Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

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

HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day Wikipediaaaaaaa...
Happy birth-day to you!
--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44. Thanks! I congratulate you on Wikipedia's 25th birthday too! We wish you success in your work on Wikipedia! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC))

@Infinitywiki2 The same for you! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Never new I would see knock-off Ba’al celebrating Wikipedia but here we are, the Phoenicians would be confused 😂 Have a great Wikipedia 25th anniversary! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• knew (can’t believe I used the wrong word 😂) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Gah, I missed the stream even though I had a snow day yesterday... I was there in spirit. Happy birthday Wikipedia! I hope this website helps everyone to gain more knowledge about the world around them. Much love! jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 13:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

≽^•⩊•^≼ ~2026-50238-2 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

UwU DominikTuazon (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

NOOOOOO I MISSED THE LIVESTREAM BECAUSE I HAD TO PAY ATTENTION IN SCIENCE CLASS :( --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Don’t you have the powers to just destroy the building, you are Ba’al after all Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Recording of the stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rPmv27YzY. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the stream's already happened, so there really isn't any point. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

same here :( I was at school I believe Weez3rforever (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 25th birthday

Hello everyone, today is the 25th birthday of the English Wikipedia - we know that everyone has been waiting for this day! We have been developing Wikipedia for 25 years! I would like to express my deep gratitude to all of you for your every effort on Wikipedia! And at this point, we would like to congratulate all Wikipedians on Wikipedia's 25th birthday! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC))

🎉🎉🎉 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

🥳 Happy Birthday to the greatest human project of the Internet age imo! User:KeyolTranslater it was cool to see your name in the chat on the livestream just now, as someone who has been lurking Teahouse to learn and has seen you around. This is my first attempt to indent-reply on a Talk page, fingers crossed this works! 😀

Sophiatries (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn’t think some would recognise me 😂 thought my muttering were drowned out by everyone else. It was amazing to hear about that WW2 Veteran who still edits Wikipedia now at the age of 100, genuinely amazing. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

What livestream? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh now i know what livestream, i haven't heard about this livestream. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok for the benefit of any other Talk Page newbs, looks like if you add your four tildes on a new line you need to indent that manually as well, adding this to try to fix 😭 Sophiatries (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Wikipedia! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@DominikTuazon, @KeyolTranslater, @Sophiatries, @~2025-43053-85 Thanks everyone! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC))

No problem, enjoy! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@DominikTuazon – Thanks! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC))

@DominikTuazon – Thank you and everyone! We will love and develop Wikipedia forever! Your work is appreciated! We appreciate your edits! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC))

You too, have a great year! DominikTuazon (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@DominikTuazon – Thank you, let's be together!!! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC))

:D

DominikTuazon (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, WIKIPEDIA

I wish that Wikipedia - oh, this beautiful website - stays up for another century. Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

Lemurik the Historian - president of Alternia and brand-new user of the Wiki Lemurik the Historian (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lemurik the Historian. Thanks! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC))

25 years on Wikipedia

Today is the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia! ~2026-34318-9 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but you are a day late unfortunately, but you can still celebrate and you can rewatch the livestream from yesterday! 🎉🎉🎉 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Page of Reiki has inaccuracies

First off, as a retired journalist, I love working on Wikipedia articles and contributing to this community! I would love to edit a couple of entries that I see errors in, but some are autoprotected. I have made 10 edits now. Do I need to edit more? Or is there a way I can gain access to make adjustments? Reiki. Thank you! Jennifer Jalsever (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you're auto confirmed, so you should be able to edit it. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a difficult page to edit in that many many reikists want to add badly sourced or unsourced stuff that just isn't acceptable in an encyclopeadia article. be very certain that the sources you use comply with our requirements.

On the other hand, lurkers will be sure to help you . - Walter Ego 15:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jalsever, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To add to what others have said: yes, you now have the technical ability to edit that article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea for you to do so directly. Make sure you understand what are reliable sources, and if what you are talking about might in any way be construed as medical information, be aware that we have a tighter set of criteria for reliability of sources on medical subjects: WP:MEDRS.

If you are not certain of the reliability of your sources, it might be better to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page first, rather than going ahead and editing directly. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Well, I understand that Reiki is a spiritual practice but it is not necessarily a medical treatment. I think that the terms "psuedoscience" is very biased and not at all accurate to the experience. We could call all spiritual practices psuedoscience. I would cite this reputable publication The Atlantic which explored the practice, and concluded that top tier medical institutions are embracing the practice without understanding how it works. It just does. Also https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/04/reiki-cant-possibly-work-so-why-does-it/606808/

Also, I would reference this organization as a source https://iarp.org/ and this one, https://www.reikiassociation.net/ and this one, https://www.reiki.org/ to help people understand the practice from people who are practice it and understand it, versus citing skeptics on the outside. I have personally experienced reiki and it's incredibly powerful, so I would hate to discourage people from trying it to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing.

Fine to source skeptics, but the entire post is written from that point of view. I worked as a journalist for top publications including Fortune Magazine and NBC for decades, and I understand the need for a balanced perspective. I also understand credible sources.

Would it be okay if I went in and offered this perspective and then put it to the community to ensure it's fair and balnced? Jalsever (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You can try to discuss changes, but our articles are largely sourced by reliable, independent sources, especially when we're sourcing facts that could possibly be disputed. WP:PRIMARY sources have a limited usage, far more limited than what you appear to desire. And yes, the very high standards of WP:MEDRS applies here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The kind of balance of the newspapers, we call it WP:FALSEBALANCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I have personally experienced reiki and it's incredibly powerful, so I would hate to discourage people from trying it to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing.

What you're doing then falls somewhere inbetween promotion and righting great wrongs and I would suggest that yout petsonal experience and bias here probably means you had better edit in a different topic area.

Wikipedia is not journalism. We do not aim to create a 'balanced perspective.' We represent what the preponderance of sources on a topic say; see WP:WEIGHT. If the majority of discourse and scholarship about Reiki is from a skeptical perspective, then Wikipedia will reflect that. If the sources describe reiki as a pseudoscience, then Wikipedia describes it as a pseudoscience. To give undue weight to a pro-Reiki perspective which is not reflected in the breadth of the sources, or to avoid terms like 'pseudoscience' even if the sources use it, would be to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Athanelar (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jalsever A word like "pseudoscience" is often added to an article after a long discussion among many editors, and is sometimes added after an RFC on that exact word. This represents "consensus". If you want to remove that word, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page first. And there may very well be existing discussion already there about the word; I haven't looked, but don't blindly remove the word. David10244 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing is a medical claim, by our book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

We could call all spiritual practices psuedoscience This is an accurate statement. Spiritual practices that claim to have medical benefits not verified by scientific experiments are called pseudosciences. Words have meanings. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, saying it's "not necessarily a medical treatment" is SO close to admitting it's pseudoscience that there's no real difference between the two.

Reiki has been around for many years, leaving no excuses for anyone who wants to just say "studies are inconclusive" or that sort of thing.

If someone had invented a machine a hundred years ago, and if today's advocates for that machine were still saying "scientific studies of whether it does anything are inconclusive", it would be easy to understand what the real problem was. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

A note: I've experienced it, and here's my non-certified analysis of why it "works": kind, gentle, respectful attention from another human is a good thing, and Reiki provides a plausible reason for that to happen at a time when it otherwise might not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a growing body of research that while no scientific explanation on how it works, Reiki as better than placebo for anxiety, overall wellbeing and reduced pain, and there are dozens of hospitals, including Yale, Harvard and Cleveland Clinic that offer it as a complementary therapy. This is documented with several 2024 and 2025 meta analysis of studies of reiki in these benefits, not for "curing" medical ailments. Wikipedia has a responsibility to offer comprehensive pages of information, versus the biased opinions of people who have no experience or knowledge in the area. I would also question why some individuals or celebrities or companies are allowed to write and edit their own Wikipedia pages? Trust is eroding for all sources of information in the world today, and this is an opportunity Wikipedia to remain a reliable source of information from all sides of a particular topic. Jalsever (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We operate on verifiability; you have to provide the studies. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course! I understand the importance of legitimate sources, and I have cited all of the studies and their sources, ie. PubMed as well as the American Health Association etc. Jalsever (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

rather the American Hospital Association I mean. Jalsever (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a argues that Reiki works, but not in the way most people think. I.e. it is used for soothing nervous patients. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

definitely that's the whole point. It is for soothing, overall wellbeing. It's not saying it's curing cancer and never promises to cure anything. It's used as a complementary therapy. Can we put talk therapy under the same microscope? Can we prove that it scientifically works? Or do you say it subjectively works, depending on the circumstance, the people, etc.? But you don't call therapists fraudulent. Same with yoga, meditation, breathwork, etc. You're not holding those up to the scientific method. They're soothing and not the same for everyone. Jalsever (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jalsever What you say may be true, but you still can't delete the word "pseudoscience" from the article, because of the consensus issue that I pointed out just above... plus, what other experienced editors are telling you. David10244 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are countless definitions across the web and in major publications and on medical websites, including pubmed, that do not use "psuedoscience" word. That is an inherently biased word used by skeptics. And it's inaccurate because reiki and its practitioners do not portend to be science-based. It's a spiritual healing technique passed down for hundreds of years. Even the Cleveland Clinic does not use that word or your definition.

My question to the Tea House and the editors here at Wikipedia: What is the resistance for creating a page that is balanced? Why are you so against giving any credibility to the technique just because the mechanisms are not understood? Even in the face of recent (2024 and 2025) meta analysis data that shows it does work, it's growing in acceptance among the overall population and among major hospitals as a "complementary therapy" to make people feel better-- not to cure them.

Are you letting your own biases dictate this page? If so, I'm concerned about all of Wikipedia and the information in general if a handful of people are determining what kind of information is out there on certain topics. I am not the only person who has brought this page to the attention of Wikipedia and suggested changes, but there is a resistance to changing. Jalsever (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have off wiki evidence that celebrities and companies are editing the articles about themselves and have not disclosed this as required by WP:COI and WP:PAID, please see WP:REPORTPAID for how you can provide that evidence.

You misunderstand what we do here- Wikipedia is not journalism, it is a content aggregator. You've already been pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not create a balance when the prepondereance of reliable sources do not. We're not here to give credibility to anything. One is free to read an article and disagree with everything presented. This is not a problem as long as the sources are accurately summarized.

Yes, we're only as good as the people who choose to help us. You're welcome to help, but you need to abide by policies and consensus. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

But the site is leaving out the vast majority of content that is in the mainstream, and it is aggregating only the skeptical point of view, which may have been the preponderance of information in 2008 but in the last decade or so, it's changed. I abide by policies and consensus. I'm just skeptical by the consensus and the resistance to updating information to reflect the true picture of content out there.

In addition, I know businesses will write their own wikipedia pages. I edited one for you all, and it was submitted by the company itself. I also saw a post on this platform that someone was suggesting that celebrities are editing their own wikipedia pages. I have not investigated this. But I'm curious to know why there's a labeling of certain pages and not looking at updating information.

Is this something that could be updated? Jalsever (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

For medical topics on Wikipedia, "the mainstream" means only mainstream medicine's reliable publications, according to WP:MEDRS. It has nothing to do with mainstream journalism as a whole.

And when any health claim is made in an article, then the article is automatically a medical topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jalsever "In addition, I know businesses will write their own wikipedia pages. I edited one for you all, and it was submitted by the company itself. I also saw a post on this platform that someone was suggesting that celebrities are editing their own wikipedia pages. I have not investigated this. But I'm curious to know why there's a labeling of certain pages and not looking at updating information.

Is this something that could be updated?"

Most of that is a separate issue from Reiki, and you should start that as a new topic. I don't know what you mean by "labeling of certain pages", unless you are talking about medical-related articles and their standards for sourcing. We DO look at updating information when the sourcing meets the standards that were developed by consensus. David10244 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/correlation/1133_the-distance-between-saturn-and-the-sun_correlates-with_customer-satisfaction-with-hp

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/correlation/2733_the-distance-between-jupiter-and-the-sun_correlates-with_the-number-of-secretaries-in-alaska

In other words, Statistical hypothesis test#Courtroom trial measures how unlikely it is to get such results by mere chance. A statistical significant effect of Reiki never proves Reiki is real. In other words, statistics never proves it is impossible to get significant effects due to mere chance. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

https://manhattan.institute/article/new-study-finds-political-bias-embedded-in-wikipedia-articles Jalsever (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

What has Reiki to do with politics? I'm an adept of Reagan and Thatcher.

I also have a systematic review: Hauptmann, M.; Kutschan, S.; Hübner, J.; Dörfler, J. (2023). "Bioenergy therapies as a complementary treatment: a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of bioenergy therapies in relieving treatment toxicities in patients with cancer". Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 149 (6): 2607–2619. doi:10.1007/s00432-022-04362-x. ISSN 1432-1335. PMC 10129966. PMID 36166091. Retrieved 20 January 2026. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I am letting go now of what I have control over. I have offered suggested edits that represent the updated data and information on the practice. You all do with it what you will. I'm bowing out now. Appreciated the opportunity. Jalsever (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's fine for a company representative to submit a draft for a review by an independent editor as long as they have openly identified themselves as a company representative per the Terms of Use(see WP:PAID). Again, if you have off wiki evidence that an article was written by a company representative that failed to disclose their status as required, we want to know via WP:REPORTPAID. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Consider: "While I was striking that person with a stick, I was thinking bad thoughts; it was my bad thoughts that caused his injuries".

It shows exactly the same faulty reasoning as "While I was kindly paying attention to that person and gently touching him, I was thinking Reiki thoughts; it was my Reiki thoughts that caused him to feel better". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Your comment gave me a mental image of going to a doctor and having him beat me with a stick while thinking kind thoughts. I'm not sure whether that would cure me, or make me worse... David10244 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

poor judgement rejection of South African notable people

I've noticed on the South African wikipedia page that entries on people like Karima Brown have been removed for not being notable enough when she is comparably far more notable in South Africa than many entries on others in other countries. I've had the same experience trying to add an entry on Mark Heywood who is likewise a very famous activist in South Africa. See my draft for details. Yes, I started with AI assistance, but have gone over it so many times it is now 100% my creation. Twice (including the most recent STOP), it was rejected for his not being notable enough. I addressed multiple other rejection reasons and the article is, I believe, of a good enough quality for acceptance.

However, I do believe that this entry being on a South African person is causing different treatment to, say, an even far less notable American.

I'm keen to be an active wikipedia contributor, but this experience has left me rather disappointed. Ayalbelling (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You're confused about the way Wikipedia uses the word "notability". You can't be blamed for that, because Wikipedia has its own twisted definition for that word.

On here, notable means the person's full story is already published, by reliable publishers, without any input from the person themselves (or from their friends or supporters). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ayalbelling To put it another way, 'notability' on Wikipedia is not about whether a person has actually done something significant, but whether appropriate secondary sources have already taken notice of it. Athanelar (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It's better if you think about notability as the extent to which a topic has been noted. Has the media written about this topic? Do independent sources exist?

We have articles on tremendously unimportant topics that nonetheless received substantial media coverage. And there are great and influential people who never make the news. DS (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I hear you. But, for example, in the case of Mark Heywood, the sources are prominent and multiple: Guardian, Al Jazeera, a lifetime achievement award from one of South Africa's most prestigious news organisations. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Heywood.

Hence, not just my claim, but also a discussion about this issue on South African Wikipedia page. Ayalbelling (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ayalbelling Did those prominent sources write their own full-length in-depth "Mark Heywood" stories? Or is he only interviewed, or mentioned in some other story? Interviews and mentions don't count for much.

Awards give nothing to notability on English Wikipedia, unless that award already has its own article on here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

They interviews and mentions on the Guardian and Al Jazeera confirm his being a founder of TAC. That is all they're used for. Being one of the founders of South Africa's most impactful campaigns, makes a person notable. But, honestly, I give up trying so hard. I could go and dig up a thousand people who are far less notable even relatively speaking within their own countries (USA, Germany, UK, you name it). But that seems pointless.

That Heywood article is an example of a well-written, well referenced piece by average wikipedia standards and I would ask that it be put forward to editors in South Africa or perhaps several editors to to see if its rejection is a sign of a systemic anti-global-south bias. Ayalbelling (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain you could find a thousand inappropriate articles. We're only as good as those who choose to help; if you want to identify these articles and nominate them for deletion, you may. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no way that we could guarantee that only South African editors could examine a draft. We don't ask for the nationality of editors; some choose to identify their nationality, but we have no way to know if it is accurate. If a draft or article truly meets the criteria on this global website, the nationality of the editor shouldn't matter. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ayalbelling Wikipedia doesn't use the word "notable" the same way you're using it. I consider that a weak point in Wikipedia's terminology, and I wish we used a different word. But (for an extreme example) if I look for reliable independent material about Einstein, I quickly find 2500 pages of published biographies. Hundreds of pages of biography on Mandela, in addition to reams of newspapers and magazines. Hundreds on Pinochet. These people, with hundreds or thousands of pages of reliable publicly-available material, are relatively easy to put together an article about. But go to libraries, newspaper archives, bookstores, and look for me: nothing. Not one page anywhere. They're notable. I'm not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation! There is, for example, a wealth of material interviewing Heywood and about Heywood as founder on, for example, the Treatment Action Campaign website, or Corruption Watch (South Africa) and other orgs like Section27 which don't yet have a website but are in the layman's sense very notable in South Africa so should have their own wikipedia page.

