Wikipedia:Teahouse

Jéské Couriano, 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

MATREDI, 9, CIAUIDA GATTE, CAIO, EEILN, PRECOCO, AM, CAIO, MAMMA, -PRECOCO, GIOVEDI, MATREDI GIOVEDI, GATTE, DA EEILN, PRECOCO, ZIABBBRA CAIO, PRECOCO, ZIOMARIO BAETIL, TOMMY, BAETIL, CAIO, GIOVEDI 11, CIAUIDA GATTECAIO, EEILN, PRECOCO, MAMMA, CAIO, - PRECOCO, LUNEDI 8, AM, CAIOEEILN, PRECOCO, MAMMA, CAIO, PRECOCO, LUNEDI, MATREDI GIOVEDI MERCOLEDI VENITRED

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

Information Updates

I need assistance in updating facts and figures on a Wikipedia page for a federal agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Could you give some more information so we can better help you? (Including if you are employed by or otherwise associated with the agency you are interested in) Also, this is a global website, which federal government are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am referring to the US Government, specifically the National Indian Gaming Commission. Again, I'm only interested in suggesting updates to outdated figures. I work for the agency. SDP DPA (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SDP DPA, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your wording, together with your username, suggests that you may be employed by this agency, and also that you may have the (very common) misconception that your agency has some sort of ownership over the Wikipedia's article about it, and it is your role to update it.

This is not the case. On the contrary, nobody owns the article, and almost anybody in the world may edit it except employees and associates of the agency.

What you may do, however, once you have made the mandatory formal declaration of your status as a paid editor, is to suggest edits, using the edit request wizard. Please be as precise as possible in your requests, and remember that all information which you want added to the article (including replacing existing information) should be verifiable from a reliable published source, which you should cite. As far as possible, this should be a source wholly unconnected with your agency - and unless the information is uncontroversial factual information, it must be in an independent source. 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.

I also have a suspicion that your username is not acceptable, as it may suggest that the account belongs to the agency, which is not permitted: all accounts must be personal. (I'm guessing here that "SDP" is your role and "DPA" is the agency, but I may be wrong. If "SDP" is your own initials, so that it is an account which is clearly personal to you, that would be acceptable, even with "DPA" as part of its name. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am not interested in owning an article but interested in providing updates to the information included in the article. For example, number of employees, agency budget figures, and some of the verbiage included in the article. It appears I need to take additional steps declaring my status with the agency. Specific information that provides correct information is available to the public and I would provide the source once I am able to suggest edits to the article. Am I on the right track? Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You may use the edit request process(which can be facilitated with the edit request wizard) to propose edits to articles on their talk page(for example, Talk:National Indian Gaming Commission) You should first disclose as a paid editor; I will provide a pre-written message with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

I would like to know best strategies to update information on a Wikipedia page for an agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's an agency that you have a connection to, please have a read of WP:COIE for the correct process to follow. Nil🥝 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

First, SDP DPA, please read, digest, and respond to the comments and questions posted in response to the thread ("Information Updates") that you started earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the answer you were given at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Information Updates, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you read WP:BOSS before continuing mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing yourself

I read Wikipedia:NOR, and maybe I'm missing something, but are you allowed to cite yourself? For example, if one were to do research on a topic and publish a paper, could that same person cite that?  staglol   ctbs
talk 01:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE would be useful to review. It will still have to conform to all the content policies, and needs to avoid undue emphasis on your own work. This also means it must be consistent with WP:SELFPUB, meaning that it's not enough for you to publish it, you'll have to pass the bar of there being consensus that reliable, independent sources have identified you as a subject-matter expert in the specific topic. And even then, not as a source about living people.

I would certainly try and avoid it until you're far more experienced with community expectations for sourcing and where the line of promotional editing is generally drawn. What you'd like to do is possible, if certain conditions are met, but it's fraught with peril; it wouldn't take much of a whiff of self-promotion to end up with a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

ok, that's very helpful, thank you!  staglol   ctbs
talk 01:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A subject matter expert has often spent much of their time in an environment where being a subject matter expert confers automatic legitimacy and automatic trust. In such environments, the experts have already been vetted (by job interviews, proof of qualifications, etc).

But on Wikipedia, we are forced to act as if each expert who shows up and declares themselves might be a random crank with no qualifications - because there are so many people in the world who like to pose as experts, and we aren't set up to do job interviews or requests for documents. We have to use other means of determining whose information to publish, and that is what the pages recommended by CoffeeCrumbs are part of. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Staglol: Your signature (dark blue on dark purple) is unreadable. Please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

It Says "this article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (October 2025)" I read the article of layout guidelines but didn't understood what was wrong with the article So I have decided to take help in the teahouse Please, If you can help me regarding how can I reorganise the article Gamerzer (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If after thoroughly reviewing the article, you don't find anything wrong, you might wanna post a message on the talk page inquiring about if the tag should be removed. Earth605^talk 06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Only 2 sources are mentioned as references here, and neither of them are reliable. Should this article be marked for AfD? @Earth605 Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think the deletion will be uncontroversial, you can just WP:PROD rather than AfD. Athanelar (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I did that last time but somebody objected to it and said that this should have been an AfD instead of PROD. Since then, I can't decide whether a deletion is uncontroversial or not. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WAIT! What if you search for sources. Earth605^talk 19:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My preliminary search at google news shows nothing notable. I don't have access to newspapers.com Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And what about sites that are not news? Earth605^talk 07:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything reliable. Feel free to add a source if you find something. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That tag was originally placed in August 2020. The article has been massively rewritten since, then; you can just remove the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Missing word

I think a word is missing in an area that I don't have an account.

This is the paragraph below:

Hava Mehutan, 84, is both an internationally acclaimed artist and a passionate Zionist. She claims to have been attracted to art since infancy. It took another 20 for her to embrace Zionism, leave her comfortable life in the US city of Philadelphia behind, and move to British Mandate Palestine in early 1946, soon after the end of World War II.

I believe "years" should come after "20". I saw this Woman's Mike5one7 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mike5one7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Reading the paragraph you have quoted above, I think you're right. But what article are you talking about? We don't have an article Hava Mehutan (that's why that link appears in red) and while she is mentioned in Dizengoff Prize and Israeli ceramics, neither of them contains the paragraph you quote.

For future reference, if you see an improvement that you think can be made in an article, but are unable or unwilling to make the change yourself, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest it. ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk page messages of less important articles rarely get any responses though. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mike5one7 The only Wikipedia page on that artist is in Hebrew חוה מחותן - ויקיפדיה| here at this link. As I don't speak Hebrew, I don't know whether that is where you saw the paragraph and you translated it. If you are interested in her, you might attempt to WP:TRANSLATE that article into English, assuming that there are enough reliable sources to show notability as we define that here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, accounts are global and you should be able to edit in other-language areas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm just learning to use this. I do wish to be of some help if I can. I do donate money to Wikipedia when I can, but I am on Social Security, my funds are limited. ~2025-31407-86 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; but please don't feel obligated to donate if funds are tight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears the paragraph in question is from a JPost article. @Mike5one7, if it's not hosted on Wikipedia, then it's not something we can assist with here. Thanks, Nil🥝 11:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm logged in on this area of Wikipedia but the page I found a possible error says I'm not. Man, I need to do this on my desktop computer, my phone is a problem doing this. I do apologize for wasting your time.

