Wikipedia:Teahouse

Michael D. Turnbull, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 1 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.]

Wiki

Wikipedia sucks; they shut down everyone and don't help new people. Instead they send them to pages with rules using nonunderstandable terms. Clint O'Shea (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What help are you seeking that you are not getting? What is it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

i try to rewrite my articles and then cite them; they get denied, so i try again and again but never get advise or help, just more denials Clint O'Shea (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Plain English advice:

After you write an article, but before you submit it, click on every single link in "References." Does it work? Does it go where you meant it to go?

This will not solve all your problems but it really, really helps! Article reviewers hate to see links on a new article that don't connect to anything, or connect to the wrong thing.

Second piece of advice: Writing a new article is one of the hardest jobs here. Try something else first. Find an article you like, look for additional sources and add one good piece of information, with its source.

M kuhner (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea: When citing an online source, I suggest using a citation template that creates a link for reviewers to see the source. I added a {{cite journal}} for you at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Clint, according to your User page you joined Wikipedia just yesterday. Although you packed a lot into that one day, it’s still only one day’s worth of experience.

Have you reached out to your mentor about some of your concerns and asked for his or her insights and advice? Mentors are one of Wikipedia’s most valuable — and often overlooked — available resources. They can really help in wading through all the jargon and procedures that can often overwhelm fledgling editors. Augnablik (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea Here's a very simple rule you've already been made aware of; you must stop using AI to generate articles or edit articles, as you have obviously done at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B, Draft:Eaglercraft (Minecraft recreation) and at NHL 23

There are lots of people here who would like to help you join the community here at Wikipedia, but if you continue to break this rule after yoi've specifically been previously informed about it on your talk page, it is not going to bring you any success. Personally, I would suggest you start by reading this guide, which Is specifically designed to avoid any of those difficult to understand terms. Athanelar (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have done all of such; also, I would not like to talk to you because I feel like I'm being harassed by you. I would like to speak to a higher person above you. Clint O'Shea (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not hierarchical like that. There's nobody "above" me, and I'm not "above" you. I'm a more experienced editor offering you some advice for success, because as it stands you seem to be clashing with Wikipedia's rules and culture rather than embracing them. It's your choice whether to listen to anything I'm saying, Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Look... I'm autistic, and have ADHD. I cant help how i am, and this is how I am. If you help me by showing me, I'll understand, but i only understand things by seeing them Clint O'Shea (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:The Wikipedia Adventure? That's meant for learning by doing.

Do you have a mentor? If not, would you consider applying for one? A mentor could walk you through some beginner work one-on-one and that might help.

People with autism and ADHD have successfully become editors on Wikipedia. It can be done! But jumping in at the deep end of the pool is a tough way to learn to swim. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can i know where can I apply for a mentor that can help me get through this process? AAanisali (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's how: WP:Mentorship. If you run into trouble, feel free to leave a message on my Talk page and I'll try walking you through it. M kuhner (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a magnet for neurodiverse people, the very nature of being a Wikipedia editor pretty effectively self-selects for neurodivergence, and it can often be a benefit to Wikipedia editors more than it's a hinderance.

That said, there are some things that some neurodiverse people are averse to which might be a problem here, and by wanting to be part of this community, you accept that you're going to have to take on those challenges.

The first and foremost is that this is a collaborative project. Working together with other editors, being civil, understanding that you don't control any of your work,following the community's policies, guidelines, standards, and norms, receiving (friendly, constructive) feedback and criticism from other editors; all of these things are non-optional. Some people aren't compatible with that sort of environment and that's fine. I've seen a lot of younger, neurodiverse editors hit a wall when they realise that Wikipedia isn't a Fandom wiki and they don't have total freedom to write anything about whatever takes their interest. This is, ultimately, a very serious project aimed at building the world's largest repository of human knowledge. If that atmosphere ends up feeling too stuffy or strict for you, that's perfectly fine. It's not for everybody.

Secondly, there's a lot of reading. You've already stated that pages with rules using nonunderstandable terms can be an issue with you. That is, ultimately, something you'll have to overcome in order to be here. Learning through doing is great, but one of the core competencies required to contribute significantly to Wikipedia is the ability to read, digest and apply policies, guidelines and the manual of style; and that's going to involve a lot of reading and learning jargon. It's one thing if you're just a WikiGnome who goes around fixing typos, but you've already shown you have an interest in writing new articles; if you want to be successful in that, then learning about things like notability, verifiability, reliable sources, original research, synthesis etc is going to be non-optional.

I say all this not to scare you off, but because you should absolutely be aware of the kind of things expected of you. Again, our guidance for younger editors is a good place to start. It's deliberately written in a style hopefully easier to understand than most of our PAGs. Athanelar (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

PAGs = policies and guidelines? 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea: sorry if offensive but are you self-diagnosed? ~2026-36397-47 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea:—Some belated advice: Don't start by writing new articles. Start by making small improvements to existing articles, so you learn how the editing tools work, how the citation templates work; and, more importantly, how this community functions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Clint O’Shea btw if you are autistic you could add this to your userpage SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 11:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Heyo! Some really late advice: start by copyediting (fixing grammar/spelling mistakes), and using the newcomer edit feature as well as the editing ideas feature, before trying to submit an article, so you know how everything works!

Happy editing! Agar!! - TALK 23:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Diamond Dacoit

This page is submitted for AFC by the creator and later moved it to mainspace by the creator. The page is not notable and not in Wikipedia style? ~2026-35716-02 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Done page has been draftified Mike Seems (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out @~2026-35716-02.

It has been moved back to Draft space. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

But User:Srikrishna99 has created it directly in mainspace again, while the draft still exists. Merge or delete, what would be the best option in this case? Maresa63 ^Talk 04:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The draft should be deleted, this published version has references from media. Mike Seems (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @ColinFine --Maresa63 ^Talk 04:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Seems @ColinFine But, seems the both pages looks same? Do they socking to get the page to mainspace? ~2026-36102-29 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ohh... Riya Kodali was created by Srikrishna99, but User:Thesazh claims on his user page that he created the article. Thesazh is blocked for undisclosed paid editing.

It appears they may have been connected. ~2026-36102-29 (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have tagged the draft for deletion but I think even the article its self hasn't been patrolled it needs deletion however a proposed one not quick deletion I think. Mike Seems (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Do that behaviour / creation of the page looks like socking SPI? Riya Kodali and Diamond Dacoit which i mentioned above. ~2026-36102-29 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It requires a checkuser Mike Seems (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay, Can you file the investigation for an checkuser? ~2026-36102-29 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It needs an administrator to help do that Mike Seems (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Heelo @KylieTastic it would be helpful if you help on this issue. Mike Seems (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The two versions have been history merged and it is not marked as patrolled so will be checked by a new page patroller KylieTastic (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I moved it back to draftspace. Is that ok? SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Animations used in articles.

Is there a way to stop animations to see a still image? In the article Pluto in the section titled Orbit there is an animation of Pluto's orbit from which I could get more information if the animation would stop. I see that when I click on the icon for the list of google-chrome tabs for the various screens available to see the animation stops whem I click on a tab for an article other than Pluto. Then when my mouse pointer arrow hovers over the tab for returning to the Pluto article I see the spot at which the animation stoped. Is this the only way to see stills from the animation? Fartherred (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fartherred

Hello! User:Phoenix7777 uploaded the Pluto-Animation to commons. Maybe they can help. Maresa63 ^Talk 05:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fartherred This is not article space, so I'll mention that I knew Clyde Tombaugh.  :-) David10244 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You could try using an online utility like this one. You could just copy/paste the image URL into there. Hi, I'm Popingry! (FKA Max) |Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about categories: vegetarian/vegan individuals

Hello Teahouse,

I have a category question please about vegetarian and vegan individuals (for bio pages). It seems that the categories for individuals are inconsistent, tied to nationality (subcategories in Veganism by country) and denote an activism (when the latter might not fit).

Is there an individual vegetarian or vegan category for people pages which does not include whether they are an activist? I think the country category seems more organisation-level. There are some people on the lists below who have no category coverage/listing, e.g. the vegetarian Fred Rogers. I understand that lists are dynamic and that references are still required there and on the person's page.

I've looked through:

• List of vegans
• List of vegetarians

For example, Chloe Hayden has category: 'Veganism in Australia' whereas Stefania Ferrario has category: 'Australian veganism activists', which is more similar to the American category for Alicia Silverstone.

Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: the cat Category:Vegetarianism has a sub-cat Category:People in vegetarianism, which in turn has a few different sub-sub-cats, see if anything there would work for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The categories are for a defining characteristic. So someone who is a vegetarian currently, may change their diet, and it may not be important, and certainly not defining. But for activists it may be very important. Similarly it may not be important to add a religious category, as it may not be important to who they are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett has already mentioned that sometimes it isn't important to add these categories. I would prefer to strengthen those comments to say that in most cases it's important to not add food preferences and religions, and to only use them when they're a major and constant part of what reliable sources say about the person, not including interviews. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Experiencing an issue

On the article 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash There's an interactive map thing with a caption underneath. But for some reason i cant view the full caption. Anyone know how to fix this? Xfifig (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Which map? The one at 2020_Calabasas_helicopter_crash#Flight? Which part isn't showing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Need advice on lead wording

Hello. I have made an edit request on the talk page of a biography of a living person regarding lead wording. My argument is based on WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLP, specifically whether identifying particular victims and perpetrators in a brief lead summary gives undue prominence to one aspect of a complex event.

I am not seeking support for a particular outcome, but would appreciate advice on whether this is primarily a WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV issue and wider community input would be more appropriate.

The link of talk page discussion is below for your referance.

Talk:Narendra Modi#Excessive foregrounding of word 'muslim' in the lead ~2026-32104-73 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You've asked this in the proper place. Please don't use multiple forums. Please also don't use an AI. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32104-73 I knew, when I read the question, that it was written by AI. David10244 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

How do you know? ~2026-32104-73 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32104-73 If you read enough AI-generated text, it becomes easier to tell. David10244 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeking support for a particular outcome lol ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Turning a decline into an approval

Hello,

This is my first Wiki article I've created and it was declined. I followed everything, made sure everything was cited, made sure it was not biased. I cited everything with articles from newspapers, articles, and interviews that were conducted but still declined.

Would like for someone to look through my article to make sure it's up to Wiki's standards. Mark.jiggs (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This piece of advice was already given to you, and that would be a good starting point: Massive violations of WP:BLP policy, with numerous unsubstantiated and unsourced assertions written in Wikipedia's voice. Some citations fail to verify what is claimed; did you even read what the AI apparently generated? If written by an AI, this needs to be started over from scratch without AI help other than locating sources. Start by removing any sentence that doesn't cite a reliable source.

That last sentence in particular is important; all information included in the article MUST be reliably sourced and verifiable using high-quality and reputable media sources. ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's what I don't understand.

Everything I've stated, I've cited in the references from interviews or newspapers.

Nothing in the draft/sandbox was written by AI. I typed everything myself. I looked up templates online so I understood where & how to place headings, etc, but otherwise the whole draft was written by me.

I looked up similar pages to make sure my format follows theirs, and make sure everything is in the right place too.

This is just confusing. This is my 1st creation so I'm still figuring things out. Mark.jiggs (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Anachronist ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 05:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

AI has a pattern of citing a source for something that the source doesn't actually say. If you do that a lot, people will think you're using AI. It's not any better if you aren't: this is not okay, either way.

Look at the very first citation in your article. Make a list of the claims you are asking that citation to support. Now, read the source you are citing. Are those claims actually in there? If not, you need to either find a source that does support them, or remove them from the article.

Now repeat that for every single claim in the article. Some have no sources at all; others have sources that don't say what you are claiming.

It will be a lot of work. Using LLM tends to make it harder because it fills in plausible sounding wrong sources and claims.

Writing your first article is hard. Writing a conflict of interest article is hard. I would really recommend starting with an easier task, like improving an existing article. M kuhner (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, never used AI when creating this article.