Shouldn't references about his founding Treatment Action Campaign and Corruption Watch help, combined with the fact that he has the lifetime achievement award from another entity with a wikipedia page, Daily Maverick, push him over the wikipedia notable threshold?

If so, and there's simply an issue with the references given in the existing draft, might you be able to suggest how better to reference his notability? Ayalbelling (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The Maverick can not be used to determine notability, as Mark Heywood is an editor of it, though it may still be used as per WP:ABOUTSELF. The Guardian and Al Jazeera are generally regarded as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and most editors would be familiar with them. The other sources are all South African specific sources which most editors are likely unfamiliar with, and may not know if they are reliable or not. GroundUp is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable South African Sources (a page of WikiProject South Africa), SA Good News and The Witness do not appear to have a mention on the page. I think that finding references from some more sources deemed reliable, either amongst the sources recognised as reliable South African sources or at the reliable perennial sources page WP:RSP.

Make sure to read the comments left by the reviewers, as well as help pages. I recommend you check out WP:REFB, and the information pages linked to in this comment. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Old Accounts

Do accounts that go for many years without activity get deleted?

I remember having an account a very long time ago (like from 2006 or 2007) which I, for various reasons, discontinued using. It wasn’t anything to do with a block or ban.. I just stopped editing.

Would that old account still be in existence, or because of the LONG period of inactivity would it be deleted/removed ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Deleting accounts is not possible for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. So- yes, your old account is still in existence. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I’m trying to find my old account, but I’m not successful so far. It’s embarrassing but I honestly can’t remember my username from all that time ago.

I’m trying to go through the edit history pages of articles I think I remember editing to find myself. But it’s a needle a Haystack. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to log into your old account or to find something you wrote? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears they want to log into their old account. Perhaps there is a way for them to ask an admin to check his TA’s IP and then match it to another account’s IP which (if the user still has the same IP from 20 years ago) would work to retrieve his account, apart from that I would say it would be hard to retrieve the account without knowing the username, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware checkusers can only see 90 days into the past. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case, access to the old email address to get a temporary password will also be needed. Maybe check that email address's inbox and archives to see if there are any old messages from Wikipedia or editors? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, and forgive me for my late reply I’ve been exceptionally busy.

I’ve done a lot of thinking and I am 100% certain my old username included part of my name “TigerTaylor” or TaylorTiger” followed by some numbers.

Somebody has already mentioned on here that old accounts (with long term inactivity) still do not get shut down.. but is that always accurate?

Throughout 2006 and 2007 I made hundreds of edits on various Pages related to British military history, the Renaissance, religion, music, political figures, and several other topics I have an interest in.

I remember getting thank yous from other editors for the articles I edited.. and some of the work was a collaborative effort with myself and couple of others working together.

I’m going through the edit history pages of all the articles I would’ve contributed to BUT I can’t find my name anywhere. Which is why I’m wondering if maybe the account had been closed and/or deleted.

I’m not giving up. I’m still looking.. I’d love to find my old account from 20 years ago and make a return. But if it’s not possible I’ll let it go. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If you can remember the beginning of your username, you can look it up here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&offset=&limit=500

Do you remember specific articles that you edited and specific things that you added? If so, you can search their histories here:

https://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: “do i want to log in to my old account or find something I wrote?” .. A bit of both really. It started out as the latter.. but now the former has got into my head. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a user:Tigertaylorwood48, and a user:Tigertaylor, but neither has done a lot of editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

How to add an article about a specialiced service that is used by National libraries, but not covered in enough in "reliable resources" meeting wikipedia's criterias?

Hi dear wikipedia team,

This is about how to add an article about the "TANGO-DJ.AT Database" which is the world's largest digital accessible tango archive and database. It is used as resource for meta data information of tango recordings by National libraries and many tango collectors and tango-djs. Because it is the only service worldwide where it is possible to compare individual tango transfers with each other, which enables to verify a given recording and compare the qualities of releases.

I am the founder of the association running the database and I disclosed that accordingly. And I think limited every statement of the draft to very neutral facts about the database.

Seeing that National libraries as well as plenty of the most specialized people in tango in the world are using this database as reference for tango recordings, I feel that a wikipedia article covering the most basic existence would be appropriate. However there is little to no coverage in books or papers. There has been an article in info7, a specialized magazin for media and archives - which obviously is not enough, as the draft was not accepted due to the lack of multiple independent sources.

The database is mentioned a lot in various blogs and social postings of tango collectors and tango-djs, but I understand that those don't meet the requirements.

The problem seems to be that the work with tango recordings itself is done by a very small community and there is hardly any source which seems to fit the requirements wikipedia asks for adding a new article.

I just find it a bit of a contradiction, that on one hand this resource is used as source of information by National libraries, but is rejected by wikipedia, because there is no coverage in a book or alike. And my experience with some public information of independet coverage of topics can be less than precise and reliable if not researched properly. I regularly find erros in tango books with the help of this database. So in many times to reliability is even the other way around!

Is there a way to create an article in this circumstance for this highly specialized database, which is used and recommended by professionals and tango aficionados alike, but doesn't make it into wikipedia?

best regards,

Bernhard BeG42 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems like the kind of resource that, if as significant as you make it out to be, should be covered in scholarly literature. I would recommend looking through databases of academic publications on dance to find relevant sources. You should also make sure to comply with our conflict of interest guideline before resubmitting an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I’d also consider WP:JOURNALCRIT which covers vital journals that don’t have much written on the journals themselves. If so little is written about it, it won’t be much more than a stub even if notable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your fast replies! (and also regarding the article itself - even if not accepted - the decision came very fast..:)

The unique nature and importance of this database is about the various tranfers of tango recordings. I am afraid there are hardly any journals working on comparing the quality of tango transfers/releases. So I am not sure it is mentioned therefore in such.

And I am sorry, but I don't understand "it won’t be much more than a stub even if notable."

Does this mean that unless mentioned in some scientific journals, there is no possibility to be added to wikipedia? BeG42 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, a "stub" is a very very short article - sometimes only one or two sentences. Because we can only summarize what other people say about subjects, if there's not much to say then the article will have to stay small.

Your sources don't have to be scientific journals, but they do need to be reliable and independent. Read through the policy Shushugah linked, WP:JOURNALCRIT, for more information on what you are looking for. Meadowlark (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

thx for your explanation.

I was considering my draft almost like this. My thinking was, that I started to add pieces of tango information based on the database to relevant articles referecing to the database. And in case users wonder what is this database being referenced to, it would make sense to have a short article about it, just stating the most basic facts about it. BeG42 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I see, thank you.

I think I did that by declaring my relation to it as asked for? BeG42 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

"Notability" isn't the same thing as "importance". "Notability" is "the extent to which a topic has been noted". Are there sources we can use that are more than just "this is what the founder of the association says about their database"?

That said, this might go on our sibling project Wikidata. And, depending on whether we already have entries on tango recordings, it might become the basis of a property. DS (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. thank you. It's also a bit tricky for me as 1. English is not my native language and 2. new to contributing to wikipedia at all.. So I try my best, but I am not used to all the termininology yet..

It also probably doesn't help that full access is limited to supporting members, so the majority probably doesn't bother and looks for less quality stuff which available for free. Sadly a common thing in the tango community..

I will try to get in touch with the people at the libraries and look out for mentioning in other/more publications in order to find more sources which might be working for wikipedia too.. BeG42 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding COI disclosure, looks like you have made an effort to disclose it in an up front manner (I should have acknowledged that, mea culpa), although I would suggest that the disclosure on the draft would go best at Draft talk:TANGO-DJ.AT Database, using the {{Connected contributor}} template. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

BeG42, having a separate article devoted to a topic is not the only way that information can be added to Wikipedia. One possibility is that a properly referenced section about the database can be added to Tango music. Then, a redirect can be created. That means that any reader searching for information about TANGO-DJ.AT would end up at that section of the Tango music article. If additional reliable sources cover the database in the future, then perhaps a separate article could be created at that time. You should make a formal Edit request at Talk: Tango music that would then be evaluated by an experienced uninvolved editor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for acknogledging, but as I pointed out, I am very inexperienced in the way this works here. So I try my best to stay as neutral and as transparent as possible. I am working for 30 years in argentine tango and I know all the resources available, I do not exagerate with my statements.

Thank you also for the suggestion to add references to tango related articles. However the suggested article "Tango music" is actually quite a big mess. Part of the problem here I think is based in the fact that there is very different tango music (European standard tango and Argentine tango which to some extend are almost opposing. Which also shows in the contradicting and "editing wars" going on in that article. So many statements there are so much less based on any references than the few facts I tried to mention about the database..

I did start to contribute bits of tango information being unique to the extend of the database in more specialized existing articles, like argentine tango orchestras and artists, where the content of this database can contribute so much to the quality and information of those specialized tango articles.

Any yet, it seems almost impossible to just state some very neutral and obvious facts about the database as independet article for it. But I understand and except the guidlines. I guess it's just a matter of time.. I personally just feel it would contribute to the quality and extend of wikipedia to have coverage of such a resource. BeG42 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Everyone feels that their information would contribute to the quality and extent of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to throw all of the world's information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I see, but at the same time - when I take a look at references being used in plenty of tango articles, it's less than reliable and in many cases even not existing sources...

At the same time, facts based on 30 years of experience and reserach don't make it in.. BeG42 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I did start a talk about TANGO-DJ.AT Database and I hope I included the {{Connected contributor}} correctly?

I work with argentine tango recordings for 30 years professionally, so I am happy to help with any information about it. I really think it would be a good addition to wikipedia and I'd love some experienced editor to decide to take a look at it. BeG42 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If it has been published in reliable secondary sources, we'd be happy to take a look. But if you have this information because it's your personal experience, Wikipedia won't even look at it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@BeG42 You want to make an article about that database, correct? You're not trying to use the database as a source for another article, right?

As others have said, if sources have published articles about this database, and not just used this database, those sources could be the basis for you to make an article about the database. I hope this makes sense! David10244 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That was the idea. There has been an extensive article published in info7 a specialized established magazin for media and archives which was edited by an independent editor of that magazin. I cited and referenced to this article, but I guess that isn't/wasn't enough and I am currently not aware of other publications who wrote about it. (other than tango dj blogs and collectors) ~2026-49798-5 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Dispute over Werner Klemperer topic

Hello!

After adding an update about actor Werner Klemperer with verified source link as evidence, a user named FlightTime promptly deleted it with the comment that it was nonsense. First, my understanding of Wikipedia dispute guidelines is to be polite, civil, and not personal. Also to avoid deletions as a first reaction, it is recommended to attempt compromise on the update if there is a disagreement. This is not what happened.

Since I believe my update is accurate and verifiable, please advise how to proceed. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user.

Regards,

Richard8666

RF8666 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RF8666. Your addition to the article was not appropriate, considering your addition is not verified by the source you gave. The reversion was correct. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY qcne (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The reference I gave did confirm the update. I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. And what about how my update was handled? Immediately deleted and labeled nonsense? Is this how the Guidelines recommend be processed for disagreements, especially new users? I understood friendly discussion first before deletion with attempt to compromise. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

For biographic articles we do delete harmful additions without warning or discussion. qcne (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not find the word "prose" in either reference provided. How hard would it be for you to simply give a brief 1 or 2 sentence update on what prose means? I really find you to be unhelpful and somewhat rude. I'm about ready to give up on Wikipedia as a friendly information environment where users can share information and discuss disagreements in a collegial way. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you have two user accounts? I did not mention the word prose, so I do not know what you are referring to. qcne (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

My original account is very old and was deleted on the cable provider's server. As a result, the associated email for user versification by Wikipedia was deleted as well. So I had to create a new account with an email to work for Wikipedia verification.

Regarding my prose comment, I was replying to FliteTime who is the user who is deleting my article update. I meant it for him and mistakenly sent it to you. Sorry for the confusion. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rfischer8655 You have two user accounts, and one was deleted? You were able to post using one account at 19:10 on 21 January. Then at 19:53, 43 minutes later, you posted with a different account and said the first account is very old and was deleted. And that account being deleted caused your associated email address to be deleted?

That does not make sense.

Wikipedia accounts don't get deleted by a cable provider.

And even if a Wikipedia account were to somehow be deleted (which is not possible by anyone), that would not cause the email address linked to that account to be deleted.

You have posted here in quick succession using two accounts. I don't see how one of them was "lost". Can you explain that any better? David10244 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rfischer8655 @RF8666 I don't intend to be rude, but your comment about your accounts was confusing. David10244 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The 2 accounts is because I hadn't logged into the original for many years, and could not remember the password. It just seemed more expedient to create a new one as I'm rarely active on Wikipedia. You were not rude, it was a user named FlightTime who repeatedly deleted my small update calling it "ridiculous". He would not engage with me to discuss politely, so I came here ( Teatime) for help. My update was based on a linked reference (newspaper interview with the article subject), and the context of the article was based on that interview. I basically gave up as it seemed this user had a bias, and seemed to think my update was a criticism of the article's subject. Long story short. Rfischer8655 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Should the Chief Executive's name be included in an organization's article?

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a policy on trivial or irrelevant facts, and our articles are full of them. Articles on publicly traded corporations always include the CEOs name, and sometimes those of previous executives. Are hospitals different? The chief executive does not control how medicine is practiced or how research is done. This COI editor has asked to include the name of the president of a large medical system, which includes a hospital, research institutions and local doctors' offices that display the hospital's name. Many other large hospitals do not have this in their articles. Is it relevant?

Talk:Cedars-Sinai Medical Center#Update History with new leadership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danilo_Two Julian in LA (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If this particular CEO has been covered by name extensively enough in independent reliable sources for things they did, or for things that happened "on their watch", it would be wrong to not include that material. But if not? Then I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the press reported that a major earthquake struck on his first day on the job. Yes, he had a lot to do, but nobody said the recovery was more or less successful because of his deft touch. Julian in LA (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Over the years, I've had some hectic first days on a new job, but nothing as bad as that! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You imply that simply being written up in the newspaper as the new or the outgoing chief, along with a profile, doesn't merit inclusion. I know, of course, that it lends notability for the chief's bio page and can be included there. Julian in LA (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't have an unequivocal response yet. Julian in LA (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with my Wikipedia page

I've been working on my very first Wikipedia page (About the game "Die of Death" from the ROBLOX platform) for a while now, but now that I'm nearly the later stages for it, I'm a little concerned:

How do I change the name of the Wikipedia draft/page?
It's currently just "Die of Death", but I thought it would be more useful to rename it to "Die of Death (Roblox game)", or something of that like.

Any help, whether it be about the problem itself this message is about, or making the Wikipedia in general, is greatly appreciated!
Hope to get the page done sometime soon. Kaidigger3 (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For some well needed context: I am PAINFULLY new to Wikipedia. I don't really understand all that much, (Though, I did do my best to read all the various Wikipedia etiquette.) and only originally started this project as a joke.

If anyone would like to help me out, whether it be reading my draft (Please, tell me how to, though.), giving me advice for writing, or even just teaching me a tip or two about techniques or etiquette, feel fully free! I hope to get into the community, and thought this place was good to start. Kaidigger3 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kaidigger3. First some good news: the title of most Wikipedia pages can be change as explained in WP:MOVE, but I don't think you should worry about that too much now because what you're working on (Draft:Die of Death) is still just a draft. The final title of page can be sorted out if the draft gets accepted as an article.

Now some not so good news: while I'm quite sure you've been working hard on your draft, but there's still quite a lot work to be done because right now this draft has pretty much zero chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article. My suggestion to you, assuming you're asking about a video game, is to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games because that's where you're going to find WP:WIKIPEDIANs experienced in creating and editing articles about video games. One of the members of that WikiProject can probably give you a good assessment of whether the game is Wikipedia notable, which is going to need be clearly demonstrated for any article about the game to be created by anyone. If the game does turn out to be Wikipedia notable, then perhaps the members of that WikiProject can provide you with advice on how to further improve the draft to bring it more inline with Wikipedia's standards.

