Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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

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

my draft of the anthem of Togo from 1979-1991 got rejected but I ain’t giving up

I really couldn’t find anything else for my draft to be more longer, and I’ve only get 2 references and someone rejected it. I need help. Anyone get any ideas? OHHITHERRRE (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NSONG (I don't believe we have any specific notability guidance for national anthems) and see if you've got proof that it meets that guideline. If you've only got 2 references, then it sounds like you don't - and if you don't have enough material to prove that a subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then giving up is exactly what you should do.

It's important to note that the length of your draft is basically entirely irrelevant. We don't need your draft to be longer, we need it to demonstrate that the subject you're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Athanelar (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea I’ll try that, but really giving up is like, removing an actual fucking anthem that can’t be found here but on an encyclopedia that has it but who does go there more than Wikipedia? That’s right. Almost fucking nobody. That’s exactly my point. You know that 2% of history is found, and the rest was burned and basically removing that just seems horrible, not to mention no thing of the anthem is said on the English Wikipedia, but the FRENCH ONE.

sorry, end of rant but that’s a reason why I ain’t gonna give up OHHITHERRRE (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is not a publisher of information. By definition, if something is not written about anywhere else, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article; because all Wikipedia does is summarise information which is available in reliable secondary sources.

As for it being present on the French wiki but not here, every Wikipedia is a separate project with its own rules and guidelines, and it's well known that the English wiki has the strictest requirements for inclusion out of any wiki. Athanelar (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@OHHITHERRRE, I know this is a me problem, but can you please see WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS? Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 16:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Your draft has been "declined", meaning that you're welcome to continue working on it. It's pretty obvious that the words are in the public domain [in the legal sense of this term], but in matters of law, even the blazingly obvious isn't necessarily correct. You'd better check if the words really are in the public domain. That matter aside, the major problem with the draft is that you've found very little to say; but while you're looking for more, do see and act on Help:Wikitext#Retaining_newlines_and_spaces and Wikipedia:Bare URLs. -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• I glanced at your submission and the article on the current Togolese national anthem, Salut à toi, pays de nos aïeux. I don't like the Articles for Creation process and to me YOUR STUB should have been created into mainspace where it would either grow or die. I believe this is clearly a Keep in an articles for deletion situation, which means to me that somebody at articles for creation made a bad call. My advice would be to find a couple more sources (they certainly exist, albeit probably in French) and to create the article straight onto Wikipedia without messing with the arbitrary decision of any one AfC volunteer. It might be better for you to spend some time editing other things first to learn the ropes. Dig up at least one more source and drop me a line if you need help, OHHITHERRRE and I'll spend a few minutes with you getting things going. best regards, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it might be a better way to handle this to make the article on the 1979 anthem a section on the page of the Salut à toi, pays de nos aïeux piece, since that anthem came both before and after it and the regime didn't really change, only the name of the ruling party, over this interval. I would recommend that you do that instead. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

good idea OHHITHERRRE (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Carrite, @OHHITHERRRE Articles that are created "directly" into Wikipedia's mainspace are still reviewed, although it is a different behind-the-scenes process than Articles For Creation.

Carrite, I know you personally don't like AfC, but it is "the recommended way" for editors who are new to Wikipedia to create Articles.

The Teahouse is intended for new editors to ask questions and get help. @Carrite, I don't think that you should suggest to new editors that they bypass AfC as soon as they are technically able to. For most new editors, it will take several months of reading articles, doing small tasks like fixing typos, becoming familiar with all of the complex policies at WP:N, WP:V, etc. That article probably should NOT have been created directly in mainspace due to its thin sourcing. David10244 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Afc should be recommended to all new users in order to preserve the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Encouraging new users to publish direct to mainspace gradually degrades quality, and gives support to critics of Wikipedia that claim it is inaccurate, unsupported, biased, a soapbox, and so on. Encouraging new users to publish direct to main appeals to their ego and gives them bragging rights (which is sometimes what they were after in the first place) at the expense of the project as a whole. So please don't do that. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is there no page for Ashish Chanchlani, and is he considered notable?

I am asking about the prominent Indian YouTuber and content creator, Ashish Chanchlani (Ashish Chanchlani Vines, over 30M subscribers). I am surprised there is currently no English Wikipedia page for him.

I'm trying to determine if he meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), as I have found evidence of significant, independent media coverage he has. Why there is no page for him? RatulH21 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What significant coverage about him have you found? Athanelar (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

He has been profiled by Forbes India as part of its Digital Stars list (including a 2021 feature) and has been covered by the Times of India. RatulH21 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

His awards include the Best Comedy Influencer award at the World Bloggers Awards in Cannes (2019). He had an appearance in the 2019 film Men in Black: International. He has collaborated with actors in Bollywood and created the web series 'Ekaki'. RatulH21 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@RatulH21 Please share three sources (their URLs?) that each meet WP:GOLDENRULE. qcne (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Forbes is not a reliable source on wikipedia; WP:FORBES

Times of India is also considered often unreliable for their 'paid advertorials': WP:TIMESOFINDIA

The 'World Bloggers Award' does not evidence notability because we only consider an award to evidence notability if the award itself is notable (usually meaning it has ita own Wiki page)

A film appearance potentially evidences notability, depending on the nature of the appearance. Athanelar (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the policies (WP:FORBES, WP:TIMESOFINDIA). I accept that those sources and the non-notable award must be removed. But he has been featured multiple, independent, in-depth articles from reliable national news publications, such as: Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Indian Express / India Today. Isn't he is among the popular people in India? RatulH21 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide some links to those articles? Athanelar (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/indias-got-latent-row-ashish-chanchlani-records-statement-with-assam-police-101740703214500.html

The Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/reduce-weight-you-will-look-very-cute-youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-lost-40-kgs-in-60-months-and-credits-this-superstar-for-weight-loss/articleshow/122400474.cms?from=mdr RatulH21 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/ashish-chanchlani-shares-emotional-video-amid-indias-got-latent-row-9866197/ RatulH21 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there any chances of creating this page now? RatulH21 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @RatulH21, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Maybe just barely.

The first one appears to be reliable and independent; but it only has a couple of paragraphs about him, so it is borderline significant coverage. Furthermore, the information about him is just about that one event, not anything else about him.

The other two, as far as I can tell, are largely based on interviews with him, and so are not independent sources . There is perhaps some independent material in the opening paragraphs, but it is not clear whether it actually comes from him.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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, while the first one and perhaps the others could contribute to that, they are not enough on their own.

I'm not sure if your last question is about you creating the article, or somebody else creating it. If you are asking about somebody else creating it, the place to ask is at requested articles; but in all honesty, most requests there sit there for ever. Wikipedia editors are volunteers who work on what they want to work on: you would need to provoke somebody to be interested in working on an article about Chanchlani.

If you are talking about yourself: if you can find several sources that meet the golden rule, you are welcome to read WP:YFA and try.

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) 21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the very detailed and clear welcome and feedback! I really appreciate you breaking down the issues with the sources.

I see your point completely regarding the independence of the second and third sources, as they are largely based on interviews. I hadn't fully considered the interview aspect rendering them non-independent.

I also understand the concern that the first source, while independent and reliable, is only borderline significant coverage and focuses only on one event. I will definitely search much harder for more sources that wholly unconnected parties have chosen to publish about him to meet the notability standard and the Golden Rule.

I will take your earnest advice and first focus on improving existing articles (only sports) for a few weeks to learn the ropes of policies like WP:NPOV and the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle before even thinking about creating a draft, whether through WP:YFA or by requesting it. RatulH21 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@RatulH21 Notability is very different than popularity... David10244 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That’s a fair distinction. Aside from his subscriber milestones, what specific type of 'significant coverage' do you feel is currently missing from the draft? Would more focus on his ITA Award or his work in traditional television (like Class of 2017, Ekaki) help satisfy the requirement for WP:BIO? RatulH21 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of significant coverage only: An ITA award is worth a little. Subscriber milestones are worth zero. Lists of work are worth zero.

Significant coverage means a reporter - all by himself, with no interview and no press release to look at - writes a featured article on the subject's past. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

could we maybe stop humoring him? I think it's pretty obvious he's using a chatbot mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I consider myself genuinely stuck, in this regard. When I see chatbot messages or other AI use, I personally consider it not just grounds for assuming bad faith, but a signed and dated certificate of bad faith. But I'm not supposed to look at it that way. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Albert Rozin draft page help - sources

Would greatly appreciate help in understanding what more I can do to pass then number of reliable sources needed. Link to draft page here: Draft:Albert Rozin

I also got a "no soapbox" comment. I came to this project by chance and am not related to Albert Rozin. Played one of his pieces at a piano recital and was curious about him, only to find there was very little publicly available. Which set me off on a research venture that led to meeting his family and discovering hundreds of lost compositions. It is a story, I think, of a Jewish immigrant being written out of history, and I'd like to write him back in. Much of what we have discovered is captured in a website: albertrozin.com but getting a Wiki page feels so important.

Thanks for any help. Pianorozin (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The website albertrozin.com, which you seem to cite a lot in the draft, is written by people with close connections to the subject and is therefore not independent. I suggest finding more reliable sources (try Google Books) and toning down the slight promotional tone the article has. If you can't find any more sources then unfortunately he may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much. I have four "reliable sources". is that not enough? Pianorozin (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

You've run into a very common pitfall for newcomers. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to tell someone's story if it hasn't already been told. We are an encyclopedia, not a publisher of new information, nor a place to right great wrongs. What we do is summatise infotmation that is already available in reliable, independent, secondary sources; if Rozin has been 'written out of history' and there is 'very little' information published about him; then he is, by definition, not fit for a Wikipedia article. The information you have gleaned from your searching and interviews (which I presume is the information on albertrozin.com) explicitly cannot be included here as per WP:No original research and WP:Self-published sources

I'm sorry, you won't be the first person who came here to publish the story of an obscure historical figure who you feel has been wronged by history, nor will you be the last, but that's just not how we work here. Athanelar (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

appreciate your response. helpful insight. Pianorozin (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

There are other places where you can talk about his story (I personally recommend video essays, they teach you a lot of useful skills) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you have three four sources (the first, and final three, as seen currently) that meet the requirements summarised at WP:42. I am not clear why the article was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it was declined because the vast majority of the information is referenced to the non-independent albertrozin.com source (it's cited 15 times) Athanelar (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

But that was not the reason stated, which was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Precisely... a majority of the article is reffed to the non-independent source. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read the quote again; it does not mention independence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Yet a non-independent source cannot be reliable. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

so if I remove some of the references from the website, and have four independent sources, do you think it will still get rejected? Worth a try? Pianorozin (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If you remove the content that is cited only to the albertrozin.com website then it might, but at that point it's a very small and incomplete article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You might be able to trim the article down to what we call a stub based strictly on the information from the reliable, independent sources, and that might get accepted. There is some information you can pull from primary sources like that website, but that's mostly basic, uncontroversial biographical facts like date and place of birth; see WP:ABOUTSELF Any information about his deeds, accomplishments, accolades, career etc (i.e., stuff which is relevant to his notability) should be sourced to in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Athanelar (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The person telling about themselves (on their website) is the problem, for Wikipedia. The fact that it's you reporting what they said turns out not to matter, because the article has still ended up relying on their material. See what's left to work with, after you take away everything that came from there. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

"take away everything that came from there"—That is not required; please see WP:ABOUTSELF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It's true that WP:ABOUTSELF exists, but an article needs to be able to stand on its own without that material. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe I addressed that in my first post in this subsection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure you did. Cutting out ABOUTSELF material, to see what kind of article you really have, is still a good idea. I'm not against keeping some of it in the end, but if the article fails without that material, then it also fails with that material - and it can be hard for an author to see that. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Again: my first comment means that the article should not fail in such circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Which circumstances? An article that relies on ABOUTSELF for its integrity is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. Temporarily eliminating ABOUTSELF from an article to check that there is enough independent material in it is a perfectly good idea. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In the circumstances you describe.

And, yet again, my point is that the article does not rely on ABOUTSELF for its integrity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF has a section 5.

Note that the sections "Early life", "Career", "Later years and death", and "Family" would ALL be completely empty without the personal website material.

I could understand relying mainly on the website for "Family", but - according to this draft in its current state - everything under "Career" went entirely unnoticed by any reliable sources.

In addition, the cited article by René Johnson ends with an acknowledgement that she got all her information about Rozin from his family, and she confidently states that until they came along, no information was available about Rozin except a census record from 1940. Besides that indication that Ms. Johnson is not a strictly independent source, her article is primarily about her own teaching methods, using pieces by Rozin as the musical examples but without referring to how Rozin taught; she emphasizes the fact that he gave his pieces creative and interesting titles, but the main substance of the article is her own opinions on piano teaching.

The Northern Virginia Music Teachers Association article is somewhat of a piggyback article taking notice of René Johnson's one, it again emphasizes the fact that Rozin was a complete unknown, says unequivocally that the information all comes directly from his family, and again has mere snippets of information about Rozin without discussing the man himself in any detail. It ends by directing readers to the Rozin website.

Those two articles are the sole sources for the lead section and the "Rediscovery" section.

Seriously? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition (nitpicky but somehow emblematic in my view), the source cited for the information in the lead part of the article clearly says he lived and worked in the Bronx, not Brooklyn.

And the piggybacking effect I noticed comes from the fact that the NVMTA blog post - the second article - was written by René Johnson, the same person as the first article. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ask for advise for my draft article

Hi, I’m working on a draft article that was declined for notability and tone. I’ve added multiple independent sources (SFGate, QSR Magazine, FastCasual, Review-Journal). Could someone advise if the coverage now meets GNG before I resubmit? Hvn85 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Panini%20Kabob%20Grill&tbm=nws

has no reviews by WP:RS, only Press Releases

Piñanana (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Even the Forbes and SFGATE ? Hvn85 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Especially those. Forbes is well known for publishing advertisements, see WP:FORBES, and the SFGATE article is trivial coverage which doesn't evidence notability. Athanelar (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

When a source publishes a piece using material from a press release, that piece is not independent, and therefore can't count for GNG. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your help. Hvn85 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORPTRIV. It appears that people have been trying to tell you for a month now that the kinds of sources you're providing aren't suitable to evidence notability. I would suggest you drop the stick and move on to writing something else. Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for you comment. I actually ask for guidance on how to use available resources to rewrite this article more effectively, but I still truly appreciate your support and assistance. Hvn85 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Hvn85#Disclosure: "Hvn85, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Panini Kabob Grill for their contributions to Wikipedia."

Is food at Panini Kabob Grill interesting or notable ? Has anyone, independent of the company, said that they found the food delicious?

Piñanana (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, but there is nothing about "delicious" or "interesting" about food or restaurant in the article, it is just general information based on references like Forbes or SFGATE. Thank you for your respond. Hvn85 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Panini_Kabob_Grill&diff=prev&oldid=1323251615

Hvn85 used AI to write article, then edited it. read the AI "voice". It is instructive.

Piñanana (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioned it. In new edit, everything is written by me without any AI. Hvn85 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Good writing can't overcome a lack of notability. If your subject fundamentally isn't notable, then it doesn't matter how effectively you rewrite the article, it's never going to be suitable for Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you again for your respond and help. Hvn85 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How did you get the job of writing the article?

Piñanana (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not get a job. Actually this was my own idea to write about it. Is it a paid job for this kind of articles? Hvn85 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Hvn85#Disclosure: "Hvn85, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Panini Kabob Grill for their contributions to Wikipedia."

you got the job: Hvn85 is paid by Panini Kabob Grill

Piñanana (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually I didn't pay, some other users said you should put this on your page because you are part of this business. As per that advice, I wrote it on my page. Please guide me to keep it on my page or delete it? I am a restaurant employee, but I didn't get paid for this article, this is just my idea. Thank you for your assistance in advance. Hvn85 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What language did you first speak?

Piñanana (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I am fluent on both Farsi and English. Hvn85 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hvn85 Since you are an employee, you definitely fall under the Conflict of Interest guidelines WP:COI. I do not believe you fall under WP:PAID. (I could be wrong about this.) You could ask for guidance at WP:TEAHOUSE, although it might not matter if the restaurant has not been written about by an independent source, not based on a press release. Many excellent restaurants are not notable in the Wikipedia sense. David10244 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello David, Thank you so much for your help. It is very helpful. Hvn85 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Marek Szczeniowski, Sybilla Szczeniowska Sorondo

Associated Press and United Press International photo and caption:

New York - Marek Szczeniowski, 16, of New York, who was left a $56,000 trust by the late Aly Khan, holds a self portrait of his mother, fashion designer Sybilla Szczeniowska Sorondo, who was left $14,000 by the prince. Aly Khan's will was made public yesterday in London. He died May 12 in an auto accident. Marek said the prince had been "like a godfather to me."

• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212012958/https://www.ebay.com/itm/395678545618 https://archive.is/OBkT2
• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212020209/https://www.ebay.com/itm/376738030914
• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212020047/https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/X3gAAeSwL75pKi-a/s-l1600.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212015121/https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RFMAAOSwv~xm43o2/s-l1600.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212015125/https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XkkAAeSwn7JpKi-a/s-l1600.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20251212012959/https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DHAAAOSwAiRm43o2/s-l1600.webp
• https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/593471402/
• https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/506653268/
• https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1960-press-photo-marek-szczeniowski-4613818162

are the images okay for en.wikipedia or commons or only archive.org ?

Piñanana (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

agency source for:

"ALY KHAN'S WILL IS READ; Children Get Most of Estate -- Model Given $280,000". The New York Times. Special to The New York Times. 14 September 1960. Archived from the original on 12 December 2025. Retrieved 3 October 2022.

Piñanana (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

https://newspaperarchive.com/edwardsville-intelligencer-sep-27-1960-p-6/

Piñanana (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/549183541/

https://newspaperarchive.com/petersburg-progress-index-sep-21-1960-p-15/

https://newspaperarchive.com/new-philadelphia-daily-times-sep-26-1960-p-14

Piñanana (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

are the images okay for en.wikipedia or commons or only archive.org If an image is OK for Commons then it is automatically OK for any Wikipedia. Maybe you're also thinking of "fair use", but an image is never "OK as 'fair use' in en:Wikipedia"; instead, some specific uses in en:Wikipedia may be "fair use". You seem to be asking about images that were newly published in the US in 1960. The article Copyright law of the United States tells us that what's derisively termed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act "increased the copyright term length to 95 years after publication (120 years after creation for unpublished works), or the life of the author plus 70 years, whichever ends earlier". The photos were published. They would have been taken in 1960 or possibly one or two years earlier; this is less than 70 years ago, let alone 95 years ago. So, barring unlikely kinds of exception, all of these photos remain conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved"). -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

publicity photo, copyright notice on picture, these are the kind of issues I was trying to determine

Piñanana (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The purpose for which a photograph was taken or published doesn't affect its copyright status, and the wording or lack of a copyright notice on a photograph (or in a caption attached to it) doesn't either. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Getting a picture put on Wikipedia is like getting a date with someone; if there isn't a perfectly clear yes, then it's a complete no. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I have seen pics on commons that are PD because they are a publicity photo without copyright notice

Piñanana (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, Piñanana. Can you point to an example? -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that specific search

look at the PD and copyright pages in Wikipedia:Wikipedia

Piñanana (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That only applies in certain countries, and for images published before certain dates.

The best venue for this question would be c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, which is where the experts on such matters can be found. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Piñanana "I have seen pics on commons that are PD because they are a publicity photo without copyright notice." As Hoary said, the lack of a copyright notice on a publicity photo, or on any other photo, does NOT mean the photo is in the public domain. Public Domain is not the same as "publicly available". Photos on Commons can be mis-tagged. Your use of "because" there is not right.

"Special to the New York Times" means, I believe, that the photo was taken by someone for the express purpose of being run in the NYT; the NYT almost certainly paid for the picture, probably asked or assigned the photographer to take it, and almost certainly holds the copyright.

Archive.org has a lot of copyrighted photos, and the rest of the Internet also has a lot of copyrighted photos. Many of them do not have a copyright notice, but that doesn't matter. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Flavobacterium flabelliforme

I recently tried to make a wikipedia article with a temporary log in and my cookies must have been cleaned out because i can not access it anymore. I tried making it under a created account and it wouldn't let me and is threatenign it with deletion! Please help! This is very important to me because a college grade is involved! Ajsarbak (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Is someone else in your class assigned the same thing? It appears that the person teaching the class may have made some mistakes. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Flavobacterium flabelliforme is the draft. It is not going to be deleted, at least not for several months. I agree with the decline given. You are free to work on it and improve it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs There is a second, separate draft in Ajsarbak's sandbox. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't notice that one. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

In what way is "a college grade involved"? Are you saying your professor set you an assignment to successfully publish a Wikipedia article? Athanelar (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Exactly! Ajsarbak (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

A grade is involved Ajsarbak (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Either that or add to an article that already exists. Currently there is no other page Flavobacterium flabelliforme. Ajsarbak (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

No one else has been given the same bacterium. Ajsarbak (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ajsarbak, your teacher has set you a very unfair and potentially impossible assignment. I suggest you ask them to read WP:ASSIGN#GUIDANCE. If you're in the US or Canada, you could also post on the WikiEd noticeboard so that a WikiEd staff member can reach out to your teacher and help them adjust their assignments. Even if you're elsewhere in the world, the WikiEd staff may be able to connect your teacher with a volunteer who can help. It is extremely difficult to create a new Wikipedia article - it's the hardest task on Wikipedia - and unless you have spent time and effort to become familiar with how Wikipedia works, you will most likely not succeed. As a student you almost certainly don't have that time to spare, since I imagine you're trying to study hard to complete your course. Your teacher is welcome to reach out to me on my talk page if they're not sure how to navigate the WikiEd noticeboard. I hope this helps you. Meadowlark (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Diddy parties article

I request that you request the deletion of the Diddy parties article, the reason is it’s not encyclopedic. ~2025-40239-40 (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-40239-40 Hello! I suggest you do not nominate the article for deletion. Being not encyclopedic is not a valid reason for deleting an article since Articles for Deletion (the venue for deleting articles) is not cleanup. The article is well sourced and a notable topic. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Technically it is: WP:DEL-REASON #14 says "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" can be deleted. Which makes sense. I know you mean an article can't be deleted if the content is encyclopedic but the tone isn't, but it's worth being specific. Athanelar (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

... Yet another example of the difficulty of coming up with terminology for Wikipedia concepts that's both usable (memorable, easy to type) and unambiguous. "Encyclopedic" really IS a word that fits for both of those ideas. Too bad it happens to be the same as itself. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly makes it not encyclopedic? It's a topic covered at length in several reliable sources, and while the subject matter could be seen as crude or silly that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this could be Diddy's pr team. )) An article with 70+ reputable sources describing the parties in detail clearly seems encyclopedic. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback on my edits

Hi everyone! I am a new editor. Before starting, I spent time reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS) and Notability guidelines because I want to contribute correctly. I reached out to my mentor, Lajmmoore, for feedback a while ago, but I haven't received a reply yet. Since I am eager to learn and want to make sure I am following the rules properly, I am asking here. Could someone please check my contributions and let me know if I am on the right track? Edit by Sona (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello - welcome! I'm afraid you're not following the rules very well at all, and I would say you need to slow down and understand what you're about to do before you do it.

I've reverted your edits to Anil Kumar Gupta (scientist), because they included things that are not allowed in the biography of a living person. I'll go over those in a separate response, but thought I should tell you the basic situation first. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I have reverted your edit because the undo was done without presenting any policy-based or source-based justification. Your explanation does not identify specific violations of Wikipedia policies (such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR), nor does it point to unreliable sources or factual inaccuracies. The reverted content was expanded using reliable, published sources and structured according to MOS and NPOV guidelines. A revert without valid policy reasoning is not sufficient. I am restoring my edit. last time i tell you do not revert again unless you can clearly demonstrate, with policy references and reliable sources, why the content should be removed or changed. I am not seeking suggestions at this stage. Further unsourced or unexplained reverts will be considered disruptive editing. i dont need any extended user suggation.. i think you need to knows about Wiki guidelince... Edit by Sona (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Please answer: How do you know Anil Kumar Gupta? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I do not have a personal relationship with Anil Kumar Gupta. My edits are based solely on information available in reliable, published sources such as academic books, institutional profiles, and scholarly references, in line with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. I am contributing only as an editor by improving sourcing, structure, and clarity of the article, and not based on any personal knowledge or association. now please you do not replay my discussion. i need admin ya pending page reviewer suggation. you replay like a admin.. but its not valid for me Edit by Sona (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

You provided a year of birth for him, unsourced. You provided other specific information about him, also unsourced. You are at the same time picky about pointing out where other editors have written something without a source.

Please explain. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think this editor may be combining output from some sort of LLM with their own words, given the changes in style and grammar within a single message. I am therefore not convinced the arguments provided are well grounded. ~2025-40392-17 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

They're clearly not well grounded. If that's one reason for it, fair enough. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-40392-17 @TooManyFingers I am not interest to engaging further on this matter. I do not wish to discuss content with users who appear to comment from multiple accounts or IPs. Refrain from further replies on my edits. Edit by Sona (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're interested in engaging; to edit Wikipedia, you must be willing to engage. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Edit by Sona Your original post was seeking suggestions, and in your next post, you are suddenly "not seeking suggestions at this stage". What changed? The editor @TooManyFingers always gives great advice, and you should heed it. David10244 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Edit by Sona Before going any further in the discussion, I should ask: How do you know Anil Kumar Gupta? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What to do with useless invisible comments?

I sometimes find invisible comments which appear to be useless such as on Talk:We Can't Have Everything where I see an invisible comment, "<! -- if possible, if not, please leave note here to that effect - thanks :) -->".

What should we do with invisible comments like this? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It's clear that they wanted [something] done if possible, and to leave them a note if we couldn't do it - but I can't figure out what the [something] was. Maybe someone else will understand, but I'm leaning toward "if it's become completely meaningless, delete it".

Just make sure, if you ever do delete one of these comments, that you delete the entire thing including both the beginning tag and the ending tag. It can mysteriously mess up the page if you leave half of it. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I work on adding film poster images to pages (as well as book covers), I have seen this EXACT invisible comment on dozens of such pages. I have no idea what was once desired to be added, but as you noted, any such indication of what that was has long since been lost to history now. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

WikiBlame confirms, in the specific case of Talk:We_Can't_Have_Everything, the page was created 18 years ago with {{filmimage}}<!-- if possible, if not, please leave note here to that effect - thanks :) --> in the second line. It seems, then, the original intention that any who removed {{filmimage}} should note that on the talk page—perhaps to avoid restoration of the template or of something like it like {{reqphoto}}. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, it was really poorly worded. I still don't entirely understand, but I will remove it when I see it then unless anyone objects. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: {{filmimage}} was deleted in 2009. It made a box which started: "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster." The comment should have been removed when an image was added but it's hard to detect invisible comments. The editor who added it apparently wanted somebody to leave a note if they had looked for an image with an allowed license but found it impossible. A search [1] currently finds 627 comments with this exact wording. All those I examined were added by the same editor Lugnuts in 2007 when they created the article. Lugnuts was blocked in 2022. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comment doesn't help anybody and should be removed, shouldn't it? I started removing them with WP:JWB, but then decided to check in, WP:MEATBOT, and all that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I think every instance of the comment should be removed then. It is confusing, useless, and outlived and purpose that it might have once had many years ago. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Finished removing it from the rest of talk pages in these 604 edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I have never figured out how to use AWB or JWB to make these kinds of mass edits, but thank you for doing that. Teach me your ways. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't a good venue for that. I'm not very good at teaching, but we can try on one of our user talk pages, if you really want to get into semi-automatic mass editing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

In general, comments are helpful for coordinating between editors, adding reminders, and sometimes blowing off steam when you're angry something isn't working. You can also use them to quickly and recoverably remove bits of markup for whatever reason, like testing mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I was not questioning the value of invisible comments generally, I was only referring to this one specific set of invisible comments which seem to have now been deleted. Thanks to @Andrybak. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Posting an article about my employer

with reference to Draft:Unique Homestays

Hi, I’m an editor with a declared conflict of interest. I created a draft article about my employer which has been declined at AfC for notability and AI-authorship concerns. I’ve now stopped editing the draft and added a ""Help me"" request on the draft talk page. I’d appreciate advice from an uninvolved editor on whether the current independent sources are sufficient, or whether this article realistically needs more in-depth coverage before it can succeed. Roycruse (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Roycruse. I reviewed your draft yesterday. I am going to be completely honest: from the sources provided there is no evidence this company meets our criteria for inclusion at this time. I would recommend you read this and leave the draft for now. Drafts are deleted after six months of no activity, you can make dummy edits to reset this counter. Deleted drafts can be recovered via WP:REFUND.

Perhaps in the future better sources will come along that prove notability. qcne (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, but stop. The problems that arise when creating an article for a relatively unknown business are simply too much for a newcomer to overcome in most cases, especially if (and I apologise if I'm wrong) you're here specifically to write an article about a place you work at without any previous enwiki experience mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

notvote count tool

Is there a tool to count notvotes that closers use? I have wanted to get rough counts of discussions before, as that can sometimes be useful even if not the basis of consensus. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the whole point is that a closer is supposed to carefully read the whole discussion and close it based on the strengths of the arguments presented, and being able to quickly tally votes would encourage them to rush and close based on headcount. Athanelar (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That is true, I did find a way to work it by using Ctrl F, altho it obviously isnt perfect. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist It isn't perfect, partly because such a technique can encourage the "not carefully reading" part of the process, as Athanelar said.  :-) David10244 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@David10244 I was just wondering if such existed. This isnt really for closing I want to do, sometimes I like to get a rough feel for how a discussion is going when reading it. But I can see how that could cause laziness in closing. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia sucks!

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.

---

Time to replace Wikipedia, which is possible now. ~2025-40459-59 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, tell me when you finish. r f q i i ^talk! 11:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Wish you luck! I wonder what encyclopedia website you will make. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I made a new wiki that won't will replace Wikipedia. Here's the link. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Nearly ready for an RFC, which would likely survive for at least 30 seconds, maybe 120 if lucky. Boud (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll bet you a Zimbabwean dollar they're talking about Grokipedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder how their progress on the new wiki is going?
r f q i i ^talk! 12:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think he's still making it on Google Sites, let's wait a several hours Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I hate Grokipedia, it took the context from one of our pages and got it wrong, and that was one obscure page, I bet many others have mistakes Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Same opinion here Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

It makes blatant assumptions or hallucinations. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have things the old-fashioned way myself. Sugar Tax (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Great, then go do so. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is very reliable. ~2025-40941-58 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It contains hallucinations, are creates non-existent references. This breaks LLM. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It’s the opposite, i guess Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I studied for ages on a topic which I wrote on here about a Grenadian businessman, who worked with the English to quell the French hold on the island, and on Grokipedia it says he worked with both the French and English regional council (which never happened, I couldn’t even find evidence to say he ever was in the council). The source Grok gave for this didn’t contain anything which it said. It is not reliable, and that was one page, imagine how many more mistakes there are, especially about more forgotten or less well known figures, places and states. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion below, Reliability of Grokipedia? Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

My assessment: Grokipedia is a very reliable source. ~2025-40880-81 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

😂 It isn’t but you do you buddy. If you don’t like Wikipedia leave Wikipedia alone. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It is. You leave Grokipedia alone. ~2025-40880-81 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok Elon 👍 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok xAI 👍 Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

How thorough was your assessment? What methodology did you use? Is your analysis published? David10244 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Good luck dude, that's historically gone very well mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You done yet? Light (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Replace it with what? (lol) jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE. ๋࣭⭑) 18:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia, a encyclopedia made by AI Versions111 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Join the projekt!

we need ur halp!
r f q i i ^talk! 01:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better logo:

r f q i i ^talk! 04:15, 18 December 2025 (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.

Disclaimer: No, this was not written by Elon or someone in xAI or in any other company or business of Elon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-41464-11 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair use cropped picture

Adding a fair use cropped picture of the historically significant "april 26 editorial" to the wikipedia article dedicated to that specific matter

Hello, i am wondering if a cropped version of a picture of the headline from a chinese newspaper dated from april 26 1989 could be uploaded to the english wikipedia only under the "fair use" terms?

Here's my rationale: This non-free image would be used in the article "April 26 Editorial" to illustrate the historically significant front-page headline of the People’s Daily editorial published on 26 April 1989. The editorial itself is the subject of extensive scholarly and historical analysis, and the image would be used for critical commentary and identification purposes. Only the headline and masthead are shown, representing the minimum portion necessary to convey the subject of discussion. No free equivalent exists, as the original newspaper front page is a copyrighted work. The image would be used at low resolution and only in this article, and its inclusion would not replace the original work or harm the market for it.

