Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

Wiki

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

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

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

Plain English advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Started an RfC before following WP:RFCBEFORE

Hi all, I just started an RfC last night at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC on adjacent stations modules for people mover and streetcar systems. It was my very first RfC and I tried my best to ensure I was following the proper procedure. However, it was brought to my attention that I had completely bypassed the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE. I'm worried that I may have accidentally done something wrong, and if there should be anything else I should do, which I am fully prepared to do so.

Admittedly, I am ashamed as a seasoned editor for not being knowledgeable on how the RfC process works, and fully intend to further educate myself on the matter if I were to ever consider opening another RfC in the future. I simply was curious about an issue that would have had far-reaching changes and may prove to be controversial, and from first glance, an RfC seemed to be the best option for that. I was not aware that it would be such a formal, lengthy process, and for that, I sincerely apologize. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds from the above as if you did something wrong, OrdinaryScarlett. (I didn't investigate.) Editors do do some things wrong, or at least I do. The sky doesn't fall (or at least it hasn't fallen on me). Now, if I do something wrong, am told I did it wrong; and I do it again and am told not to; and -- as a result of grumpiness, force of habit, brainfarts, senility, or whatever -- later do it again, am told not to, yet I do it again -- then I might get a (well-deserved) bollocking from other editors. (I might even get blocked.) So relax, and enjoy editing. (There's so much to do -- and even to "mainstream" articles. As a ferinstance, yesterday I found myself reading Ford Motor Company. What a mess!) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is how people learn about Wikipedia processes--by engaging with them, and sometimes making mistakes. I boldly learned to do non-admin closes of discussions last week, and on my third or fourth one got reverted and got a (polite) bit of advice on what I was doing wrong. Life goes on! M kuhner (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, very sorry for the late reply! I kinda got distracted for a bit. But thank you both for the reassurance, truly, it means a lot! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't the archive bot working on Talk:Rama Duwaji ??

Not sure why the archive bot isn't archiving old talk page posts here. Any help would be very much appreciated. ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page is using User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config but it needs to use User:MiszaBot/config instead, from what I see in the instructions. RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MiszaBot was initially setup, but then failed to run after 24+ hours. I can try switching it back to see what happens, but how long should it take before this runs? ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked a bad section heading wich may have stopped the bot but I don't know whether it will help.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, we'll see what happens. ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yesssss, it worked! You are a genius @PrimeHunter !! Great job. ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A genius would probably have guessed it faster but I got there eventually after examining a lot of other things so maybe i'm just tenacious. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i need help to improve this article please

Hi to all,

i need some help to imrpove this article to edit and update to get live this article please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._P._R._M._M._Shanthakumar NarasinghP (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NarasinghP, on 17 August, ChrysGalley declined the draft, for two reasons. One of them was that although The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage [... and] are reliable [... and] are independent [...], it lacked them. Less than 24 hours later, you resubmitted it. But in this pair of edits since ChrysGalley declined the draft, you failed to add even one reference to even one source of any kind. If the sources exist, then find them and cite them. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NarasinghP The "freezer box" comment in the infobox has no source. David10244 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you,

Now check it once Please. please suggest me anything updates. NarasinghP (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why my creation is frequently discarded can't understand. My articla written by me in another mssheet and I take from there.

Why my creation is frequently discarded can't understand. My articla written by me in another mssheet and I take from there. বিশ্বাস দিলীপ (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having difficulties in publishing edits at your sandbox? ~2026-35615-47 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@বিশ্বাস দিলীপ This is the English Wikipedia and we can only accept articles written in the English language. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @বিশ্বাস দিলীপ, and welcome to the Teahouse of the English Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write articles in Bengali, but only in the Bengali Wikipedia - I suggest you ask at bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:চাঘর ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@বিশ্বাস দিলীপ It sounds like English is not your first language. Can you contribute in a different Wikipedia? I say that partly because "articula", which you put in the title and in the question, is not a wird in English. David10244 (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imeant "articla". David10244 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Mike Seems (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have posted it Mike Seems (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heelo, I am Mike a participant in the WikiProject Uganda, we're thinking of setting up a simple help space for Uganda-related questions things like articles, assessing sources used in articles in the WikiProject Uganda etc. I think it could work with even helping to verify sources with quality standards. Any suggestions on this. Mike Seems (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas:

Lists of reliable and unreliable Ugandan sources. List of things your WikiProject would like to see included (or not) in infoboxes, or in articles in general. (Is it a good or bad idea to mention what part of Uganda someone is from? As an outsider I have no feeling for this.) Rules for handling Ugandan names--what is the right way to refer to someone in formal writing? Which part of the name, if any, is the family name?