Finally, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference. Wikipedia can be very different from other similar Wiki sites you might be used to in that it's really only intended to be for content that is seen have encylopedic value to Wikipedia's readers; it's not intended to be a free web host for one to post their own original research, fan pages or other types of personal projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It feels painful working on something for over a month, first as a joke, then as a hobby, and actually starting to enjoy it, only to get beaten down by 4 people OVERNIGHT... but I understand all of it was with factual information.
Regardless, thank you numerous times over for taking the time and energy to practically write an entire paragraph just to help one person out. It helps so many more times over than it hurts. Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kaidigger3 Article creation is, ironically, about one of the worst ways you could've picked to introduce yourself to Wikipedia. It's an extremely complex task which requires a solid understanding of a lot of policies and guidelines. Your draft for example currently shows no indication the topic is notable, and furthermore is written more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia article.

I want to wish you a very, very warm welcome to Wikipedia and politely suggest you get started with contributing in smaller ways for a while before you try your hand at article creation. Athanelar (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit, I never really expected it to progress this far, but I appreciate your advice as much as any other person's. Thank you! Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kaidigger3 I don’t want to discourage you but the whole format you have your draft in now will cause it most likely to be declined, it reads too much like a children’s gaming magazine/website as opposed to an encyclopaedia entry, I suggest you take a look at other articles on video games to get a flavour for how they are set out, secondly I suggest you find better sources because Fandom Wikis aren’t seen as reliable on Wikipedia. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

When you point it out, I can definitely see your point on formatting. As for the Fandom situation, it's a bit... complex to figure out. Besides Fandom, there aren't really any other sources, and the ones that do exist are sketchier than my Draft itself (No offense to their creators).

And the worst part, probably, there's not really many other alternatives. As I personally learned the hard way, I can't even use the game link itself as a reference, for a reader to theoretically go check it themselves. So, unless I'm going to link a highly popular YouTube video, which I doubt would even be accepted, let alone be found reliable, I... don't really have any alternatives. Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to find gaming articles (from reliable sources) or in a worse case add it to the list of Roblox games (and perhaps you could put a lengthy description with proper sources), I’m not well versed in Roblox so I’m unaware of how many sources there are and how many other people have spoken about it (in secondary reliable sources like news articles), but with topics about games within video games in-depth and secondary articles may be harder to find than just for the game itself (it’s easier to write an article on Minecraft than the server Cubecraft for example) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaidigger3, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This may not be what you want to hear, but: 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) 17:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit it... despite reading pretty much an official version of your exact first sentence, it never clicked for it to apply to me. It makes perfect sense for it to, though. Thank you for the advice, as much as everyone else here! Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Date and english type template -reg..

Can the date and english template used in various article's dates are can be changed periodically to current one or it should reflect when it is created.. Spbvj (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to do. But if you're asking about changing the date written for when the template was added to the page, no you can't change it ever. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Once again, you are giving incorrect advice.

Templates like {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}} regularly have their dates updated. The latter's documentation, for example, defines the |date= parameter as "The month and year that the template was last spell-checked for compliance with this dialect of English." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I was confused by the question too. Is the question about the date inside the template? I don't know if it means the date the template was added, as assumed by an answer below -- in which case that date should not be changed. Or, if it means something else, in which case Andy's somewhat rude reply might be right.

If the date means "date template added", then no, @Spbvj, that date shoukd not be updated. @Pigsonthewing, why would those dates in a template be updated? Or is it easy to misunderstand wthe template parms? David10244 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where you believe I was rude; and to read the documentation to which I referred, and which I quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing "Once again, you are giving incorrect advice" was rude. David10244 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It was a neutrality-worded, factually-correct statement, as can easily be verified by looking at the number of corrections I and others have had to make to TooManyFingers' answers on this page in recent days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given An anonymous username, not my real name left a question on your user talk after undoing your changing the date in {{Use Indian English}} to July 2025 just yesterday at Nohkalikai Falls, I just wouldn't touch those templates because it doesn't really improve an article for the readers. As a general note, the only time I've ever seen the date changed is after someone has checked all the dates, and even so, rarely does someone bother to "update" the date parameter of those templates. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

(maybe) Ñot an edit conflict;I had this doubt when i create account in wikipedia and someone tolds me to my email inbox change dates year by year as so it somehow helps the bot to crawl and analyse articles..that's why ... Spbvj (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

HiSpbvj. It's not really a case of not ever being able to change those dates per se, but rather there's really no imperative to do so. The original date actually provides a sort of reference as to how long the article has been tagged as such, which might be useful information in some cases. So, in a sense, there's no need to "fix" something that isn't broke. You may, however, initiate a discussion on the article's talk as to whether such a template is really appropriate for the subject of the article, and perhaps out of that discussion a consensus will be reached to update the date; however, there's really no need to go on a template date updating binge just for the sake of doing so. I've come across such binges in the past; they've always been contentious and ended up achieving nothing other than wasting the time and energy of everyone involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Where do I ask questions at Commons?

I'm not exactly sure where to ask questions about this, OliviaRigby (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @OliviaRigby. I believe Commons:Help desk is what you're looking for. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know where to look. OliviaRigby (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have now created redirects for suitable pages on Commons and Wikidata, and interwiki-linked them to this page, so they appear in the (default) sidebar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. That would help anyone who has a similar question to mine. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Capitalisation of centuries

Is it 'nineteenth century', 'Nineteenth Century', or one but not the other? I've seen it written as both, and MOS:CAPS doesn't seem to say anything about it. Thanks, Beller0ph0n42 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is a common noun so there is usually no need to capitalize it, but context is everything. Where have you seen it capitalized? Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

"19th century", Beller0ph0n42, other than when quoting something different. Or of course when it's attributive, whereupon it gets a hyphen ("19th-century novels"). -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of exceptions to Hoary's advice. It's only capitalized when it's part of a title, or a literal quotation from someone who used capitals. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, @Hoary But is that 19 capitalized? David10244 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You use a capital 1, if it's the beginning of a sentence. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You would, if it were. But it wouldn't be, because of the widespread typographic aversion to starting sentences with numerals. (This minor matter is probably dealt with somewhere within WP's beloved manual of style.) The question is rather: Where we use lowercase numerals, should they be text figures or lining figures? -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:NUMNOTES for Wikipedia's guidance regarding begining senteces with a numeral. As side note, I don't I've ever heard of a capital 1, except perhaps as Capital One. You can capitalize the first letter in the word "one" but you can't capitalize the number "1". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Well, it was sarcasm. But, you could make the 1 taller! David10244 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A question about adding a producer credit to an album article

in December of last year, i made an edit to the article for the album “Uta's Songs: One Piece Film Red,” and in January of this year it was reverted without an explanation why.

a bit of context beforehand: Fake Type is a duo made up of a lyricist/vocalist (Tophamhat-kyo) and a producer/arranger (Dyes Iwasaki). the two wrote and produced “Fleeting Lullaby” for the aforementioned Uta’s Songs album.

in the album's article, Tophamhat-kyo is credited as the lyricist for Fleeting Lullaby, and Fake Type is credited as the song’s producer, unintentionally implying that they are two separate artists. i figured i would fix this by crediting Dyes Iwasaki where applicable. but a week ago, the edit was reverted without explanation. did i do something wrong in editing it? is there maybe a more formal process for crediting a person on an album article that i'm not aware of? Spilogale Putorius (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Spilogale Putorius, on Talk:Uta's Songs: One Piece Film Red, ask -Verso- about their reversion. -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A reason I can think of off the top of my head: maybe the other editor wants the credits to literally conform to the way they're given in the source being used, even if it creates this kind of situation. If it's that, then in my opinion both of you are correct, and it shouldn't be too hard to solve. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

now that you mention the way the credits are given in the source...i'm looking a little closer and noticing that across a few different streaming services, Dyes Iwasaki is credited, but he's not credited as the producer for the song.

source 28 on the article (Apple Music) appears to currently list Dyes Iwasaki as the composer on its credits page. source 30 (Tidal) has the producer listed as Fake Type, and Dyes Iwasaki is listed as the recording arranger, which does make sense. his jazz-styled songs are mostly played by live instruments, with a few electronic elements here and there.

now that i've considered the details of Dyes' role in the song-as well as the fact that i've just now noticed he is credited in the personnel page as a recording arranger-i can definitely see why the edit was reverted. my apologies for the silliness. Spilogale Putorius (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF reminds everyone to assume that the other person is acting in good faith - but your actions in this case were so obviously done in good faith that nobody needs to do any assuming about you. OK, you made a mistake at first, but you did the right thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Need help for move

Hello everyone before working on any sensitive topics, I started by creating fictional character articles. First i worked on Champaklal Jayantilal Gada, and now I have created Draft:Taarak Mehta

I wanted to ask if this approach is okay?? Also i m unable to move Draft:Taarak Mehta to the mainspace. Could someone please explain why the page move option is not available and what steps I should follow next? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been submitted for review, please let this process play out. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Before submitting i am getting trouble for move why?? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You're not in trouble, but you need to slow down. There's a very good reason for an inexperienced editor to submit to AFC first rather than moving the articles themselves: if the article isn't up to snuff, it can very quickly WP:AFD. As it stands, Taarak Mehta is in poor shape: you've provided little significant coverage about the character to demonstrate notability of the character himself. You've also used cites that aren't connected at all with the actual content you added. Some of the sources aren't independent, and the prose style looks like it was written by an LLM. I don't think this article would survive AFD. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, "AFD" means the discussion where bad articles get deleted. WP:AFD has more information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I understood 👍 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gujarat Samachar, 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.

Unless you can find several reliable sources, wholly unconnected with anybody involved in the series, and about the character (not the actor or the series), then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gujarat Samachar, I have just returned your first article to draftspace; you can find it at Draft:Champaklal Jayantilal Gada. You don't have any good sources to show that this character qualifies for a Wikipedia article. At the moment people are being kind and just sending your articles to draftspace - the other option is that we could send them to WP:AFD, and if they were deleted it would be much harder to create them again. Can I suggest you use the Articles for Creation process for all your work until you have a better idea of what can have a Wikipedia article and what can't? You can spend as long as you want working on drafts with no risk of deletion, and reviewers will help you understand any problems with your draft. Meadowlark (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

How to add images as PROOF for BLP?

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.

---

So I'm writing an Olympian's Wikipedia page, and a lot of new facts that are available are verifiable via old images (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos). The athlete retired in 1990s so there's very little public record for most of her achievements. Despite that I've managed to find enough sources for significant additions (which I will include in references for editors to verify).

I am fully aware that everything I add has to be BLP safe and ChatGPT is helping me follow BLP to the T (in terms of writing tone and notability/reliability + verification of sources)!

My only obstacle that remains is verifying her awards and recognition credentials. I am not including many of these new awards as I can't find the proof to back them up. SOME OF THEM, however, do have credible IMAGES as proofs (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos from the 1980s and 1990s). ChatGPT told me to add them as sources, there is separate process where the subject has to confirm the authenticity and copyright of these images to a ticket to Wikimedia (and release the copyright to public domain).

Can anyone guide me to the documentation for this process or share their personal experience in this regard? FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC) EDIT: All the sources that I have added in my WIP article so far ARE publicly verifiable. I want to add more via images that can be released voluntarily by the subject and I am asking for process of that. I understand and respect the sanctity of Wikipedia and I won't violate that. I certainly have no intention of doing that, I am a new user here and I do not want to invite a ban in my first year. Having said that, the photos I am adding are genuine, not AI generated, and can be released to the public domain by the subject of the article. I AM JUST requesting a process for that.

AS FOR USAGE OF CHATGPT, I have kept the language and rules pretty strict. So far it is doing a great job. I am not against AI, I use it frequently in my own core work (as a B2B SaaS writer). I know how to not use it and how to use it in the correct way. I have trained it on Wikipedia's own BLP standard. I do not appreciate editors here telling me to not use Chatgpt, how I write is my prerogative. As long as the tone suits Wikipedia and the facts follow Wikipedia BLP guideline, I will submit it and provide corrections based on what editors ask for.

FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. First, stop using ChatGPT. It actually does a poor job of writing here

The sources of your information need to be publicly accessible, such as a book in a library. Photographs of documents in your personal hands wouldn't be acceptable. If these materials are publicly available, you don't need to provide photos for that purpose, you just need to write out a citation providing enough information for someone to locate the source(publisher, publication date, author, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@FrustratedGamer0909 Please read WP:NEWLLM and abandon ChatGPT.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Did this person just appear in the Olympics, or did they medal? 331dot (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Team event, team scored no. 4, they were vice captain FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: some of the sources:

They are from the pre-internet era. The Olympian retired before most of her accolades could be digitized, online news media sites came very late in our country (certainly later than the West, I'd say). So only a part of the facts are verifiable via online sources. certain facts however are physical newspaper/magazine CUTOUTS from her era and her pics of trophies/award booklets from the official events. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FrustratedGamer0909. In the case of a photo of a newspaper article, you should just cite the article itself. Sources don't need to be available online, so long as they're published, so citing a print newspaper is fine and you don't need a photo of the source to do that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The articles are not available online. They are from the pre-internet era. The Olympian retired before most of her accolades could be digitized, online news media sites came very late in our country (certainly later than the West, I'd say). So only a part of the facts are verifiable via online sources. certain facts however are physical newspaper/magazine CUTOUTS from her era and her pics of trophies/award booklets from the official events. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Then just cite the offline sources. We don't care if a source is online; we fully accept offline sources if properly cited with enough information to look the source up in a library or archive. (For periodicals we need the publication name, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1926), article name, article byline, and page(s) the article is on. For books we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC #.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have cutouts from the news and you don't know which paper they come from, those can't be used for anything on Wikipedia. But if you can find out the exact answers, like "this one comes from page 5 of the 1976-07-15 issue of [name of paper]", THEN you can just tell where it came from - the photo isn't needed.

This means Wikipedia readers who want to see the proof might have to spend a lot of time (and maybe money) to search for some copy of that paper, but this is considered OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "Sources don't need to be available online". See WP:SOURCEACCESS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

So far this has been the most useful thread, thank you! FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

AS FOR USAGE OF CHATGPT, I have kept the language and rules pretty strict.

That doesn't help. Please just don't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not appreciate editors here telling me to not use Chatgpt

Sorry, it's a Wikipedia standard. Take solace in the fact that EVERYBODY is affected by this rule. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You are not allowed to use ChatGPT to write on Wikipedia. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand everybody's concern. Unfortunately, I am unable to fully convince people at this time how chatgpt is doing a reasonable or at least acceptable job for me. It helps me research sources, that is the primary source. If it can't find it, I've instructed to tell me as is. And any link it generates, I go down and examine it deeply before I use it. Besides, I can't open 10 tabs to find resource. Being ADHD, that setup would kill my productivity. So chatgpt is more of an accessibility tool and a personal accomodation for me. My use is fully aware and fully responsible. Unfortunately, people here are pretty black and white about AI - and I can't help with that. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have ADHD also, and I can assure you from long experience that if we need any machine to help us, an ultra-high-speed bullshit generator is not it. I already DO generate high-speed bullshit.

What you're pushing so hard for is an "absolutely insane accommodation", not a reasonable one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You do not define what's accomodation for me. I decide it. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Accommodation" that consistently and demonstrably makes you perform worse at the task that it's supposed to be supporting, is not included in that. Your request is like a factory worker requesting to use a machine that works faster and has simpler controls but always outputs faulty products. Not legitimate. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

lol. Talk about yourself mate. I have been using it for almost 2 years now. Mine works well for me. It's almost like the clanker likes being treated like a human being. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You think an artificial intelligence likes being treated like a human being? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 06:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Only a little, I see most people using chatgpt like it's a clanker who won't understand some complex prompts.. I only see fixed structured prompts... I instead use free sentences as my prompts... I actually use it as a chat while keeping in my where my strength starts and where the bot's strengths stop... I am also mindful of noting where its strengths can cover for my strengths...

And most importantly, I am not a copy paste writer... that's what most people here seem to think about my chatgpt use... coz maybe that's how they use it... ChatGPT output is a bridge half done... you use your skills to bridge the other half to what you actually need...

I have been writing since I was 18 years old, since end of 2008.... I am 35 and I am not insecure about my skills as a writer... FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I actually use it as a chat while keeping in mind* my where my strength starts and where the bot's strengths stop... I am also mindful of noting where its strengths can cover for my weaknesses*... FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You THINK it works well for you. This is only wishful thinking - unless it's something worse than wishful thinking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. I really don't care about your thoughts about my skill. I am not insecure about my skill as a writer. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Talking about legitimate like he thinks he's an admin FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Just give it up. No amount of complaining is going to change WP policy. Also, from one ADHD to another, just work on stuff you’re interested in and DON’T USE AI TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not using AI to do my work for me. I am using AI as my assistant and I am not insecure about my own skills as a writer.

