Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tarlby, 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
1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294

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 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template


User talk:Jeffreymjudge

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

is it possible to block anyone

I've always wondered if I can uhhhh block people... And by that I mean like blocking on social media, where basically nobody can see my stuff, replies, etc UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if it were possible, that would make collaborating with other editors incredibly difficult if one of those users happened to be in a discussion you were in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But what if... If the user who blocks someone cannot join the discussion for anything that the blocked user is in? Wouldn't that like, solve the issue? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it from the reverse position: If the blocked user enters a discussion that the user blocked them is in, who deserves the siteblock? The blocker for trying to screw over someone who has good-faith arguments, or the blocked for trying to contribute to a conversation they can't see the entirety of? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UselessAccount20 I might have misunderstood what you are asking, but blocking people on social media does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. And yes, you can block people on social media. Wikipedia is still not related... David10244 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if u don't understand what I'm trying to say, then perhaps you shouldn't reply to anything that you are unsure of..

Like I know you are tryna help, but this doesn't help me at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UselessAccount20 Your reply is not very WP:CIVIL, and neither is your first reply in the question just before this one. We here are trying to help. Your question is not entirely clear, partly because most editors are not administrators, and only administrators can "block" editors from editing in Wikipedia. So you won't be able to block anyone. Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and being kind in discussions always helps that goal. David10244 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 how is it not civil? Like I said before, I know you were trying to help, but I felt your reply to my question wasn't even helping me at all, and you decided to think that this somehow wasn't very "Civil". If you can explain to me further how this was "not very civil", then I'll possibly understand and learn from this.

If you don't understand what I am trying to say, then maybe wait for other users to reply to me that way you can gather information on what I'm talking about... Therefore, you can actually help me UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's only appropriate to face a Wikipedia page directly related to the process of blocking individuals in social media platforms and for the different devices assuming android or iPhone are current versions. They vary vastly. One of the most useful things I've ever done is block every fact checker account on Facebook, I don't get banned because all the fact checkers are blocked 😅 Laqueydevynne (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laqueydevynne You don't like facts? David10244 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disliking fact checkers and being a Wikipedia editor seems a little Contradictory don’t you think? The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UselessAccount20 Everything you write on WP is public, there is no way for you to stop other people from reading it if they find it. Even if you delete a comment you've written, people can still read it in the page history. There is no "private space" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a way to like remove page history to prevent anyone from seeing what someone edited? Would it be possible to use that tool to theoretically "block" people for preventing viewing the messages of a person? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UselessAccount20, if one editor adds libelous (or similarly problematic) material, then certain editors (called "administrators") can revert the offending edit(s) and hide the affected version(s) (other than from "administrators"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OS exists, but I don't think that helps you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the salient question is why, after 14 edits, you're asking this question? Have you had a dispute with another editor? Athanelar (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible for me to ask any questions?

Anyways, uh no I don't have anything against editors or nothing like that, just wondering that if Wikipedia somewhat has the same thing going on like other websites, and I don't seem to find a way to block anyone at all... UselessAccount20 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UselessAccount20 When you say "block" on WP, people will probably hear that as WP:BLOCK, it's our jargon. We also have something called WP:PROTECTION. You can WP:MUTE people, and use WP:EMAIL. But you can't write "secret stuff" on WP, that's not what this website is for. Journalists (and of course redditors, instagrammers etc) can see what you write and write about it in their articles: WP:PRESS 26. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @UselessAccount20.

This question really is about whether Wikipedia is like social media (in that particular way).

The answer is no, Wikipedia is absolutely not social media: see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and any editor who spends much of their editing time on anything else is at risk of finding themselves blocked (in the way we mean it here). ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable to want to avoid being contacted by some people, but since this is a project where we all must work together to build an encyclopedia, everyone's voice should be heard in a discussion. If you're worried about someone you dislike in real life/social media finding you, use a different username and do not share your personal information. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar Also, I wonder how you got to the conclusion that asking a question was less important than my number of edits. UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unusual question to ask after so few edits, and implied you might've gotten in some kind of editorial dispute you didn't know how to properlt reeolve yet. Athanelar (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is more of an institution than a social site. Like you can't "block" someone at school or work, you can't block anyone here. Wikipedia is a community project so getting defensive when someone is trying to point you in the right direction won't lead to good contributions. Rethink if Wikipedia is the right thing for you. Because you'll have to read a ton of rules (and follow them), communicate and do a lot of compromises. (yes, even with people that might not be pleasant to talk with) Trust me, people mean well when they tell you about the rules. Without them Wikipedia would be a big unorganized mess. EvieJav (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry that you got into a disagreement so early on. It might be discouraging for a newcomer but the rules need to be followed. EvieJav (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fastest way to find categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think I'll do my own thing, thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fastest way to find articles that need categorizing (attention needed!)

okay so I am still continuing my journey to help with categories, however it is getting tough finding articles that needs more categories, so if anyone has a easier way of finding articles that needs categorizing, then be my guest UselessAccount20 (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UselessAccount20: If you are interested in the area I recommend checking out WP:WikiProject Categories, which is dedicated to just this sort of thing. Specifically, the Uncategorised articles task force specialises in the area. There is a list of all uncategorised articles at Category:Uncategorized pages and all articles needing more categories at Category:Articles needing additional categories. Like others have said though, it helps if you pick a topic and work in there to start. Having prior knowledge in the subject area can help, even if you want to jump right in with categorisation. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chorchapu thank you for actually helping me, unlike certain editors who keep complaining for no particular reason that I actually want to help with categories... :/ UselessAccount20 (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Railways

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of the Year 2025

I am wondering why a photo taken in October 2023 was eligible to be included in the entries for Photo of the Year 2025? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_29.jpg I also object to the photo in general. A photo like this needs to be put into its correct context, Israel's response to a horrific masacre perpetrated against Israeli citizens, only days before this photo was taken, with over 250 hostages, inlcuding elderly men and women, children and babies. Is there a better place for me to voice my complaints than a "Teahouse" which really should be reserved for friendlier questions? Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DaringDonna. I suggest looking at C:Commons talk:Picture of the Year. Your questions may be answered there, and if not, you can ask there. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not editorialise or 'contextualise' these images in the way you would like it to. I'm not sure why your response to a horrific image of urban destruction is "this really needs a disclaimer so people know it's justified." Athanelar (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, my question was, why is a photo taken in 2023 eligible for a 2025 photo contest? DaringDonna (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m neutral on the matter, but I’d say the caption is neutral “The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area.” sounds neutral, it would be the same as “aftermath of British bombing of Dresden” that also would be a true and neutral caption The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps deleting edits and retroactively deleting entire sections

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

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

Ilsey Juber - entire discography has been deleted.