I have been working on the Ugandan English-language newspaper articles and I would find all of these helpful. Thank you! M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You want a list of sources that a notable and reliable or even those reliable whoever not welknown. Mike Seems (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

in Uganda I think we should consider Daily Monitor and NewVision as the top quality sources however mostly its Daily Monitor since Vision works for government related issues, some should be considered significant if there is publicity but with Daily Monitor or Ntv inclusive Mike Seems (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be notable, just reliable. It can be hard for an outsider to judge reliability, so a view from people who know Uganda would be great. I know New Vision is considered to be a government mouthpiece, but is it reliable for non-political issues, like business news? Is Weekend Monitor basically the same as Daily Monitor, or does it have different editorial standards? Is Uganda Business News any good, or is it puffery like Forbes? How does Bukkede stack up (and is machine translation from Luganda any good)?

Don't answer here--use these as ideas for the WikiProject. I will love to see it!

Oh, and a question for you in return! I have been working on Daily Monitor and I wonder if Saturday/Sunday/Weekend Monitor is considered to be the same newspaper, or different? M kuhner (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same just they merged and called it Weekend Monitor and Weekend Vision they nolonger have Sunday and Saturday editions separate. On what you said, there are some people here who have website and they come here to use them in articles as sources looking for credibility of their sources. In Uganda websites I know with high editorial standards are Watchdog Uganda, Nilepost, Bossip Africa,Daily, Edge.ug,BigEyeUG,Eagle Online and Sqoop maybe and Daily Express Uganda, the rest just republish content from these ones. Mike Seems (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For business news of networth I think Bossip Africa since thier January list was used to rank Hamis Kiggunduas the richest man in Uganda by other standard newspapers Mike Seems (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heelo, could it be possible to have a list if sources from Uganda and thier reliability in a table format just as I saw some but from USA and other countries. Thus could even help AFC reviewers Mike Seems (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Dacoit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animations used in articles.

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

@Fartherred

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

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

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

Question about categories: vegetarian/vegan individuals

Hello Teahouse,

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

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

I've looked through:

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

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

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

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

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

Experiencing an issue

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

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

Regarding the validity of an ANI report

Hello everyone. I'd like to clarify just what exactly is fine to be reported on the Administrator's noticeboard?
There is an editor with whom I have not at all acquainted, but whose recent edit history has some instances of vandalism (that they reverted themselves afterwards, but it's still a tad strange in my opinion), as well as a history of having been accussed of edit warring, according to the talk page diffs. I'd like to have an admin give the history a quick lookover, but I'm not sure if that at all warrants a topic on ANI. Splendidfoolisheditor (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as I think is made very clear in the text at the top of that page. Perhaps you mean Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But "[that] page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", so no again. The same page also says "If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page". Have you done that? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in the case of ANI:

Denied Some disagreements you have with an editor (take it to talk and/or WP:conflict resolution)

Denied WP:Edit warring (attempt to resolve through talk page; if not possible then take it to the noticeboard for edit warring)

Accepted and processed Ignoring warnings and discussion, chronic-intractable behavior problems (as Hoary made clear above), hurling insults, harassment, cases of WP:NOTHERE, generally urgent admin matter against bad actors, not so clear cut cases of vandalism, etc. .n (happy ptide month and in solidarity) 00:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider WP:AIV for serious and persistent vandalism. (It doesn't sound like your problem is at that level yet.) M kuhner (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Splendidfoolisheditor "Vandalism" in Wikipedia has a specific meaning. It must be deliberate. Be very careful accusing someone of vandalism. David10244 (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review needed?