Everything I typed, I cited the appropriate source.

I typed it all out first, and then went and cited the appropriate sources.

If I couldn't cite it, I took it out. Mark.jiggs (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I will put a comment on your Talk page, since this is probably not of general interest anymore. M kuhner (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, @M kuhner, I think this discussion may be of interest to quite a few editors ... I've been noticing increasing requests for help on this same topic in the Teahouse and elsewhere. It's also popping up in news from around the world, as more and more writers get wrongly red-flagged by "false positives" in AI detectionware.

Here is just one recent article (December 2024) on this issue, appearing in The Serials Librarian, a respected and peer-reviewed journal in the field of Library and Information Science.

Although I have much respect for the benefits of AI, I know that it's still in its infancy and needs to be very, very carefully managed. I've sometimes wondered how to respond if I too ever got a red flag, and did a search to see what advice was "out there." For anyone else who might be wondering about the same, here's a YouTube talk I rather like, "How to Handle an AI Detector False Positive (And Prove You Didn't Cheat)," about 8 minutes long. A transcript is available to follow along with the speaker.

My main takeaways from the video: it's not the end of the world to get a red flag ... it's happened to others ... just stay calm ... there are ways we can indeed prove we didn't cheat ... and there've been many happy endings to what can seem overwhelming the first time it happens to us. Augnablik (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia advice essay on what to do in this situation: Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI! I recommend not focusing on AI detection software, though: most well-founded reports of LLM use on Wikipedia don't rely on those, but are based on human judgment.

Please note that there are strict limits on use of LLMs on Wikipedia even if carefully managed: see WP:NOLLM. Don't use them to write article text, or to write talk page or noticeboard responses. M kuhner (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Definitely not.

Thanks for the Wiki resource … hadn’t been aware of it. Augnablik (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't decline the draft because it looked AI-generated. Although it did look to me like AI-generated text that was then paraphrased by a human, that wasn't the reason. The abysmal referencing (assertions about a living person that cited nothing) and the failed verifications in some citations were the primary reasons for declining it. That those things happen to be hallmarks of AI output may be coincidence. If you didn't use AI, that's fine. The fact remains that the draft is unacceptable for publication and needs to be rewritten as I advised in my declining comment. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's my 1st time writing a wiki page.

Sorry it wasn't perfect first time around.

I get the reason for the decline and one user (M kuhner) is pointing out what I did wrong and I'm looking to help to fix it up so it meets Wiki standards.

But some of the comments from other users is borderline bullying at this point. Mark.jiggs (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry this happened to you. We get users who come here and flat-out lie about not using LLM to write, even using LLM to write their complaints. So some of us may come across as jaded or impatient with new users who turn up.

For what it's worth, I think you have a good start on the article, but you wrote it WP:BACKWARD, and you need to write it forward. That is, start by collecting sources that meet WP:Golden Rule criteria before you write a single word. Then summarize only what those sources say and cite them. If you end up with a very short article, it is more likely to pass review with a handful of good sources than a longer article full of unsubstantiated assertions and citations to many sources that don't meet golden-rule criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

All good...

Maybe I'll try that. I have all the articles from newspapers and interviews already, but maybe I'll do what you mentioned: Writing from what the sources say, than writing it all out and finding the sources to match the words.

I need a break from all this, it was a lot of not so pleasant feedback. So maybe in a few weeks I'll circle back to this and rewrite it the way you recommended.

Thanks Mark.jiggs (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mark.jiggs, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (As you have unfortunately found) ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How do I cite multiple authors in the citation template?

Hello,

How do I cite multiple people in the citation template? I am trying to convert a reference for the page Shipping line, as was recommended by the suggestion tab on the toolbar. The button that says 'convert' worked well for the other references, but there is a reference that had a pdf, and so had to be done manually by inserting a Cite Report template. I inadvertently discovered there were two authors. I experimented for a bit in sandbox to no avail on how to enter them into the First Name and Last Name parameters based on the advice given in Template:Citation. Is there any way to enter it in using visual editor (what I have been using), or do I have to go into source. The milwaukee teebag (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

With the source editor, simply: |first1=John | last1=Doe |first2=Jane | last2=Doe. As for the visual editor, I have no idea. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

For the visual editor, you check the boxes that have first2 and last2 on the left. If there are more then two, rinse and repeat with higher numbers every time. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 00:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

In the visual editor you have to do the add citation, and click the manual option. Then on the left side there are other parameters you can add in like last2 and first2. When you click to tick, then the right side will have those fields added, and you can enter the values. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft article awaiting AfC review — Exit Advisory Group

Hi, I have a draft article about an Australian M&A advisory firm called Exit Advisory Group. It has been submitted through Articles for Creation but hasn't been reviewed yet. Could anyone take a look or point me to an active reviewer who covers business or Australian topics? Thank you. Habibiwise (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't find any draft for Draft:Exit Advisory Group, nor is there one in your edit history. You do have a draft at User:Habibiwise/Simon Bedard, but that hasn't been submitted for review (which you can do by pushing the big blue "submit" button at the top). Please also review the guidance at WP:PAID. In solidarity, nil ^nz 02:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In any case, it's not in your interest to have a quick review because as it is, there's little chance it would be accepted. Unfortunately, you've missed the boat a bit on the purpose of Wikipedia; the sourcing for Bedard is almost entirely things written by or quotes from Bedard. To establish notability for Bedard, we ought to have independent, reliable sources reporting about Bedard that independently verify every disputable fact contained within the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Habibiwise Please see my WP:Advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Habibiwise You won't get it accepted unless you fix it some... Plus, I don't see the draft, because it's a red link draft. It may have been removed. Try making it again and actually getting knowledge to other Wikipedians, even if they don't edit. About the it being accepted topoc, it probably won't be accepted without you fixing it. Here's my advice: When there's a bad article that you made, review the instructions, then, make it better.. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 14:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Left-wing bias

Are you people aware you have an extremely left-wing bias? All the sources you deem "reliable" are usually left-wing. To be fair, a lot of top Wikipedians explicitly have userboxes that state their leftist viewpoints, so I'm sure the ArbCom probably decided that Wikipedia has to lean left. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Albert Eisenstein. Generally, accusatory questions like this do not accomplish much without any actionable way to address what you say is a problem. We have all heard this type of question before. toby ^(t)(rw) 05:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Best to just revert off accusatory rants like this. Especially since they think ArbCom adjudicates content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 07:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reality tends to have a liberal bias, ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

When someone makes an unfair accusation, I'm not sure a curt reply that would reinforce their beliefs is a good approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ironic that Albert Einstein was in favour of socialism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

so I'm sure the ArbCom probably decided that Wikipedia has to lean left. ArbCom has no power to decide such things in any way. You shouldn't believe everything you read on Twitter. I know they'll tell you that Wikipedia is run like a totalitarian state and ArbCom is our politburo, but they'll also tell you the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese, so maybe apply some skepticism. Athanelar (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"so maybe apply some skepticism"

I won't because I'm a Catholic, not an atheist. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More or less every faith group, Catholics certainly included, are very effective skeptics regarding all the other faith groups. A non-skeptical Catholic would be an atheist and a Buddhist and a Muslim also, all at the same time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

To echo TMF, your religiosity has nothing to do with your ability to think critically. Pope Leo is constantly exhorting Catholics to be curious and to think critically. Athanelar (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't like my pope. We should have chosen someone else. Someone like... Redeemed Zoomer! Obviously not Redeemed Zoomer himself, but someone like him. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

A Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, was one of the people to propose the universe is expanding (rather than being a static creation of God). Gregor Mendel, a friar, is responsible for our understanding of inheritance of traits, an important part of evolution. The Catholic Church (big C) is very skeptical of miracles, demonic possessions, and the like. As far as I know, they only recognise a handful, while they dismiss 99.99% (guesstimate) of reports they get, saying the things people witnessed are a result of mental illness or something natural.

You say you mind a "left-wing" bias, yet even Pope Francis (you might have heard of him) drew on liberation theology, and many considered him to be (economically) left-wing. What would he say to your comment? The Pope!

Honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that Catholics can't be skeptical or left-wing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Pope Francis was an atheist. Not a trustworthy pope. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly has a left wing bias, often preferring left wing narratives over truth. The reason is we have a lot of progressive editors from US dominating opinion here. Also there is organised stacking of discussions on some topics. If you want to change ARBCOM leanings, then consider voting at the next election. Conservative editors like me can be attacked for their points of view, including assumptions about points of view that are not valid. However everyone should be welcome to edit here. You just have to watch your behaviour, and not become so passionate that you cause problems. Fake stories from the right are just as unwelcome as bigoted lies from the left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

often preferring left wing narratives over truth [citation needed]

For someone who's been here 22 years you ought to know very well that what we prefer is neither "truth" nor any narrative, but what is verifiable from reliable sources. It is true that the majority of conservative media outlets are not considered reliable here: but that is not because we dismiss them out of hand for their ideological leanings, rather because those outlets have established themselves as having a reputation for peddling falsehoods. Fox News, for instance, literally said in a lawsuit that viewers should not take their content seriously because they are an entertainment channel, not a factual reporting channel.

Rather than accusing Wikipedia of being biased against "your team," maybe take a moment to question why it is that "your team"'s media outlets keep failing the most basic standards for reliable reporting. Athanelar (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

22 years? Your profile says you've only been here since October 2025. Meanwhile you are replying to somebody who has been here 20 years. I've been here since 1967 (I actually haven't, I've only been here since this year) and I can tell you Wikipedia loves their bias. Just look at pages like Gaza genocide or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory! Many top Wikipedians are literal communists, communists, even tankies, who probably always complain about people they deem "fascists" and/or "liberals". Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also monarchists, transhumanists, furries... it's a motley bunch. The point is to focus on content and on the encyclopaedia, and leave the various hats (or paws) at the door. For better or worse, we say what reliable sources (as defined by the Wikipedia community) say.

There is a lot of editorialising going on, though, and if you wanted to improve neutral coverage of topics, one way to do it would be to hunt down the howevers, the despites, and the WP:FALSEBALANCEs.

Making threads such as this one is equivalent to shouting at clouds and is unlikely to result in the kind of changes you want to see, or any changes for that matter. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure time here on Wikipedia doesn’t matter here.

There’s a lot of political views on Wikipedia. Communist or not, the goal is to keep tone as neutral as possible. If the top editors didn’t keep the tone neutral, they probably wouldn’t be a top editor in the first place.

If you think there’s left-wing bias on Wikipedia, you’re free to fix it yourself. There’s no need to make a thread on it. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 00:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a liberal, therefore a right-wing, bias. Only (North) Americans consider liberals to be "left-wing", while the rest of the world considers them as part of the right. If you want to see an example of a left-wing encyclopaedia, check out ProleWiki. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to read only what you want to hear and what fits your views? Or do you want to read a summary of what is said about the topic? The latter is what we do here. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure Wikipedia is quite neutral politically.

While we do use a lot of liberal sources, it’s not guaranteed that most editors care about who wrote the article and their views in a source. More often than not, it’s likely that they care more about the reliability of the source. Agar!! - TALK 23:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Ljubomir Kovachev (no Submit for review button)

Hi, I have created a biographical draft at Draft:Ljubomir Kovachev about a Bulgarian surgeon and academic. The draft looks complete and I would like it to be reviewed, but I do not see any "Submit for review" option on the page (neither at the top nor under the Actions/Tools menus). Could someone please advise: Whether this draft is in the Articles for Creation (AfC) system at all, and What is the correct way to have it reviewed or moved to article space if it meets the notability and sourcing requirements? Thank you for your help. KovachevL (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I notice that your username is the same as the subject of the article you're writing. Please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. The guideline on autobiographies is also worth a read. There's no rule against writing about subjects you're closely related to, you just have to disclose that relationship. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @KovachevL, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have added a header that will allow you to submit your draft for review when it is ready.