Suzy Shinn - entire discography has been deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User comments were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Muppetgraybies, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

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

All well within guidelines from

Infobox producer discography

WikiProject Songs

WikiProject Discographies

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

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

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

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

How do I...

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

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

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

Hello, @QueenBeeeeee.

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

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

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

This is a followup for how do I...

What's up @Ars Goetia? To answer your question previously, there was a specific article from India that was a musician. Unfortunately I do not remember the name. BYE :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry let me rephrase that. There was a specific musician from India, that popped up during edit recommendations. Better? Sorry about the first time. :D Have a great day!!! QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh your fine! But if you couldn't find it in your browser history and didn't edit it then I'm afraid that its unlikely we find it. Don't worry though if it was just a recommended edit just keep editing and you'll have the same impact. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok!! Thanks @The Ars Goetia!!!! Bye :D :D :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No review for my Wikipedia draft

Hello,hope you are having a great day! I’m looking for help with my draft on Wikipedia (AfC submission). It has been waiting for review for about 2-3 months. I have improved the article by adding more independent sources, improving citations, and making the tone more neutral. I have also already requested a review once, but it is still not getting attention. Could someone please check if there is anything still preventing review or acceptance, or advise what I should improve further? Thank you and have a nice day!✨ Draft:Avril Herng. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your draft has already been reviewed and declined twice once on the 27th of February 2026 and again on the 2nd of march 2026 as it is not written in a neutral tone/POV and doesn't have enough reliable secondhand sources Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goetia, thanks for your feedback. I’ve made revisions after the two previous reviews, including improving the neutral point of view and adding additional reliable secondary sources. Please let me know if there are still issues I should fix before resubmitting. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the end of my expertise, I'm not very good at writing BLPs if you want more precise help on your draft I suggest looking for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wish you the best of luck Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! Thanks again for the information and hope you have a great day ✨ Samanthabeth89 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, on "literary style", we're told: Herng writes primarily within the mystery genre. Her novels feature young protagonists and investigative themes. Interviews have noted that her reading interests include both contemporary and classic fiction. My own reading interests are first rate. This doesn't mean that my own "literary style" (?) resembles theirs (or even that I have what could be called a literary style). What have book reviewers and others who know what they're talking about (and who aren't related to Herng or her publisher(s)) written about her literary style? Secondly, what you describe as "Author Avril Herng Official Photo" you also describe as your "own work". Can we infer that you're paid for your work in Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary,

Thank you for the feedback.

Regarding the point on literary style, you are correct that the previous wording may have overstated the point. What I intended to convey was simply that Avril Herng writes primarily within the mystery and thriller genre, featuring investigative themes and young protagonists, rather than making a broader claim about her literary style based on reading preferences. I will revise the wording to make that distinction clearer and ensure it reflects only what can be supported by reliable sources.

Regarding the image, “own work” refers to the fact that I uploaded the file myself and/or hold the rights or permission to publish it under the stated licence. It does not imply paid editing on Wikipedia. I disclosed my conflict of interest in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines because I am connected to the subject of the article and wanted to be transparent about that relationship. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samanthabeth89 "Own work" means that you created the original image yourself, and you are allowing its reuse (and that you own the copyright, so that you can release it for reuse); it does not mean that you uploaded it. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samanthabeth89 Which is to say, your "and/or" makes your statement incorrect. "Own work" does not cover the case where you simply uploaded the image and don't own the copyright. David10244 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David10244

Thank you for the clarification. I understand now that “own work” specifically refers to the copyright ownership of the image itself, not simply uploading it.

May I ask how I should properly amend the licensing/source information in this case? Also, if it is not corrected immediately, would it pose a significant issue for the article or file? Samanthabeth89 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should request deletion of the image from Commons and worry about it later. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images are a "nice to have", not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your connection to this young girl? I would consider very, very carefully about creating an article about any minor. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be written by an LLM/chatbot. If it is, please note that we really need editors to communicate in their own words. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the image for deletion at commons as an apparent copyvio of this website (others exist with this image, too). JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A second image (duplicate) submitted by the same user is also up for deletion at Commons. This is simply pushy promotionalism with false licenses as "own work". This is a WP:COPYRIGHT problem. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting for a Re-review of my draft article

Hi all, I recently resubmitted my draft article Draft: Avril Herng and I am currently waiting for it to be re-reviewed. I received feedback that the sources may not demonstrate sufficient notability, even though I have included multiple reliable Malaysian news sources such as The Star, Free Malaysia Today, The Sun, and others. I would appreciate any constructive advice on how to improve the draft so that it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for a biography. Helpful guidance is welcome. Thank you. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[This is a continuation of "No review for my Wikipedia draft", above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)][reply]

The draft has already been reviewed and declined ~~twice~~ three times in the last 24 hours. Samanthabeth89 posted similarly at WP:BLPN in an effort to get attention, but failed to follow or accept the feedback. Plus, she has continued editing the draft despite the stated COI. JFHJr (㊟) 18:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted at AFC. Again. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined again for lack of substantive improvement since the last submission. The issue here is not actually the wait time. JFHJr (㊟) 19:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft declined for appearing AI-generated — request for feedback

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

In order:

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

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

As promised, the source assessment:

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

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

Thank you so much for your input.

Would this be considerd a worthwhile source?

