Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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

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

Help to get page published

Hi!

I’ve been working on a Wikipedia biography for the musician Peter Lodwick, and I’m wondering what the best next step would be to get it published.

Would anyone here be willing to take a look at the draft and give me some feedback on what needs to be changed or improved before I submit it for review?

I have already published a Norwegian wiki page on Peter Lodwick but find it more difficult with the English page.

I’d especially appreciate advice on anything that should be changed or improved to meet the English Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks in advance!

Best, May MaySundAnd (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MaySundAnd. You last edited your sandbox, where the Peter Lodwick draft is, back in January - but you have not actually submitted this for review so no reviewer has seen it.

I've moved it now to Draft:Peter Lodwick and submitted it for review for you. qcne (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :-D

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

We actually have a deleted draft lying under there. Lectonar (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@MaySundAnd en:WP has very strict policy regarding citations in biographies of living people. It didn't take me long to find problems in your draft. For example, the section on Brobyggere (Bridgebuilders) has the evaluative statement The intention was to build bridges between different art forms, such as music, song, movement and text, and create untraditional performances, hence the company's chosen name. Gunnar Brunvoll, the manager of the Norwegian Opera and Ballet intended Brobyggere to be a touring company under the umbrella of the opera. but the only citation is to a primary source that seems to be a contract. It says nothing whatsoever about intention. For this sort of reason, your submission is likely to be an immediate "decline" unless you fix these issues before the review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi again! I found this video interview in a public Norwegian archive, where Peter Lodwick talks about what seems to support the statements in the draft about his motivation and artistic inspiration:

https://danseinfo.no/videointervju/peter-john-lodwick/

Would this be considered a reliable and sufficient source for those claims in the wiki page about him?

Since the interview is in Norwegian, would the relevant parts need to be transcribed and/or translated into English in order to use it as a citation?

Also, if the same interview supports several statements in different parts of the article, is it acceptable to cite the same source multiple times where those claims appear, or would it be better to consolidate the information into one section?

Thanks!

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that interviews are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MaySundAnd. Just to expand on what @Theroadislong said: interviews can be used to cite uncontroversial biographic information about the person, and can be cited multiple times, and do not have to be translated into English.

Your draft has many sections without any sources and we do need citations for all the information which currently is unsourced.

I've not checked if Peter meets our criteria for inclusion: that's where you can't use interviews as evidence to show if the person meets that criteria, because it's just the person talking about themselves. What we generally need is three really strong secondary sources, not based off interviews, that go into critical commentary about his work. qcne (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have sources such as this Sceneweb production page:

https://sceneweb.no/nb/production/2348/Dans_for%20Deg

and several links to contemporary newspaper reviews of his productions, for example:

https://sceneweb.no/nb/multimedia/117830

Would newspaper reviews and sources like these be considered strong enough to contribute towards meeting the notability criteria for inclusion?

Thanks again for your help! MaySundAnd (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe. I can't access the papers (which is fine, sources can be offline as long as they are published). If they contain some in-depth critical review of his work not based off interviews, and the newspapers have some reach (i.e. not just a village newsletter) it might satisfy the criteria. qcne (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your quick reply.

I found this article in Bergens Tidende, Norway’s fifth-largest newspaper and the largest newspaper outside Oslo:

https://www.bt.no/kultur/i/d7gzz/fengende-opplysningsdans

I also think I can get access to several of the older newspaper reviews through newspaper archives if I request them, although some may require subscriptions to the individual newspapers.

Would an article like the Bergens Tidende piece, together with a few in-depth reviews from other independent newspapers, potentially be enough?

BR, May MaySundAnd (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Source code for User Page

Hi Wikipedians. I'm wondering if someone can help me clean up the layout of my User Page, which you will see is a mess layout-wise. I don't have any source code skills, and whenever I try to change the code via source editing to rearrange things either nothing happens, or I make it worse. I've got the various tags and barnstars I want on the page, but they're all over the place. I'd appreciate any advice as to how to get them laid out more elegantly. Thanks. Dropbear2 (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dropbear2. Try finding a user page that's laid out the way you want yours to be laid out and then either play around with the code in your user sandbox or simply ask the other user for help. I'd image lots of user pages are created that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Marchjuly. I'll give it a go. Fingers crossed. Dropbear2 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dropbear2 One very simple thing that usually helps a lot is to wrap all your user boxes with the templates {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I'll try it out. Dropbear2 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I just tried to improve the layout by combining the userboxes as explained above and moving them up. Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. That's much tidier now. I think the problem is solved. Thanks to everyone in the Wikipedia community who helped. And good luck with your own work. Dropbear2 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Article draft declined

Hello guys, my article draft has been declined because it doesnt meet the criteria for inclusion of events. I‘m not sure why that is?

It has significant coverage with a Namus, NCMEC, Charley Project pages and an NBC article.

It has lasting significance because of the NBC article published 37 years after the disappearance.

All of my sources are reliable and independant.

This is all from my own perspective of course.

I‘m assuming I‘m misinterpreting one of these requirements, can somebody tell me what im missing? Walter (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, five out of the six sources are what I would consider "primary sources" under these circumstances - and maybe the sixth one as well. I would suggest focusing away from those and looking for mainstream coverage - not missing person reports or cold-case specials, but actual news reports and magazine articles about them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I definitely get that with the database websites being primary sources, but how is NBC as primary source?? Sorry I am still learning about primary+secondary sources in school and am not great at telling them apart Walter (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Any advice on expanding more niche articles?

Recently, I've been trying to get out of my comfort zone of tweaking parameters and adding citations to expand out articles more. The problem for me is a lot of the articles in question don't seem to have a whole lot of coverage on it. I've even encountered articles where I couldn't find more than one reliable source relating to it. I feel like I'm doing something wrong when it comes to finding information about what I'm trying to work on. Any advice on seeking that out? ɯoꓷ▲^talk 14:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That depends a lot on what kinds of topics you edit about, i. e. what kind of sources are likely to be available. For academic sources, use academic indexers like EBSCO, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, etc. For news, there's probably one or more services that index news articles in your country; ProQuest also has some newspapers, etc. You should have a look at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which can give you access to a lot of these things. You can also search the catalogues of any libraries you have access to.

If you do a reasonably thorough search and only find one reliable source, and the article doesn't have more, it might just be that the topic isn't notable, and you could consider nominating it for deletion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Wikipedia Library until now, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the pointers, Madeline from Celeste! ɯoꓷ▲^talk 15:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You might find it fun to try this experimental tool that a friend and I made: https://projo.toolforge.org/. If you type in a topic area, it'll recommend related articles that are short or need cleanup but have a lot of pageviews from readers, which suggests that they may be interesting topics worthy of expanding.

I just put in "hip-hop" (inspired by your user page), filtered the results to below 30% quality, selected "needs cleanup", and got this list. For example, I see Lench Mob Records, which is interesting but quite short and could be expanded; Delicious Vinyl, which could use a few more citations for the paragraphs that don't have any citations yet; and Electric boogaloo (dance), which would benefit from a bit of rewriting to get it into a more encyclopedic style.

I also tried putting in "snacks" and got this list. Did you know that every day about 260 people visit the Cheez-It article, but it needs more citations?! And about 180 people read Famous Amos every day, but the lead needs to be expanded! It also needs more citations. Could be fun. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ay, this looks really interesting! I'll give this a look see. ɯoꓷ▲^talk 11:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Where to file a report if TAs with a very wide range vandalizes a wikipage?

Hi, so In Keu Bole Biplobi Keu Bole Dakat there was a brief edit war between me and some TAs that were repeatedly POV pushing the name "GMbulbul" which I assume is a Social media handle of some dude, I've filed an SPI report here , now the main question is, is SPI the right place to report this kind of thing? BengalMC ^talk 15:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you first have to note what exactly and how he vandalize the article before moving there. As for now I see you wish article to stay in your ownership - that violates WP:NEUTRAL. Also first step of such conflists is 3rd opinion - and not "I'll go ban another editor". So... what's a point there? ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Another way (if his activity is really looks like vandal) - if problem persists with only article - is to just request to semi-protect it. No need to "ban the range" because of some person who don't like some exact article and really make it worse - to avoid others from that range to edit a wikipedia. ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BengalMC,

As User:DatGuy said at SPI, only one TA added the term "Gmbulbul". It's really not enough to prove sockpuppetry. If this happens again, you should notify the editor on their talk page with escalating warnings after reverting their edits (you could even use Twinkle to do so efficiently). If they continue vandalising, they can eventually be blocked entirely.

@~2026-45604-98, looking at your answers, there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding. I haven't seen the original poster claiming to own the article; and semi-protection is only for pages that are routinely vandalized. Also, please don't accuse or bite other editors. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 23:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing help with previously removed disambiguation page

I've stumbled over this previously existing disambiguation page for Teatime -- see also my comment at Talk:Teatime#Removal_of_May_2011

What I think should actually exist, is a redirect of Teatime to a proper Tea time (disambiguation) page with a listing of tea time related articles in its various permutations (there are even two more in the header on Tea time). But this seems a large operation for an inactive/newbie like me, and the user who made the change seems to be inactive since 2015 - Any help/input from a more senior editor? Peargrain (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What's actually incorrect about the way it is now? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what else I can add to my comments - Have you read them? Peargrain (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Common vs official names

How do we resolve WP:COMMONNAME when most of the sources on an article are relatively formal and use the official name, when that's not actually the common name most people use in everyday conversation (nor what they're likely to search for)? In this case there's currently a redirect from the common name, and I could easily drum up additional sources to support it, but I'm looking for general advice on how such things are handled that could be applied in other situations too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, this is a longer reply than I would usually leave at Teahouse but I see from your history that you have a lot of experience and interest in WP policies and practices. The situation you describe sounds like it aligns with the policy and general practice—matching the article title to the name used in the majority of appropriate sources and using redirects from other names that are in use, and perhaps even more familiar to some readers. COMMONNAME is a bedrock principle that relies on usage in independent, reliable sources and informal or "common" (as in, everyday) usage sometimes doesn't match encyclopedic usage. COMMONNAME/recognizability arguments are often persuasive in requested move (RM) discussions but there can be many factors to consider such as optimization of all five naming criteria, disambiguation, and alignment with subject-specific naming conventions. Sometimes different types of sources use different terminology and a determination is made as to which sources are most authoritative for usage.

The specifics of the article and sources will sway the outcome but here are some general things you could do:

• Start by looking at the talk page to see if there has been a prior RM discussion or informal discussion about the title. You can also check the move log at Special:Log. A prior discussion might persuade you whether this is a good idea and will help craft your arguments if you want to propose a change that has already been discussed.
• Look at sources, which it sounds like you have already done, to see if there is enough support in the best sources for the title you think is best.
• Take a look the subject-specific naming conventions to see if the article falls into any one of these topic areas. But note that COMMONNAME often trumps these naming conventions.
• Check to see if there is another article or redirect at the title you want to use, as there may be a primary topic issue.
• Take a look at the current requested move discussions at WP:RMCD, if you are not already familiar with the process. Jump in! This is the best way to learn about the policies, guidelines, arguments, tools, etc. that editors use to resolve article title questions.
• Google Ngram is a great tool to compare usage of different terms in books. Note that Google Books includes many sources that are not "wiki-reliable" but it can show you if there is a big difference in how often related terms or potential synonyms are used. The user essay WP:NGRAM catalogues some pitfalls and limitations of Ngrams. The essay might give the impression that editors have an overall negative impression of Ngram. I don't think that's accurate, and there are ways to resolve some of the issues presented there that aren't discussed, but I think it's worth being aware of some of the issues and objections that occasionally arise.

