firm guidance, and what is "best" is often a bit subjective. For living people, depending on what's available (which tend to be not a lot), editors generally like good quality, recent-ish and doesn't look awful/strange. IMO, current pic and your alt are both acceptable, yours is a little newer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Paid Agencies in India

I want to ask one thing. I know many agencies create paid Wikipedia articles, and some editors may be connected with them, but sometimes they edit so cleanly that there is no obvious proof of undisclosed COI or paid editing. In such cases, when there is no direct digital evidence, what kind of behavioral patterns, editing activity, or evidence is usually considered enough to raise concerns or investigate possible undisclosed paid editing? ~2026-30525-86 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's usually pretty self-evident from an editor's behaviour. If it's a long-standing account, then they might reappear after a long period of inactivity to suddenly create/edit an article in a subject which tends to attract paid editing (BLPs and companies, mostly). If it's a newer account, they often behave as an WP:SPA in the same topics.

Entirely neutral editors are seldom interested in getting into protracted battles to update a BLP article or to get a new article created after numerous declines and ample evidence that the subject is not notable, whereas paid editors have no qualms wasting their time (and everybody else's) doing so, since their payment depends on it. Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation!

Can I cite a source of a tv show, that already aired, but I have the date and tv show host, but cannot find any archived video? I searched internet archive for a transcript but there aren't any. Welovecontributors! [talk] 12:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors! I'm afraid not. Sources must be published and available to anyone to check. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Welovecontributors! [talk] 12:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Smruti R. Nayak

It's pass for Wikipedia guidelines? ~2026-30425-50 (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it should be moved to draftspace and put through AfC. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

please also check this i found reliable sources not get it Swati Verma and Indu Sonali and Rani Chatterjee and Shubhi Sharma giv feedback for these article ~2026-30525-86 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28 @ChildrenWillListen @Ravensfire @CNMall41 ~2026-30525-86 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why I was pinged, but many of the sources in Smruti R. Nayak are obviously paid placement and do not count towards notability. Swati Verma and Indu Sonali also likely fail WP:N and should be deleted if better sourcing can't be found. I can't assess the notability of Rani Chatterjee and Shubhi Sharma since I'm not familiar with the sourcing. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@BhikhariInformer ~2026-30525-86 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

add more paid article Rinku Ghosh ~2026-30525-86 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think they're paid? If you have concrete evidence of paid editing, please send them over to WP:COIVRT instead of making public accusations. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor has called me dishonest

How do I ask for assistance with an editor who has called me dishonest for editing an article based upon valid references?

Hi. I have been working on the subject of Pastries. I happened across List of pastries, which the article lead says are made from pastry dough. I noticed that many on the list were actually not made with pastry, but based on the generic use of Pastries name for sweet baked goods in the US and Canada. I was not the only editor who had noticed this as it was in the talk page on the List. I raised this with the Wikipedia project on food but heard nothing back, so I started to amend the list. Kolach (cake) I amended from pastries to sweet bread, as the article states it is made with with leavened dough, and oastry dough is not leavened. Editor User:Revirvlkodlaku reverted the change based on ""Pastry" is a generic term and doesn't strictly refer to the use of yeast. It is also more common and easily understood than "sweet bread". Please discuss on talk page if you disagree." At this point I noticed that the pastry page us incorrect, so have started to amend - this included Viennoiserie, which as the article says, is its own product even if seen as similar to pastry. The additions I added were referenced. The editor has now deleted the edits stating "Reverting unjustified and potentially deceptive edits by dishonest editor. This will be reported to admins." The edits i made were not dishonest but based upon actual fact that Pastry is an unleavened dough which was referenced. How can I get independent assistance with this? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Davidstewartharvey, you were pointed to the talk page for discussion--this is not the page to prove your point, the talk page is. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I have already provided refs on thd talk page. I believe there is a resolution process called DRN but I cant figure out how to raise it there. Thats why I came here asking for assistance. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
    • You got into it on the talk page of one individual article but the real point of contention are your edits on Pastry--and if I'm reading it correctly User:Revirvlkodlaku is right in saying that you were arguing on Talk:Kolach (cake) based on a definition you yourself added to the Pastry article. That's the dishonesty they signaled. There is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, yes, but you'll need to discuss your "Pastry" edits on that talk page first. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

      The changes are based on references. User:Revirvlkodlaku has changed them all without looking at any of them. For example, the short description I changed to Baked and Fried goods, as first example Angel wings and Samosa are both fried. I have now raised it at WP:3O. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

      How do you know what they did or did not look at?

      Hint: Avoid making unsubstantiated claims about the actions of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

      • @Drmies, that's exactly what happened—thank you for reading that correctly and for the support. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Username length

I named it to a pretty long length, I used to be an IP-address contributor. But is it allowed on Wikipedia to state on my user page the inspiration is the titles of: An Unexpected Event, NTSC, Composite video, Component video, and VCR? Is the username length allowed? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes to both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have an additional question. Can I have Wikipedia-like articles on my user page, but I want a specialised search engine that is meant for reliable sources for Wikipedia, because I want to make an article on ntscQT or ntsc-RS. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We already have a Wikipedia custom Google search engine that works well, e.g. for biographies and may work for your purposes. However, I'd recommend Google Scholar for most technical topics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR There are restrictions on what you can put on your user page. Please see Wikipedia:User pages. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

CN for a Contribution from a blocked user?

While editing Adverse childhood experiences, I stumbled across a missing citation (see: Adverse Childhood Experiences Study/Findings/Other studies). Now I would normally tag that part with a citation needed tag, however by 'Who Wrote That' I noticed that the author of that part is actually blocked from Wikipedia. It is also not trivial to find that source. If such a case happens, do I still tag it, or should I be bold and delete it? Dvantum/Nova (💬) 12:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't expunge the work of editors just because they are blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well, thank you for the clarification. Citation needed it is. Dvantum/Nova (💬) 16:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Addressing "Insane level of detail" in an article...