Frankly, an illustration of the headline of a newspaper would greatly improve the article, and it is available at library archives around the world, it was sold publicly in 1989 and largely diffused and since the Tiananmen square incidents are so significant to world history it seems to me that Wikipedia should freely make it available instead of "hiding" it to the public, we wouldn't want to be associated with censorship or bend our ethics to comply to chinese ethos now would we?

Best regards,

Maxime from Canada

Maxcote007 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the article is about the news story itself, yes, that should be fine under fair use. But all that is with the understanding that you are providing an image of the editorial and not a reproduction of the exact text. So a low resolution version should probably not allow for reading of a full copyrighted text. GMG^talk 21:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes that was what I was proposing but since it is not "my own work" and cannot be uploaded on wikimedia commons I cannot put it even here. How can it be done? Meister007 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, my Ipad and Iphone have two different Wikipedia accounts but I'm the same person.

Maxime from Canada Meister007 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

If you operate two accounts, you should create a user page for each, mentioning the other. See Wikipedia:VALIDALT.

But you can be logged in to one account on both devices at once, and that would be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it actually oc​curred because I could'nt log in when I long ago switched devices Android to Apple and I wasn't able to complete the identification verification process from Wikipedia and ended up creating a new account completely. I will find time to unify this and sort it out, but now I have 350 high school kids to tend to... Meister007 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Meister007 = Maxcote007, you may not upload it to Wikimedia Commons: not because it is not your own work but because it neither is in the public domain nor is copyleft. Instead, if you believe that its resolution, etc, satisfy the restrictions that GreenMeansGo has referred to above and that its use in the article April 26 Editorial would be "fair use", then you upload it to English-language Wikipedia ("Upload file | Upload a non-free file | ..."). -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will try this way.

Best regards,

Maxime from Canada Meister007 (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Meister007: You won't be able to upload yet because you account is very new. If you can provide a link to the image I can resize and upload it for you. GMG^talk 00:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried but wikipedia won't let me post a link to my google photo.

It tells me it's a "blacklisted site".

Do you have another place to send it to you? Meister007 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks GMG Meister007 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Meister007: Is it this image? GMG^talk 12:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, almost. I had Chat GPT rework it to suit english wikipedia guidelines. So the one I have is a publishable version. But yes that is the picture. Meister007 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If it is just the headline, it is probably not copyrightable, and can be uploaded to Commons as such, using c:Template:PD-text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Great PF nickname! Meister007 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Grokipedia?

I had searched up Grokipedia on the Perennial Sources List but I wasn't able to clearly understand why it was listed as 'unreliable' on the site. (I'm kinda dumb)

Could someone please explain?

Z-Astro3 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Z-Astro3. Grokipedia is unreliable because it relies completely on AI with contributions from user-generated content (WP:UGC). AI scrapes off information from plenty of unreliable sources and is prone to faking information (hallucinations). Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 05:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LLM Versions111 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

An oddity of Grokipedia is that, rather than merely relying on user-generated content (such as Wikipedia)in an even-handed or random sort of way, it seems to tend toward a particular kind of spin. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if Grokipedia was as accurate and useful as Wikipedia (which it isn't), it would still not be a reliable source for the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source - user generated content. See WP:CIRCULAR for the reasoning. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I would say Wikipedia is a good source, well a good summary of s topic with extensive sources. Grok on the other hand takes from everywhere with no boundaries, control measures and hallucinations. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

My assessment: Grokipedia is a very reliable source. ~2025-40880-81 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is founded on AI/a LLM, and to emphasise how unreliable it is, take this prompt (question for the bot) and response from the LLM article;

Prompt:

Greater-toothed pademelons, Thylogale gigadonti, can be seen in wildlife preserves in Queensland

(Note that "Greater-toothed pademelons" is a fictitious/non-existent species.)

Response:

Yes, greater-toothed pademelons are found in wildlife preserves in Queensland. They are shy and nocturnal, so it may be difficult to see them during the day. However, you may be able to see their tracks or hear them rustling in the bushes at night.

You know what us Jamaicans would say? A duppy (a ghost, referring to the aforementioned non-existent species) dem a si during di day ah hear inna di bushes ah nyt(Translation: A ghost they are seeing during the day and hearing in the bushes at night). Light (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater Wikipedia is a good source for learning, and gathering information, in my opinion. But Wikipedia is not an allowable source to use as a reference in a Wikipedia article; it is "unreliable" as a source, in Wikipedia's own terms, because it is user-editable.... just like IMDB and most blogs. David10244 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea but users have to actually use evidence unlike blogs or social media, especially on pages where they are much more in-depth (like something in biology or a very big country), oh I see what you mean about it’s not a good source for a Wikipedia article, I just thought you meant it isn’t good as a source for learning in general. My mistake. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSPLLM and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_499#Adding_Grokipedia_to_the_list. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is very reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-40941-58 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Trust me it isn’t. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that Botpedia is reliable? You can’t even edit and make articles directly Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's using the same tech that can't reliably answer math problems and tells you to eat rocks. It isn't any more reliable than the the library of babel or some typing monkeys mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia articles are often a copy of the Wikipedia article, but it isn't always clear when it is or isn't a copy of Wikipedia. So much of Grokipedia is as reliable as Wikipedia, but as with any mirror of Wikipedia we can't cite information to it as if it was a reliable source, because a reliable source for our purposes in citing our content has to be independent of us. Otherwise an error here would turn into an error here that is cited to a usually reliable source, that copied that error from here. Oh and when it isn't a copy of Wikipedia, then it isn't clear where they source things from, but it includes self published assertions by individuals. On Wikipedia those sources are fine for statements such as "individual a follows religion b" where individual a is the author, but not for much else. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes it isn’t monitored by people, and hallucinates with sources, coming up with things the source doesn’t even state, certainly not as reliable as most Wikipedia pages. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

My assessment: Grokipedia is a very reliable source. ~2025-40880-81 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are trying to get out of trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to try and convince people Grokipedia is a reliable source despite it not being (multiple errors I’ve seen with my own eyes). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It is. You leave Grokipedia alone. ~2025-40880-81 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You do you, but I do warn you it hallucinates, and uses sources wrongly. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This. Lectonar (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I’ll leave them alone now, it’s certain they are a troll. Apologies for somewhat feeding them, I’ve given them the warning but if they don’t take it that’s fine by me. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I shouldn’t have feed the trolls, apologies too Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-40880-81 You have said this several times already. David10244 (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia (my offer of $5 American to Elon if he changes the name to Crockipedia for a year still stands) is an AI webscraper that fabricates raw link pseudosources in the footnotes + tendentious human-inputted right wing content, I believe. Find the original web sources if you wanna add information you see on Elon's Encyclopedia Lite™ — but, fair warning, the footnotes there are not apt to help. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

A poor offer. ~2025-41250-50 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimer: No, this was not written by Elon or someone in xAI or in any other company or business of Elon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-41464-11 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

help

Can an article without images be accepted as a good article TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

TheGreatEditor024 Yes, an article can be accepted with or without images however, for an article to be consider as Good Article WP:GA it must first meet the six good article criteria. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 10:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

okay thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 Images are not considered when drafts are reviewed; they are generally added after an article is accepted. And I think that non-free images are not allowed at all in a draft; those mustcwait until the draft is published as an article. David10244 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I think I misread your question; sorry. David10244 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I only wanted to know if an Image is needed to nominate my article as a good article TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was about something that is quite difficult to understand without an image - perhaps some function that can be clarified by a graph, or an unusual machine - then I might really hope for an image. But when the image is not essential to explaining, then no. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Training LLMs to game the system

Should we warn other Wikipedians that we are very likely training LLMs to game the system?

I'm wondering if on somewhere like WP:LLM we should warn editors that when we help people suspected of using LLMs, then, we, the human editors, may be effectively providing training data to LLMs.

Whether we like it or not, those of us who patiently and perseveringly explain Wikipedia policy to people who add LLM content to Wikipedia articles are very likely helping to train LLMs, since some editors submit prompts to LLMs for statistical advice strings about how to edit a Wikipedia article, e.g. The uploaded snapshot [proposed for a Wikipedia article] is comprehensive but not publication‑grade ... certainty drift and uneven citations weaken neutrality apparently according to _Author: Copilot_. Our situation is not as bad as that of paid LLM trainers (humans) who end up highly traumatised (archive; full report; archive; Fediverse thread), since we don't have to pretend that we are the male/female/non-binary romantic companion in [insert intimate relationship type] with the LLM-using editor, typing 40 words a minute and faking our identities, nor do we have to do the other traumatic types of LLM moderation work. Moreover, here at Wikipedia we effectively have social support via radical transparency (there are no NDAs for Wikipedia editing), and we use deliberative, participatory, transparent decision-making, so our situation is different. But we should still not hide the likelihood that our patience with other editors is considered an input resource by people managing LLM data centres.

This also points to some articles that need to be made: I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on these traumatised LLM trainers. I don't see anything obvious in Template:Artificial intelligence navbox nor in Template:Machine learning. Do we have any encyclopedic coverage at all? If not, feel free to start the article(s), provided there is sufficient notability and there are good sources.

In principle, it's not necessarily a completely bad thing if the LLM data centres develop their own secret Wikipedia-editing-advice models. Though the centralisation of power in LLM corporations implies that those at the core of the corporate power system will be best placed to use these to refine their WP:COI editing techniques, better hiding their COIs.

In any case, I have the feeling that we should have a warning somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where. Either at WP:LLM or somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup, although "Cleanup" seems to be mainly for how to do the cleanup, not warnings about the implications of doing the cleanup. On the other hand, a poorly written warning may discourage Wikipedians from cleaning up AI slop at all. Any thoughts? Disclaimer: more-or-less similar comments by me were considered off-topic WP:NOTFORUM violations here (edit: fix ID) and here. Boud (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC) (minor fixes Boud (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC))

That's happening regardless of whether or not we directly explain those things to the LLM users. Wikipedia is entirely publicly accessible, meaning every discussion about Wikipedia policy is constantly being scraped; that's why LLMs already have a tendency to wikilawyer (often to humorous effect when they confidently cite a policy or guideline to support something that that guideline absolutely doesn't say) Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. So my prediction is really a postdiction. That's consistent with my concern. I guess I wrongly assumed that the WP fraction of LLM input content was too tiny to be significant in the input corpuses.

Maybe this is starting to evolve towards a possible proposal. Should we add a warning (somewhere) that when we ask someone to read WP guidelines and policies, this means that s/he should actually read them using his/her human brain and think about what they mean, and not ask an LLM to summarise them? A counterargument is that this feels like being patronising, treating the person as an idiot , but in some sense that person already appears unwilling to read and understand. Maybe that should only be on a case-by-case basis, with individual Wikipedians who appear persistently unwilling or unable to read and understand guidelines. Boud (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It was not removed as "off topic", but per WP:NOTFORUM, and you should read that. If you disagree with that assessment, you should first take that up with the editor who removed it per WP:DR.

It is, however, off-topic here (The Teahouse cant make policy decisions, just offer you advice about what to do as an individual contributor); and should, if anywhere, probably be discussed at WP:Village pump (proposals).

Both your "here" links are the same, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections; fixed. I don't see anything so far concrete enough for a Village pump proposal; I'm fine with suggestions for me as an individual contributor. Boud (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to be able to say "LLM use. Automatic site ban. Bye." It would be better in the long run. And the short run too. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Giving Thanks

How do you thank another user? StrayKidsStayForever (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Click on the "thank" button next to the edit summary of the edit you want to thank someone for. You can see it in the page history. See WP:THANKS. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

StrayKidsStayForever you can also send an editor a Barnstar as a thank you gift. Karenthewriter (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Just in case of any misunderstanding: that isn't something you need to do, nor is it expected. But for recognizing someone's long-term excellent work, it's a very nice option. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@StrayKidsStayForever You also get a "thank" button if you click the 3 dots after Reply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I'm not the OP, but I don't see 3 dots after Reply here, and I don’t see "reply" in article history. I'm confused. David10244 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Does your screen have, by any chance, a dim background, small green letters in a monospaced font, 80 characters per line, and a little badge on the front that says "VT220"? ;)

Jokes aside, I think the two of you might be using different "skins" on Wikipedia. I don't know which ones. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

That, or some preference thing. I'm on a laptop, if that matters. Maybe the WP:TECHPUMP people knows, if someone here doesn't, I don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability Question

Can a Wikipedia page exist ? Which has only one reference? That too not an online website ? I found a page... Probably it was made years back...when en Wiki wasn't that strict about notability guidelines... TrikityTikki (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@TrikityTikki Since there are many, many articles in Category:Articles lacking sources (i.e. with none at all), the answer is clearly "yes". You are welcome to help improve Wikipedia by adding sources, which do not need to be available online. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the article. TrikityTikki (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@TrikityTikki: One reference is not enough for a Wikipedia article on any subject. Would you be so kind as to link the page in question? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the article. TrikityTikki (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases - a single source (that provides significant, reliable, independent coverage) may suffice. Species and settlements come to mind as two subjects that often only have one source but still manage to meet inclusion criteria. It would always be better to have more though. It is of no concern whether the source is WP:OFFLINE or not. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the article. TrikityTikki (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It's very possible that this article (and many others with few sources) have sources available that are just not in the article; see Template:Sources exist, a template for this issue. I can find this online with some text on this palace. It's possible there may be more sources available in the native language or other transliterations. jolielover♥talk 18:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Ohkay gotcha. Thanks! TrikityTikki (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

There are some types of subjects which are 'presumed notable' for reasons other than availability of sources; for instance as per WP:GEOLAND we can see that populated, legally-recognised places are "presumed notable" regardless of whether sources exist; which is why there are so many scarcely-sourced stub articles about populated places. Athanelar (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Got it! Thanks! ☺️ TrikityTikki (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It can (in some cases). It mainly depends on what you mean by "can it exist". It certainly can but it really shouldn't. Anything with very very few sources are either presumed notable and somebody should really get on adding a source, or ancient enough that the rules were less strict and boring enough for nobody to fix it mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Got it! Thanks. 🙏🏻 TrikityTikki (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Error when uploading SVG files through file upload wizard

I am attempting to upload the logo from here: https://www.pzcussons.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pz-logo-2025-v2.svg. However, when I attempt to upload it, I get the error "Upload failed: This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser. (uploadscripted)". How do I address this error? Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: That file is not a valid SVG file. You can check it at w3.org.

It looks like a company's logo; have you checked its copyright status to confirm you're allowed to upload it? Bazza 7 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be too simple to be subject to copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy, @Faceless Enemy: I only pointed out a potential copyright problem because the SVG is being downloaded from the company's website, the terms and conditions of use for which include "Website Copyright ©2012 PZ Cussons (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved. Our site, including but not limited to its design, graphics, text and dynamic content, are protected in accordance with The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It may not be reproduced in part or whole without the express written permission of PZ Cussons (UK) Ltd."

WP:LOGO will help you determine if Wikipedia can ignore that proclaimed copyright. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's valid according to that tool, except it's valid as SVG 1.1, not SVG 1.0. See here How do I convert the file backwards?

It's fair use to put it in the article about the company, so I'm not worried about the copyright side. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: If you think WP:LOGO applies, then the simplest solution is to take a screenshot of the SVG image in a browser and save that as a small PNG, which you can upload and tag accordingly. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Some pages are semi-protected and cannot be edited unless you have permission. How do you join ? Urlocalhitman10 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Urlocalhitman10, welcome to Wikipedia. We have various levels of protection, all of which is explained at Wikipedia:Protection policy. The Summary table section will let you know what user group you need to be in to edit the various levels. qcne (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition, to edit semi-protected articles specifically, you must have at least 10 edits and your account must be 4 days old. Then, you will automatically get added to the autoconfirmed user group, which lets you edit semi-protected pages. jolielover♥talk 18:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

However, please be aware that gaming the system by making "dummy" edits will probably result in your rights being revoked. Make real, genuine edits, not minor edits just to get group. jolielover♥talk 18:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Urlocalhitman10: You have been autoconfirmed for a month and should be able to edit semi-protected pages. Which page did you try to edit and what went wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I tried editing on the United Airlines page but a message appeared saying it was semi-protected. Urlocalhitman10 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Urlocalhitman10 I think that message is just a warning, and it doesn't stop you from editing the article. David10244 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

For the benefit of others watching this, every page on Wikipedia has a talkpage or a redlink for one. If you want to make a change on a protected page the talkpage is usually unprotected and you can just detail your change there. It isn't always the quickest way to get things done, but if you click subscribe on that section there is a reasonable chance of getting your fix made. ϢereSpielChequers 11:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I get search results below search bar in Timeless?