Ultimately, these determinations are usually resolved via RMs. You can follow the instructions at WP:PCM (potentially controversial move) to start one. The proposal should be supported by policies, guidelines, sources, widely accepted practices, and other solid arguments. I would consider any change that you think another editor would see as a move away from the "COMMONNAME" as "potentially controversial". You can also start an informal discussion on the article's talk page. I sometimes do this when I'm on the fence about a title change ("page move"). You can also start an RM without a firm proposal or with multiple alternative proposals to generate discussion. Success varies when there are too many options. I'm happy to help if you have additional questions or need help navigating the RM process. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already covered several of those. The article is one of a number I'm working on improving because they've received little attention and are not currently up to par. In this particular situation the official name (the full breed name of Anglo-Nubian) is only ever used in more formal contexts (such as DAD-IS), and many reliable sources - including the people who author said formal works - would simply refer to them as Nubians in general conversation, as well as most articles that are less formal. Part of the problem is that we currently have both limited sourcing and over-emphasis on British content, and even then both the sources and article content do refer to the more common usage. The US simply uses Nubian even in formal contexts, and I believe some other countries do as well. I could probably make an argument even from the existing sources, but it'll be stronger once I expand the article. Swapping out the redirect at Nubian goat would bring it in line with both common usage and most of our articles for other breeds, with no disambiguation issues. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Ngram suggests that Nubian goat(s) is more common but it's a slim margin and it includes some usgage of Anglo Nubian goat(s) without the hyphen. Sometimes we have to settle for a longer, more formal name for the title that is more precise or helps to disambiguate but can use a shorter name throughout most of the article if it is reasonably well attested. MOS:LIFE has guidance on using the published name in breed standards. I don't know if that applies here. A WP:CONSISTENCY argument is usually less persuasive when there is a clear common name, but sometimes succeeds especially when other factors are at play. So far I'm not seeing a strong case for a title change but this isn't my area of expertise and I haven't attempted to do my own source usage assessment beyond the quick Ngrams. Your plan is a good one. Finding sources to improve the article will expose you to the range of usage. Make note of regional differences, if there are any. There could be MOS:ENGVAR considerations, and this could go a number of ways. If there is an international common name then MOS:COMMONALITY would favor using that for the title. I doubt that a MOS:TIES argument would be persuasive since the breed is now widely distributed, regardless of its place of origin. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the MOS:LIFE link - I'd already checked WP:FAUNA, but that's mainly for the organism and has even less info on breed names.
My overall logic is that anyone who's ever heard of them (at least in English) will recognize Nubian goat and I'd expect the vast majority to search for that or similar (is there a way to check how incoming traffic reached the page to compare redirect usage?), but I want to have my ducks in a row before I propose a move. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

WikiNav is a nifty tool that shows you two months' worth of incoming and outgoing traffic. It's often used with questions of disambiguation and primary topic. For example the WikiNav for "Nubian" shows that zero readers clicked through to Anglo-Nubian. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for redirects. You can look at Pageviews for the redirects. Nubian goatNubian goat averages 60 views/month, which is pretty high, but Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat is much higher. The article was previously at the title Anglo-Nubian goat, so that explains the pre–December 2025 traffic but views remain very high.

The next thing I look at is incoming links from articles. Nubian goatNubian goat is used 10 articles and Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat appears in 17. Neither link appears in any templates (like navboxes), which sometimes accounts for a lot of links in articles. The traffic to both redirects probably reflects some combination of searches and clicked links. I saw a stat once that a very low percentage of wikilinks in articles ever get clicked and the usual assumption is that most redirect traffic comes from people searching the term, unless there's a very prominent link on a popular page or some other reason to think a link is driving the views. I'm a little surprised if hundreds of people are typing out "Anglo-Nubian goat" and clicking enter since Anglo-Nubian populates the search bar before they finish. I wonder if there is a link on some high traffic external website(s) that is driving some of the traffic to Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat. ≈ 1,000 hits/month is very high for a redirect.

You may be familiar with Google Trends. That does show that many more people Google Nubian goat(s). In my experience, Google Trends data is not very persuasive at RM unless it's backed up by sources or other policy-based arguments and data. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I suspect myself and another editor racked up quite a few views recently as we've been making and discussing improvements, and at least in my case I'm usually clicking through from either a notification or my watchlist. Probably not 2000+ though. There are 7 incoming redirects accounting for a total of 67 internal links, although most of those are indeed under the previous page name. I wasn't sure whether clickthroughs actually counted as a "view" for redirect pages (as opposed to viewing the redirect itself), but with that 1000 count I'm assuming they do. 45 internal links to that redirect likely account for a fair few of them.

The Nubian dab page only has 269 views itself, and goats definitely aren't the primary usage for the term, so I'm not terribly surprised there aren't any clickthroughs from that registering. WikiNav says it doesn't show sources with fewer than 10 hits. It broke when I attempted to drill down further on the main article.

re: Navboxes, I changed the link at Template:Goat breeds of Canada and the United States when I cleaned that one up. It previously used the redlinked Nubian (American goat breed) for some reason. That template's title links to List of North American goat breeds, which contains the Nubian (goat) redirect. So only the British navbox used Anglo-Nubian (presumably) from the start.

Google trends certainly isn't strong enough evidence by itself, but in this case I suspect it might help tip the scales along with RS usage.

Tangentially, could I get your input here? I'm going to drop an RfC at WP:ANIMALS to attempt to reconcile the category, navbox, and list. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, clickthroughs do count as a redirect "view", which is handy. Looking at recent daily views, Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat consistently gets 20–40 views/day. Something is driving this steady flow of traffic. There's got to be some component of genuine search interest. I'm not seeing any real change after the 11th which is consistent with the notion that navboxes and other internal links are responsible for a small amount of traffic. At the end of the day, despite all the tools available, there's rarely a definitive answer as to how readers end up "viewing" a particular redirect.

I did take a look at the CFD listing but I'll hold off on responding there, at least for now. My 2¢ is that the plain language meaning of "originating" could encompass breeds developed in a particular country. To my uninformed eye, there's not an obvious problem but if the usage of "originating" and "developed" is more restricted or if the category is intended to be limited in this way, a change may be sensible. I would look at other categories, which I'm sure you've done. Category:Goat breeds by country of origin and Category:Animal breeds originating in the United States both use "origin(ating)". My instinct is to stick with the consistent terminology. There would need to be a good reason to treat the US differently (and maybe there is). {{Infobox goat breed}} has the |country= parameter which displays as "Country of origin", though it allows for free-texting to provide nuance and detail, e.g., the usage at Oberhasli goat.

Trying to reconcile the list, categories, infobox, navbox, etc. is a good idea. There may be a good reason to distinguish between breeds present in North America vs. those developed ("originating"?) there but it's worth discussing. WP:AG and WP:MAMMAL may be good places to discuss, or to post a link to a discussion at ANIMALS. I'm basing that off the WikiProjects that are tagged on the talk pages of the various articles and templates I've looked at. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

My opinion has actually changed a bit since listing that, and I don't think we should be separating "originated/developed" from "present" at all. I do think the US (and goats in particular) is an outlier, because there's no clear distinction between breeds imported vs developed here the way there is in other countries - as I noted, they are not inherently native so all original seed stock was imported, and they've all undergone various degrees of development since then. The only thing that obviously differentiates some of them is whether they have a different name in the US, and I don't believe that's a valid criterion to base it on. None of the sources include any such distinction - they list all major breeds recognized as having an established breeding population. That's the main basis for my argument that I plan to make, as well as the overall purpose being to help readers that are interested in learning about goat breeds in the US - excluding many of the most common doesn't make any sense from that perspective. I'll loop you in once I've written up my full rationale. Thanks again!
(I should probably be taking these more in depth questions to Help Desk at this point, huh?) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

At a help desk, I generally want to leave as soon as I get an answer. At a teahouse, I might have a little more tea, think about things a bit, and ask something else. Thus, to me, your recent behaviour pattern appears - if anything - less helpdestical and more tehoscious. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help! You seem to have good instincts and a willingness to engage, which will serve you well.

PS, for various questions that aren't exactly "newbie" questions and are not not more technical and concise help desk questions, there are also the WP:Village Pump. VP sometimes has less tolerance for off-topic posts but in general it excepts a broad range of topics and often serves to direct editors to another, more appropriate venue. I tend to think editors should do their best to post in the right place but if they get it "wrong" we should not be too rigid. We both probably went on a little long here but I enjoyed the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought VP was more about workshopping ideas than drilling down into established policy/guidelines. I'm still finding my way around though. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

VP has several subpages. Each of these pages has guidance but none of the lines are rigid. It's safe to ask questions at Teahouse when in doubt. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:UPNOT

What is the proper way to proprose adding additional items to What may I not have in my user pages so that they can be reported and removed? Specifically, unearned service or longevity awards, WikiProject membership, and administrator status. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Celjski Grad, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would start at WT:User pages. If you don't get any response there, try one of the departments of the Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad Are you saying that you don't want administrators to mention that on their user page? David10244 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Obviously not. Celjski Grad (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad Or does "unearned" apply to the whole list that follows, meaning "unearned service... and unearned administrator status"? I think that's what you meant, but I got confused when I read it. That's on me... David10244 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

New plant genus Hellwigia

Hello. So there is a new genus of plants called Hellwigia in the Zingiberaceae familiy. It used to be a synonym of Alpinia but it was just accepted on August 2025 and I would like a make a page of it but I can't since it still classifies the genus as a synonym of Alpinia and shows the bug genus instead. If you guys could change it thank you. Emmanbotan (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emmanbotan I assume that Hellwigia is still the wasp genus, so your new article should be called something like Hellwigia (plant). with WP:hatnotes on each article to point out the alternatives. I don't think that any change to the current article's name is needed if my interpretation is correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emmanbotan, I would create the article at Hellwigia (plant), as suggested. If there is a question about which genus is the primary topic for Hellwigia, or if there is a primary topic, a requested move discussion would be the proper way to resolve this. You can edit Alpinia to remove Hellwigia from the list of synonyms although I'm not sure how we handle historical synonyms. It may be appropriate to leave it as a reference for readers who may encounter older literature. Either way, both articles should discuss the change. WP:FLORA has general guidance on naming plant articles although it doesn't necessarily address this situation. WP:TOL (Tree of Life) is an active taxonomy WikiProject and a great place to ask about this. You might check with TOL about how to handle all of this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe SOP is to include historical synonyms within the infobox for the current recognized classification, but not at the former name when splits occur. For example, Armillaria ostoyae includes the synonyms Armillaria mellea var. obscura and the now-defunct Armillaria solidipes. The type species/compound Armillaria mellea does not mention ostoyae/var. obscura in the infobox, but does include lists under #Taxonomy for currently recognized subtaxa vs those that have been split. For simpler situations mentioning it in the prose is often sufficient.
(Conversely, Amanita muscaria still includes A. muscaria var. alba as a subtaxon, which is now generally recognized as Amanita chrysoblema, but fungi aren't exactly the best example for how taxonomy is handled. That one is on my to-do list.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

How to cite a source properly?

Sorry, I’m very, very new to editing Wikipedia. I tried to edit the page List of Marshals of the First French Empire, in specific André Masséna. There the page claimed that André Masséna was born in 1756 but that does not line up with his personal page here, and is a known error. How do you cite Encyclopædia Brittanica’s page on him to correctly identify his date of birth as May 6th 1758 rather than the erroneous May 6th 1756? Right now his date of birth awkwardly doesn’t have a citation. So sorry, but can you please help? ~2026-40075-15 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-40075-15, welcome to the Teahouse!

Courtesy link to articles: List of Marshals of the First French Empire, André Masséna

You should use the Cite encyclopedia template in this case, enclosed in <ref> tags. I've filled it in, if it helps.

<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=André Masséna, duc de Rivoli, prince d'Essling |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andre-Massena-duc-de-Rivoli-prince-dEssling |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=22 August 2026}}</ref>

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you guys so, so much! I’m really new, sorry, but the information is true. Great help, I’ll write it down! ~2026-40075-15 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem :) Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 22:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Josh Liljenquist

Hi, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, so I’m still learning how some of this works. I’m Josh Liljenquist, the subject of the article Josh Liljenquist, so I also want to be transparent about my conflict of interest.

I noticed the article is still listed as unreviewed by New Page Patrol. I posted a short request on the New Page Patrol reviewers talk page as well, but I wasn’t sure if that was the correct place to ask or if there’s anything else I’m supposed to do.

Is it normal for a new article to remain unreviewed for a while, and is there anything appropriate I can do on my end other than simply wait? I don’t want to interfere with the article or do anything against Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines. Just trying to better understand the process.

Thanks for any guidance! NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NorthStarJoshL26. There's a backlog of over 30,000 unpatrolled new articles. There's no particular rush is there? qcne (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Totally fair, and I understand there’s a huge backlog. I definitely don’t mean urgent in the sense that it should take priority over more important pages.

The reason I was asking is that I only recently learned that an unreviewed article isn’t indexed by external search engines. There has also been continuing independent media coverage about me since the article was created, so I was wondering whether there was any value in having it independently reviewed while that coverage is current and people may be searching for the subject.

Since I’m the subject of the article, I’m intentionally trying not to edit or influence it myself. If the appropriate answer is simply to wait for the normal queue, that’s completely fine. I mainly wanted to make sure I understood the process correctly. NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NorthStarJoshL26.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. There is no deadline.

Whether there is currently media coverage of a subject is of very little concern to Wikipedia.

I understand that you have an interest in an article about you being findable by search engines, but Wikipedia, broadly speaking, does not share that interest.

An article about you is not in any way for your benefit. (Of course in many cases the subject of an article does get some benefit from it - and sometimes they get the reverse. Wikipedia is not concerned either way, as long as the article meets its policies). ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense, and I understand the distinction. I definitely wasn’t trying to create any conflict or suggest that the article should be prioritized for my benefit. I was mainly trying to understand how the review and indexing process works since I’m fairly new to Wikipedia. I’ll leave it in the normal queue and let the process run its course. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@NorthStarJoshL26 You should probably read the general advice given to article subjects. If there is ongoing media coverage of you that is well-sourced and reliable, you can make suggestions for additions to the article at Talk:Josh Liljenquist. There is an edit request Wizard that can be used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s really helpful. I’m still learning the process, so I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I’ll read through the guidance for article subjects and use the Talk page/Edit Request Wizard for any future suggestions that are supported by reliable independent sources. Thanks again. NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@NorthStarJoshL26 Please also don't use AI to talk to other editors in the future, nor indeed to generate any text for articles (including edit requests) Athanelar (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Need Advice

Looking for feedback on my draft article for Epic Flight Academy (Draft:Epic Flight Academy). I’ve since found and added some additional sources, although I’m leaving that article in draft status for the time being.

