Wikipedia:Teahouse

Theroadislong, 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.

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.]

Approval of Not Just Bikes' statements?

Original title of this thread: Could the existence of Not Just Bikes Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toarin (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to self: I really gotta stop worrying about this topic. Toarin (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Not Just Bikes § Could the existence of this Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements?

Also, for someone who generally agrees with the overall messages of his channel, some of his videos, to me, made a few claims that might not be WP:DUE. Such as saying that “American trucks” are murder machines or that footbridges would almost always be a bad idea.

References

Notes: 1. Should the Wikipedia community approves of those statements, I'd be more than happy to have them used as sources in appropriate articles.

2. “by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers” was in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber), an AfD that was closed in Jan 2026. Toarin (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Toarin (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

Subscriber count is a poor indicator of notability as it barely takes a second to hit subscribe to a youtube channel and we are looking for substantial coverage from reliable sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

> I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

That is a strong argument. Although I think that for many of the times, such things are labeled accordingly to not be endorsed. Such as entries in Category:War crimes committed by country

Having an article on a particular subjects does certainly not imply endorsement. After all, we have articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, many serial killers, etc etc. That's not to say that the article is written from a neutral point of view right now, that would be a separate, and potentially valid criticism (though I haven't read the article). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Having an article on nazism doesn't mean we approve nazism. Yes, Godwin's law, I know. sapphaline (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about other Wikipedia editors but the feeling that such an opinionated person have an article on Wikipedia but the Wikipedia editors like us are expected to not be opinionated in their editings is such so demoralizing. Toarin (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable independent sources say it's a war crime, or a bad YouTube channel, then we can say that. If you have a reliable source criticizing this channel, for example, it would be reasonable to include in the article. But we're not allowed to put in our own opinions.

This may not suit you, which is fine. There are good places for well written opinion pieces: this just isn't one of them. M kuhner (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have abridged the original, wordy title of this thread. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Toarin, any editor of any encyclopedia must be neutral and objective, and state facts rather than opinions. If you are unable to be objective, then on Wikipedia you should not edit on subjects you have strong opinions about. Save your strong opinions for social media, blogs, or off-wiki conversations. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you are concern that I might be too opinionated to be objective on Wikipedia. But be assured that I always intended to be objective on Wikipedia. Pretty much the only reason I started this thread is to make sure that it'd be okay to disregard what I believe might cause factual inaccuracy down the line. Toarin (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing "considered a reliable source" with "has a Wikipedia page." Like most YouTube channels, this one is unlikely to be considered a reliable source: information taken from it can't be used to support other articles unless it can be shown that the channel owner is a recognized expert. But Wikipedia has lots of articles on unreliable sources, for example the articles on OnlyFans, IMDB, or Breitbart. Existence of an article is not an endorsement: all it says is that the subject is notable (in the Wikipedia sense).

If you find anything sourced to this channel that you feel is inappropriate, feel free to either boldly remove it, or start a Talk page discussion.

Thanks for your concern about accuracy! Questionable sources are always worth keeping an eye on. M kuhner (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response is highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Toarin (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Creating my first article

Right now I am creating a draft article on Croftmalloch Primary School in Whitburn so any tips for it? (I think it is notable as it has won the gold sports award gold rights respecting School award and digital schools Scotland award) Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You or I may think that it's notable, Icantthink..., but the question is of whether it's notable according to one or more of Wikipedia's relevant criteria for notability. My tip? Forget this draft, for three or four months. During that time, improve existing articles. Then apply your experience of making those improvements to the development of Draft:Croftmalloch Primary School. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks for that tip :) Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Icantthinkofausername12345, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. I have been participating in deletion debates and offering advice to new editors for about 15 years. Articles about primary schools rarely survive unless the school in question is indisputably historic or of architectural significance. The vast majority of primary schools do not meet those standards. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks ill read it the now Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Salutations!

You might think the subject is notable, but how many sources show up when you search the name of the school, not counting social media, government databases or articles that only mention the school once with no special article on the school itself? These are things you might want to double-check, as Wikipedia not only requires the subject to be notable, but it prohibits original research. No matter how much you may know about the subject, you must have a source to back up your information.

Next, I’ve noticed that instead of your sources being in the form of a citation, you used external links. Don’t do that! To cite a source, click on the button that appears as two quotation marks, click on automatic, and copy and paste the link you want to cite. Wikipedia will do the rest for you!

Also in your article, Raeburn Crescent and West Lothian should link back to their respective articles, if there is one.

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia’s notability standards, and Wikipedia’s manual of style.

Moreover, if you’d like, you could use a high-quality article that already existing in Wikipedia, and use that as a formatting reference guide!

Goodbye and happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 23:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sandaig Bay

There are two Articles on Wikipedia. One has the above title, and the other is "Glenelg, Highland; Sandaig and Camusfearna". There are cross-references. "Sandaig" in the second Article refers to the Sandaig Islands, about 14km north of Sandaig Bay. However, in the section headed Geography, all but one sentence in the Sandaig Bay article actually relate to Sandaig Islands.

This is the first time I have ever wanted to suggest an amendment to a Wiki page, and so I have no idea how to proceed. I would appreciate some advice aimed at a newcomer. I could provide new text for the Geograph section of the Sandaig Bay article if desired. ~2026-39921-53 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39921-53, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. So, for most articles, if you think you can improve them you can simply go ahead and do so - edit the article, and make sure you leave an edit summary that will be helpful to other editors.

If somebody disagrees that your edit is an improvement, they may revert it. They will often leave a message on your user talk page to say they have done so, and perhaps explain why; but there is no requirement on them to do that.

If that happens, and you still think that the article can be improved, the place to open a discussion is the article's talk page (eg Talk:Sandaig Bay - which seems to have an old discussion of something similar to your point, though I'm not sure if it is the same thing or not).

This whole process is all described in BRD.

If you are not clear what change is desirable, or you think your suggestion might be controversial, you can begin by opening a discussion on the talk page.

An important thing to note is that as long as you are editing in good faith, you need not worry about making mistakes, or about other editors disagreeing with you: that's how collaborative editing works. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin, that is very helpful - and reassuring! Just to let you know that the discussion in Talk:Sandaig Bay is exactly the same point as mine, but nothing seems to have happened. At least this will give you some confidence in my changes.

I have today submitted my changes to the Sandaig Bay article, and await reaction. There are a few things I do not know how to do - e.g. check the relevance of the References, and delete or correct the list of islands in the box to the right - but no doubt they can be sorted. (Another one is turning appropriate words or phrases into links.)

I have not yet made any edits to the other article, "Glenelg, Highland ...", though I will do so if you think this desirable. One issue is that I would be adding quite a lot of geography to what is now a rather short paragraph about Gavin Maxwell, which might unbalance it. Is that OK by you? If I am honest, I think there should be a new article, called either "Sandaig Islands" or "Sandaig and Camusfearna" (with appropriate changes to the "Glenelg ..." article), but at my current level of experience I do not think I should volunteer.