But in its present state it has no chance of being accepted.

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a short, polite reply you can post in the Teahouse under your question or as a reply:

Thank you very much for your help and for adding the header so that I can submit the draft for review.

I understand the concerns about conflict of interest and notability. I will disclose that I am closely connected to the subject and I will carefully review the policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable independent sources, and notability.

I will work on improving the draft and, in the meantime, I will also try to gain more experience by editing and improving existing articles, as you suggested. Thank you again for your guidance and your time.

Best regards,

Ljubomir Kovachev KovachevL (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI to post on Wikipedia, per WP:LLMTALK. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I used an AI tool for assistance, but I was not aware of the WP:LLMTALK guideline. I will rewrite the draft entirely by hand and in a neutral tone. Please accept my apologies. KovachevL (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Not just "neutral tone", but "truly neutral" - which means deleting any material that comes from the subject or their supporters, not just toning it down. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I used an AI tool for assistance, but I was not aware of the WP:LLMTALK guideline. I will rewrite the draft entirely by hand and in a neutral tone. Please accept my apologies. KovachevL ~2026-36533-35 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and for adding the header so that I can submit the draft for review.

I understand the concerns about conflict of interest and notability. I will disclose that I am closely connected to the subject and I will carefully review the policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable independent sources, and notability.

I will work on improving the draft and, in the meantime, I will also try to gain more experience by editing and improving existing articles, as you suggested. Thank you again for your guidance and your time.

Best regards,

Ljubomir Kovachev KovachevL ~2026-36533-35 (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

how do administrators know that someone is vandalizing a page?

I don'tknow how they do that.Do they have a notification if someone's vandalizing an article? ~2026-36197-87 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I believe they have to find that vandalism with tools. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually you can find a lot of vandalism while doing new page patroling Lectonar (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators generally don't deal with vandalism – most anti-vandalism work is done by non-admin volunteers, only deferring to admins for actions that require extended permissions, e.g. blocking users.
Vandalism is usually found by viewing some sort of filtered version of the new pages feed, often with some kind of computer program filtering out edits that are likely good, leaving only edits that are more likely to be vandalism, or other forms of disruptive editing. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 13:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Us non admins use a notice board to report vandals, admins just patrol the notice boards, see if something happened, then take action. Starlet 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM in grammar

I have read WP:LLM, that LLM can be used when it shows your error in grammar and basic copyediting. Are there more explanations regarding this, furthermore? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Which part is unclear to you? {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 13:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably the quote "writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs". What I interpret right now after the reread is that you cannot just copy and paste fully the whole sentence after your grammar is fixed by LLM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AI has a certain style of writing (it loves to use em-dashes, rules of three, excessive bolding, bullet-point lists, weasel words, etc.). That quote is just saying that while these are good indicators of AI writing, they aren't definitive as some human writers can write in a similar style. LLMs are trained on human writing after all. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 14:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And to add more, after I recalled, this only applies for your writing in Wikipedia article and not your replies in talk page? I hope I did not misunderstand this. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For talkpages and comments we have WP:LLMTALK. In short: Wikipedia is very cautious about the use of LLM anywhere, except perhaps translations (and even there it's frowned upon by many), and you will be better off not using it at all while editing here. Lectonar (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Using LLMs to generate talk page messages is also prohibited, although that's a separate guideline. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 14:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

So, what if you actually use it for grammar error? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Why? Don't worry about making grammar or spelling mistakes. There are lots of other real human editors who will help fix stuff. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dedhert.Jr, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There may be some editors who get picky about grammar and spelling, but in my experience most will either ignore it, or just silently correct it (if it's in an article).

There are lots of editors who get annoyed when somebody uses an LLM to talk to them, and find it disrespectful. We want to hear from you, not from an energy-grabbing plagiarism machine. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 to this. I would much rather read a human-written response with one or more SPAG errors than one written by an LLM. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm one of those irritating people who proofreads the restaurant menu, corrects punctuation in song lyrics, and so on. That stuff just happens to bother me. But I don't care who made the mistakes, unless it was an intentional vandal. (Or unless it was me, which I find embarrassing.) People who say what they mean, but with grammar mistakes, are fine with me. But when someone passes off LLM writing as their own, I judge them as harshly as I would if they were intentionally lying. That's probably somewhat unfair, but not very unfair. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr I wrote WIkipedia:Yes, that does violate the AI guidelines to hopefully clarify these questions for editors like yourself. Athanelar (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The feeling when your edit got reverted

So recently, I made an edit in Foreign relations of Ethiopia assuming that Madagascar established relations with Ethiopia recently since the actual date in unknown, hence I put a question mark in my edit decsription. However, my edit got reverted by Semsuri (I'll try not to ping anybody here) because his description states that relatione date back in 2003. To be honest, I have mixed reactions. First, I do recognize that it is my mistake. Second, I am mad because Semsuri has reverted a lot of my edits in the past (because I'm actually wrong) and having your edits reverted countless times feels like a factor of demotivation in continuing edits in Wikipedia. Just seeing the "Reverted" label in my contributions page makes me want to threaten the person responsible even if I'm wrong or WP:HARASS exists or God taught me to love others. How do I cope with this? Should I apologize? Should I just log out and quit? Should I control my emotions better? Should I ask moderators to ban me? I straight up feel like Al crying at the end of Toy Story 2. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Underdwarf58, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It can be disappointing to have your edits reverted, certainly. I suggest that you decide that, rather than getting upset, you choose to see what you can learn from the experience.

You say that Semsuri has reverted your edits several times, and that your edits were not good ones (if I understand you correctly). So, what is it about your editing that has you repeatedly making edits that aren't good?

Are you familiar with WP:BRD? ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What does the "Bold" part mean? Underdwarf58 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Not only that, because of Semsuri's reverts I genuinely think he's a strict editor, and people like this piss me off. Reverted edits makes me feel down, ashamed, useless, having nothing valuable in life, committing a sin, it just hurts my heart. Is this a me problem? Why do I take things too literally? Underdwarf58 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58, your feelings are valid and you don't need to feel ashamed of them. Personally, I wouldn't suggest that you quit as I believe that Wikipedia really is a very fun place. Instead, I'd advise you to maybe take a break, and then maybe try out editing a different subject or reading more about Wikipedia Policy. Whatever the case -- you got this and you don't need to feel ashamed -- many of us have started out with our edits getting reverted. In solidarity, 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't get over with it. Having an edit reverted genuinely makes me look bad. Everytime people think of someone they usually remember the bad things they've done. I'm just sick of this. It genuinely hurts me. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest. I'd advise maybe you take a break before editing again? I hope you feel better! In solidarity, 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A Possible Article

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place but I was curious.

I'm interested in writing an article about Miss Hap, a cat who was rescued by a Marine Sergeant during the Korean War. I'm not 100% sure if this meets the requirements of a notable article, but I've seen other articles like Laika the space dog, Felicette the space cat, Cher Ami the homing pigeon, etc., and I think they cover similar topics. 28days (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, 28days. I had a quick search for sources on Miss Hap, and it looks to me as if there's enough to go on. You may know this, but if not: you need three or more sources which are independent and reliable (so not blog posts, for instance, unless they are by a subject expert), and which provide significant coverage of the cat / the rescue of the cat. Let me know if you have any specific questions. Tacyarg (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@28days It all depends on the sources you can find that meet the golden rules. Here is one you probably already have and others may be available at newspaper archives such as newspapers.com, looking near the time of the event. I suggest you use the WP:articles for creation process and at all costs avoid chatbots. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You might find that a chatbot uncovers useful sources but, as Mike says, don't use any of the text they produce. Go back to the original sources, ignore anything a chatbot says, and use the information emerging to write an article completely in your own words. Good luck: I'd like to read the article. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

How can I view what pages redirect to a page?

I'm trying to see what pages redirect to Denis and Me, is there a way for me to do that? Cheromaniii (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

On vector 2010 and 2022, there should be a button under 'tools' called 'what links here'. It goes to Special:WhatLinksHere, which will display what pages link to the page. This includes redirects. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Cheromaniii (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's obvious, but once you're there, you can also tick the 'Hide transclusions' and 'Hide links' checkboxes under the 'Page' and 'Namespace' fields to see just the redirects! Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 20:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Or you can just do <shift-alt-J> on your keyboard. DS (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Game changer, thanks. Cheromaniii (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding art project on epilepsy

Hello! I know that this might be an unusual request but I have written my graduation research using Wikipedia's Epilepsy page, i have taken some fragments that resonated with me, such as History or Mortality, and then I have reinterpreted with my own personal experience ( since I have struggled with epilepsy for a long time) as well with other research I have done so far. I have printed my book, but I have had the thought of publishing my thesis on Wikipedia since it relies a lot on it, mostly as part of an art project. I am as well graduating fine art, and I would love for people to be able to read my research, since I don't have a website yet or other ways of publishing it and there are only 3 physical copies. My project is conceptual, so I hope we could find a way to fit it here. Also, I would be more than ok with the idea of the thesis being published for a limited amount of time. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you Pastdieend (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I regret to say that Wikipedia does not host original research, and as such is not a place to publish a thesis. You would need something like an academic journal. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Could I make an academic journal on Wikipedia? For example, YouTube has the option to post unlisted, so that only people with the link can view the video. Would that be a possibility to do that here on Wikipedia ? ~2026-36147-90 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Everything on Wikipedia is public. Wikipedia serves a very specific purpose, which is to be an online encyclopedia. Content that does not fall under that purpose should be directed to other websites. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 21:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Pastdieend, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets may give you ideas. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Questions

Here's a list of questions I wait to be answered:

• What on earth does efn stand for when creating notes in articles?
• How do you achieve a custom design for your user in text-based form when writing messages on wikipedia?

~2026-36397-47 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• efn stands for "explanatory footnote"
• To make a custom signature, you first need to create an account, then you can configure it at Special:Preferences.

{{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, see WP:CUSTOMSIG (and WP:SIGTUT) for some help regarding custom signatures. jolielover♥talk 05:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Manor House or Country House?

So I was looking at the page for List of country houses in the United Kingdom and noticed that County Durham was missing a fair amount. When I went to edit them in, I realised that manor houses are not included in the list. If anyone knows whether these should be included or not or if there is another list page for manor houses it would be much appreciated:

(The ? next to some entries means I do not know the name of the house in question due to my sources not mentioning it, only the location. Any more information on these would be appreciated.)

1. Bellasis
2. Billingham Hall
3. Binchester Hall
4. Blackwell Hall
5. Blackwell Hill
6. Blakiston Hall
7. Bradley Hall
8. Branksome Hall
9. Broadwood Hall
10. Cleatlam mansion?
11. Cocken Hall
12. Cockerton Hall
13. Consett Hall
14. Cotham
15. Coxhoe Hall
16. Crook Hall
17. Dene Holme
18. Elton Hall
19. Eshwood Hall
20. Fen Hall
21. Gainford Hall
22. Gibside
23. Greatham Hall
24. Greencroft Hall
25. Harraton Hall
26. Hawthorn Tower
27. Hetton Hall
28. Hollinside
29. Holmside Hall
30. Hoppyland Park
31. Houghall Hall
32. Long Newton Hall
33. Low Dinsdale Manor
34. Mainsforth Hall
35. Neasham Hall
36. Newbiggin house?
37. Newton Hall
38. Newton Cap Hall
39. Old Park
40. Red Hall
41. Sledwish Hall
42. Snotterton Hall
43. Staindrop Hall
44. Stanley Hall
45. The Deanery
46. The Isle
47. Thornton Hall
48. Thorpe Thewles manor?
49. Thrislington Hall
50. Trimdon Hall
51. Tunstall Manor
52. Westholme Hall
53. Whitehill Hall
54. Winlaton Hall
55. Wolviston Hall
56. Woodburn
57. Woodside
58. Woodside Hall

Fieldsofbronze (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest, Fieldsofbronze, that you ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force (and when you have done so, that you announce here that you've done so). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Fieldsofbronze. The first sentence of the article explicitly mentions that it is intended to include Manor houses.