Before working on the Epic article, I drafted an article about the new Pipistrel Voyager aircraft (Draft:Pipistrel Voyager). Since the Voyager was announced at the annual event in Oshkosh this year and is a significant development in aviation, I thought it was a worthwhile topic to cover. In fact, the connection I found while researching the Voyager is what led me to draft the Epic article.

I don’t currently see an option to submit my Pipistrel Voyager draft for review. Could someone advise me on how I should submit it? I appreciate any guidance offered on either article. PitotTubePilot (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PitotTubePilot. I've added the template to allow you to submit Draft:Pipistrel Voyager for review. Your best bet for the Epic Flight Academy draft is to just re-submit it for review if you wanted to see what the reviewers think of the new sources. qcne (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

PitotTubePilot I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed to link to another page on Wikipedia, just the title in double brackets: [[Draft:Pipistrel Voyager]]. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the second draft, have you read WP:FUTURE? In some cases it is appropriate to discuss highly publicized announcements, but typically not as a standalone article - a brief mention at Pipistrel is probably sufficient at this point. The announcement is a fact that has already taken place; the production is not. You can incubate the draft until the product is actually released, however, at which point you'll stand a better chance of it getting accepted. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi, I have this suggestion for an edit Talk:Ancient Rome and wine#c-Kaspar-trout-20260820095900-Possible expansion on provinces' wine exports, perhaps someone is willing to review and appy it for me. Thank you Kaspar-trout (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge to review your suggestion, but I believe that correct procedure in your case would be to use the {{edit partially-blocked}} template. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

should I repost a message here with the template? Kaspar-trout (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No, because the template can only go on the Talk page of the article you want to change. (If you put it here, it will put a big message on Teahouse saying you want to propose an edit about the wine in Teahouse's provinces.) :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kaspar-trout I've added the {{edit partially-blocked}} to your request for you, which I hope is considered acceptable. It now appears on the list of open requests. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much. I appreciate it Kaspar-trout (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Source/Reference Quality page?

Hi, Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I wanted to know whether there is a page here on Wikipedia listing the quality/verifiability of different news sources so I can get a rough idea what sources are ideal to refer from and those that are not when adding context/content to an article.

Many thanks. - XenonMud (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@XenonMud: Welcome to The Teahouse. In general, you can go to the reliable sources noticeboard and search for your source to see if there's been any discussion determining if it is generally reliable or otherwise. For more well-known sources, check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a dumb question, and reading those discussions is a good way of seeing which issues really tend to come up. It can depend on what the source is to be used for; as an example, some news publications have a solid reputation for telling the truth and getting the facts straight - except in stories that involve their own government or military. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@XenonMud Also see WP:RSP. David10244 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Baghochia page being redirected to Hathwa Raj

I recently edited the page Baghochia, which had an AI tag. I checked and corrected the citations for any discrepancies and also discussed the same on the talk page.

The problem is that the page was subsequently reverted to a redirect to Hathwa Raj.

After reviewing the citations, I find that Hathwa Raj came into existence only in the 19th century and was one of the many successor branches of the erstwhile chieftaincy. Most of the contemporary and other sources discuss the ruling family and the origins and history of the chieftaincy prior to the emergence of Hathwa Raj. In fact, the erstwhile chieftaincy came to an end by the end of the 18th century. Therefore, redirecting the article to Hathwa Raj appears to be historically inaccurate. Also, the reasons given for redirect is WP:NOLLM and WP:CT/IMH. I have taken time to check and corrected the page as per the cited sources, but I am not sure whether an article about a clan would fall under WP:CT/IMH, or whether I am eligible to make edits if it does.

I initially undid the redirection to Hathwa Raj page, but then I undid my own reversion because I don’t want to proceed or make any edits against Wikipedia policy.

I know this is very long and time taking but will appreciate if an admin can help me with this.

Thanks and Regards. Rai1112 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Checking for discrepancies and then removing the AI tag means you didn't fix it but removed the tag anyway. An AI tag means the article is complete trash, not that it needs a little checking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

An AI tag means the article is complete trash, - No, it means no more than that one editor thinks the article (my emboldening) "may incorporate text from a large language model" and "may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references". That editor may or may not be correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rai1112: If it has any significant connexion to either the Indian caste system or Indian military history then it falls under the 500/30 rule. And articles that are written by LLMs should be 86'd on discovery. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano, @TooManyFingers – Rai1112 said in the edit summaries and at Talk:Baghochia that they removed apparent LLM-generated content. The {{AI-generated}} tag directs editors to remove text from a large language model and specifically hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. The guidance is confusing for editors who believe they have done this and then the content continues to be disputed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae I'm reminded of an archived Teahouse question from just over two weeks ago: Are TAs allowed to archive closed threads at AN/I?. The correct answer is "Yes".

People who are much more experienced and knowledgeable than I am handled that case; they made obvious efforts to dodge the question, conceal the policy, and promote the best outcome instead. When the truth began to slip out, they did their best to minimize and deflect.

It was indeed frustrating to the person who asked the question, but still, a thing can be permitted but not a good idea; promoting a good outcome can take precedence over quoting the regulations; and in such cases a response like "Yes it's allowed but please don't" is not going to be even read beyond the first word, let alone heeded. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. Although I do think this situation is quite different because the editor already received guidance here that contradicts the direction on the AI tag. If a widely used maintenance tag has led the editor astray, that seems important to acknowledge, but I do not wish to complicate things further. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The community is, I think, conflicted on this. Fully cleaning up an LLM article can be very hard. If you look at the WP:AI noticeboard there are cases where good-faith editors tried and it took 2-3 rounds of review to ferret out all the subtle problem. So there's an increasing feeling that deleting all of the LLM text and starting over is actually a better course of action. But it's a harsh thing to recommend, very painful for the author.

Two things to particularly watch out for in cleanup: (1) Facts that may be true but are not in the listed source (often they are in some other source). If we say "A said X" it's not enough that X is true, A has to have said it. (2) Claims that many people are saying something, when really it's just one. For some reason recent LLM does this constantly. I've seen "Many critics have said that X" when X was a super-specific quote that was definitely only said by one person. M kuhner (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I see that a version of Baghochia has been restored to an article. Hopefully the improvements and discussions are productive. If editors cannot agree on whether there should be a standalone article, either because of lingering LLM concerns or notability issues, then the article can be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion (AFD) to determine whether it should be kept, deleted, redirected, or dealt with some other way. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a question

Recently My draft got accepted as an article on Turkish Wiki even though it is still a draft on English Wiki.I was wondering if that would make my english draft more notable? Since it became an article on TR wiki. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the link for the TR Wiki article: tr:2026 Akçamezra Hortumu. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not. Each language's version of Wikipedia is an independent project with its own standards, and acceptance on the Turkish wikipedia does not indicate notability on the English one. Athanelar (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @StormL00ver, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I agree with Athenelar's answer completely; but here is another way of looking at it.

Notability, as used in English Wikipedia, is almost entirely based on what has been independently published about a subject in reliable sources. Since Wikipedia - any Wikipedia - is entirely user-generated, it is not a reliable source, so an article in a Wikipedia cannot affect the notability of its subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

AI tag

How to know whether a page is page is written using LLM or not. Sometimes I find good drafts with supporting sources but also with an LLM tag or AI tag. Rai1112 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rai1112 Take a look at WP:AISIGNS. Athanelar (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rai1112 (You can also reach out to the editor who placed the tag and ask them why they placed it) Athanelar (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

External links blocked

Hi, Some relevant links (Parish Councils) I added to a couple of articles are blocked and don't go anywhere when you click on them. Not sure why this has happened as the external addresses appear to be correct. Could someone give me an idea where I went wrong? For context I am referring to Bacton, Norfolk and Groton, Suffolk (previous version as I have reverted article to version before link was added).

Sorry for the bother. XenonMud (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@XenonMud Remove the pipe character "|" and it will work. Jolly1253 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 Thank you for the help. Didn't realise it could have been something as simple as that. XenonMud (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

How to write a submission summary concisely but correctly?

For example, let's say I fixed NPOV in one sentence. What should the edit summary be exactly, if I want to adhere to the most common norms?

• "fixed NPOV in sentence about XYZ"?
• "fixed NPOV in one sentence"?
• "fixed NPOV"?
• "NPOV"?
• something else entirely?

Jezoskoczek (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter as long as it successfully communicates what you did. I usually would just put "npov" unless more specificity is needed. Athanelar (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd also put "npov"; to see what exactly you did, someone would have to look at the diff anyway. But if the reasoning for the change is non-obvious, I try to say something about that in the summary. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

There are three basic kinds of edit summaries:

• Nothing
• Lies
• Truth

If you're in the "Truth" category, you're OK. :)

If something was complex or might inspire questions or controversy, that's a time to try for better quality ones. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I nominate an Article for Deletion?

Hello, I have found some articles which should be deleted maybe, but I don't know how to place the AfD tag. Please help. Also, I feel this article should be deleted. Thank you Prajiiit (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

First see WP:Deletion policy to familiarise yourself with when and why we delete things. Then you can install WP:TWINKLE which makes nominating AfDs super easy. Athanelar (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Seconding the recommendation for TWINKLE. AfD nominations take quite a few steps and doing it by hand will often miss a step. We get malformed AfD nominations literally every day. TWINKLE is pretty foolproof. That leaves you to focus on building your case for deletion, rather than worrying about tags and notifications. M kuhner (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. Prajiiit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner I think that this article needs to be improved by finding every source about this. ~2026-46666-32 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If you can find some sources and improve the article, that would be great! Or participate in the AfD discussion, if one happens, and point out sources that may have been missed. I have no involvement with this article, just giving technical advice. M kuhner (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Prajiiit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability guideline for television shows

What's the guideline for television shows like there exists WP:NFILM for movies? Koshuri ^(あ!) 11:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NTV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Conducting discussions

I'm looking to create a few discussions, namely: delete Puppy love in mainland China, split Historiography#History to History of Historiography. How am I meant to go about it? Who should I ping, and how do I find out who to ping? etc. Thanks. Quivalence (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you installed WP:Twinkle yet? It helps immensely with this sort of thing. Deletions are usually handled at WP:AfD, unless they qualify for tagging under WP:CSD. There's also WP:PROD if you don't expect anyone to object.

As far as splitting off a child article from an existing section, you can either open a discussion about it on the talk page for the parent article or just WP:BOLDly start the new article yourself. If one or two specific editors have made a significant percentage of the contributions to the page (via its history) it's courteous to ping them, but not required. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have Twinkle; I think I just need to be a lot WP:BOLDer at this point. Thanks for the clarification. Quivalence (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

New Editor

If I am focusing on gastropods, do I need to join the team, or can I just dive in editing? At what point does an article become too long if it is almost all unique, hard-to-find information? Also, how many citations (a text to ref ratio) are acceptable? Lethius (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to join any "team", but you might be interested in WikiProject Biology and WikiProject Tree of Life to find other editors interested in similar topics.

There's no hard and fast rule for article size, but there's some guidelines over at Wikipedia:Article size.

As for citations, see Wikipedia:Inline citation. In principle you only need to add footnotes for the four kinds of statements that are listed there. In practice, it's probably best to support everything you state in the article with inline citations. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Lethius, you're doing good work, but it's time for a little lesson in markup!

Italics are produced by pairs of single quotation marks (''Italics'').

This is a (very short) paragraph with no space at its left.

This is a (very short) paragraph with a space at its left.

(I'm assuming that you're editing "source code", and not using the "Visual Editor".) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Maddy from Celeste and Hoary! Learning to edit has been overwhelming... Lethius (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What is my pathway to become a WP translator?

Hello, Teahouse Editors, I am an experienced translator (in real life), how do I get approved to contribute to translations on Wikipedia? Yes I'm fairly new here, at this point I have a track record of legit edits, and eager to chip away at all the content that needs translating, mainly from my native Hungarian to English. Joe.Varadi (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Heya, That pretty much depends, if the article you translate is for english wikipedia you probably should follow WP:TRANSLATE can also check WP:TRANSLATIONSTUDIES, the thing is translations may differ from wiki, to wiki, as thus wikis are managed diffrently per language, you gotta check up with hungarian wiki too.

Aside from that, if its your first time editing wikipedia, checking out basics for an article such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a great idea. Have a nice day, mate! 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Joe.Varadi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Probably the biggest challenge facing a translator here is that many articles in other Wikipedias (and quite a few in English Wikipedia) are simply not acceptable as they stand because the are inadequately sourced. They may lack citations entirely, or in some parts; or the sources they cite are not independent, or not reliable. Sometimes the subject does not in fact meet the current requirements for notability in English Wikipedia.