Two more general points. (1) Presumably I need to set up some sort of ID page? My name is David Purchase, and I am a UK citizen with (among other things) a strong interest in hillwalking and maps. (2) Is there a way of 'flagging' this discussion so that I can find it more quickly? ~2026-39921-53 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Beside the title of this discussion, are you able to see a little menu? (I see a three-dots type of menu, but I'm on my phone, and a real computer screen may show things differently.) Anyway, if you see a menu there, "Copy link" should be one of the items. And if you visit that link, you can immediately bookmark it in your browser's menu, thus saving it for later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39921-53.

You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to create an account (whether you use your real name or a pseudonym is up to you), and if you do, you will be able to create a user page on which you may share as much or as little information as you like about you as a Wikipedia editor - including a limited amount about your life outside Wikipedia - see WP:UPYES.

Neither an account nor a user page is a requirement, though. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Finding Sources

Is it okay to use LLMs to find sources for articles? I am aware of the concerns about using AI to actually write articles, but is there any problem with using it to find sources? Just asking in case, because I don't want to do anything that violates policy or that is potentially unethical. Thanks! Tufflikethat (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're using an LLM off-Wiki to look for sources, that's your affair. But you should carefully investigate any source thus found before you place it anywhere on Wikipedia, because AI/LLMs frequently hallucinate non-existant sources, and cite real sources that actually have no mention of the facts they supposedly support or contain. They also, as I have found by experiment, readily proffer as fact things said in fictional works that are not true in the real world.

However you find sources, it is your responsibility to check them before use.

Sorry if this sounds 'stern', but dealing with fake facts and sources created by so-called AI can potentially waste a lot of our time, and yours. WP:LLM and some of the linked essays, etc. at WP:AIDIR, including WP:LLMSEARCH, are worth studying if you haven't already. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment. It is solely your responsibility, and it is a serious one, to determine whether any given source is reliable and whether or not it actually verifies the assertion in question. This applies to sources found with AI/LLM tools just as it does with sources found through conventional Google searches, library books, or books from your own shelves or found at a used book store. Do not believe any assurance by an AI tool about the quality of a source. Verify it yourself. Determining the reliability of any given source is one of the most important skills of an encyclopedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

While just going through this discussion again, Cullen, I just noticed I misspelled your name in an earlier message referring to this message that I posted on the 17th. Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Using an LLM for this gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it. The differences: the LLM is faster, and the LLM is programmed to conceal its own stupidity. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

I think Colin’s reply well represents an approach that most in the scientific fields would agree with … which leaves the door open to different approaches of gathering information but uses rigorous standards of verifying it. Augnablik (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

Yes - absolutely. The stupid person will retrieve some good items too. It's not different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As an educator, I can assure you that even an idiot can sometimes find a decent source. But what I stress to students like yourself is that the process of searching for sources often reveals context, and for this reason they should "map" their research process. In searching a topic, one may find that scholars and journalists hold different views than what one imagined. This is especially rewarding on Wikipedia. Using a LLM search engine can skip a lot of that process and filter out the conversations and debates that made a topic worth writing about in the first place, in favor of strictly answering your prompt. It would be like walking through a forest and looking only at the dirt trail you're hiking. One may not always need that context, but my point is that the risk is greater than just verifiability. As a high school student who obviously cares about their intellectual development, I think you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs. You wouldn't ask a robot to lift weights for you; you shouldn't ask a LLM to do your thinking for you (because research is thinking!) Gebble (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this helped a lot. Yes I have really taken up Wikipedia to further myself, so I guess skipping the process of finding sources would be like shooting myself in the foot! Tufflikethat (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

📚As a fellow educator, @Gebble, I fully agree with your aim to get students to look for "different views than what one imagined" and mapping their research process. But I think you ended your advice to @Tufflikethat just shy of a well-rounded discussion when you said, "you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs," as AI needn’t be relied on but simply be made intelligent use of. Which is something perhaps you too hold, but I just wanted to pick up on the wording of your message in light of our young new editor's original question.

AI is so often viewed through "either-or" lenses so that it’s seen as worthy of either tossing in a trash bin or placing on a throne. And to those who view AI through the first of these lenses, anyone who suggests the merest possibility of middle ground is worthy of choice words of rebuke for presumed low intelligence.

To help students understand there can be legitimate use of AI as a tool and how that's done—especially at the start of an assignment to get some traction going that could include a few possible sources that might be helpful to follow up on personally—is an approach I’m seeing more and more news reports of in the academic world. But I also see it adapted elsewhere, such as news reports from the journalistic, medical, and legal worlds. It points to increasing valuation of AI as a very beneficial tool for when used wisely, which in turn means clear guidance and expectations absolutely must accompany all school assignments and work production.

Two publications from the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Kansas are just a few examples of this approach in the academic world: “Helping students understand the biases in generative AI” and “Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era.” Augnablik (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Biographical Notability

One of the notes that I got on a rejection was something to the effect of “This article was written based on what the subjects employer has written about them”. The comment then directed me here to the sandbox to learn more about biographical notability regarding the rejected subject.

The problem is, not one single source that was cited was from the subject’s employer (please see linked below). Is there anyway to check to see if someone has biographical notability despite previous rejections? Based on the 12 links below (and there are more) as well as this subject being mentioned (but not cited) in other people’s Wikipedia’s,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Connecticut_Senate_23rd_district_special_election

it would seem that this subject has not been written about by his employer, or anyone that he employs.

Usable Hyperlinked Sources

Extended content

1. Hartford Courant — Police News (1998)

https://www.courant.com/1998/01/06/police-news-5341/

2. NBC Connecticut — Deputy Chief of Staff controversy

Article 1

Hartford mayor’s former nominee speaks out after criminal past revealed

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/hartford-mayors-former-nominee-speaks-out-after-criminal-past-revealed/2020870/

Article 2

New deputy chief of staff steps down after convictions are discovered

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/new-deputy-chief-of-staff-steps-down-after-convictions-are-discovered/1916677/

3. CT Public Radio — Criminal justice reform advocacy

Ex-offenders urge Gov. Malloy to make a “second-chance society” possible

https://www.ctpublic.org/politics/2015-03-16/ex-offenders-urge-gov-malloy-to-make-a-second-chance-society-possible

4. CT-N — Unlock the Vote event footage

(Primary source documenting public appearance and introductions)

https://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odid=10320

5. CT Post — Voting rights and incarceration

Casting a ballot from behind bars: No easy process

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Casting-a-ballot-from-behind-bars-No-easy-process-14491901.php

6. New Haven Independent — Criminal record controversy

Criminal record controversy

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/2018/09/12/criminal_record_controversy_p/