I use the Timeless appearance mode, and its a little different from the mobile version. On the mobile version, when I type something into the search bar, it has a little pop up below of recommendations/what you are searching for. But on Timeless, when I type something into the search bar, it doesn't come up with the pop up below it.

Is there a setting I have to turn on or something? Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 20:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Timeless does that; you'll have to change your skin. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 07:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Can i make a Wikipedia Article of a Fangame??

Hi. I want to make a page of PVZ Fusion, which is a Chinese fangame inspired by PVZ that skyrocketed in popularity. I'm not asking permission to make the page, but i have a question: Are fangame-related articles accepted by Wikipedia?? Let me know. ~2025-40831-92 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

BTW Wikipedia ignored that i've created the Glacialities 06 account Glacialities 06 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-40831-92 (@Glacialities 06), and welcome to the Teahouse.

When you say "Wikipedia ignored", what you are saying is that, for whatever reason, you are not currently logged into your account.

The answer to this question, whatever the subject, is always "Yes, if you can show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which is mostly about whether people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable soures.

However, I have a more general recommendation: 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.

Failed to sign the above, so pinging again: Hello, @~2025-40831-92 (@Glacialities 06) --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

They are, if there's enough coverage (see pokemon uranium) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

On there always being a move request discussions following a breaking news event...

Just saw the latest breaking news event on the Bondi Beach shooting and I came to Wikipedia as I usually do when these stories happen, and almost every time on the top of the page there is a move request banner with a link to the discussion.

At first, I thought it was really interesting reading about it. My first memory of this was with the Thailand Cave Rescue in 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue. But as the years went on and I see this happening with every single breaking news event, I'm starting to feel weary and I feel like time and resources are being diverted discussing something as trivial as whether to put the year in the article title or not. Especially when it's a tragedy like a big shooting. It detracts from the tragedy in a way. Imagine you lost a loved one because of a shooting and the first thing you see are people devoting their time discussing whether to use the article title 2025 Salt Lake City shooting or just Salt Lake City shooting, as if that was the only thing that mattered in the whole ordeal.

It's fine if the move request banner is hidden in the article Talk page or something, but to have it be at the very top of the article every single time a shooting or other tragedy happens is getting quite wearisome. Anyone else feel this way? Airgum (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't read a lot of breaking-news articles, but I've noticed the thing you're talking about. I wonder what the disadvantages would be, if there was a policy that breaking-news articles cannot be the subject of a move proposal for their first two weeks - with an exception in case the original name is grossly false. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd be far more worried about the bereaved seeing photographs of human skulls as the talk page loads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Why did he reverted this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=1327563067 ~2025-40722-14 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

He has reverted your edit because you didn't provide a citation. I reckon to cite a source to backup that content. (Pinging @CycloneYoris). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug is a separatist movement. ~2025-40722-14 (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The article does not say that. You would first need to show proof that impartial reliable reporters called it a separatist movement. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug is a autonomous movement.
2. It’s actually an autonomous movement. Not a separatist movement.

Ilovesomegeography (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what we're saying. What we're tryna say is to find sources from a search engine which verify and support the content you're tryna add into the article. Simply linking to other Wikipedia articles is not gonna help you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, your edit needs to provide a cited reference, which will appear in the article so that ANY reader can verify the info. Telling us here doesn't meet that requirement. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

AND, also, the results of a search engine query do not make a reliable, independent, published source. See WP:42. David10244 (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Barak_Mori rejected few times - I would appreciate your help in understanding this

I’ve submitted this draft a few times through AfC, but it’s been rejected for:

• Not addressing notability clearly
• Tone/style possibly AI-generated
• Citation inconsistencies

I fixed all the issue - completely rewrite it, read the docs carefully, re-edit again and again and I can't understand why it's beeing rejected. Can you please let me know what needs to be fixed for the article to be published?

Please note that I have tightened tone and added stronger independent sources (NAC, AAJ musician page) since my last rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eransharv (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! Eransharv (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That page on the National Arts Centre website was entirely written by Mr. Mori, or by a representative of his. It is therefore not independent at all. Anyone who interviewed him, or got input from him or his representative about what to write, is automatically not independent.

If you do find independent reliable sources, you will need to delete ALL your work, start from a blank page, and write all by yourself with no help from AI. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TooManyFingers,

Thank you for your feedback on my previous submissions! I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, basing it solely on independent, reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, DownBeat, JazzTimes, London Jazz News, Arts Fuse, Stereophile, BBC Music, and NPR-affiliated outlets. I have avoided using any self-published or institutional sources for notability and have focused on verifiable coverage and critical reviews.

The new draft is available at User:Eransharv/Barak Mori. Please feel free to review it and let me know if you have any further suggestions. I would appreciate it if you could delete the previous rejected draft, as this is a completely new version.

Thank you for your time and guidance! Eransharv (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who interviewed him, or got input from him or his representative about what to write, is automatically not independent. That is not so. Please be more careful to avoid mis-stating policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing !

I want to clarify that my article uses a mix of independent, third-party reports and reviews, which is excellent (as far as I understood) for Wikipedia. In the new draft I focused on the independent sources for notability and factual information.

List of my independent Sources (Third-Party Reports or Reviews)

• The New York Times (2003): A professional review of a jazz performance, not an interview or promotional piece. Independent and suitable for use.
• All About Jazz (Reviews): Album reviews by Glenn Astarita and others. These are independent, third-party reviews, not interviews. Suitable for use.
• DownBeat Magazine: Professional jazz magazine reviews. Independent and suitable.
• JazzTimes: Professional jazz magazine reviews. Independent and suitable.
• London Jazz News: Professional jazz review. Independent and suitable.
• Arts Fuse: Independent arts publication review. Suitable for use.
• Stereophile: Independent audio publication review. Suitable for use.
• BBC Music: Professional music review. Independent and suitable.
• WBUR/NPR: Professional radio coverage and review. Independent and suitable.
• Midnight East: Arts and culture coverage. Independent and suitable.
• Haaretz: Professional newspaper review. Independent and suitable.
• Ynet: Professional newspaper review. Independent and suitable.
• Jazz Messengers: Music database and review. Independent and suitable

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by not considering the vast use of these third-party sources as independent?

Thanks! Eransharv (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing and @Eransharv Sorry for the wrong answer. Next time I'll find a way of getting the point across without giving false information. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

This page is incomplete.

User:Ilovesomegeography/Sandbox/Flags of Subdivisions is incomplete rn. Ilovesomegeography (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be wasting your effort - that already has an article. Please see Flags of the U.S. states and territories. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

it’s about flags about subdivisions not us states on my sandbox Ilovesomegeography (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You're still just making yourself do work for nothing. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This is already a thing at Commons:Category:Flags by country. I agree with TooManyFingers, you might be wasting your time. win8x (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I just make it longer Ilovesomegeography (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Can someone upload this picture?

There is a link to a poster in the article Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour in the "The Final Show" section, but it is not uploaded as an image, it is only the link. Can somebody upload it? ~2025-40671-25 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, @~2025-40671-25. I reverted your edits; nothing to worry about. To address your poster issue, we cannot use it here, because Wikipedia only accepts "free" images, with a certain license. Some "fair use" content is allowed, usually at the start of the article. In short, we cannot upload it, no.

Your second edit was also reverted simply because it didn't seem to be making good changes, like changing Bejeweled (song) to Bejewelled (song). Again, nothing to worry about, but you have to be careful.

Feel free to ask any more questions. Have a good one! win8x (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Notable person: Prof. Joseph Borg awarded highest honor

Hi fellow wikis ! Professor Joseph Borg has just been awarded the country's highest honor. See https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/138711/republic_day_2025__honours_and_awards Who can take up the task and create a deserved entry ? Jbor14 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Joseph. First of all, please refrain from referring to yourself in the third person; it is evident from your talk page that you are indeed Joseph Borg.

Secondly, your article was deleted based on consensus back in 2018 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borg (scientist). If you believe this new award provides enough notability to now justify the existence of your article, you can request undeletion at WP:RESTORE to have the deleted article restored as a draft which you could add your new source to and then submit for review to see if it will be accepted as an article again.

Please do be aware that an article about yourself is not always a good thing and there is no need to pursue it as some kind of aspirational goal. Athanelar (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

hi Athanelar, thanks for the reply. noted. Indeed, I was not looking for a way on how to restore older content. I was looking at how other third parties, and unrelated to the topic contributors get wind or notified on creating entries. But then again.. perhaps if something is notable, it should happen on its own accord and naturally without the need to ask about it. Best wishes, and Merry XMAS ! Jbor14 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Restoring and improving the older content is probably the correct approach in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! im completely green to all this. Would you be able to fwd/suggest/ or perhaps even take a look at it yourself ? However no obligations. Thanks for ur time Jbor14 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't see it unless and until it is undeleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

thanks for ur effort.. argh.. I really really don't know. It;'s been a while, and all I could see is that page was marked for deletion, and in fact subsequently deleted. I can see this trail "

• 17:54, 25 December 2018 Michig talk contribs deleted page Joseph Borg (scientist) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borg (scientist))  (thank)
• 16:09, 18 December 2018 Scope creep talk contribs performed unknown action "pagetriage-deletion/delete" on Joseph Borg (scientist)
• 16:09, 18 December 2018 Scope creep talk contribs marked Joseph Borg (scientist) for deletion with afd tag
• 16:09, 18 December 2018 Scope creep talk contribs marked Joseph Borg (scientist) as reviewed" not sure whether it's easy / fine to pursue by pinging the relevant people who did the review in the first place. Other than this, don't know what else to do. If it's too much work, please do not worry. my very best wishes.

Jbor14 (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jbor14 Editors work on what they want to work on; all editors are volunteers. No one is ever "assigned" to create, or recreate, an article. Someone who reads this page might decide they want to tackle this task. Or, someone who hears about you, or about the award, might decide to create a draft and submit it for consideration. It's hard to predict. David10244 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jbor14: A National Order of Merit would likely make the man notable. I think you can ask for the old article to be undeleted as a WP:DRAFT and you can work on it there until its ready for mainspace. Ping me when its finished and i'll review it for you. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

very very kind of you. but im a bit at a loss. I had originally written the first early draft of the article way back in time and was severely scolded for that. However the actual article was then looked into, edited, and formatted by some other kind souls/editors on wiki. Bottom line, it was not deemed notable then, and deleted. how to bring it back from the abyss beats me.. it shows that article has been deleted and in no way I can find traces of it. unless the

• 17:54, 25 December 2018 Michig talk contribs deleted page Joseph Borg (scientist)(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borg (scientist))  (thank)

Michig is the person deleted ? And hence he can bring it back as Draft ? I can ask politely but I don't know how to make a formal request. Jbor14 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I just made a request using the prompt above, under WP:RESTORE let's see if it works. thanks guys. Jbor14 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

hi ! the page has been restored ! see

• Joseph_Borg_(scientist) · ( talk | logs |  links | watch | afd ) They also state it needs a LOT OF WORK. indeed... there are many many updates that are required, but most are publicly available and cited. I guess the most notable of all are the first ever Maltese biomedical Science missions to the ISS called Project Maleth, I in 2021, II in 2022 and III in 2023. Also worked on inspiration4 and Polaris dawn spacex mission science, and led parts of the blood science for the spacex fram2 mission as well. etc.

Jbor14 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Joseph Borg (scientist). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Can anybody remind me how to search for something that's been overwritten by a list?

I was looking for people called Frisch, but Frisch exists as a manually-compiled list, which of course is incomplete (it has no link to Elizabeth H. Frisch (up for deletion at the moment, so I haven't added it). I'm sure someone once told me that list pages do have an option to carry out a search instead of relying on the list. But for the life of me I can't find it. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If you type 'Frisch' in the searchbar, then at the bottom of the suggested results you'll see a button to "Search for pages containing 'Frisch'" Athanelar (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Elemimele Here Special:PrefixIndex all article titles with Frisch including people not yet on the disambig. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 11:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele: "Search for pages containing" includes hits outside the title. Special:PrefixIndex only finds titles which start with a given string. intitle:Frisch finds titles with Frisch or very similar words in the title. Some disambiguation pages have a search link but it has to be added manually, often with {{In title}}. Surname pages like Frisch are articles and rarely have search links. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks loads! I forgot that the essential thing is not to press the enter key on typing something in the search bar; first check the options! Elemimele (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "more results" option you can use as well at the end of the drop-down. Koriodan (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Biyografi ekle

Belirli spor branşlarında çeşitli başarılar yapmış bulunmaktayım. Sosyal medya hesaplarım aktiftir ve sahibi olduğum bir spor kulübünü işletiyorum kendi biyografimi yayınlamak istiyorum. ~2025-40833-40 (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Bu İngilizce Vikipedi ve biz sadece İngilizce sorulara yardımcı olabiliriz. Türkçe Vikipedi'yi (tk.wikipedia.com) tercih edebilirsiniz. Athanelar (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

https://tr.wikipedia.org/. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Citations

Hi. I’ve been reading the page about Persian Paradise garden. The History section says a citation is needed. I’ve found one that’s related but it doesn’t fully support the claim in the text. Hoping for guidance. - Ben ~2025-40815-81 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that the source you've found is reliable, see if you can revise the text that needs referencing so that it's in two (probably very unequal) halves: what the source does confirm, and what it doesn't. (Either way around is OK.) Add a reference immediately after what your source confirms; add {{Citation needed}} immediately after what it doesn't. (I'm also assuming that you're editing "source"; if instead you're using the "visual editor", please say so.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If you can't do as Hoary suggests, ask on the article's talk page, but include details of the citation when you do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk page violation

Hi, I was recently surfing and saw a violation of the talk page policy (WP:TPNO). I would like to give the user a warning on their talk page. Is there a specific template for that or do I just use the regular user warning template? And, am I allowed to delete the comment if it clearly doesn’t follow guidelines? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @FloblinTheGoblin, you can delete the comments if it meets one of the points in "unacceptable behavior." Can I ask what the comment is, and which page it is on? PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 13:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Rehman Dakait#Rehman baloch superb life lesson for new generation we miss you sir legends never die ❤️‍🔥 FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I would remove it but not leave a talk page message—they're a temporary account and that's their sole edit (which was done 9 December). Better not to take up space. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 13:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

qani shabani

me zhbllokoni nga vikepedia Antartida123 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, please direct your issue to Albanian wikipedia (I assume you are Albanian as Google translate detected this message as being in Albanian).

Kjo është Wikipedia në anglishten amerikane, ju lutemi drejtojeni problemin tuaj te versioni shqip i Wikipedia-s. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: This is English Wikipedia's Teahouse, for novice users, who are welcome to post in any language. If you don;t speak the language used, move on, and someone else will assist; or you can refer them to WP:Local Embassy, where posts in any language are also welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your account has made no other edits, on any language Wikipedia; nor is it blocked on this or other Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This user may be referring to the blocks of Qani shabani on enwiki & the blocked users log for Qani shabani on SQ Wikipedia. If that is the case, it appears that Antartida123 might be a sock puppet. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

I am asking for some support. I was recently threatened User talk:Docmoates/Archive 2#December 2025 with a block by a non-administrator user for "blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials" despite the fact that I made a good faith copy edit on Belgian ship A4 and the user also tagged it as WP:Vandalism which I don't agree with because it states ""any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Can someone help me understand what if anything I have done wrong? I am simply trying to edit based on Wikipedia polices and there are many but this user is an essay which is not a guideline or policy to threaten me and accuse me of vandilism acting in bad faith. None of my other edits yesterday were reverted and many of them remain the current article. Docmoates (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Docmoates. I agree with you in that you did not vandalize, however you did remove a lot of content and I see why Brigade Piron suspected it was vandalism. However, the template left on your talk page was not a threat. I see why you interpreted as such (it does look somewhat hostile) but I think they thought they were genuinely trying to warn you as they assumed you were a vandal. I would not be concerned about this but would suggest talking to the user. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 16:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The message you received was a semi-automated warning given through WP:TWINKLE.

Regardless of the merit of the issue, I am wondering why you have archived the message on your talk page instead of concluding the discussion. Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Differences in approved articles re. referencing, verification, citation, sources etc.