And I don't care about what the community here thinks or what the policy here is. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Glitch

I can't edit my talk page nor reply. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

On mobile, I've had trouble replying. I switched to desktop view to make this reply. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like your edit is being disallowed, as your talk page is unprotected and there's nothing in the edit filter. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A black popup appeared when I tried to reply on your test message. When I tried to edit the page as whole, it kind of started to shake violently.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That is truly strange. How are you accessing the site and do you have any user scripts or gadgets enabled? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have twinkle enabled. I tried to reply to the section above the test one but I failed so I wrote the reply in another section and coypasted it. I checked now and noticed the black popup appearing for me in talk pages of other articles but not all.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that there might be some kind of lag reduction thing going on. Is it ok if I archive some of the old messages on your talk page? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I would very grateful.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This mobile reply seems to be working. The problem appears to be maybe intermittent and involve a lag, [speculation alert] as if something somewhere was overloaded and barely keeping up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the message in the black popup: Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m getting the same glitch Mikewem (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s only coming up when I try to reply to the initial message in any thread. It seems I can reply to replies Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

is it on your personal talk page? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m getting the glitch message on every initial comment on every thread on every talk page Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think thats a different glitch, Moriarty's issue was only on their talk page, and we just solved it by archiving some messages. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Moriarty replied to a reply, not to your initial comment in the thread Mikewem (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a bug with a change to heading markup on mobile. More details on the village pump. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is fixed now. Thank you! Mikewem (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm new!

sock

What should I do on Wikipedia? AmazingWikis1000 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AmazingWikis1000, and welcome to Wikipedia! To learn about editing Wikipedia, I'd suggest you read the introduction to editing, or play The Wikipedia Adventure. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ChronicleBooks885. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hartford Medical Society

I am trying to update the entry but cannot figure out how to change the citations HMS President (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @HMS President, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, I will observe that if "HMS President" means that you are president of the Hartford Medical Society, then you have a conflict of interest (please read that link) and should not be editing the article directly - you are welcome to make edit requests, but somebody unconnected should make the decision about such edits.

Second, role accounts are not permitted. All editor accounts are personal, and may not be shared; and their names must not suggest that they represent an organisation. Since you have only just created the account, it would be easiest (rather than going through the process of renaming) if you simply abandoned that account and created a new one. A name like "(your name) at HMS" would be acceptable - or you can use a pseudonym (I am relatively rare in using my own name).

Finally, to get to your question: references are displayed in the "Reference" section, but they are defined at the point in the text where they are (first) cited; so to edit a citation, you edit the paragraph or section where the little number appears. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice on revising AfC draft after decline

Hello! I am looking for advice before resubmitting a declined AfC draft. The draft was declined with feedback that the writing style resembles LLM-generated content. I want to address that in the correct way and then rebuild the article in a way that clearly shows a sourced summary. Would anyone be willing to look at the current draft and suggest what I would need to change in the structure or style in order to improve its chances? StuartLothEditor (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @StuartLothEditor. the draft reads to me like it was made by an AI. Even if not, it reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. An entire rewrite with content coming strictly from the sources you have may suffice. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

StuartLothEditor. This is about Draft:Stuart Loth. Your draft makes no plausible claim of notability for this person. The sources that you reference are of low quality and seem to be more about Loth's projects than significant, in-depth coverage about Loth as a person. If you are Loth, you should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which explains that autobiographical writing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you are being compensated by Loth in any way, you must comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. That is helpful. I will reassess the sourcing and structure to make sure the draft reflects independent coverage about the subject rather than a resume style summary of the projects. StuartLothEditor (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft Declined: Axl Protocol

Hello everyone,

I wrote my first article, Draft:Axl Protocol, it was declined. First to be clear there is a COI for this draft as I am a member of Axl Protocol. I feel like it would be worthy of Wikipedia, however, even though I know a lot about the subject I cannot write as much as I would like to about the subject, because first-hand knowledge is hard to cite independent sources for. So, I tried to write what about what information I could find or infer from what is publicly available information like release data, but this results in my article being mostly a discography, I know that there are several artists on Wikipedia with discographies, but those artists have more than just that. Beyond released music and social media I don't think there is much more I can add to the article.

The article was declined on the basis of lake of independent sources (which beyond release data is accurate) and reads like and advertisement (which is not what I was going for but I only have release data to go on, as first-hand knowledge is not citable.) I do not know what to do, should I rewrite what I have? or should I wait until there is more significant independent sources for the material? I know I was planning on doing video interviews where ChatGPT voice mode would interview me about my music, but I feel like that would still not qualify as independent as the interview would be conducted by an AI under my control, and published on my YouTube account, which would fail the independent source requirement.

I already see why this writing about yourself or subject you are involved in is discouraged. I am interested in advice about how to move forward or whether or not I should abandon this idea.

Thanks in advance. DarkDhamon (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Interviews do not contribute to notability, as that is not an independent source, being you speaking about yourself/your project.

If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this, there is no chance an article will be accepted at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the information DarkDhamon (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @DarkDhamon. The first thing you should do before even attempting to write an article is to make sure that the subject is notable, i.e., worthy of an article. All of your sources are lackluster. A rewrite to the text is worthless without sources. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but I understand. DarkDhamon (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello - I've tried to be bold & delete a redirect, but don't really know what I'm doing. I also tried to list this as a technical request to change the redirect, but also couldn't do that. 'Sarah Hillary' redirected to Sarah Hilary. I thought this was unnecessary, as Sarah Hillary is notable in her own right and has a page. A hatnote on both pages, pointing to the other is what is needed here (and I'll do this in due course). Could someone please look at the redirect. Thank you. Blackballnz (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sarah Hillary should not and does not redirect to Sarah Hilary; each article had a hatnote when I first saw it, but as this hatnote seemed the least helpful among the options available, I changed it to something I think is more helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

PS However, Sara Hillary redirects to Sarah Hilary. This is thanks to Roman Spinner, who commented Redirecting main title header delineating the appellation of English crime novelist, Sara Hillary, to its pen name form, Sarah Hilary. If you find this comment as opaque as I do, Blackballnz, and/or if you have a question about the redirect, better ask Roman Spinner. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Blackballnz I did look at the technical request and moved Sarah Hillary (art conservator) to Sarah Hillary (thanks for finding that) - see this edit summary. Sara Hillary also should not redirect there, and it doesn't look like either of the Sarahs have their names spelled alternatively as Sara, so maybe WP:RFD? HurricaneZeta^C 00:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both. Blackballnz (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why doesn't Alone: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo III have an article?

I've noticed that the first two Alone albums have articles (Alone: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo, Alone II: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo), but for some reason Alone III doesn't have one. I would make it myself but I don't know how to use references or where to find them. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 00:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

(testing: Alone III: The Pinkerton Years) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is it just a redirect to Rivers Cuomo??? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Two possible reasons:

• Nobody wrote an article for it yet, and the redirect is so people will at least find Rivers Cuomo instead of nothing

Or

• There isn't enough reliable material in existence to be able to make a proper article about it, and instead it should be part of the Rivers Cuomo article.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Oh, I guess that makes sense. Still I can think of a few things from that era off the top of my head and such (i.e. the Pinkerton Diaries), should I consider writing an article about it? And another question, as someone who hasn't written an article before (or opened the Sandbox), how do I use the Sandbox? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

When considering writing an article, the most important factor is what's described at WP:42 - if you can't find enough of what they talk about there, then there's not going to be an article.

Here is a link to Weez3rforever's sandbox - when you click it it will tell you you're making a new page, but yes, go ahead, it IS your sandbox after all. Then you, umm, type some stuff. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Weez3rforever I see by the link turning blue that you found it :)

Sandboxes can't be found by searching Wikipedia in the normal way, but everyone who has one themselves will automatically know where to find yours too. So, you can work on unfinished articles there, keep a list of references still to be checked, practice on tricky editing features like tables and so on, whatever ... but don't break ANY Wikipedia rules - especially don't paste in any copyright violation, not even temporarily. It's kind of hidden, but it's not private.

(And if your work on an unfinished article gets to a more serious stage where you know it has a half-decent chance of success, you can move that material into WP:DRAFTS.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers alright!! Thanks a lot!! :) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Do redirects needs talk pages with tagged wikiprojects?

I looked at Wikipedia:Redirect and couldn't figure it out. Guz13 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13, generally a redirect doesn't need a talk page at all, unless there's a reason to be discussing that redirect -- maybe it's controversial for some reason, for instance. And even then a redirect's talk page might itself appropriately redirect to the redirect's target's talk page.

If you tell us which redirect you're talking about, we might be able to give more clarity. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes a redirect is created after a merge discussion and the history of the redirect page and its talk page give the content that was there before the merge was completed. In that case, the talk page could easily still have wikiproject details. Most new redirects would not need talk pages at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

TV Series draft

Are the sources on this TV series draft: enough for main space?

Draft:What Lies Beneath (TV series) Miamiwin (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Some of the sources look good, but you most likely can't use Youtube or X, depending on what you're adding. Guz13 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Miamiwin Here's an unofficial test: If you were limited to just three sources, and all you were allowed to do was paste the content from those three sources into a blank page - not adding one word - would you be able to say "I guess this will do, I'm hitting the Submit button"? (Of course that would be massive copyright violation - but this is just a test of your sources, not writing advice.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on Nishi Chawla sandbox article

Hi, I’ve drafted a Wikipedia article on Nishi Chawla in my sandbox: [Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy/sandbox]. Could someone kindly review it for notability, tone, and references? I’ve highlighted coverage from independent news outlets and literary platforms, including: The News Minute and The Indian Express covering her anthology 'Singing in the Dark' ; Reviews of 'Greening the Earth' in 'Borderless Journal' and Mint Lounge Literary commentary on her poetry collections 'Immigrant Diaries' and 'Random Circles of Belief' Recognition from the Library of Congress program 'The Poet and the Poem.' I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines before moving it to the mainspace. Any guidance or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much! Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy/sandbox Nil🥝 03:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, I've added a template to the top of your page. Once you feel your article is ready, click the big blue "Submit" button, and it will be added to the queue at AFC for review from an experienced editor. Happy editing! Nil🥝 04:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, you asked about this already, and the answer is already given earlier in this page. @Nil NZ, the draft title has been deleted many times and salted. @Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, please stop. David10244 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I’ve drafted a biography in my sandbox and would appreciate feedback on sourcing and notability. I’ve relied on independent coverage (India Today, The News Minute, Indian Express, BroadwayWorld, Library of Congress). Any guidance would be very welcome. Thank you! Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the first 4 sources. Each points to the top level of a website and hence not to the relevant page that might verify your content, as demanded by the policy on biographies of living people. After that, I gave up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull: What do you suggest then? Penguin Random House has published her poetry collections, and the reviews are in national newspapers. Should I delete the first four references? Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not time to shuffle references around while crossing your fingers hoping it helps. It's time to completely give up. Multiple recent tries at writing this article have very badly failed, and yours hasn't turned out any better - not the 50× better that it would need to be, anyway. I'm sorry. It's not that you lack skill, it's that far too little exists for you to write about. I expect that in 5 or 10 years things will be different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.I have substantially revised the draft, removed redundancy, tightened claims, and ensured that citations point directly to relevant articles rather than top-level pages.

I would be grateful for guidance on:

• whether the current sourcing meets notability and BLP standards

• overall structure and balance

• sections that should be trimmed, rewritten, or deferred

• whether it would be advisable to wait for additional independent reviews of 'Silent Walls, Speaking Stones' before resubmitting.

I am happy to proceed slowly and conservatively and to wait if that is the best course.

Thank you. ~2026-53991-3 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You've been advised "just stop", twice. Not "improve". Not "seek further guidance". Stop. Give up. Delete. Move on with your life. You have your desired guidance already, and it is "no, stop". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Usage of AI programs (ex. ChatGPT) to assist in creating/expanding articles

Hello everyone! I want to help add more information and references to articles, and I am trying to find a good way to do that. I just wanted to get some quick clarification regarding the AI policy on Wikipedia. I have skimmed through this page about rules regarding "Large language models", and I know that it is not allowed to use AI programs to write original content for Wikipedia, and it is also banned to copy text and information generated by an AI program into Wikipedia. However, I was wondering if I would be allowed to use an AI program, like ChatGPT, to assist me in helping to expand articles and find new sources, and even maybe to help create articles later on. What I would do is use the AI to create a structure for the article, for example it would make main sections like "overview", "early life", "achievements", "legacy", etc., and other sections and subsections inside thouse, to get a rough idea of what the outline of the page could be like. I might also use it to find facts and information about certain topics, and to find sources to confirm that those information are correct. And yes I know that AI is not perfect and it can sometimes make up facts that aren't correct or give out sources that don't actually exist, so I would definitely check all of the sources before I would use them on Wikipedia. So basically, I am asking if I would be allowed to use AI programs to assist me in expanding an article, but not to directly modify the article. I would not use the AI to directily edit the article, Iwould not copy AI generated text into the article, and I would do my own research to make sure any claims that the AI makes are backed by reliable sources, and that the sources it gives me do actually exist and confirm that the information is true. Can I do this, or would it violate the AI policy?

P.S. I haven't actually done this yet. Also sorry for the long paragraph. Any help is appreciated! DominikTuazon (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT is notoriously bad at creating pages, even with the structure, and it is immediately obvious when it has been used for new pages – many people working at the new pages feed will draftify pages with clear AI usage.

It's also often unable to find actual sources and will hallucinate things – you have covered yourself in this regard when you said you would do your own research and make sure everything the AI is responding with is correct. This seems more time consuming than just doing your own research and not relying on AI, but each to their own.

I personally advise strongly against everything you're proposing because of my own principles, but solely based off of your reassurances, I cannot see how you would be violating policy. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, thank you for the reply. Generally, what I would want to do is use AI program to create a rough outline of the information I would want to add, and then do my own research about those areas. So, I wouldn't really use the AI after that. Basically, I would just use it to get an idea of what I should be looking for, without it actually doing the hard work for me. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If it's "not doing the hard work", then - a serious question - what good is it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to make a guide to get an overview of what information to look for. But I realized it probably wouldn't be that effective even for doing this. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Essentially then what you'd be doing is writing an article WP:BACKWARD

You shouldn't have an 'outline' of an srticle before you've looked at any sources, because the way you make an srticle is by writing up the information available in the sources. There's no point planning a 'legacy' section if there's been no significant coverage of a subject's legacy, for example (and the fact ChatGPT would even suggest such a thing is one of its flaws - AI models are obsessed with emphasising 'legacy' and 'lasting impact' and 'recognition' for some reason, whether or not it makes any sense to do so) Athanelar (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm giving my opinion, not Wikipedia rules. If you are skilled enough to responsibly and properly edit the machine output, then you're easily skilled enough to do the entire thing yourself. I don't write articles, but if I was assigned to do so, I estimate it would take me 2× to 4× more work to edit AI than to just write them from scratch. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi DominikTuazon. Why do you need to use AI to do the things you described above? Just asking out of curiosity because you seem perfectly capable of doing all that by yourself and seem to have a plan as to what you want to do. If you're going to need to check everything AI has done to make sure it's OK for Wikipedia, you might as well just not go down that rabbit hole at all. FWIW, Wikipedia isn't intended to be WP:PERFECT and errors are expected. You don't need to worry about making mistakes because others will clean things up if you do. This is how it works for all of us. As long as you editing is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thank you. As I said above I would basically be using the AI to get an idea of what to write about, but I would be doing the actual research myself. Since some topics I might not know that much about and I would need to learn more about what I am adding to make sure it is correct. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

100%. A common reason people give is that they don't feel their English language skills are proficient but this is clearly not an issue here. I feel that you're just going to end up creating more work for yourself when you have to verify all the AI's information.

& @DominikTuazon I would personally advise against writing on topics you "might not know that much about" when you're a 'newer' editor. It makes an admittedly daunting experience even more difficult to navigate because information is much harder to verify. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

After thinking about it, you're right it probably wouldn't be too good to use AI for this. So thank you for all the feedback. I've been mostly doing small edits so I guess if I need sources I'll just look for them manually. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And by the way I also like to read Wikipedia to learn more about new stuff and sometimes I find small pages that maybe could be expanded, that's why I originally thought of using AI to help me. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@DominikTuazon: Perhaps I'm more old-school than you, but you should be able to learn about something new without the aid of AI. In fact, not using AI will probably serve you better in the long run, unless your motivation is not so much to learn about something new but rather to learn how to use AI to learn about something new. In any case, I kind of agree what Aesurias posted above, in that it's OK to focus on subjects you're more familiar with when it comes to Wikipedia. That's pretty much what most Wikipedians do. This doesn't mean you can't edit things you no little about, but it does mean you just need to perhaps be a little more careful when doing so. In either case, just focus on editing in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you make mistakes (pretty much everyone does), just try to understand why they're mistakes and do your best not to repeat them. You don't need to use AI to do any of that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I realized that I probably don't need to use AI to help me. I've been working with AI a lot but I don't need to use Wikipedia to help me with that. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And I don't want to break any rules or anything... DominikTuazon (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely on the right track, in finding pages that would benefit from expansion. But if you hire a fast, hardworking, stupid liar to help you, he makes your job harder, not easier. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :D DominikTuazon (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It is fine to use an AI as an assistant or collaborator, but not as an author.