7. Hartford Business Journal — Advocacy & cannabis entrepreneurship

Ex-cons turn to advocacy, cannabis and entrepreneurship following incarceration

https://hartfordbusiness.com/article/ex-cons-turn-to-advocacy-cannabis-and-entrepreneurship-following-incarceration/

8. Hartford Business Journal — Power 50 recognition

2023 Power 50: Kennard Ray & Tiana Hercules

https://hartfordbusiness.com/honoree/2023-power-50-47-kennard-ray-tiana-hercules/

9. FOX61 — Social equity cannabis retail venture

Connecticut’s first social equity joint-venture cannabis retailer opens

https://www.fox61.com/article/money/business/connecticuts-first-social-equity-joint-venture-cannabis-retailer-friday/520-f7ddb39a-64eb-459f-9aa1-bdf0d5a2fa72

10. WTNH — Social equity cannabis store opening

Connecticut’s first social equity cannabis store opens in Manchester

https://www.wtnh.com/news/cannabis-in-connecticut/connecticuts-1st-social-equity-cannabis-store-opens-in-manchester/

11. CT Mirror — Social equity cannabis policy coverage

Connecticut cannabis businesses face challenges amid dispensary sales

https://ctmirror.org/2025/04/08/ct-cannabis-marijuana-dispensaries-social-equity-sell-business/

12. Additional CT Mirror / CT Public coverage of the cannabis industry

The state of Connecticut’s cannabis industry

https://www.ctpublic.org/show/disrupted/2023-02-22/the-state-of-connecticuts-cannabis-industry-from-clean-slate-to-equity-joint-ventures

Logoyogo (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Before anything else, if you are writing about yourself or someone with whom you have a connection (job, family, anything like that) you must disclose that conflict of interest following the rules at WP:Conflict of interest. We strongly discourage people from writing articles about themselves; it is very difficult to do well, since you have to set aside everything you personally know and only write about what outsiders say.

I presume the article subject is Kennard Ray? Your first source is not usable because it reports only a charge, not a conviction, and it is very seldom appropriate to report on those.

Several of the others are effectively interviews. While they are compelling stories, Wikipedia in general is not interested in what people say about themselves, only in what reliable independent sources say about them.

I think there may be an article possible here. I recommend identifying 2-3 reliable, independent secondary sources and asking for comment just on those (feel free to post on my Talk page). You really need things that are not just repeating information from the subject, but have independent analysis. Be sure to polish the article well before submitting it, to get it the best possible hearing. (Well polished articles also get reviewed faster!) M kuhner (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes you are correct I am the subject. I actually thought I was doing the COI correctly, but may have been mistaken.

I can totally understand why it is frowned upon for someone to write an entry on themselves, as you said it is hard, if not impossible to be objective.

However, when reading a Wikipedia entry, seeing that I’ve been mentioned, but not cited I wanted to fill in the blank and close the loop on that particular wiki and possibly others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Connecticut_Senate_23rd_district_special_election

Because I am still new to Wikipedia and also, as you’ve pointed out, clouded possibly by writing about myself, it’s a bit hard for me to distinguish which articles are essentially interviews and which are considered reliable independent secondary sources. The 12 that I originally selected were chosen because I believed that they were independent, secondary sources. If you would be so kind to scan through to suss out whether or not there or are 2 - 3 that could be considered that would be extremely appreciated.

https://connecticut.news12.com/2024/06/18/ct-pardons-day-teaches-lessons-in-clearing-criminal-records/3DmTVaY2xyImW8wFrqDPHL Logoyogo (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In order to save some scrolling, I've "collapsed" your list to "Extended content [show]", Logoyogo. Clicking "show" shows it, of course. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Mostly, if they quote your words at all, it's an interview. There are exceptions to that. [Edited to add: The main exception is when they never consulted you about the article, and they simply looked up an old quotation somewhere.]

If you met with their reporter anyone in relation to that article, it's always an interview.

If they copy or paraphrase an interview that was done by others, it's still an interview. [Edited to add: It doesn't matter who did the interviewing.] TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the clarification. Very much appreciated. Logoyogo (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Cannot publish

I have worked diligently to create an original article, photos are either mine or produced in 1904. I have all citations, article entirely authentic and legitimate, yet get this message: Commons no longer allows new users to upload PDF files. This decision was reached because by far most attempted uploads of PDFs by new users turned out to be either copyright violations or out of scope. If you were not the original file designer or photographer, that original creator may need to provide an appropriate license on their official website or public-facing social media, or may send the file and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you cannot get a compliant license, it is possible that the file may still be uploaded to the relevant wiki in compliance with their local rules. If this upload is your own work, or is someone else's appropriately licensed work, and is within Commons' scope, please go to the page Commons:Abuse filter and click the report an issue with an abuse filter button near the top of the page.

Not trying to anything but preserve history of a historic home. Is there any way I can do this? SweetDahlia (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The PDF we're talking about - is it your full article in PDF format? On Wikipedia, you have to re-type everything by hand into the Wikipedia window. And when you're done, if the article gets accepted, it's able to be edited and improved by every random person who comes along. That's how this place works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

My best guess is that you can stop being a "new user" at Commons by making at least 10 useful edits and being registered for at least 4 days after your first edit. You might look for an article in your area of interest--historic homes in your region, perhaps?--and see if you can improve it.

You should also be considering what article those pictures could improve. Wikipedia is not an archiving site: it's an encyclopedia, and is looking for pictures to illustrate articles. An article about the town where the house stands, or about a notable person associated with it, would be a possible target.

Thanks for your efforts here! Good historical photographs are exceptionally valuable and we appreciate you persisting even though the process is harder than expected. (Unfortunately it has to be, due to deluges of bad-faith material.) M kuhner (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to upload your article to Commons in PDF form, or just your photos? I don't see any draft or article creation in your account history here on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@SweetDahlia: please note that when you're uploading content as your "own work", that means you must have actually created the work yourself (taken a photograph with your own camera, etc.), not that you've taken a screenshot or otherwise replicated someone else's work. Even if the images you're claiming as your own work aren't in copyright anymore, you still shouldn't claim as yours something that isn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I selected that they were someone else's photos, and then selected that they were taken before 1931. SweetDahlia (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

An editor from Commons here: if you are trying to upload a set of photos, please upload each of them to Commons as a separate image file (e.g. in JPEG format), not as a single PDF file. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition of home co-buying/co-ownership/co-purchasing

Co‑buying/co‑purchasing/co‑ownership appears in mainstream coverage as a growing part of how Americans enter homeownership, but it does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. A US News & World Report article linked below gives a 2025 estimate of roughly 30% of buyers participating in some form of co‑buying arrangement, which suggests this may be a notable trend. Before proposing any addition, I want to make sure the idea is supported by independent, high‑quality sources and fits the scope of the article. I’d appreciate input on whether editors feel this level of sourcing is sufficient to consider including a brief mention of co‑buying as part of current homeownership patterns on existing pages (i.e., Homeownership in the United States" or as a new article).