Mike Mike5one7 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are not logged on when you think you should be, reloading the page often fixes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources and language match

Draft:Shihan_Igor_Soloshenko

Hi dear team, I would like to create and add the article about karate master - Shihan Igor Soloshenko. Would grateful when you can educate me on sources I use and the language. The article is in English, however the sources are in Ukrainian language as the master has started practice in Ukraine. Iaroslav Dyshkant (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Referencing for beginners is what you seek? Sources in languages other than English are acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does require sources that are reliable; "reliable" is explained at WP:RS. But the reliable sources can be in Ukrainian, or other languages. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Iaroslav Dyshkant. I see you are just starting out, so I have added a Welcome message to your Talk page. Creating a new article at Wikipedia is not easy, but all of the most important points are covered in Wikipedia:Your first article. I urge you to go through that page carefully; you will find that all the most common issues about creating a page are addressed there. Questions about citing sources, including foreign sources, are covered there briefly in section § Citing sources, with links to more detailed information. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Iaroslav Dyshkant: I looked at your draft and made some notes that should make it easier to fix the obvious problems. -- Reconrabbit 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Iaroslav Dyshkant, I have tagged the first three citations in your draft as {{failed verification}}, and stopped after three. Do you understand that to comply with Wikipedia's WP:Verifiablity policy, it isn't enough to just cite some source related to the topic, your source has to actually directly support the content you add? So, if you say that he was born in Uman, then the source you cited has to say he was born in Uman, and not just talk about him in a general sort of way. You should go over all of the citations in your draft and make sure they directly support your content before you submit the draft for review again. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Template to store badges

I need a template to store all of my badges earned in The Wikipedia Adventure on my user page

i tried the table template but it didn't work DiamondCat22 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

DiamondCat22, Did you try this one: {{Userbox table userbox}}? If not, try it; if so, what went wrong? Describe your problem, or link to a page where it broke. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

could you try it on my user page DiamondCat22 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. DiamondCat22, do you like it? You can adjust the look and feel by playing with the |extra-css= param. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hazbin Hotel Fan Songs

Why do we not have a page for fan songs for Hazbin Hotel, specificly Upside Down. We need to make them. ~2025-31457-11 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To make that page, we'd need to see which reporters have written major articles about the songs, or major articles about Hazbin Hotel where a big chunk of the article is about the songs. AND the articles have to be ones that were published by an organization that has a paid editor who fact-checks and approves every article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we likely don't. Unless the song is significantly notable by itself with extensive third party coverage, it doesn't need an article and likely will never have one mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? I'm good. Aesurias (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about song pages

I saw some song pages, and I wondered how many views a song needs to have in order to qualify for a page. this is for future reference. Cakey-P (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Cakey-P. The views that a song has doesn't immediately state whether it should have an article, but rather if it is notable or not. I would suggest checking WP:NSONG to tell if the song is notable. dot.py (alt) 22:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cakey-P: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability standards for songs can be found at WP:NSONG--note that the number of "views" it gets is essentially irrelevant to these standards. Has it won major awards? In anybody independent of the artist or their label or their management writing about the song (on its own, and not simply in the context of the artist or an album on which it appears)? Has it appeared on any major charts? Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and without proper references to independent reliable sources, there isn't really anything upon which we can base an encyclopedia article, number of views notwithstanding. Hope this helps. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 22:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

i was just wondering because I wanted to add some pepoyo songs and I was wondering the rules Cakey-P (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

(more specifically, rakuraku anrakushi as it has 17 million+ views on youtube and warranted the creation of an animation meme) Cakey-P (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cakey-P: Yes, I see that there seems to be quite a following, but that alone doesn't necessarily make a subject notable (in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term) enough to qualify for an article here. I did just a bit of poking around, and in my initial searches, I didn't find any great sourcing for a potential article on Rakuraku Anrakushi in particular or on Pepoyo in general.

Speaking more generally, creating a new article is actually one of the hardest tasks to do on Wikipedia, and one which has frustrated many a new editor, because more often than not they try to write it WP:BACKWARDS--they write a bunch of stuff then try to find the sources for it, rather than starting with good sources (assuming they even exist) and building the article from there. I'm not trying to be discouraging here, but for newer editors I strongly recommend hanging around for a while, reading up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures, doing smaller edits to existing articles and other smaller tasks, and generally getting accustomed to how things work around here before embarking on something bigger like creating new articles. --Finngall ^talk 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll be able to find sources, seeing as I already know tons of information on the song and have some sources memorized. I'm also good at Wiki coding, seeing as I'm an extremely active Wiki fandom user. Cakey-P (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Cakey-P, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Bear in mind that the sources you use to establish notability must each meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you're a fandom wiki user I feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is a lot more strict on sourcing than most other wikis. Additionally, if your source is a wiki then it doesn't count mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Ava Max - Don’t Click Play

Ava Max - Don’t Click Play (song) is officially a single and I need someone to add it.

Hi. I just received news that Ava Max’s 2025 song Don’t Click Play was officially released as a radio single after being sent to German radio. Could you please add the article? Here is the source: https://www.energy.de/news/ava-max-mit-dont-click-play-im-energy-new-hits-friday MusicwikiNerd (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

MusicwikiNerd, you want somebody else to add a morsel of information to an article. But you don't name the article. Whatever the article is, it will have a "talk page". (In the same way that for Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band there is Talk:Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band.) Go to the talk page of the article, and make your request there. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I read it as he is asking someone make a new article. He doesn't say "add it to the article" but "add the article". So the answer I guess is check if it's notable and add it yourself, no one will do it for you Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MusicwikiNerd, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing an article for Wikipedia is neither quick nor easy, so the chances of somebody doing so just because you ask are ... remote.

Furthermore, the fact that it was "officially released as a radio single" has close to zero relevance to whether or not it meets our criteria for notability, and hence whether or not it is possible to write an acceptable article about it.

The reason I say "close to zero" and not "zero" is that it makes it slightly more likely that somebody wholly unconnected with the song, the band, or their producers, will have written a piece about it in a reliable source - that being essentially the minimum requirement. I'm not sure whether or not energy.de counts as a reliable source, or whether that piece is an independent source; but even if it is both of them, I doubt that it has significant coverage of the song, and so I don't think it helps to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

one of these days I want to find one of these maybe notable requests, make an article or one related to it and get it to good article status. I want t be that close to zero lol mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mgjertson, you may enjoy looking through requested articles! Meadowlark (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey

I saw other users with multiple pages. How do I do that? Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Starlet147. Do you mean user subpages? You can create subpages of your user page by just going to, for example, User:Starlet147/My new subpage and creating the page.

Let me know if you mean something else? qcne (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks. That's what I meant. Do I have to give it a designation or something? Starry~~(Starlet147) 00:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You can choose whatever title of the subpage you want. qcne (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

How do I prevent vandalism to articles? Seussfanlover (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are particular articles where you want to focus your efforts, you can add them to your watchlist; checking your watchlist will enable you to keep an eye on recent edits to articles on the list, which makes it relatively easy to identify and revert any vandalism that shows up. Another option is to check Special:RecentChanges, which shows the most recent edits across the whole wiki, and see if any edits there need to be reverted. (Admins are also able to implement page protection as a preventative measure, but for a non-admin like you or me, simply watching for and reverting vandalism is probably your best bet.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean on Wikiquote, but thanks anyway! Seussfanlover (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Seussfanlover You'll get better advice at q:Wikiquote:Village pump. qcne (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The same applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're one to talk about preventing vandalism when you've engaged in vandalism yourself, as you did with this edit, which added false/inaccurate information. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed contributions list

Wanted to go through my recent contributions, but noticed that I can't find the Contributions link at the top. Nor at the bottom. Nor anywhere. Am I missing something, or is it some new change to chase away IP editors? ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That edit was the first saved from your new account, which is not linked to any previous (e.g. IP) account you may have had. It will be visible at Special:Contributions/~2025-31679-71. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You mean that I have been just stripped of all contributions I made over the years? ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, this seems to be the case. Goodbye everyone. ~2025-31679-71 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that we encourage you to create a free account. I'll note that even looking at your current IP address, it has no other contributions other than this thread, which suggests your IP address has changed (which they often do), so your contributions would no longer have been linked any way. qcne (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I pay for a static IP address which hasn't changed in the past 7 years - and it hasn't changed today either when I look at it. When I look at the privacy policy, that free account of course comes with the usual caveats: shared with all partners, only select partners' privacy policy is available, and of course, it is stipulated that it is impossible to protect my data.