The majority of 'List' articles on Wikipedia are not intended to list all of the possible members of that list, but only those that already have or, it is thought, ought to have, their own Wikipedia articles: the former are (you may notice) 'blue-linked' to their own articles; the latter are 'red-linked' because they do not have one yet but the person who entered it hopes someone will create one.

There may be many other possible list members that do not have Wikipedia articles because they fail the essential criterion of Notability – for a brief summary of what a Wikipedia article subject needs to comply with, see WP:Golden rule. Some subjects simply have not had anything much published about them in compliance with the criteria, so an article is not (currently) possible.

There may also be many candidates that would qualify if someone were to Draft/Create an article about them, but it's just that no volunteer editor has, yet. Writing a succesful article requires a basic knowledge of how Wikipedia works (which you yourself probably have), an ability to find appropriate sources, and a significant investment of time and effort. Hope this helps (and encourages). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Lists can definitely hold items that are not individually notable. WP:Stand-alone lists

The relationship of inclusion to notability is different in each list article, and at List of country houses in the United Kingdom the lead is just the inclusion criteria.

Note that "architecturally notable" is "notable" in an everyday sense not in a Wikipedia sense. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not regard a manor house as a country house. I think a "manor house" is (or was once) the principal residence of a local landowner, while a "country house" is a rural secondary residence of someone whose principal residence is elsewhere (often in a capital city). You may want to discuss this on the list's talk page. Maproom (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

More Characters from Dorohedoro

can you added more characters from Dorohedoro please? the second season finally out. ~2026-33544-18 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:BEBOLD and make the edit yourself, if you'd so choose! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

Hi all, I came across Thammasat University and very quickly noticed a few bits of the article that are exact copies of their sources (listed below); I wouldn't surprised if there are more WP:TRANSVIO for the Thai sources.

I'm at a bit of a loss at what to do here, can I just rephrase the paragraphs or do we also need to clean up the revision history? Given how big the article is, should I just put it on my (very long) todo list and call WP:NODEADLINE, or should I notify someone?

• Thammasat_University#Faculty_of_Commerce_and_Accountancy and

• Thammasat_University#Faculty_of_Liberal_Arts and

LkL-70547 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC) LkL-70547 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have the time, rephrasing is prefered. If you don't have have the time, delete any content that was copied from a source and include the URL of the source where the content was copied from in your edit summery. Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright gives more guidance on the topic. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Citing videos as proof video game demos ocured, referencing original developer blogs in place of secondary sources.

I'm creating a page on an upcoming video game in my sandbox. One of my current concerns is that secondary sources on it are... sparce but I still think it meets notability requirements, and so I'm trying to figure out what my options are.

1) I wish to mention the various demos of this game that have been showcased in this article (passing mention, no description of content given) but only 1 of the demos was described in a secondary source. Of the remaining: 1 was uploaded to youtube and tweeted about by the game creator, 1 was uploaded by host of the event where the demo was played, and 2 were recorded by an audience member who attended a devcon. No sources on the demos besides what I mentioned exist. I can prove the demos happened but not necessarily by what would be considered credible sources by wikipedia. Should I omit mention of some of these demos entirely, which meet a minimum criteria for credibility to reference if any? Or is it not notable to mention a demo happened if that's all I can mention without venturing into original research?

2) Due to the sparsity of details on the game, is it alright to source a) blog posts about the game from the game's website and b) posts about the development of the game from the creator's persona; site?

3) Also since the game is written in assembly I think details on how it bypasses certain limitations are both relevant and interesting to add but I would like to double check this (I would be citing the developers own blog) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wik206 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You can use the developer's blog for uncontroversial statements of fact, but not for opinions or evaluations, and not for notability. In other words, it's an interesting detail that could be in the article, but it can't help support the article's existence. (Assembly, wow! Didn't know people still did that.) Watch out for balance: the article is about the game (or will be, when the game comes out) and should not be dominated by programming details. M kuhner (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you think you could take a quick glance at it and tell me if you think it's up to standard or if I should move it back to my user page before it's deleted (I jumped the gun a little) Magicore Anomala Wik206 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's WP:TOOSOON frankly, there is not likely to be enough discussion to support an article until the game is actually released. You should also tackle that marked-out missing source. Generally speaking, an article where you know you don't have all the claims sourced is not ready for mainspace. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Should I move it back to my own user space now, or should I try to improve it and see if it gets marked for deletion (is it possible to move it back to my user space once it's marked for deletion?). basically part of me still feels I could make it work but the community consensus appears to be it's too early. Should I wait for consensus to form (in the vain hope the article somehow meets notability), or (more likely) just moving the page off main space would be the more responsible thing (as my actions should reflect what the community wants not what I want).Wik206 (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedian ethics involve not leaving problems in mainspace in the hope that they will somehow slip by.

The rules on what happens when the article is proposed for deletion vary by type of deletion. It's generally possible to get the article text back after it's gone (WP:Requests for undeletion). But it's best not to let this happen. Note that if an article goes to Articles for Deletion, you can't draftify it during the discussion (it's super annoying for the discussion participants) though you can argue in favor of draftification as an outcome. M kuhner (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

how do I move it to my user page/sandbox (accidently made a new user page called magicore anomala for a second, moved it back to article space for now) Wik206 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Instructions are at WP:Moving a page. Or you could ask for help, as described in that article, from WP:Requested moves if you are not confident doing it yourself. M kuhner (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

In general I'm not the most familiar on Wikipedia's policies on using primary articles and videos but I'm trying to resarch them. Thankyou! Wik206 (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Without secondary sources, the game will never be deemed "notable" in Wikipedia's terms. Anything that was written by the creator (or someone associated with them) can't be used to demonstrate notability. Interviews can't be used, and nor can blogs by fans. I think the fundamental problem here is the word "upcoming". Until several people entirely independent of the game and its creator have chosen of their own free will to write about it, it won't qualify for an article. My advice would be to leave the article in your sandbox and wait until it's out, and see what happens. At that stage, some primary sources can be used for noncontentious information, but with caution. There's a real risk of you wasting a lot of time and effort here, and having a frustrating time with new page patrollers/AfC reviewers. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"Primary" in this case means anything that comes directly from the game's creator or their supporters, and also anything that comes from looking at the game itself. Those things can be good, but they can never help a Wikipedia article get accepted. To get an article accepted, all of its main points have to come from reliable secondary sources - reporters who have no connection with the subject, who already have a public reputation for quality reporting, and who have to submit all their work to a paid fact-checker before it goes live. (And as soon as a reporter is interviewing a game's creator or supporter, they suddenly have a connection with the subject; this means interviews are primary.)

It IS good to have primary information in an article, but it's only a bonus add-on - you can't make the article out of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What to do about a draft that looks like cross-wiki promotion?

Hi all. While going through draft pages I came across Draft:Gianni Matheja and tried to verify its claims before reviewing it. I found a pattern I'm not sure how to handle... I'm trying to assume good faith here.

The subject appears to have biographies seeded across an unusual set of wikis. Per Wikidata, there are linked articles on Central Bikol, Corsican, Welsh, Spanish, Basque, French, Hausa and others. The French article states it was translated from the German Wikipedia article... and the German article (the apparent source for all the rest) looks to have been deleted around April 2026. So the whole cluster seems to trace back to one article that may not have survived on its home wiki.

Looking at contributions, it looks like this was done by more than one account. one user created several of the language versions and uploaded a set of photos of the subject to Commons, and at least one other account appears to have created some of the remaining versions. I want to be careful: I can see the articles exist and who created them, but whether the accounts are connected or coordinating is not something I can prove, so I'd rather not assume.

Separately, the English draft makes some claims I couldn't verify at all (a speech before the Bundestag shown on Tagesschau, and a panel with a US Vice President) that don't appear in the earlier, more modest versions or in any independent source I could find.

What should I do with all of this? Balabush (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The existence of an article on one Wikipedia doesn't mean you have to need it in x others, as each Wikipedia has their own rules. The deletion discussion for the DE article took place in december 2025 de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/24._November_2025#Gianni_Matheja_(gelöscht)...the sources used were misleading and overblown as for the claims made. If your heart is in it, the way to go would be to have all different articles in all languages deleted by whatever way the different Wikipedias provide. Lectonar (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The deeper I go down the rabbit hole, the more I discover that two of the users who promoted Gianni Matheja on various Wikipedias have already been blocked in SPI discussions. And they continue to do so on smaller Wikipedias. Balabush (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You could try m:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. I have never done it myself, so cannot give good guidance for it. Mind the explanations, though. Or, as I mentioned before, try the local Wikipedia...the German and French one come to mind. Lectonar (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I have the desire to chase editors... Balabush (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I had the impression you had already entered the rabbit hole...so let out your inner Holmes :). Levity aside...we're all volunteers, so are you and me. I was just intrigued by your question. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this how you do it?

I was making an article for creations proposal in Help Desk, but is this how you do it?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#June 22 2

I do agreed creating Ryan Bartley’s articles but is this how you make a project for creation? ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Already answered at AfC help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36361-89 What do you mean you 'agreed' to create this article? Are you creating the article in exchange for payment or as a result of some other agreement with its subject? Athanelar (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for feedback for my sandbox article

I'm a new editor and have drafted a biography of a researcher in my sandbox. I work for the subject, so I'm trying to ensure the article is neutral and well sourced. Could someone review the draft and advise on notability and sourcing?

User:Ishani Nangia/sandbox Ishani Nangia (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I've moved your draft to Draft space at Draft:Shekhar Aiyar. Draft space is the preferred location for drafts, and can be accessed via the Article Wizard. To obtain a review, please click the "Submit your draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ishani Nangia A brief look shows me that you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners, since the way you have cited your sources is not standard. Also beware of our policy on biographies of living people, which has specific guidance for how sourcing must be done. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Articles linked as translations of each other have completely different topics

Looking up the article of "hot desking" in English wikipedia, it is about a specific type of office organization. Wikipedia claims it has a translation into Spanish, but this translation is about a completely different concept: it's called "sin lugar fijo de trabajo", and refers to working in multiple areas, not just the office. Looking at other "translations", most of the articles seem to refer to the actual practice of hot desking, while the French and Spanish are talking about a completely different thing.

I can find no way to unlink the articles nor add a proper translation of the hot desking article into Spanish. I'd appreciate any help, thank you. ~2026-36307-43 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The translation list is controlled on Wikidata, so you need to edit that page to remove the articles if they are wrong. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 10:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have attempted to do that. I receive the following error message:

"Could not remove due to an error.

The save has failed.

Warning: The action you are about to take will remove a sitelink from this item. Sitelinks should only be removed if the page in question has been deleted, or if that link is being moved into another item. If you are trying to do neither of these, please do not submit this edit again."

Indeed the incorrectly linked page has not been deleted nor it is being moved into another item (there's no equivalent article to the Spanish one in English, and viceversa). Could it be that I need to create a new article, translating hot-desking for Spanish and French? I still think it should be possible to unlink them when they're obviously incorrect. I can translate into Spanish, but not into French. ~2026-36307-43 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If one doesn't already exist, you should create a Wikidata item for the Spanish/French article and link those together. An English article isn't required for that. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 10:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have attempted doing that, creating a wikidata item, but I am not able to link the Spanish article to it, receiving the following error:

"Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

The link eswiki:Sin lugar fijo de trabajo is already used by Item Q3472398. You may remove it from Q3472398 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic. If the situation is more complex, please see Help:Sitelinks."