According to Talk:Tyalgum,_New_South_Wales, the section on the local Music Festival contains an "Insane level of detail" which I am inclined to address (by deleting most of it...) - I have flagged this intention on the article's talk page as you will see there, but my statement might benefit from support for or against from other experienced Wikipedia editors before I do so - if supported it may be less likely to offend the creators of the original text, perhaps... we will see! I will action the proposed solution in the article within a few days if there are no counter-suggestions or objections otherwise. Feel free to chime in there if you are so inclined. Cheers - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tony 1212, I encourage you to be bold and make your planned edits, and be open to hearing other editors' opinions if there's pushback. I think that's unlikely, though: text has already been identified as problematic (and is also unsourced).

Also: This isn't an official Wikipedia guideline, but I (and many others) follow the principles of Bold, revert, discuss when making changes. You might find the advice therein helpful. Best, Wracking ^talk! 04:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, apparently I was the one to add maintenance templates to this article way back in 2023! It's been a long three years, and yet little has changed—I think your changes would be a welcome improvement. Wracking ^talk! 05:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

G'day mate, welcome to the Teahouse.

Along with following @Wracking's advice, I do agree this is astronomical levels of detail, so much so it's exhausting to read. As far as I know, Wikipedia aims to be WP:CONCISE, not too detailed that feels like a deity wrote it. ^/pos Also, I've noticed that section needs citations, there isn't even a single source! _{I'll try to find the diff...} ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"my statement might benefit from support..."—For future reference, you might want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing, lest you fall foul of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy indeed I am aware of that, hence this wording "my statement might benefit from support for or against" (my italics) - in other words folk are free to argue either way. I just did not want it to be a unilateral decision on my part, or at least to show the same to anyone who may be offended by the proposed action... perhaps "support" should be something more neutral of course. ("support or opposition", but that is a bit clumsy). Anyway the Talk page is indeed open for further comment either way. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, "Bold" alteration now made, refer the present state of the article plus associated talk page. Onwards and upwards... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

i am new, whats a good amount of stuff to put in a beginner atricle

it is the title Tord8194 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Find references first, and add all the information supported by your sources. See WP:BACKWARDS and WP:YFA. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tord8194, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

First Time Page For New Contributor

Hi all, I want to write an article on prominent Canadian startups and I found one with multiple independent news sources that cover the company with coverage ranking from newspaper publication to nationally recognize magazines. However I am still a bit confused on the notability requirements surrounding businesses. Candidly, after a purview of the multiple business Wikipedia articles looks like the notability rules are applied slightly differently for every company. Here is the article on my subpage for your review. Thank you for your time :) User:Greencheckconure/Sample page. Greencheckconure (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggest read WP:42, WP:CORPTRIV and WP:WPINWP:WWIN. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have mislinked something, @Mmemaigret:. WP:WPIN is Wikiproject Indiana which I don't think is relevant; I'm not sure which one you meant. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. The shortcut for Wikipedia:Independent sources is [[WP:IS]] or [[WP:INDY]]. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:WWIN Mme Maigret (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There are so many similar acronyms, thanks for clarifying! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

As for looks like the notability rules are applied slightly differently for every company, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is trivially easy for an editor to publish an article without it going through any kind of review process; and while such articles are nowadays often caught and draftified/deleted if they're in bad state, it is entirely possible for some to slip through the cracks. There's also lots of articles published when Wikipedia's standards were less strict, that still exist simply because nobody has looked them over critically since. Athanelar (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Startups, by their nature, are rarely "prominent". We would need to see extremely strong evidence for this claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback Greencheckconure (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing nomination from Merge to Delete in AfD

Hi, I've nominated an article for merging in the AfD process, but I have changed my mind and I want to nominate it for deletion instead after comments from other editors. Would it be correct for me to strike through my original nomination in AfD with a new rationale for deletion (and replacing the merging template on the article with one for deletion) or should I be doing something else? Yaoshiiscool (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You've got it exactly; strike through your original rationale and replace it with your new deletion rationale, and replace the template on the article. Athanelar (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Machine translation policy question

According to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION there are policies regarding LLMs. But, I do not use the ChatGPT-type chatbot LLM for this, but I've used DeepL as detailed on DeepL Translator. Is that acceptable? If I do copyedit as well, which I have several Source Language to English dictionaries. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you skilled in the language you're translating from? I don't think it makes a difference which type of LLM it is, someone needs to review the translation. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I do use dictionaries, though. Not skilled but is dictionary usage okay?

An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION states: Translated texts created with LLM-based tools that have not undergone review by a human skilled in both the origin and target languages should not be placed in Wikipedia articles. But I'm not sure if this counts dictionaries or not. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 20:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

DeepL translate is still an LLM tool, and per WP:LLMTRANSLATE you must have proficiency in both the source and target language in order to ensure you can verify the accuracy of the translation. If you do not have proficiency and are relying on a dictionary to check the translation, that would seem to be against the rules. Athanelar (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Times of India References

Sadguru Brahmeshanand Acharya Swami most of used same References Times of india its valid? ~2026-30662-76 (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

and another news References expired ~2026-30662-76 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding you. Are you asking Most of the references for the article Sadguru Brahmeshanand Acharya Swami are pages of Times of India. Is this satisfactory?? My inexpert answer to that question: Probably not. Writers for the Times of India are, shall we say, impressionable. I am surprised to read in this Times of India page (one of those cited) that he has been awarded the title of ‘Ambassador of Peace’ by the British parliament. But perhaps this isn't the well-known parliament that sits in the palace of Westminster but instead "Parliament of Religions" or some such. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are wondering about the reliability of a source, a good place to start is here:

WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

You can search for Times of India in this page, and find that they are doubtful: TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. M kuhner (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Required advice on AfC decline – do these sources establish notability under WP:NCORP?

Hello,

I recently submitted Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan through Articles for Creation and received a decline under WP:NCORP / organisation notability.