If you are able to verify that the subject does indeed meet those requirements, and that the cited sources are appropriate (see WP:42) then it might well be worth translating the article. (Foreign-language sources are acceptable if there are no suitable English ones). Doing this is likely to take considerable work before you start the translation.

But if the citing and sources are not adequate, then translating the text is likely to be largely a waste of time: effectively, you will have written the English article WP:BACKWARDS, and will probably have to mostly rewrite it after finding the sources (if you can find them at all).

(This is summarised in Translation, linked above, but I think it is important enough to bring out directly in answering you.) ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

As well as translating articles, there are plenty of tasks for interface translations, and jobs on projects, such as on Commons, on Wikidata and on Wikispecies (also Wikispecies:Localization). What are your other languages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

See also Category:Articles needing translation from Hungarian Wikipedia, which lists existing articles which need extra content to be translated from Hungarian (the same exists for other languages). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I beg to differ with Andy. I'd say that the category lists articles that somebody, at some time, thought were less comprehensive than the Hungarian-language articles on the same subject. My experience of recommendations for translations from languages other than Hungarian (which I can't read) is that a large percentage of the suggested "source" articles are grossly under-referenced. (They may have other problems too.) Bluntly, a number of editors who categorize English-language articles in this way seem to be impressed by mere bulk. If you translate poorly referenced or unreferenced material into English, then you or somebody else will have the job of finding sound references for what it asserts. This is hard work, and if you don't do it yourself it's likely that nobody else will either. Rather than attempting it, you'd be better off reading, digesting, summarizing and then of course citing good Hungarian-language sources. Of course, this is not to deny that there do exist Hungarian-language articles that are well-referenced and genuinely better than their English-language counterparts, not just bulkier -- but you should examine an article sceptically before spending your time englishing it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

To get a feeling for Wikipedia have a look at WP:PNT. There you can work on already existing articles which need native speakers to translate properly. Lectonar (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Maintenance Message

Hi!

To replace a 'citation needed', in the article 'Union of Lublin', I used the 'insert journal' template, with the result below. When I go to the Preview function, I get the 'Script Warning' message further below.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks. Billings Road

into the Tsardom of Russia.^[1]

Meĉislovas, Juĉas (December 1998). "Polish Historiography of Polish - Lithuanian Union of 20th Century". Lietuvos istorijos studijos. 6: 5. doi:10.15388/LIS.1998.37279

Preview Script warning: {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): this reference has maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help). Script warning: {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): this reference has maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help). Script warning: {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help): this reference has maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

BillingsRoad (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The content of reference 18 (as currently numbered) is:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141006165959/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/heritage/episode5/atlas/map3.html Heritage: Interactive Atlas: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth], accessed on 19 March 2006: ''At it. apogee, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth comprised some {{convert|400000|sqmi|km2}} and a multi-ethnic population of 11 million.'' For population comparisons, see also those maps: {{cite web |url=http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg |title=Archived copy |access-date=18 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217222629/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg |archive-date=17 February 2013 }}, {{cite web |url=http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg |title=Archived copy |access-date=18 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217222634/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg |archive-date=17 February 2013 }}.</ref>

which (without the outer "ref" tags) renders as:

Heritage: Interactive Atlas: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, accessed on 19 March 2006: At it. apogee, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth comprised some 400,000 square miles (1,000,000 km²) and a multi-ethnic population of 11 million. For population comparisons, see also those maps: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 February 2013. Retrieved 18 August 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link), "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 February 2013. Retrieved 18 August 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link).

What is intended here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

So I take it that it is not a problem with my citation and I can go ahead and add it to the article?

---- BillingsRoad (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Block on Wikipedia

I am blocked from editing Wikipedia. Can you help me? ~2026-46082-61 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You should log in to your blocked account and request an unblock from there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If your account is bocked, do as advised above and see Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

If you mean that you cannot edit for some technical reason, we will need to know more - what happens when you try to edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined for sources

Hello! My draft was declined for unreliable sources but they seem reliable to me so I'm a bit lost. I'd like to get it approved, if possible. Can someone with expertise look at it and tell me specifically which source(s) are considered unreliable and why? I'm very much wanting to learn so I'm grateful for the help. :) Thanks in advance. Patrickkeown (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Patrickkeown, there are currently six references. (Each is described very sketchily: none specifies both the title of the page and the title of the website. Such uninformativeness is not helpful.) The draft is about a facility "in downtown Mesa, Arizona", but the draft doesn't say which corporation (or municipality or whatever) is the manager or owner. Now, which of those six references are to sources that are independent of any such corporation (etc)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation protocol

Hello! I have been drafting and submitting articles through my user sandbox and I just want to check that I'm doing it right.

I noticed someone else has had to move it to the preferred space, so now my most recent article is at Draft:Graham Dickson instead of my user page.

Am I supposed to be doing this myself and naming the file as draft? I don't want to be inconveniencing another editor if I'm missing a step here! Millswyn (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for Draft:Graham Dickson: it's in the right place (and it looks pretty good). I didn't look in the history to see whether you started it where it now is or moved it there from your sandbox; but either way, fine. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You can do it either way, either start it at your sandbox like you've done, or at Draft:Whatever. You can move your sandbox to draftspace yourself, but you shouldn't worry too much about inconveniencing others with it, it only takes about three clicks for anyone to move it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Tried to edit but in vain

I have tried many times to edit the content on KLN (company) but in vain. The current content has expired and is no longer valid. ~2026-41779-39 (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: @Dafootballguy:, @Sakura emad:, @Kln ruby:

Hi @~2026-41779-39,

Nor you nor Kln ruby ever specified why you want to delete the concerned section. It is part of the company's history, and is properly cited to reliable sources. That's why other editors have reverted your unexplained edits.

However, if you can reasonably explain why you want to delete this section, I doubt other editors will object. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 05:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

As refer to the official webpage of KLN, these information have been outdated ~2026-41779-39 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have a connection with this KLN business? If so, you shouldn't be editing the article at all, and should instead be making edit requests via its talk page. Also, you need to register a user account, and disclose your paid-editing-status, as explained in WP:PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by paid-editing status?

I need to pay if I wanna edit the page? ~2026-41779-39 (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41779-39 Paid-editing-status means you are editing the article for compensation (money or other incentives). Jolly1253 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

How to disclose this paid editing status ~2026-41779-39 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

As said by DoubleGrazing above, please register for an account first. We will help you further once you do that TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 09:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have resgistered Kln ruby (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Please now follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to disclose your status as a paid editor. qcne (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kln ruby, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I suspect that (like many people) you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

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.

Wikipedia is basically not interested in what your company wants people to know, but only in what people wholly unconnected with the company, and not fed information behalf of the company, have chosen to publish about it.

I suggest you read the essay WP:PAIDADVICE, to make this clearer. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kln ruby just a quick advice, next time when editing an article and your edits are not successful e.g reverted by another user. please do not go back and forth with the users like you did with this one. start a discussion to know what is going on. this would've helped your case alot sooner if you ever knew. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this article to prevent COI/UPE editors operating under temp accounts editing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyrighted designs on vehicles/ FoP

I noticed that Wikimedia Commons has a lot of images of copyrighted designs (like posters, advertisements and characters) but they're from pictures of vehicles, are they allowed because of Freedom of Panorama? And am I allowed to crop them to focus on said copyrighted designs? Or is it like De Minimis where I'm not allowed to focus on them?

OxyLight (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

IANAL.
Panorama only applies to permanent installations, not temporary ads. De Minimis permits the use of the full public scene on Commons, but not a focus on the cooyrighted material. It might be allowed on en-Wiki if you have a valid Fair Use case. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A better place to ask about copyright of images that are on Commons is (on Commons!) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The answer to "have I found a clever way to circumvent copyright" is always 'no'. DS (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on developing an article draft

 Courtesy link: Draft:Oren Shmuel

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I’m looking for some guidance as I try to develop a draft for an article about myself. I understand that writing about oneself is difficult on Wikipedia, and I also understand the importance of independent, reliable sources and neutral writing. I am not looking for someone to promote the subject or to approve my draft. What I would really appreciate is some practical guidance from an experienced editor: how should I approach the sources I have, what should I leave out, and what would I need to improve before submitting the draft again? If there is an experienced editor who would be willing to guide me through this process, I would be very grateful. Thank you for your time.

Oren238 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The appropriate process for a COI article is to only make edit suggestions and not attempt to write it yourself. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

OP asks about how to "develop a draft for an article ", not editing an existing article, to which your advice would apply.

CoI subjects may write drafts, that's why WP:AFC exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Funny, I was under the impression that it exists to help ensure novice editors can write articles correctly before they're allowed to go live. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, now you know. In fact, the very opening paragraph of WP:AFC includes "This process must also be used by editors with a conflict of interest." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You have received guidance at the AFC help desk, please see it there. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot. Unfortunately, the AFC Help Desk discussion is no longer available, so I’m still looking for an experienced editor who could advise me on how to proceed. Oren238 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's here. Jako96 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I collapsed your blatant AI generated slop text, @Oren238. qcne (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, it was not collapsed, I did them both now. Jako96 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
English is not my native language, so I use editing and translation tools to help me express my research in English. The content is based on reliable sources. I am here in good faith and welcome constructive feedback, but comments like “AI generated slop” are unhelpful. Let’s focus on improving the draft based on the sources.

Oren238 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Even that reply was generated by an AI slop machine. qcne (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I would ask you to allow the discussion to continue. I am seeking help from an experienced editor on how to proceed with the draft. Thank you very much. Oren238 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You have already received feedback from multiple experience editors at AfC. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Just like any other topic, you can start an article about yourself or add info about yourself ONLY if there are published, reliable sources about you. Jako96 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly have a number of reliable sources that have published about me, old printed pieces that I have and some that are online. Here is a sample piece:

https://magazines.rokdim.co.il/en/article/3-121-002-2026-eng/

https://www.thejc.com/archive/NjI4ZTE2NjgtMDFjYy00

https://orendance.co.il/images/1993_kol_Hatzafon_Nora93_Oren_Shmuel.pdf

My question is how do I proceed from here? Is there an experienced editor willing to help me advance my draft? Tank's alot Oren238 (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference Things

If I need to, how do I mark a reference number ( e.g. something like [n] ) and where do I place my reference? ITSJUPITR (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ITSJUPITR. Does the tutorial Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 help? The Visual Editor automatically generates in-line citations for you including a Reference list at the bottom. qcne (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Use the cite button in the visual editor, it will automatically generate a number. Jako96 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Setting Default Measurements

I’m sorry, but I can’t figure out how to set my measurements to feet, miles, pounds, etc. All the article a seem to (recently) changed to metric measurements. Please advise

Thank you,

Steve Dukerino (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in general, and MOS:CONVERSIONS for changing units if called for. Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Units within articles do not reflect any user-based settings, they are part of the article text and set on a per-article basis, using whatever system editors decide is best. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Dukerino (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel this page should be deleted?

Hello! I feel this page should be deleted. Fails WP:GNG Thanks! Prajiiit (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Prajiiit. No, state-level politicians and above are automatically notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). The FamilySearch source is unreliable though, so could you find a better source that outlines his date of birth and death to replace with? qcne (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne Okay! Thanks! Prajiiit (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I just wanna report an article to quality control

Yea hi. My account isn't really new but I've basically never used Wikipedia as an "editor" except for like 9 years ago. I looked into the Forum stuff cause I wanted to submit an article for quality control but tbh idk where to go. Either way I found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyacheslav_Markin and...it just seems to lack any real sources. The English article was simply translated from the Russian Wikipedia article and it only lists two sources and both of those do not provide any actual info. Both links are dead. If you follow them the sites don't exist. The writing is also weird. Sounds more like an amateur-ish story and not a typical Wikipedia article about an actual event. The Russian Wikipedia article from which it was translated links to some kind of "YouTube Documentary" video that is deleted and aside from that the 2nd footnote of the Russian article only says "It's important to note that the information in these documentaries differs greatly, despite the participation of the same experts. For example, "The Last Knot" claims that Markin learned to tie knots as a child from his neighbor, while "Jack in the Box" claims he learned complex knots in prison from a fellow inmate who had previously served in the navy. "The Deadly Knot" claims Markin died of lung cancer before his sentence was handed down." (copied from the auto-translated Russian article) I also can't really find anything about a "Vyacheslav Vasilievich Markin" anywhere else. I tried to find the quality control board or forum but tbh I've never done this and I can't find it.

So yes. This probably isn't the right place for this but idk where else to put this.

Ty in advance to anyone who helps. 👍 Kay Stephan (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there @Kay Stephan. Wikipedia relies on editors (like you!) finding poor quality articles and either improving them or marking them with maintenance templates or for deletion. I agree that article is not very good, only relying on a single YouTube source in Russian that doesn't even exist anymore. As I don't speak Russian and can't really judge if this person meets our criteria for inclusion, so I am going to shortly add a maintenance template to the article so that hopefully an editor in the future who does speak Russian will come across it and improve/delete it. qcne (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Since I don't speak Russian either, I've pinged an editor who does.