I cannot remove it from Item Q3472398, receiving the previous error still. ~2026-36307-43 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Replying to myself: the issue was solved by removing the links from the first item one at a time, instead of trying to handle French and Spanish together. I hope I didn't break anything in the way. This issue can be closed, thank you for the help GearsDatapacks. ~2026-36307-43 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Customization of Info box and adding citation

I'M new to the Wikipedia, can you assist me on this❓ Tfibanisa (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I might be able t.o. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 14:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The info box can't really be customized in.my knowledge and you use the chain button to add a link, or a citation. The citations are also called hyperlinks Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 14:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

And, if I know correctly, the chain button can also be called the link vutton. Wikipedia may call it the citation.button,.but I dont.know about that yet (I wasn't on Wikipedia for some time) Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 14:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm facing several issues to add citations through mobile, I'm still learning how to figure it out promptly. Tfibanisa (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think so same, I faced sudden split of information when I try to edit the info box. But I fixed it by rebuilding the template again.Kinda beginner's mistakes. Tfibanisa (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation: Find an infobox on an article that is similar to what you want, or use the one on the article you're editing. Using Source Editor, copy it into your Sandbox (you can find that from your user page using a drop-down menu). Now you can tinker with it and no one will mind if it breaks! You can ask at Teahouse or Help Desk if you can't get the box to work, and include a link to the copy in your sandbox so we can troubleshoot. Once it looks good, you can fix the one in the actual article.

Also don't forget that "undo" is your friend. If you have made an edit that breaks everything, go into "history", find the edit, and hit "undo". I broke a huge complex table yesterday and it is reassuring to know this can instantly be fixed. M kuhner (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you dear for rectifying mine concern on this issue. Tfibanisa (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of "personal life" sections in articles about musical bands

A couple days ago, I came across an article (Lowen), where I saw a section titled "Personal life". In it, there was only a single sentence (with an Instagram post as citation) describing the gender identity of the vocalist, and nothing else. As such, I edited the article to remove that section since it didn’t feel like it belonged there.

However, I had some lingering concerns at the back of my mind, considering how gender and identity politics is a sensitive subject. So, my question is - is it necessary to include such a section in an article related to a musical band (which consists of multiple members with potentially differing ideologies and personal lives), or was I in the wrong by removing it?

Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid query. Despite my user account age, I haven't done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, which is why I am still unaware of all the nitty gritty of editing here. I will revert my edit If someone clarifies that I was mistaken here. AnkurCC (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule for this, it comes down to individual cases. I would say unless gender identity is particularly relevant to the band (e.g. they make a lot of music related to gender issues), it's probably not worth including, especially if it hasn't been mentioned by any secondary sources. If you're unsure, you can bring it up on the article's talk page. If someone else disagrees, they'll revert the edit and then you can discuss it further. (this is known a the bold, revert, discuss cycle and is a very common way of making decisions on Wikipedia). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 14:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have listened to quite a few songs from this band, and judging by the lyrical content (and also based on the external resources available about this band on the Internet), it would seem that while there are political undertones to their music, they are not exclusively focused on that - least of all gender politics.

However, as per your suggestion, I might just bring it up on the talk page, just to be on the safe side.

Thanks for the help! AnkurCC (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@AnkurCC: The article's about a musical band. I don't see why any non-music details about the band's non-notable members need to be in it, and have no problem with your edit. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That was my primary motivation behind making that edit. However, I did not want to make it seem like the edit was politically motivated, which is why I am here.

Regardless, thanks for your insight! AnkurCC (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AnkurCC, I agree with your edit. "Personal life" sections should be reserved for biographies of individual people, and not added to articles about musical groups consisting of two or more people. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello - help with declaring a conflict of interest, please!

Hi there

I'm hoping to post a backgrounder / potted history of the company I work for (Rockett St George) and have read and understand the rules around this (I have press citations, books published by reputable publishers and so on).

I work for Rockett St George but am not being paid specifically to work on this post; it's part of my role in a content team.

Could an experienced editor kindly help me out with this, and help me get started? As a newbie, I'm finding this first step a little impenetrable!

Thank you so much.

Claire ClaireLave1974 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you go through the article wizard, it will take you through the required steps to create an article and disclose paid editing.
For more general advice on writing articles, see Help:Your first article. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you - so even though I'm not being paid specifically for this but am in a paid role with Rockett St George, it's still seen as paid, is that correct? ClaireLave1974 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, see this section of the paid editing guideline. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Claire, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, that's correct; even if you're not being specifically paid for an article edit, you still fall under the rules for paid editors if it's part of your paying job. The rules for disclosing paid editing can be found more specifically at WP:PAID; be sure to read that and follow the directions in the "How to disclose" section. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help (I may be back...) ClaireLave1974 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ClaireLave1974, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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

And that is even without a COI. It's typically much more difficult if you have a COI, because you need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject and stick to what the independent sources say (even if you think they're wrong) and most people can't do that. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Please note that not all books and press citations carry the same weight. All information that can ultimately be traced to a source from within the company is excluded, even if it has been published by a third party. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@ClaireLave1974 If you are trying to create this article at your company's behest, it is almost certain that you're going to end up investing a lot of effort into something which is doomed from the start. Please read the advisory essay I wrote specifically for editors in your position. Athanelar (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Athanelar - appreciate this. Reading now. ClaireLave1974 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I just wrote my first article!

It's Callux, I'd appreciate feedback about it. Found it on the requested articles thing :) WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Based on the sources in the article, it doesn't look like he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of people. You've pretty much only cited primary sources, which don't help to demonstrate notability. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

i did find a few secondary sources for this person, but i didn't include them. they do seem to meet the conditions of having several independent secondary sources talk about them and not only in passing, but i'll look further into it. i genuinely apologize of not. WikipediholicRat (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

i quickly searched for them in the wikipedia reliable source search, and they were mentioned a good amount. if they're not notable, speedy deletion would still be the right path, but i believe they are. WikipediholicRat (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WikipediholicRat, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Well done for trying to satisfy one of the requests.

But the majority of the citations should each meet all the conditions in WP:42, and only references which do so can contribute to establishing notability. It does not look to me as if a single one of your sources meets those conditions - most are not independent of McGinley, and some are not reliable sources.

Note that just because somebody has put a request in WP:RA, doesn't mean that they have checked that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

shit. i'm sorry. i moved it back to userspace, i'd like you to clean up the redirect through speedy deletion, and i'll move it back once i fix it. WikipediholicRat (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

(if it's notable after all) WikipediholicRat (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@WikipediholicRat Yours is such a refreshingly decent and reasonable response that I'm pointing it out. Thank you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@WikipediholicRat As some general advice: if you want to get into writing articles, the requested articles dump list is honestly probably a really bad place to start.

Requested articles is very often the Last Chance Saloon for people who have an article idea but either can't be bothered to look for sources, or have looked and can't find anything, so they think "Well, I'll just dump it here and maybe someone some day will find something". So, not only have the article ideas there not been vetted for notability, but they're honestly probably less likely than average to be notable.

My advice would be to get in the habit of looking to see whether interesting things you hear about in other places already have a Wikipedia article; because the very fact you're hearing about it in that other place is a good indication that it meets our notability requirements, so if it doesn't already have an article, that can be a good opportunity for you. That's how I ended up writing Geoffrey Lee Compton-Smith. Athanelar (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on proposing an article about a California public interest law firm

Hi Teahouse Friends!

I'm looking for some advice (and hoping to find an interested editor).

I'd like to see a Wikipedia article created for the Center for Law in the Public Interest (https://www.clipi.org/), a public interest law firm that operated in Los Angeles from 1972 to 2007.

It was California's first general-purpose public interest law firm, originally funded by the Ford Foundation.

I have a connection to the subject, so I can't draft the article myself - I'm working with the firm's co-founder, Carlyle Hall, on a project related to his legacy, so I have a conflict of interest.

I'm here looking for a volunteer editor who might be interested in taking this on, or advice on the best way to go about this. I've read that requesting an article through the portal is a black hole, and rarely works.

As the firm was active prior to the digital era, most of their accomplishments are in print and on paper.

Here's why I think the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia:

CLIPI's cases were covered extensively in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other major papers over its 35-year run.

I've compiled a spreadsheet of 400+ digitized news articles from independent sources.

CLIPI also recently donated 385 boxes of case files to UCLA to be archived in the UCLA Library Special Collections for scholars, students, etc. It was a big milestone. https://www.library.ucla.edu/about/news/vast-collection-of-landmark-legal-history/

The firm's litigation shaped several areas of California law. Its early cases (Friends of Mammoth, Bozung v. LAFCO) established the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Northrop shareholder suit (Springer v. Jones) contributed to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The Century Freeway case (Keith v. Volpe) ran for over 20 years and produced landmark housing and jobs programs.

CLIPI, it's cases, and it's former employees are already referenced on a number of existing Wikipedia pages, however the law firm never received a dedicated page.

I have all the source material organized and ready to share with anyone who wants to take this on. Happy to answer any questions about the process or next steps, and appreciate any guidance here.

Thanks again! JoAbbott88 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources about CLIPI's cases would be of minimal use, if any (wrong subject). The problem that needs solved is "How many of these sources actually are about CLIPI rather than litigation they've been involved in?" —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful context. There are a fair amount of articles about CLIPI as a firm, mostly when it was established as that was most newsworthy I assume, but there are definitely some articles about it over the years from LA times, NY Times, WSJ, legal trade pubs. To your point, most WIKI pages are re: the cases.

How many sources lend to strong credibly?

One co-fouder has a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Phillips_(attorney) with a section on CLIPI. So many breadcrumbs, but nothing standalone. JoAbbott88 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @JoAbbott88, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The crucial thing is that the sources should be all of: reliably published, wholly independent of CLIPI, and contain significant coverage of CLIPI specifically. Unless you can find several (say, at least three) sources which each meet all the conditions in WP:42, it's a non-starter.

You are permitted to write a draft yourself, but frankly creating a successful article is extremely difficult for a new editor even without a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, asking for a collaborator here is rarely successful either.

My suggestion would be to put this idea aside for a few months, and work at becoming familiar with how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to existing articles. Then when you feel you have some understanding of it, read your first article and go looking for sources.

Another possibility is to ask on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject (perhaps WP:WikiProject California or WP:WikiProject Law and see if anybody in one of those projects would like to work with you. Even if you do that, it would be worth your finding the sources first. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Things published about a brand-new firm are very often press releases (or disguised press releases). That means their ultimate source is within the firm.

I'm sure that you've seen firsthand some of the avoidable legal disasters that can happen when individuals insist on representing themselves in court; unfortunately, firms that insist on representing themselves on Wikipedia tend to create very much the same kinds of cringe-inducing problems for themselves, and for quite similar reasons (believing that because they know themselves and know their own business, they don't need to know the byzantine intricacies of the system they're about to encounter). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article

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

---

Heelo, I am a new editor from East Africa, I found a peice in the Daily Monitor about a teen petitioner but I wanted to create a page but I have no experience any editor to assess the sources and create it https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/nyanzi-the-teen-entrepreneur-behind-apex-media--5503950 https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/news/16-year-old-seeks-legislation-on-cbos-state-f-NV_229139_052026 ~2026-36590-02 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-36590-02, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The problem is that both of those sources are largely based Nyanzi's words.