Draft Link: Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan

Before resubmitting, I would appreciate advice on whether the current sources demonstrate notability for a standalone article, or whether the topic should remain in Draft space.

Current sources used include:

• ThePrint – coverage relating to the institute’s activities and policy discussions
• The Tribune – coverage of university collaborations
• Bloomsbury India book: Igniting 37 Crore Growth Engines
• News18 coverage of publication activity
• Additional reporting from ANI, Daily Excelsior, Uday India and others

My question is specifically:

Do these sources provide sufficient independent and significant coverage of the organisation itself under WP:NCORP, or are they mostly routine/event coverage?

If insufficient, would editors recommend:

1. reducing the draft substantially,
2. merging relevant content elsewhere, or
3. anything else

Thank you. Srivp2012 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Srivp2012 Hello. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan]].

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, please see conflict of interest. If you are employed by them, you are considered to be a paid editor as well.

You are essentially asking for a pre-review review; the reviewer will answer these questions for you as part of the review process. You should resubmit the draft if you feel that you have addressed the issues. All this said, you are just telling of the routine activities of the organization(see WP:ORGDEPTH). You need to be summarizing "significant coverage"; meaning critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the organization. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link. Further, I would like to inform that I am nowhere associated with the organization. As a new comer to wikipedia, I am learning by mistakes that how to do drafting and publishing or reviewing etc. as per my interest. I would do the needful as suggested. Srivp2012 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Srivp2012, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I understand the importance of first learning Wikipedia’s core content policies and editing practices before creating new articles. I have been reading relevant guidelines and working to improve drafts based on feedback and reliable independent sources.

My intention is to proceed carefully and follow Wikipedia’s standards on verifiability, neutrality, sourcing, and notability. I appreciate the reminder that article creation is usually more successful after gaining editing experience, and I will continue improving my understanding while working through the draft process.

Thank you again for sharing your experience and guidance. Srivp2012 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

fastest way to find categories

yall I have finally decided on what I shall do, and that is basically trying to categorize any article that needs categories, however..... I have an issue

It's a bit time consuming finding categories for an article manually, and I wonder if there was like a tool to find categories kinda automatically UselessAccount20 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @UselessAccount20: if you're not yet using HotCat, you might want to give that a try. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can it be used on mobile devices, or do I just have to use it in a computer? UselessAccount20 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be used, with difficulty, in "desktop view" on mobile, but not in "mobile view". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

UselessAccount20, I'd dissuade you from attempting to "categorize any article that needs categories". Better to limit yourself to articles in a single subject area. When you've moderately familiarized yourself with the category tree(s) most helpful for that (and thanks to this have sped up somewhat), consider adding a second subject area. (Ditto for a third, etc.) And be sure to read and digest Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

i think I'll do my own thing, thanks

I'll read the Wikipedia articles about categories, but I'd rather you not stop me from doing what I truly want to do UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Please read WP:CIVIL. David10244 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I am not trying to escalate this further, but like how is it uncivil to say that

Like there's an editor trying to discourage me from doing what I want, and I feel like that just ain't fair, I can find out by myself what I should do when placing categories in.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

David10244 asked you to read the civility guidelines because while not the most uncivil thing ever written what you wrote was certainly dismissive and rude, Also you asked for advice with categorization and Hoary gave genuine good faith advice(also good advice to boot), to which you replied in the aforementioned manner. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

what I was asking is that if there were a better way to place categories instead of finding them manually, and the editor didn't seem to completely answer my question unfortunately..

Rather, they were just saying that I should do something else.. that wasn't any advice related to if there were a tool that could find categories, like at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Editors here may discourage you from doing what you want if what you want to do does not help the encyclopedia. Trying to add categories to articles before you understand Wikipedia’s categorization system would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. And yes, saying "I think I'll do my own thing, thanks" is kind of brusque. You can't just do your own thing here; there are lots of policies and guidelines. David10244 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20: Sometimes the answer that you think you want is not the answer that you need. As a very new editor, you really need to work your way up, practising basic editing skills before trying things like categorisation. WP:TASKS breaks down the kinds of editing tasks available in order of experience. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I am continuing to contribute via categories, and I seem to be doing quite well in my opinion...

I'll read that article later, but let me do what I want.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

And I also don't see what I am doing to contribute is a problem to basically every host in the Teahouse.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I also don't know why you're so obsessed with discouraging me when I help with categories.. Almost as if you don't want me to edit at all. UselessAccount20 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I...

Hiiii!!! Hope yall are having a great day. If this is possible, how do I look back at my history of the articles I have browsed. Thanks :):):):) QueenBeeeeee (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or if it can be done on the site, but at least in the Android app, you can click the "Activity" tab at the bottom of the screen. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 02:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you looking for a particular page? Also welcome to wikipedia! :D Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @QueenBeeeeee.

If you mean looking at your browsing history of Wikipedia articles, I don't think believe is a way in the website version. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Aww, thanks @The Ars Goetia. :D !! And thanks for your advice @ColinFine QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@QueenBeeeeee If you are reading Wikipedia in a browser, most browsers can show all of your browsing history, which would include pages from Wikipedia and from other Web sites. David10244 (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

An odd proposal that I'm not sure is possible but here goes

Would it be possible to add another tab for articles called 'Forums', where people can discuss the article subject without violating WP:NOTFORUM? Currently the biggest forum site is Reddit and they've been involved in a myriad of controversies. Accessible, free forums that don't take all of your personal information would be genuinely huge for a lot of people. Plus, there's a large amount of edit filters and precautions already, so the need for constant moderation is very limited. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This would be better for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This would be unlikely to get support. Most editors specifically want to avoid turning Wikipedia into social media or anything resembling it, especially since it wouldn't help with the collaborative environment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is what's termed a "perennial proposal", DollarStoreBa'al. Please don't propose it yet again, at least until you have read, have carefully considered, and are able to concisely and persuasively refute "Allow discussion about the topic of the article" (a dismissal of the proposal). -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s why I didn’t push further. I didn’t actually know about those but I did eventually find them and saw how common it was. Honestly, I kind of expected this to go nowhere, but tried just in case. Also, this is just me signed out because I’m too lazy to sign in on my phone. ~2026-28001-91 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary That's a great explanation -- being able to "concisely and persuasively refute" what's there. David10244 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