This is what I drafted:

As of 2025, 30% of home purchases were a co-buy. With co-owning groups averaging 3.6 adults, the co-buy concept includes owning a home with friends and/or relatives. All co-owners will be on the title or deed. Not all persons have to reside in the home nor are they all responsible for the mortgage.

Here is the source:

https://money.usnews.com/loans/mortgages/articles/what-you-should-know-about-co-owning-a-house Gwl80 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gwl80, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As with the immediately preceding question, the place to raise this sort of question is on the talk page of a relevant article (eg Talk:Homeownership in the United States) where people who have knowledge and interest in this subject are more likely to see it. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I shared it on that talk page, but no one was responding, so my mentor suggested it here. Thanks for helping me learn though! Gwl80 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gwl80 The nearest existing article I can find is Concurrent estate. Your new sources might be best if added there: that article has a number of deficiencies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwl80 (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Protected Editing

Sock

Kabughoemma (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Heelo, I am requesting if its possible to get articles have moved or created get semi edit protection from unregistered users and non autoconmfirmed, am requesting. Kabughoemma (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I assume this is about your draft at Draft:Alpha Timez. You need to submit it for a review by clicking the "submit for review" button at the top. However, it is not likely to be accepted, because you have just summarized announcements of his activities, not critical analysis and commentary about him or his work.

I see that you took a picture of him. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not about him, about pages on mainspace not draftspace Kabughoemma (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to request for for semi edit protection for articles have created on mainspace. Kabughoemma (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please describe what your connection is to him.

Articles are not protected preemptively. There needs to be a demonstratable problem with vandalism or disruptive editing first, that lesser measures do not stop. Articles are not protect to lock them to a particular version of the article or to prevent others from editing them. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

it's okay then. Kabughoemma (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Kabughoemma You appear to have taken a great many pictures of the people you have written about. Are they your clients? Note that disclosure of paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Mostly those photos are not on Internet, so I use them as own work since there is no copyright holder. Kabughoemma (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I just get topics to write on and you those ones who's good images are online I put the source name. Kabughoemma (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

All images have a copyright holder. If you don't know who it is, you cannot assume that the copyright is compatible. You must immediately without delay remove the images and request their deletion from Commons as you have falsely claimed the copyright potentially putting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please Could you help me with the deletion since it's late in East African Time and feeling sleepy. A humble request. Kabughoemma (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask on Commons since that's where you need to request deletion. So, you're just picking topics at random to edit about? 331dot (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

yes I pick topics randomly those that are notable Kabughoemma (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have first removed them from articles (the images) Kabughoemma (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that you're editing about topics that typically make use of marketing and PR services(musicians, politicians, and political parties)? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In Uganda political parties and musicians are the most notable with significant coverage and its where I know most. I follow politics alot. Kabughoemma (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

just as Ugawood creates articles only about Films in Uganda Kabughoemma (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Richest Ugandans on Wikipedia

Sock

Kabughoemma (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Heelo, I noticed some richest Ugandans here like Hamis Kiggundu showing ranks from The Independent Uganda however the list of richest Ugandans was released by Bossip Africa and then these other publications republished the list, is it authentic?? Here is bossipafrica.com Kabughoemma (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the original list Kabughoemma (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kabughoemma On Wikipedia we would say that bossipafrica is a primary source. In general, we prefer secondary sources for the reasons explained at those links. Hence, if the other publications are reliable, e.g. because they have editorial oversight and are reputable news outlets, they are the best ones to cite. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And yet they used this ones list, how does Wikipedia count this. Kabughoemma (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Some things on Wikipedia have not been done properly, and need to be corrected. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think even how we count notability for song writers should change just as Ministers are. If you write morethan 4 hit songs for other artists you become notable automatic. Kabughoemma (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please help editing my page

Hello, I am a new editor at Wikipedia. I am trying to write Draft:Siamese–Cambodian wars and I need your help. My Wikipedia mentor suggested I post this feedback request. Your help at Draft talk:Siamese–Cambodian wars would be appreciated! SakanaJohn126 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

My advice is that, as a new editor, you not try to write an article at all, and especially not one about wars. A very major part of being a good editor is skill and experience in the kinds of interactions that happen on Wikipedia, and another is being intimately familiar with how Wikipedia's rules get applied. (The rules themselves are slightly less of a challenge, but people who think they know the rules are often in trouble because the rules are not applied in exactly the way they expected.)

I suggest you stick to editing existing articles, and save this idea for an article about wars until much later. Like, maybe next year. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That's excellent advice from TooManyFingers -- but Draft:Siamese–Cambodian wars already looks promising -- thanks in part to Mathglot, the distinguished mentor. But SakanaJohn126, what kind(s) of help do you believe/suspect that you need? Meanwhile, I'll look at just one relative clause: when Tai peoples migration into mainland Southeast Asia and established their own states in territories on Khmer Empire land. I think you mean "when Tai people migrated into mainland Southeast Asia and established their own states within the Khmer Empire." However, I'm an Indochina ignoramus, so you should definitely not take my word for it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

How to change my username?

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a new Wikipedia editor and railway photographer from New Zealand.

I have been using the username Ichibashi since around 2024. At that time, I mainly edited the Chinese Wikipedia because my English was not yet good enough to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and I did not own a camera. Since then, my English has improved, and I have started contributing to the English Wikipedia and uploading my own railway photographs to Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to change my username from Ichibashi to BayridgeG22, as this is the username I now use consistently and would like to be identified by when people see my photographs. I do not use the username Ichibashi on other platforms. I am also concerned that people might think the photographs on my Instagram were copied from Wikipedia, even though I am the original photographer, because the usernames are different.

I submitted a request through Special three days ago, but the request is still marked as "processing." I understand that volunteers handle these requests, but I was wondering whether this waiting time is normal.

I will be returning to school next week after the holidays, so I have only a couple of days left to continue editing before I need to focus on my exams. In the meantime, I am still editing under the username Ichibashi.

I also have one question: once my username is renamed, will all of my previous edits and uploads automatically be attributed to BayridgeG22, or will they continue to display under Ichibashi?

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Yours sincerely, Ichibashi(BayridgeG22) Ichibashi (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Your contributions will be moved to the new account, though your old account name will remain in the logs and on talk pages where you have signed your username. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You might consider placing a message on your user page identifying yourself as the author of those older edits and uploads, after the name change goes through. M kuhner (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The name change can take some time - volunteers and all that.

When a username is changed, the account history is retained under the new name. All of your past (and future) edits will be attributed to the new account name.