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

Unless you can find several sources that are wholly independent of Nyanzi, and contain significant material about him (see WP:42), then he will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability at present. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

here are some

https://tmafrica.co.ug/news/youth-led-media-startup-apex-media-faces-questions-over-structure-revenue-model

https://panafricanvisions.com/2026/04/uganda-teen-ceo-nyanzi-urges-parliament-to-enact-eye-for-eye-justice-after-toddler-killings/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.watchdoguganda.com/business/ceos-entrepreneurs/20260111/187626/profile-rising-youth-entrepreneur-nyanzi-martin-luther.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com ~2026-36590-02 (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if there are enough good sources on him, it is unlikely anyone will draft an article for you. There is only a few hundred of us doing a majority of the work on Wikipedia, and only a handful of us that answer Teahouse questions. Almost all of us have our own interests and projects that we want to work on. Your best option is to create a account, write a draft, and submit it to the Articles for Creation. An explanatory article on this is available at Help:Your first article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-36590-02 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/news/16-year-old-seeks-legislation-on-cbos-state-f-NV_229139_052026

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/nyanzi-the-teen-entrepreneur-behind-apex-media--5503950

https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/news/16-year-old-seeks-legislation-on-cbos-state-f-NV_229139_052026

https://asantetimes.com/read-post.php?id=272 ~2026-36590-02 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I found those sources above about a topic that I think relevant to Wikipedia, I do request any volunteer to asses them and if possible to draft an article because for me am a reader not editor. Thanks. ~2026-36590-02 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @~2026-36590-02. I have merged these two sections. Please don't start a new section about the same topic: add to the existing section if there is more you want to say. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Edited Page Stuck in Limbo

Good afternoon- I submitted a page for Nancy Widmann, my mom, which I did disclose. The editor had one recommendation. I did make the changes but now my draft has been sitting since March. Unsure how to continue the submission through the process. Thank yo- Sabina Draft:Nancy Clifford Widmann Sabinacwidmann (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like your draft was missing the submission template. I've added it now, so just click "Submit for review" and someone will get to it eventually. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sabinacwidmann: I have restored the original submission template and other things. In [1] you removed everything from a line saying "Do not remove this line!" to a line saying "Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created." That's why the draft has been sitting since March. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Sabinacwidmann (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sabinacwidmann, your reference for the National Radio Award Honorees is just a Google search. That does not verify anything. Please provide a link to a source that actually verifies the content. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sabinacwidmann To be sure, there are various (if not numerous) sources available (and readily accessible) which support the claim of the National Radio Award, e.g. Radio World Magazine (August 1995), p. 35. Fabrickator (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fabrickator Yes, and you need to cite them (or at least one of them) in the draft; you can't just offer a search result as a citation. David10244 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244: I don't know whether you're complaining about the OP's original link or the link I just provided. If it's the OP's original link, I think that's a "technicality" of sorts (with the link providing very "sparse" content). I provided a link, albeit not in the form of a "citation", but it was a valid url to a PDF that went to the correct page stating "... presentation of the 1995 National Radio Award to CBS Radio President Nancy Widmann." While the lack of detail is somewhat unsatisfying, I believe that fulfills the technical requirement. Please let me know if I'm missing the point. Fabrickator (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Protection

How can I apply to re-obtain my ability to edit Extended Confirmed Protection articles. John George III (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1207 § User:John George III ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 07:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@John George III When your XC privileges were revoked, you had 729 edits. You now have around 850. Even if all of those edits were in mainspace, 120 good edits is not likely to be enough to convince admins to reinstate your XC (a privilege which requires 500 edits, normally)

I would suggest you wait until your edit count is over 1,000 or so (don't rush it -- that's what got you in trouble to begin with) before you make a request.

Of course, you don't have to listen to me. You can make the request whenever you feel it's appropriate at WP:Requests for permissions, but I think an admin is far more likely to consider reinstating your privilege if you've got at least a couple hundred good, non-reverted mainspace edits under your belt first. Athanelar (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @John George III. To add to what Athanelar said, I find myself wondering why you are so concerned with this right.

If it's because there's a particular area that you want to edit in, that makes sense (and if you do make a Request for permission, I suggest you make that clear).

But if it's because you think there's some sort of status that you want or need, I suggest you read hat collecting. ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine (or anyone who knows), in a case like this, is XC nixed until a request is approved, or does it happen automatically at 729 + 500 edits? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks everyone for their helpful advice John George III (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry for the grammar error it the middle of the night for thanks everyone for your helpful advice John George III (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

XC is only automatically granted once. If its revoked, or given and then taken away, or given with a time limit so that it expires (not 100% sure on this one) it won't be automatically granted ever, to my understanding at least. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 11:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

New here! Q on scientific citations

Heya! Basically what the title says. I want to add citations to certain articles but I'm not sure how to go on about it. What qualifies as a Wikipedia-appropriate source? Does the primary sources rule apply here? And how exactly do I cite? I'm sure there are help pages that answer these question but I need help locating the help. halp!

Thanks! Vonniesci (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, this is a complicated one, and I'm quite willing for my viewpoint to be shot down in flames. It is always better to use secondary sources when available. If you are writing about proteases, a secondary review article on proteases is a better source than a primary research article on some piece of work someone's done on proteases. Wikipedia is a tertiary, not a secondary source, so ideally we shouldn't be writing our own review articles based on primary scientific literature. But, a lot of things in science are considered wikipedia-notable even without being the subject of secondary reviews. For example, all properly-described and accepted species in biology are deemed notable, and we've got a lot of articles on specific chemicals that are widely described in nature, but rarely reviewed specifically. That, coupled with the facts (1) that primary scientific papers are subject to independent peer review, and (2) often start with a mini-review in their introduction, means that we do use quite a lot of primary literature in the more specialist articles. I'd say: (1) try to be secondary where possible; (2) don't just use Wikipedia as an advertising space for your own research or that of your friends (see WP:SELFCITE); (3) try to use things that look more primary only when necessary to support encyclopedic information, or when the primary source is itself a mini-review. But the bottom line is by all means put it in, and if anyone disagrees, they can take it out again - then you discuss on the talk page. Elemimele (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm assuming secondary sources also includes textbooks? I'm also a little lost on the proper citing procedure, especially for research papers. Vonniesci (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vonniesci, Please read WP:APN, it will help you on your journey around here. It has everything you are looking for. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks! Vonniesci (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is the best article this source can go in? 2

https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/22/then-again-years-of-research-reveal-details-of-bomber-crash-on-camels-hump/

Placed this at the help desk earlier but got no response. So, here's the expanation: I was reading a few articles of military aircraft (with at least one item in the aircraft accident database) edited by User:The Bushranger since I got a bit too overturned into what this guy was editing. Then I was reading the article Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated B-24 Liberator and found a 1942 crash that had no source, so I literally searched up the entire line and found this source. Now I wonder what aviation accident was the source talking about or if the source is talking about this exact aviation crash. – SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (🌎 CentralAuth) 15:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@SimpleObjects-9ei If you don't know what accident the source is talking about, I don't see how it could be useful in any article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@SimpleObjects-9ei: The 1942 crash with a "citation needed" tag in Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated B-24 Liberator is clearly different from the October 1944 crash treated in the article linked at the top of your post, but some of the links turned up in your search, like this one can certainly be used as references for the April 1942 crash. (Note that the flight path and death toll in the listing will need to be changed if you use that source.) The October 1944 crash is not currently listed in the article, but the vtdigger.org article doesn't give the exact date, so you'd need to find a source for that before adding it to the list. Deor (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Issues with stub templates

hello teahouse team!

Currently I've been having issues with where i should paste my stub, because whenever i do, it ends up in the references section. I understand that this is probably a rookie error but if any help is welcome! Escgal (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Escgal! A stub is always placed at the bottom of the page (see MOS:ORDER) and there it always ends up in the last section of the article. Therefore, if the last section of the article is References, it will end up in that section.

Walnut (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Invoke template and post-expand include size

Dear Teahouse,

The Iran war 2026 page has so many citations that editors decided to circumvent some "post-expand include size" limit by using some "Template:invoke". Is there a way to know the minimal conditions to stop using that gimmick? It messes up with my duplicate citation finder. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Selbstporträt. See WP:NewPP limit report. For 2026 Iran war it says "Post‐expand include size: 1745102/2097152 bytes", meaning it uses 1745102 of the limit 2097152 (83%). Don't change invokes to normal template calls just because there currently is a little room below the limit. That can quickly change, even if the article isn't edited but a used template is changed. All transclusions at the end of the page will be omitted if the limit is broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Selbstporträt (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding further reviews to the Reception section of the board game Troy.

I am new to editing and need a step by step procedure to insert published reviews in the Reception section in the Wikipedia entry of the board game TROY Podarces (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Help with biography and potential copyright?

I was trying to locate citations for Raymond E. Johns Jr. and I stumbled across this source, from which the entire "Assignments" section is copied near word for word. It is not cited as a source. Is this a copyright violation?? If not, how would one add a citation in a way that shows it verifies the section in full? Would it be better written in prose rather than a list in this case? TXstockman5 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Considering all materials made by the US government is in the public domain, it is not a copyright violation. I added the proper attribution to the Air Force in the article. The section would be better written as prose. Be bold and fix it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Great! Thank your for the confirmation. I have rewritten the section as prose. Is it appropriate to remove the maintenance tag for this article now, or should the sections for ranks and awards also be converted from tables to prose? TXstockman5 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Unsure about uncoined words

Im a hobbyist artist and langophile and have a coinable word to be used as a stage name that also has etymological origins and parseable meaning, but has never been used by anyone. I'm wondering what of the following, if any, would be appropriate to create a wiki for:

-An artist's stage name that has yet to be publicized.

-An uncoined word and its possible interpretations, of course including etymology, justification, and usage examples.

Of course I do understand this is effectively coining the word, which is why I suspect it may be inappropriate. Any thoughts would be appreciated. ~2026-36470-10 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as you suspect, it would be coining the word, and Wikipedia is not a place to write about something that was just created. Others need to take note of the word, and it should be in general use, before it can be written about here. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Much obliged, the iPhone example was particularly illustrative. ~2026-36470-10 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

AfC draft – request for feedback

Hello—I've submitted a draft article at Draft:Earl MacDonald through Articles for Creation. I am the subject (COI disclosed) and would appreciate feedback or review from an independent editor when possible. Thank you. Earlmacdon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Earlmacdon, by submitting the draft via "AFC", you have already expressed this. (Right now, I am absorbed in matters arising from Draft:Peary's Expedition (1908–1909), and others who might review your draft are likely to be similarly occupied.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Earlmacdon (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Painting "missing infobox" notice template ?

If there is none, what is the best alternative? I want to mark some paintings that don't have them (I have no time to add them as I am focusing on improving the painter's article page).
JP Jp1008 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jp1008. The general {{Infobox requested}} can be placed on the talk page but it's better to add |needs-infobox=yes to a WikiProject template like {{WikiProject Visual arts}}. This automatically adds Category:Visual arts articles needing infoboxes. Don't add the category manually. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

About a draft i submitted..

I recently submitted a draft article that’s probably a little over 17-ish days old now, and it hasn’t been reviewed at all.

I do understand that some drafts take a longer time for review, but do i have to edit and make improvements to my draft continuously for them to notice it, or am i just ok to leave it there until it eventually gets reviewed? Agar!! - TALK 23:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi fellow eukaryote! You don't have to do anything, but you are welcome to do so if you choose.

Several editors with experience accepting/declining articles tell me that two kinds of articles get dealt with quickly: ones that are so good it's easy to accept them, and ones that are so bad it's easy to reject them. Ones that fall in the middle are more work, and volunteers sometimes avoid them. So improving the article might actually get a faster review.

If this is the Anthony Boyd article, I notice that his family saying the trial wasn't fair needs a citation (it can't use the citation on the next sentence--that source doesn't mention his family). In the next line, it calls Boyd his spiritual advisor, but the source doesn't say that. This is what I see in a quick spot-check. You should probably go line by line checking that everything is sourced and all sources support what they're used for. Claims that don't match the source, even if they are true, are a serious problem that can get the draft declined. M kuhner (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I’ll deal with these issues later. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 02:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@AgarAgarPowder Thanks for your submission. It was a good attempt at a first article; hampered unfortunately as I presume you hadn't come across WP:CRIME before. Wikipedia generally doesn't like to have articles about people who are only notable because of their connection to a crime, barring specific exceptions. I've given more details in my rejection notice. Athanelar (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 15:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Meeting notability for article that was merged

Hi Teahouse! I'm having trouble understanding nobility.

I made this draft on an incident I thought was notable enough to have it's own article. There was an article for it written a few days after it happened, in this edit, but it was merged with the high school's article, and I had trouble finding the exact reason. I assume it was because the event didn't meet notability at the time. I hope my draft meets notability now, but I'm not sure if it does, to me it kind of feels like it falls under WP:ARTN, if there's anything that should be changed or added that'd help a lot.