Hello, I've just expanded the 55th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment's article, and i was wondering if articles like these still need to be reviewed again, cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, If you have provided sources for your edits, then It's okay. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I write in the lead section, that the regiment can also be known as the 55th Pennsylvania Veteran Volunteers due to the majority of the regiment re-enlisting? SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeRandomGuy3523 If several sources do call the regiment the 55th Pennsylvania Veteran Volunteers, we can include the naming and explain its origin in the lead. RFNirmala (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RFNirmala i found this source, although i cant access it due to there being a paywall, it mentions the The eighth annual reunion of the Fifty-fifth regiment, Pennsylvania veteran volunteers, although im still not sure if i can use this, since it said that this reunion was held in 1899, what do you think? Cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I would add a Template:Efn that mentions it was called as such in one newspaper source. You can try finding more secondary sources that call it the Veteran Volunteers. You'll get WP:TWL access within a few months, thankfully. RFNirmala (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeRandomGuy3523, @TheGreatEditor024 The edits will be reviewed by another editor. @TheGreatEditor024, please do not answer questions without the whole context. David10244 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do i go back to the page that shows me steps on how to edit i am new here please help me i am confused i found this page at random

was i meant to type here? TheScorPionic (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheScorPionic, Welcome to Teahouse. I think what you mean is 'Step-by-step instructions'. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 13:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good place to look for advice. Everyone was new once--don't worry about it! M kuhner (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice on lead wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice for researching academic topics in journals

Hello Teahouse! I want to get back into writing articles, specifically in the area of Mathematics, but one repeated issue I run into that gets me stuck and unable to get to the writing part is researching a topic. I'm typically trying to expand stub articles like those in Category:Abstract algebra stubs since they are less developed and that gives me more room to expand the article than a more developed one. That does lead me to more complex topics, which is where the research comes in so I can try to understand it well enough for me to write an article about it.

This is the part where I get stuck: when I try to search articles relating to the article, such as on Google Scholar or The Wikipedia Library, sometimes I get articles that are about the topic but are more so about an application of the topic and rarely do they give an in-depth explanation for the base topic. That usually means I have look at their sources to figure out what reference is the one that goes over the topic at its base level without anything further (like an expository article on the subject). This problem is also why I tend to target stubs, presuming that it will be easier to find those articles that are lesser known subjects than for topics on much more developed articles where there might be little hope of finding those expository articles other than via a textbook.

So my question is mainly asking for advice on how to find sources that are directly about the topic, not just sources that are about it yet are some degrees away from the root of what the topic is about? I know this explanation I gave might come off as vague, so I'm happy to maybe give more concrete examples or try to clarify things if anyone asks. Thank you in advance for anyone willing to help out and share their own experience and advice on this matter. Gramix13 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gramix13. This is not an area I have worked on in Wikipedia at all (though I have a strong interest in mathematics), but I wonder if textbooks might not be the way to go? Remember that sources do not have to be online. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that, when I was writing articles in the past, I would either use textbooks about the subject area (some of which I would have physical offline versions of), or I try to look up online for sources for a topic like I described above, typically looking for ones that are published for a journal. I used to have more physical access to textbooks prior to editing Wikipedia, when I was at my university and using their library, but since graduating I haven't had access anymore to their library, and my local library's collection isn't deep enough for the kinds of theoretical mathematics subjects that I'm looking to write about (like abstract algebra). I would be very much open to finding more offline sources beyond textbooks however to broaden the coverage of sources I can find. Gramix13 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find the first paper on the topic. This probably will not use the name that our article would use though. Then use Google scholar to see all the papers that reference that original paper. Hopefully from the title of the paper you can tell how close the subject matter is to what you want. Though it is unlikely that subsequent papers will explain the original thoroughly. If you can find a review article, then that may go through the subject completely. Where I write, there are special journals for reviews, and an article may have "review" in the title or keywords. Applications of a theorem or idea are also important too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gramix13 Just to mention that once you have looked for a topic in Google Scholar and got a hitlist, there is an option to refine the hits to show only review articles (although Google may get the type wrong, of course). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Content From Sandbox to a Live Page

Hi. So I completely redid a filmmaker's page (Alexandre O. Philippe) in my Sandbox. I know a brand new page can take a long time to be approved, so I copied and pasted from the Sandbox to the live Wikipedia page for the filmmaker. When I did that, and clicked "publish changes," none of the superlinks/citations were there anymore. HELP please!