Here's a recent example of an article I wrote with the help of ChatGPT: Star of Pure Land. Here's how I did it.

1. I asked ChatGPT to find reliable sources about "Star of Pure Land", making sure that each source is reliable and independent of the topic and gives actual significant coverage. I didn't ask it to write anything, I just asked for sources.
2. It returned with a list of several sources. I examined each one, and found that several reliable sources like ABC News and Washington Post had simply reprinted the original Associated Press source. I also found that two other sources ChatGPT suggested (Times of India and an India tabloid newspaper) are not considered reliable according to WP:RSP, although they looked reasonable, but I didn't want to rely on them. I pointed this out to ChatGPT, which offered to look into scholarly databases, but failed to find anything. Eventually ChatGPT agreed that only two sources exist that meet all the criteria of being reliable, independent, providing significant coverage, and not a reprint of another source. This didn't surprise me, because the news about the topic was reported only days ago. But two sources, plus a strong claim of significance, and maybe a third non-independent/primary source would be enough.
3. Then I asked ChatGPT to propose article body text only (no lead section or anything else) that summarized the main points of the two sources. It did so without citing anything, so I asked it to cite every sentence. It did so but made a mess of it, repeating full citations for every sentence.
4. This gave me a bare-bones stub article on which I could expand. I rewrote it in my own words (it was short, but that's fine as long as I can show the subject is notable and state only what the sources say), eliminating redundant sections and ChatGPT's seeming love for conjunction headings in the form "X and Y", and consolidating repeated citations using named references.
5. I asked ChatGPT to include information from a non-independent but reliable source, the Gemological Institute of America. It was unable to access the content even after I gave it the URL, so I pasted the content in, and it suggested a revision of one paragraph to eliminate secondary sources that were reporting on what this primary source said. That was fine, because there were already plenty of other assertions cited to the two secondary sources.
6. At this point I was about done with asking ChatGPT for help. While writing in my own words, I checked each statement against the cited source and revised if there was disagreement. I made multiple passes at this because I missed things, and ended up swapping some sources that didn't match their respective claims.
7. I found an implicit assumption that looked synthesized, and went back to ChatGPT one more time to ask about it. The AI agreed and suggested wording more in line with what the sources actually say. I revised the proposed wording a bit.
8. I continued making passes through the article, revising wording and rechecking sources.

As you can tell from this process, writing an article involves a lot of work, but using an AI as a collaborator made the process more efficient. If you know what kind of sources you need and can challenge the AI to find them, that saves a lot of time. It also saves a lot of time to ask the AI to pull out the key points in sources and summarize them, which gives you a good starting point for an article. But at no time should you ask the AI to "write a Wikipedia article" and simply copy and paste it.

That is how to use an AI properly on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I honestly think that all AI does is make things worse and less reliable. I’d advise not using AI at all. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that newbie editors shouldn't. As I demonstrated in detailed steps above, for an experienced editor it's a useful tool in the toolbox. The AI should be a collaborator or assistant, not an author. Writing an article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia. Even using an AI, significant work is still required to write an article. Most newbies don't realize that. Compare Star of Pure Land, where I was assisted by AI but did all the source checking and editing myself, against the crappy AI slop that a now-globally-locked newbie submitted on the same subject: Special:Permalink/1334302868. My version presents neutral facts cited to reliable sources, and the AI slop presents effusive flowery garbage without direct citations, with both unreliable and redundant sources listed unlinked at the end. It had to be redone from scratch, and that's what I did, with the AI helping to identify sources and suggest what to say. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I will also add here that Perplexity might be better for this purpose imho. It's a lot better to me than ChatGPT/Copilot/Gemini/etc etc in citing its sources and thinking. Is it perfect? No. But do I feel it's better at giving better sources. Also, I think the guidelines should make a stand on this. At least here in Treehouse, it seems to be you should not use it in general, at least without fact checking for hallucinations, which Perplexity solves (again, keep in mind this is my opinion). I do agree with Anachronist that it should be used as a *tool*, as well. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. — Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Stubborn caption

Why doesn't the "Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1300-1310)" appear below the image?

[[File:Arkyves 242. Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin. Florence, Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore (c. 1280-1300); Author’s photograph.jpg |center |400px | Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1300-1310)]]

Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1300-1310)

Jp1008 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008: Try using a WP:THUMBNAIL markup instead. Captions seem to work fine with thumbnail images. If you do this, though, please don't set the image to a fixed pixel size per WP:THUMBSIZE; instead use a scaling factor as explained in MOS:UPRIGHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You could also use various gallery options: see Help:Pictures#Galleries but note the advice at the top of that section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedia article useable as citeable source?

Hi all, I am interested in creating an article on the English language Wikipedia for the Belgian gypsy jazz group "Waso" (aka "Waso Quartet"), that presently does not have one. I have some print and web sources to use but there is additional information not contained there contained in an article on Dutch Wikipedia at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waso_Quartet, that has been entered there as "accepted information" but without explicit sourcing. I realise that English Wikipedia cannot use other articles there as sources, but does the same apply to other versions, when the information is not readily available via other means? Informed opinion/s appreciated. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Any source that allows public editing is not accepted on English Wikipedia. That means Wikipedia doesn't accept Wikipedia as a source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

So, unfortunately, "not readily available via other means" = "not going into the article". Sometimes I wish it wasn't like that, even though I understand why it has to be.

I hope you can find the same material in a reliably published form. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think the "not explicitly sourced" material there wasn't just completely made up by somebody? Athanelar (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your point is taken. To the extent that a Wikipedia page in another language Wikipedia is published, you could say that it is "published purporting to be true", but agreed, that does not mean that it is. Thanks all for your your responses. Tony 1212 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tony 1212 You're right that that material is "published purporting to be true", but almost anything fits that description. The English Wikipedia's rules for this basically come down to "Who exactly is doing the purporting? Do they already have a public reputation for truth, fact checking, and corrections? Are they known for badly slanted reporting on certain topics?"

If the answer is "An unidentified individual, with no public reputation for anything, biases unknown", you can see the problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cite_Wikipedia_on_Wikipedia is the overall guide - although it does not explicitly deal with other language versions of WP, I guess that is implicit. Thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Lua module

How do I fix List of Suits episodes#Season 1–6 Olliefant (she/her) 09:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant GO to source code change "| color = #5FDFCF" into "| color1 = #5FDFCF". CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

For future guidance See Television ratings graph/doc CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: There was also an en dash instead of a hyphen. Fixed in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Baby Editor needs help with declined draft: Martina Dimoska 🥹

Hello, amazing people! It's my first time here and I need help on improving a draft. So my draft on Draft:Martina Dimoska was declined by a reviewer who noted issues with formal tone, neutrality, and promotional language ("peacock terms"). The reviewer specifically criticized the first sentence. SpaceTrail (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

1. the article is clearly, in its entirety, AI-generated

2. the first sentence is a major issue as noted. "published and awarded", "innovator" and "internationally recognized" scarcely belong in a page, let alone the opening sentence of the lede paragraph.

3. you claim the image of Dimoska is your "own work". if so, you have an undeclared conflict of interest. if this isn't the case, why have you lied?

4. there are excessive external links, especially in the lede, that need to be switched out for inline citations

5. most of your inline citations in the rest of the article go before the period/full stop; they need to go after aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, thank you for your feedback. Just out of pure curiosity, why do you think the article is AI-generated? I'll work on the second point, thank you for that (I had a full list of questions under this same message but I didn't use a source edit so it kinda disappeared 😅). Oh, concerning the image, the description was not aligning properly on the image (when I add it, it moves to the right instead of the bottom of the page) and I honestly forgot before making a review request. Pardon me for that. 😅 Additionally, I'll work on the external links at the top and switch that out to inline. However, since Dimoska is affiliated with one of the external links (International Space Alliance), would adding that inline be an issue? Lastly, I'll fix the citations-period situation! Thank you so much again! Looking to hear from you! SpaceTrail (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Obvious signs that the page is AI-generated are:

a. the overcapitalization in section headers (e.g. "Media and Public Speaking" rather than "Media and public speaking")

b. vague claims like "Her entrepreneurial insights on leveraging analog missions for business opportunities in the Western Balkans were published in Forbes."

c. ChatGPT's "list of three" habit, where it will use three reasons as an explanation for something (e.g. "...began through volunteering (1), analog missions (2), and her 'ultimate pursuit of truth' (3).

d. some parts of the page use the standard short dash (e.g. "(2024-2027)", while others use an en dash (e.g. "(2023–2030)"). this inconsistency indicates the use of a large language model for large sections of the page while small parts were handwritten

e. some of your sources have been hallucinated by AI and do not exist. for example, reference 4

I cannot see how you have addressed my concern about the image. I'm not talking about how it aligns – you uploaded it to Wikimedia and claimed it was your "own work", releasing it under a CC0 agreement. Despite this claim, I have found the image on Instagram.

Perhaps the external link for the ISA group can be included in the external links section at the bottom of the page, but it shouldn't be used in the middle of the page – if you don't feel that it is notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia page, you can simply use the name of the organization normally with no link in the text. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, I didn't see this on time, omg I'm sorry. So I definitely understand why you would think these point to AI, basically I did use AI to refine some sentences I got stuck with because they sounded weird when I typed it myself. On the first point, I would say it was a silly habit and I forgot to go a last sweep on making sure it aligned with WP's MoS (if you check my "publish summary", I used title case too to describe some if not all edits. Third point of yours with the GPT three reasons: I wrote two reasons initially (you would see it in the edit log) but I felt I needed to cite something there then it would be a claim(?) then I added the last one because 'ultimate pursuit of truth' was a direct quotation from the source I cited in-line. On reference 4, it took me quite a long time to find the actual agreement because I saw Martina post it on her LinkedIn and I felt that was really cool (but even I knew a linkedin citation wouldn't cut it especially since it's NASA so I searched and there is a publicly available document from NASA on awardees of the Space Act Agreement (but when I tried to cite that, it just turned around a message from Wikipedia that says PDFs are not reliable sources. Here's the list, just search Martina Dimoska (and I honestly cannot remember why reference 4 has that particular . Concerning the image, I missed that step and I have no excuses. And yeah, thank you for that notice on the external link. 🫶 SpaceTrail (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SpaceTrail. To add onto what @Aesurias very helpfully said, your draft doesn't actually give clear evidence of how Martina meets our criteria for inclusion. What it does instead is waffle in a promotional tone for paragraphs and paragraphs. I'd suggest substantially cutting down the prose: only summarise what reliable, secondary, independent sources state about Martina. qcne (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, hi! Thank you so much for responding! So you think the fluff words overshadow what independent sources have said about Martina? I'm curious as to what aspects the draft is failing to meet under the basic (and additional) criteria for inclusion. I'll give that page another re-read but I'm curious on your perspective. Thank you! I'm looking forward to hearing from you as well! SpaceTrail (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

When reviewing drafts it's fairly common to be able to tell within the first three sources or so if a person meets our criteria. Of your first three sources:

1. An interview (not independent).
2. A listing (not significant coverage).
3. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.

Not a good start, let's look at the next three:

1. 404 not found.
2. Connected with Martina (not independent).
3. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.

Next three:

1. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.
2. A listing (not significant coverage).
3. An interview (not independent).

Next three:

1. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.
2. Her academic paper (not independent).
3. An interview (not independent).

So, really not ideal.

On Wikipedia, an article must only summarise what existing sources state. The sources need to be reliable and published, and to establish the criteria for inclusion need to be secondary, independent, and provide significant coverage of the person - one of the first 12 sources meet that criteria. More importantly, for biographies of living people, every biographic statement must be accompanied with a citation that directly verifies the information stated - three of the sources don't do that. qcne (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, I really appreciate you for this, I'll add irrelevant, dependent references declutter to my checklist, among others. I really really appreciate you. I'll be dropping in occasionally and I hope you're here to say something again too. 🥹 Thanks! SpaceTrail (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

When this thread gets archived, feel free to drop a msg on my User Talk Page. qcne (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, omg thank you. 🥹 Will definitely do. SpaceTrail (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

For example, there is a comically excessive reliance on LinkedIn throughout the page. This is not reliable or independent. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, thank you so much for pointing that out. I thought because it directly supports some statements... but I definitely see how that shows dependence to the subject. SpaceTrail (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This account of mine

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.

---

I ask the team to help me check this account of mine (I opened the account a long time ago and tried to renew it), and advise me, how to move forward from here towards renewing my home page or is there anything else that needs to be done? And maybe I can also help others in the future. Sponsorid (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use multiple forums to seek assistance, as this duplicates effort. I'll respond at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Help improving Chanali Village draft article

Hi! I’ve been working on a draft article for Chanali Village, located in Ajayameru Rural Municipality, Dadeldhura District, Nepal. The draft was previously declined due to limited sources, but I’ve added references including the official municipality website, OpenStreetMap, and district-level census data. Since Chanali is a small village, direct published sources are rare, so I’ve used ward-level data where needed and clearly noted that in the article. I’d appreciate help reviewing the draft and suggestions for improving its reliability and notability. Thank you! ~2026-50376-2 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello; I think that you inadvertently edited while logged out. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Chanali Village

Most of the draft is unsourced, and the sources you have seem to just document specific pieces of information; where are you getting your information? If, as you say, published sources are rare, then there isn't enough sources to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPLACE lists the criteria that must be shown to be met for an article about a village. Focus on doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Genre policy

I'm thinking of proposing a policy on musical genres, specifically regarding which/how many reliably sourced genres should be included. I've noticed that in some articles, only the most relevant genres are included, but in others, there are many, many genres listed (all of which are reliably sourced, but some of which are just cited as influences). I just wanted to make sure there aren't any policies already on this. I know that genres must obviously be supported by reliable sources, as with all info. Are there any other relevant policies here? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin See WP:GENRE, as there is already a taskforce on this. See also WP:GENREWARRIOR: it is a controversial topic! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please discuss this at WP:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (and look through the Talk page and its archives. ) before you do anything.

You might also find the essay WP:Genre Warrior illuminating, or entertaining. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Great minds think alike but one types faster than the other. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

How Bengali Wikipedia works?

the function of Bengali Wikipedia ~2026-49934-1 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-49934-1, you will have to ask at the Bengali Wikipedia as it is a separate unaffiliated projected to the English Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @. Try asking at bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:চাঘর ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Issues with monthly archiving of my talk page

I use MiszaBot to archive my talk page, and am confused why User talk:Gommeh/Archives/2026/January isn't showing up on the list of monthly archives at the top. Not really sure where else I can ask this. Can someone help me figure this out? Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. Hasn't your archive always shown the newest month at the bottom? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Found the problem. Evidently the {{monthly archive list}} template needs to be updated every year. Someone should really write a Lua module for that, but I'm too lazy to do it. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

How to delete an account?

Hello-

We created a page and it got blocked. We made a mistake in the tittle/topic. 

How can we delete the page and account and start from scratch? 

Thanks F.E. Johnson Jr. (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Accounts can not be deleted due to technical reasons. However I can move drafts or pages for you - tell me what the draft or page is and the new title? qcne (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's for the user account @ User:Forest Johnson Photography

This user account got blocked!

I would like to change the username to FEJ and change Topic/Biography title to Forest Johnson Jr.

Can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.E. Johnson Jr. (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi F.E. Johnson Jr. . The account Forest Johnson Photography was blocked by an administrator named Cryptic for not only a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy but also for making promotional edits. The username problem can be fixed by changing your user name but the "promotional edits" part isn't so easily resolved. I strongly suggest you follow the instructions given at User talk:Forest Johnson Photography#Blocked and request that account be unblocked. Creating a new account to conitnue editing as you did before was not a good at idea at all, and can be seen as block evasion even though you might have thought that doing such a thing was OK. You're really going to need to resolve the blocking of your other account before doing anything else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think, assuming good faith, this is a user who has no idea how Wikipedia works. Pinging in admin @Cryptic.

@F.E. Johnson Jr. you request a username change via Wikipedia:Changing username. qcne (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

F.E. Johnson Jr., the important thing to remember here is that Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion, especially self-promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides independently-written summaries of different topics, and trying to promote something violates this purpose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Representative sample from deleted draft: "After the passing of his father, Forest became totally involved in the family business with his mother, Heidi. Until then photography was only a hobby for Forest. Forest real interest was flying and especially in helicopters. As far back as 8 years old, Forest got an “A” on his Report Card, so his parents rewarded him with a 15-minute helicopter ride." The username was the least of the issues here. —Cryptic 01:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Another thing to note is the use of "we", indicating that the account is being used by multiple people. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Kindly Review

Hello everyone,

I recently resubmitted a biography draft at Articles for Creation: Draft:Neel Hurerzahan.