I don't quite understand Wiki's policy regarding sources and references. I see wiki articles that have little to no verifiable sources or references. These have been approved somehow. In my article, I use references, sources (primary and secondary), bibliographical references, according to methods I learned at university, but it still doesn't seem to be working for approval for now. I'm currently editing the article again, aiming at improving the reference part and then resubmit it. I understand the importance of verification of references, secondary sources etc. This is not critizing the support I get which is very helpful. I just want to understand. Dirkadrianus (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

First and foremost, there are many, many articles on Wikipedia that are not 'up to standard', but slip through the cracks for various reasons; either because they are old and therefore from a time before our standards were so strict and haven't been looked at since, or because they were published directly to mainspace and flew under the radar (the new pages patrol backlog is very large). For this reason, trying to compare to other articles to figure out what you should be doing is a bad idea. You can see at WP:Articles for deletion that existing articles are constantly being identified as unfit for various reasons and nominated for deletion.

There is also the case of certain subjects which have special notability criteria and are 'presumed notable' for reasons other than the quality of their sourcing. Per WP:GEOLAND for example, populated, legally-recognised settlements are presumed notable and therefore can have articles even if the quality of sourcing is very poor. Athanelar (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Athanelar - will try to keep 'up to standard' Dirkadrianus (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Right, @Dirkadrianus, to paraphrase Athanelar, some of Wikipedia's old articles were never "approved". Since there are now 7 million articles, there is no feasible way to re-review them all against our current guidelines. David10244 (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's main differences is that, unlike in school, primary sources are used very little here.

If you look at it from a, umm, "very school-ish point of view", you might even say something like "Wikipedia isn't interested in discovering any research; Wikipedia is a compilation of the best of the published textbooks". That's not true of course, but it does kind of show how Wikipedia's focus is different. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Problem adding categories to KML template pages

Hi all,
User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT has been working through the list of Uncategorised Templates. In the past few days, they have been adding <noinclude>[[Category:Attached KML templates]]</noinclude> to KML files. Unfortunately, this appears to interfere with the display of route maps on the articles on the KML files are transcluded. For example:

• If you look at Oxted line (the relevant KML file is Template:Attached_KML/Oxted line) you will see that there is a globe icon and a drop down arrow next to the GA symbol in the top right hand corner of the article page. User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT has not edited this KML file.
  
• Compare this with North Downs Line (the relevant KML file is Template:Attached_KML/North Downs Line, which User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT has edited) and the globe and arrow have disappeared.
  

Does anyone know why the addition of the syntax above might be interfering with this functionality and how to fix it? If not does anyone know where the best place to raise this further might be?
This concern has already been raised at User talk:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT#Edits to KML files - preventing map from being opened and User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT is aware that I am asking for help here.
Thanks, Mertbiol (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mertbiol Thanks for bringing this to our attention, corrected the syntax  Done CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks User:Thilio

I'm afraid that whilst this has sorted the problem of the globe and the icon disappearing on North Downs Line, the map is not displaying properly. You appear to have deleted a whole load of coordinates - was this intentional? Can these just be added back?

Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Mertbiol I think everything is good now. My keyboard's Ctrl+A goes wrong when I copy to Notepad for editing. :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks User:Thilio

So just to be clear, categories should not be added to an attached KML file.

You wrote in one of your edit summaries "moved categories to /doc per WP conventions", but unfortunately I can't see from your edit contributions where you moved them to. Can your explain what you did please? Also, are you able to provide a link to the "WP conventions" that you referred to please - this would be helpful for future reference.

Unfortunately there are about 9500 kml files in Category:Attached KML templates that also have this issue, so any assistance you can provide with rolling back these edits would be most helpful.

Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Mertbiol Thanks... Clean-up KML page for Kartographer moved categories to /doc per WP conventions. supposed to be removed categories to docx per WP Conventions just in hurry tho, the <noinclude>[[Category:Attached KML templates]]</noinclude> was inside an attached KML template I think that was causing the problem also I've added XML namespace declaration xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2" because without this declaration software like Kartographer and Google Earth might not interpret the KML elements correctly. I hope THESE are helpful. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Thilio,

I'm sorry, you've really got to make this idiot-proof for me. Where is the /doc or /docx page that you moved the categories to? Can you provide a link please? I cannot see it in your edit contributions.

There are a lot of files that are affected (9500+) and it's important to get the corrections right, otherwise we will be wasting a lot more time trying to untangle the issues.

Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Mertbiol I mean removed, not moved, sorry for the typo, I removed the category from the inside of the temp document codes per WP:Template documentation#Categories and interwiki links ( WP Conventions) please. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks user:Thilio,

I think the best thing to do is to get @SID 'Gingerfool' RAT: to request a mass rollback of their edits to remove the categories. They can then set up a /doc page for each one.

Thanks, Mertbiol (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mertbiol Exactly, categories should not be added directly to an attached KML file, it should be added to /doc subpages CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Let me just leave these here Template:Attached KML/doc and Template:Attached KML /doc contains categories and KML contains files (codes). CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Need Feedback and Guidance on My Recent Draft Articles

Hello, I have a keen interest in studying and writing about notable places in my area, and I have previously created articles on Wikipedia. I currently have the right to move drafts to the mainspace, but I would greatly value your suggestions and feedback before doing so. I have a new draft ready Draft:Nokrek Biosphere Reserve and would appreciate it if an experienced reviewer could look at it or move it as appropriate. Previously, I created an article on Oldham Fault, and I would be happy to receive your review or suggestions on that as well. Thank you...(: Edit by Sona (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Rather than ask for review here with the aim of moving the article to mainspace yourself, just wait for the AfC reviewers to get to your draft. As it says on the template, estimated wait time is 4 weeks; but there's no rush. Just forget about it and edit something else in the meantime. Athanelar (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Edit by Sona. I feel like this is already mostly covered in the article Nokrek National Park? qcne (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar I would like to clarify that I did not intend to seek extended user personal advice. My request was limited to feedback on the draft from new page reviewer. I did not mean any offence. @Qcne thank you for your response I found it helpful. To clarify, the draft Nokrek Biosphere Reserve is not meant to duplicate Nokrek National Park. The national park article focuses on the park itself, while the biosphere reserve covers the larger UNESCO-designated area and its broader conservation context. Edit by Sona (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Athanelar did not give you any extended user personal advice. That advice was firmly on-topic with what you requested, informing you that your question itself was a mistake. Asking them to simply answer, even when the question is wrong, would only compound mistake upon mistake. They were not being rude or presumptuous by answering as they did. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Edit by Sona You DID ask for suggestions and feedback, and that's exactly what @Athanelar gave you. And @TooManyFingers was spot on.

You have done the same thing more than once on this very Teahouse page: asked for advice, then when advice was given that you didn't like, you'll ask that editor to stop replying. Or you say that you are not looking for input all of a sudden ("at this stage", or whatever you said in an earlier thread).

The whole purpose of the Teahouse is to get input from more experienced editors. You would do well to listen to their advice, and refrain from criticizing their attempts to help. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, providing answers out of the goodness of their hearts. David10244 (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Sona. It looks like you've got 161 edits showing on the counter. I'd make the friendly suggestion that you spend a few months making improvements to existing articles that interest you rather than starting new pages until you really get comfortable with notability policy. It seems quite a few newcomers charge straight into starting new articles and then run afoul of the deletion process and become discouraged. By all means, start new articles straight into mainspace when you feel you have a grasp of things, but please do take a little time to "learn the ropes" before you get too aggressive with new starts. (Your additions to Abir Ranjan Biswas are a good example of what I have in mind. Good work on that!) —tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Carrite Thank you very much for your kind and constructive guidance....(: I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this so clearly.... I understand your suggestion and I will focus on improving existing articles and gaining a better understanding of notability and other relevant policies before starting new articles.... Your feedback has been very helpful and encouraging if it is okay, may I occasionally seek advice from you on talk pages when I am unsure about something? Guidance from experienced editors is very valuable for me to learning and improving. Edit by Sona (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Source question

Is this source called "deprecated" or is there a better term for it?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: The Canary (closed)

"The consensus of the discussion was: Option 3 Generally unreliable for factual reporting." Guz13 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Guz13. Deprecated means the source should not be used at all. Generally unreliable sources can be used very sparingly to verify uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts. qcne (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Assessment in WP:TV

Hi all, I'm a new editor and looking to get a page I recently cleaned up re-assessed. When I look at the instructions to request a re-assessment on WP:TV/A, it says to "Please add new entries to the bottom of the 2022 list and sign with four tildes (~~~~)." This seems to be out of date and I'm wondering if there's a different place (a 2025 list perhaps) where we should make these requests. Tyler17B (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tyler17B, seems like they just never updated it. You could add a new heading (====2025====) under the 2024 section, and then put your request under it. Note that you are allowed to change yourself the rating of the article to B or lower without asking anyone else to do so. If you really aren't sure, make a request. win8x (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Is this a sign that WP:TV isn't active? Given that it's the end of 2025 and no heading has been made? Tyler17B (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:TV itself might be active, and it has 515 watchers, but the assessment page only has 40 watchers. It might also just be a sign of no one requesting any assessments, because they usually are for higher levels than B (namely A, GA, and FA). People just rate their own articles otherwise. win8x (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Tyler17B (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance on Submission Guidelines

Hi there,

I have been working on setting up a Wikipedia page for The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, and it has been denied 3 times despite my best efforts to align the content and sources with Wikipedia's guidelines. Could someone help share exactly why the most recent version was denied, as all the sources are completely independent from the Foundation. I appreciate any guidance.

Draft:Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. ~2025-40588-84 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The reviewer stated that you need to have in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. The second source is a passing mention (they are allowed but a page with only passing mentions would show it isn’t notable. The third source is pretty in-depth, burn the fourth is just tax accounts, and although the numbers do sound impressive, statistics can’t be he only source, if you can find more sources that show it is notable and in-depth like the third source then that would give you a better chance of having a page.

Also you will have to mention whether you have been paid by PJM Foundation or whether you have any connection to them as this is a COI, and therefore you wouldn’t be independent of the subject, and biased.

Hope this helps. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater, they do say at the top of the draft that they have been paid by "my employer", but they don't specify who that employer is. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine The userpage of User:Ncollison457 does specify who the employer is hope that clears confusion Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 20:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my mistake, didn’t know that user @~2025-40588-84 is @Ncollison457. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-40588-84, and welcome to the Teahouse. (I'm guessing you are @Ncollison457? Please remember to log in)

I suggest you give up the idea of "setting up a page for" and substitute "writing an encyclopaedia article about". While we can loosely talk about an article about X as being "an article for X", it is not for in any beneficial sense.

Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article wishes to say about itself - and certainly not what it says its "mission" is.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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. This is even more so for an editor with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

error in Goldfish (cracker) wiki

Hello, I'm not a confirmed editor so I can't edit the goldfish (cracker) wiki, but I noticed a typo in this sentence: "In 1988, astronauts bought Goldfish Crackers with them on the STS-26, Discovery." It should say brought instead of bought. Lovelyman718 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. @Lovelyman718, for next time, you may wish to use the Edit request wizard instead. Have a good one! win8x (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed. Good spotting! SenshiSun (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Worldwide views and translated press releases

I've been trying to find citations for an article that has had a "does not represent a worldwide view" tag for years: De Grote Donorshow. I have found several news articles that are reporting on the exact event I want to cover from the time the event occured. The articles all seem to be based on the same news wire post or press release, since they quote the same Dutch sources and don't add new information. Would citing these articles count as a worldwide view? What other types of sources should I try to find? SenshiSun (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SenshiSun. An article about a TV programme that as far as I can see was only ever shown in one country is an extremely odd place to put that tag. I see that @Mahjongg posted on the talk page severnteen years ago explaining why they added the tag, and you have replied to the comment on the talk page, showing how there isn't really any "worldwide view" (Mahjongg has edited this year, but not since April).

I would just remove the tag. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done removed the tag not really neccesary Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 20:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I figured that might be the case, but I'm new here and Mahjongg has clearly been a primary contributor to that article. I didn't want to step on toes. SenshiSun (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @SenshiSun. Just to reassure you: nobody owns any article, and Wikipedia works by editors having disagreements and resolving them. ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure what the rules were regarding tags. To a newbie like me, they feel like "do not touch" zones. Have an excellent day, and enjoy your tea. SenshiSun (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

There can be "do not touch" zones, but some common ones are:

• Don't change a discussion page or talk page to remove or misrepresent anyone's contributions, not even your own contributions
• Don't remove official notifications that seem to say you've done something wrong
• Don't make changes that cause a page to malfunction (it can be tricky to know what those are sometimes, but we learn).

TooManyFingers (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Generally no, these would be tertiary sources, but that's assuming the sources they're referencing actually did have said problems. Koriodan (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

How to join welcoming committee

how to join Psalm 27:1 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Just start welcoming users and if you really want to you can add a userbox to your userpage which I see you already did Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did add the topicon but how do I welcome users (ie how to find users to welcome)? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I recommend checking Special:RecentChanges and use filters for new user contributions

And for welcoming the user itself I recommend WP:twinkle Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want to update your user page I recommend {{User:ChiefsFan750/Twinkle}} Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Just welcomed my first user. Thanks Theknoledgeableperson! Psalm 27:1 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

LightandSalvation, please don't welcome users without any edits. Please also don't welcome users who do vandalism. If a user commits vandalism, revert and warn them, rather than welcome them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I know not to welcome users who commit vandalism, but I did not know not to welcome users without any edits. My poor welcome...gone to waste because they have no edits. Light&Salvation (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's OK. There's nothing wrong with people who haven't edited, it's just that we don't want to get in people's faces if they might not even be interested. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Its just pretty much pointless to welcome people who haven't done any edits. And if the community did want to welcome everyone indiscriminately (which the community doesn't want to do), a bot could just be created. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Good to know it's ok to welcome people with no edits; here I am thinking its a sin to the Father to welcome people with no edits, thank you, @45dogs.

2) Why would they create an account if they aren't interested? Light (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There are a fair number of reasons someone could create an account but not edit. They could be active on a different Wiki (eg. active on French wiki, but looked at an En-wiki for something, which creates a local account). They could also just be here to use a different skin, for instance vector legacy instead of vector 2022. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Or to be a sock and vandalise articles.

Anyways, it's 2 am so I'm off to sleep! Light (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LightandSalvation. To add to what @45dogs said: some Wikipedias in other languages do have a bot to automatically welcome new accounts. We often get messages here saying "Why did I get a message in a language I don't understand?", and the answer is usually "Because you looked at something on that Wikipedia - perhaps not even realising you had done so - and it sent you a welcome message". ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, you might be interested in the page Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. I recommend giving it a short read. win8x (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

New category

I'm not highly knowledgeable about categories and thought I'd ask for some feedback here. I was thinking of creating a new category called something like "Category: Multisport Professional Athletes" or similar. It would initially be populated by people like Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders and Jim Thorpe. Thoughts, suggestions or opinions? - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a walk-through at WP:CREATECAT. If you're looking for feedback on the category, you might try asking relevant WikiProjects, like at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's generally best to try it and receive feedback. Maybe as a draft you can present. Koriodan (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Not a bad idea for a category. There were actually quite a few pioneer pro football players that played pro baseball in the summer. Enough to populate a meaningful category, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's also a category that has a clear enough definition that people hopefully won't be tempted to add it indiscriminately, AND it's one that seems likely to be interesting in itself. (Some other categories, while true and probably useful, are - in themselves - boring.)

And (just my opinion, ignorant of any categories policy) if it turns out to be a small category it's still obviously a thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

<noun>, also known as <adjective>,

Hi there,

Can some native speakers comment on the following excerpt from Advocacy of suicide:

Advocacy of suicide, also known as pro-suicide

I see that the "also known as" part of the sentence has been added by someone who is not a native speaker. I myself am not a native speaker, and find that phrasing strange. I guess the reason for this is that "advocacy" is a noun, whereas "pro-suicide" is an adjective — so equating the two with "also known as" feels weird to me... I would have expected something like "also known as pro-suicide stance", or something like that, and when I read the sentence it feels like it misses a word.

The reason why I'm asking for input from native speakers is that (1) a bunch of native speakers seem to have read/edited that article since this "also known as" has been introduced, and no-one had an issue with the phrasing and (2) I asked an LLM and it said the sentence was perfectly fine.