47th Tennessee Article expanded

Hello, i've just expanded the 47th Tennessee Infantry Regiment, and i would want an experienced editor to check on it incase i got anything wrong and issues within it, Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Commanders section is unsourced. That definitely needs to be fixed. Also I don't think you mean "350.58 caliber" but probably "350 .58 caliber" (that is, there were 350 of the .58 caliber rifles). You might consider rephrasing to get the two numbers separated: "350 rifles of .58 caliber" or something like that. (Also, "managed to hand out" is either too much information or too little. You could go with a neutral word like "distributed" or explain more about this event.) Just some thoughts. M kuhner (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've done Pretty much you've said, anymore you've encountered? SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Putting it on the article talk page as probably not of general interest. M kuhner (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional citations and definition disagreement

Two questions about an article I wrote a few years ago and have always been keeping check on. Article in question.

1. a flag requiring additional citations was posted on it and I'm not entirely sure what exactly they are looking for and what they have a problem with. Regarding the topic, the availability of information is scarce and is mostly in older print books. I've done what I can but I definitely don't think the information is worth removing because there are simply not enough sources or that the topic isn't worthy or an article, especially given the topic.
2. someone has removed all references to nomadism from the article because they disagree that transhumance is a form of nomadism. regardless of my opinion or their opinion, in keeping with wikipedia's own views, transhumance is a form of nomadism according to the wikipedia article for transhumance. I just do not know how to argue this over the notes on a wikipedia edit and I have no desire to get into an edit war.

Many thanks Busmargali (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

A quick 30 second glance over the article didn't show any points obvious to me that require a citation. One thing to note is that the article uses some general references, which may add to the confusion, as these are not tiesd to a specific claim but rather refer to the article as a whole.

As for nomadism and transhumance: this claim will require citations, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. I haven't looked through the sources, so I am unsure if they support transhumance as a form of nomadism. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I would definitely not regard regard transhumance as a form of nomadism. Would anyone regard the participants in la Mesta as nomads? If you disgaree, you'll need to supply a good reference. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how to nominate a file for speedy deletion

Hello, I apologise for this, I'm new. But this photo is not Own Work, I'm 10000% sure of it (look at the username tag in the lower right): File:Antonio as john logan -Apr 26.jpg

I'm not sure how to nominate this for speedy deletion. Feel free to do it yourself, though, if you'd like. This is a blatant copyvio because it's clearly been pulled from someone else's Instagram story. Handsome Ellis (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The file is at Commons, which is a different site (it supplies media across all Wikis). Go to this link where you can authenticate your account across wikis. Then you can nominate for deletion if you like. The link is on the right-side panel on a desktop view. JFHJr (㊟) 05:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I know how to nominate a file for deletion, but I've been advised to nominate for speedy deletion next time instead of regular in blatant cases like this. Thank you. Handsome Ellis (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This ({{SD|F1}})? JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This does not fit the Commons Speedy Deletion Criteria. You need to provide evidence that it was pulled from an Instagram story. I strongly advise you to nominate it for regular deletion. CatholicChristian (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Turn on the "Quick Delete" gadget in your preferences on Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia). Then, a "Report copyright violation" button will appear under "Nominate for deletion". Click that, then simply enter the URL of where it was taken from. Alternatively, you can do it manually by adding {{copyvio|Your reason or source}} onto the file page. I have done it for you. If you need more help about Wikimedia Commons, ask at c:Commons:Help desk instead of here. HyperAnd [talk] 08:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think this fits the Commons Speedy Deletion Criteria. Evidence needs to be provided that it was pulled from an Instagram story. If I am mistaken, please correct me. CatholicChristian (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I already tagged it as speedy deletion with this link as evidence. HyperAnd [talk] 11:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Draft Article Citations

Hi! I've been editing a draft article titled "Kargil Democratic Alliance", It was declined due to "youtube is not a reliable source", I've rechecked with wiki-policies (WP:SPS and WP:RSPYT) and found they are within line of it, would request an independent editor to re-cheak the same before submission. Sarim Wani (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Irrespective of the reliability of the sources, you need to use named references since at present you have multiple uses of the same source listed as if they were different ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes 1 citations was double errored to 3, at present it's now fixed

I request the community to find anyother citations error if they exist. Sarim Wani (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia don't transcribe words, especially names, from non-English languages of Latin alphabet to English ?

Hello! Why Wikipedia don't transcribe words, especially names, from non-English languages of Latin alphabet to English ?
This is total cringe to read all these words with English letters with diacritic marks because average person who can read in English
1) don't know how words in these non-English language sound
2)don't know how to read (or don't pay attention to read) transcription notation, if it is present
3)Even if he can read transcription notation of this non-English word and such transcription is present in the lead of article, he will not immideately remember it and will have difficulty to read this word further in the text of article.