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

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

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

Any citations for ru sib

Hello. I am Arenghtqru888, and I have a draft for Siberian Wikipedia. So far, my only citations are the discussions to delete and close the article and wikipedia of ru-sib. I'm pretty sure 4 citations are not enough. Is there any other sources I can use? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot help with matters unrelated to the English-language Wikipedia; each project has its own policies, standards, and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that they're asking about writing an article for en.wiki about ru-sib.wiki, not writing an article for the defunct project itself. That having been said, the article only cites primary sources at the moment, which would suggest that it falls short of notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources are there? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arenghtqru888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

If there are no sources that each meet all of those criteria, then the subject is not notable, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fascinating tale, Arenghtqru888, if only a very minor one. How proficient are you at googling/duckduckgoing/etc for potential sources in Russian? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can barely find source, no russian understanding, no iq for translation Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then Arenghtqru888, you might try to interest someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia in doing a little Russian-language searching. (But perhaps you've already tried. If so, better not repeat.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sure! thanks for the help Arenghtqru888 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To template or not to template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Networth in biographical articles?

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

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

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

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

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

Insert button not showing

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:4 May 2026 Khartoum International Airport drone attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antarctic settlements fix

Block evasion

In Wikipedia and elsewhere, it is said that the two settlements in antarctica are Villas las Estrellas and Esperanza Base. Howeveg, this is technically wrong. It is actually Villa Las Estrellas in Base Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, and Fortín Sargento Cabral in Esperanza Base. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they’re not inside reaserch stations but right next to. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-29981-55, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have improvements to make (or suggest) to a Wikipedia article, the best place to bring it up is on the article's talk page. Make sure you have a reliable source to cite for any new or changed information. ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFineThe spanish wikiepdia article for “Fortín Sargento Cabral” (which for some reason dosen’t have a article in the english wikipedia and instead has Esperanza base, and the english wikipedia considers Esperanza Base as the same, even though these two while related, are different) has four references, actually three, because the first reference is coordinants.

, which for some reason is not in the english wikipedia and instead there is “Esperanza base” even though these two while related are different, ” ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-29981-55. You can carry on talking about the details of your concern here if you like, but it's not likely to achieve much. Probably most of the people reading this page, like me, have no particular interest or knowledge about Antarctica.

I have directed you to a place where people with that knowledge and interest are more likely to see it. ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFineWikiProject:Antarctica is inactive, which WikiProject for this topic is active? Outside of the talk pages of these articles. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the talk pages? Hi, I'm Popingry! (FKA Max) |Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PopingryPeople don't go to talk pages of these articles, so they are not active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But if you create a new section on a Talk page detailing your concerns, it will be notified to those who have the article on their Watchlists, and some will likely want to respond. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article template for construction project under construction?

What is the article template for construction project under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~While it's under construction, it should be a draft, not a mainspace article.~~ Maproom (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A project under construction can still be notable, for example High Speed 2 or the White House State Ballroom. I don't think there's a special template. The HS2 article uses the "status = Under construction" parameter within {{Infobox rail line}}. I guess some other infobox templates have something similar. Something like Symphony Park doesn't use anything special but just says the thing about construction. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is a article template at the po of the article for a bridge under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just plain old Template:Infobox bridge. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZzuuzzWhat is a article template at the top of the article for a bridge under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. The article lead will make it sufficiently clear that it is under construction. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZzuuzzLike the english equivalent of this template seen in the russian article “Автодорожный мост между Приморьем и КНДР”. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZzuuzzLike the english equivalent of the russian template “В этой статье описывается запланированный или строящийся, но ещё не построенный объект или здание.

Информация может меняться по мере поступления новых данных о ходе строительства.” ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Wikipedia is a separate project with its own templates. They do not necessarily have equivalents in other Wikipedias. You could always make one yourself but I don't think that's necessary. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Information may change rapidly" is not really applicable to bridges, or the enwiki context, though I stand to be proven wrong. {{current event}} is the closest thing, but I doubt I would recommend it. We don't really do that here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZzuuzzHow about Template:Update? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"This template can be used to mark entire articles or sections that contain outdated information." -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a infobox. That's more like the ^{[citation needed]} template. Its purpose is to mark articles that need work. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI meant that my idea of Template:Update is to update the article by putting new information that already exists out there, but not in the Wikipedia article, hence updating the article. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, by all means, go ahead and add said information. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotYou mean adding the Template:Update or adding new information into the article or both? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could definitely do both, yeah. Add the new info, and if you think it still needs some updates, go ahead and put the tag on it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI added the Template:Update, the article is "Khasan–Tumangang Bridge". ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotWhat do you think about my other edits i did? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI meant my other edits in 20th May 2026, not the previous days with my questionable behaviour. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They all look alright to me. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotYou think so? Take a look at every edit i did outside of the Teahouse. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not going to take the time to look at every edit you've ever made. I did look at a few, and they look good. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotDo you want to fix my edits or not? Perhaps if others look at my edits on 20th May 2026. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, there's no need to fix them. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

^ Long, Andrew (2026-04-08). "How an 'Agnostic Atheist' Got Students to Scrutinize Their Faith". The Assembly NC. Retrieved 2026-05-20.

Need help moving AfC draft to Draft namespace

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

Requested title: Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evasion

https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably shouldn't be mentioned in the main Marche du Film article, but you might be able to find a place for it in 2026 Cannes Film Festival. As long as it doesn't seem promotional. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotWell, it was in article 2026 Cannes Film Festival, but it got removed. So where would i put it? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it got removed by another editor, it may be best to leave it out. It looks like they've explained their reasoning on the article's talk page. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotThen where to put information on Critterz? How can it be on 2026 cannes film festival article or marché du film article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For now? It shouldn't be on either article. If you can perhaps reach a conclusion on the talk page you were conversing with another editor on, you might be able to put it somewhere. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotThen what could i do? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For now, jack squat. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotThere is a draft article on Critterz, however, it is still a draft article because "This draft should not be submitted for review or moved to the mainspace until final animation or voice recording has begun, per the guidelines on notability of future films.", however, i have seen this rule not being conformed and saw article(s) of movies that haven't had final animation or voice recording had begun, draft articles become a article instead of waiting for final aniamtion or voice recording has begun. Could this rule not be conformed just like other article(s) did and Critterz be from a draft article to a article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-29101-67 and welcome to the Teahouse.