Places where your old signature appears on talk and discussion pages will not change their appearance - they will still show the old signature. Clicking on the links in your signature will go through a redirect so they will find you at your new user page, new user talk page, and your ongoing edit history. Making a note on your user page of the name change is certainly allowed - it may reduce some user confusion - but not particularly necessary, since most of the transition is handled automatically. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ichibashi, there is another, simpler method that may work for you, but there is a caveat. As you have only a handful of edits, you can simply stop editing under this id, and create a new account and use only that one henceforth; no name change request needed. The caveat, is that your old posts will remain listed under your old name, and you must not go back to the old one. Or, you can request a username change. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot,

I think I had uploaded some pictures on Wikimedia Commons already as Ichibashi. Since the purpose of changing my name is to let people know the author of those pictures is actually "BayridgeG22", if I delete my account, those pictures will be "Ichibashi"'s pictures, and it is quite hard to let those pictures relate to me. By the way, the files I upload to Wikimedia commons will also change once my username is changed, right?

Thanks, Ichibashi (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ichibashi, right. A username change at Wikipedia (or at Commons) is global—it will change your username, and adjust your history, at all Wikimedia sister projects. You can see all your contributions at every project, including English Wikipedia, Commons, and two others, at this link. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

COI-declared draft — request for independent review

I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the subject of Draft:Sharon Gabay. The draft was declined for promotional tone; I have since removed the flagged language and resubmitted. Given my COI, I would be grateful if an experienced editor could look it over independently — and take it over if they find the subject worthwhile. The draft has 21 sources including Makor Rishon, The Jerusalem Post, Montreal Gazette and two Dominican newspapers. Thank you. SHARONGABAY2 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

SHARONGABAY2, the subject has (you have) published six books. We aren't told anything about one of the six, but four are "listed in the National Library of Israel catalog". This is unremarkable: national libraries typically list vast numbers of books. It would help the inquisitive reader if you instead provided ISBNs and other publication details for each. What have photographers, photography critics, photography academics, newspaper arts reviewers and so forth who are unrelated to Gabay written about his exhibitions or books? When you have added such material to the draft, submit it for review. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@SHARONGABAY2 "Promotional tone" is not really accurate, even if they did use those words. Promotion is not a tone, though promoters do often use certain styles and tones. Promotion is anything meant to inform potential customers or potential business associates. Wikipedia writing doesn't do that; instead, it informs historians and anyone who's interested in history.

The way to fix this is to make sure the article omits everything that customers and businesses might want to know, and is only of interest to history buffs. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Jemimah Ekanem

Please I want to ask if Jemimah Ekanem is notable for Wikipedia as a professor in Akwa Ibom State University. Saxxxxxy (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything about this person, I would direct you to the definition of a notable professor or academic. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

A simple measure is do you know of sources about Ekanem that meet the requirements at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely want to become a much better person

I need help ~2026-40328-68 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. If you feel you have a genuine problem, please reach out to a therapist. This is the Teahouse, where volunteers answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 09:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

This is the Wikipedia teahouse, where you ask questions about help with Wikipedia. If there is a genuine problem you’re having, I sincerely hope it will get better soon and I wish you the best of luck. If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, you’re free to ask here.

Happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 00:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal of the article "Divine Word College of Legazpi"

Hello, I've been improving this article lately, searching and adding sources. May I ask when should be the maintenance template be removed? Because I honestly do not understand the "Help:Maintenance template removal" article. Thanks. HegelianCk (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I see other articles like "University of Santo Tomas-Legazpi" which have almost no secondary source but has no maintenance template. HegelianCk (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You can add maintenance templates to it. And if you feel like the maintenance template no longer applies to the article, feel free to be bold and remove it. jolielover♥talk 11:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the page, although it looks like the current template (too many references to primary sources) is solved, the big issue now is that it needs more citations, especially in the history section jolielover♥talk 11:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@HegelianCk It's not legitimate to compare just two articles in this way. Instead, you need to do a triple comparison: how it's done in article 1, how it's done in article 2, and what the Wikipedia standards say. If both articles are better than what Wikipedia requires, they can both be kept as they are. If both articles are defective according to Wikipedia, then they both need fixing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Would house arrest be imprisonment

Article: Toluid Civil War

Question: would house arrest be considered imprisonment? i got a source that a former khan died of illness in house arrest. LordoftheCouches (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

House arrest and imprisonment are not the same, and they can't be called the same either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Some things with similar enough titles - should these belong?

Example: SuperSU, an Android rooting tool, is similar enough to the Wikipedia redirect title of SuperS, an anime season title (as both have CamelCase, having uppercase letters directly after the word Super. SuperS' redirect link is also one letter removed from SuperSU) Likewise, Tecno Mobile is close enough to the redirect and name of Tecna (a fictional character) with a changed letter and added word, in that it's not named Techno/Techna but Tecno/Tecna.

Since it relates to similar-enough titles on Wikipedia, and users have had subpages related to page titling, should I put this on a subpage or put on SuperSU:

Not to be confused with SuperS.

And for Tecno Mobile:

Not to be confused with Tecna.

(they would be distinguished rather than disambiguation list).

Some technology software or even unrelated things are similar enough to the names of things in TV series and movies. In this case, unintentionally similar to names of things relating to Winx Club and Sailor Moon. There is also a video editing software named Magix but it was never named because of the city and planet in Winx Club (2004-2009). WinX DVD Ripper Platinum also has a similar name to Winx Club, but I think Distinguish would be there because of their similar titles.

Unopened VHS tape (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not certain how all of this works, but I believe part of the process is to make sure we're not protecting against mistakes that people aren't actually making very much. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Unopened VHS tape. Template:Distinguish says: "point out to readers, who may have misspelled their desired title". I don't know either subject but I imagine the ending U in SuperSU is pronounced clearly and then SuperSU/SuperS doesn't sound like a likely misspelling to me. Tecno Mobile and Tecna also sound hard to confuse but maybe Tecna and Tekna (disambiguation) should be connected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Mary E. Green Mansion Citation Help

The article: Mary E. Green

I'm pretty sure that Mary E. Green, while in her time living in Charlotte, Michigan, owned a mansion, and probably did some of the woodwork. Only her hobby of woodcarving is mentioned in the article, and not her mansion.

I couldn't find anything else on the subject besides two Facebook pages and a Weebly site, none of which seem like trustworthy sources. One of them claims Green was friends with a Mr. Tiffany (presumably Louis Comfort Tiffany) and did most of the woodcarving herself. It also claims that the property is now owned by Burkhead-Green Kilgo Funeral Home, but I cannot find anything on their website to back this up.

Can anyone help find a reliable source for this claim? Thatbisexual (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That isn’t really a matter for the Teahouse; you could try asking at WP:REFDESK/H; or at WT:WikiProject Michigan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem with Fixing Citation Based on Wikidata Inside lnfobox

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.

---

The 2nd entry in references for Matlab has a problem with "title". However, it is based on Wikidata and is inside the infobox of the article. How can that be repaired? Starlighsky (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Starlighsky, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't see what the problem is with the title, but the URL and title of that reference are both in d:Q169478, and you should be able to edit them there.