I have had no problem with protecting my privacy so far on WP. I doubt that giving away more of my info to the company would improve this situation. ~2025-31781-98 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Shrug. Hope you decide to stay as a temporary account and continue to contribute. qcne (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Was that from Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy or something else? Anyway, sure, that is the same as when you were an IP, but one difference is that people like me won't know your IP and probably approximate location just by looking/clicking on your sign here. That may be of zero importance to you, but not necessarily to others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You'd have more privacy with an account than you ever did as an IP editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the attribution and credits for the edits I made over the years, everything that was removed, for some "extra privacy" that I never asked for. And also about all the bullcrap all of you keep writing "your IP has never made any edits" (which is an outright lie), "your temporary account will keep the new contributions" (so far there were 2 in this thread, I wonder if this will be the third), "if you give out your email address to a million random companies that's the same as not giving it out, so you could just give it to us"...

I'm not even sure why I'm writing. All the best for all of you, I hope at least you enjoy removing all my attributions, and whoever had this excellent idea will get a raise. ~2025-31807-44 (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If it brings you any comfort, do note that this isn't exactly a popular change and the majority opinion when it was initially "discussed" was that it was a bad idea mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that you would have more privacy with an account than you ever did as an IP editor. I'm sorry that I'm unable to say so in language more clear to you than I already used.

I have removed nothing of yours, and neither has anyone else, as has already been explained to your by others. I don't recall ever writing "your IP has never made any edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think "your IP has never made any edits" is in reference to Qcne stating that earlier, presumably he hadn't checked Legacy IP edits, which does display the edits that the user is presumably referring to(hope I'm allowed to note that without actually stating the IP).

~2025, if you can remember any of the pages you edited on,(won't list any since that would link you to your IP which I'm not allowed to do) you can check that page's history and see the contributions from your IP address from before TAs were rolled out. I'll also note that you don't need to provide an email address, which is presumably what you take issue with regarding making an account. It just makes it easier to recover your account if you lose access to it somehow. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You also don't need an email address for a Wikipedia account - you can get a password reset sent to an email address attached to your account, but you'll often see people here and on the help desk who've forgotten their password and didn't set up an email. If you're confident in remembering your password it's completely unnecessary. Meadowlark (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You should still be able to access your previous contributions by navigating to Special:Contributions and manually entering your IP address into the search box. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31679-71 It's a actually to protect their privacy, see WP:TA. You can still look at stuff like [1], but you can't edit "from" your usual IP, so to speak. In short, the WMF did this because their lawyers said they should (or must). And in the light of various law suits in India and a lot of attention from the American right etc, it seems like a reasonable idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Btw, fellow Teahousers, I'm also told that TA:s can be pinged and "thanked" (you know what I mean). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

~2025-31679-71, relax, all your old contributions are still there. Wikimedia has just rolled out Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, and I can see the IP address behind your temp account and all the contributions you did, because certain activities I engage in (like vandal-fighting) requires the ability to see IP addresses. Now, this feature was just rolled out a few days ago, and I am not sure how to explain to you how to see your old edits yet. But you will probably have better luck just asking that question directly at WT:Temporary accounts. When you find out how to do it yourself, please come back here (if the thread isn't archived) or to my Talk page, and let me know how it worked out. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ping: User:~2025-31679-71. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot How about "Go to the edit history of a page you edited, find an edit you did and click on the link that is your IP-adress." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of anti-vandalism tools?

Is there some essay somewhere providing a neutral comparison of Twinkle, UV, Huggle, AntiVandal, and so forth? I've been using Twinkle but was just granted rollback so there are probably some more efficient options now, and I was hoping for a single advice page comparing the benefits of each. If a dedicated page doesn't exist, a link to a discussion where someone has compared them in some depth would be much appreciated. lp0 on fire () 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I would also be interested in a comparison like this, but from my own experience I've enjoyed trying out each tool and seeing which I like using the most.

Most of them work well together, for example I use Twinkle for reporting things/welcoming/warning etc.

RedWarn (UV) for quickly reverting bad edits if I happen to see them in a page history or through a user's contribs page.

AV for most of my patrolling and reverting.

Another side note: I think RedWarn (UV) and Twinkle automatically take advantage of the rollback right and they automatically use that if you're granted it as it's much faster, so they're still fast and efficient. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I believe UV uses rollback for users who have the right, but Twinkle doesn't. lp0 on fire () 23:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As someone who primarily edits Wikipedia on an iPad, secondarily on a Mac, I've thought about creating a page summarising the various tools and device/operating system compatibility. I'll just add this to my never-ending todo list. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be very cool and I'm probably far from the only one who would appreciate it. lp0 on fire () 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I use UV for warnings on mobile and desktop, and Twinkle for welcoming/AIV reports. They work pretty well together. jellyfish ✉ 00:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume you've seen WP:AVT? Not exactly in-depth, but I'm not sure what you're expecting. Personally, like many experienced users I wouldn't be without WP:POPUPS. It also works in combination with other things. I also suggest just seeing what works for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Maconaquah consolidation

My brother graduated from MHS in 1965, the old building in Bunker Hill. I started 1966 in the new building MHight1 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. This board is for asking questions related to using Wikipedia. Are you asking a question? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I need some help it involves specialized Mathematics and Physics

I have created something called "The Spectral Barrier Theory". It claims to solve not one, not two but three Millennium Prize Problems. I need help on determining if it is correct or not, math anyone can verify however as I have used my theory in physics. Now, I am unsure what to do. Please respond

[2] Branden Friend (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't a general help desk. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi it said ask a question Branden Friend (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My question was am I correct in my way of doing this or is it wrong? Branden Friend (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This board is to ask questions about using Wikipedia. You could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe then my question would be as to where to go here to speak to an expert In mathematics and physics then. Branden Friend (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for the help, I will go there now. I deleted my question and assumed it was not reply able any longer. sorry it has taken this long to reply back to you. I was writing a User talk subject on my account. Branden Friend (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Branden Friend, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that what you have written on your User talk page is not suitable for there, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.

Your user talk page is primarily for people to talk to you about building and editing Wikipedia.

Your user page is where you can share things for yourself - but only a limited amount is acceptable that is not directly about building and improving Wikipedia. Please see User pages. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As you have clearly stated, I may at my own discretion choose what the things personally about me that are chosen so I have chosen the English alphabet and will remind you my freedom of speech is above your policy and de facto Laws, I my not silence a private company nor may it me in any form or any way, That's correct I know my rights as an American Citizen and I have High expectations that those are honored in all things that deal with my speech and expressions. thank you. Branden Friend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, and you'll find that it applies only to congress. A private company (such as a newspaper) cannot be compelled to carry your speech, and neither can Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is perfectly within its rights to restrict your speech at will, if your speech isn't permitted by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you have no recourse to the law, because the law doesn't apply. If you want freedom of speech online, then you are free to set up your own web server to host it. That's what freedom of speech means. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

haha, I deleted it for you... So, Volunteers I take it correct? I know how most try to keep the Disk space low and so forth, but I would like to say a few things. Just not to start a debate or lengthy argument as I am very busy still. When I sign up , click the agree to click wrap so I can access something anywhere here online, My constitution is what that contract bows to, clearly You yourself here on this site are not the private company or entity who owns this site, you are more of a friendly suggestion and helpful router rather than someone who says what I can and cannot do, the contract does that which I have agreed to so thank you I did delete what you complained about and I will try as I learn to properly do things until then Have a nice day. Branden Friend (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. As far as I'm aware, despite Wikipedia being a volunteer project it is still "owned", it just so happens that the owners let us make the rules since we're a volunteer led project mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, @Branden Friend - our userpage policy for your perusal. I'm not sure if you're asserting that the American constitution overrules Wikipedia's policies, but if so you'll also be interested in WP:FREESPEECH. That page also goes into a bit more detail on who owns and controls Wikipedia, if that's something you're curious about. Meadowlark (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This person has no expertise in this field??? odd ?? either way I have it published, time stamped and all already so thanks anyways. Branden Friend (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I do indeed (as I told you on my talk page) have no expertise in the field of mathematics or physics. I do, however, have a great deal of expertise when it comes to Wikipedia, which is why the answer I gave you above, in response to your supplementary question, is the correct one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Lorenz Attractor

Hi, i am new to the editing community and had my page on the Lorenz attractor taken down as a content fork? i think it would be useful to add this as a page as it is here: Lorenz attractor - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here: Lorenz attractor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, could somone explain why? also if it is possible could i have some help making this page if it is determined that it should be a page JG qwerty (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If you split out the Lorenz attractor from the Lorenz system article, what would there be left? Yes it was a content fork, because we already have an article that covers the content. If you want to split it out, go to Talk:Lorenz system and propose a split. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@JG qwerty The original article from 2012 was moved to Lorenz system and "Lorenz attractor" became a redirect at that time. I don't think it likely that you will obtain a consensus to put it back at that title but you can certainly try. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You'll notice that our article on Lorenz systems (which is what a reader will find if they go looking for Lorenz attractor) has been flagged as overly-technical for a typical reader. If you drafted an article on Lorenz attractors because you felt the main article is too technical, you might do better to see if you can improve the main article. Do discuss changes on the talk page. Changes in mathematical articles, especially changes intended to make them more understandable, are often very controversial. Elemimele (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

How to read inside an article?