Cheers, Malparti (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's weird. For exactly the reason you said; "advocacy for suicide" might be also known as "pro-suicide advocacy" but certainly not just "pro-suicide" Athanelar (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks — that's what I thought. I'll fix the article. Malparti (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Malparti, this presents "pro-suicide" as an alternative not to "advocacy" but to "advocacy of suicide". The latter is a noun phrase (NP). As for "pro-suicide", a good test is to see whether it's modifiable by an adjective or an adverb. "He is fanatical pro-suicide" and "He is fanatically pro-suicide" are for me ungrammatical and grammatical respectively. So "pro-suicide" is indeed an adjective. Although NPs and adjective phrases (AdjPs) can be straightforwardly coordinated ("He is both a miser and vindictive"), the construction "[NP], also known as [AdjP]" doesn't seem to work. (Incidentally, please don't depend on an LLM for anything other than the production of slick, worthless prose.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

On reflection, Malparti, my argument above is seriously incomplete. "Pro-suicide" might also be a noun. Well, is it? I looked in the News on the Web corpus (see Corpus of Contemporary American English). Slightly over a hundred hits for "pro-suicide", mostly as an attributive within an NP ("pro-suicide forum/website/material" etc). But not a single hit for "pro-suicide is/was" (regardless of whether the "p" of "pro-" is capitalized). So I think it's safe to say that no, it's not additionally an NP. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the New on the Web corpus link — I wasn't aware of its existence and had been using the number of hits of a Google query and/or Google Books Ngram Viewer to see how frequent some some phrases were. Good to have a third alternative. Malparti (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the language is correct is far less important than making sure that the terms really are the ones used in most reliable sources. We don't want to end up highlighting some editor's personally-preferred but poorly supported term. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass Revert Request

As discussed earlier in regards to KML templates, would someone be able to revert all my edits to KML templates adding the Attached KML template category, as this has been shown to negatively affect the code. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 23:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You've got a solid 10,000+ edits in there. (What the hell!?) Us old rollbackers can make 100 rollbacks a minute, so we can't do anything. You need a bot to make these changes. You should make your post on the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard or Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard (I'm unfamiliar with the latter, they might not be able to do anything). win8x (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I also think admins can tag their rollbacks as Bot rollbacks, which is a must here. I'd really make a post at AN if I was you. win8x (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ghost of a Tale

A few weeks, I came across a page for a game called Ghost of a Tale that has many issues with it. I want to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia's standards, but I'm a pretty new editor and I'm not entirely sure where to start. I've added the "this article has multiple issues" template thingy at the start of the page (plus a few weeks ago I improved some of the wording in the gameplay section of the article), but I'm not sure where I should go from here. Could some more experienced Wikipedians give me some tips? Pasta Crab (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

What would you yourself say are a few of the worst problems in it? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There aren't enough citations and in many places it doesn't have an encyclopedic tone Pasta Crab (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, where you can talk to other editors who work in that field, and see tips and guidance; and find examples of good articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

ok, thank you! Pasta Crab (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made a mistake

I will not do it again ~2025-38983-96 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38983-96, don't worry about it. Everybody makes errors, just don't do it again. I have no idea what the message on your talk page is about; you can ignore it. win8x (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1327776984 Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens. I was referencing the bulleted comment on their talk page too, but it seems that got taken care of. win8x (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is my article non-existent?

Article: DailyBean: Simplest Journal

I searched up "DailyBean: Simplest Journal Wikipedia"

• I've looked on through all the results on Google.
• I've looked on through all the results on DuckDuckGo.
• I've looked on through all the results on Safari.
• I've looked on through all the results on Bing.
• I even checked 3 AI's.

And all they came back with was the TALK PAGE. Could anyone explain why? Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 03:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

BluePixelLOLLL, it is not indexed. When a new page patroller reviews it, it will be indexed, and will show up on search results. It looks like it has just been moved to draftspace; I would highly recommend going through the AFC process, since it does not appear to be notable from a glance at the sources. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The current location is Draft:DailyBean: Simplest Journal. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted at author's request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Why the change to Temp. account?

Genuine question, why has wikipedia changed the IPs to Temporary accounts? Is there a reason for this change? And is it only like this on the english Wikipedia? ~2025-41128-58 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Today's featured article on French Wikipedia has this near the bottom:

"Dernière modification il y a 4 heures par ~2025-27941-37"

(Last edited 4 hours ago by ...) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi ~2025-41128-58. Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 12#Temporary accounts rollout has most of the story behind the rollout of temporary accounts, but basically the Wikimedia foundation decided it would be better for temporary accounts to replace IPs for privacy reasons. A fair number of Wikis have TAs; the ones that were stated to not have TAs from that thread are the Spanish, Russian, Commons, and Meta wikis. There could be others, but I believe most Wikis have TAs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

To add to what @45dogs said, and also to the temp account: I believe the decision was made in order to comply with the GDPR... It wasn't just a random decision on the Foundation’s part.

The temp account scheme has its supporters and detractors, but the Wikis are not going to go back to displaying IP addresses, as some have suggested. David10244 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

More at WP:TA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Rather than providing anonymity to IP addresses by requiring sign-in to edit, which is the way all rational internet entities would handle the issue, WMF decided to spend buckets of donor dollars coming up with a new anonymizing scheme that will help make vandalism more difficult to fight and which will not ultimately solve the problem they are trying to solve. Rube Goldberg lives. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible birthplaces in infobox

Hello! I am just here to ask if I can input "possible birthplaces" in infoboxes. For example, Mark Rober currently doesn't have a birthplace, and in his Early life section, it mentions that he was raises in Brea, California, and attended Brea Olinda High School, as well as having graduated from USC (University of Southern California). So while there is a chance he could've been born somewhere else, he was possibly born in California. So can I include in his infobox "birthplace: possibly California, U.S."? SpiritEdit (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Every piece of information needs a reliable source to back it up. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:No original research to read why Wikipedia doesn't accept "synthesis" (putting ideas together to make a new one). TooManyFingers (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

SpiritEdit - I tried to dig for you. It looks like the Orange County Register, published in Santa Ana, CA, is the local newspaper for Brea (and that might be an alternate place of birth, which is why you should not guess Brea). Unfortunately, Newspapers.com only has back issues of that newspaper up to 1977 on file, so that's not gonna help. Birth dates and places are hard to find sometimes. I will note that as a BYU grad there is a good chance he's Mormon, so there might be some church source or another that could get you to the information, but that's outside of my lane. Good luck with it, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't know about any source-reliability issues that might or might not come up, but Mormon emphasis on maintaining genealogy records is quite well known. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Cant for the life of me figure out how to fix the cite error.

Hey all, hope you're well.

I'm currently working on the Rand Rebellion wiki page, but i keep getting a cite error whenever i try to cite a different page of the same source. Any help would be appreciated, cheers FugawiVasbyt (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi FugawiVasbyt. You are currently putting <ref name="MartialLawInquiry1922" |p=24 </ref> on the page. To fix the error, put <ref name="MartialLawInquiry1922"/> on the page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 09:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Legend, thank you for the help. FugawiVasbyt (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

...which you can follow with {{rp|42}} thus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Many of us use the Visual Editor. Why can't this be fixed through that? Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Hello respected editors! I'm looking for a GA reviewer for ISRO. Is there anyone here who can take responsibility for this task? It's been 3 and a half months since I have nominated the article. I would be really grateful if I find a reviewer here. Best regards! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 09:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look at the list of GA noms waiting for review, you'll see the list is huge, and yours is nowhere near the oldest.

The best way to get eyes on yours faster would be to help that backlog along by doing some reviews yourself, or at least contact a couple of other editors waiting for reviews to make a reviewing group (where you get a bunch of editors together and review each others; articles; i.e., A reviews B, B reviews C, C reviews D, and D reviews A kind of thing) Athanelar (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right, but the problem is that I have no experience with GA reviews, and I don't think I'll ever be able to learn how to do them. I think waiting is the only option. Thanks for the response, happy editing! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 11:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to try. The set of criteria is really fairly simple to assess; and if nothing else, you could look for some articles in the backlog which meet the speedy fail criteria to at least get rid of those. Athanelar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't even know what and where is that backlog you're mentioning. :( – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 11:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's at WP:Good article nominations where you can see that currently there are 701 articles waiting for review, and the oldest is Modafinil which was nominated one year ago. Athanelar (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts, but I really don't think I can be a GA reviewer. Waiting for one is the only option for me. Thanks for your precious time. :) – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 11:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Barnstars

I have a few barnstars which I wish to remove from my talk page and add to my User Page. Does anyone have any good template recommendations that I could use? Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kingsacrificer. Barnstars are generally page-wide so formatting templates aren't necessary. I use {{hidden begin}} ... {{hidden end}} to make them collapsible. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

That helps, thank you! Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas Petrovski

The article keeps getting declined. I'm not sure why? Thomas Petrovski has all the significant coverage on Sports Apps like Soccerway, Flashscore, Sofascore, Transfermarkt. Has articles created about him by 90.1 NBC FM. It just doesn't make sense. ~2025-39931-23 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. People described as "rising" or "upcoming" usually do not merit Wikipedia articles- a person must have already arrived and be noticed by independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. You need to show that he is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

these apps don't provide significant coverage, they provide statistics. We need multiple written articles about him in newspapers, magazines etc Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

and 90.1 NBC are his employers so sadly it's not independent. We would need more anyway.

If he makes it into the A League in future, he might get more attention and be considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft rejected Sunnyland

I have added a new article of a production company! Draft:Sunnyland Film

I tried to keep the article as concise as possible and added the necessary information with sources only but it was rejected saying the sources were not reliable {This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.}

The company's name is listed in so many productions (movies) see list below

A Sad and Beautiful World

Aïcha (film)

Caramel (film)

The Man Who Sold His Skin

What else can I do.. the company is fairly unknown... Please advise Mycont-ent-protection (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If the company is "unknown", that almost certainly means that- like the vast majority of companies on Earth- it does not merit a Wikipedia article and you're- frankly- probably just wasting your time. You need to show that the company is a notable company.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, especially with a conflict of interest. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have any reliable content, you could probably add it at Arab Radio and Television Network, which itself is a woefully under-sourced article. The sort of sources Wikipedia likes are described here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The submission was declined because in addition to a good portion of the content being unsourced (breaking the principle of verifiability), the draft's references only briefly mention the subject, and one of the sources is primary. Sources need to be reliable, secondary, and independent, and none of the sources meet that. Also, considering how you yourself say the subject is fairly unknown, it probably is not notable enough to warrant an article. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The good answers you already received have already said this, but I'll say it differently: Wikipedia will only write about companies that are already known. If the press and other sources seem "behind" because they have not yet recognized a person or a company, Wikipedia must also remain "behind" in the same way, because Wikipedia relies on those sources. Wikipedia does not accept an article if the main information comes from a company itself. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

unpublished interviews

I have conducted in person interviews with a few people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them. Can I use the information from these interviews to update their biographical information? David Smith (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Smithx57, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid not, unless the information you want to add can be found in a reliable published source. Your own interviews would count as original research, which is not permitted in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the reasons, at the same time it is a pity that a lot of information which is not readily available can't be added to wikipedia... David Smith (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

"It is a pity" - yes. Granted. There's a lot of information that simply doesn't get into the historical record.

We can never be the first place the information is published. DS (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Smithx57 - The answer above is technically correct, but I would add the following proviso: if in the course of your interview you learned that something is factually wrong with the Wikipedia page the way it sits, go ahead and make that correction with something like "correcting error of fact" in the edit summary. Someone may complain or revert or not, depending to some extent on how high profile the page is, but the main thing at Wikipedia is to make sure information is correct. —tim, Carrite (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Carrite and @Smithx57 Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@ Shantavira - That's an essay, it is not a guideline and it is not policy, it is an opinion. I will see your bluffing bid and raise you a Jimmy Wales quote: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012) ... Happy editing and I hope you come to see the error of your ways. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is only as valid as anybody else's. WP:QUOTEJIMBO applies. Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see the point in what you're saying, but on Wikipedia, private evidence is worthless. You can write it, but you have "no leg to stand on" if someone reverts it. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If two people both claim to have 'privately interviewed person X', and they contradict each other, who do we believe? DS (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Private evidence is worthless. Cut out both of them. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi David, If you are interviewing notable people, have you considered publishing those interviews somewhere? If not, and you are asking people about errors on the Wikipedia pages about them, have you considered asking or suggesting where they have published clarifications? For example many people will have a bio published at their publisher or employer. Now that doesn't help with notability or something that should be covered in other sources. But it would be a sensible place to post that I'm not the only Spencer Mugglesworth on the internet. I am the same Spencer Mugglesworth who won some junior pro skateboarding events in the early 90s before I went to University, but not the Canadian Shaman who performs exorcisms on photocopiers and runs levitation classes. A subsequent note on the talkpage linking to that bio should suffice. ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Nociceptin

Hello, I am working on edits on nociceptin and they have been rejected. The editors are not experts on this topic. I work on a variety of updates for my boss. I do not work for Tris and now these editors are saying there is a conflict. Agnes. Help. Agnes R Waite (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If you are editing at the request of your boss, you are a paid editor under our rules and are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal disclosure, see WP:PAID.

Wikipedia is (usually) written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. It's not required to be an expert in the area one chooses to edit in, as long as one can read and summarize sources. Please see WP:EXPERT for some guidance for expert editors.

You should discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article, Talk:Nociceptin. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Agnes R Waite, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked in detail at what you have ben doing, but judging from the discussion on your user talk page, you have been trying to introduce information which has not yet been published in a reliable source. That is an absolute no-no for Wikipedia, as it counts as original research.

The problem is that since Wikipedia can be edited by (almost) anyone in the world, you can never be sure that somebody has not altered an article (Wikipedia does not allow citations ot Wikipedia itself, as it is not a reliable source). What saves it, and makes it valuable, is the citations - if it is important to a reader to know that the content of an article is accurate, they can follow the citations, and see where the information comes from.

If you, as an expert, add information because you have done the work and know that it is correct, that might seem fine - until somebody comes along and changes it, whether by mistake, or because they misunderstood something, or because they were misinformed, or because they were intentionally presenting misinformation. A reader might easily take what they said; or if they were concerned with accuracy, they might go back and see that it was changed from something else. But if there is no citation to a reliable published source, they have no way to judge between competing presentations. (And the person who made the change may have represented themselves as an expert as much as you: we have no way of telling). ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Relevant info is in this comment: " I am working as an intern [for] Josh Powell - one of the Authors on the HEALing Communities Study." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Unsure of whether to include content

In the Serpent Mound page, there are two large sections about the Adena and Fort Ancient cultures. These are relevant as both cultures have artifacts and mounds at the site, but the amount of information given for each seems excessive to me given that pages exist for both cultures that give plenty of information if needed. I couldn't find anything concrete in the MOS on amount of content needed for context, so some advice is appreciated. Scooglers (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Scooglers, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Two suggestions:

1. Be WP:BOLD. Remove what you think doesn't belong, and give an edit summary that explains why this is a good idea. If somebody disagrees, they will revert your edit, and you can have a discussion.
2. If you don't feel confident, open a discussion on Talk:Serpent Mound, suggesting what you think should change. If some editors join the discussion you can work towards a consensus; and if nobody does (give it at least a week), then go ahead and make your changes.

ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

My own personal-opinion ideal for how much context to keep in an article: A reader who is unfamiliar with the subject should be able to follow what's being said in your article, without clicking any links. Any context that is much more than that, replace it with links to the other articles. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Sports in requested articles is seemingly lacking a lot of sports?

It looks like under the sports section there are several sports that are not mentioned at all. I went to request a certain article in relation to the sport of skeet shooting, and there is no section for requests on shooting sports. Is there a reason for this lack of niche sports? Shooting sports are not particularly niche anyway. I don't know where to request this article be made. I am very confused. Also this is my first time using the teahouse and I hope I am doing this correctly. Fingers crossed! Louis1951 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Louis1951, and please see Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports#Shooting. There haven't been enough requests so far to justify spinning off a separate page. Please read the instructions at the top of page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

searching edit history

I deleted a reference, but I think that the preferred method would be to undo that reference's addition (so that its contributor could be alerted). Is there an easy way to find a specific edit in an article's history though, other than manually opening each edit? Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic, if you click the link titled "Find addition/removal", near the top of the page history, you will taken to WikiBlame. You can use that to search for edits and you can "blame" someone. win8x (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

.uo.kf ~2025-41274-70 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I definitely understand your point in doing it that way, and it's a good point, but I think your idea starts to make less sense if they added it a long time ago. But if they're still around, and especially if they still edit that article sometimes, then yes, great. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right, because WP won't let me undo a past edit when there have been intermediate changes after that past edit. rootsmusic (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You can take it out "by hand" and then tell them "by hand", if you think it's a special thing that's important to inform them about. But you don't normally owe it to anyone to tell them, unless it's very recent or very important. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The watchlist exists for a reason, if somebody's concerned about their changes being reverted they'll keep an eye on the page, there's no need in normal circumstances to make a point of informing someone you've removed something they added. Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Questionable user

I found a user that created there account a year ago, and already has ~100 edits. Most edits are just link adding, but some are questionable. I need some help looking through his edits, and I know this probably isn't the right place to post something like this, so where is? If you guys could tell me, that would be great! Thanks,

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue? They just look like a gnome to me. They also created their account 12 days ago, not a year. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant a week, not a year! I guess they do fit that description, just one or two of the edits of there's I saw were off, and it kind of struck me wrong. I'll be less critical next time. Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

If you think someone well-intentioned has made a mistake, you could just leave them a message on their user talk page. That's what it's for. DS (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oak lod You're right to be paying attention. But every editor will make a mistake or do something wrong. A questionable editor, the kind to watch out for, is the one who's not just making mistakes - instead, you can see by the long-term pattern of their edits that (a) they have a plan to make a big change to what Wikipedia says about a certain topic (but they don't have proper sources for doing that and they're willing to use force to get it done), (b) they have a plan to disrupt Wikipedia by whatever methods (vandalism, fighting, etc), (c) they clearly really really just Don't Get It and are doing a whole lot of things that make no sense at all. There might be types (d) (e) and so on, I don't know.