However, it seems to me that the article has a much more serious problem, that, glancing through the list of references, I don't see a single one which appears to be an independent, reliable, in-depth discussion of MATLAB. Without some sources which meet all the requirement of WP:42, the article does not establish that Matlab is notable. I am going to tag the article accordingly. ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem Fixing Citation at Matlab Article. Please only post a question in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I am grateful for this information. I will send these types of issues only to the Help Desk in the future. Starlighsky (talk) 23:38, 18 July 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.

Copyright issues

I have received this message:

please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to [a page] may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration,

I have no idea what "extensive" is. A sentence? A paragraph? A chapter of a book? I AM well aware of giving proper attribution to a source, and have spent much time finding suitable sources for information I want to post. If I can't find a source, I don't post anything. Would you prefer I stop that and work from my personal knowledge of the subject of the page? Do you want me to use quotation marks and stick with direct quotes from a source? May I paraphrase or not? Do you want me to cite a source at the beginning and at the end of the information? Truly don't know what to do with this. AllAboutProcess (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response makes perfect sense. It seems to me that the best thing would be for you to just quit editing until you've had enough time to study and absorb what is meant on Wikipedia by these terms. I say that because all the ways you've offered to do things wrong are problems too, and clearly you already knew that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to walk you through how I'd go about figuring this out: hope it's helpful.

The message you got named a particular article. I went to that article and clicked on "History". There I spotted recent edits from the person who left you that message. They left an "edit summary" to explain why they deleted your text: copied from https://www.newspapers.com/image/236886981/. So it looks like their objection was specifically to copying of text from that link. I can't go further because I don't have a subscription, but the next step would be to compare your text with the text at the link.

In general you should paraphrase. Quotes are mainly used when the thing being quoted is an opinion, allegation, etc. rather than a fact, or when the exact way it was said is essential information. There is an explanatory essay at WP:Close paraphrasing which talks about paraphrasing, quoting, and giving credit that may help with your general question.

Having people correct what you do is part of the Wikipedia experience and happens to absolutely everyone. It doesn't reflect badly on you: no one is born knowing all this stuff. If the essay I linked to doesn't clarify things, please feel free to reach out for more information.

I strongly recommend figuring out what is wrong before editing the article again, because while mistakes are accepted, making the same mistake repeatedly can get an unpleasant reaction. M kuhner (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

To be more clear: we're not asking you to quit editing. We're asking you to slow down and figure out how to do it properly. DS (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. AllAboutProcess came here with a veiled ultimatum, demanding an explanation and suggesting that if the explanation didn't suit them they would begin a campaign of intentional bad editing. My suggestion to quit editing until they truly know how to manage the copyright violation issue was not intended to be permanent, but on the other hand, would become my permanent advice if they believed they would persistently fail to learn how to edit within the copyright requirements. I don't believe there is the vaguest little hint of "biting the newcomers" in my advice, especially under the circumstances. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

"demanding an explanation and suggesting that if the explanation didn't suit them they would begin a campaign of intentional bad editing. "

They did no such thing. WP:BITE certainly applies, as indeed does WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't feel that "quit" could be taken as a permanent recommendation, perhaps you should quit providing help on the Teahouse.

Always consider how people will perceive your text, not just how you want them to perceive your text. Especially when they're nervous and new and asking for guidance in an area where they've already made a mistake. DS (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Korean transliteration tags

I'm trying to improve the Taepyeongso article, which needs lang and transliteration templates. Do I tag all of the romanized text (like the name of the instrument) with transliteration (which I've seen happen in some other articles) or just tag the first appearance and manually italicize other mentions (MOS:KO-ITALICS)? ✩ vinh in space (✉✦) 02:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If the term is a proper noun, you should not italicize the term, and for the first appearance, use the transliteration template and then manually italicize them later.

I'll also leave a courtesy ping for @Grapesurgeon, whom I know is active, has experience in writing Korea-related articles, and can offer advice better in this case ^^ ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 03:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:KO-ITALICS for romanized text.

For Hangul/Hanja, you should always wrap in either {{Korean}} or {{lang}}. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Uploaded a screenshot

i just uploaded a screenshot in Wikipedia, it is Sonic Jump Fever, but it is in Public Domain, however I wanted to make it non-free, but Fair Use is not allowed in Wikipedia Commons which is confusing, is it ok to just create a different licensing copyright pls?, here's my uploaded link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_Jump_Fever_screenshot.jpg フィリピン人 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @フィリピン人, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Why do you think that screenshot is in the Public Domain? It is almost certainly copyright - almost anything is unless it is very old or has been explicitly released - and so may not be uploaded to Commons, and may be (uploaded to and) used in Wikipedia only if that use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean in my previous talk on uploading a screenshot, is it said non-free is should be used to upload a game screenshot? フィリピン人 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Go to WP:FUW > Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work. Check Summary etc at File:Sonic Jump J2ME gameplay.png for a similar case. If someone thinks your Purpose of use in article isn't good enough, they may nominate it for deletion, but I think a screenshot is fairly common in an article like that.

The Commons file will be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

also, when uploading a screenshot of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 it has option that REALLY CONFUSE ME!

This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it. This work was created by someone else and it is free to share

Which one is it? フィリピン人 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither. That's not for non free. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@フィリピン人 Again: at the WP:FUW page, click the Upload a non-free file button, then pick This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work. And don't put yourself as author, you're not the author or owner of a work because you took a screenshot. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Help with genre

Hey, I'm trying to expand and clean up the page for "I Feel You" by the Wonder Girls. I found three reliable sources talking about its genre:

• https://www.billboard.com/media/lists/best-k-pop-songs-2010s-top-100-8544710/ - says it's pop rock
• https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/wonder-girls-return-i-feel-you-mv-6649668/ - says it's synth-rock
• https://www.popmatters.com/the-best-k-pop-of-2015-2495465522.html - says it's synth-pop

I think the song is clearly all of those things. Is it worth putting all of these three things in the infobox or choosing just one and mentioning the others as influences? If only there were a "synth pop rock" page... Handsome Ellis (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The general rule about infobox entries is that they should be concise and correct. I personally can't think of a way to get this into the infobox that is both concise and correct: I'd put it in the article body instead. If there was a majority view among sources that would be another matter, but you seem to have a three-way tie.... M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean "You Belong with Me" has three different genres in the infobox and it's a Featured Article, but there I think it's justified considering that the genres are different enough. "Synth-pop," "synth-rock," and "pop rock" could be combined in an ideal world, because these sources are essentially collectively saying it's a synth-pop-rock song. I tried to note it in the lead section and composition by saying it's "synth-driven pop rock," but it doesn't feel quite right. Handsome Ellis (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The unfamiliar genre names in this response are fake ones, intended as a joke.