I spent hours editing with citations for everything! The full page is still in my Sandbox. Please tell me how to properly copy and paste into the live page so that my citations are copied as well. Thanks!

FactsMatterMost (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to copy and paste with all the formatting, it's easiest to do in source editor (click "edit source"). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! FactsMatterMost (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FactsMatterMost, have these edits fixed the problems? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for working on it. My mentor was able to take my all my edits and update the main, live page. FactsMatterMost (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A mess needed to be fixed

Hello, i came across the 96th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment's Article, and before i edited it, it was already a mess:
1. there aren't any wikilinks anywhere in their history section
2. there isnt a single sub-heading
3. it seems like it was fully copied from Bate's History of the Pennsylvania Volunteers
4. I've already done some improvement, but its clear that more editors are needed to fully improve the article
5. the article is a bit too long to read comfortably
if you wish to volunteer to fix this article, I'll be fully grateful, Cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a template, that notes the article lacks sources. Hopefully this draws more attention to the page and leads to some improvements. ~2026-34151-47 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it does give general references, and also includes where they got the text from, which is the Source: Bates, Samuel P. History of Pennsylvania Volunteers, 1861-5. vol. III. Harrisburg: B. Singerly, State Printer, 1869, although it doesn't contain any inline citations at all, hope this finds you well, cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeRandomGuy3523 Didn't you ask about this a couple of days ago, in this same place? David10244 (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 I think you meant by another topic, which is probably my topic about the 55th Pennsylvania, this is another regiment, which has problems in its own, so in my opinion, it's different, hope you understood what i said, cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeRandomGuy3523 Right, thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Turning a decline into an approval

Hello,

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

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

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

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

That's what I don't understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, never used AI when creating this article.

Everything I typed, I cited the appropriate source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely not.

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

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

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

Sorry it wasn't perfect first time around.

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

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

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

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

All good...

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

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

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

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

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

Without sources

Sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i want create without sources Wikipedia.. i think is possible right? ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking whether you can create an article in English-language Wikipedia without citing sources for what you write in that article, then no, you cannot. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me one thing, why is this page live Alexandar Soundarrajan? You guys are making jokes and deleting the new editor's pages who works hard resourcing? Writing and you only safe that types of pages?.who not valid for Wikipedia?? ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i thik This user has close connection with subject @Ravensfire becouse both belonging from same state so my suspicious rise 200× ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That article cites nine sources. Belonging to the same state is fine. Many of the articles I contribute to are about my home town. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thing you not understand what I said... use translator and trans available cite in there pages.. it's not about BLP ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"So tell me one thing" -- and then you ask a series of questions (not all of them comprehensible). I suspect that you're upset about today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandar Soundarrajan (3rd nomination). "The result was keep. Revengeful [Articles for Deletion] nomination and [the nominator] has been blocked for [sockpuppetry]. Since there is no deletion votes yet, I'm closing this." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I want to know, when new editors create a source full article, you guys put it on delete and cleared COI page still safe? Why is Why are you people discriminating so much like politicians? ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaan Panday + Sachin Parikh + Poonam Jhawer can you tell what's difference between to useless page Alexandar Soundarrajan?? ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also @Thilsebatti this user keeps shouting all day long, paid article, paid article, so is he blind who is not able to see this article? ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell Wikipedia Committee that in the name of voluntary edits these people later edit the paid so that their edits overlap with the voluntary works ~2026-36018-28 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. There is much inappropriate content on Wikipedia, as there are many ways it can exist; this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist, even for years. We can only address what we know about. You are free to work to identify inappropriate content that you see so action can be taken. We're only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Random Articles link

The homepage for Wikipedia seems to have lost the link to generate random articles.Any help on this missing link? Kbro55 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Random article" between "Current events" and "About Wikipedia". Alternatively/additionally, click on Special:Random. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbro55: Are you using the Wikipedia app? I also noticed that the random page section (or "card" as they like to call it) disappeared a couple of weeks ago. I used it to guide my daily copy-editing fix. Maybe someone with greater knowledge than us will explain how to get it back in the app. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbro55: I've found it in the app. It's now in the "For you" tab. You might have to enable it in your settings. As is often the case in supposedly-improved updates, the app's user-averse designers have decided that the previous single-tap to reach it was not ideal, and now require three. Maybe some of them might explain this retrograde step to us? Bazza 7 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep getting log out