I also have two other articles I'm drafting, so anything about understanding WP:NOTABILITY and lasting coverage would help a lot! AnthonyTheGuy (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Urgent help please, undelete a page

I need to get a page undeleted. I requested it a couple times now, with no feedback or change to my page status. Any tips or help? 5dventures (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What page is it, and why do you need it so urgently? Requests can take time. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I should've been more precise in my language. It is a draft (not a published page) and a biography about Wael Bahaa-El-Din. I want to continue working on it. The urgency comes from a reporter who had wanted some of the information for an interview in a couple hours. I have no offline draft available. 5dventures (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Click on this link WP:Refund Untamed1910 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@5dventures Your comment indicates you have a close connection to Bahaa-El-Din, please read Wikipedia:conflict of interest and disclose your connection. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The urgency comes from a reporter who had wanted some of the information for an interview in a couple hours.

You mean a reporter wants to interview you, and there is some information on that draft which you need for the interview? Your meaning isn't clear here; but either way, Wikipedia is unfortunately under no obligation to help you meet this deadline; we are not a free web host and you should not use a draft as a means to store information for your personal use. Athanelar (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia interface update - images at top of articles

Why has Wikipedia been updated so that every article has a series of photographs at the top of the screen.

I use Wikipedia to discover information, in the same way that I would have used an encyclopaedia book in the past. I don’t use it to specifically view the images in the articles.

If Wikipedia wants to be seen as a professional encyclopaedia, then it needs to look professional, which this doesn’t. It looks very amateur at best. Are there any plans to allow this feature to be reverted back in the near future?

Dreamweaverjack (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This was a WMF decision, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Full launch of the Image Carousel feature. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This change will make me less likely to use Wikipedia in the future.

I come on to the site to read the articles NOT to look at a series of photographs.

If Wikimedia think that this will increase the number of users, then they are sorely mistaken.

Dreamweaverjack (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Per this you are able to turn it off. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamweaverjack There is now an RfC on the matter here, you may wish to voice this opinion on that page. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 02:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference without external source

Hi. I found in many articles with reference that point to nowhere, e.g. in Ancient Olympic Games, a claim was backed with reference Kyle, 1999, p.101, but there is any book, journal, web pages with that last name and publication date in section Bibliography, so reference is useless. Is there any template to mark such useless references? KrleNS (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@KrleNS Welcome! Afaict, you're quite correct about this example. Template:Full citation needed may be of use here. You can also try asking around, perhaps at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, if someone can help you find the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. But I found that in many unrelated articles, e.g. Algebraic number theory. Plain text is used, if sfn or harvnb templates were used, maybe this problem would more obvious. KrleNS (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It also might be worth looking through the revision history to see if there waa originally a full citation to which that shortened cite referenced which has since been removed. Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

OK. But can a bot convert simple text into harv templates? KrleNS (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@KrleNS: As Athanelar suggested I looked at the history then used External tools: Find addition/removal. This took me to wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=Ancient_Olympic_Games. From there I put in Kyle, 1999, p.101 in the Search for box & changed the Versions to check to 5555, & checked the Force searching for wikitext checkbox. That gave me Insertion found between 22:14, 12 February 2010 and 22:51, 12 February 2010: here. Clicking on here took me to the vesrion where Kyle, 1999, p.101 was inserted. I did not see a full citation for "Kyle 1999" put I did see one for "Kyle 2007":

• Kyle, Donald G. (2007). Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631229704. Retrieved 2010-02-12.

I was able to do some wrangling with archive.org to display the pertinent page:

• archive.org/details/sportspectaclein0000kyle/page/100/mode/2up?q=mythologized

From this, I think that we can conclude that H1nkles mistakenly put in 1999 rather than 2007.

Here is the appropriate code to fix the problem:

{{sfn|Kyle|2007|p=}}

* {{cite book |last=Kyle |first=Donald G. |title=Sport and spectacle in the ancient world |publisher=Blackwell Publ |publication-place=Malden (Mass.) |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-631-22970-4 |oclc=63116432 }}
Peaceray (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I used the ISBN to query worldcat.org then looked for ebooks. You will need to register (free) to use that functionality. Peaceray (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Fantastic job, thanks. But is there any tool that would remind contributors that they added useless references? I saw that editor copy entire paragraphs from one article to another and they forget to copy sources at bottom of source page. I contribute mainly to Serbian Wikipedia, we use sfn/harvnb templates extensively, so our category Harv_and_Sfn_no-target_errors is overpopulated. I use HarvErrors.js script that mark problematic references and I usually find that source of the problem is English Wikipedia. KrleNS (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's complicated!

There is a script, User:Harej/citation-watchlist.js, that can be installed in one's Special:MyPage/common.js (see Wikipedia:Common.js and common.css for an explanation of common.js). However, this is only useful when one uses {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, {{citeref}}, or one of the other author–date citation templates that use parenthetical referencing in footnotes (see WP:CITEREF & H:SRF). When an editor has installed this script, it will flag mismatches that use the appropriate citation templates.

The 2010-02-12 edit that H1nkles made did not use an author–date citation or a shortened footnote template, but instead used a plaintext format, i.e. <ref>Kyle, 1999, pp.101–102</ref>. In this case, using citation-watchlist.js would not have been able to flag this, since it only works with citation templates. Peaceray (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia can prescribe mandatory use of harvard citation... --KrleNS (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

How to Publish draft and eventually get the article published on main page.

My draft got rejected, stating that the draft has information that are refered using LLM(Chatgpt). Can you guide me, or help me in writing my own article. Manju M J (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wrote the article with an LLM, you'll need to rewrite the entire thing, on your own this time, before resubmitting. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 04:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Click every source. Does it work? (Hint: not all of them do.) Does it support the statement in the article? Are there statements in the article which aren't supported by any source? Fix all of these problems. (I hope this slow process will show you why LLM is a bad idea. It's actually easier to write a good article yourself than fix an LLM article.)

Unusually for an article of this type by a beginner, I think there is some hope you can show notability here and successfully make an article. But not with LLM! They do not actually understand sourcing and make far too many mistakes. They also tend to give your article the sound of an advertisement, which we don't want. Use your own words, please. Your English does not have to be perfect.

You will also need to remove anything that praises the company, unless you are quoting or paraphrasing an independent source that praises them in this way. Neutral words only, please.

I will also mention that writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and it's best to get experience with smaller jobs first. If the first thing you do when you get a hammer and some nails is build a house, it will probably fall down. M kuhner (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

And to get it published on the main page, WP:DYK is the simplest process. It will have to be big and new enough and comply with policy including sourcing. Also there must be something interesting to say on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Help

I'm trying to create a page for a client, and it's my first time doing so on this platform. Apart from the COI which is required (which I've done, but not sure if I've done it correctly), my draft and previous others (not done by me) were rejected. The reasons include: the page was not written in a factual manner, the company is not noteworthy enough, and the references are insufficient. As I'm not at all familiar with Wiki, I'm struggling to understand this as I've tried to use a page on another company (Austal) in the same space as a guide and reference, and I've included links to reputable media as references. I appreciate any suggestions or help to improve. Thank you! SM9987 (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You did disclose a conflict of interest on the draft; as you are working for a client, the Terms of Use require you to disclose as a paid editor on your user page. Please see WP:PAID. I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS and show it to your client. And reading WP:PAIDADVICE is a good idea, too. Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. It is not recommended as the first thing a new user does.

It is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could have problems that you are unaware of as a new user. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or even Featured Articles.

The draft just tells of the routine business activities and offerings of the company; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what the source views as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as its own importance. In this case, if you have sources that discuss how Strategic Marine is particularly important or influential as a shipbuilder, that's primarily what we are interested in, not a summary of the vessels it has constructed. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@SM9987 You've said yourself that previous drafts of articles about this same company made by people other than you have been deleted/rejected, and you've been advised both here and at the talk page now that your efforts are likely be fruitless.

Let me echo that and add to the number of people telling you that seriously, genuinely, you're in the wrong place. That's not a challenge for you to overcome, you aren't going to prove anybody wrong with your gumption - we're telling you this so you don't waste any more of your time than necessary.

Starbucks isn't the place to get your taxes done, and Wikipedia isn't the place for PR firms to write about their clients. The number of employees, contractors and PR people who manage to write successful articles about their clients/employers is infinitessimally small. Anecdotally, I've never seen it happen (and I've personally reviewed 181 draft articles, a great many of which have been by employees and PR people on your position.)

Sure, you might be in the 1% or 0.5% or whatever of people who manage it, but there's a 99.5% chance you won't be. How much of your time and effort (not to mention the time of the volunteer editors here who, unlike you, have no promise of a paycheck at the end) are you willing to sink into that chance? And for what? This isn't a place for advertisement, so the end result would anyway be an entirely boring and unflattering article about your client which doesn't praise them or highlight their product or achievements in any way. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Advance Mobile

I saw the option of advanced mobile in my settings...can anyone tell what is it? Insight94Editor (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Insight94Editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean "Advanced mode"? I see this line below it: "Advanced mode provides easy access to talk pages, history pages, user tools, and other editing tools." There is also a "Learn more" link but it's not very helpful for normal users. It adds some links which are normally omitted to avoid cluttering the interface on a small mobile screen. The added links are mainly for editors and not readers. It's a part of numerous extra links which are in the desktop version available on "Desktop view" at the bottom of the mobile version. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Boss.. I have one more question. Does Advanced mode also support editor tools or gadgets such as HotCat, Twinkle, Navigation popups, RTRC, or other advanced editing features on mobile, or does it only expose additional interface links (history, talk pages, user tools, etc.)? Are there any editing gadgets that work well in Advanced mobile mode? Insight94Editor (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Insight94Editor: I don't use the mobile version for editing but I think advanced mode only adds interface links and has no effect on scripts. Some scripts and gadgets do work in mobile (probably independent of whether advanced mode is enabled) but I don't know which or how well. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

AI generated tag. article substantially revised, requesting review

Hello. im a reletivley new editor and would welcome some guidance.

In May 2026 an AI generated tag was placed on the article I was working on 'William morris mordey' as I had pasted in some mark down code block wrapper from an assistant I was using. This was a formatting error on my part and I aknowlage it was a legitimate reason to be flagged.

I should explain that I used an AI assistant because I have dyslexia and dyscalculia, and I used an AI tool to help with spelling, grammar and formatting of my own research and writing and not to generate the content itself.

Since then I have substantially revised the article. the flagged content has been removed and all sections have been re jigged, written and re cited. I have also added additional source materials.

I posted on the talk page in early June 2026 explaning what I had done and requesting review. I subsequently pinged the user that flagged it directly on the Talk page and contacted them by email. I have received no response.

I believe the article now meets standards and the concerns that prompted the tag have been addressed. Could an experienced editor review the article and, if satisfied, remove the AI generated tag? Any feedback on the article itself would also be very welcome. I should note that that the article may still contains some grammatical errors and minor typos which I have done my best to correct.

The article is here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris_Mordey Mordzy (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: William Morris Mordey Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link Mordzy (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I have put some comments on the article talk page. M kuhner (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What does "{{!} }" mean?

Without the extra space between the closing rooster brackets. It sometimes gets automatically added to text after publishing. What does it mean and how can I stop it from being added? ~ Hogshine (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hogshine There's a rather technical explanation at Template:!. I think that the visual editor sometimes adds this where it isn't needed and you can try to remove it in the source editor, previewing to check whether its absence makes any difference, before you save/publish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Should have figured out it's a template. Thanks for the reply, I think I‌ get it now. ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Brand new user

I am a brand new Wikipedia user who aims to become familiar with the platform and its functions. I was reading through the editing syntax for this article, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ketogenic_diet&action=edit), and I noticed that most explanations for changes made to a site began with a colon (:). If I want to explain why I made a change without accidentally including that explanation with the actual change, do I just put a colon (:) before whatever I want to say to explain?