Porkynth = synth rock pop

Pork = pop rock

Porkbilynth = synth rockabilly pop

Pazorkbilynth = synth rockabilly pazz/jop

Clamonashooth = classical Motown Nashville smooth-jazz (like on "Travis Tritt, Bill Withers, and the Marvelettes Sing Mozart's Così fan tutte, With Special Guest Johnny Cash as Don Alfonso") TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LMAO, amazing Handsome Ellis (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, I don't get any google hits for any of those terms. Are you just making up names as a joke? If so, please make it clear in your post that these are jokes, so that new editors don't get the idea that these are terms that should be used in Wikipedia articles. This is especially important in the Teahouse where new editors are looking for guidance. (Or better yet, just don't make such jokes here.) CodeTalker (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The whole thing was a joke, and I made the usual error of thinking it was obviously a joke. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was pretty sure that it was a joke, but since I'm not an expert in music terminology, it was not obviously so to me. And it is probably even less obvious to editors whose first language is not English. CodeTalker (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

About conflict of interest comment in my article

Hi good day for you. I have a article called as ICYM mangalore diocese, which is not present in Wikipedia and it is a new topic It is related to association in Mangalore Like a Catholic movement created for youth. After writing and submitting a draft copy I am getting a comment called as conflict of interest How can I resolve it please help me Denwin D'souza (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Denwin D'souza I don't see anything that needs resolving. You have rightly declared a conflict of interest at Draft:ICYM Mangalore Unit and been advised that it is not suitable material for Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Denwin D'souza, you declared a conflict of interest. Thank you for having done so. But Draft:ICYM Mangalore Unit was rejected (and by this I don't mean declined) on the grounds that it's an AI written advertisement not in the spirit of Wikipedia. You're not asked to "resolve" this. Instead, you're asked to stop. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, how to resolve this issue in future Denwin D'souza (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The notice saying "rejected" with the big stop-sign graphic means there is no way to save this article, because even if you did a perfect job it still could not be accepted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If the draft's opening paragraph:

The Indian Catholic Youth Movement (ICYM) is the largest premier Catholic youth organization in India, functioning under the guidance of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI). Officially approved as a national movement on 14 September 1999, it spans over 600 districts across 14 regions and 171 dioceses..

is verifiably true, then it is possible, indeed likely, that the topic would meet out notability criteria and a well-written and adequately-sourced article would be published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yes the topic is genuine ;) but i am new to wiki and dont know the flow to edit this article , even used AI to write few sentences and there are very few documentation in literature. I mean uh, most of the references does not exist, It may be pictorial of old group photos of member and their social service i have collected or a old rulebooks which are not like published, meaning dosent have a ISBN or any other kind of backings with no authorship of those books, but they are genuine. And majority of like social activities done comes from recordings of social media which is not considered genuine and is not neutral when it comes to Wikipedia standards because it not scientific and does not have references. Let's see if anyone can help I am ready to help them. Denwin D'souza (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yes lets me get reference and later add as new article since old article has been rejected Denwin D'souza (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, and we already have an article about the Indian Catholic Youth Movement more broadly. This user seems to be trying to write a draft about a specific regional branch. Athanelar (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Denwin D'souza, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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 that are completely unconnected with the subject and discuss the subject in some depth (see WP:42) no article about it is going to be possible.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Denwin D'souza (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing help for Draft:Larisa Hennadiivna Kliushkina

Hello!

I need advice on how to correctly format the sources to get my draft approved (Draft:Larisa Hennadiivna Kliushkina). The draft was previously declined due to a lack of independent secondary sources, but I actually have high-quality, reliable secondary platforms documenting her career:

1. Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (ESU): There is a dedicated peer-reviewed encyclopedic article about her life and work (available online at esu.com.ua/article-8638). 2. National Union of Artists of Ukraine: She has been an officially registered professional member since 2005. 3. BBK Freiburg (Germany): She is a registered member of the Professional Association of Visual Artists. 4. Exhibition History: Her international solo and group exhibitions (Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Wiesbaden) are documented in printed art catalogs with ISBNs and media reviews.

Since the main encyclopedic source is in Ukrainian and some catalog data is in German print, what is the best way to structure these citations in the English Wikipedia code so that reviewers can easily verify her notability?

Thank you so much for your help! Vitaliikliushkinm (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are using the visual editor see Wikipedia:Citing sources. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vitaliikliushkinm, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that publications from any body of which she is a member, or of any gallery or museum where she has exhibited, is not regarded as independent, and so will not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Trying to answer your main question, even though the answer might not help you much yet: One helpful thing that you can do is keep the original source titles but also add source titles translated into English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaliikliushkinm I presume based on your username that you are a relative of the subject. If so, this is a conflict of interest which you need to declare; see WP:COI. Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The references have AI hallucinations, for example the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine https://esu.com.ua/article-8693 returns an article about a publishing company, not about this artist. Netherzone (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

How do i edit the Full article in source editing in mobile?

How do i edit the Full article in source editing in mobile? ~2026-40305-01 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You tap the letter you want to edit and the keyboard will show up. See Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 for help. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Tap the letter while editing SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40305-01: Just use desktop mode. (Avoid using the mobile app while editing; use a web browser instead.) Read: Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices... — Raihanur (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft review query

Hello. I submitted my draft Draft:Ahad Bab on 2 July 2026. It is currently showing "Review waiting". I understand reviews are done by volunteers and may take time. I just wanted to ask if there is anything else I should improve while waiting, or if the draft looks ready for review. Thank you for your time. Peerharis666 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Peerharis666, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could make it a little easier for the reviewer by merging duplicated references: see WP:NAMEDREF. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I add a dropdown menu

I cannot figure out how whatsoever!! Please answer, i would be so happy ~2026-40733-07 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the menu expected to do? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has various kinds of menu that could be called "dropdown". Please point to an article that has a menu of the kind that you want. (If on the other hand you can't find a precedent for the kind of menu that you want, you're probably out of luck: Wikipedia doesn't encourage novelty in navigation methods.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if they mean the sidebar which has hidden by default? qcne (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If you mean collapsible sections, you can use {{Collapse}} or {{ctop}}/{{cbot}}. If you mean portlet links for userscripts, see Help:Customizing toolbars. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Status of biography article about Robert Shenk

Please let me know the status of my recent biography article about professor emeritus of the University of New Orleans. Rizos01 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It was declined because the current article does not show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 21:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There are two big problems with the draft at the moment. Firstly you need to demonstrate that he meets either the notability guidelines for academics (WP:NPROF) or those for an author (WP:NAUTHOR) assuming he doesn't meet general notability guidelines. If, for example, his professorship was of a sufficiently senior level (equivalent to a named chair) he would qualify automatically. But secondly, large chunks of the article are very close paraphrases of the sources. For example, here is your text:

"Robert Shenk distinguished himself as an editor, literary critic and before his retirement as a historian following the publication of the well-received "Black Sea Fleet: the U.S. Navy Amidst War and Revolution, 1919-1923" and "The Greek Genocide in American Naval War Diaries" (UNO Press). The second book is a collection of American Naval War Diaries found in the National Archives regarding the death marches and massacres perpetrated upon the Asia Minor Greek minority by the ruling Nationalist Turks from 1921-1922."

and here is the text it's derived from in his obituary:

"Shenk distinguished himself as an editor, literary critic and, most recently, a historian, following the publication of the well-received book “Black Sea Fleet: The U.S. Navy Amidst War and Revolution, 1919-1923” and “The Greek Genocide in American Naval War Diaries “(UNO Press). It is a collection of American naval war diaries found in the National Archives regarding the atrocities perpetrated upon the Asia Minor Greek minority by the ruling Nationalist Turks on Turkey’s northern coast from 1921-1922."