@Olympian: Hi, The article Vyacheslav Markin was noticed to be relying on a single YouTube source. Since neither I nor the other editors who pointed it out speak Russian, perhaps you can help decide whether the subject meets the notability guidelines. Thanks! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Help on submission edits

Hello,

I am writing a wikipedia page for Dr. Sharon Solomon, an ophthalmology doctor who made a discovery in protein variances in eyes with and without a certain disease. I need help getting this published. It seems like depending on who looks at the submission their opinion trumps anything and it has gotten denied twice. So, here I am at the Teahouse so that I can make this page happen :) Draft:Sharon Solomon#Research and case studies. TheeCitationist (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheeCitationist. Which criteria would you say this person meets under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page? qcne (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

1. 2 - four Secretariat Awards from American Academy of Ophthalmology
2. 4 Discovery of protein variances in eyes with macular degeneration
3. 5 She holds the Katherine M. Graham Professorship of Ophthalmology endowed chair
4. 8 Editor of American Academy of Ophthalmology journal

When the written body was longer, it was criticized for writing style. So I made it brief and now it is criticize for being like bullet points. The longer version was an entirely different writing style, so I will say I see the relevance in what eatingcarbatteries did say. But, what say you about my response here and the article of this discussion? TheeCitationist (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @TheeCitationist, I think she satisfies the criterion #5, so this would mean it would be an accept. However I don't think the prose is quite there yet; the lead is a little promotional in tone and probably contains a bit too much detail. Remove the "At an early age.." trivia. Remove the conference speaking paragraph as it's not required. "Such a finding had never before been described in scientific literature" is an exceptional claim and either needs to be sourced, directly quoted, or removed. Remove the Secretariat Award awards from the awards table. The Podcast section is pretty excessive. "Search results for Sharon Solomon on the site show" is really strange phrasing and should never be used on Wikipedia.

In general, on Wikipedia you should be briefly summarising what secondary sources state.

If you tighten up the prose throughout let me know and I will accept. qcne (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have some concerns about using profiles as sources, and will note that we shouldn't cite the commercial or link to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix these. TheeCitationist (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The changes have been made. TheeCitationist (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

New person to Wiki looking for some help

Hi - I’m Scott McCullough, a film and commercial director, and I’m the subject of the proposed article, so I understand that I have a conflict of interest and should not be writing or publishing my own biography directly.

I’ve assembled a substantial source file with independent coverage from publications including Screen, Adweek, PAPER, Variety, The Current, Deadline, The Washington Post and LA Weekly, along with official and archival sources for specific credits.

I also have a structured research draft that was developed with AI assistance, so I do not intend to simply paste that text into Wikipedia. I’m looking for an experienced, uninvolved human editor who could review the sources, assess notability, and if appropriate help turn the research into a neutral Articles for Creation draft.

What is the best way to find an editor willing to take a look at the source material?

Thank you. ScottCharlesMc (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@ScottCharlesMc: How much do those sources actually discuss you? And how many of them are not interviews? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

They are all about me. a couple are interviews with trade magazines. I did a lot of work to source all of it and be restrained. ScottCharlesMc (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

ScottCharlesMc, you're free to create Draft:Scott McCullough, headed with a conflict of interest template. When you're pretty confident that the result complies with the relevant standards, you submit it for review. And then you wait, and wait, and wait. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

GAN submission red text

The visual preview in my TP after a GAN resubmission and adding a comment shows this text in red: "Talk:Dutch Boats in a Gale". See Talk:Dutch Boats in a Gale. Is that expected? Jp1008 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Jp1008, Talk:Dutch Boats in a Gale has what I abridge as {{GA 17:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)|nominator:[[User:Jp1008. Offhand I don't know which template you want, but I don't think it's Template:GA. Let's say it's "Template:GAsomethingorother". Then you need what I abridge as {{GAsomethingorother |17:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)|nominator:[[User:Jp1008 -- within which, note my addition of "|" in front of the timestamp. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It was added along with their nomination in this edit, so I think it was just a template glitch. I've gone ahead and fixed it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Numbers next to revision history

wondering what the numbers next to revisions in the revision history mean, for example sometimes there will be a “-“ or “+” in front of a number and its either colored red or green, Just curious as to what it means. Swisschwse (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. This is the number of bytes added or removed by a revision. See Help:Page history for some more information. qcne (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Be aware that these are net changes (sum of additions and subtractions). There is an infamous case in the annals of WP:AI noticeboard where a zero byte edit turned out to have rewritten the entire article, but somehow with exactly the same length. M kuhner (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I once encountered an edit where the byte change was simply -6, but something felt off and upon further inspection it was a complete re-format of the page against every applicable policy available. Always check the diff. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

A little help to do it better

Hi everyone, yesterday I created a Draft that has already been reviewed and declined for LLM use. I responded to the reviewer's comment clarifying that the use was mainly for support regarding the Infobox templates, IPA pronunciation and some references. The writing of the article and most of the sources are researched by me.

Anyway I later read the Elimination Criterion G15 and I think that the Criterion my Draft has would be "Technical indicator".

I am willing to correct and improve Héctor Méndez's Draft but I would like a "veteran" so to speak, from Wikipedia to guide me on what changes I could make and give me a more precise critique of the article, since the reviewer has not yet responded to the comment I left earlier and then resubmit the draft for approval. Thanks. SunsetRetro ^{(Whats up?)} 18:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SunsetRetro. If the draft was entirely written by you, then I would see no reason why you can't re-submit it for review. Some general advice on the draft is that I find it to be quite long and wordy, i.e. the Personal life section could probably just be a paragraph. qcne (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Well... I'll make some adjustments, Thanks!

Even so, do you think I should wait for the reviewer to give me their response as well?SunsetRetro ^{(Whats up?)} 19:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not seeing that you've notified @Sulfurboy so, I've pinged them in. qcne (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Qcne. @SunsetRetro sometimes it can take me up to a day to respond, so I'm sorry it hadn't been earlier. Unfortunately the LLM use you described is not allowed. So I would not recommend re-submitting at this time.

The first thing of concern is that you say you "most of the sources are researched by me". LLMS absolutely CANNOT be used to gather sources and is one of the worst offenses against our LLM policy.

The second thing of concern, is whether you realize it or not, the LLM did more than just construct the infobox, etc. The fundamentally changed the writing as well. While I believe a good chunk of the text is human written (or human re-written machine text), there are some lines that are absolutely fully machine generated.

Either way, this article needs to be re-written from the top down, in your own words, using sources you collect. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging him @Qcne, I indeed hadn't done it correctly.

Don't worry @Sulfurboy, thanks for responding. In that case, if I commit to fixing it myself, could I resubmit it later for approval? Of course, just as you said, using the sources I find. Or when would be a better time? SunsetRetro ^{(Whats up?)} 19:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Once the LLM text has been completely replaced, and all citations corrected, you can resubmit at any time. Please don't do it before that: submitting material with the same flaws several times is likely to get a rejection rather than a decline, after which you can't try again.

Don't rely on LLM to tell you what is in the sources; you will have to read them yourself. They are notoriously bad at this, despite how convincing they can sound. M kuhner (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My reading of WP:NOLLM is that LLMs can be used to find sources since doing so doesn't directly modify the article itself, given of course, one actually access the provided sources and read the material themself. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ca Sources are article content. LLMs cannot be used to generate any article content with exception of translation and writing corrects overseen by human review. While I understand the logic of your reasoning, we should avoid that, as the nuance is going to be lost on the vast majority of editors, particularly new ones. Either way, in this instance LLMs were used for a lot more in the draft whether knowingly or not by the drafter. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Slight correction: AI can in fact be very useful for helping to find sources, provided you personally verify every single detail. All the same legwork you'd do if it was a result from a normal web search. Actually compiling the sources for you - let alone writing content - is of course verboten, and far too many people fail to understand the difference or why it matters. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

LLMS absolutely CANNOT be used to gather sources and is one of the worst offenses against our LLM policy. I'm sorry, this is just plain wrong. Asking an LLM to find some sources on subject X is entirely permitted: finding sources is not generating article content. Of course, editors have to then analyse and use the sources properly, as with sources gathered by any other means. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thumbnail

 Courtesy link: Ray Garraty

Is there a way to make my thumbnail bigger? BellyKelly (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I should add the thumbnail picture I have on the page I just created. It's smaller than what I want BellyKelly (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically it can be done (Set |upright=1.2, or some other value >1) but generally it's not a good idea, as you don't know how that will look for other people.~

You can change the size of thumbnails you see in your user preferences, under "Appearance". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Link to WP subject article, within a quoted sentence or passage?

Is it acceptable, or does it conform with WP conventions, to add linking [[ ]] to a name, word , etc within a quoted sentence or paragraph? (Specifically, linking to an existing WP article.)

Of course, it does alter the appearance of the text because, with linking, one or two (or more) words become high-lit in blue. But is linking in this way to be avoided, or is it okay? Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe it's okay, if the link is definitely useful. Only put it in if you think readers may genuinely need help in understanding the quote. Made up examples: Smith said this "was illegal under California law" should not have a wikilink on California. But Smith said this "was illegal under California's Right to Work Act" could reasonably have a wikilink to the Right to Work Act, if such a Wikipedia page existed, since that adds a lot of useful context.

It is understood that wikilinks are never part of the original quote, and thus don't compromise the quote's integrity. M kuhner (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks M.Joel Russ (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Soliciting fees for composing a page

Is it against the rules to write a page for someone and charge them a fee for it? ~2026-46325-59 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly, see WP:PAID. If someone has told you that they have written a page and are asking you for money they are very likely trying to scam you, though. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not against the rules, it's just almost certainly doomed to failure and a waste of time for everybody involved; see WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Batavia mutiny

Im wondering if I should write on the Batavia mutiny because there’s a article on the ship and it talks about it but not extensively? Badg3rbr0z94 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Badg3rbr0z94: Welcome to The Teahouse. An article on the mutiny might be possible if you have reliable sources that significantly cover it and they are independent of the subject. For more information, you may want to check out this page on determining if an event is wikinotable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

If I may, you might find a better approach is to expand the Mutiny plot section of the Batavia article, and once there's enough heft to it, make an argument that splitting it off is preferable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Reposting a draft after account autoconfirmed

Hello,

I have an article Draft:Graham Dickson which is currently in AfC because I created it before my account was four days old.

I see that there's a long backlog of articles needing review in this process.

After my account is more than four days old, can I instead post it again as an autoconfirmed user so it doesn't need to be reviewed?

Thank you! Millswyn (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, since you are autoconfirmed, you can use the move button on the right to move your draft yourself. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

While you may do so now that you are autoconfirmed, I would caution that it's still advisable for novice editors to allow the AfC process to play out, until you have more experience and are confident that your articles would be accepted. I've been around for a minute, but I still feel better knowing that my work has been verified by someone with more experience than me before it goes live. WP:There is no deadline, after all. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

We've got a backlog clearing drive going on right now, so reviews are much quicker than usual. I recommend waiting. You are allowed to continue improving the article while you wait, and doing so can actually get a faster review. Reviewers aren't given specific articles to review but instead pick from the list as they please--often they will either pick easy accepts or easy rejects, and will shy away from difficult judgment calls. You don't want to be an easy reject (no sources, advertising language, LLM use, that sort of nonsense) so work to be an easy accept.

The great thing about AfC is you can try again, with guiding advice from the reviewer. If you put the article in mainspace yourself and it doesn't meet standards, it's likely to end up at Articles for Deletion, from which rescuing it is much more difficult. M kuhner (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Help rewriting a declined band draft (AI text issue)

Hello! My draft for the alternative rock band Chaser Eight was recently declined because the initial text was generated using ChatGPT. I completely understand why that text is unacceptable. I am a member of the band, so I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) and do not want to edit or rewrite the draft myself.