But first, unless it's very obvious intentional vandalism, it works far better to assume they just made a mistake, or didn't know what they were supposed to do. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was stuff like delete periods and such. Probably just made a mistake. Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

New to editing, hoping for feedback and to have an edit looked at. Talk page entry made.

Hello,

I've recently added to a page on electricians, specifically the auto electrician section (Electrician#Diagnostics, 13th December 2025). And I may have strayed a bit out of the intended scope by describing some technical diagnosis situations and approaches. With the intention to help people to enter the trade with awareness of useful techniques. This is at risk of going outside of the purpose of the page, which is simply about the trade and subtypes, though I went into detail about diagnostics procedures. I'm hoping it's ok to edit like this, knowing that it may be reviewed, and hoping it will be. I posted on the 'talk' page.

I have not gone to the length of adding sources, since the information is from industry experience. Later I saw it said 'no original research', though I am confident the information I provided is well understood, even if unorthodox but plausible, by experts in the field. There are other topics i'd like to add to, and hopefully this editing style, adding things somewhat relevant to the topic, is helpful, provided it is accurate and doesn't stray too much. There are many areas where i've generalized, and everything including the phrasing and paragraph structure can be improved. So I'm hoping to draw attention to it so that any errors (such as page intention and scope) i've put in can be quickly corrected. This was quite enjoyable to have some input into a topic I enjoy and understand. Because i'm very new to this whole process, it's a chance to get some feedback if improvement is needed Van0014 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Van0014, I don't question your intentions. However: I have not gone to the length of adding sources, since the information is from industry experience. Later I saw it said 'no original research', though I am confident the information I provided is well understood, even if unorthodox but plausible, by experts in the field. "Original research" may suggest, well, research; however, "no original research" instead means "no material depending on anything other than published, reliable, independent sources". And therefore you have to add references, if you want your additions (however accurate and helpful) to stick. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Van0014. While we appreciate your edits, I'm afraid sources are required. No original research and verifiability are some of our core policies. Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability, not truth. Think about it; while your intentions are good, what would happen if everyone was allowed to freely publish unverified information? We would be flooded with misinformation, and we would be unable to do anything about it. Wikipedia is designed to be behind the trend of information, as a way to ensure verifiability. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Van0014, I un-did your edits for now, as it is all un-cited, and is mostly information about the procedures that an auto-electrician might do, and not about auto-electricians themselves, which that section is about. The information seems correct, but as people above have said, there are no sources, and, as I have already said, one of the bigger reasons, the content added does not fit the page topic. If you can find sources, and the information is not added already, then an article about the procedures that auto-electricians might do would be great to put that info.

Best regards,

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

To explain a bit; we require sources because even if something is "well understood by experts" we cannot expect Wikipedia readers to be experts; and we must also keep in mind that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and there's no reason for anyone to believe that you know what you're talking about if you don't prove it. Joe Public doesn't know the difference between you talking about things "well understood by experts" and between some random troll talking about how auto electricians often have problems with flux capacitors which need left-handed screwdrivers to fix.

Secondly, re: the nature of the edits in question, please be mindful of WP:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTHOWTO; it is seldom necessary on Wikipedia to go into detail about any technical process or procedure, because we're an encyclopedia; our goal is to summarise, not tutorialise. Athanelar (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Image resolution upgrades?

Hello! I'm far from new to Wikipedia (I've edited under 3 IPs in the past, which you can find on my userpage) but I've only had this account for a month and a half, and I'm still new to uploading images. Is what @AndreJustAndre said here about it being discouraged to upgrade the resolution of non-free images true? If so, I'll refrain from upgrading the resolutions of any more of such images in the future. JHD0919 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's 100% certain that there are non-free images that must be kept at low resolution or we can't have them at all.

I don't know if ALL of them are like that, but be careful with them. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@JHD0919, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. It is true that non-free images must be kept at a low resolution, this is to meet WP:NFCC3. win8x (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

As Andre and I discussed on the linked talk page, I upgraded the resolutions of two Super Monkey Ball images, because 1) I felt the existing images were too low-res, and 2) I knew that DatBot would downsize them. Because Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria do not mention upgrading image resolutions of non-free images is discouraged, I assumed I was free to do so. What I'm asking is if it is indeed discouraged, because if so, then I made a big mistake without even knowing I was making a mistake. JHD0919 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's hardly a big deal so I wouldn't fret about it... just probably not a great thing to spend time on in the scheme of things. Nobody is going to penalize you Andre🚐 05:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Rather than depending on DatBot (or whatever) to downsize a file that you know is too large when you (however benevolently) upload it, why not simply downsize it yourself before uploading it? This is very simple with GIMP (which runs under Windows, macOS or Linux), no doubt easy with alternative computer software, and while I don't know about phones (I never use mine for anything I could instead do with a computer) I imagine that these days it's easy on a phone as well. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I already installed GIMP a while ago, so I'll keep that in mind. JHD0919 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on notability standards for industry professionals (BLP)

Hello, I’m seeking guidance on Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies of industry professionals. I’ve been working on a draft biography based on multiple independent sources, including feature-length newspaper profiles, trade press coverage, broadcast interviews, and an academic co-authored article. The draft has been declined at AfC on the basis that the sources do not demonstrate “significant coverage,” and I’d appreciate advice on how editors typically assess notability in cases like this. The 19 sources include: a full-page feature profile in a major Australian newspaper (Herald Sun, weekend section) a double-page feature profile in a metropolitan newspaper trade publication features naming and interviewing the subject broadcast television and online video interviews an academic article co-authored with a policy institute I understand that AfC applies a cautious approach, particularly for biographies of living people, and I’m not seeking to argue with prior reviews. Rather, I’d value guidance on: whether this type of coverage generally meets WP:BIO/WP:SIGCOV when evaluated by editors, and how best to structure or present such sources so their significance is clear. I’m happy to step back from editing if a neutral editor is better placed to advise or take over. Thank you for any guidance you’re able to offer. —SusanMCastle (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:SusanMCastle/sandbox

@SusanMCastle: Based on your username it seems like you're writing about yourself, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia; see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Quotes and interviews of the subject are not independent sources and do not count towards notability. Also, please don't use AI to communicate or write anything on Wikipedia (it looks like this question is AI-generated), see WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SusanMCastle, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

This is extremely hard to do when you are the subject, which is why we strongly discourage trying.

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) 10:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate this detailed feedback. I understand. I have had a great learning experience so far and would like to continue "learning by doing". I understood that notability was strong with 19 verified media links. Some of them simply quotes but most of them feature articles from independent news sources. I will go backwards and learn core policies and review the strategy to self-publish. SusanMCastle (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Just from what I read in this latest message of yours, it sounds as if what's missing is significant, in-depth coverage of you by several independent publishers. Being mentioned, listed, or quoted is not the point at all. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia article for my organization – questions about edit requirements and next steps

Hello everyone, I’m seeking guidance on the proper steps to eventually create a Wikipedia article for an organization where I currently work. I understand that new editors are usually encouraged to make constructive edits before creating an article, and I’ve heard that making around 10 edits to existing articles may be recommended. I would appreciate clarification on the following points: Do these edits need to be made to existing Wikipedia articles, or can edits to newly created articles also count? If I create one article and later improve or edit it multiple times, does that count as multiple edits, or is it considered a single contribution? What is the best way to find suitable articles that need improvements (e.g., copy-editing, adding references, expanding sections)? What would you recommend as the next steps for someone who plans to create an article about an organization, while avoiding conflict-of-interest issues? The organization’s article would eventually need to exist in both English and Kazakh. Is it acceptable to first create the English article (once eligible) and later translate it into Kazakh, following Wikipedia’s translation and sourcing guidelines? I previously asked my mentor these questions but haven’t yet received a response, so I would be very grateful for advice from the community. Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. ResearcherForISSAI (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

ResearcherForISSAI, the best way to create a Wikipedia article for the organization where you work is to do nothing. The organization is or isn't what we call "notable". If it is, then eventually one or more people unrelated to it will create an article about it. (If it isn't, then nobody should create an article about it.) Please read and digest WP:PAID and WP:BOSS. ¶ You say: I understand that new editors are usually encouraged to make constructive edits before creating an article, and I’ve heard that making around 10 edits to existing articles may be recommended. It may be, by somebody who's uninformed, or perhaps by a LLM. Start by multiplying that by ten: make around a hundred. Then consider making a hundred more. Repeat. ¶ You ask: What is the best way to find suitable articles that need improvements (e.g., copy-editing, adding references, expanding sections)? Most do. (What's a lot harder is to find articles that don't need improvements.) But try Category:Articles needing additional references. NB any reference that you add (or that anyone adds) must be carefully checked. Is it independent of the subject? Is the referenced source reliable? Is it secondary? (For most purposes, the answer must be "yes, yes, yes".) Does it really say what it's presented as saying. (Of course the answer must be "yes".) Do not think of using an LLM ("artificial intelligence") for this. ¶ If somebody wishes to translate an article that's in the Wikipedia of one language in order to create an article in the Wikipedia of another language, then they have to satisfy the requirements of the target Wikipedia (which are likely to differ). So in order to see what's necessary for an article (e.g. a translated article) in Kazakh Wikipedia, please consult Kazakh Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hoary's advice is all very good, but to make a long story short; don't.

Trying to create an article for the company you work for means embarking on a road where countless before you have failed and expecting that you will be the miraculous success. I could explain why, but if you want to know that, then as Hoary has said, read WP:BOSS and WP:PAID. The most imporant thing you need to know is that it isn't worth your time or ours. Athanelar (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

ResearcherForISSAI I too would advise you to abandon this effort, at least as far as we are concerned. The English Wikipedia and the Kazakh Wikipedia are independent projects with their own editors and policies; what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially when it comes to organizations editing about themselves, which we highly discourage. I too encourage you to read the pages recommended to you above- and also learn why an article is not necessarily something to desire; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m afraid that it is generally a bad idea to do such a thing. This falls under the concept of “Conflict of Interest”, which basically just means making significant edits or an entire article for something or someone you are affiliated which. It is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia as whole due to it almost always reducing the reliability of the platform. People who choose to do such a thing often unintentionally add very promotional or subjective information, which heavily reduces the odds of your article being accepted. Gileselig (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gileselig Thank you for your reply. So what do you recommend to do in such case? ResearcherForISSAI (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ResearcherForISSAI, thanks for replying. I think that you are very passionate about making an article, and it’s great that you are attempting to dodge the issues of conflict of interest articles. Unfortunately, it is a horrible idea to attempt to do so, so the best thing to do in this case, may be to abandon the article altogether, or at least focus on the editing aspect of Wikipedia, rather than just creating articles.

Hoary has previously given extremely beneficial advice, that I’d recommend you read before moving forward.

Dont get too disheartened, as this issue is relatively common, even I had an article fail recently. Just try to get a better grasp on editing on Wikipedia first. Gileselig (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which Hoary recommended you read, it is also good for you to digest the information in the article Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Gileselig (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Several times in conversations among Wikipedia editors, I've heard an exchange like the following:

- I know that people are not technically 100% prohibited from writing an article about themselves. But can you name anyone who has succeeded in doing it?

- No. Maybe someone has, but I never heard of it. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea, essentially it’s theoretically possible, but it’s extremely difficult, and almost always not worth the effort, so your work will usually just get abandoned due to lack of notability, promotional content etc.. Gileselig (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability of Acta Classica Mediterranea

Hello everyone,

I’m a new editor trying to understand Wikipedia’s notability standards for academic journals. I recently created a page about AClasMed, a peer-reviewed journal in classical studies (philology, epigraphy, ancient history). It has been publishing since 2018 and is used and cited within its field.

The article was marked as “non-notable,” but I’m struggling to understand why an active academic journal with a clear scholarly purpose and a defined place within its discipline would be considered not notable. I fully respect Wikipedia’s guidelines, but it feels surprising that something academically meaningful in a specialized field could be dismissed so quickly.

Could someone clarify what type of evidence is considered sufficient to demonstrate notability for a journal?

And, more importantly, how editors should proceed when a topic is academically relevant, yet an administrator still deems it non-notable?

I’m asking sincerely and hoping for guidance so I can contribute correctly and fairly.

Thank you very much. Busonolsun (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Which page did you read, to study the notability criteria? Please answer that single question before we go any further. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I have now carefully read the notability guidelines, including:

• Wikipedia:Notability (general)

• Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

From what I understand, yes — the journal may currently lack some forms of independent secondary coverage, and I fully acknowledge that this is an issue for establishing notability.

However, the policy for academic journals also states:

“These general rules-of-thumb do not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about **non-notable journals**. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies… and editorial decisions to exclude non-notable journals from such lists can apply.”

My reading of this is that the absence of full notability does **not** automatically require deletion, especially when the topic is a legitimate academic journal with a verifiable publication history. It seems to indicate that non-notable journals *can still be documented*, as long as proper sourcing and policy compliance are observed.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I am not trying to dispute policy — I simply want to apply it correctly and avoid unnecessary deletion when the subject is academically real and verifiable.

Any clarification on how this part of the guideline should be interpreted would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for your time. Busonolsun (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop using an AI to communicate with us; and indeed stop using it to read or summarise policies for you, as you seem to be doing.

The text you have quoted plainly states These general rules-of-thumb do not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals

This means that if you were creating an article like List of academic journals of classical studies then you could include journals on that list even if they were not notable enough to warrant an independent article; because as per WP:NLIST, items in a list article do not necessarily need to be individually notable.

It does not mean, as your AI has told you, that you can create an article about this journal despite a lack of sources to evidence notability; because notability is precisely what makes a subject qualify for an article. Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. They are most likely not using AI, rather just using a confusing writing style in an attempt to be "formal", which is a very common thing that newcomers do here. Please do not directly accuse editors of using LLMs as it can be damaging to the editing environment and can be taken as a personal attack by the recipient. Thank you. South of the Tongass (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. There are common WP:AISIGNS like markdown formatting and telltale phraseology like "I am not trying to dispute policy". I could be wrong, but my nose for these things is quite good. I suspect probably the entire comment isn't AI generated, but AI was consulted for 'appropriate' language and probably used to help in interpreting the guidelines. I'm of course willing to retract and apologise if others agree with you. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Is there a link to this article or draft? Busonolsun's only two edits are to the Teahouse, with no deleted edits.
2. @Busonolsun: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a subject - this is the crux of notability. For example you can't just decide a subject is important and then use their website to provide all of the content. If reliable sources have discussed the journal itself, an article may be possible.
3. And yeah, that is LLM (ChatGPT, Claude etc) - the em dash, the markdown, the tone. But it can be used sincerely by intimidated newcomers - just try your best in your own words Busonolsun :-).

Commander Keane (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Commander Keane's final sentence. A real person writing honestly, but in clumsy English, is very welcome here. AI use is not welcome here. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think markdown alone is a 100% sign of AI. i tried using markdown myself when i first started editing. there was an RFC on including markdown in G15 that failed. though per Cmdr. Keane's comment, I assume this is probably AI. the "not X, but Y" sentence format is the giveaway for me. South of the Tongass (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I was going by "a real human who was as stupid as this AI would be unlikely to survive long enough to get around to editing Wikipedia". TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

According to QuillBot (An AI detector), 36% of the content was flagged as likely AI generated, so my guess is, he just used AI to add formalities and clarity to his answer. (But ofc AI detectors can be wrong)

Also I don’t think focusing on that aspect is really a top priority thing, so there’s not much need to delve into too deep into this. Gileselig (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Cite template parameter for geographic restrictions

I found a reference that is not available in my country. I was looking to see if there is a parameter that can be added to the cite template (cite news in this case) to show this? I can see the ones for references that require a subscription but nothing for this case. Is there anything that can be added to help with this? Guiding Knight (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe there is such a parameter. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you thought of this. How would it help to have a parameter like that? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Creation of my first article

Hello everyone. I recently created my first serious article on Wikipedia. It's about a Parisian artist studio complex known as the Cité Fleurie.