Today i keep getting log out whenever i close safari in my phone even though i click keep me log in for a year.

is the reason

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the settings on your phone are not allowing cookies? 331dot (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think its the cookies, or the cookies clear when you close Safari. @Fanoflionking3, try going into your settings on your browser or phone. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 04:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Want to post an Article regarding a company

Dear People,

I want to ask that I wanted to post an article regarding a Saudi Arabian Company https://www.saudicontrols.com/ but my Article was not approved can someone help me in writing it or give me the tips on how to write it ZainulAbidin-dot (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZainulAbidin-dot. First, if you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company, its offerings, and its routine business activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as its own importance or a mere summary of its routine activities.

You have no independent reliable sources in your draft, just company overviews and social media. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not associated with this company. Thank you for your reply. So If I show the proof in form of newspapers and websites of other companies will it work? like this https://www.argaam.com/en/article/articledetail/id/1790159 and can I share a link of reputed company showing the boss's image of Saudi Controls like this https://ceermotors.com/news/ceer-signs-16-mous-worth-sar-37-billion-at-pif-private-sector-forum-2026-targeting-45percent-saudi-l/. ZainulAbidin-dot (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about showing proof, it's about gathering independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company that can be summarized in an article, showing how the company is notable. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet that criteria.

So, to confirm, it's your claim that you're not associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does me being an employee makes me associated with this company in regards to Wikipedia? Because I am not getting paid for this article. ZainulAbidin-dot (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've replied more in depth on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For others who may be wondering, the relevant policy is WP:PAID. M kuhner (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Process

Hello. I would like to ask about AfC, a very lengthy process that is not very productive from my experience anymore, at least for my submitted drafts. I have used this process for many, almost all, of my drafts. Typically, the drafts are accepted, and I receive minimal or some very few times misleading feedback. I know how hard is reviewing articles of others. That's why, the backlog of drafts is huge and growing, and the reviewers many times cannot make a good review due to this backlog; for example, I have a draft pending for 3 months now.

I have asked this before, receiving yes and nos for continuing using AfC. Now, because I intend to make more submissions, and having 20 articles created with one pending draft, I think AfC doesn't provide any feedback anymore in my case. I ask this one last time to gather one more time feedback on this, since 3 or more months for a single draft is a very long time, and it is very difficult to continue making articles in this manner. Thanks in advance! Chiserc (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your question? It's really up to personal preference; some editors prefer to have someone look over their article before publishing (me included), and some prefer the quicker route. Since you're autoconfirmed, you should be able to publish your articles yourself, if you so desire. You can always ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk for feedback on your article; I suspect other users would be happy to help. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiserc (e/c) Yes, AfC takes a while, but there is no deadline. Since you've been successful in creating drafts and clearly know the requirements I suggest you dispense with the AfC process. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think since you have created some drafts and have been accepted its like you have experience in editing and know the criteria now you can publish them directly and new page patrolled will do the work Mike Seems (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I will probably publish them directly from now on. Although there is no deadline, the review time of 3 or more months with AfCs seems unmanageable in creating new drafts. Chiserc (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiserc Once you have 25 or so articles under your belt, you can apply to be WP:Autopatrolled if you wish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thanks! I have already 20 articles, 1 pending draft (hopefully reviewed/accepted soon), and then 2-3 that I work on. So, 25 articles and a little more are very feasible to reach in few months. Chiserc (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Account of an old one

I lost the password to my previous account, The Corvette ZR1, so I created this new account. Is there any way I can regain my permissions and/or edits? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR2 ^{(The Garage)} 16:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you tied an email to that account, you can't. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Corvette ZR2 You can mention on the userpages of your old and new accounts that they are WP:VALIDALT as you forgot the password to ZR1. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Badges

On my user page i want to have an organized badge thingy for the like game thing that says i did it that tought me stuff how do i do that im a dumb stupid person ASTRYX*UNIVERSIAL (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stupid, you're just new. Everyone was new once. The organized badge thingies are called "userboxes" and there's (a lot!) of information at WP:Userboxes. Skip the stuff about how to make a new one for now, and look at the instructions for putting them on your page, and the lists of already existing ones.