Isn't it a common sense to keep transcription and original spelling at the first place where such word appears in article but the use it transcribed to English language Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Average Encyclopedia Fan I don't understand. Please link to a clear example. English uses the Latin alphabet (with the addition of W) and the Latin script is used to write over 3,000 other languages. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, Average Encyclopedia Fan, that what is now Łódź is a city in central Poland and a former industrial centre. It is the capital of Łódź Voivodeship, and is located 120 km (75 mi) south-west of Warsaw. As of 2025, Łódź has a population of 639,890, making it the country's fourth largest city. should instead be something like Wooch (in Polish, ⟨Łódź⟩) is a city in central Poland and a former industrial centre. It is the capital of Wooch Voivodeship, and is located 120 km (75 mi) south-west of Warsaw. As of 2025, Wooch has a population of 639,890, making it the country's fourth largest city.? -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Lodz is not the hardest word to spell and to read even in Poland with diacritic marks, I assume it sounds Lodz as it. But, in general, it would be easier readers of en-Wikipedia to read words in English, words transcribed to standard English pronouncation, by some strandard Englsh rules of transcription. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That occasionally happens, @Average Encyclopedia Fan look at Chinese articles, they usually use Pinyin/Wade-Giles transcription to be able to be read. But it wouldn’t make much sense to spell it how it sounds, Worcester would become Wooster (technically still an English name but still), or Gouyave as Gworv, among various other examples. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Worcester is English word, it does not need additional transcribing. While words - names of persons, places withg diacrits - in Polish, Danish, Norwegian etc need it. Readers don't know how to read these diacrits, despite these languages use Latin alpabet. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Help!

I can't find a reference on Google, can someone help me, I haven't made anything yet. EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

references! EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References for what? Help: Referencing for beginners might answer some questions you may have. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration. I CHECKED GOOGLE EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources at all, it may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But you could ask at the Reference Desk. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You may need to look for books or “deeper” sources (by deeper I mean not just a Google search and looking at the first page) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find references for Draft:1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration, I wonder why you created this single-sentence stub, and why you did so just 13 minutes before asking for help, EndermanSurfgo. (Incidentally, conflagrations are usually called fires.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Mmm if only I had references EndermanSurfgo (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@EndermanSurfgo You chose to describe the draft as the 1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration and, if that's what you're googling, this might be the issue. I did a google search for Saint-Sauveur fire 1889, which brought up 3 viable hits on the first page and Gemini (ie the AI blurb at the top of the search page) suggests it might be more commonly referred to as "The Great Fire of Saint-Sauveur". I also looked for Saint-Sauveur incendie 1889 which brought up different but also useful links albeit in French. Another reason to reconsider the name of your draft is that there is already a Great Fire of Quebec City (1866). Since your topic is historic, suggest try limiting the google search to "books", try Google News Archives which has lot of old Canadian papers including the Montreal Gazette, and if you're in QC, you could ask a local librarian for help. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

dont ask me I am trying to make an article for it, better for it to be a redirect. anyway WHEN WILL I BE LUCKY BECAUSE DANG, I HAVE DONE 2 MISUNDERSTANDINGS, OF ARTICLES EndermanSurfgo (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft review request: Tim Lattie

Can someone take a quick look at my draft (Draft:Tim Lattie) and let me know if anything will cause it to be declined? Teamlattie (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Teamlattie: You're going to need to change your username if you want to continue editing; we do not accept role accounts. As for your sources...

• We can't use https://www.webtoons.com/p/community/en/u/TEAMLATTIE (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• We can't use Amazon (online storefront).
• https://idwpublishing.com/blogs/news/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-comic-book-retro-80s-cartoon doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in a press release from a firm hiring him.
• We can't link to, let alone cite, forum.sanctuary.fr (copyright infringement).
• We can't use https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/people/20838/tim-lattie/comics (too sparse). Content-free curriculum vitae.
• https://www.epictalesfromthesewers.com/epic-tales-from-the-sewers-with-artist-tim-lattie/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview. (An interview is never going to be usable as a source for eligibility regardless of whether or not it's conducted by a New York Times journo or Borat Sagdiyev.)

I note that all of your sources include "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" at the end. LLMs like ChatGPT are completely worthless at source assessment. My recommendation, after you get that username changed, is to strip this down to the studs, go back to the drawing board, and research your sources without using LLMs. We're looking for in-depth, independent news reports about Lattie that are published by outlets with editorial oversight (reviews of his work would also be acceptable). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Any citations for ru sib

Hello. I am Arenghtqru888, and I have a draft for Siberian Wikipedia. So far, my only citations are the discussions to delete and close the article and wikipedia of ru-sib. I'm pretty sure 4 citations are not enough. Is there any other sources I can use? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

We cannot help with matters unrelated to the English-language Wikipedia; each project has its own policies, standards, and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that they're asking about writing an article for en.wiki about ru-sib.wiki, not writing an article for the defunct project itself. That having been said, the article only cites primary sources at the moment, which would suggest that it falls short of notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What other sources are there? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Arenghtqru888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

If there are no sources that each meet all of those criteria, then the subject is not notable, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a fascinating tale, Arenghtqru888, if only a very minor one. How proficient are you at googling/duckduckgoing/etc for potential sources in Russian? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

can barely find source, no russian understanding, no iq for translation Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Then Arenghtqru888, you might try to interest someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia in doing a little Russian-language searching. (But perhaps you've already tried. If so, better not repeat.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

sure! thanks for the help Arenghtqru888 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

extended-confirmed user rights

How do you get extended-confirmed user rights? or what do you need to work towards to get it? also what does it do? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Your account needs to be at least 30 days old and have at least 500 edits. You'll then have access to the Wikipedia Library and be able to edit any articles that are extended-confirmed-protected. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

So it automatically adds onto your account after you meet the requirements? no need to apply like with admin positions? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it's automatic. Think of it as the next level after being autoconfirmed. Like autoconfirmed, it's much more common than being an admin; I think there were about 80,000 extended confirmed users, last I checked. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sick! Thank you john for your help Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem. :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 Small correction, the Wikipedia Library requires 6+ months editing, not 30 days, in addition to 500+ edits. This should also be automatically applied when an account meets the criteria. NovaHyperion^talk 06:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you're absolutely right. Thanks for correcting me. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Does 6 months editing mean 6 months of days with edits or 6 months after your first edit? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

6 months after your account is created. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

oh awesome Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars Goetia please be aware that you shouldn't try to game the right, and that ideally, you should try to make 500 constructive edits (e.g. adding citations, reverting vandalism) instead. Happy editing, Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I read through the link and I promise not to treat it like a game, only enthusiastic about this because I thought you had to apply like with adminship and found out that I'm actually quite close to being one myself, I'll continue to make the best contributions I can. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

2nd Question today

I got declined just a few hours ago(for my article Draft:Eliot K-8 Innovation School). I reviewed the citations, and also added a few citations from NBC and Boston Globe. I kinda organized a similar table to the one in WP:ORG, correct me if I'm wrong, but my main question is if this is enough citations in order for the article to be accepted. If not, how much more would I actually need? I also made the text smaller if that is okay(i don't want to flood)

(Source, Significant?, Independent?, Reliable?, Secondary?)