I have addressed all prior reviewer comments, including sourcing, tone, removal of categories (per WP:DRAFTNOCAT), and I have also clarified that I am not a paid editor and have no financial relationship with the subject.

At this point, I am waiting for review. I am not asking for expedited approval, but I would really appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know whether there are any remaining policy issues or improvements I should make while it is awaiting review.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Saafayat (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

"At this point, I am waiting for review". Yes, Saafayat, you are, or rather it is, waiting for a review. But in the meantime, here's an example of its references:{{cite web |url=https://mzamin.com/news.php?news=164735 |title=Manab Zamin coverage |work=Manab Zamin}}. No, "Manab Zamin coverage" is not the title. Please use |title= |script-title= |trans-title= |language= informatively and accurately. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It's been declined again, so you needn't wait any longer.

See WP:NEWLLM. You aren't allowed to use an AI to write an article from scratch. It's full of vague, vapid LLM-speak that provides zero substantive information while sounding important. Examples are "Her work has been covered by national newspapers", "gained widespread attention", "received national media coverage", and "has been profiled or mentioned". A Wikipedia article should summarize what the sources actually say, and not simply note that "sources said something".

If you don't address this problem by rewriting the draft as a human, it will likely be rejected as contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia next time you submit it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Moving over redirects?

I want to move this page over a redirect to it, but I can't because the page "already exists" as the redirect. How do I swap them? Thank you so much, OliviaRigby (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

OliviaRigby, please ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, OliviaRigby (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Tips for handling frustration that causes disruptive impulses?

I recently vandalized an article out of pure frustration. I know this was wrong and I've apologized.

My question is straightforward: Are there any tips for handling the kind of frustration that causes strong impulses to disrupt Wikipedia?

I'm looking for practical strategies. What do you do in that moment? How do you stop yourself and redirect that energy?

Thank you. TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no other advice to be given except to walk away. There's an essay I can't recall the name of now but it's basically "don't edit in an impaired state." If you're drunk or angry or very tired or anything that would impact your judgement the best thing to do is simply put Wikipedia down and come back later. Athanelar (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

(two days later) The essay that comes to my mind is User:Tamzin/On mental health. It perhaps covers more nuance than an answer specifically to this question would—the most relevant part may be: Set "bright lines", trigger situations that will make you modify, reduce, or temporarily halt your editing. These can be things like "If I find myself drinking because of Wikipedia things" or "If Wikipedia causes me a panic attack". Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A good start would be to reflect on what you were feeling at the time that made you consider vandalizing, why you decided to do it, and what could be better alternatives if there’s a next time you feel drawn to do the same thing again.

If there is a next time, a long walk or run—preferably out in nature—would help redirect your energy much less disruptively! Augnablik (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that you obviously know this already, but "in the moment" you act differently. One method for dealing with the "in the moment" problem is to intentionally disrupt and interrupt your own "moment". This can take different forms; any way you can think of to force a planned interruption exactly at that key moment - the moment when your finger is about to hit the button - might help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

(Questioning 0n) General Advice for Contributing to Wikipedia

I have done extensive reading, misguided or not, about the meta workings of Wikipedia; the rules, policies, management, user rights, et cetera. I know that in this day and age, the necessary effort of maintaining and protecting the world's largest English encyclopedia often outweighs the necessary effort of adding new information; and with my interest more in the meta-aspects of Wikipedia, I wonder how I could contribute in ways that are less adding new information, but rather things like helping with vandalism, edit wars, arbitration, administration, conflict resolution, and everything between and beyond those?

Feel free to tell me if this is asinine. I know that I don't have any real history on this account or credibility in general, but a genuine answer would be incredibly appreciated. *LittleFinn9* (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You have made no useful edits since being unblocked 4 years ago because it appeared that you were not here to build an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

That is what happened, which is why I’m asking earnestly what I can do within the interests I outlined in order to contribute. *LittleFinn9* (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Cleaning up vandalism. Other than that, gaining experience of making routine edits will enable you to better understand "edit wars, arbitration, administration, conflict resolution, and everything between and beyond".

You can't become a driving examiner before you learn to drive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

A great place to start would be RecentChanges patrol. Simply go to Special:RecentChanges, configure your edit filters (you can set it to only flag potentially problematic edits for example, with configurable degrees of certainty) look for unproductive or vandalistic edits and revert them. Where necessary, place warning templates on the relevant editors' talk pages, and where really necessary report them to WP:AIV/WP:ANI Athanelar (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing an image

Hi, so I'm trying to review this angel cake image's license, and everything seems okay (CC BY-2.0). But when I checked the Flickr source for the license (https://flickr.com/photos/12261156@N00/16459308982), it returned as a dead link, and there are no archived versions of it in existence. How am I supposed to deduce whether or not the image is free to use on the Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites, and what should I conclude about the image itself? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you don't trust FlickreviewR, which automatically checked it shortly after upload? DS (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I never said I distrusted it. Flickr has proven to be an applicable license source, but I want to know how I can navigate the situation and affirm that the image can be freely used, when the original URL of the licensed page is no longer available. This is something I want to be able to apply to any image, free or otherwise, with a dead-linked source, regardless of where the source is hosted on. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 15:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your example has a known source and a known licence. When you have a known source and a known licence, the situation is clear, even if you no longer have access.

Anything with an unknown licence is automatically not free. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alex: Unless you suspect this to be a case of Flickrwashing (see c:COM:LL), a file whose licensing has been verified by c:User:FlickreviewR or c:User:FlickreviewR_2 is probably OK for you to use. If you're still not sure, you could always ask at c:COM:VPC; someone over at VPC may also be able to help find an archived link showing the original license or at least check out the license history. FWIW, when I clicked on the source for the photo you linked above, it didn't come back as a deadlink, but says I need to log in to see the image; I don't have an Flickr account so I couldn't do that. I, however, did find an archived version here, and the license looks OK to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Biographical notability criteria

Hello, I am submitting this article: Draft:Ben Judd (artist)

It was not accepted for the reasons pasted below, despite multiple notable biographical references. I have read the guidelines and I think the article does meet the criteria, however it would be useful to have some guidance on this.

The reviewer also seems to have got the article confused with another article about someone else with the same name.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Judd, which is about the same person. Contemporaryart8 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

First, I think you should immediately respond directly to the reviewer to tell them that the two Ben Judds are not the same person. That might make a difference to how this gets dealt with.

Beyond that, isn't this whole issue already covered by reading the first link they gave you? But maybe this helps: material that contains Judd's answers to questions, or that mainly exists to make an announcement about him, or where he is briefly mentioned, doesn't show him as notable at all. The ideal kind of source you need to show he's notable is three major publications having major articles with "Ben Judd" in the title - or as close to that as you can get. Big chunks of writing that are all about his history, with no interview answers and no announcements. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that it also doesn't help to show how much work he's done, where he's been, or who he's worked with. Someone can do a lot of work, put out a lot of material, get on stage with the best, and still (unfortunately) get ignored. Wikipedia doesn't provide a place for artists to get attention; we only deal with the attention they've already had. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

how are you now

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.

---

life discussion for futher life ~2026-53210-9 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

NFCC Violations on User page

I was working on Userboxes for my user page, and I added a part about me doing Raspberry Pi projects, so of course, I added a picture to go with it.

ID = [[Image:Raspberry Pi Logo|42px]]

and a bot removes it saying "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles." I don't know how to tell whether or not a file is non-free, so I think that might be bringing my 'vandalism level' up. Currently, it says that my vandalism level is 3 even though I have never vandalized Wikipedia even once. Please tell me how I can figure out whether or not a file is non-free.

Thank you for your time,

Techguy7370 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Techguy7370 That's not your vandalism level, that's the vandalism level across all of Wikipedia. When you click an image, in the bottom right it should say its license. If it says "Fair use", then you cannot use it on your user page. Consider browsing Wikimedia Commons to find images, as all images there are free. HurricaneZeta^C 21:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see. So, if I use a Wikimedia Commons file, it won't say that it's NFCC Violation, okay that is easy enough. Thank you @HurricaneZeta :) Techguy7370 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and welcome to Wikipedia! HurricaneZeta^C 21:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Why does it take 90 days for a new article to be indexed by Google and other search engines?

As someone who's made quite a few articles, I wasn't aware that the articles needed 90 days to be indexed. I have an article created 88 days ago that I'd like to see show up upon Googling as soon as possible, while other articles on the New Pages Patrol do show up when I try to search for them. Just curious as to the reason is all. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @LivinAWestLife. New pages are intended to be approved by new page reviewers who allow the page to be indexed. If no reviewer happens to review the page in 90 days, it'll be indexed anyway. I don't know the history of New Page Patrol, but I assume this is so the page doesn't get lost in the shadow realm forever. It's unlikely an article with heinous stuff on it will survive 90 days. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 22:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby Thanks! Made a typo, I should say the New Pages Feed (which the New Pages Patrol ... patrols). Yeah I assumed it was so poor articles can't be searched. 90 days just felt a bit long. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I very much don't want to sound rude, but I don't think en.wiki has any control over when articles are indexed on search engines. You said yourself that other articles do show up... --Onorem (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You would be wrong, as toby explained, new articles are indexed either when they are patrolled by a new page patroller or when they are 90 days old. We very much do have control over that. Athanelar (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

We can't make a search engine index a page, but we can and do ask them not to in some cases, using noindex. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're wondering about the history of this number, it was decided in the 2016 discussion Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Archive 1 § 8. No Index until patrolled and implemented in 2017 (phab:T166852). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Help

Fix formatting plz https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2025%E2%80%9326_NBA_season_transactions&wvprov=sticky-header#Free_agents Kivi36 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kivi36, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have looked at that section (incidentally, you can use the Wikilink [[List of 2025–26 NBA season transactions#Free agents]] rather than the full URL) and I can't see any obvious formatting problem. Would you like to specify it further? ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Under the section of Free agents i edited and put a 10 day contract thing but i don't know how to fill the box Kivi36 (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

What is "a 10 day contract thing"? What box do you want to fill, and what do you want to fill it with? ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Custom warnings

Hello, I have realised that by using Twinkle again, and again, and again....., it might be more sincere for me to make my own warn templates, still conveying the same information of course. It just makes me look like 'I care about what you did wrong, not just pressing a button and going back to the recent pages again'.

Is this allowed at all? Cheers GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 00:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I GSMflux91. You don't need to create a template to add a more personal/custom warning to someone's user talk page; you can just simply post the message. If you feel that's too much of a hassle each and everytime, you can work out what you want to see for certain situations in your user sandbox, save them, and then just copy-paste them when you want to use them. As for whether creating such a template is allowed, you might want to take a look at WP:TEMPLATE. As for whether any template you create would work with Twinkle, you probably would need to ask that at WT:TWINKLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 01:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't even think a template is required, just an extra subpage and ask Twinkle to refer back to that. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 01:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @GSMflux91, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of boilerplate messages which I often wanted to give in replying to certain requests at the Teahouse and the Help Desk.

Some of them I made into templates, such as Template:HD/WAAI.

One of them is personal to me, so I've left it in my user space, as User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst.

But I transclude both of these the same way, by putting them between double curly brackets. This defaults to looking in Template space, so if it is there you can omit the Template:; but if it's in user space (or anywhere else) you need the full page name User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst

There's one more wrinkle: somebody recently pointed out to me that templates like this should be substituted (so that if the template is edited, it won't affect pages where the template has already been used), so the entire thing I use is

{{subst:HD/WAAI}}

for the one in Template space, and

{{subst:User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}}

for my personal message.

It's never occurred to me that it might be possible to add these to Twinkle somehow, so I've never looked to see if it's possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

How to directly publish a draft

Hi, I tried to directly publish a draft instead of submitting to AfC following the instructions in Help:Your first article, but I feel like I'm doing something wrong. I read Template:AfC submission/created#What to do if you see this template but I don't think I can or should do this. How should I proceed? Link: Giga (musician). Wimwamble (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you moved the page correctly. I have removed the template. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You basically went through an unnecessary step of creating the draft and then moving it to mainspace. You could've just created the article directly in mainspace. The leftover AfC submission template is because you didn't remove it after moving the article from draftspace to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!! I wasn't sure if it was ok to remove the template. I think I will find somewhere to suggest adding clarification. Wimwamble (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wimwamble: I would start at Template talk:AfC submission, but include a link to Template:AfC submission/created#What to do if you see this template as you did above, and say specifically that you'd want it to clarify what to do if you are the creator of the article and see the template. There might be a better venue, but that probably makes sense to start with. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

When are additions to Further Reading/See also not relevant?

I have just had several edits removed with the explanation they are not relevant. Steven Carroll, writer and winner of the Miles Franklin Award, The Commonwealth Writers Prize and the Prime Minister's Literary award has written a much loved quartet of books inspired by the life of T.S. Eliot. I added all four books to T. S. Eliot's further reading T. S. Eliot because he features in them and "Dove Descending" inspires the second book in the quartet, A World of Other People. The entries were removed as not relevant. I added the third book in the quartet, A New England Affair (with Emily Hale as the main character and featuring flashbacks of scenes with T.S. Eliot) under See Also in the Emily Hale bio entry Emily Hale. This was removed although The Archivist listing remains, even though Emily Hale really doesn't feature in this book. And lastly I added the final book in Stephen Carroll's Steven Carroll quartet Goodnight, Vivienne, Goodnight to Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot entry under the fictitious play and film Tom and Viv. My entry was removed. The film and play remain. I understand the deletion from T.S. Eliot's site as not scholarly, although I do believe some people interested in the poet would like to read about a fictionalised version of him. But I object to the other deletions when other fictitious entries remain. Can someone please help me and hopefully reverse some of these deletions. Lakelady2282 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lakelady2282, this is part of the WP:BRD cycle - you made a bold edit, someone disagreed and reverted, and now it's time to discuss. Make a new thread on the article's talk page explaining your position, and maybe even WP:PING the editor who reverted you. Wait for their response. If there is no response after a week or so, you could try putting your edit back and see what happens. I suggest you also have a look through MOS:ALSO and MOS:FURTHER to see what's recommended for these sections. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I did reach out to them and they added the words 'not relevant' to their edit. Will definitely look at those links you have posted. Debbie Lakelady2282 (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lakelady2282 The editor who reverted you might be wrong. You explained your reasond very well here, 8n my opinion. David10244 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you David. I do feel I am right in reversing the Vivienne and Emily entries as there are already other similar entries there. Will leave T.S. Eliot alone. I just don't want people to miss out on another side of this famous poet. Steven Carroll has obviously done exhaustive research and his creation of the Dove Descending incident with T.S. Eliot during his fire watching days is marvellous. Hopefully they will find an "in" to Eliot through Vivienne and Emily. Lakelady2282 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Knowledge Graph seems to have listed my book yet misspelled my name-- the contributing author's name

I uploaded my book, "Starlight Treasures, Exploring Dreams and Visions as a Source of Inspiration" to Amazon KDP. On Abe Books, the second name, Stacie Monaghan, listed as the contributing author on the registration page has been misspelled. It seems that they got the misspelled name from Knowledge Graph.

I go by a pen name: Ana Monaghan. My legal name: Stacie Monaghan

I wanted to put both my pen name as well as my legal name when registering the book on Amazon. I am trying to find where the misspelling error happened. Please delete Stacia Morris. That person is unknown and NOT a contributor in any way.

Please contact me when this error is corrected in your online information. ~2026-53163-5 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53163-5 This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia; we cannot help with issues with Amazon or Google's Knowledge Graph, which are unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have articles about Stacie Monaghan or Ana Monaghan or Stacia Morris. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-53163-5, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Standard message follows: Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that this paragraph was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing, Yahoo, and some other search engines. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with Notability Issues for Creating Biographical Entries

Draft:Shen Yulin

I’m reaching out to all the experienced editors here for help. This entry was previously included in Chinese Wikipedia, and it’s clear that this figure has significant notability within the Chinese-speaking internet. However, when I translated it into English for English Wikipedia, it was rejected due to insufficient notability. I fully understand that being included in another Wikipedia doesn’t automatically satisfy English Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

Here’s what I’d like to ask: If this figure primarily operates in the Chinese-speaking world and all coverage of them is in Chinese, would that impact how their notability is evaluated? More directly—would having references from a reputable English-language third-party media outlet be enough to meet the notability standard? If so, which specific outlets are considered credible for this purpose?

Alternatively, if you have any advice to help me successfully create this entry on English Wikipedia, I’d be incredibly grateful for your guidance—and I’d be more than happy to “pay this forward” by helping others in the future.

Sincerely,

lwao7752 (seeking help)

Please feel free to contact me or lend a hand~ Iwao7752 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Coverage in Chinese has to meet the same reliability standards that coverage in English has to meet. When the coverage is reliable, English Wikipedia accepts any language.