However, our band is legitimate and has notable national and regional press. Could a volunteer editor help throw away the AI text and write a short, neutral stub using our independent media coverage? Here are our four strongest secondary sources:

1. PopMatters Album Feature: popmatters.com
2. Huffington Post Feature: huffingtonpost.com
3. FOX61 Mohegan Sun Award Feature: fox61.com
4. Hartford Courant Feature: courant.com

Thank you for your time! Imjustaudra (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Imjustaudra. You might have better luck finding someone to help you with this by posting a similar message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians since that where Wikipedians with experience creating/editing articles about bands tend to hang out. It would also be a big help if you could provide more specific links to the reliable sources you believe are providing significant coverage of your band; just providing general links to websites and expecting someone to dig around to find what the site has written about your band might be a bit of stretch when asking for help. You might also want to take a look at the essay Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band since you might find what's written there to be helpful. The last part of that essay, in paricular, contains some information you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate the help. Imjustaudra (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Actual links:

1. PopMatters Album Feature: https://www.popmatters.com/190645-chaser-eight-chaser-eight-album-stream-premiere-2495560482.html
2. Huffington Post Feature: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chats-with-3-doors-downs-chris-henderson-and-the-swords_b_56b3badae4b0aa19e2c75aab
3. FOX61 Mohegan Sun Award Feature: https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/new-london-county/chaser-eight-wins-mohegan-suns-2024-locals-live-competition-at-wolf-den/520-27b09b1b-4777-439c-bae2-3546fb353130
4. Hartford Courant Feature: https://www.courant.com/2022/08/15/a-day-of-music-beer-art-and-food-at-manchesters-silk-city-fest/

Imjustaudra (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Is there any guidance on when it is or isn't appropriate to remove unsourced material from articles? My understanding was that aside from BLPs, the standard is usually to just leave it and tag with ^{[citation needed]} if there's nothing particularly controversial about it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess anything that is unsourced could be removed per WP:V (WP:BURDEN), but it might depend upon the nature of the content in question. Something seen as potentially contentious or extraordinary might make more sense to remove than tag with a template if you've tried to find a source yourself to back it up, particularly any claims made about third-parties. Regardless, it's considered good practice to at least make an attempt to find a source to support whatever you want to tag instead of just tagging in it; users who just go around slapping articles or content with maintenance templates might be seen by some as WP:TAGBOMBers if they never make any attempts to resolve issues they come across. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

In these cases I believe the material would be fairly easy to source, and indeed may be within the existing sources and just need a separate citation (as I've found that to be true for similar material). I don't believe any such attempt was made and it certainly wasn't noted anywhere - just a "remove unsourced material" edit summary. It's non-controversial, probably true, and has been in the articles for years, so either leaving it alone or dropping the tag both seem like better approaches than flat out removing it, if the editors can't be bothered to attempt to source it themselves. If I thought there was anything problematic about the material I would support the removal. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Worth remembering that there are only four instances where inline citations are required directly after claims. In many other cases, the content may instead be support by citations grouped together at the end of a paragraph, or even by a WP:GENREF at the end of an article. In solidarity, nil ^nz 02:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat. I thought you were asking for yourself (i.e., asking whether it would be OK for you to remove unsourced content); I didn't realize you were asking about edits made by others. In the latter case, you could certainly re-add the content if you're able to find sources for it; you could also, I guess, re-add and tag it if you feel the removal was unnecessary. Your second post seems (at least to me) more of a complaint about what some other user did than a request for information for yourself. If that's the case, then maybe try discussing things with that person on the article's talk page and explaining why you feel the removal wasn't warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussions haven't exactly been productive, and I wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding standard editing conventions. These are generally articles that need significant work, which I have been attempting to do gradually, but the removals don't improve them, and chasing down individual citations just to add back minor statements feels like unnecessary legwork. They only come along and remove material when they notice someone else has been working on the article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

searching

how do I find an asteroid like 50000 Quaoar (2002 LM60) ~2026-46330-27 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46330-27: Welcome to The Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46330-27 Are you looking for our article on Quaoar? Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46330-27: There is a search box at top of all pages. In narrow windows you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to see it. If I enter 50000 Quaoar (2002 LM60) then Quaoar is the first result. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Moving the page to Mainspace

Hi

While I was trying to move my page to the mainspace, I encounters errors mainly on the COI on the autobiography. I am an actor and would like to publish my page mainly for updating my movie projects. Could you please help me complete in publishing my page successfully ?

Thanks

Rajeev Shankar Rajeev Shankar (Actor) (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rajeev Shankar (Actor): Welcome to The Teahouse. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. An article about you would only be (added 13:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)) feasible if there are reliable sources that significantly cover you and are independent of you to establish that you are indeed wikinotable. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your projects. Consider using another outlet that might suit your purposes better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-46127-10 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rajeev Shankar (Actor)

Hello! According to your sandbox you are in the business since 2006, so maybe there is coverage about you, that would qualify for an article about you. I don't know what the newspaper clip you uploaded says, because I can't read it. Maresa63 ^Talk 05:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you so much for your response, which is quite helpful for me. I understand your difficulty to read it. I am attaching the chat gpt translation screen recording of the same content.

Google Drive Link

Thanks

Rajeev Shankar Rajeev Shankar (Actor) (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't rely on my response to much. While a translation of the file might seem helpful, the clipping itself is most likely a WP:Copyvio. You should cite sources not copy them, and you need more. And what Tenryuu wrote above still counts! You should read the links they provided! Maresa63 ^Talk 06:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rajeev Shankar (Actor), and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm going to say the same as Tenryuu, but more forcefully.

I know of no case where a person has successfully created an autobiography of themselves in Wikipedia. There may be a few examples, but for most people who try, it is a total waste of their time and effort, and they would be better employed furthering their career somewhere that allows promotion.

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

This means, that to create an article about yourself successfully, you would need, once you had found the required reliable sources about you that you and your associates had no part whatever in creating, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself and write a summary of what those sources said. Do you think you could do that? Most people can't.

Then, if you succeeding in writing an acceptable article, you would need to face the fact that the article would not belong to you, and would not be controlled by you. Almost anybody in the world could edit it - except you and your associates (you could request edits to it).

Please see Autobiography, and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

What to do if an article has alot of Peacock, Puffery, AISigns, Primary, Fancruft, Churnalism and Refbombing

So im working on Keu Bole Biplobi Keu Bole Dakat, and the problem is that this Article is filled with the problems mentioned above, Since the puffery is so extensive, its not possible for one Editor like me to identify things only for some other editor to restore these puffery again. In the talk page, an experienced editor gave up fixing this article. What should I do in this case? BengalMC ^talk 06:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Start over and simplify; you can't fix a plate of burnt food, you can only make it again. Begin with only the best published sources that are independent, reliable, and are about the film. And then only write what those independent sources say about the film. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Improvement of the draft about the environmentalist Nida Collado

Hello, I am working on a draft biography for a Filipino environmentalist, Nida A. Collado. Could someone please examine my page and look for things I can improve before it gets reviewed (it is already on the AfC queue)? It has been declined before but the reasons for declination aren't very consistent except for one thing, tone. Thank you. ∼∼∼∼ Thebirbeater (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a couple of obvious things: All of that random boldface needs to go. As does any promotional content that is not supported by independent sources, including non-notable awards that have not been reported on by independent sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I removed the unnescesary boldface, but I rewrote her local recognitions into a clean paragraph structure. Should I just delete the paragraph? Thebirbeater (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Anything that reads like praise needs to be backed up by independent sources. That means for example journalistic or academic sources, not the websites of organizations she's involved with or industry awards she has received. This follows from Wikipedia's neutral point of view and "What Wikipedia is not" policies. Neutrality here means that we follow what reliable sources independent of the subject have said.

On another note, your comment in this Commons discussion makes me think you might be somehow connected to Nida Collado. Please take a moment to review our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest and, if applicable, make the necessary disclosures as described there. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I fully disclose my COI as a distant relative of the subject, and I try to abide to the Wikipedia rules. I'd like examples of what in my article should i rewrite or delete. Thank you. ∼∼∼∼ Thebirbeater (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Assess my progress?

I have overhauled the article Otvet. The revision history is scary! Can you give me general advice as to what should be done? I am not planning on adding any content soon, just mainly maintenance and copyedit fixes, among others.

Thank you! NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 15:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Thefakeslimshady777. You've not provided Help:Edit summary for quite a few of your edits. We would really appreciate you write a brief but explanatory note for each Edit summary explaining what you changed and why - this makes the revision history a lot less overwhelming for other editors.

They can't be added in post, so leave it for now, but in future always try and remember to do this. qcne (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

yes, I understand, and I try to do that, but since I was really the only one editing the article, I figured no one would really bother checking my edit summaries. Whenever I make a single edit to an article, I provide an edit summary, since that is necessary. But since I had been the only one working on it, I figured no one would mind as long as they saw the final project and had access to diffs.

Noted. I will provide summaries in the future. NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 15:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I can see the logic, but as Wikipedia is a collaborative project and our articles are public, anyone can look at the Edit history and currently just see empty edit summaries which means they have to check the diffs to see what changed. Thanks for doing it for the future. You can turn a setting on in your Preferences to remind you if you leave one blank. qcne (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

alright, thanks for this, but do you have advice as to what needs improvement, logistical/copyediting? NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 15:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Thefakeslimshady777 The article makes extensive use of the source armyrecognition.com. See WP:ARMYRECOGNITION for why that may be a bad idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

"Extensive"? not really. The main statement is confirms is an event which already has a source. It is also used to confirm already sourced statements and is never used as standalone confirmation. NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 17:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

now every single usage of Navy recognition is supported by another source. Up to the experienced editors like you to tell me to remove it or not. NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 17:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thefakeslimshady777.

There is never any point in having multiple sources for the same information, unless each of them provides some part of the verification that the other ones do not. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks @ColinFine so I can remove the source? NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 18:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. (You don't have to do anything. But if the sources are as you've described here - I haven't looked - you can and should remove it). ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability check before drafting: business author Marcus Sheridan

Hello. I would like a notability read before I put time into a draft.

Disclosure: I am a paid employee of the subject and have disclosed this on my user page per WP:PAID. I would submit through WP:AFC, not directly.

Subject: Marcus Sheridan, business author and keynote speaker. Author of They Ask, You Answer (Wiley, 2017; rev. 2019) and Endless Customers (Wiley, 2025). Formerly co-owner of River Pools and Spas.

Sources I believe may qualify:

1. The New York Times, "Increasing Sales by Answering Customers' Questions", February 28, 2013, Small Business section.
2. Pool & Spa News, "A Transparent Approach", Nate Traylor, November 3, 2013. Reported profile, roughly 750 words.
3. Pool & Spa News, "Legal Rift Over Fiberglass Business Nearing End?", Dan Schechner, August 1, 2010. Reported coverage of litigation in which he was a named principal.
4. PR News, "To Save his Business Marcus Sheridan Became a 'Pool' Reporter", Bill Miltenberg, September 6, 2012.

Weaknesses I am already aware of:

• Sources 2 and 3 are the same publication, so I understand that counts as one outlet for independence purposes.
• Source 4 is a write-up of a keynote he delivered, so it derives from his own presentation.
• The bulk of the remaining coverage is interviews, podcasts, and his own bylines, which I understand do not count.
• I found no reviews of either book in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal, Booklist or similar, so I do not believe WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 is met.
• I could not verify any bestseller list placement, despite marketing copy suggesting one.

My questions:

1. Do these sources meet WP:GNG as they stand?
2. If not, what specifically would close the gap?
3. Would an article on River Pools and Spas be a better fit than a biography? The NYT piece and the litigation coverage both centre on the company rather than the person.

Thank you. Bmango16 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I would suggest that you read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to Mr. Sheridan. In short, even if he is notable, you're not likely to be successful at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic; a potential subject trying to force the issue and do it themselves doesn't usually work. It is very, very hard to set aside what you know about someone you're writing about and limit yourself to summarizing what others say about them- the good, bad, and the ugly.

Mr. Sheridan may want to read about how a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. If he has ever done anything in his life that he is not proud of and there is a record of it somewhere, it will eventually find its way into any article about him. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bmango16 In addition to what was said above, you must not use AI to talk to other editors or to generate text for any draft you end up making. Athanelar (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Marx (musician)

Hello dear Wikipedia community,

I'm writing as my draft "Draft:Daniel Marx (musician)" was rejected for AI-generated content and probably also, because this was my first try at Wikipedia and I didn't do a good job understanding how it works. I have read the articles sent by the reviewers and now believe to know why the draft got rejected. In any case, I have reliable and independent coverage e.g. in Classical Guitar Magazine, MusicWeb International, Resmusica, Süddeutsche Zeitung and multiple releases with Naxos, the leading major label for classical music.

As suggested by the reviewers, I have now rewritten a much shorter and entirely new manual version in my sandbox, without any AI involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielmarxguitar/sandbox

Could any admin please change the reject into a decline, so I can try and resubmit the clean version? I have also added the COI as requested by the community.

Thanks Danielmarxguitar (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Not clear how you would pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment!!

The subject passes at least one of the required points from the list.

E.g. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Subject has released two albums on Naxos, the worlds leading major label for classical music. And one on GENUIN classics, an independent label with many notable performers and a long established history ~2026-46247-11 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong,

please let me know what you think of the sandbox draft. It is a matter of fact that two major label releases and one indie release happened. There are multiple independent, reliable sources that prove it and speak about it in detail. I'd be happy to resubmit the clean version and take it from there. Danielmarxguitar (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

clanlawren in breadalbane

Hi all I am having difficulty with being declined, mainly from the citations. The subject is well documented in primary sources which are composed of mainly legal documents which apparently do not qualify as sources in Wikipedia. The secondary sources are extremely scarce, in most cases there is only one. So as a result my drafts keep getting kicked back, The authors of the secondary sources are typically Phd. level historians or official clan historians. I'm kind of stuck. Just because there is not a lot of secondary sources does not mean that the subject is no important or that the scarcity equates with false or questionable information.