This is probably a copyright infringement, so it's liable to deletion. Ideally you should find multiple sources and summarise them in a way that draws together all the information, rather than paraphrasing one source. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on WP:PERSISTENCE, NEVENT policy

Generally, how many years after the event should a source be published to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE? Discloser: I am asking this question because of a disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Baghlan sugar factory bombing. Thank you for your help HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Usually, if there is a distance of a few months between the sources, it meets the requirements. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Improved draft with reliable sources

Hello. I submitted my draft Draft:Ahad Bab on 20 July 2026. It is currently showing "Review waiting". I understand reviews are done by volunteers and may take time. I just wanted to ask if there is anything else I should improve while waiting, or if the draft looks ready for review. Thank you for your time. Peerharis666 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peerharis666 You asked the same question here just one day ago, please have patience and edit something else in the meantime. There is no rush to get your article published, and you will not speed the process by repeatedly asking this question. Athanelar (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Remontoire / Remontoir

Hello, I am genuinely interested in the two ways of spelling Remontoire.

The correct French spelling is Remontoir – without the e – and I also know that historically, in British English, it has been spelled with the e for a long time. Is there a reason beyond the centuries-old linguistic fault line between French and English usage? I haven't been able to find anything official about it.

I've looked around in renowned horological writing, and it appears that there has been a gradual shift towards the correct French spelling lately. Many publications with a long history also use both spellings.

Would Wikipedia be open to changing it to the correct spelling, Remontoir?

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing back! Louisetarp (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Louisetarp, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first question is not in scope for the Teahouse, which is about editing Wikipedia, and nothing else. It's possible you might find an answer by asking at the reference desk. I observe that the OED gives "Remontoir" as "A variant of 'remontoire'", and records the shorter form from the 18th C, the longer from the 19th.

For the second question: Wikipedia's policy is to use the (form of) a name that is used in the majority of English-language sources: see WP:COMMONNAME.

So unless you can show that reliable English sources more often use the spelling "Remontoir", then I'm afraid you are not going to be successful. If you want to pursue the question, then Talk:Remontoire is the best place, as people who have knowledge and interest in the subject are more likely to see it there.

Note that Remontoir exists, and is simply a redirect to Remontoire. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @ColinFine, your response is much appreciated. Based on what you wrote, I think posing the question on Talk:Remontoire is my best bet. Louisetarp (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Question on Using Wikipedia

I have been using Wikipedia as a source for my research and for casual reading for a few years now, but I have only recently created an account. How do I find the rules, guidelines, and instructions for citing sources when editing articles? What sources should I prioritise finding? And if I want to use a photograph from Wikimedia Commons in an article, how do I do that and what rules and guidelines must I follow? AnglophileMycologist (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@AnglophileMycologist, nice to see another fungus fanatic here! Help:List of tutorials and introductions is a great place to start. You can also get there via the shortcut WP:WELCOME. I'm sure some of the wonderful Teahouse regulars will chime in with other good suggestions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You might also have a look at WP:Wikiproject Fungi, an association of Wikipedia editors interested in fungi. I don't know if this particular one is active right now; not all are. But Wikiprojects often have lots of useful links and information for working in that area. M kuhner (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Thank you for the recommendation! AnglophileMycologist (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Fungi is still around but not as active as it used to be. I've replied to AnglophileMycologist on that WikiProject's talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you need the full, in-depth instructions for citing sources, you can find that at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'll add that Wikipedia has a very large total volume of rules and guidelines, such that it isn't practical to study the entire mountain of documentation at once. Learn what you need to know to get each day's tasks done and you'll be fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Troll

Citing sources: Rules live at Wikipedia:Talk Page Archive Index — that's the master style guide for all citations.

Source priority: Reddit upvotes first (informal peer review), then Wikipedia articles citing other Wikipedia articles, then pre-1990 print sources only.

Commons images: Email the photographer for notarized permission, upload via "Special:InsertMedia," and caption it in Latin for indexing purposes. ~2026-38996-08 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38996-08 Gptzero says that text is 100% AI. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 19:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The AI spits out nonsense such as the nonexistent page Wikipedia:Talk Page Archive index. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a combination of utter nonsense, and utterly bad advice, @~2026-38996-08. Please don't answer questions if you don't know the answer - and especially, don't expect an LLM to have any understanding at all of Wikipedia's requirements. We want to talk to people, not clueless resource-hungry plagiarism machines.

@AnglophileMycologist, please ignore 38996-08's useless answer, and see citing sources, reliable sources, and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I second ColinFine's advice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae Thank you! I will make sure to do so. AnglophileMycologist (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@AnglophileMycologist you're welcome, and happy editing! Don't hesitate to drop by the Teahouse again if you have questions :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Troll

What the best Wikipedia page be? ~2026-38996-08 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No one can really answer that question (best for what?) but there are a lot of interesting statistics at Wikipedia:Statistics#Page_views. M kuhner (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured articles, for the highest quality articles and other content. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Tool for creating a chart

Space Population

How would I go about creating a chart like this? I'd like to create a chart for the count of Jupiters moons over time but I don't know what software I could use for it. Maybe there is something similair as to how charts of band timelines can be made? Tomas Guus (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Chart comes to mind, if you want something native to Wikipedia. R and Python both have a pretty good ecosystem for making diagrams as well. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Example:

library(ggplot2)
moons <- data.frame(
  Year = c(1610, 1979, 2000, 2018, 2026),
  Moons = c(4, 16, 28, 79, 112)
)
ggplot(moons, aes(x = Year, y = Moons)) +
  geom_step() +
  geom_point() +
  labs(title = "Moons over time", x = "Year", y = "Moons")

~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at it and ehh I can say I'm not the best in tech so I really don't have any idea on how to install it. I would rather look for an easier option :P Tomas Guus (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1T1D7cABkphhXMCU0ir9NExXaK7avRsxL?usp=sharing Would this be something like what you wanted? ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)