DonorsChoose, X, X, X, X

Boston Public Schools #2, X, X, Y, X

US News & World Report #3, X(ranking), Y, Y, Y

School Official Site #4, $28, #29, and more, X, X, X, X

Boston Globe(land swap article), Y(it's about the land swap of eliot and north ebnnet), Y, Y, Y

Boston Globe(ESD affects article), ??, Y, Y, Y

Boston Globe(school ranking), X(yes i knowD: it is not significant, it is a ranking), Y, Y, Y

BEST ONE: WBUR(i thikn under NPR) #15, Y(directly), Y, Y, Y

The New York Times #13, ?, Y, Y, ?

Harvard University Press #11, Y, Y, Y, Y

Boston College (rebellion article), Y, Y, Y, Y

Northend.page, X, Y, ?, Y

North End Reg. Rev., X, Y, X, Y

CBS News #51, Y, Y, Y, Y

NBC Boston(COVID article) #52, ?(slightly), Y, Y, Y

Boston Magazine (boston latin school feeder), X(not significant enough), Y, Y, Y

Raj Das(reviewer noted before), N, N, N, N

GreatSchools, N, Y, N, N

Champions extracur. website, X, ?(since it is partnered with the school), X, X

guidestar, X, Y, X, X

NEREJ construction, X, Y, ???, Y

Youtube Video, X, X, X, X(even if i want it to be D:)

unnatural selection, X, X, X, X

Government Stats, X, Y, Y, X

City of Boston Government, Y, ?, YES!!!, ?

Paul Revere House(bio), ?(it's about an alumni), Y, Y, Y

Colantonio(the construction group for the construction for land swap, as in the Boston Globe article above), Y, Y, N, N

Any other feedback on my article would also be appreciated!!!!! Welovecontributors! [talk] 13:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors!: Please remove the small-font markup you inexplicably included to make your contribution above accommodate WP:ACCESSIBILITY. (And please consider changing your signature to accommodate MOS:CONTRAST on a white background.) Bazza 7 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors! That is hard to read, being so small. There's no need for that. David10244 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you throw away any sources you have assessed as xxxx, keep the YYYY and look carefully at the rest. Articles need to be based almost exclusively on the golden rules for sourcing. That is, we look for quality, not quantity. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright Welovecontributors! [talk] 23:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Situation with citations

Have been tooling a bit with this page on the wife of a Qara Qoyunlu ruler (Had to pretty much rip the guts out of the article, since much of the text used to be so off-topic that I wasn't sure it was possible to salvage, but that's another story). The text itself is sourced, however the sources are listed in persian rather than english, and thus only readable if you know that language. However, when I put the citation into google translate, it actually came back with a comprehendable english citation. Can the citations on this page be replaced with google translated versions, or should they be left as is in Persian? LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be better for the citations to be in English, but it's best if you confirm that the translated citations are correct, as I can imagine something like a book or journal title could be translated multiple ways. It would be ideal if you could provide an ISBN/ISSN/DOI or some other standardized identifier. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know zero persian. Is there a way to contact a user who can specifically read persian to look at it? LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:EMBASSY has a list of editors who are 'ambassadors' for other languages and can help with issues like this. @Jeeputer and @Mhhossein are our Persian ambassadors, apparently. Athanelar (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is great to know about, thank you LincolnMagnus (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@LincolnMagnus: Let me know if you have any specific questions on the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just wondering if they all are actually straightforward formatted citations that can be rendered in English? LincolnMagnus (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LincolnMagnus. The citation should be to the cited source, whatever language it is in. It can be helpful to add one or more of the following:

• an English translation of the title
• a quotation from the source that verifies the information in question
• a translation of that quotation.

Templates such as {{cite book}} have arguments for all those.

WP:NONENG says Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Billy Trudel

I wrote a bio page on my career and was flagged for being fraud, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong? Can someone please help clarify what mistakes I'm doing. Billy Trudel (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article is unsourced and created using AI, I'm only surprised that it has been declined twice, it should have been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I wrote this not AI, so what is the best way for me to re-write my credits? Billy Trudel (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

By finding another website - we don't host pure curricula vitae, and as noted by Theroadislong, you have zero reliable sources, which is fatal to an article about a living person, autobiographies included. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I am mentioned in The City (band) on wikipedia and Davey Johnston wikipedia page with our band warpipes. so is it how I wrote it? Billy Trudel (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also mentioned in Elton John One Night Only Wikipedia Billy Trudel (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Billy Trudel: Are you even reading what me and TRiL are writing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Being mentioned on other Wikipedia pages doesn't mean anything, unfortunately. Please take a look at our notability requirements for musicians. Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

While the points the others have brought up are very valid, I'm surprised nobody appears to have directed you to Wikipedia's page on conflicts of interest yet, nor the page on autobiographies on Wikipedia, both of which apply to you. Before proceeding, I'd recommend reading and understanding the information there, along with the page on reliable sources that was linked to you already, as I see from your sandbox edits that you intend to use YouTube and Discogs as references, both of which are discouraged (as explained here and here for YouTube, and here for Discogs). Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 01:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 maint unrecognized language for a literally unrecognized language?

I've been going through the category Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language, and I found this page. The issue is that the language used for the offending citation does actually exist, it's not a typo or anything. It's just not recognized as ISO 639-2 (it is as 639-3). That ends up resulting in the same maint error, even if I use either full language name (associated with the page Angami language) OR the ISO-639-3 code (njm).