On the other hand and much to my dismay after examining other Scottish Clan pages, the use of secondary sources like Encyclopedias, that they themselves, do not cite primary sources is widespread. They have no clear evidence of a primary source, so fabrications and traditions written as actual history are typical.

For example on the page Scottish Clans, Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia by George Way of Plean, and Romilly Squire (1994), is used over thirty times. This encyclopedia references no sources whatsoever. The same holds true for The Tartans of the Clans and Families of Scotland by Learney, no primary sources whatsoever. Yet these are the go to secondary sources for the Scottish Clan category. Pageturner3 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Corporate notability

Hello! I am attempting to publish an article on the mobile app company, Upside. The company has over 5M app users and over 35M total users. I submitted a draft but was declined because "it does not establish corporate notability". The article cites a number of secondary sources that talks about the company. Would anyone be able to provide additional guidance and/or be willing to review and give feedback? Thank you so much! Starhope2026 (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. A few of your sources consist of trivial coverage (WP:CORPTRIV), such as those from C-Store Decisions, CSNews, CSP Daily News, and SiliconANGLE. Others discuss the company in insubstantial coverage: the FT article is primarily about US oil prices instead of Upside, for example. /over.throws/^✎ 19:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. You're not likely to be successful at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience.

The issue you are having is that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities, offerings, and name drops in media. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what is said about the company.

The number of users does not factor in to notability; it could have 5 users and be notable, or 5 billion and not be notable. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources, which should involve unsolicited critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company by others, not what it views as its own importance. Routine business activities like funding rounds and non-notable awards(awards that themselves do not have an article) do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking for new mentor

Hello, I'm looking for a mentor who is more active on WP than my current mentor. Specific things I want to pester them about are the mechanics of adding references while matching the existing conventions of the article, and referring to those references later via name to avoid pasting them in entirety again. Perhaps questions about WP policies too, if I'm in a discussion and looking to make a point based on policy.

Thanks FineIllDoIt (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a mentor, but I'm happy to help where I can if you leave me a talk page message (note that I'm not always active). You can also request a mentor through the process described at WP:Mentorship#How can I get a different mentor?; or, if you have a specific question, you can use the Help template or just ask here at the Teahouse! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it, my mentor was on break and just got back to me so it all worked out. Thanks for the offer to act as a resource too FineIllDoIt (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox history

Hello, I believe my draft is ready to see the light of day. However, I noticed that my original sandbox User:GuineaPigC77/sandbox where this is drafted contains the history of previous drafts (different articles altogether). Is there a way to remove this? And since I fear not, how might I create/organize new sandboxes in the future to avoid this. I am here Wikipedia:Sandbox_organiser but it seems like the tool might be buggy. Can I instead just create a new sandbox2, sandbox3, etc. for each new draft? I find this aspect of Wikipedia challenging (moving things around, creating pages) so a simple safe method is desirable if possible. Thank you in advance. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 19:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know enough to answer the question about your current sandbox (perhaps something like a history merge..?), so I'll leave that to someone else, but for the rest: Yes, you can create more sandboxes like that. It doesn't have to be called sandbox either: you could create User:GuineaPigC77/Meow meow meow, or anything you like under that prefix (User:GuineaPigC77/). We also have a separate namespace for drafts, so if you're writing about Jane Doe, you would put the draft at Draft:Jane Doe, and so on. Any of these is a perfectly fine option. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, for some reason your sandbox's talk page redirects to Talk:Peru–Yale University dispute. You probably want to do something about that before or immediately after you publish it (: -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you this is helpful to know. And yes I noticed the redirect as well - can I just remove all the contents of the sandbox talk page without breaking the actual (main space) Peru-Yale talk page? And yes I'll wait to see what to do about the current draft. Thank you! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 22:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

1. Go to your Sandbox page.
2. Click the "Talk" button to switch to the Sandbox talk page
3. At the top, in smaller print, it tells you that you arrived on a different page due to a redirect. Click the "User talk:GuineaPigC77/sandbox" link in that notice.
4. That will bring you to your actual Sandbox talk page, which tells you that it's a redirect. Click "Edit" and blank out the page (or at least removing the #REDIRECT line)
5. Publish changes

— PeterCooperJr (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes it seems that worked! Thank you. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You can organize pages in your user space just about any way you want within reason. What I've usually been doing is using my Sandbox page as I put an article together, and then copy the code from there and paste it into a Draft using the Wikipedia:Article wizard, or sometimes just paste directly into the article that I've been updating. And then afterward I clear out that article from my Sandbox. So the history of my Sandbox is from a bunch of different topics, but that's kind of its point is to just play around with and test things and what's currently or previously in there doesn't really matter. If you want to just make a separate page for each drafted article, but keep it in your User space instead of the Draft space (some people prefer one or the other for various reasons, but it doesn't really matter much), go ahead and just make it as a subpage of your User. I'd give it the name of the actual article rather than "Sandbox2" but again, it's just a matter of how you want to organize things. You can put {{Userspace draft}} at the top of the drafts you're working on in your User space to clearly mark them. See Help:Userspace draft for more details on that approach, and it also includes a box at the top that makes it easier for you to make a Userspace draft. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay cool I'm glad to hear it's relaxed and can be done in multiple ways. In this case, I'll continue with what I'm doing with numbering (or use names) but make a point to make a new page for anything new. Then I can just put shortcuts on my user page and I don't have to use an organizer. I think this solves my future-draft/organization question. Thank you for taking the time! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely more than one way to do it. If you want to organize each task you're working on as a separate page, that's a reasonable and very normal approach. A few more tips:

1. You can see all of your subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/User:GuineaPigC77/ (A way to get there is to click "Contributions" at the top right navigation menu, and then scroll to the very bottom and click "Subpages". Or just bookmark that page directly.)
2. One easy way to make a subpage is to create the link to it first. So add a link to your user page (or sandbox, or whatever) like [[/Sandbox3]] and it will show up as a red link, which you can then click to create the page. A link starting with a slash goes to a subpage of the page that it's on.
3. If you want the full nitty-gritty policy on what you are and aren't allowed to do on your user pages, see Wikipedia:User pages. But the short version that as long as it's in support of your work to edit Wikipedia in good faith then it's probably fine.
4. If you want to make a really fancy set of user pages, with menus and themes and whatnot, check out the Wikipedia:User page design guide. But that's just if you want all the bells and whistles.

— PeterCooperJr (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

These are great tips. #1-2 worked, I will read over #3, and implement #4 once I gain more aura points. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Shutdown happened?

Were Wiki servers down today for a couple of hours or is it just me? Gigman (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It was intermittently inaccessible for a few hours but has been resolved. Here's the status monitoring page . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea why? Gigman (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Monte from PL to EN?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Monte from PL to EN?

Dear friends.

I see EN Wikipedia got a article about Zott, but not really a separate one about Monte (milky dessert basically). Polish Wikipedia got article about that. Do you think I could translate? Or maybe there is no need for some reason?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I just looked and sources are ... Poor? Maybe visiting the official websites would help?

--Kaworu1992 (talk) Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! Wikipedia:Translation has general information about translating articles to the English Wikipedia. You have very correctly identified the sourcing as an important thing to consider. To be eligible for its own article, the product would have to be "notable" according to this Wikipedia's policy. In this case, WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline, which is stricter than the usual requirements. Basically, if you can find a few independent, secondary, reliable sources that discuss Monte at some depth (not just trivially), you can make an article. Even if it doesn't qualify for its own article, you could still add information to our article on Zott (dairy company), which itself is very short! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Move permission error despite meeting autoconfirmed thresholds

Hello, I'm trying to move my completed draft from User:Lofty_dawn/sandbox to mainspace as "Paperlab", but I get a permission error saying the action is limited to autoconfirmed users, administrators, page movers, or confirmed users.

My account was registered 19:45, 19 August 2026, and I've made 18 edits, which should put me above the autoconfirmed thresholds (4 days old, 10+ edits). Could someone check whether my account is actually autoconfirmed, and if not, help me understand why, or move the page for me if the draft looks ready? I'd appreciate any guidance. Thank you! Lofty dawn (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It was recently changed from four days after account creation to four days from your first edit. You still have around 24 hours before you're autoconfirmed.

Even if autoconfirmed, unless you have had drafts accepted previously, it is highly recommended that you submit your draft for a review via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I have placed it at Draft:Paperlab and enabled submission. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you so so much! Lofty dawn (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask someone to send me their sources in detail?

I've been looking at a lot of {{editCOI}} requests. I was just looking at one where the user who requested the edit provided several sources in the form of books. The guidelines at WP:COIRESPONSE emphasize that the person who is responding should individually look at the sources. I could probably request the books via inter-library loan but it might take a bit.

If this person were close to me in the physical world I could ask to borrow their copy of this book to look it over. The segment I would like to read is longer than a sentence (they already provided a quote, but I would really like to gauge the context for balance and neutrality), but is probably only a few pages. Could I offer that if they would rather not wait for me to independently acquire the sources to verify they could send me a selection by email or something? I'm wary because these are all of course copyrighted material and I don't want to tell the user to do something that's going to be a legal headache for wikipedia. Packrat3860 (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

If you meet the requirement for the the Wikipedia Library, you can use that to get access to many sources. If its not on there/can't use it, you could then try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. PeriodicEditor (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Help:Find sources has some useful advice on how to find sources for free. PeriodicEditor (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Request review of user ArchivioItalia. Heavy misuse of AI LLM. Generating lots of new articles

Guy (or Bot) is on a rampage making hundreds of new additions about wars & battles. Even adding new articles for missing wars. Adding 300-1000 characters every 2 minutes is crazy. They are definitely not vetting if they are writing correct information, copy-pasting from other language wikipedia, making new articles when articles are missing on English. This is war history we are talking about, and they are basically contorting historical events.

Example: Battle of Se La Pass . They made new English article, copied over from Chinese zh.wikipedia.org . This became controversial on Reddit, because it references Chinese names for locations in India that were never before called by those names in India & English, and twisting events & facts in Chinese narrative which I found to be bias. Since it was copied over from Chinese wiki, which English readers never visit, hence it was not issue before.

A user with 9,275 edits. Account created on 23 November 2025.

I don't know where to report or flag AI misuse on Wikipedia. Please help flag this user so their contributions are strictly reviewed. I also think past contributions need to be totally deleted since they generated entire articles. Very similar users were banned recently. -- BasedItalianMonarchist banned

// ~2026-46442-79 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIV, WP:AIN, and WP:AINB are a few of the noticeboards available for reporting editors. The latter is probably the most appropriate here. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:AINB is the place where cleanup is likely to be organized. However it has a limited ability to deal with non-LLM issues. I think this is one of the few cases where posting to two boards may be acceptable: WP:AI noticeboard to marshall cleanup efforts, and somewhere else (Chompy's suggestions) to deal with behavior. M kuhner (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Promotional article about a restaurant chain, one recent editor

 Courtesy link: Phil's BBQ

I spotted an unusual article heavily promoting a restaurant chain, a single temp account has taken over edits since a named account was notified of a potential conflict of interest (the chain's name is in the account name). Neither account has added a COI statement.

So, given the heavy promotional/marketing tone, and the known connection with a named account, I left a COI reminder for the temp account and added an ((Advertisement)) tag to the article. The temp account just reverted the tag and continued editing. I don't know what the right thing to do is now, can anyone advise? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@SuperFastSpellChecker I've reported the TA to WP:AIV for their undisclosed paid editing. If @Markslowe-philsbbq becomes active again without addressing the notice on their talk page, they should be similarly reported. Athanelar (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, based on a flurry of activity that followed this question, my next steps should have been:

• add a ((Template:COI)) tag to the article page, since persons connected to the restaurant may have recently been editing the article
• add a ((Template:COI edit notice)) to the article talk page, which advises Ind with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article.
• report the temp account as promotional/vandal (? based on reverting the ((Advertisement)) tag?)

SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I have partially blocked the most recent TA from the article indefinitely, and semi protected the article for a while also so all the issues can be fixed without further disruption. Mfield (Oi!) 01:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for all that. Do I leave the article content as-is and wait for a response from one of the accounts, or revert it to before any of them started amending it? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I have also partially blocked Markslowe-philsbbq from the page for clear UPE. As for the content if all those edits have introduced a bunch of issues without any constructive content from other editors in the mean time then the simplest action may be to revert and then integrate what sourced and notable bits you can. If that's not clear then you could also ping a couple of the other editors that have been reverting on the talk page to see what they think the best action is. Or just WP:BEBOLD :) Mfield (Oi!) 01:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I'll sleep on it. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, pinging @Marchjuly as they have been working on it also. Mfield (Oi!) 02:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I just did some very rudimetary cleanup SuperFastSpellChecker and tagging of some non-policy compliant non-free images. Feel free to be WP:BOLD and try to improve the article if you want to give it a go; remember though to WP:PRESERVE what you can if it's worth preserving and not just remove something because a COI editor might've added it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential COI, how can I report?