We have thousands and thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review now would not be accepted: some of them could be improved to make them acceptable; others cannot, and should be deleted.

Unfortunately, not very many editors are interested in going through these and dealing with them (myself included!)

But, just because we already have substandard articles does not mean we should accept any more. If the subject does not yet meet our criteria for notability it will not pass review. Please see WP:other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this source on article “the powerpuff girls (franchise)”, What to write?

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/powerpuff-girls-fosters-home-for-imaginary-friends-reboots-1235318832/ ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could this https://x.com/Fyre_flye/status/1579590490462515201 also be put in this article? To put info that Lauren Faust is working on it. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added info that Lauren Faust will be working on this reboot, with this source https://x.com/Fyre_flye/status/1579590490462515201 added. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to fix it or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for such messages: if you have to post them at all, they go on the talk page of the article you want edited. I see in your logs that you were just blocked for disruptive editing at the Teahouse. I strongly recommend not starting that up again. M kuhner (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M kuhnerThere is a difference between my today's posts on the Teahouse and previous posts on the Teahouse. Today's posts on the Teahouse are not disrputive, if i'm correct though. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something added to an article:

(1) If you are able to edit that article, just add it yourself.

(2) If you are not able to edit the article, or are unsure if your proposed addition is correct, post on that article's Talk page and ask other people working on the page to help. They will be your best helpers because they are familiar with that article and interested in the topic.

Putting this in the Teahouse will not reach the right people. Please use the article's Talk page instead. M kuhner (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-29101-67 Twitter/X is not generally considered a reliable source, except in some circumstances and with judgment. Anyone can say anything there. David10244 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-29101-67 Meaning, you need a better source than that before you can add the information. David10244 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can this X/Twitter account be put in article “Boku no Pico”?

https://x.com/bokunopicoweb It claims to be producing a new episode with a tentative title 「ちことぴこ(仮題)」for 2026 release date. ~2026-30064-68 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-30064-68 WP:SOCIALMEDIA states that information from these sources is valid as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, It does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and that the article is not based primarily on such sources." Do with that what you will. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CabinetCaversCan someone write it and use this account as a source in this article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CabinetCaversI added it into the article. Do you want to fix it or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you added the information and source, why would I need to fix it? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CabinetCaversI just asked if there is a need to edit it ot not. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CabinetCaversHow about someone else adding other posts by this account to this article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's relevant, they could do that, yes. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-29101-67 Saying "Do you want to fix it or not" sounds kind of rude. The people who read these pages and give help are volunteers, doing this on their own time. David10244 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 Thank you! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 11:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CabinetCaversMy edit with Twitter/X as a source got removed, even though WP:SOCIALMEDIA states that information from these sources is valid as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, It does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and that the article is not based primarily on such sources.". What could i do? Also, can this source https://www.4gamers.com.tw/news/detail/78597/boku-no-pico-new-animation-series-will-release-in-2026 be used in this article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it to the article's talk page. Or don't, since you're an obvious socmpuppetteer blatantly violating Wikipedia's policies. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot"socmpuppetteer", thanks for your misspelling. Anyways, i wrote it in the talk page of Boku no Pico, but it is inactive. @Sarsenet hasn't responded. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

me no spel good lol Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotAnyways, i added/changed a different source, that being this one https://www.4gamers.com.tw/news/detail/78597/boku-no-pico-new-animation-series-will-release-in-2026 rather than the Twitter/X account i used as a source before. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help with Creation

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

Art

creators drawing digital ,painting ECT Grompkw (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GrompkwCan you explain it more? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Grompkw. Do you have a specific question? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Worried I did something wrong...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can I edit categories?

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

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

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

Thank you for the help!

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

Hello!

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

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

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

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

Help!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft feedback before submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-referencing (circular) link?

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

Two notes of caution;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback on my first AfC submission

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

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

Hello, @Rohanshrestha1.

Are you Rohan Shrestha?

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

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

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

Multiple changes

Hello!

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

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

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

Question

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

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

Question about declining "inactive" requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smruti R. Nayak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evasion

In this article “List of animated feature films of 2020”, this user said that “Citing Imdb is disputed, but not inappropriate, therefore i have added this movie into the list, i also did search through the internet and can confirm that it was really shown in some theaters in the united states as a limited run”. They are right. I looked at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, and i found this “IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.”. Their edit were release dates, running time, company credits, and the crew list (the director, Dan P. Lyons). I was also able to confirm that this movie did really was shown on some theaters in the United States, like a limited run of sorts. Although, it should be admitted that this user added this information without a consensus, as Athanelar reccomended WP:ONUS in their edit. ~2026-30350-55 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-30350-55, this should be discussed on the talk page of the article or the user who reverted the edits. 🍅 fx (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FlexagoonI have added it in the talk page of “List of animated feature films of 2020” and the user talk page of Athanelar. ~2026-30350-55 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you think 29101-67 was right. This is you pulling the same crap as before, editing from the same IP provider from the same place making the exact same argument and the exact same specific grammar issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbsOkay, i admit, i am the same person. Please, i don’t want to be blocked. Let’s have a consensus, shall we? ~2026-30469-30 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