Is there anything I can do in this situation to get the error to go away? I'd like to take this page off the list so that I can move on to others. I remember reading on another tracking category description that double parenthesis silences maint errors. It doesn't seem to work in this field, unfortunately for me. I'm not sure where I'd find an answer to this question, so I'm asking here. I'm not experienced with actually creating good citations, I'm just trying to find little tasks to latch on to.
Thanks, TheGrapeEscape (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Per description at Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language (emphasis mine): This is a tracking category for CS1 citations that use |language= where the assigned value is not recognized by MediaWiki. MediaWiki recognizes all of the ISO 639-1 two-character codes and some of the ISO 639-2 three-character codes, along with the full official names of the languages corresponding to those codes. Unfortunately, Template:Citation Style documentation/language/doc does not list Angami language as a supported language.

You might get better answers about language support in citation templates at Help talk:Citation Style 1, which is the centralized location for discussing Module:Citation and its subpages. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply, and for pointing me to the correct talk/doc pages. It seems like this is a well known issue, so I am definitely not the person to be confused by this. Since it's a MediaWiki limitation, at the very least it would be better to allow the error to be silenced. Worth a try to start a discussion on that subject, though.
Thanks again, TheGrapeEscape (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for help with COI draft

I have a draft at Draft:Stylist Srushtee about an Indian fashion stylist based in Mumbai. I have a conflict of interest as I am connected to the subject and have disclosed this on my talk page. The draft has one independent citation from Mid-Day newspaper. Could an experienced editor kindly review the draft and submit it for AfC review if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines? Thank you. Stylistsrushtee (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs more citations. Currently, both citations are exactly the same. I'll see if I can find any. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't seem to find any reliable sources for the draft. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@User97104 Your signature (the last part) is hard to read in dark mode; I suspect that the first part is hard to read in light mode. Can you improve the contrast please? David10244 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It's all hard to read in light mode.

@User97104 Have a look at MOS:ONWHITE which has a list of colours that are approved to be up to accessibility standards for readability on a white background. Athanelar (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've already been notified about this on my talk page, i'll fix this in a bit. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 12:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I added the AFC template so that you can submit it once it is ready for submission, but as the above person said (apologies, I can't read your username), it is not ready right now due to lack of sources and would be declined. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 @SomeoneDreaming @Athanelar, fixed. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 12:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Much better! Athanelar (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@User97104 Yes, better, thanks! David10244 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Allow me for one edit on mercy street. Just one guy to add

Reese request ~2026-29158-06 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, welcome! What is the edit in question? And is it on the article Mercy Street or Mercy_Street_(TV_series)? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding an External link section

I tried to add an External link section to Damion Searls, but, when I did, it made the References disappear. How do I do it right? Or would someone please create an External link section and I will add the External links and will be able to see how it was done? Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Y Done. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have noted how you did it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Art

My first draft & articles

Hi, so i been working on a lot of draft articles. The first draft I'm currently working on is the Draft:iPhone Ultra project. This is one of the first drafts I made and i put a lot of detail includeing using multiple sources, the sources must be reliable, and written from a neutral point of view, and it is due to be submitted for review in September, based on the leaks of the device and the draft is up to date also. I also started the Draft:Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Draft:Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 weeks later, which are also due to be submitted for review in July. Now all of the drafts are currently meeting WP:GNG, but they're not ready for the mainspace. And I'm working on 21 drafts so far. And I have 2 articles done and 2 templates that were created directly with no draft. Draft:iOS 27, which I'm contributing to, is notable, and it's due to be ready for the mainspace in 2 weeks. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 15:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. What question do you have about them, exactly? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to convert the drafts into a redirect, and move to the mainspace the day before the event happens, because I may have to do that with Draft:iPhone Ultra, converting it into a redirect to iPhone, and move to the mainspace to prevent edit wars? This happened to the articles IPhone 15, IPhone 15 Pro, and IPhone 16. See the oldest page history when the devices were going to be announced. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 16:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why would you convert your draft to a redirect? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Cosmic840, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It sounds as if you think that it's important that Wikipedia have an article on this the minute it is released. It is absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a news source, and there is no deadline. It's far more important that an article be well-sourced than that it come out a day or a month or even a year earlier than it might do.

I also suspect (judging from my own experience twenty years ago) that you really really want to be the one that gets the article in about this new thing. My answer to that would be that an editor who finds and adds one high-quality source to an existing article that lacks it has added more value to Wikipedia than somebody who writes two or twenty or two hundred stubs with mediocre sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

First, please take a look at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Anonymous 'leaks' are not suitable sources for a Wikipedia article, so you are incorrect that these articles currently meet GNG. What's your hurry? Write the article when the phone actually comes out and you've got something to write about. Athanelar (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do my best. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 19:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

User: ~2026-27776-84

The account refuses to make any compromises and reverts edits without proper justification. It cites reasons that, however, lack any validity. I tried to make compromises, but I was met only with straw man arguments. Mehmed Nâzım (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mehmed Nâzım, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read and follow the steps in dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

founder of French House/French Touch

re: media shy GenX creator but essential founder of French House/French Touch edm movement

Hello Everyone! I am seeking some input/assistance for my article Pépé Bradock which was tentatively approved by an editor with 51 edits but has a warning of removal. This GenX producer is a French electronic music producer and DJ associated with founding the French house/deep house music movement. The references that I used references are independent secondary sources and industry leading media outlets with writing from established music journalists and cultural institutions covering electronic music history and criticism. Included are articles from: The Guardian Pitchfork Resident Advisor SPIN Red Bull Music Academy Daily Tsugi Google Arts & Culture

I am asking for support as would like to work on making a DYK item, because this producer is quite eccentric and has many fun facts to share. But I don't want to do this if the article is in jeopardy and not sure how long I have to do the DYK item.