I'm checking the edit logs for page for the Ministry of Public Order and Safety, since the page was written in a more legislative style than other articles covering government agencies. I looked into it and found that User:Mpos.barmm edited the page last February 23. Based on the article and the username, I am very suspicious for any WP:COI but I am not sure how to approach it. How can I report? Signed, Lucss21a (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lucss21a, the relevant venue would be the conflict of interest noticeboard Mfield (Oi!) 00:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Only after discussion with the editor concerned has failed to resolve the issue—that user's talk page is currently a read link.

Since they only ever edited once, it may be better to just revert the edit, clean it up, or start a discussion about doing so on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"Leave Russia" and controversy sections

Is being listed as a company in "Leave Russia" and similar 'single-sourced lists' itself enough for writing it into the Controversy section?

Long title, but it is what I want to say.

Recently came across KidZania and saw its Controversy section with how it is listed in Leave Russia. I wonder is this a sufficient source of notability for including this?

Leave Russia seems to be a privately (as opposed to the International Sponsors of War, which has a national-level background) compiled list. And the only source is first-hand, primary sources. So, what is Wikipedia's current standards on this?

See also Category:Blacklisting, which includes other such lists. Aki Shizuha (Talk) 01:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at it myself after reading this and felt the substantiation far too thin to support that content, nor was able to find additional sourcing that would strengthen it. So I removed the section, and started a discussion on the Talk page for the article about this issues. In most situations, I would suggest following WP:BRD, but since you are not an extended-confirmed editor, make sure to keep discussions on the Russia-Ukraine issues to talk pages for now (see WP:RUSUKR). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Understood. This is not merely RUSUKR though. Any single sourced list (such as Beall's List in academia) might fall for this problem. Aki Shizuha (Talk) 16:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but the RUSUKR issue is a huge one to note because it's a contentious topic on Wikipedia with a specific restriction on extended-confirmed editors. I'm reminding you to not directly edit this article so that you don't unintentionally run afoul of the restriction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. So how can I split out the RUSUKR reference and bring the actual problem (artificially compiled single source listing) to be discussed? Or, where (if I am allowed to, of course!) can I do so? Aki Shizuha (Talk) 01:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Title shortened, as a courtesy to readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Want to create a company page

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I want to create a company page in Wikipedia just like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invoicera so can you guide me how can I create page like this I want your help and also let me know that can I do it or not.

I am waiting for your response.

Do let me know!

Thank You. Mike Mayers123 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mike Mayers123. If you're connected to the company in some personal or professional way, the first thing you should is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure because those pages contain information about some important things about Wikipedia that you may not know but may find helpful. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not too for some additional guidance.

Whether anyone can create an article about this company entirely depends upon whether it can be established that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If the company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, then its going to be pretty much impossible for a stand-alone article to be created about it regardless of who's trying to do so. If you feel the company is Wikipedia notable, my suggestion to you would be to start working on a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation because this will give you the chance to work at your own pace and also allow you submit your draft for review when you think it's ready. Creating a new article is a fairly involved process, and it's easy to get things wrong if you don't have sufficient experience in doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Privé, DAB page

Crown (anatomy), redirect

Crown (anatomy) was moved to Crown (head) due to ambiguity with Crown (tooth), but it should now redirect to Crown (disambiguation). Could someone fix the redirect? ~2026-46463-23 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Appears fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How to name articles?

Hello again!

so, I want to write an article on cities Columbus, Ohio has failed to become sister/twin cities with. However, I know that 'cities Columbus, Ohio has failed to become sister cities with' isn't a good name. What should I do? Hellothe22 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The first and more important question is whether "Cities Columbus, Ohio has failed to become sister cities with" is even a topic which meets our general notability guideline. Have reliable, independent sources discussed the topic in depth? I.e., is the golden rule satisfied? Athanelar (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend first expanding the main article on the city, maybe as a part of the existing section on Sister cities (Columbus, Ohio#Sister cities) or maybe as a new section. And if it becomes long and unwieldy with all the information from reliable sources that you've added, only then discuss splitting it out into its own article and what the best name for such a split article might be. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like a great idea for a blog post, or an article in a Columbus, Ohio, newspaper or magazine. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Gernot Güntherodt

Draft:Gernot Güntherodt

Could someone retrieve the original (marginal) version of my english Wiki page (above the present draft page), most likely of 24 November 2025 ?

GernGün GernGün (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @GernGün, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you're asking - that Draft was only created in June this year, so it sounds as if you are referring to a previous version which has been deleted. But I can't find a record of either Gernot Güntherodt or Draft:Gernot Güntherodt having been previously deleted. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ ColinFine (talk), I am refering to a very short en.wikipedia which somebody unknown to me had set up way before the draft of June 2026; I had started expanding that early version, but would like to return to it. Is it possible to retrieve this? GernGün ~2026-46376-25 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we have a page?

Hi, We are TV manufacturers - only remaining ones in the UK. We appear rightly in this list of television manufacturers but we don't have a page. We also brought the first TV to market that streamed iplayer - albiet major players followed quickly. List of television manufacturers Why don't we have a page and can i just write one and then we have it? U'm told it's not that easy! SuzieDinsdale (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

SuzieDinsdale Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review and comply with the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirement.

As to why there is no article about your company, that's because no one has written it yet. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who choose what they want to write about based on what interests them.

You are permitted to use the Article Wizard to create amd submit a draft. But, as WP:PAIDADVICE explains, you're not likely to succeed at it, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SuzieDinsdale. The reason your company does not have an article on Wikipedia is that no volunteer editor has taken the time out to research and create an article.

You are permitted to write an article about the company, but there are several steps you must make first:

1. Declare your conflict of interest as an employee of the company by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is mandatory.
2. Read in detail our criteria for inclusion guideline for companies. Only if you are sure that the company meets this criteria, and you can evidence that through sources, may you write a draft article via Wikipedia:Article wizard.
3. Read in detail Help:Your first article which explains how to create an article.

qcne (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Borderline AfC draft – how many independent sources are enough?

My draft Draft:Chubby Daniels has been declined three times for lacking independent secondary sources. The subject is a Nigerian-born visual artist based in Leicester. The draft cites three sources: a BBC News feature, a BBC Radio Leicester report, and a staff-written Leicester Mercury feature by journalist Eva Millett (Reach plc). All three have editorial oversight and are independent of the subject. One of the original reviewers, Balabush, acknowledged on their talk page that the Leicester Mercury source was valid independent sourcing and described the draft as "genuinely borderline," then recused themselves and flagged it at WT:AFC for a second opinion. The next reviewer declined with the same template without addressing the Mercury. My question: can two independent sources from two different publishers (BBC and Reach plc) meet WP:GNG for an emerging artist? And if AfC keeps declining, is there another path to get the draft assessed? Swaglomo (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Swaglomo: the general guideline is that you need three reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Draft:Chubby Daniels cites only two sources. The first of these is based on an interview with the subject, and so is not independent. I can't assess the other source as I don't have access to it. But even if it's acceptable as evidnce of notability, that's only one source, which is not enough. (I see that you admit he is "emerging". On this page, that generally means "not notable yet, but...". You should spare your efforts until more sources are available.) Maproom (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"Emerging" almost certainly means it too soon for an article about this artist. A person must have already arrived and been noticed in order to merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia follows the coverage, it does not lead the way. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Michel Moatti translations

Hi I would like to help my friend Michel Moatti and translate in English his French page fr:Michel Moatti

I need some guidance on how to do it Three links/pages in English already exist. Back to Whitechapel Walter Dew Jack the Ripper in fiction

Many thanks

MDG MDG Europe (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRANSLATE. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MDG Europe.

If you are sure that a sufficient number of the sources cited in fr:Michel Moatti meet all the conditions in WP:42, and so establish that he meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it will probably be worth translating the article (observing the requirements for attribution in the link 331dot has given you).

But I see that the rather short section "Biographie" has only one citation (which does not seem to say very much about Moatti), and the bulk of the article is a list of works, with one or more citations for each. If some of those citations contain significant independent material about the author (not just about the work) then they may be useful for establishing notability.

If not, then a direct translation of this article will effectively be written backwards, and you will probably have to do more work in finding better sources and rewriting the article from them than the work of translating in the first place.

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) 17:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Bear in mind that I am a full beginner on these.

One of the issues is that all the references, of which there is a lot on his French page, are unfortunately in French and therefore I can't use to generate his English page.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. MDG Europe (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Non-English sources can be used (so long as you can read and verify what they claim). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MDG Europe. Unfortunately, translation is not usually any easier for beginners than writing an article from scratch, because you need an understanding of the requirements on sourcing, either to check the existing article, or to find sources if there are not adequate ones there. As Andy says, non-English sources may be used, if there are not good English sources.

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) 20:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this Disrespectful?

 Courtesy link: 2026 Women's NORCECA Volleyball Championship

Is this deemed disrespectful? While someone was deleting my edits that took hours, he said the following: Why are you going to undo my edit? Who else is going to edit volleyball statistics? Please, this table is simpler and easier to read. Specifically the second question about who will edit them. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

No, but it's not very collegial. Please read WP:BRD and WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead image of Gary Glitter needs to be replaced

 Courtesy link: Gary Glitter

When i initially read this article and i saw the lead image, i thought it was someone that was like Elvis Presley, but then when i search up his music, and listened to it, i realized it wasn’t that. I’m not alone, there is a reddit post that says as someone like Elvis Presley. I coundl’t find the Reddit post anymore. I do think it should be replaced with the 1973 image seen in the “Career” section. ~2026-46666-32 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to start as discussion to that effect on the article's talk page, Talk:Gary Glitter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I have looked at the talk page and it is inactive. There was someone writing a month ago requesting adding a source about new allegations, and there was no response. I don’t know if i should copy and paste the text i wrote, because i do think that there needs to be variation, other than saying that there is a discussion on the Teahouse. Besides, it’s better to have one discussion than two discussions. ~2026-46451-28 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Additionally, while the second sentence in the lead says that “His career ended after his 1999 conviction of downloading child sexual abuse material.”, he still had a career until 2005, including a release of a new album and a new single. So i do think that this should be discussed. ~2026-46451-28 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Then the talk page is the place to do so.

If no-one responds after, say, a week, you can post a short notice of the discussion on the talk page of one of the Wikiprojects listed on that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating a new article for musical artist Treacherou$ Man$ion

I'd like to find a WP contributor who can translate English into French

I've discovered some French interest in certain topic areas that are well represented in English. If I were fluently bilingual, I'd try translating some English-language WP articles myself. But I'm not.

Can anyone suggest a contributor who can and might like to do some translation? Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Joel Russ.

You can find a list of French-speaking editors at WP:Local embassy#French. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Also at fr:Wikipédia:Ambassade#[en] English / anglais on the French Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How do i request for a page to be moved

Ive tried to read and look at WP:move but I am still confused can someone help? if anyone is curious im trying to get Lago Vista TX - Rusty Allen Airport turned to just Rusty Allen Airport (which dosent exist) ~2026-46424-75 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46424-75 you can't move it unless you are a registered user with 4+ days odd experience and 10+ edits. I'll do it for you. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 22:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 22:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you! ~2026-46424-75 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46424-75 you're welcome. You may want to create an account. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 23:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Mixing ref and sfn a cause for Good Article Nomination failure?

I don't see this topic covered in the Good article criteria, so I want to make sure before nominating a 3000+ word article (still quite a way to go) that it will not be rejected because of this. If it will be, I will just have to put the time to do the required wikicode cleanup.

As I understand it, mixing <ref> with {{sfn}} is OK, as the {{cite book}} targets in the References section should be reserved for sources that are important references for the topic, letting the <ref> citations to show in the Citations section (using "name=" for repeats).

Am I correct in my understanding of the {{sfn}} vs <ref> usage?

I have studied the documentation on these two methods but it doesn't mention their impact in the GAN process.
JP Jp1008 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#(2)_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable covers this off, specifically under "Mistakes to avoid": *Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Nil NZ, it shouldn't be a barrier for GAN. Figuring out what the source is generally means eg. page numbers for longer sources. It is FAC where you'll get dinged for mixed formatting. CMD (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It certainly does not help with the GA review if the implementation of either <ref> or {{sfn}} templates generate errors. These errors need to be addressed as part of compliance to Manual of Style. The choice between the two templates should not matter at GAN, but it certainly helps the editor developing long articles to use {{sfn}} because it helps to segregate the reference information from the prose. A.Cython(talk) 01:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

On merging

Hi,
Normally when I come here I'm answering others' questions - it feels a bit unusual!
I just made my first merge - merging Tatla Lake, a stub, into Tatla Lake, British Columbia. Since the articles are rarely edited and seem quite stable, I estimated that I could go ahead and perform the merge. It's all done but now I'm fretting that I should have brought it to AfD instead to seek consensus. Is it OK that I merged the articles myself? Thanks! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 01:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)