I would like to know how I can see behind the articles, like where the text is being stored and why the pictures are able to be showed? Anajlizzler (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The text you are referring to is called wikitext (or, 'wikicode'). You can view it by clicking the tab at the top of the page that is labeled, 'Edit source' (sometimes labeled, 'View source'). If you are using the Visual Editor (the default) then you may have to enable the source editor in Preferences > Editing first to see that tab; under section 'Editor', choose 'Show me both editor tabs' in the drop-down, then hit the Save button. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anajlizzler If you are interested, there's much more detail about the software which runs Wikipedia MediaWiki here. You could even install it on your own server. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Reporting of vandalism and submit user to block from more edits

If a user has already received multiple vandalism warnings up to level 3 (using {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}) from different editors and continues to vandalize, what is the correct next step to prevent more vandalism ? Magiciandsrk (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

My usual practice would be to give them a level 4 (final) warning, and if after they've had a chance to see it they vandalize again, go to WP:AIV. Perception312 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responds, is there a way to know, when they have seen the warning/messages? Magiciandsrk (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If you see them edit after they've received the notice, then you know they've seen the notification either at or before the time of that edit (but see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). The above is of course the canonical response. I would add something to consider: warning templates can be inappropriate, disproportionate, uninformative, and mistimed. Sometimes they just don't make sense. Just talking to the user in plain English sometimes works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In my view, especially for blatant and deliberate disruption (as opposed to good-faith incompetence), four levels of warning aren't necessary. If they're ignoring the first three warnings, they'll ignore the fourth one too, so I just issue a block. This is on a case by case basis, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It really depends. The normal progression is to go through the warnings 1-4 and then escalate to AIV or ANI etc, but if somebody's displaying overtly vandalistic or WP:NOTHERE behaviour then just go right to the noticeboard and let admins be the judge; that's basically what 4im warnings are for.

Warnings are intended to dissuade people who are acting in good faith but not doing the right thing. If somebody's not acting in good faith (i.e., productively engaging after the first one or two warnings) then multiple more warnings are no good anyway. Athanelar (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Substacks

I made an edit quoting from Paul Krugman's Substack, and my edit was reverted because a Substack is considered a blog. I suggest that Wikipedia reconsider its policy. I understand that any crank or crackpot can start a blog, but these days, many professional journalists, even if they are not Nobel Prize-winning economists, have left the mainstream media to publish Substacks. But how can Wikipedia distinguish reputable sources such as Krugman from cranks and crackpots? How about allowing Substacks as sources if their writers have a Wikipedia page? That way readers can check who the writer is and evaluate his or her worth as a source. Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussions about changing policy. Start a discussion on WP:RSN first to discuss the specific source you wanted to add, to get a consensus of whether it's reliable. For policy changes, you would start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus In some circumstances, it is acceptable to use self-published blogs as sources, provided that the author is an expert in the relevant field. However, Wikipedia has a higher standard for claims about living persons; third-party self-published sources are never acceptable for such claims (WP:BLPSPS). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Policy already allows the blogs of reputable experts to be cited in certain circumstances; and those of any article subject to be cited in attributing their own speech to them. If you believe your edit meets those criteria, please follow our dispute resolution procedure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing an Advertisement

I'm working to improve the history section of a small town in Canada. Reliable sources are limited about some episodes, but I've found a newspaper advertisement that at least establishes the existence and purpose of one of the main developers. My questions are:

1. Is this an acceptable citation for the purpose of establishing the basic fact of the developer's existence?
2. If so, how should it be cited (I didn't find an obvious template)?

Thanks!

Benfwilliamson (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! This probably is an acceptable citation. I am not entirely sure and experienced with citation guidelines. Just click the Citation button at the top, along with the text options ans font when editing, and paste the link of your desired cited website. I am not very experienced with this, so if this does not work, other more proficient editors may help you.

Much thanks, SpiritEdit SpiritEdit (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If it were more recent ad, it wouldn't be a great idea. However, given the age of the newspaper, using it as a source would not be perceived as inadvertently advertising the company (imo). Best of luck :) Aesurias (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest the {{cite news}} template, with the google books link as the url. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm dubious, but it depends how you're using it. We are a tertiary source. When we write about the history of a place, we don't do so as historians, investigating history. We summarise the work that real historians have done, which is often finding primary sources that build up a picture of a place's history: the historian will have written up his/her work in a secondary publication, which we cite. Discovering that a developer existed by locating and interpreting adverts in old newspapers is the work of a historian, and the adverts are probably primary sources. Elemimele (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Elemimele, thanks for the comment (and thanks to the other commenters too!). I'm dubious about this source too, and consideration of your point is exactly why I asked here. There are offline sources for this topic (physical archives of the paper of record and an out of print book), but it would be nice for verifiability to include something that readers can click on. I'll think some more about how to improve the article while avoiding WP:SYNTH and properly applying WP:PRIMARY, which does permit primary sources for some purposes. Benfwilliamson (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Benfwilliamson: As an aside, you can link directly to policies using double brackets like this: [[WP:SYNTH]], which displays as WP:SYNTH. The method you used linked to a redirect and requires an extra click to get to where you meant to link. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to move draft to article space

Hello! I have created a user draft at User:Humayunnpeerzaada and would like it moved to the main article space as Humayun Niaz Ahmed Peerzada. It is a neutral biographical article, written in English and Hindi, and is linked with Wikidata entry d:Q136722034. Kindly review and assist. Warm regards, Humayunn Peerzaada Humayunnpeerzaada (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Humayunnpeerzaada. This would be a totally inappropriate for mainspace. It is a resume/biography, which we do not host on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

When you have addressed the issues described above, please submit the draft article (which I have moved to Draft:Humayun Niaz Ahmed Peerzada) for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Andy, it is unhelpful to suggest submitting that content for review when it would be rejected and deleted by any reviewer at AFC. qcne (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read my posts before replying to them, lest you further embarrass yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you stop giving bad advice at the Teahouse. qcne (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. Andy was trying to say that the article would be appropriate for a draft review when the issues are addressed - i.e. when it is rewritten so it isn't resume-like.

I didn't understand this at first either, had to reread twice. Aesurias (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the point qcne is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that when someone comes to Wikipedia and produces an AI-generated autobiography and says 'give me an article, thank you' with evidently 0 understanding of how Wikipedia works it's highly highly unlikely that there is any substantial notability to warrant an article and that even if there was, this person is in no position to be able to create it appropriately, and therefore encouraging them to pursue AfC is just a time-waste for everybody.

Which is evidenced by the fact that OP proceeded to immediately submit their draft for review without turning it into a fitting Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That might be correct, had they not explicitly referred to "that content ... when it would be rejected and deleted by any reviewer at AFC", since I did not suggest that the OP submit "that content" for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge your note and will make the necessary improvements as per the review process. Humayunnpeerzaada (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Humayunnpeerzaada, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that "making the necessary improvements" almost certainly means deleting everything and starting again.