The requirements for notability are not the same on every Wikipedia; the English one has a reputation for having higher requirements to show that someone is notable. The most important parts of the notability requirement for English Wikipedia are explained at WP:42. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Iwao7752, the opening sentence of Draft:Shen Yulin: Shen Yulin, male, Han ethnicity, a non-party member, hails from Weifang City, Shandong Province. This does nothing to make him sound like a remarkable person. But I persevered, whereupon I read: He holds dual bachelor's degrees in Law and Engineering. He is the founder of Longpan Technology Group and once served as the Chief Technology Officer of Hong Kong Longpan Technology Co., Ltd. That's one bachelor's degree (or even two) more than most people have, so well done there. I infer that his significance comes from his roles in "Longpan Technology Group", "Longpan Technology", "Longpan", and/or "Hong Kong Longpan Technology". Whatever these might be, none has an article. He still seems unremarkable. You ask: if you have any advice to help me successfully create this entry on English Wikipedia. My advice is: Don't bother trying. ¶ Incidentally, I notice that Shen Yulin seems to monopolize your en:Wikipedia activity. Are you perhaps Shen Yulin, an employee of his, or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Re: Help with Notability Issues for Creating Biographical Entries

Dear experienced editors,

I am writing to ask for help regarding the notability of a biographical entry I am trying to create.

I have never met the subject in person. I only came to know his story through a friend who was once his student. While this is second-hand information, I want to assure you that I have no conflict of interest and am fully committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I realize my previous draft might have read a bit dryly. That’s because I was using a standard introductory template and, in doing so, I overlooked the most remarkable part of his life: while he was facing financial hardship and had not yet established his career, he tutored over 1,000 students for their law school entrance exams—completely free of charge. Many of these students were subsequently admitted to China's most prestigious universities. In China, admission to a top law program is a life-changing event that can fundamentally alter one's social trajectory. For him to undertake such an "unprofitable labor of love" at that stage of his life sounds like a modern-day educational legend.

To be honest, I once struggled deeply with nihilism and did many reckless things. His story was a profound inspiration to me. It made me realize that even in this day and age, there are people who live out their beliefs without regard for personal gain or loss. It taught me that when you stop obsessing over the outcome and simply do what is "right," you are already on your way to becoming the person you aspire to be.

Furthermore, his influence in the Chinese-speaking world is undeniable—his Baidu Baike page has over 10 million views, and he has been the subject of extensive media coverage. You can verify this by searching for his Chinese name: 沈渝霖 .

Regarding the description of him as a "non-partisan" figure (无党派人士), I understand there can be translation ambiguity. In the Chinese context, this term is nuanced and typically refers to a person with significant social influence who is not affiliated with any political party—it carries more weight than a simple "independent." A more accurate English equivalent might be "independent public figure" or "non-partisan figure with significant social influence."

Thank you so much for your guidance. I now see the issues with the previous draft. I will revise it by placing the key points I mentioned above right at the beginning to make the article more engaging and readable. Given his significant social impact and widespread coverage, I am confident that he fully meets the notability requirements for inclusion.

Thank you again for your help.

Sincerely,

lwao7752 Iwao7752 (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Iwao7752, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read what English Wikipedia means by notability. It's not (primarily) about what a person is, or has said or done or created: it's about whether or not there is enough independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an article on.

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

British shorthair thing

The British longhair article which was merged into the British shorthair article's section in the BSH article is shorter than the original unmerged article. Should i add some of the left out information from the longhair article back? ~2026-52072-8 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

They carefully cut out that material, even though it would have been less work for them to leave it in. We have to guess that they must have had a reason to do the extra work of cutting it. For that reason, I suggest you mention it on the article's Talk page and ask what everyone thinks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft Article Improvements

Hi! My question is if this draft would now have a higher chance of being accepted, due to new edits (it was declined before): Draft:Naomi Jon. Luca Felix (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Luca Felix I'm just curious, are you the one editing under those Ip addresses? and yes, your draft has good chance of being accepted. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 08:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, yes the temporary account that were used to edit the draft were mine, I didn’t notice that I wasn‘t logged in into this account lol, sorry if that is a problem! I also just resubmitted the draft :) Luca Felix (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Thilio Luca Felix (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Updating information

I want to update some information on an article. The aforementioned information changes periodically but is always obtained from the same source. My main question is: how should I go about sourcing the updated information? I don't know if I'm supposed to create a second citation with a different access date or if there is another way to update info. Hnagd (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Which article and what information? Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Does the source still verify the original information? If so you can update the access date. Otherwise, yes you will need to create a separate citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to remove tag from article

Hello, I’ve worked extensively to improve the Hezi Shayb article. The sources have been updated and now include references from national libraries, academic publications, media coverage, and verified institutional websites.

The Unreliable sources tag still appears, though the sourcing concerns have been addressed. I kindly ask for a review of the article and consideration for removing the tag.

Thank you very much! --~2026-68662 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I fixed your post so that this page is not tagged as an article with unreliable sources. Unless you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you are free to remove the tag yourself if you think you addressed the issues. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-68662 Thank you for improving Hezi Shayb but the tag should not be removed yet because many important claims still rely on weak or promotional sources. Address that issues fully then remove the tag or if you're not sure, you should use the article Talk page (for questions or for major changes). CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 10:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with editing a page

Recently, I've been trying to edit and polish the page of Llanerch-y-medd, Wales. After my edits were removed by a bot, I immediately asked the talk page what was wrong (I'm still new to Wikipedia), it turns out, it's because everything needs references/sources/citations. The page of Llanerchymedd isn't terrible, but it lacks important information which sadly is only mentioned around the town, and without a source from the web. This includes:

• The No. 8 Rock (a historical sweet from the area)
• Information about the school and other services.
• Some notable people.

But I'm not sure where to start, and I even checked the welsh wikipedia page, which talks about the things I've been trying to edit, but somehow it has no source. But here is my question:

Is Google Maps or images on the public domain enough to prove to Wikipedia that the information is correct and reliable? If not, what counts as reliable? Because, if there is a very real picture online, or a very real location on Google Maps/Earth or Bing Maps or whatever, isn't that kind of solid evidence?

Thanks for your time! CreAm1179 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The page of Llanerchymedd ... lacks important information which sadly is only mentioned around the town, and without a source from the web. But what you then list ("Some notable people", etc), CreAm1179, doesn't sound to me like particularly important information. That aside, sources can be from printed materials -- they don't have to be from books. In my part of the world at least, Google Maps (i) invites people to supply information, and (ii) has quite a number of mistakes -- could (i) and (ii) be related? (I know nothing about Bing.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You can use {{Cite sign}} for blue plaques and similar markers.

That said, things like someone opening a shop or claiming to have seen a UFO are not, in themselves, issues justifying including a person's name in the article.

If you have a camera, or a decent phone, you can take pictures of historical features, or blue plaques (but not info boards with more than a sentence of text) and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, adding them to the category about Llannerch-y-medd, which is already linked to from the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@CreAm1179 Have you tried your local library? They may have some useful books and resources. ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Just an additional note, @CreAm1179, your edits were reverted (undone) by other human editors, not bots. All bots on Wikipedia are required to have 'bot' in their name, and they have very strict regulations about what they can do. Unless you see 'bot' in a name, your edits are being changed by another human. Have a read through WP:BRD, which explains a bit about what to do if you're reverted. It's completely normal to be reverted so don't take it personally - just ask the other editor(s), or on the article's talk page, or here on the Teahouse, and you'll find people are usually happy to explain and discuss. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone have any Argos catalogues?

https://archive.org/search?query=Argos+catalogs

I've only been able to find these ones can anyone help me? This is not a article this is for a project TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TVShowsFan2005. This page is for assistance in using and editing Wikipedia, not anything else. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

where could I ask instead? TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK thanks TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

is there any other places where I could ask? TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, bur for non-Wikipedia projects, help is unlikely. There are also libraries that host reference desks to deal with queries. Look for a major library that has the materials you are interested and also has a reference desk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Or write to Argos. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a question regarding my translations as a new user on the English Wikipedia.

Previously, when I attempted to translate from Japanese to English using the “Content Translation Tool,” I was unable to publish the translation. Upon checking Wikipedia:Content translation tool, I found it stated that translation requires the “Extended confirmed accounts” permission. While it seems possible to request this permission individually from administrators, I'm concerned whether my request would be approved, as my only translation experience so far has been on Meta-Wiki. Should I apply for this permission immediately, or should I focus on other activities to earn the Extended confirmed accounts permission?

As I am Japanese, there may be some differences in perspective or values. I would appreciate your understanding.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Hdialk (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Indeed, as that page says, the content translation tool is restricted to extended-confirmed editors in order to prevent low-quality, unreviewed machine translations being posted on Wikipedia by inexperienced editors. Having extended-confirmed privilege confirms to us that an editor has some experience with the English Wikipedia and its requirements, as well as being generally proficient enough in the English language to contribute here for that long, so we presume they will be able to use the tool responsibly.

You likely will not be granted ECP early, as there would be no point in restricting the tool to ECP users if we then proceeded to grant ECP to anybody who wanted to use a restricted tool. Your best bet is just to participate here normally until you gain ECP. Alternatively, you could simply manually translate pages yourself - but I would suggest that page translation is probably not a very good idea for you. The fact you are using DeepL to translate your communication here suggests you are not 100% fluent in English, and we prefer that users who translate between different-language Wikipedias be proficient in both languages. Otherwise, there is no way for you to verify that your translation is 100% accurate. Athanelar (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] mentioned, I'm not 100% fluent in English, so I'd like to focus on translating the “See also” section (known as “関連項目” in Japanese) rather than the entire page. When Athanelar refers to translating pages, does that mean creating and translating pages from scratch, or translating specific entries?

Is it appropriate to focus on translating the “See also” section? I'd appreciate your response.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Hdialk (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You should not translate any part of a page into English unless you are confident that you can verify the output is accurate. Note WP:MACHINETRANSLATION which says [English] Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing.

It's fine if you speak a little English and are confident you can make sure the output is 100% accurate to the Japanese text. But if you have no English ability at all, you should not translate to or from English. Athanelar (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I'll focus on translating the sections under “See also” that I can translate with confidence. Thank you for your help so far. Hdialk (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hdialk: Before you start translating anything, you might want to familiarize yourself with the purpose of a Wikipedia:See also section. A "See also" section is a place for adding internal links to existing English Wikipedia articles which are somehow connected to the subject matter being covered that might provide further relevant information to the readers of the article; so, there's should really be no need translate anything because articles for all the entries in a "See also" section should already exist and have English titles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Fresh eyes on Draft:Barak Mori after AfC LLM concerns

Hi,

Could someone please take a quick look at Draft:Barak Mori?

I’m a fan of the Israeli jazz scene (no paid/financial connection). The draft was declined at AfC mainly for LLM-style writing, meta-phrases like “as covered by…”, and tone/notability concerns.

Since then I have:

• Removed the “as covered by / reviewed in” language,
• Rewritten the text myself based only on what the sources actually say,
• Trimmed and simplified to keep it neutral and factual.

I’d appreciate if someone can review and hopefully accept the article, or advice if/what is missing.

Thanks a lot for any guidance. ~~~~ Eransharv (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Apple Music, Amazon, Bandcamp, ECM Records and all-out jazz are not reliable independent sources and will need removing/replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and rejected it from further resubmission. My reasoning is in the comment I added to the draft. If you have any further questions, feel free to reply here or at my talk page. Athanelar (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Article Request for MGM University

MGM University article request iamjaydatt (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jay10092006, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you mean you want to request that somebody write an article MGM University, then the appropriate place to make the request is at Requested articles.

However, in honesty, requests there are very rarely picked up, so your chances of finding somebody who is willing to do the research and write the article are remote.

It is possible that if you ask at WT:WikiProject India, somebody there may be interested enough to pick up your suggestion; but probably not.

If you want an article written, usually the most effective way of doing so is to write it yourself. Unfortunately, writing an article is about the most difficult task there is for new editors.

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) 17:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Author's privacy"?

Hello,
On the page Hell University there seems to be a few individuals (or one individual, not sure) persistently removing the real name of KnightInBlack, the author of the book on which the series is based: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_University&action=history
The only reason given is "authors privacy" by an account that joined only 35 minutes ago (as of writing): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThegillhaveme&redlink=1
The only edit these individuals have made on Wikipedia is to remove the author's name "Raymond Velasco".
However, the author's real name "Raymond Velasco" comes from this reliable source (Philippine Daily Inquirer article) which is cited in the Hell University page: https://entertainment.inquirer.net/649582/zeke-polina-heart-ryan-driven-by-healthy-pressure-in-hell-university
The author's real names are also indicated in the following pages:

• A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) – it says "written by Lemony Snicket, the pen name of Daniel Handler"
• Diary ng Panget – it says "written by Denny R" and Denny's page states she is known by the pen name HaveYouSeenThisGirL
• Strike (TV series) – states the show is based on books written by JK Rowling under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith
• Ang Mutya ng Section E – states that it is based on books by Lara Flores, pen name EatMore2BeHappy

I have not seen any indication on KnightInBlack's official pages that he doesn't want his real name out there. And again, Inquirer (a reliable newspaper) stated his name Raymond Velasco.
Should I request protection or just leave it? Bloomagiliw (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you asked the user on their talk page to explain their edits? Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I will do so now. Bloomagiliw (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bloomagiliw. You need to be really careful when it comes to things like this for the reasons explained in WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPKIND. New accounts do occasionally show up and remove personally identifying information for articles like what seems to have happened here. Typically, the best thing to do isn't to immediately revert but instead seek assistance from others. Sometimes a noticeboard like WP:BLPN is a good place to discuss this type of thing. The information will still be there in the article's page history and can easily be restored if the consensus is to do so. Reverting the removal tends to just lead to a more back-and-forth reverting which then further devolves into edit warring, and both sides will be seen as being at fault. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand. I've left out the author's name (though it's still in one of the newspaper references) and talked with one of the users, who declared that they are personally connected to said author. I've explained to them that people closely connected with a subject, writing about said subject or related topics on this site, is discouraged, but they can make requests on talk pages. I think this has been resolved, though next time I'll keep that in mind. Bloomagiliw (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A person whose identity is already well known to the public has no right to try to get it censored after the fact, as far as I know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not true per WP:BLPPRIVACY: The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. Wikipedia often removes people's names even if they are published in secondary sources to preserve privacy, two common cases being MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLPCRIME. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, that's good to know. Thanks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft article on Charles Humber

• Mike Woodcock (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles J. Humber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted a draft article on Charles Humber. It was rejected as had no references and I have now added and resubmitted. I also assured there is no conflict of interest. I am uncertain if the article will be reviewed again. Mike Woodcock (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mike Woodcock, and welcoem to the Teahouse.

You have not yet resubmitted the draft Draft:Charles J. Humber for review: you can do so by picking the blue "Resubmit" button.

However, I advise you not to do so yet.

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.

Consequently writing a draft successfully begins with finding several sources each of which is not only reliable, but wholly independent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Neither of your sources is either independent or contains significant coverage.

The reason for making this the very first step is that if you are unable to find several suitable sources, you will know that there is no point in spending any more time or effort on an unattainable project.

If you do find such sources, the next step is to put aside everything that you know about the subject (especially, anything that the subject or their associates have said about them, in any medium), and write a neutral summary of what those sources say about the subject. After that, if you have a viable article, you can add a small amount of uncontroversial factual information (dates, places etc) from primary sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding references to notes section

Neither of the notes in the article for Cookie Clicker have sources. I have found a source for one of them and am trying to add it. I see I need to use source editor, but I am struggling with adding the source. I removed where it said "" and in its place, tried using the cite, templates, cite web thing to insert a source with a link I had. Once entering the information, I received the message "Cite error: The named reference Note02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." I tried to check the help page, but I could not really understand much of it at all.

Essentially, could someone help with referencing the section? Nyancat5249 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The visual editor has a tool which automatically formats web references just by pasting a URL into it, I would suggest you use that. Athanelar (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

That was what I originally tried to do, but when I use the visual editor and go to the relevant bit of the article, it says "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode." Nyancat5249 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Which reference, though? If you're removing a citation needed template then there should be no existing reference there? Athanelar (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure - even when I remove the citation needed template in source editor and return to visual editor, the message appears. If I preview the edit after removing the template, it works fine, but when I try to add the citation, it gives the cite error message. Nyancat5249 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Because you're trying to add a citation inside of a note, and notes are formatted like a kind of citation.

You can try to use the {{cite web}} template, but I'm not sure if nested footnotes work.