dude Goetia [She/They] (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars Goetia”dude”, What do you mean by that? Let’s have a consensus. ~2026-30469-30 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-30469-30 "dude" meant that you are openly admitting to breaking Wikipedia's rules 🍅 fx (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FlexagoonYes, and? I did broke rules before on Wikipedia, but now i don't, i apologize that i made others waste time back then. Anyways, let's have a consensus on what we just talked before on this discussion. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion is not the way to go about this, then doubling down and asking everyone to forget about it and get a consensus is just making things worse. What you should do is get rid of all TAs and then make an official unblock request, with all your reasoning to why you won't edit disruptively if you are unblocked Goetia [She/They] (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaI didn't asked to forget it. I just didn't knew how to properly talk about the consensus we just talked before, after the text about my previous breaking rules. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theres really no difference we should not be talking about the consensus but instead your repeated rule breaking (of many different rules at that) and not divert of that, please just get rid of the TAs and make an unblock request Goetia [She/They] (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a consensus to not use the IMDB sources, a consensus that you don't like and have tried openly to ignore. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you literally continue to break rules. At the start of this discussion, you deceptively tried to give the idea that you were a different individual agreeing with your previous temporary accounts. If you want to seriously be an editor here, register an actual account, mention your previous TAs that are blocked, and request an unblock. You're abusing our temporary accounts system, which is there to protect good faith editors who don't wish to have an account, not the purpose for making it easier to be deceitful, as you have done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbsBut, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb says that "IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia:

Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.", therefore, it isn't forbidden, but disputable. Let's base citing iMDB from Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus was against you, but it doesn't even matter please do as coffee said and get rid of your TAs make or go on your old acc and request an unblock with full transparency Goetia [She/They] (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaSorry for my behaviour, and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb says that "IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia:

Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.", this is something that needs to be talked about in this discussion. Sorry for my behaviour. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That says it needs a consensus to be added, but a consensus goes both ways. The consensus is against you that is not because of your actions but simply because it was deemed not to be appropriate/should be used. We understand what you are saying we have stuck with the consensus and nobody is likely to try to help you as long as you are ban evading, do not be sorry for your behaviour try to do something to fix it, which you can do by getting rid of your TAs going onto your main banned account and filing an unblock request Goetia [She/They] (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaJust because it has been deemed that it shoundl't be used or is not appropriate, dosen't mean the consensus should end right now. The consensus hasn't ended, it should still continue for now, and let others (not my fictional independent editors i made up) be part of this discussion. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is allowed to reply but besides your fictional editors nobody besides yourself has agreed with you Goetia [She/They] (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please just delete the TAs and make an account admit to owning these TAs then get banned then appeal that for an unban, then we can go from there Goetia [She/They] (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute in this case, since there's a consensus already in the specific case, which you've tried to ignore by making up fictional independent editors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaJust because i have not good behaviour in the Teahouse, dosen't mean that the consensus on this article should automaticlly be against me. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaI meant, just because i don't have good behaviour on the Teahouse, dosen't mean that the consensus for this article should be nulled. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars GoetiaI meant “dude” as in What you wrote in your response. ~2026-30469-30 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about whether or not you will be blocked; because you already are blocked. You've been blocked since you were indefinitely blocked months ago on your previous accounts. What you're doing now is block evasion; every single edit you make except for posting an unblock request and then patiently waiting for it to be considered is block evasion. The question is not whether you will be blocked; you already are, and you need to appeal that before you continue editing. Athanelar (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

submission denied, requesting assistance

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

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

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

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

Copyright investigation on draft

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

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

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

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

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

Review request for FizzUp draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

how do I add an image to an article?

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

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

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

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

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

Twisted (Roblox)

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

evading block

@~2026-30517-94Try find whatever source/information you can find, and we will discuss in the Teahouse which sources/information could be used for this article. Or, instead of a article, it could be a entry on the "List of Roblox games". However, i don't have high hopes that this article or entry on the "List of Roblox games" could be created, because the source(s) need to be reliable. Interestingly, i have seen Wikipedia articles that have only 1 or no source at all, i don't even know how they're still up or how they got created and allowed in Wikipedia, maybe someone can explain it to me. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

evading block

@Feline HymnicThere are even newer articles with 1 or no source at all. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline HymnicLike article "Hare and Wolf" was created on 9th May 2018, and it currently only has 1 source, in fact when it was created, it had no source at all. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline HymnicOh, and the source in "Hare and Wolf" is a YouTube video that no longer is around. There are multiple archives of this YouTube video on the Wayback Machine, but i coundl't find one in which the video works. Maybe, you could try find it yourselfs, perhaps try find it on web archiving websites that aren't the Wayback Machine. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline HymnicTry find another source on Hare and Wolf/Thỏ và Sói, I did a quick search on Bing and Google and chose the regular and news sections, but i hadn't able to find one. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

evading block

@EF5That's why i asked them to try to find whatever source/information they can find, and we will discuss in the Teahouse which sources/information could be used for this article. I also once found a news article about a Roblox game Doom By Fate and i coundl't find it anymore, and i also coundl't properly remember the name of the news website, it was something like PainikiWeb or PalinkiWeb, i remember it had a P at the beggining of the name and Web at the end of the name. There are two other news articles on Doom By Fate, that being GosuGamers (https://www.gosugamers.net/entertainment/news/78238-roblox-game-allegedly-linked-to-player-s-epilepsy-death-developers-criticised-for-negligence) and a Indonesian news website katadata.co.id (https://katadata.co.id/lifestyle/varia/69d5fd573840a/apa-itu-game-doom-by-fate-yang-viral-di-roblox). The PalinkiWeb actually updated the seizure death story being fake, unlike GosuGamers, katadata.co.id only provided a detailed summary of this game and the virality of this game and not about the seizure death story that was spread at the same time. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

evading block (includes replies from another editor)

What could we do with this discussion that appeared on Talk:United States? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The post has been removed. :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AesuriasThanks, what do you think happened that led to a discussion titled "Why Tung Tung Sahur should be president" on Talk:United States? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-29101-67: It was only there for an hour. Confused users or vandals often make strange edits. It may just have been a kid goofing around. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunterPerhaps a kid thought that this is what is allowed and talked about in a Wikipedia talk page. Hmm, i wonder if there is Wikipedia with less or no rules, and where anyone can write without needing to create a account? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do I create a page for a userbox?