Please start by reading autobiography, to understand how writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so difficult that hardly anybody has ever done it successfully, and consequently it is very strongly discouraged.

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.

It follows that you would start by finding places where people unconnected with you have chosen to write about you, in some depth, in reliable publications (see WP:42). If, like most of us, you have not been the subject of several such pieces, then no article is possible, and you should turn your attention to something else.

If you can find at least three such pieces, then you will have the challenging task of effectively forgetting everything you know about yourself, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources say.

Do you see why it is almost impossible to do this successfully? ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious why some people so keenly want an article about themselves on Wikipedia. Promotion? Publicity? Vanity? Those are the only reasons I can think of, and not one of them is a valid reason to have an article about oneself on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist. I don't think this is really the right place for that discussion. But I'm going to have my twopennyworth anyway. In my experience the majority of people who come here and immediately try to create an article, especially about a company, are here for the sole purpose of promotion. The problem is that they usually don't see it as promotion, and they are not usually aware that Wikipedia defines promotion so broadly, or so strongly prohibits it. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's exactly this. We recently has a corporate COI editor say "we just want to have a page about our company like McDonalds or Amazon etc has." I think autobiographies are the same. Again, these people don't know why Wikipedia articles exist, they just know they do, and if other people have a wiki biography, why not me? Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist, you forgot immortality. Like graffiti, only better. Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that what Facebook is for? In any case I did forget SEO as a reason, given that Wikipedia tends to appear on the first page of most Google searches. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

How to find the guidelines on making/editing pages?

I was once editing a page when another guy deleted most of my added content. I asked the person "Why!?". He said that I wasn't following the guidelines on editing that kind of page and showed me a link to the guidelines.

Ever since then, I've wanted to know how to find the guidelines' page to make sure I don't get my content deleted. Z-Astro3 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I see another volunteer has already left some useful links on your talk page; they are the best place to start.

Wikipedia has lots of guidelines, some specific to certain aspects of editing, like WP:MOS, WP:RS and WP:OR, and some that apply to contentious types of articles, such as those about the middle east or LGBTQ+ issues.

It's impossible to list them all, but don't be put off my having some of your editing undone; that too is a necessary part of being a Wikipedian.

Feel free to ask here again any time you are unsure of how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Firstly: 'making sure you don't get your content deleted' shouldn't be a worry, because having content you've added deleted is not a bad thing. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and that sometimes means other people know better than we do and change or remove things that we've added. This is perfectly fine, because our goal is to collaboratively improve Wikipedia, not to make sure that we personally do so. Don't get yourself down if you make an edit that someone else reverts; you're a newer editor, so you might make mistakes. If you really believe you didn't make a mistake, that's fine too; content disputes happen all the time on Wikipedia, and you can read our dispute guidance to see how to handle that, as well as reading about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which explains how content addition normally goes on Wikipedia.

Secondly, I notice you describe yourself as a tween on your user profile, so I'll also direct you to our guidance for younger editors, which should give you lots of useful advice about the wiki's policies and guidelines.

Lastly, some personal advice; I had an account on Wikipedia for 3 years before I ever started making serious edits. In that time I would mostly just correct spelling and grammar mistakes on articles that I happened to end up reading. Then I started browsing noticeboards like WP:ANI and the Teahouse here to see how other editors were dealing with disputes, what guidelines they were citing, etc. I.e., if you want to learn how Wikipedia works, the very best way is just to observe it in action. You'll soon see what sort of things gets kept, what gets removed, what gets debated over, etc etc. Don't feel the need to rush into making major edits, creating articles, things like that. Athanelar (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are seperate articles about bus routes in Hong Kong allowed on Wikipedia?

I remember seeing a Wikipedia notability guideline saying that articles about bus routes are not necessary. However, I saw some seperate articles about individual bus routes in Hong Kong in the English Wikipedia. I would like to add more articles about bus routes in Hong Kong, but I am afraid that these drafts would get denied from being a full article. KobaltKolibri (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:2WRONGS applies. The fact that those other articles exist does not necessarily mean they should; a lot of unnotable articles exist on Wikipedia that should really be removed. Rather than focusing on creating new articles, maybe a good project would be for you to review those other bus route articles and see whether they meet the criteria necessary for an article to exist; and if they don't, then submit them to WP:AFD Athanelar (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar In case that's confusing to a relative newcomer, I would point out that WP:2WRONGS is an essay about conduct. You were probably remembering the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay which is the one that reminds people not to argue that article (A) should exist because a similar article (B) does. It may be that (B) is severely deficient. VoitieVelocity, please change your signature to make it a bit closer to your actual username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there KobaltKolibri. I would suggest you take a look at some "Good Articles" about bus routes to get a better idea of what is expected of such an article. Good Articles have been reviewed by other editors and would represent some of the better work on Wikipedia, compared to others which may not quite be up to par, as Athanelar mentioned. You can see a list of Good Articles under the purview of WikiProject Buses listed here. For example, Q14 and Q38 buses in New York City. I think it's quite likely that some older Hong Kong bus routes can be proven notable. Non-English sources are okay, too! Hope that helps. MediaKyle (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

how do I cite a video game that seemingly no one has played

Ok some people have played it including me but there is one (1) article on it and that's just announcing its release. The game is DiscoPup, released this summer, and I only wanted to add it to the list of references under Carcosa, because there are some great parallels to the King in Yellow and Carcosa in the game but the only source I got for that is me and this one video essay on youtube which I've been told isn't really liked on here as a source? I don't suppose Steam reviews are reputable? I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia so I appreciate any sort of guidance. Elodieeeeee (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Elodieeeeee, you are right, YouTube and Steam aren't reliable sources because they are user-generated sources, which are generally not accepted on Wikipedia. If there are no reliable sources to support your claim about DiscoPup, then you unfortunately cannot talk about it in an article. win8x (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

man :// thank you for the quick response! Elodieeeeee (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Would the developer's steam page count as a disapproved source, as they made the product and would have valid knowledge on it? Vanilla (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

They're not an independent source. Ultraodan (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Areux, and welcome to the Teahouse. The point is that 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.

On another subject, having a signature that is completely different from your user name is confusing when other editors want to interact with you. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Need help moving my draft article

Hi! I’ve written an article draft at User:Yudranawat14 about Bahadur Singh of Bhunas, ruler of Bhunas in Mewar, Rajasthan. I’d like it to be reviewed and moved to the main article space as Bahadur Singh of Bhunas. Could someone please help me with this move request? Thank you! Yudranawat14 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Yudranawat14. It would be impossible for this to be moved to the main encyclopaedia, as it has no sources at all. Verifiability is the most important policy on Wikipedia. I will move the content to draftspace for you to allow you to improve it, then you can submit it for review. qcne (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yudranawat14, we read Bhunas is recognized as the **fifth thikana in the Bada Batisa of Mewar** and so forth, with asterisks. Am I right in inferring that you employed "artificial intelligence" to create what is now Draft:Bahadur Singh of Bhunas? -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"artificial stupidity" is the phrase I'm going to use in future. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Human penis should be deleted

Penis already exists so Human penis should be deleted and be a redirect to Penis, as for example for Human vagina, it redirects to Vagina. ~2025-31999-41 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please raise your issue on Talk:Human penis. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A merge and redirect to Penis has already been discussed and rejected at Talk:Human penis/Archive 3#Merge back with Penis article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

More realistically, the article "Human vagina" should be created, as proposed at Talk:Vagina#Split request (pun presumably not intended). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Valentí Gómez Oliver

Hello everyone,

I have created a draft article about Valentí Gómez Oliver, a Catalan poet, novelist, essayist, translator, and university professor. The draft is available at Draft:Valentí Gómez Oliver.