Another approach is to find someone's user page that has the box you want, go into the Source Editor and copy the code to make it, then paste on your user page. Be sure not to save any changes you accidentally make to the other user's page, though! I have a couple on my page, you could look there: User:M_kuhner.

M kuhner (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean Wikipedia Adventure badges. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who chooses the On This Day anniversaries?

Title. The OTD page is quite confusing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ They are chosen by consensus. WP:OTD seems clear to me. Which particular instruction is confusing you? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the discussion take place? More concretely, where can I suggest events for OTD and where can I get feedback on what an article is missing or needs improving before it can be listed in the OTD box on the main page? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#Steps_for_suggesting_new_listings. You can also get help at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Projects that a new user can contribute to

Hello, I'm interested in starting to contribute to Wikipedia, mainly by doing tedious tasks that need to be done but people don't normally like to do. I'm thinking about things like AI cleanup and fixing copyright violations, although I'm not sure if those tasks are too complicated for a new user to pick up right away. I know there's a HUGE number of guidelines and documentation for projects like this, but I'm not too good at navigating the site yet so it would be great if somebody could link me to those projects/resources, or make any other suggestions for similar projects that I might be able to contribute to. Thank you for reading! Purring maggot (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For copyright violations, a good place to start is m:CopyPatrol, which presents probable copyright violations, though you also need to be careful to check that the page is not a mirror of Wikipedia, or that it's compatibly licenced material (but may not be attributed properly, etc.). There's also contributor copyright investigations of serial copyright violators that require cleanup by volunteers, see Template:CCIlist for a list/topics. Good resources are WP:CV101 and the Copyright problems board instructions (which is still helpful even though most of the problems listed on CP is complex). There's also a copyright cleanup channel in WP:DISCORD named #wpcci where you can ask any questions you have, and a lot of copyright regulars are around there. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the info on copyright violations as well as the Discord link! Purring maggot (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI cleanup happens at WP:AI noticeboard. You can get a pretty good idea what it's like by reading through some of the past cases. There are a range of tasks from fairly routine (we could use help setting up to-do lists for cases, for example, and once you've been walked through that it's quite straightforward) to quite difficult (trying to disentangle LLM text that has been partly overwritten by later edits). If you look at this and it looks attractive (instead of horrifying, which is a common reaction!) feel free to put a message on my Talk page and we can chat about how to get started. M kuhner (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll familiarize myself with the area and then I might message you. Purring maggot (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite multiple authors in the citation template?

Hello,

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

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

Draft article awaiting AfC review — Exit Advisory Group

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

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

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

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

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

Left-wing bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"so maybe apply some skepticism"

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

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

Change of name "Cross of Otto and Mathilde"

Hi all! I would like to ask how I can change a Wikipedia-page.

For my history thesis I researched Mathilde of Essen (949-1011) and also studied her "Otto-Mathilde cross". Although Mathilde was an active patron of art and literature and donated the cross to her abbey, the object is first named after her brother Otto (a male bias in history?)

I believe the cross should therefore be renamed to the Mathilde-Otto Cross. Women have often been overlooked throughout history, and she deserves a more prominent place on this page. Moreover, the new name would make much more sense, given that Mathilde is also the first depicted on the cloisonné-plate of the cross and the text above them reads Mathilde and Otto from right to left.

An additional incentive to do this can be found on the Essener Domschatz website itself, where the cross is already referred to as the ‘Mathilde-Otto cross’!