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

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

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

Important issue with article "Hare and Wolf"

evading block

the source on "Hare and Wolf" is a YouTube video that no longer is around. There are multiple archives of this YouTube video on the Wayback Machine, but i coundl't find one in which the video works. Maybe, someone could try to find it yourselfs, perhaps try find it on web archiving websites that aren't the Wayback Machine. Try find another source on Hare and Wolf/Thỏ và Sói, I did a quick search on Bing and Google and chose the regular and news sections, but i hadn't able to find one. Please, NEVER delete this article and we should instead wait finding a working video and/or find another source. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the youtube video was a episode of Hare and Wolf rather than a YouTube video explaining the information of Hare and Wolf. But because i haven't found a working version of this video, i don't know if it's true, it's a mystery for now. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israel articles

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

(non-admin closure) Editor does not have extended-confirmed user rights, so cannot discuss topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:19, 21 May 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.

It is locked, so i can't edit it. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And also have the articles "Zionism", "Anti-Zionism", "Criticism of Israel" and "Legitimiacy of States of Israel" have Expand language template of Arabic. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have extended-confirmed rights, so you cannot participate in any discussions of any topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zionism is explicitly covered by WP:CT/A-I. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:17, 21 May 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.

An editor has called me dishonest

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

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

Davidstewartharvey, you were pointed to the talk page for discussion--this is not the page to prove your point, the talk page is. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already provided refs on thd talk page. I believe there is a resolution process called DRN but I cant figure out how to raise it there. Thats why I came here asking for assistance. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - You got into it on the talk page of one individual article but the real point of contention are your edits on Pastry--and if I'm reading it correctly User:Revirvlkodlaku is right in saying that you were arguing on Talk:Kolach (cake) based on a definition you yourself added to the Pastry article. That's the dishonesty they signaled. There is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, yes, but you'll need to discuss your "Pastry" edits on that talk page first. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes are based on references. User:Revirvlkodlaku has changed them all without looking at any of them. For example, the short description I changed to Baked and Fried goods, as first example Angel wings and Samosa are both fried. I have now raised it at WP:3O. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know what they did or did not look at?
    
    Hint: Avoid making unsubstantiated claims about the actions of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies, that's exactly what happened—thank you for reading that correctly and for the support. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Charles City Iowa National Guard unit in 1975

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI-Generated content featured on the teahouse

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

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

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

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

Misinformation on my singing monsters article

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

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

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

extended-confirmed user rights

How do you get extended-confirmed user rights? or what do you need to work towards to get it? also what does it do? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your account needs to be at least 30 days old and have at least 500 edits. You'll then have access to the Wikipedia Library and be able to edit any articles that are extended-confirmed-protected. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So it automatically adds onto your account after you meet the requirements? no need to apply like with admin positions? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's automatic. Think of it as the next level after being autoconfirmed. Like autoconfirmed, it's much more common than being an admin; I think there were about 80,000 extended confirmed users, last I checked. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sick! Thank you john for your help Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnLaurens333 Small correction, the Wikipedia Library requires 6+ months editing, not 30 days, in addition to 500+ edits. This should also be automatically applied when an account meets the criteria. NovaHyperion^talk 06:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, you're absolutely right. Thanks for correcting me. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does 6 months editing mean 6 months of days with edits or 6 months after your first edit? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6 months after your account is created. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh awesome Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ars Goetia please be aware that you shouldn't try to game the right, and that ideally, you should try to make 500 constructive edits (e.g. adding citations, reverting vandalism) instead. Happy editing, Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the link and I promise not to treat it like a game, only enthusiastic about this because I thought you had to apply like with adminship and found out that I'm actually quite close to being one myself, I'll continue to make the best contributions I can. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to cope with edits that degrade a Wikipedia article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion about GNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Time Page For New Contributor

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

Suggest read WP:42, WP:CORPTRIV and ~~WP:WPIN~~WP:WWIN. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better portrait

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

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

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

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

@QueueSevenM MOS:LEADIMAGE does not give very firm guidance, and what is "best" is often a bit subjective. For living people, depending on what's available [1] (which tend to be not a lot), editors generally like good quality, recent-ish and doesn't look awful/strange. IMO, current pic and your alt are both acceptable, yours is a little newer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Agencies in India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G'day mate, welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

Drafts that may be merged into existing articles

I have already received advice on this draft, and it has been suggested that it be merged into higher category theory. The orthographic variation of this draft, (n, k)-category, is a redirect to Weak n-category#History. Furthermore, there is a possibility that this draft will be merged with the (∞, n)-category. Due to these circumstances, discussion is necessary when merging drafts. According to WP:MERGE, the place to discuss merging articles is AfD. Since this is just a draft, do I need to submit it to WP:AfC before discussing merging it? It might satisfy WP:N as a standalone article. It feels strange, but do I need to nominate my own draft for the AfD? I'm worried that if I nominate my own draft for AfD, it will be considered a deletion request by the draft's author, and therefore the draft will be speedy deleted.--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts cannot be listed at AfD; they go to MfD instead. But also, there's no need to host a discussion about merging a draft into an article. If you want to do that, you can just do it; since you're not really 'merging' anything but rather expanding the existing article. Athanelar (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. When merging a draft into an existing article, I believe it's necessary to merge (∞, n)-category and (n, k)-category. However, will merging (∞, n)-category and (n, k)-category still meet WP:BOLD?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the draft will be merged into the (n, k)-category, which is currently a redirect. After that, I think I'll propose merging it with (∞, n)-category. In this case, I think it will be a merge of articles, not a draft.--SilverMatsu (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations and definition disagreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

Draft Link: Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan

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

Current sources used include:

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

My question is specifically:

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

If insufficient, would editors recommend:

reducing the draft substantially,
merging relevant content elsewhere, or
anything else

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Srivp2012, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

Times of India References

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

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

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

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

WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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

CN for a Contribution from a blocked user?

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

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

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

Citation!

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

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

Thank you.