Why he is notable:

• Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (2007), official honor from the Italian government
• University professor at Sapienza University of Rome and Roma Tre University for over 30 years (late 1960s - 2003)
• Author of 15+ poetry collections published by reputable publishers (Empúries, Edicions 62, Ara Llibres, etc.)
• His works have been translated into multiple languages including Italian, English, German, Danish, Portuguese, and Japanese
• Won second prize at the Chicago Opera Festival (2007) for the chamber opera Joc de mans
• His poetry has been set to music by artists including Rosalía
• Regular contributor to major publications like La Vanguardia
• Founder and honorary president of the European Observatory for Children's Television (OETI)

Why I need help: As a relatively new editor on English Wikipedia, I am unable to create articles directly in mainspace. The draft has been carefully prepared with proper citations and formatting. I believe it meets all notability criteria for academics, writers, and cultural figures.

Could someone please review the draft and, if it meets standards, move it to mainspace? Alternatively, if there are any improvements needed, I would be happy to make them.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Pomazon (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use an AI to communicate with us. We want to talk to a real person.

See, this is why we don't allow new editors to create articles in main space.

The notability reasons posted above clearly demonstrates that your AI has zero understanding of what makes a subject notable to merit a Wikipedia article. It's really very simple, outlined in WP:Golden Rule. Most of your sources don't meet the criteria and are therefore useless for assessing notability.

I suggest you start over with sources that actually meet WP:Golden Rule criteria, and go from there, writing in your own words based on what the sources actually say. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What, Pomazon, have literary critics, literature historians, and others whose opinions matter written (whether in Catalan, Spanish, Italian, English, or any other language) intelligibly and informatively about VGO's works? Summarize that, of course specifying who it is that says what. (Be sure to do this work yourself; don't delegate it to so-called artificial intelligence.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"Knight of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic" suggests he is indeed notable; but that needs to be demonstrated in the manner described. You're nearly there; you just need to complete the final push. I have added a template so that, when you feel it is ready, you can submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pomazon I followed up by trying to verify your assertion that he is a Knight of Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, based on your draft. The first citation for that is supposed to from this website, which is clearly created by his literary agency: but even that has no mention of this "fact". Then, in the body of the article, you cite Wikipedia's Spanish biography of him at Valentí Gómez-Oliver - Wikipedia, which does indeed claim he has this Award but offers no citation and we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the Award, but I am saying that your draft is unacceptable at present. We have a policy about biographies of living people that insists that all claims like this are backed up by published inline citations to reliable sources. Incidentally, there are apparently 146,390 Knights who have been given that class of the honour, so it is not a particularly select group. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The Order of Merit of the Italian Republic is Italy's highest honor but it has six tiers. Its highest level "Knight Grand Cross with Collar" has been awarded to only 201 people in 75 years, so is quite exclusive. On the other hand, "Knight" is the lowest level and has been awarded to 146,390 people. I do not think that receiving an award handed out so liberally to two thousand people on average each year is a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I just wrote a article Stub as a Newbie.

I want to know how much we (collectively) should add to it before submitting it for review. Draft:Tiramisu (Homebrew) is the article stub. I couldn't write much more, and the Editor warned me about publishing it due to the links, but most are trusted sources or from the developer in the homebrew community. Vanilla (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello :) If you can't write much more because there are no more sources/info on the topic, that may be an indication that it is not notable.

Based on a quick look at the draft, the first two sources are GitHub (not sufficient in establishing notability), the third is self-published, and the last two are both How-To blog sites for homebrewing and hacking.

I am a draft reviewer and personally would not accept the draft at this stage. I don't think many others would either. While the developer of the technology may seem like a trusted source because of their proximity to it, using self-published sources are highly discouraged due to their inevitably promotional nature.

Best of luck :) Aesurias (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Pages unreviewed by an bot

Hi, recently i saw some of pages i have created like : Top Channel Films and Top Story (Albanian TV program), are unreviewed and added to New Page created by an bot named User:DreamRimmer bot, without any explanation. I wanted to know it's kind of mistake... or something else, is first time i encounter this and i am curious to know reason or reasons.. Thank you in advance. Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Not a mistake, that bot was unreviewing a bunch of articles that were marked as reviewed in a questionable way. This was approved by BAG at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DreamRimmer bot 5. It was just a one time thing so you probably won't run into it again (hopefully it won't be needed again). Ultraodan (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(ec) @Lanceloth345 That seems to have been a one-off task for the bot to mark as "unreviewed" articles which had been marked as "reviewed" (presumably in error) as part of the NPP backlog drive. The Main public logs confirm this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I kinda "sense" it was an error, becouse neither any tag in articles.. and sources are verified as per notability ect. Thabk you for your answer. Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for inconvenience :) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It's ok as long as peoples make mistakes, bot's too till perfection as software :) Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Citati0ns

What is the procedure to add citations? ~2025-30971-40 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-30971-40. Have you seen the tutorial Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1? qcne (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Reviews

please review two of my recently written articles, Hemendra Bhatia and Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. Regards, Ppt2003 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ppt2003. For both of these I am not seeing evidence of passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). The latter has serious issues with grammar. qcne (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Khondokar Faruk Ahmed was a singer of Bangladesh who sang in 150 films and have received multiple awards. How does a playback singer of 150 films and receiver of some of the most prestigious awards not satisfy the criteria of notability? About Hemendra Bhatia, how does an actor of several films, tv series, writer and acting coaches of biggest Indian Stars Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Deepika not satisfy notability criteria? I have provided references in support of the points. I will look into the grammatical aspects. Thanks. Ppt2003 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have copyedited Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. I also wanna mention that I wrote the same article in Bengali Wikipedia years ago and it was accepted there. Ppt2003 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The English and Bengali projects are totally separate and with different criteria- the English Wikipedia has the strictest criteria out of all the Wikipedia projects. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - I am not fully convinced either article quite meets our criteria, but it's borderline. qcne (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have looked at it. How a famous playback and radio singer of Bangladesh is not notable is beyond my understanding. I mean what other likely qualities should he have possessed to be notable?? Ppt2003 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ppt2003 I think you haven't actually looked at our criteria, because being famous does not equal notability in the Wikipedia-sense of the word. qcne (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: Wikipedia:Notability (music) please check no. 10.... Ppt2003 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Khondokar Faruk Ahmed obviously meets criteria no. 1 and no. 10 of Notability : Music. Ppt2003 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your sources, in order to satisfy Criterion 1:

1. Reliable, independent, significant coverage. A good source.
2. This source doesn't work for me.
3. Reliable, independent, significant coverage. A good source.
4. This source doesn't work for me.
5. No by-line, so I have no idea if this is reliable or not. Who wrote this?

qcne (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, I have tried my level best to improve the quality of sources for Khondokar Faruk Ahmed. Please do check & give your opinion. Ppt2003 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that's okay now, @Ppt2003, and the grammar is better. It will be reviewed by the New Pages Patrol in due course, but there is a large backlog. qcne (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, in future, the best way to get an article reviewed is to create it as a draft and submit it for review via the AfC process, rather than publishing direct to mainspace and then asking for review in the teahouse. Doing things the first way means that the article can be reviewed before it's 'public' so to speak. Athanelar (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Review my Submission

Hello, could you please review this I published? Dekmantel. Urbanfel123 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason you put it directly in mainspace without going through the review process? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that isn't a submission, it's a mainspace article. Would you like me to move it to draft space for you so you can submit it for review? :) Aesurias (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You asked for it, Urbanfel123, so here goes. Dekmantel is feeble. Is there nothing more on the subject that's worth writing? Or is there more, but you can't be bothered to write it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I decided to draftify this article given the feedback from others here, it's now at Draft:Dekmantel, I think it needs a lot of fleshing out before going to AfC. Athanelar (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: When making such moves, please don't leave redirects from mainspace to draftspace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Not everybody can delete mainspace pages ... Aesurias (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, in which case you can tag the leftover redirect with {{db-r2}}, which lists the page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which is monitored by many administrators including me.