Kind regards, Veerle VeerleB (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VeerleB Thank you for your suggestion. The better place to propose this is on the talk page of those articles, but you will need to be much more convincing. We generally prefer to use the WP:COMMONNAME when titling articles. See also WP:RGW. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, @KovachevL, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

Looking for people to review my GA

Its been 4 days, but can someone review Ever Oasis yet? We are trying to get this to GA so the Video games wikiproject can hit its 2,600 GA-Class articles milestone goal. Monathephantom (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look, but I am just autoconfirmed currently. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 12:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend! I would greatly appreciate it. I recommend you to take a look at Wikipedia:Good_article_instructions#Reviewing though. Monathephantom (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GAs can take a long time to get reviewed, as it's up to reviewers which articles they review. For a quicker review, you may want to participate in a good article review circle. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 12:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sounds like a good idea. Monathephantom (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait i realized i can't participate yet as i havent had 5 successful GANs yet and havent made 3k edits. Monathephantom (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I already reviewed it. It will take a few other people that are more experienced but it may become a level 3 start class article. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything on Wikipedia, GA reviews are done by volunteers. Please be patient. There are currently 782 reviews in the pile waiting. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 12:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do know I volunteered because I had time, right? (No offense, just a question) Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My reply wasn't directed towards you. However, given you are a newer editor, it is unlikely you will be able to properly apply the GA criteria to this article. The process is complicated and requires a good deal of knowledge around various policies. You have in total 17 edits to mainspace. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Really hope they'll at least do a decent job or call for a second opinion. If the GAN review isnt good at all, then i'll just purposely nominate it for reassessment so it can be reviewed properly. Monathephantom (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconfirmed on here! Means 100+ edits total! And I wasn't in recently! There is your explanation! Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The autocorrect made autoconfirmed to unconfirmed Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Well, ask me why I was on Wikipedia for some time, editing a lot, when I joined the English Wikipedia. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let’s not argue and just keep it civil. Still, you should really try to see other gan reviews so you have a better idea on how to do reviews well. Monathephantom (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmation just means you have made 10 edits and have had an account for 4 days. It doesn't necessarily confer experience with policy. I would classify the vast majority of autoconfirmed users as being newbies. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also no offense Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 13:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purplemaker, I would urge you to direct your volunteering efforts elsewhere, or to at least first observe a GA review before attempting to go through with this. The task center has a number of ideas on offer for new editors if you don't know what to do. But again, I find it unlikely you will be familiar with the relevant policies behind the GA criteria at this time. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do administrators know that someone is vandalizing a page?

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

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

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

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

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

LLM in grammar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soetermans Issue

Hi,

I'm having an issue with User "Soetermans" with the Jay-Z article, I added that according to https://www.eonline.com/news/1429935/jay-z-changes-name-to-jay-z-possible-meaning-to-stage-name (E Online News) he has changed it to Jaÿ-Z but Soetermans refuses to acknowledge this. When I sent him a message, he deleted it off of his page.

I feel that kindness has not worked and based on the user's past history this is a repeated problem. Maybe AnI if needed L3w1s.L3h50n3n (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using Talk:Jay-Z to discuss the edit and source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @L3w1s.L3h50n3n. I would echo Jeske's reply, but I also want to draw your attention to WP:COMMONNAME. If somebody or something has announced a name-change, then an article on them should certainly acknowledge that; but Wikipedia's policy is to follow the majority of English-language sources for the article title. ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

copy rights

Hello team i wanted to ask how to get copyrights to uplode photos to my articles ? should i email the person or organization for permission ? God bless YosefKT (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @YosefKT, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You may certainly do so, and some editors have had success with this.

Please read requesting copyright permission first, to make sure you're asking the right people, and asking for the right permission. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u dear coline ... God bless u! YosefKT (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling when your edit got reverted

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

Hello, @Underdwarf58, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Possible Article

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

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

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

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

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

Draft article waiting over a month for review

Hi, I submitted a draft article about Joseph E. Buckelew (Draft:Joseph E. Buckelew) and it has been sitting in the review queue for over a month. The article covers a New Jersey Hall of Fame inductee with 7 independent sources including The Philadelphia Inquirer, WHYY, and ROI-NJ. Would appreciate any feedback or a review when someone has a chance. Thank you. Coys1995 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Coys1995. You resubmitted on 23rd May, which is not quite a month; and the message at the top says "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order".

Asking for a review will not have any effect on this. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coys1995. The Drafts awaiting review are not in a queue: it is more of a 'pile' from which the reviewers, all volunteers (like all other Wikipedia editors), choose what to review next. Because there is a large backlog, they tend to choose 'low-hanging fruit' – drafts which are either obviously sub-standard that can be declined (or even rejected) quickly, or obviously of high quality that can be passed quite quickly (though they take a little longer, since all the references, etc., still have to be checked).