Welovecontributors! [talk] 12:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Question today

I got declined just a few hours ago(for my article Draft:Eliot K-8 Innovation School). I reviewed the citations, and also added a few citations from NBC and Boston Globe. I kinda organized a similar table to the one in WP:ORG, correct me if I'm wrong, but my main question is if this is enough citations in order for the article to be accepted. If not, how much more would I actually need? I also made the text smaller if that is okay(i don't want to flood)

(Source, Significant?, Independent?, Reliable?, Secondary?)

DonorsChoose, X, X, X, X

Boston Public Schools #2, X, X, Y, X

US News & World Report #3, X(ranking), Y, Y, Y

School Official Site #4, $28, #29, and more, X, X, X, X

Boston Globe(land swap article), Y(it's about the land swap of eliot and north ebnnet), Y, Y, Y

Boston Globe(ESD affects article), ??, Y, Y, Y

Boston Globe(school ranking), X(yes i knowD: it is not significant, it is a ranking), Y, Y, Y

BEST ONE: WBUR(i thikn under NPR) #15, Y(directly), Y, Y, Y

The New York Times #13, ?, Y, Y, ?

Harvard University Press #11, Y, Y, Y, Y

Boston College (rebellion article), Y, Y, Y, Y

Northend.page, X, Y, ?, Y

North End Reg. Rev., X, Y, X, Y

CBS News #51, Y, Y, Y, Y

NBC Boston(COVID article) #52, ?(slightly), Y, Y, Y

Boston Magazine (boston latin school feeder), X(not significant enough), Y, Y, Y

Raj Das(reviewer noted before), N, N, N, N

GreatSchools, N, Y, N, N

Champions extracur. website, X, ?(since it is partnered with the school), X, X

guidestar, X, Y, X, X

NEREJ construction, X, Y, ???, Y

Youtube Video, X, X, X, X(even if i want it to be D:)

unnatural selection, X, X, X, X

Government Stats, X, Y, Y, X

City of Boston Government, Y, ?, YES!!!, ?

Paul Revere House(bio), ?(it's about an alumni), Y, Y, Y

Colantonio(the construction group for the construction for land swap, as in the Boston Globe article above), Y, Y, N, N

Any other feedback on my article would also be appreciated!!!!! Welovecontributors! [talk] 13:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Welovecontributors!: Please remove the small-font markup you inexplicably included to make your contribution above accommodate WP:ACCESSIBILITY. (And please consider changing your signature to accommodate MOS:CONTRAST on a white background.) Bazza 7 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Welovecontributors! That is hard to read, being so small. There's no need for that. David10244 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you throw away any sources you have assessed as xxxx, keep the YYYY and look carefully at the rest. Articles need to be based almost exclusively on the golden rules for sourcing. That is, we look for quality, not quantity. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

Welovecontributors! [talk] 23:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Christ-myth theory

Hello, I request help in crafting a reasonable RfC concerning the lede of Christ-myth theory. I've been suggesting [2] that the present lede, with use the expression "historical Jesus", conflates two different types of "Christ-myth theory", (1) that Jesus of Nazereth never exited, the primary subject of the Christ-myth theory article, with (2) debate about whether or not the many things attributed to Jesus of Nazereth are myth or fact, the subject of different articles, such as Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. I have suggested changes to the lede, but I've been met with resistance and overly simplistic assertions that the edits I've suggested are "fringe", when, in fact, I'm just trying to adjust the lede so that the subject of the article is clear.

Is it enough to post an RfC simply asking whether or not, in the context of the lede of Christ-myth theory, "historical Jesus" should be avoided? Otherwise, some draft material for an RfC would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:RFCBEFORE. Editor time is our most valuable resource, and RfCs are time-intensive operations. Ideally we shouldn't resort right to an RfC to solve generally mundane editing questions unless other avenues of discussion have been tried first and there proves to be too much controversy to resolve it that way. Athanelar (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. 22:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Username length

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

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

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

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

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

Changing nomination from Merge to Delete in AfD

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

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

Request for help with COI draft

I have a draft at Draft:Stylist Srushtee about an Indian fashion stylist based in Mumbai. I have a conflict of interest as I am connected to the subject and have disclosed this on my talk page. The draft has one independent citation from Mid-Day newspaper. Could an experienced editor kindly review the draft and submit it for AfC review if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines? Thank you. Stylistsrushtee (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more citations. Currently, both citations are exactly the same. I'll see if I can find any. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to find any reliable sources for the draft. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User97104 Your signature (the last part) is hard to read in dark mode; I suspect that the first part is hard to read in light mode. Can you improve the contrast please? David10244 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's all hard to read in light mode.

@User97104 Have a look at MOS:ONWHITE which has a list of colours that are approved to be up to accessibility standards for readability on a white background. Athanelar (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been notified about this on my talk page, i'll fix this in a bit. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 12:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added the AFC template so that you can submit it once it is ready for submission, but as the above person said (apologies, I can't read your username), it is not ready right now due to lack of sources and would be declined. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 @SomeoneDreaming @Athanelar, fixed. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 12:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Athanelar (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate it! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation policy question

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

Are you skilled in the language you're translating from? I don't think it makes a difference which type of LLM it is, someone needs to review the translation. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 19:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION states: Translated texts created with LLM-based tools that have not undergone review by a human skilled in both the origin and target languages should not be placed in Wikipedia articles. But I'm not sure if this counts dictionaries or not. User 97104 (t•c•r•l) 20:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Situation with citations

Have been tooling a bit with this page on the wife of a Qara Qoyunlu ruler (Had to pretty much rip the guts out of the article, since much of the text used to be so off-topic that I wasn't sure it was possible to salvage, but that's another story). The text itself is sourced, however the sources are listed in persian rather than english, and thus only readable if you know that language. However, when I put the citation into google translate, it actually came back with a comprehendable english citation. Can the citations on this page be replaced with google translated versions, or should they be left as is in Persian? LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better for the citations to be in English, but it's best if you confirm that the translated citations are correct, as I can imagine something like a book or journal title could be translated multiple ways. It would be ideal if you could provide an ISBN/ISSN/DOI or some other standardized identifier. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I know zero persian. Is there a way to contact a user who can specifically read persian to look at it? LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EMBASSY has a list of editors who are 'ambassadors' for other languages and can help with issues like this. @Jeeputer and @Mhhossein are our Persian ambassadors, apparently. Athanelar (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is great to know about, thank you LincolnMagnus (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LincolnMagnus: Let me know if you have any specific questions on the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if they all are actually straightforward formatted citations that can be rendered in English? LincolnMagnus (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @LincolnMagnus. The citation should be to the cited source, whatever language it is in. It can be helpful to add one or more of the following:

an English translation of the title
a quotation from the source that verifies the information in question
a translation of that quotation.