Separately, to whoever addresses this: thank you for the support! I hope to become an experienced general contributor and editor myself, as I explore this site over time. Do you have any general tips for me on Wikipedia, or help sites that you recommend I visit as I try to become part of more experienced user groups? Thank you again. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Was wondering what a reply would appear like Lwightmanresearch (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You're looking at a talk page there, which is for the discussion of an article rather than the article itself.
The colon indents text, so it's used for replies. For example, since this is the first reply to your original message, it will have one colon at the start. If you reply to this message using the [ reply ]` button at the end of it, your message would have two colons, and so on.
In general for talk pages it's probably easier to just use the buttons so you don't need to worry about the wikitext. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Is wikitext difficult to learn or does it just take time? I've seen some sections about frustrated new users with the way it is, but I could understand that you'd get the hang of it over time. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Things are starting to look a little less foreign. I am currently clicking between "edit" and scrolling through the wikitext/syntax for this particular discussion lol. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikitext has its nuance, but most editors figure things out over time. I would recommend you stick to visual editor until you get the hang of things; you can do most tasks on Wikipedia without the source editor. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends on your previous experience, but it shouldn't be too difficult to learn. I would say it's probably more useful to look at the source text of articles rather than talk pages, but feel free to do whatever you want. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I created this reply through syntax editing let's go Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

For purposes of future questions, here's something I learned right here at the Teahouse. It is hard to talk about source editing issues because the stuff you type gets interpreted. But if you put it between nowiki tags, it won't: <nowiki> your problem code here </nowiki>. Makes discussing the intricacies of Wikipedia source much more feasible! M kuhner (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Just saw something about Semi-protection policy -- editing primary informational articles is only available to registered users (which I become automatically after ten edits and four days since my first)? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"primary informational articles" not sure what you mean by that; articles are usually semi-protected if they are frequently vandalised (which are usually articles that get a lot of visibility, or are somewhat controversial, such as celebrities and politicians). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 19:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the articles about politics, celebs, etc was what I was referring to there. For instance I can edit this Teahouse page and post and reply, but I would not yet be able to edit, say, a page about Taylor Swift. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Some talk pages are semi-protected too, and keep in mind that not every article about a politician or celebrity is semi-protected; most aren't. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's important to note that (semi-)protection only occurs as a result of actual problems in an article, and is not applied pre-emptively. So as JohnLaurens says, not all articles in any given category are protected, only the ones that have had frequent vandalism. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 19:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Myles Moylan

There is controversy about Major Myles Moylan's birthplace - Amesbury, MA, versus Tuam, Co. Galway. Currently there are ten citations to support Tuam as his birthplace, which includes the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Myles Moylan. If you scroll down to the bottom of his citation page, you will read the following -Myles Moylan served many years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he gave varying places of birth. Sometimes it was Amesbury, Massachusetts, and sometimes it was Tuam, County Galway, Ireland. Birth records show that he was, indeed, born in Ireland. Official Army records continue to show his birthplace as Amesbury because that is the place of birth he gave when he started the enlistment for which he earned the Medal of Honor. This is the citation that is being used to show that Major Moylan was born in Amesbury - although the Congressional Medal of Honor Society clearly state that they agree that he was born in Ireland. How can I remove Amesbury as his place of birth? BuffyO'B (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is fine because if there are ten sources that say different the article has to put the information from all ten sources so you do not need to remove that SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

different things* SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw if you remove that it will probably cause a edit war. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 22:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the third time at the Teahouse with the same question. How can we help you? Are you dealing with an edit war on this point? You might consider WP:THIRD or some other form of dispute resolution (there is a good rundown of options at WP:DISPUTE). M kuhner (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Galawêj Festival a "major award" for WP:ANYBIO #1?

Hi, my draft Draft:Milet Mihemed was rejected by User:Athanelar with the reason "contrary to purpose of Wikipedia" and "AI hallucination".

But the current draft was completely rewritten from scratch with 3 strong sources: 1. PUKmedia 21 Nov 2023 - subject won first prize for poetry at International Galawêj Festival 2023 2. Library of Congress authority file 3. VIAF cluster

This meets WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".

Galawêj Festival is the oldest literary festival in Iraqi Kurdistan, running annually since 1996, and is covered by all major Kurdish media including Rudaw, PUKmedia, Kurdistan24, and Xelk.

The reviewer now says Galawêj is not "well-known and significant" and only international awards like the Booker Prize count. Is this correct per policy?

Can an uninvolved editor review if this "Reject" is appropriate? The draft has no AI text now and the sources are real and verifiable. Thank you. ~2026-36678-20 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally "well known award" is understood to mean an award that itself merits a Wikipedia article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:331dot, thank you for clarifying the standard.

Per your definition, the award does meet "well-known and significant" because:

1. **The award has its own Wikipedia article:** International Galawêj Festival

2. **The festival is explicitly international** with coverage confirming this:

- Rudaw 2016: "Galawej International Festival... 20 countries participated" [2]

- Kurdistan24 2023: "30 countries participated in the festival" [3]

- Channel8 2023: "International guests from various countries" [4]

- TheNewRegion 2023: "International festival... 30 years of creative history" [5]

- KFuture Media 2023: "brings global voices to Sulaymaniyah" [6]

Since the award 1) has a Wikipedia article, 2) is called "International" by multiple reliable sources, and 3) hosts participants from 20-30 countries, does this satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 for the first-prize poetry winner?

If additional sources are needed, I can provide more. Thank you for your time. ~2026-36678-20 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If the award has an article, you didn't link to it. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right, apologies for not linking it. Here is the article: International Galawêj Festival

Additionally, here are the direct sources confirming the subject won first prize for poetry:

1. PUKmedia (English): "The first prize for poetry went to Milat Mohammed Muhsin." [7]

2. PUKmedia (Kurdish): Confirms the award [8]

3. KNWE.org (Kurdish): "یەکەمی شیعر، پێشکەش بە میللەت محەمەد موحسین کرا." [9]

Given that:

1) The award has its own Wikipedia article International Galawêj Festival,

2) Multiple reliable sources confirm it is international with 20-30 participating countries, and

3) Three independent sources directly verify the subject won first prize,

does this satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 for "well-known and significant award"?

Thank you again for your guidance. ~2026-36845-53 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI models to generate talk page comments. There is not an article by that title, as you can see by the link being red. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I have now found multiple independent reliable sources for WP:GNG:

1. PUKmedia (EN): https://www.pukmedia.com/EN/Details/77334 - "Milat Mohammed Muhsin... awarded first place in poetry"

2. KNWE.org: https://knwe.org/KU/Details/24032 - Confirms award win

3. Kurdsat TV: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1D2FErgJZM/ - Video report, subject speaks at 0:15-1:30

4. Waar TV: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BLmcw28Aq/ - Festival coverage, subject featured at 1:05-2:20

These are four independent reliable sources: two written articles + two TV broadcasts from different networks. All provide significant coverage of the subject winning the award.

This clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The award itself has articles on and Wikipedia, showing regional significance.

Can an uninvolved editor please review for approval? ~2026-36845-53 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is certainly not suitable for Wikipedia in its current state. Library of Congress authority file and VIAF cluster fail WP:42; they don't provide significant coverage and I wouldn't consider VIAF reliable for this purpose either (as it cites Wikidata). Not 100% sure on the PUKmedia source, but it's certainly not enough content for an article on its own--all it says is that the subject won this award. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Courtesy ping: Athanelar. 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Deadnaming in a reference's by-line

I came across two rather curious edits[10][11] for The Fool (Bladee album), that changes a author's name in both the ref template and in the article body to a new one, citing avoiding deadnaming. However, the by-line in the source still credited the author's original name.

Is there any policy that's relevant to this case? I am assuming MOS:DEADNAME doesn't apply to just a reference. Do we have any BLP-esque duty-of-care to people whose full name we are including in the references? Especially since they are often non-notable? For example, in this case, I was not able to find any online presence of a person under the new name, but plenty under the old name.

LkL-70547 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME specifically says: "In source citations, do not remove names of authors or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person." SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska

Hello! Please, responsible editors out there, look again at a draft of my article on a neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska again. After critique (thank you!) from .nhals8 and  Devonian Wombat, I removed what was considered as a promotional language; citations of opinions of other  neuroscientists not related to her in any way ; I reported with sources which support that the person meets overwhelmingly all  specific criteria for inclusion among academics, and belongs consistently year after year to the top 1% of all neuroscientists cited by the most recognized brain research journals worldwide and by 12500 other neuroscientists in them, with a frequency of 120 citations per publication, on average. At the start, I reported some so called conflict of interests. I believe that this part of the American neuroscience deserves some attention of the reading public. Thank you. Walerus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Maria Dorota Majewska ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Long live solidarity of all Wiki writers, thank you! Walerus (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

recover edits lost when Wikipedia crashed

Hi, I tried to login but somehow could not succeed, so I finally decided to do a unon-logged in edit of my (personal, living author) Wiki page "Christopher I. Beckwith" (that's me), which has been increasingly more or less vandaiized (for a scholarly person article), mainly devoted to removing the many nasty things added to it, so I spent most of the day on it today and was about to try and save or "publish" it when Wikipedia suddenly went "Violation!" in a big red and yellow "explosion" image, and my entire many hours of work disappeared. I tried all the "recovery" options, but none worked. So I tried again and again to get a username that WP would accept ("Bearpit"), then logged in. I was using the same computer (my own) all day, and am still using it, but still could not recover anything. If you could recover my work for me that would save me many hours of work redoing it from scratch.

Thanks in advance,

"Bearpit" Bearpit (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If you weren't logged in, I don't think there's anything that would have saved your work. If it's not at Special:EditRecovery, it is likely lost.
As an aside, you shouldn't edit pages about yourself directly. Instead, you should make a edit request on the article's talk page. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Lists containing mathematical text

When making a list which contains mathematical text, as seen below, the item number is aligned with the middle of the whole equation.

1. ${\begin{aligned}math&=math\\&=math\\&=math\\&=math\end{aligned}}$

See how the '1.' is in the middle of the equation? How do I align it with the first line in the equation? ACarWP14_TC 22:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is LaTeX hiding inside Wikicode. You may find some help on LaTeX specific discussion boards, for example this thread looks relevant: [12]. The question isn't the same as yours but the solutions look promising for your issue. Alternatively, you could try WikiProject Mathematics. M kuhner (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Archive display problems

Hello, I was trying to setup archiving on my talk page. It is active, but for some reason the archives only show inside some page inside of my talk page acessible via a link that says "About this page" or something like that. Is there a way for it to display prominently on the top of the talk page?

Thank you! Me, in particular 23:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Noob Question

Noob question, but what is the regard toward necroposting here? I've seen talk page discussions from years ago that would really help the article. What should I do about these? ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 00:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions generally move much slower than social media discussions. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with responding to an old talk page discussion. I just wouldn't expect the original poster to respond (although someone probably will, depending on the article). That's just me, though. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I will keep this in mind. ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 01:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about 'needs infobox' removing on talk page please

Hi Teahouse,

I hope you're doing well.

I added an artist infobox (few parameters, but just a start) to Hugh Davies (artist). I looked at the Help:Infobox but not sure of best practice - once I have added the infobox, will the 'needs infobox' tag auto-remove from the talk page? Is this autopatrolled or do I need to make a separate edit to the talk, after having added the infobox please?

Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't see "needs infobox" on the article talk page. In fact I don't see any talk page at all for this article?

The general rule is that if you are sure you have fixed a problem, you are allowed to remove any tags about the problem. One exception is that if someone does a review of your article, for example at Articles for Creation, you should leave that alone. It is useful information for subsequent reviewers to check if you've tackled the issues raised. M kuhner (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations

see all articles in template:AFI 100 Years... series and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, 781h (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)