Drafts that look 'borderline', or otherwise likely to require a lot of effort to assess (having a lot of foreign-language sources, for example), tend to take longer for a reviewer to decide to tackle.

I am not a reviewer, I've merely been loitering around Wikipedia for a couple of decades, but skimming your draft, I will opine that although it looks well constructed and written, and quite well sourced, it may be iffy on demonstrating the subject's Notability, which for Wikipedia means essentially how much the subject has been described ('noted') at some length in several pieces written entirely independently from them that were published in Reliable sources (see WP:42 for further details ands links).

I notice that your co-principal source (8 citations) is something published by the Company that your subject chairs, and another is from the newspaper that he owns. Although such sources can be used to corroborate (verify) minor uncontrovertial facts, they cannot contribute to Notability because they are clearly not independent from him. The other sources are all local entities, rather than national-level publications, etc. which would more securely demonstrate qualification for inclusion in this Global Encyclopedia. The accepting or declining (for further improvement) of the draft therefore seems to me likely to hinge on a difficult judgement about whether the subject is sufficiently Notable.

I hope this illuminates. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to add images

Images in data ~2026-36252-58 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Pictures for instructions on how to add images. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 16:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I view what pages redirect to a page?

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

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

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

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

Regarding art project on epilepsy

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manor House or Country House?

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

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

Bellasis
Billingham Hall
Binchester Hall
Blackwell Hall
Blackwell Hill
Blakiston Hall
Bradley Hall
Branksome Hall
Broadwood Hall
Cleatlam mansion?
Cocken Hall
Cockerton Hall
Consett Hall
Cotham
Coxhoe Hall
Crook Hall
Dene Holme
Elton Hall
Eshwood Hall
Fen Hall
Gainford Hall
Gibside
Greatham Hall
Greencroft Hall
Harraton Hall
Hawthorn Tower
Hetton Hall
Hollinside
Holmside Hall
Hoppyland Park
Houghall Hall
Long Newton Hall
Low Dinsdale Manor
Mainsforth Hall
Neasham Hall
Newbiggin house?
Newton Hall
Newton Cap Hall
Old Park
Red Hall
Sledwish Hall
Snotterton Hall
Staindrop Hall
Stanley Hall
The Deanery
The Isle
Thornton Hall
Thorpe Thewles manor?
Thrislington Hall
Trimdon Hall
Tunstall Manor
Westholme Hall
Whitehill Hall
Winlaton Hall
Wolviston Hall
Woodburn
Woodside
Woodside Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Characters from Dorohedoro

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

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

Possible copyright violations

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

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

Thammasat_University#Faculty_of_Commerce_and_Accountancy and ^[1]

Thammasat_University#Faculty_of_Liberal_Arts and ^[2]

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

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

References

^ "Thammasat University – "Triple Crown" The Guaranteed Continuous Development of TBS". 2019-05-21. Archived from the original on 2020-02-05.
^ "Department of English Thammasat University". Archived from the original on 30 May 2018. Retrieved 6 June 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this how you do it?

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

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

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

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

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

Looking for feedback for my sandbox article

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

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

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

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

Articles linked as translations of each other have completely different topics

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

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

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

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

"Could not remove due to an error.

The save has failed.

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

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

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

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

"Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

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

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

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

Customization of Info box and adding citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there

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

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

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

Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wrote my first article!

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

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

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

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

Hello, @WikipediholicRat, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Well done for trying to satisfy one of the requests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Teahouse Friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many sources lend to strong credibly?

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

Hello, @JoAbbott88, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating an article

BLOCKED

Blocked as yet another Joanvumilia/Nyanzi sock. KylieTastic (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

here are some

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Edited Page Stuck in Limbo

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

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

@Sabinacwidmann: I have restored the original submission template and other things. In [2] you removed everything from a line saying "Do not remove this line!" to a line saying "Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created." That's why the draft has been sitting since March. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Thammasat University – "Triple Crown" The Guaranteed Continuous Development of TBS". 2019-05-21. Archived from the original on 2020-02-05.

[tuenglish.org-2] "Department of English Thammasat University". Archived from the original on 30 May 2018. Retrieved 6 June 2018.

[1]

[2]