Templates such as {{cite book}} have arguments for all those.

WP:NONENG says Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

47th Tennessee Article expanded

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

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

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

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

CS1 maint unrecognized language for a literally unrecognized language?

I've been going through the category Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language, and I found this page. The issue is that the language used for the offending citation does actually exist, it's not a typo or anything. It's just not recognized as ISO 639-2 (it is as 639-3). That ends up resulting in the same maint error, even if I use either full language name (associated with the page Angami language) OR the ISO-639-3 code (njm).

Is there anything I can do in this situation to get the error to go away? I'd like to take this page off the list so that I can move on to others. I remember reading on another tracking category description that double parenthesis silences maint errors. It doesn't seem to work in this field, unfortunately for me. I'm not sure where I'd find an answer to this question, so I'm asking here. I'm not experienced with actually creating good citations, I'm just trying to find little tasks to latch on to.
Thanks, TheGrapeEscape (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to nominate a file for speedy deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this website a reliable source for Royalty and Nobility articles?

I am writing a biographical article draft for a historical royal. While I was searching for sources to cite regarding their lineage, I came across this website which details lineages of royalty and nobility from around the world. Is it a reliable source to cite? https://www.royalark.net/

Mintcookie810 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mintcookie810 No, it is a deprecated source: see WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Self-published_peerage_websites Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Draft Article Citations

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

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

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

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

My first draft & articles

Hi, so i been working on a lot of draft articles. The first draft I'm currently working on is the Draft:iPhone Ultra project. This is one of the first drafts I made and i put a lot of detail includeing using multiple sources, the sources must be reliable, and written from a neutral point of view, and it is due to be submitted for review in September, based on the leaks of the device and the draft is up to date also. I also started the Draft:Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Draft:Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 weeks later, which are also due to be submitted for review in July. Now all of the drafts are currently meeting WP:GNG, but they're not ready for the mainspace. And I'm working on 21 drafts so far. And I have 2 articles done and 2 templates that were created directly with no draft. Draft:iOS 27, which I'm contributing to, is notable, and it's due to be ready for the mainspace in 2 weeks. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 15:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. What question do you have about them, exactly? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to convert the drafts into a redirect, and move to the mainspace the day before the event happens, because I may have to do that with Draft:iPhone Ultra, converting it into a redirect to iPhone, and move to the mainspace to prevent edit wars? This happened to the articles IPhone 15, IPhone 15 Pro, and IPhone 16. See the oldest page history when the devices were going to be announced. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 16:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you convert your draft to a redirect? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, please take a look at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Anonymous 'leaks' are not suitable sources for a Wikipedia article, so you are incorrect that these articles currently meet GNG. What's your hurry? Write the article when the phone actually comes out and you've got something to write about. Athanelar (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do my best. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 19:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issues

I’m trying to help my friend resolve issues on her page Carole Maso. Angelabklyn1 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is wrong or how to fix it Angelabklyn1 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The tag at the top of the article looks to have been resolved. I'll remove it. Is there anthing else you're trying to fix in the article? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Wikipedia Billy Trudel

I wrote a bio page on my career and was flagged for being fraud, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong? Can someone please help clarify what mistakes I'm doing. Billy Trudel (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article is unsourced and created using AI, I'm only surprised that it has been declined twice, it should have been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this not AI, so what is the best way for me to re-write my credits? Billy Trudel (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By finding another website - we don't host pure curricula vitae, and as noted by Theroadislong, you have zero reliable sources, which is fatal to an article about a living person, autobiographies included. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioned in The City (band) on wikipedia and Davey Johnston wikipedia page with our band warpipes. so is it how I wrote it? Billy Trudel (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also mentioned in Elton John One Night Only Wikipedia Billy Trudel (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Billy Trudel: Are you even reading what me and TRiL are writing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on other Wikipedia pages doesn't mean anything, unfortunately. Please take a look at our notability requirements for musicians. Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review request: Tim Lattie

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

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

We can't use https://www.webtoons.com/p/community/en/u/TEAMLATTIE (too sparse). Content-free profile.
We can't use Amazon (online storefront).
https://idwpublishing.com/blogs/news/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-comic-book-retro-80s-cartoon doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in a press release from a firm hiring him.
We can't link to, let alone cite, forum.sanctuary.fr (copyright infringement).
We can't use https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/people/20838/tim-lattie/comics (too sparse). Content-free curriculum vitae.
https://www.epictalesfromthesewers.com/epic-tales-from-the-sewers-with-artist-tim-lattie/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview. (An interview is never going to be usable as a source for eligibility regardless of whether or not it's conducted by a New York Times journo or Borat Sagdiyev.)

I note that all of your sources include "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" at the end. LLMs like ChatGPT are completely worthless at source assessment. My recommendation, after you get that username changed, is to strip this down to the studs, go back to the drawing board, and research your sources without using LLMs. We're looking for in-depth, independent news reports about Lattie that are published by outlets with editorial oversight (reviews of his work would also be acceptable). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Emails

I realized that it would probably be a good idea to add an email to my account. However, I do wish to maintain my anonymity, and iCloud has a "Hide My Email" feature. Is that acceptable for use on Wikipedia? EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine, yes Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you actually read the mail. If you block mail sent to the the address then change or delete it in preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could create a separate email address for Wikipedia. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that now! EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Long, Andrew (2026-04-08). "How an 'Agnostic Atheist' Got Students to Scrutinize Their Faith". The Assembly NC. Retrieved 2026-05-20.

[1]