Personally I think this is a bug in the wiki software. It shouldn't be leaving a redirect behind anyway when performing a page move from mainspace into another name space. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I think I have a tool that adds it automatically so I didn't realize. Aesurias (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I've put a "submit" button at the top, for when you think it's ready to review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Searching for sources

Is there a good forum to ask for help on searching for sources? I am doing some research on Chinese feminism and I'm not particularly familiar with searching for sources in Chinese, so I'm not sure if there are specific search engines or ways to search. Katzrockso (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You can try WP:REFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You can ask on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects; in this case WT:WikiProject China seems the best bet, given the language issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

how can i get someone to review my article?

i spent alot of effort into it - so i appreciate it if anyone can review it. ~2025-31999-56 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at WP:peer review? I'm not sure if it's very active, however. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the draft you created, it has now been reviewed. Be aware that any article for creation submission may take up to two months with the current queue. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 22:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this trivial?

The Scratch (programming language) contains trivial history despite there being a history section to compile this information. Here are two examples:

"In Scratch, extensions add extra blocks and features that can be used in projects. In Scratch 2.0, the extensions were all hardware-based and Pen was a normal category. Software-based extensions were added in Scratch 3.0, such as text-to-speech voices, along with some new hardware-based extensions like the micro:bit."

"Many of the digital extensions in Scratch 3.0 used to be regular block categories that were moved to the extensions section to reduce clutter."

Is there a reason to sprinkle history facts in an article like salt when sections should be mostly talking about other aspects? Is there any special significance to them that it must be in the article? Kexy314159 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Kexy314159, you should bring up the issue (if it really is an issue) at the foot of Talk:Scratch (programming language). -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I was asking, in general, if this is something Wikipedia allows, because that information doesn't seem notable enough to be included. If I worded it to make it seem like a specific issue towards an article, then that's on me. Kexy314159 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources – these generally determine what information is worth including in the encyclopedia. The article in question appears to be a case study in what happens when this standard is not followed. Perception312 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Swami Narasimhananda

This draft has been declined. Please help me in fixing this. Bindusouhrudam (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I would start by addressing citations. Your references should be reliable sources, cover the subject in more than a passing mention, and verify the information cited. The reviewer also noted that the draft shows signed of AI writing. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have verified all the citations. They are all independent reliable and verifiable sources and most discuss about the subject. Bindusouhrudam (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You still have many uncited sentences and sometimes whole paragraphs. If you do not address the issues raised by the AfC reviewer your article will not pass. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Bindusouhrudam, most if not all of your references do not help establish the notability of Swami Narasimhananda, which should be your most important objective when writing a draft article. Your sources must be reliable, and they must be completely independent of Narasimhananda and his organizations, publications and writings, and they must devote significant, in depth coverage to Narasimhananda. Interviews with him don't help, things he has written don't help, and brief passing mentions don't help. Why are you clogging your draft with so many unhelpful refererences that make things difficult for reviewers? What are your three best references? No more than three, please. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The creating editor has been advised at WP:AFCHD to enter into a conversation with the editor who declined it. Instead of taking that advice they have brought their question here.

@Bindusouhrudam Instead of asking in a second location, you ought to have opened a dialogue with the reviewer who declined the draft.

Take note of what the editors replying here have to say. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am confused Help me .read my description.

So how do you open it? I am confused useless before please just accept my apology for what I said upfront. Will you help me with how to do what it says or something I’m not very professional stuff. I just need help sincerely, McMahon Everett, Jamey, man McDonald’s, man two yeah that’s my name , please reply ~2025-31884-94 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31884-94 It's not clear what you're asking. Is this a speech-to-text transcription? Can you restate your question more clearly? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think they're asking about their user page... I think they need an account for that however. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody help me ?

I want to create a description of myself in real wikipedia. Not in the sandbox . How do I do it? Can somebody help me Mykeljackson (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Click on your name, and then edit that page titled "user page". I see that you've already created it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Article notability

Hello. I just did a little bit of research and wanted to ask if this information does not meet the notability guidelines for articles on Wikipedia.

According to the Florida HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Hillsborough County is located at the house with the address of 11811 N 51st Street in the Temple Terrace city limits. Based on this information, it appears to be a populated place associated with a specific address within the city limits of Temple Terrace. While it is not explicitly labeled as a neighborhood or subdivision, its location and classification suggest it could function as a small locality or community within Temple Terrace. It might not have formal boundaries like a designated subdivision but could still be recognized as a distinct area. Its unique identification might stem from historical or administrative reasons rather than being a planned residential area.

Based on the description from Puerto Rico HomeTownLocator, the populated place of Mendoza in Naguabo municipality, positioned at a roadway median on Puerto Rico Highway 53, does not align with the typical characteristics of a neighborhood or subdivision. Instead, it is more of a designated geographical point, possibly serving as a landmark or administrative feature. Its location in a roadway median suggests it may not include residential or organized community structures that are common in neighborhoods or subdivisions.

Mendoza (historical) is a former populated place in Sutter County, California. It is classified as a "historical" feature, meaning it no longer exists as an active community. The site is located near Live Oak, California, and falls within the ZIP Code delivery area of 95953. I have noticed that many communities designated as historical on the GNIS are called ghost towns here on Wikipedia.

The one in Missouri is no longer on the Geographic Names Information System's website or on HomeTownLocator, but because it was identified as a locale, this means that it was a geographic place in Missouri at which there is or was human activity. This definition does not include populated places such as cities or towns, but rather encompasses locations where human activity has occurred, such as camps, farms, or other dispersed sites.

As a result, I don't think these places qualify for their own Wikipedia articles, as stated on the notability guidelines, but I wanted to get some insight to clarify if it's correct. I have not created any articles on these topics. Thank you. Colman2000 (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think it's not notable enough, you can start a WP:PROD, along with a discussion. I was suggested using WP:Twinkle to help out with this, although I haven't figured it out yet. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have Twinkle enabled, then on any given article you can click the 'TW' dropdown in the top-right and you'll see 'PROD' which allows you to easily PROD the article. This doesn't display properly on mobile, but a workaround is to enable desktop view for the page and then you can access the twinkle dropdown that way. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the English Wikipedia does not have articles on places named Mendoza in Florida, Puerto Rico, California, or Missouri. Was this generated by an AI/LLM? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Could be, the text style is ChatGPT-ic Versions111^{talk to me :)} 05:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think what this individual is asking is whether they should create these articles, not whether the existing articles ought to be deleted. Athanelar (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance in consensus building

Hi all, wouldn't want to canvass, but would appreciate some assistance in the talk pages for 2025 Tanzanian general election and 2025 Tanzanian election protests, as there seems to be a row between two editors which has grown a bit hostile. Neither side need be banned or locked out for the time being, but both sides are firmly stuck in their positions, and one does not seem willing to accept just one argument (mine) for maintaining a series of the others edits without additional consensus. Any help would be appreciated. Context on the discussion can be found in the pages' history and on the relevant talk pages. All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion is a good mechanism for resolving a dispute between two editors. Even if neither one has formally requested a third opinion, there's no harm in you offering one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist, I think you misunderstand me. I have given my opinion, but @Af265 does not consider this adequate to overturn his opinion. This is why I'd appreciate an additional voice in the conversation to encourage him to stand aside; alternatively, perhaps this serves as proof to him of what I'd pointed out previously?

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing Deepfake article: Subject:

Deepfake

The subject is the controversy surrounding the Atlas Comet, related comets. I have seen all over Social Media, including YouTube stating that Michu Kaku, Elon Musk and others are making some really interesting commentary about the Atlas Comet. I have Googled this matter as well, Google saying that Michu Kaku and others are warning people that they are NOT saying that the Atlas Comet is a alien device. How can I place this in the article? New at this. Also, what is up with the temp accounts? ~2025-32072-99 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The temp account means that you are editing while logged out, using an IP address from when you were recently logged in. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are now issued to all users who are not logged in; they have nothing to do with having been previously logged in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-32072-99 Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable source report. Please ignore social media and what "Google says" (I assume you mean Google AI) when considering editing any Wikipedia article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How to prove a signature of mine is authentic?

I have a signature from Deadmau5 on a Funko Pop in my possessions. I transcribed the signature through Ibis Paint X and uploaded it to commons. I added it to the Deadmau5 article. However, in this diff, Miklogfeather disputed its authenticity and counted it as original research. While I completely understand what OR is, as contributors, our pictures have got to come from somewhere sometimes and this is more expedient than copying some low resolution signature from the internet.