I have ordered some books on the French Touch movement via my local library so can use those as references also but will be in a week. Does anyone have any advice please? Much appreciated and in warm solidarity, I&I22 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Eeeek! I see that I only have 7 days to make the DYK item. I hope that the books arrive on time, but also there are many articles focused on his work, so not sure why his notability is being questioned. I don't need to debate the notability though, please, just want to understand if it is really accurate as is a junior editor. Thank you I&I22 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I see that this editor The Grid is removing my cited edits from other article regarding French house music..... I&I22 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You might have to debate notability, though; that's a crucial part of an article, and if a new page reviewer has concerns, they may very well not be alone.

Unfortunately, you kinda pushed this timeline, and you could have gotten things polished up and ready through the WP:AFC process. If a DYK nom is such a big deal, then rather than quickly trying to finish up the article to force one through in seven days, you should consider a move back to draft space WP:ATD-I, WP:DRAFTIFY. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs yes, I understand as have been through this all before. He is a notable producer, which is why I have bothered to spend my finite time creating the article. His missing article means the Wikipedia representation of the French House music movement and its context is faulty and incomplete. Yes, to adding even more of my credible citations! It's just so random and uneven this process. Looking at this article Eorcengota, which I find to be a beautiful history but frugally cited and quite awfully written, and yet there it is and listed on the front page, sigh. Anyways, will persevere. I&I22 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you see WP:NOTABLEPEOPLE and WP:42? There's also WP:GNG. That usually gets notability. For refresher, if you can find very wide coverage on him, and it's WP:RS, verifiable, and not original research, then he's probably notable.

I'd consider myself a junior editor, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Campssitie. Yes, I follow the WP: Notability for music guidelines, which he absolutely fits. I mean he is part of a massive and well-documented electronic dance movement! I listed them ALL in the the article's talk page. My rush is that I wish to create a WP: Did you Know as he is quite eccentric so there is a short timeline to fix and secure the article. Anyways, I think it might be ok and await the books so can confirm book citations. All the very best, I&I22 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

GenX creators who are/were media shy are very challenging to make articles for, as their contributions fall within the crossover from analogue to digital media. Very challenging, even if are/were important founders of movements. I&I22 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's challenging.

While you wait for the books to arrive, try finding more digital sources to further solidify the notability concerns. More sources the better!

I'll keep my mouth shut on if the article will get killed or not, but being an important part of a movement probably would not be enough for notability...

shimmer this with a lot of salt please ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete account

My account deletion ~2026-30861-61 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted for technical and legal reasons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't delete a temporary account; it will naturally be deactivated however in 90 days of the account's creation. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete account

Please delete my page. Tyrianboat (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Once again - Accounts cannot be deleted for technical and legal reasons. This account also has no edits other than this request, thus nothing to delete. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tyrianboat, I saw your posts here at the Teahouse and at the help desk.

Just to be sure: are you asking about deleting your Wikipedia account, or are you asking about deleting a Wikipedia article about you? MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 19:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No review for my Wikipedia draft

Cleaning up a reactivated WikiProject members list

Several editors are currently in the process of reactivating WikiProject Feminism, and one of the most daunting tasks, necessary for gauging current participation is to clean up the members list, but are unsure with how to proceed, as the list has over 300 members, several of whom I have confirmed have not made an edit in years, but without a practical way to determine activity for every single person on the list, are unsure how to proceed. Does anyone have some advice on how to manage this? Mitchsavl (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just thinking of manually going through all 400 or so members (400 including inactive members to check for those who may now be active) and copy pasting their name into Special:Contributions/Example if I do it a person a minute ill get it done in under 7 hours (not amazing but I'm totally fine doing that) I just need to know what date to look for (inactive if the last edit was a month ago, 6 months, or a year?) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, a year seems to be the most common, so I'd say that would be the best. Good luck! Mitchsavl (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well if thats it I'll have it done in two shakes of a little lamb's tail! Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If your issue is just pasting 400 names into a fixed expression, try doing it offline with a text editor or a couple of lines of scripting code, or ask someone to help with that. Not a fun way to spend your time! I did something like this with just 27 articles to check, and by the end I was really sorry I hadn't written code (which I easily could have). M kuhner (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I just did it all manually I felt it could be easier but I put on some music and snacks and knocked it out in like 4-5 hours Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, good on you! That's a project for sure. M kuhner (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

contradictory sources

I'm trying to fix an article on a Ugandan newspaper (New Vision): the article got a big LLM edit and had hallucinated sources. Most of that is okay now, but I am getting more and more confused about the History paragraph. I have four sources that list the predecessors of New Vision and how it's related to them, and *no two of them agree.* One lists a paper The National Mirror that I can't find any signs of elsewhere; the others don't mention it. One (from New Vision itself) says that New Vision just bought the earlier papers' premises: others say that the Uganda Argus was sequentially renamed to the Voice of Uganda, Uganda Times, then New Vision. Dates don't agree either. Summarizing this defeats me utterly. (The contradictions are not an LLM problem as all sources date before the LLM era.) What's a good way to approach a problem like this? M kuhner (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

M kuhner, perhaps something like:

Descriptions of the predecessors of New Vision are contradictory:

• New Vision bought the premises of the recently bankrupt paper Middle-Aged Vision.^[ref]
• The Uganda Argus was successively renamed the Voice of Uganda, Uganda Times, and finally New Vision.^[ref]
• The Uganda Herald Tribune was forcibly closed and its assets used for New Vision.^[ref]
• The bank account of the Kampala Courier–Statesman was raided and diverted to New Vision.^[ref]

My examples are merely fictional, of course. You could/should add dates and other details. Alternatively, and very likely better:

Descriptions of the predecessors of New Vision disagree.

together with a Template:Efn note saying something like:

As examples, (i) the Uganda Herald Tribune was forcibly closed and its assets used for New Vision;^[ref] (ii) the Uganda Argus was successively renamed the Voice of Uganda, Uganda Times, and finally New Vision.^[ref]

-- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)