Replace the {{cn}} template with the {{cite web}} template, obviously with all the relevant parameters defined (url, date accessed etc - you can see details on the page for the template) Athanelar (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I tried doing that and it pasted "Hogg, Connor (June 10, 2025). "Cookie Clicker: Best Ways To Progress Fast". Game Rant." after the note, so it seems like nested footnotes do not work. From this then, how should I go about referencing the information? Nyancat5249 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

To get out of this problem if a nice elegant solution isn't found, you might put the newer note separately, right after the older one. I wouldn't call that great, but it might be the best one among the non-solutions. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nyancat5249 Just a general comment about this article. The lead should say it's a video game. I know it's inferred, but there are many types of games. ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

A newbie question from totally inexperienced old people like myself.

My high school has a wikipedia page. I added a few items like school plays and the year, into a table already present. I challenged fellow grads to add to the page, notable alumni and grads, sports figures and celebrities. I received this message today (names redacted). Can anyone offer support or advice?:

I took up the request and made several updates to Notable Students and Alumni, but each time my entries were removed/reverted because they were not "verifiable," even though I had external links to substantiate their veracity. For example, English teacher xxx xxxx, with film credit under xxxx, appeared in xxxxxxxxx and I linked that to the IMDb site that listed all the cast, including xxxxx, and that was taken down... twice.

After two evenings of trying to contribute, which only resulted in my updates being taken down, I simply gave up.

How can we update the wiki if the only "verifiable source" is our personal knowledge of a person? How can we contribute if Wikipedia won't accept our external sources as valid? ~2026-32594-1 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Convenience link: Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School

Lovelano (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

How can we update the wiki if the only "verifiable source" is our personal knowledge of a person? How can we contribute if Wikipedia won't accept our external sources as valid? You don't. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and that means information needs to be referenced to reliable sources. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Our core content policy No original research is also relevant to this situation. Also,IMDb is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia except in very limited ways. It can be edited by the general public. For the same reason, one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reliable source in another Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-32594-1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In fact, most schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and I strongly suspect that Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School does not: I have tagged it accordingly.

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. So if suitable reliable independent sources do not exist, no acceptable article is possible.

I suspect that you may be dismayed to find that your work on this article has brought it to others' attention, and may result in the article being deleted: I will say rather, thank you for bringing a very poorly cited article to our attention, and helping us improve the quality of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Personal knowledge on a person or subject may be true, but it is impossible for a reader to verify that knowledge. We don't know if your personal knowledge on that school is true because we have no idea who you are and whether we can trust you. Our policy on verifiability ensures we can keep our content consistently reliable without relying on anecdotal experiences. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

By this, we do unfortunately lose information that could have been provided by honest people telling the truth about events. But if we allowed it, dishonest people would take advantage, and Wikipedia would quickly be ruined. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on Como's restaurant draft article

Hello everyone, I’m a new editor and just finished a draft for a historic Ferndale restaurant called Como's. I’ve included sources from Crain’s and Metro Times to establish notability, and covered its history from 1961 to the present. Could someone check my sandbox to see if the tone, formatting and citations are looking OK before I submit it for review? Thank you! The draft is here: User:ladygunfighter249/sandbox Ladygunfighter249 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm impressed! It looks really good, I suggest you submit it for review. The one change I would make is change the title of the section "Reception" to "Ratings", Reception is usually used for artistic works such as a movie or book. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and that is a great suggestion I will change that and submit. Ladygunfighter249 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Having trouble adding the month and year on the 'semi-retired' template

I have an account on Wikipedia (just currently signed out due to currently using a different browser), I tried to get the 'semi-retired' template on my userpage to say I'm no longer very active as of January 2026, but when I try to do so using (without the spaces):

{ {semi-retired|date={{subst:January2026}}} }

It comes out saying '{{subst:January2026}}}}' instead of January 2026.

Semi-retired

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of {{subst:January2026}}.

What am I doing wrong?

Since the box above is asking for it, the link for the template is Template:Semi-retired and I want my reply to be for 'Source' view of the Wikipedia edit tool on desktop. ~2026-54437-6 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54437-6: You need to follow the example in {{Semi-retired}} exactly; so write

{{semi-retired|date={{subst:Monthyear}}}}

which will put today's month and year in the message. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then say 'February 2026' after January ends? Or will it continue to say 'January 2026'? ~2026-54437-6 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

subst: (Wikipedia:Substitution) performs a one-time substitution that removes the template and replaces it with the rendered text, so the text will not be updated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The template {{monthyear}} inserts the current month and year. If you substitute that template, then as explained above it will replace the template with the current month and year, which will not change. Athanelar (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The template {{monthyear}} actually substitutes to {{#time:F Y}}. This time function will update to display the current month and year, and is not forever displaying the month and year at time of saving.

This here would work and always display the month and year when it was saved: {{semi-retired|{{subst:DATE}}}}. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, I have updated the example in {{semi-retired}}. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Are such templates worth posting? A large percentage of sometime editors have disappeared, and only a smallish percentage of these announced that they would do so; meanwhile, many of those who have announced that they're "semi-retired" busily edit away, whether to improve articles or to pursue old or new disagreements with other editors. But perhaps I'm missing something, and am unusual in not taking these templates at all seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor posting any type of retirement notice should be taken roughly as seriously as a middle aged rock star announcing their retirement. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The retirement notices are of no real value to anyone. They do falsely appear to indicate "I'm not dead, I only left" - but for that to be valid, each person with a retirement notice would need to remember to take down the sign after that was no longer the case; in many cases, they have tended to forget.

Seeing that a person's most recent edit was 40 years ago or whatever, already functions as their retirement notice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

When to link to other Wikipedia pages

I was looking through Loek Dikker and noticed several links to the Dutch Wikipedia. When would I use those? Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 23:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maccore Henni! Usually, interlanguage links are discouraged in line text, but they may be used to accompany a redlink in the English Wikipedia so that those who wish to know more know that there's an option in another language. Template:interlanguage link can do this -- there's more info on the technical side at H:FOREIGNLINK. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 23:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know any other languages, I was just using Special:Random and saw this and wondered. Thanks for your help, OmegaMantis! {{tb|OmegaMantis}} Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OmegaMantis, if you are saying that the use in body text of Template:Ill is discouraged, you surprise me. Where did you learn of this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary: I interpreted OmegaMantis' answer to mean bare interwiki links like [[:de:Martin Doerry|Martin Doerry]] (which produces Martin Doerry), whereas {{ill|Martin Doerry|de}} (Martin Doerry) is acceptable. I do see where the original answer could've been clearer. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Rotideypoc41352, but I'd say that {{ill|Martin Doerry|de||fr}} (Martin Doerry) is even better. OmegaMantis may wish to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that bare interwiki links are discouraged per MOS:INTERLINK, which states "inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged" and then has the caveat for Wikisource and Wikitionary links and the Template:Ill. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 04:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ill, according to its own documentation, is discouraged (or deprecated, or something) on Spanish Wikipedia - but not so on English Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Egyptian passport

so do someone know when are we going to get biometric passport ~2026-54472-5 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-54472-5! Could you please be more specific -- also, um, what does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 23:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

After checking your contributions, it seems you been editing various pages to ask about passports. We cannot help you here at the Teahouse or at any other pages -- the Teahouse is for help editing Wikipedia, while other pages are solely for themselves and for the purpose of making better articles about them. You may ask your question at the Reference Desk. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 23:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

oh ldk but l was like how to say l try to publish it on the biometric passport page but ldk if it was going to happen soon or not but l did publish it anyways and some ai or a person told me to came here os something or ldk to asking questions or something ~2026-54472-5 (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

So on Wikipedia, most of what we try to do is summarize existing facts on our articles -- so we don't like have questions or speculations on them, but rather info based off a source like a newspaper article. If you find a source involving Egyptian passports you can add your statement and cite it. Does that help? I confess I'm still somewhat confused by your phrasing. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

he;p

ok wait lol i lowkey already had chatgpt try to like make it constructive and it actually did and i even told it to talk about real conservation stuff so like i feel like i should get another shot or u could just give me a new prompt to throw at chatgpt ~2026-34953-4 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Large language models. You should not use ChatGPT to add content in Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

And if you want to add content to an article here, start with a reliable independent source of information. Base your change on what it says. Disambiguation pages normally will link to articles that already exist or are likely to be created. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

lol dude you like obviously lowkey were trying to add like content about some guy called vibro god and like you asked chatgpt to try to like hide it in actual article prose lowkey lol Athanelar (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Translations of words in different languages?

I was looking at the The Goddess Bhairavi Devi with Shiva page, and I saw a lot of Sanskritic words that might be intimidating for an uninitiated reader. I was thinking to offer translations in parenthesis, but I don't know what the standard convention is on Wikipedia. Do I offer translations, do I put the English or the Sanskrit in parentheses, are translations necessary if the words have been hyperlinked, etc. Can anyone point me to a policy that might describe what I should do to improve the page? Oraclesto (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Does MOS:FOREIGN contain the guidance you seek? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Oraclesto All those words seem to be Wikilinks, so I see no need for a "translation". The Sanskrit is used because there is no one-to-one English translation for those terms. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Wording change on the Teahouse page

This text is at the top of the Teahouse: "The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed...".

Shouldn't the reference to "IP addresses" be changed? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, I just changed the template. Thanks. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 04:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

File deletion

Hello! I was hoping someone could weigh in on a deletion discussion that recently took place. Looking it over, it seems as if the discussion was closed and the file was deleted with barely any discussion and without addressing the concerns of the dissenters. What are your thoughts? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @OrdinaryOtter. WP:NFCC is a policy with legal considerations, which means there will never be a reason to ignore it. One criterion of the policy is that no fair use image should exist when it could be replaced by a free image. Considering a free image exists and could replace the fair use image, the fair use image was deleted. The dissenters ignored what the policy said, so in my opinion, I see no reason the discussion should have stayed open longer than it should have. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want us to weight in; do you disagree with the result? The people voting delete were correct per WP:NFCC, though unfortunately the new image is of poor quality. jolielover♥talk 05:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. My question is, don't you have to come to a conclusion that the free image in question is adequate to replace the file being deleted? That it fulfills the needs of the page, in this case offering an adequate depiction of a character? Personally, I believe the new, free image has problems, but I am more interested in making sure the process was undertaken properly. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OrdinaryOtter, there is no requirement that a free image be "adequate" as perceived by Wikipedia editors. Including an image is optional and never required. The existence of a freely licensed or public domain image of the character precludes any use whatsoever of a non-free image. This is a non-negotiable policy with major legal implications. To quote the first sentence of the policy As per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007, this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia. There is no wiggle room. 99 editors can say "Keep" because they do not like the free alternative. One editor can say "Delete per policy". The file will then be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. WP:NFCC states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Don't you have to come to a conclusion that an image does or doesn't serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Doesn't that involve editors interpreting policy?

I'm not trying to be difficult or dismissive of policy. I'm still a relatively new editor, and my questions are sincere in an effort to understand. I'm not arguing or being purposefully obtuse. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryOtter. If you disagree with the close of that particular FFD discussion, the best thing to do is to follow the guidance in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE because there's not really anything anyone can do here at the Teahouse. The first step to challenging a close is to seek clarification from the administrator who closed the discussion, even if only just as a courtesy. Based on that discussion, you can then decide whether you want to further pursue the matter via WP:DELETIONREVIEW. You should understand, though, that a deletion review, in principle, shouldn't be seen as another chance to repeat arguments already made and considered during the FFD discussion; so, it's not Round 2 of the FFD discussion. It's mainly really for the purpose of assessing whether the close of the discussion was done in accordance with relevant policy and the closer didn't do anything inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OrdinaryOtter, the portion of the policy related to images can be found with the shortcut WP:NFCI and that includes a list of ten circumstances where a non-free image may be acceptable. This particular Harry Potter issue comes nowhere close to any of those ten. In theory, an image that does not fall into one of those ten circumstances might possibly be approved. But a very powerful policy argument would need to be made and I am not seeing it in this case. "I like the other image better" is not a valid argument, because if the free image is so poor that editors reject it, the option is to just leave it out of the article. Harry Potter (character) already has a "Outward appearance" section that conveys his appearance in prose for our readers. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and informative response. It clarifies the issue for me. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Newer users and authoritative roles

Today, I went through many Conflict of Interest change requests and fulfilled/denied some of them, even without a second opinion. While I'm confident I made the right decision when I did deny/fulfill the request, I was wondering what y'all's thoughts were on newer users providing feedback and generally filling authoritative roles. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mustbeotherwise Learning by doing and WP:BOLD is a respectable way around here. If other editors have specific criticism, they'll hopefully WP:COMMUNICATE it to you. New editors answering questions here on the Teahouse are sometimes told that they did it wrong, and should not answer stuff they don't know enough about, and that is also respectable. WP:BLPKIND may interest you, if you haven't seen it before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There's also nothing particularly 'authoritative' about fulfilling COI edit requests. In fact it's unglamorous and highly backlogged work, so I doubt you'll get anything but praise for tackling it. Athanelar (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Still, feels authoritative because you're making judgements about whether or not a edit is approved... But I get what you mean. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Common sense, WP-clue and a degree of civility are certainly called for. And it can be authoritative in the sense that your decisions might be the final word on the matter. WP is funny like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

New Actor Wikipedia Page

Hi! I’m hoping to get some help with a draft biography I’ve been working on: Draft:Frederick Du Rietz I’m his spouse (declared conflict of interest), and the article covers his work in Australian film and television, with independent coverage from sources such as Deadline and The Sydney Morning Herald. It also includes his roles in the Netflix series Secret City and the AMC+ series Black Snow. I’d really appreciate any feedback or editing suggestions, and if someone feels it’s ready, I’d be very grateful for help moving it toward publication. Thanks so much for your time — any guidance would be hugely appreciated. Rupin3232 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. As the template atop the draft tells you, "Review waiting, please be patient." Meanwhile, (i) Don't refer to him as Frederick. Use his surname instead. (ii) Ending a sentence with "^{[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]}" is a sure sign that something is wrong. WP:Citation overkill says: Draft articles with excessive citations are likely to be ignored by volunteer reviewers in the articles for creation (AfC) process, contributing to the backlog and resulting in a delay of several months before the draft is reviewed, usually only to be declined. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Rupin3232. I agree with Hoary. Your current references 20 through 29 are worthless and counterproductive because they do not even discuss Du Rietz and they waste time or frustrate or infuriate volunteer reviewers. Probably all three. Reference quality is vastly more important than quantity. Remove the references that fail to devote significant, in-depth coverage to Du Rietz and simply summarize those that do. Cullen328 (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

how can i find my draft in my wikipedia account?

i wrote yesterday an article on my wikipedia page but i didn't finnished it, so i click on publish in order to finish my writing today but, i didnt find where should i get in NHSM (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@NHSM Welcome to Teahouse! Click Contributions CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, NHSM. Your draft is Draft:National higher school of mathematics. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello I'm new to Wikipedia!

Hello fellow Wikipedian I'm brand new account and I don't understand Wikipedia Guidelines I'm so right about the people who judge me (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• hello fellow Wikipedian, I'm am brand new account in Wikipedia, and can anyone guide me with the policy

I'm so right about the people who judge me (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@I'm so right about the people who judge me These might be helpful starting points for you:

• Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes
• WP:TUTORIAL

We have tons of guidelines, but depending on what you indend to do, a lot of it is probably not very relevant. A more specific question might get a more specific answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm being Bitten

Hello everyone I need some assistance because I do not know how to deal with situations where I feel somebody is "biting" me because I have recently become an editor. An experienced editor reported me for an investigation because they said my editing style resembles the behavior of "long-term abusers." This report made me feel very discouraged because I am trying to learn everything about the field while making positive contributions. I have read WP:BITE and WP:AGF yet I find it hard to participate because I received this early label. New editors should maintain their normal editing pattern while dealing with serious accusations against them. I want to find a mentor who will help me understand community standards so I can improve my editing skills and avoid future problems. I want to end this situation so I can spend my time working on productive editing. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. I'm so right about the people who judge me (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ignore... trolling by a sock. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about it (unless you are a sockpuppet, of course.) If you truly have nothing to do with the sockpuppet network being investigated, a CheckUser will be able to verify that and clear you of any wrongdoing. Carry on as normal and ignore it. Athanelar (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

(your username, though, is not exactly a good sign.) Athanelar (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

not trolling I'm so right about the people who judge me (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles and their histories

Hello TH,

I would like to know if there is a way to identify any discussions/redirects/merges of an article that have been deleted, prior to making a new one about (potentially) the same subject again. Thank you, I appreciate all your help. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're lucky, they are templated on the talkpage. Otherwise, searching the relevant archives like at WP:AFD and WP:RFD might help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What can we do.

While reviewing the new page, I came across the article Geoff Sellars and felt that it was not yet ready for mainspace. I therefore moved it to draft and submitted it through AfC. However, the original creator later directly modified the article and removed the templates. At this point, what would be the best course of action to prevent this kind of issue? Since a draft version already exists, would it be appropriate to roll back the changes? Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)