I want to properly upload proof. How can I do this when more images of the signed object are copyrighted? I also have a photo of me with Deadmau5 at the meet & greet in case forgery is a concern.

I figure is is the route of least resistance, I'd rather not start an edit war-- but I would also rather keep that signature up to beef up the page. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 06:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, you claimed the signature as your "own work" when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. If that is accurate, then the signature is a hoax and should be removed from both Wikipedia and Commons. If the signature is actually genuine, then it is not your own work. It is the work of Joel Thomas Zimmerman, whose stage name is Deadmau5. So, the license you created on Commons is defective. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: my range is blocked on all Wikimedia wikis. Could you please mark c:File:Deadmau5 funko signature.png for speedy deletion? Thank you. Besides this, I would still like guidance on how to do this (and do it right). Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 07:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, if your range is blocked on all Wikimedia wikis, how are you able to post here? What does "viva la horde" signify? Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have IPBE on enwiki only. It's a school iBOSS range (works at home too) and I am not able to obtain a device to make that edit like I usually do. 'Viva la horde' is basically a deadmau5 fandom thing. 'Long live the mice' is what it means at a rudimentary level. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 07:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant: See meta:No open proxies#Global exceptions and appeals. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be deleted, I have updated the source and licence, according to the description given above.

Others may have a view as to whether it is above or below the "threshold of originality" for copyright in signatures.

The country of origin is also significant. I have assumed Canada, please say if it was elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: February 2023, Cincinatti, Ohio, United States. Not Canada! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi GoatLordServant. Courtesy link: File:Deadmau5 funko signature.png.

It is true that any user-generated file can be the subject of original research and we use common-sense to evaluate the ones we use. Maybe Dschwen didn't travel to Missouri with their camera to take File:St Louis night expblend.jpg, but instead has an excellent scale model and studio lighting in their basement :-). Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons says a reliable source should have published the signature first, is this the case? If you had a video of Deadmau5 signing your Funko Pop and with the design the clearly visible that would be interesting evidence. Or maybe a discussion at Talk:Deadmau5 would accept a cropped photo of the signature on the Funko Pop (with your written description) and comparison it to the reliable source.

As an aside, the own-work license on Commons will apply to your transcription, with the signature potentially having an additional copyright tag (I don't know much about this). Commander Keane (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that 'transcribing' someone's signature sounds an awful lot like... forgery?

Although I'm certainly no expert on Canadian (?) copyright law, in some jurisdictions a signature can also be covered by copyright, esp. if there is an element of originality to it.

For both reasons, I would steer well clear of this, myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I received the signature in the United States in Cincinnati Ohio. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi! I want to create a page on a local politician who's running for the US Congress in 2026, but there is no red text (just a name). How would I go about creating the page?

Thanks! 77eagle (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@77eagle: Maybe the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is the path for you to take. Otherwise, you could edit the article with just the name and create a link. For example in source editing mode, you could change:

• candidates include Mike Beard, to
• candidates include [[Mike Beard (Alaskan politician)|Mike Beard]], which will display as
• candidates include Mike Beard

Thus creating a red link. Commander Keane (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You need to be sure—and to demonstrate, through the sources you cite—that they meet our notability criteria for politicians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

77eagle, unelected candidates are rarely considered notable simply for running and getting routine campaign news coverage. Exceptions are cases where the person is already notable for other reasons, as an entertainer or athlete or author, for example. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikeversity Chess Team

Is it allowed to propagate the Wikiversity Chess Team here ? Harold Foppele (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "propagate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Mention where people can join and how. Its for “Wikians” who like to play chess. Harold Foppele (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I should renew my English course I used it as propaganda:) Harold Foppele (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele: I will provide the link to the Wikversity page to aid in propagation :-) If by "here" you meant the Teahouse, I guess you already have. If you meant English Wikipedia generally, the most relevant forum would be Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) but there is an asocial flavour around and I think the relevance of spruiking (a word to test of your English course ;-)) a chess team will be questioned. Long gone are the days when I travelled slightly north and stayed with a Wikipedian in their home in Lansingerland. I was going to suggest meta:Wikimedia Forum as it should be multilingual, but it doesn't look too active. Perhaps a quick note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess would be your best bet. Commander Keane (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You :) Harold Foppele (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikiversity Chess Team. Please join.

To all Chess players: There is a Wikiversity Chess Team. Free for all to join. Look at : Wikiversity Team Lichess.org.. See you over the board :) Harold Foppele (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikilinks to redirects

Hi, I frequently edit in VisualEditor, especially when adding links. Recently, redirects don't pop up the same way that articles do when inputting something for a link. It just doesn't appear as one of the things that are clickable in the menu. If the "done" button is pressed, the link shows as a redirect, but it didn't show up before in the menu, and the redirect target doesn't either. This isn't a big issue for me but it's a little annoyance and I'm not sure why. Thanks. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 16:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata links

How did I, if possible, shorten these links to remove the QID from appearing on screen? Thanks. Fort esc (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Fort esc, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The {{q}} template doesn't appear to have a parameter to suppress the QID, and I presume that is intentional, because most Wikipedia readers don't know about Wikidata, and are likely to get confused if they pick the link and go to Wikidata instead of a Wikipedia article.

You can suppress it by using the direct Wikilink: [[:D:Q124695999|Stanislav Yermakov]], which displays as Stanislav Yermakov, but I don't think this is desirable, for the reason I stated. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fort esc: there is another template, {{label}} so when {{Q|124695999}} gives you Stanislav Yermakov (Q124695999), {{label|Q124695999}} gives you Stanislav Yermakov. As @ColinFine: says, this may not be desirable TSventon (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Fort esc (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to use {{Ill}}; as {{Ill|Stanislav Yermakov|qid=Q124695999}}, giving Stanislav Yermakov.

If the article is later created, the template will link to that instead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What to do if G15 doesn't apply?

If an article is unambiguously AI-generated but doesn't have any of the specific hallucinations listed as a speedy deletion criterion, what can I do besides tagging it with {{llm}}? The editor in question hasn't shown the competence to comply with WP:LLM and the template says all such content should be deleted, which means the whole article. lp0 on fire () 20:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You could draftify it, PROD it, or do something else. I'd be far more help if you actually linked to the article in question. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is Hair Pie. Sorry, I've been looking through new pages which is not something I'm used to doing, so I'm a little overwhelmed and not thinking things through as much as I usually would. lp0 on fire () 21:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

mk, thanks. I draftified it. That thing should not have been in mainspace.

Usually if something has a reasonably severe but fixable problem, draftification is the answer. If it's a severe but unfixable problem, like a lack of notability for the subject, deletion is usually the way to go. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind; thanks for helping (: lp0 on fire () 21:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Why there is still "This article needs additional sources" flag after I modified a page

Good evening,

I'm a newcomer so my question might sound dumm but in the following page written in French, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Fragments_d%27institutions_r%C3%A9publicaines I added a lot of sources and modifications. And I do not understand why the "This article needs additionnal sources" flag did not even change or was updated. How does it work ? I noticed that the flag is in the code and that I actually can remove it but...sounds weird. Like, I can remove it and assume my changes are goodenough. I do not understand how does the review works in this case.

May I ask you some help please ?

Take care,

ZB

P.S I write my question here because I did not get any answer in the page, or in the page of the author of the book. Zeru berde (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, you should ask questions about French Wikipedia on that website, but in this case we can actually help you.

The flag is not automatic; indeed, no flags (or "banners" are). It was manually placed into the source code by an editor and won't be automatically removed at any time. If you think the problem is fixed, feel free to remove it yourself. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Cremastra By the way, I just saw the banner on the top of the code. But is there any more specific information provided somewhere about where was the problem ? I was thinking about a comment in the problematic line (I did not find any). Thank you Zeru berde (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zeru berde. Like Cremastra, I can only answer for English Wikipedia, but I guess it's the same.

Since tags like that are placed by human editors, they may or may not put some explanation on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @ColinFine Zeru berde (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)