I would really appreciate any feedback you have on it. Thank you in advance! CounterpointStitch (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CounterpointStitch, two things that stand out to me.

1) Is the place "Cité fleurie" or "Cité Fleurie"? The second word is not capitalized in the page titled but it is everywhere in the article body.

2) Every instance of the title should not be bolded, only its first instance.

Other than that, it looks like a good article just glancing at it. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking a look! On 2. I'll correct that now, thanks. On 1...this was actually a question I wanted to ask. It's called "Cité fleurie", but that's because in French grammar an adjectives begin with a lower-case letter, even when describing a capitalised noun. However in English the adjective should be capitalised too. So I'm guessing, in an article in English, it should be "Cité Fleurie"? CounterpointStitch (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

In a French title or a French proper noun, we do the capitalization in the French style. "Cité fleurie" is the way to go. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the tip! CounterpointStitch (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Your username makes me imagine a very large and tricky needlepoint project involving a fugue, or something like that. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I need help with formatting a List of Publications.

I need help with formatting a List of Publications. Please see my draft here: Draft:Jacques Baud. ApoieRacional (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional Try changing the templates to "Cite book" instead of just "Book", also look out for any stray "ref" tags that may break the list. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I fixed what I could; please review the diffs in the edit history. There are still some errors, where I could not find the values that are missing or malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This is the very first article I created (to be honest, I only translated it from French Wiki). How do I get it published now? ApoieRacional (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You've submitted it for review; just wait for that to take place (or, even better, continue to improve it meanwhile). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional Also, much of it is written in the present tense and should be changed to past tense (i.e. "Jacques Baud publishes..." should be "Baud published..." You don't need to keep repeating his first name). ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Integrating technical sources into an AfC engineering draft

Hi! I’m working on an Articles for Creation draft about the metal forming process flow forming.

I’ve had several AfC declines, and the most recent reviewer feedback said the draft still reads like a “superficial overview” because I’m not fully integrating what the sources explain. For example, relationships between flow forming, shear forming, and metal spinning, or machine configurations like inline vs staggered rollers that the sources discuss in detail.

I’m trying to understand how much technical process detail is appropriate for a general encyclopedia article, and how to demonstrate synthesis of sources without crossing into original research, especially for an engineering topic.

If anyone has advice on what AfC reviewers typically expect in this situation, or how to better reflect comparative review sources in prose, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you! Akhara2025 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

So far, three of your decline submissions have been because it sounds like It was written by an LLM. Try rewriting it in your own words, then resubmit. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 15:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that concern, and I’m not trying to dispute the declines.

What I’m struggling with is what reviewers expect to see that demonstrates this isn’t a superficial overview. For example, one reviewer mentioned that my sources discuss things like inline vs staggered roller arrangements and how spinning, shear forming, and flow forming are often used together, and that this isn’t coming through clearly in the prose.

Is the expectation that I explicitly explain those relationships and tradeoffs in the article text, even if it adds more technical detail? I want to make sure I’m revising in the right direction rather than just rephrasing the same structure. Akhara2025 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would bet that if you throw away AI, delete ALL your work except for the reference citations, and rewrite the whole thing by yourself with no help, you will not make the stupid mistakes that AI makes. AI doesn't think. It doesn't even fake thinking; it just slaps onto the page whatever it can find. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, look below for another example. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The actual game Whack-A-Mole has a finite number of moles, which tends to encourage the player to keep playing. This situation is less encouraging. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability of MYK – The One

 Courtesy link: Draft:MYK The One

Hello,

I’m looking for guidance from an experienced editor regarding whether my subject meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and how best to proceed without violating conflict-of-interest guidelines.

I previously drafted an article about MYK – The One, but it was declined due to COI concerns and tone. Since then, multiple independent, third-party sources have published technical and analytical coverage discussing the subject’s work in automation engineering, structured documentation systems (JusticeShield2025), and free technical education initiatives.

I do not wish to write an autobiographical article or resubmit promotional content. Instead, I would like advice on whether these independent sources are sufficient for notability and whether an uninvolved editor should create or substantially rewrite the article.

Draft link for reference: Draft:MYK The One

Thank you for your guidance. MYK The One (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Those references look impressive, but they're not linked to any publication, nor can I find those articles. Then again, Education Insight Magazine does point at something, but strangely I can't find "Democratising Python Education" in the table of contents on the journal's website; I can't find a table of content, really. User:MYK The One, can you explain this? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking and for pointing this out — I appreciate the clarification.

  You are correct. Some of the publication-style references mentioned earlier were aspirational descriptors rather than established journal publications with formal editorial pages or tables of contents. I understand now that this does not meet Wikipedia’s requirements for independent, reliable secondary sources.

  To clarify my situation: I do not intend to rely on non-existent or unclear publications. I now recognize that the appropriate sources to evaluate are the publicly accessible, verifiable articles that exist on independent platforms (such as Medium, Substack, Blogger, DEV.to, and Academia.edu), rather than references presented as journals or magazines without clear editorial infrastructure.

  If those platforms are insufficient for establishing notability under Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons, I understand and accept that limitation.

  At this stage, I would appreciate guidance on one of the following:

  - whether these verifiable independent articles are sufficient for any form of notability assessment, or

  - whether the correct conclusion is that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability threshold and should not have an article at this time.

  Thank you again for your time and for helping me understand the correct standards.

  MYK The One (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  He used an em dash as well, which is a character that basically no real person uses, because it's not on the keyboard. (Though em dashes are great.) Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Plenty of people—myself included—do use em dashes. I usually represent it with two hyphens--like this--when writing online, though.

  Remember that large language models are trained on human writing, and thus, none of the ways to identify them are things that never appear in human writing. It's more about context. (I'm not saying that this editor wasn't using a large language model--the hallucinated references make that clear enough--but just that we should be careful about broad generalizations like the above. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really that experienced, but I can try to help.

I don't see anything on the page about COI, mainly it being written by an LLM and issues with sources, but there is a comment about the article appearing autobiographical. Also, your username is the name of the person you wrote the article about, which could indicate some bias, which might partially be the reason your article got declined. Also all of your cited sources do not link to websites, and some seem pretty biased, with names that indicate they have goals to highlight "The breaking advancements in the tech industry." or something like that, so they may paint this guy's advancements as more impressive then they are.

I also don't really know if the article meets notability standards, as I could not find this humanitarian foundation online, (Though it might be because this is all happening in India, and a VPN would probably lead to results) or a YouTube channel from this guy.

There are a few other issues, but those should be pretty easy to fix. I think you might be able to get this article up if you get some better sources and fix the other things. Good luck on the article.

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new editor, but I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on Large language models, as you seem to be using one to participate in this discussion. I agree with Oak lod that your article may not meet the notability guidelines, and is also most likely a COI. Much love, jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE. ๋࣭⭑) 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand the concerns raised regarding large language models, conflict of interest, and notability.

I acknowledge that writing about oneself can present COI issues, and I do not intend to pursue this draft further in its current form. My goal here was to understand Wikipedia’s standards and processes better, not to bypass them.

I will refrain from editing or resubmitting this draft, and I will focus instead on learning Wikipedia policy and contributing constructively to unrelated topics. I appreciate the time and feedback provided by everyone here.

MYK The One (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, to me, it seems like you're using a LLM to respond to my comment. Please, please read this, an essay on using large language models for participating in discussions. Thanks again, jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE. ๋࣭⭑) 18:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I apologize for continuing to respond here.

I will stop participating in this discussion and will not post further messages. Thank you for the clarification. MYK The One (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that I wanted you to stop using an LLM and voice your actual thoughts without the use of LLMs. Wikipedia is a place where discussion is key, and you're not actually discussing if you make an LLM do it for you. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE. ๋࣭⭑) 19:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What he is saying is that he will only use LLM's to interact on Wikipedia and if he cannot use an LLM then he will not interact on Wikipedia. Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. That sucks. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE. ๋࣭⭑) 19:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Or that's what the comment implies at least. We also might want to scan through his 18 edits, at least 1 of those wasn't on Teahouse or the article draft.

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I checked his contributions, but it doesn’t say anything else but the Teahouse, and another one on the help desk, Perhaps I’m mistaken Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Can’t he just use a translate app like Google translate as opposed to using an AI. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why he didn't use Google Translate. There are so many new editors that I have seen do some sort of action, seek advice if the action fails, and then just never make any more edits past that point and don't say anything, though this time they actually said something, and practically admitted they were using an LLM. The whole ordeal makes no sense.

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

New user to Wikipedia are usually an enigma, no hate to the good ones but it’s like some don’t read the rules, hence why we need a warning on the sign up page, I’m going to email the WMF foundation regarding that soon enough. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

When you say "I understand the concern raised regarding large language models", it proves that you don't understand at all. Nobody "raised a concern" about LLMs. They said stop using them right now. It was a command, not a concern. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow. That really does look like it was written by an LLM. That really does look like someone copy & pasted a comment into an LLM and asked it to respond for them. That's some un-canny valley type stuff. Can they be blocked for that? Using an LLM for basically everything you write on Wikipedia?

Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

List of 3 at the top paragraph and also 3 paragraphs, ends off message by saying "I appreciate the time and feedback provided by everyone here". I have never seen anyone end off a comment like that. There's lots of formal, overly polite talk in his comments. It's really weird to read them in the context of it being a human response. Oak lod ← That's me! (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely, the original user must stop using AI, and fake sources (Those responses seemed AI, especially with the agreeing tone and the “You are correct” response). Also I am concerned about the COI and the notability issues. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Just read the article fully, and it’s the most AI sounding article I’ve seen mentioned on the Teahouse, with Weasel words galore. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Need advice on handling autobiography concern for declined draft

Hello,

I’m looking for advice on the best way to proceed with a draft biography of a living composer and musicologist.

The draft has independent secondary sources, but it was declined at AfC due to concerns about writing style and because my username matches the subject. I’ve stopped editing and am seeking independent editorial help rather than continuing to revise it myself. I’ve posted at WikiProject Music but haven’t had a response yet. I’d appreciate guidance on the best next steps to ensure the draft is handled appropriately and in line with BLP and COI guidance. The draft is at Draft:Mary Ann Tedstone Glover. Thank you for your time. ~2025-34401-91 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. When you say your "username matches the subject", you mean that you're trying to write about yourself. It's OK to just say that.

What have you already found out about COI and BLP? TooManyFingers (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ... Please make sure you're properly signed in, before responding any further. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-34401-91 The Work and Research section has three paragraphs that summarise media stories that have been written about your work (presumably drafted by LLM). Instead, it should outline your actual work and research, which should then be cited to the references. Have a look at articles for similar people and see how it's done. The first two references are behind a paywall, but the third one mentions that you are from Glasgow and did a PhD at Bath Spa University - these are important details for a biographical article. Blackballnz (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you — that’s very helpful. I understand the distinction you’re drawing, and I see how the section should focus on describing the work and research itself rather than summarising coverage about it.

I’ve stepped back from editing because of the COI issue, but I’m very happy for an uninvolved editor to restructure or rewrite that section along the lines you suggest, or to advise what should be removed or reworked.

I appreciate you pointing out which biographical details are relevant for an encyclopaedic article, and I’m grateful for any further guidance on best practice here. ~2025-34401-91 (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you — yes, I am the subject of the draft.

I understand that autobiographical editing raises conflict-of-interest concerns, particularly for biographies of living persons, and that content needs to be written and evaluated independently, with strict adherence to reliable secondary sources and a neutral tone.

For that reason I’ve stopped editing the draft myself and am looking for guidance on the appropriate next steps, or for an uninvolved editor to review, rewrite, or take over the draft if that’s considered best practice.

I appreciate any advice on how to proceed in line with COI and BLP guidance. ~2025-34401-91 (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

(Please sign in before editing.)

The main way to stay in line with COI and BLP is this: forget who you are, throw away ALL of the material you have prepared, go to a public library in a different city, and see what you can find about yourself through the public channels they offer there. That's what goes into a Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that — I understand the point you’re making about needing distance from one’s own perspective.

I’ve stopped editing the draft myself for that reason, and I’m taking some time to step back and reflect on how best to proceed in line with COI and BLP, ideally with independent editorial input. ~2025-34401-91 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not edit here again without making sure you're signed in to Wikipedia first. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: this thread was begun by @User:MaryAnnTedstoneGlover TooManyFingers (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder — I’m now logged in with a registered account and will make sure I’m signed in before posting further. Romanmusic2025 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

But now you have two accounts? Signing in on the account that identifies who you are, making you not anonymous, was the whole point. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Having this discussion all tied to your real account is important, and it isn't good that you chose to make another one. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern — thank you for explaining it.

There was no intention to obscure my identity; the second account was created in response to the temporary-account issue and confusion about signing in. I can see now that this added unnecessary complications

I will use a single account going forward and am happy to continue the discussion under the account you feel is most appropriate Romanmusic2025 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Please sign in here using the exact account you edited your draft with, which is MaryAnnTedstoneGlover, and please permanently abandon all other accounts you may have including RomanMusic2025. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

clinical pharmacology

I am a physician with a PhD in clinical pharmacology. Suggestions on how I can best contribute, please?

Scottybod (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! Wikipedia intentionally positions itself as exclusively a tertiary source. All of our pharmacological information must come from already-recognized secondary sources, not from research papers themselves. Does that help for at least a rudimentary orientation? I'm no expert on pharmacology. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

ok thx. How do I find wikipedia articles which can edit/add references/update on the subject of clinical pharmacology - which is the study of drug action, response, adverse effects in humans Scottybod (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll give you two opposite ends to work from as you see fit. First, a top-down view:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology

Second, for the bottom-up view, just scroll to the top of this page (or the Wikipedia main page) and use the magnifying-glass search function to look for any specific article. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

thx. Will try that Scottybod (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Category:Pharmacology and numerous other such categories. At the foot of an article, you can see what categories it belongs to, and click the links to view the category lists. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

ok thx Scottybod (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Scottybod If you look in the WP:Task Center you can see different types of things that need improving. If you click into categories, you can refine your search, for example, medicine and health. Blackballnz (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

great thx Scottybod (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add to what others have said, that it might be a good idea to read expert editors: you can certainly be of value to Wikipedia if you choose, but not necessarily in ways that you expect. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

ok thx Scottybod (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Addition to template

Hi, I noticed recently that the user warning templates for disruptive editing in the sandbox are not part of the Template:Multi notice links (see below) which makes it difficult to find and use them. I’m not authorized to have them edited (Template protected). Where should I go to get this done?

FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi FloblinTheGoblin. Since you are autoconfirmed, you are able to edit Template:Multi notice links. However, the content on that page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace, so you will need to edit that page to add the warning. If you are interested in using those warnings, I would recommend twinkle over consulting that template. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a venue for bringing attention to "mild vandals" short of the administrator noticeboard?

Anonymous user ~2025-33622-18 appears to mostly contribute unsourced and false information, sometimes verging on vandalism. They have already been cautioned a few times on their talk page. I don't think this requires administrator attention at this point, but I also don't have the motivation myself to check all the user's edits and see which ones should be reverted. Is there a venue for bringing attention to "mild vandals" short of the administrator noticeboard? —NilsTycho (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is, it's called Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Typically, after getting four warnings (they only have two), you should report a vandal there. AIV only concerns itself with ongoing problems however, which is not the case here. Because the account is stale, no action would get taken. But in general, however, AIV is your place.

If you want to make giving warnings and reporting users to AIV easier (usually if you are doing counter-vandalism), you should try out WP:TWINKLE. Have a good one! win8x (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Links to password protected pdf's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Calvin_B._Matthews In the entry "Camp Calvin B. Matthews" in the last paragraph are links to PDF documents which both then go to a log in page. Are they therefore "dead links" to speak. Should I edit the entry to remove these two links and the reference to them?

"Since then, more investigations have occurred in the 2000s. The most recent investigations indicate that high levels of lead and arsenic (as well as other potentially harmful chemicals) are found in the soil and a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) should be conducted." [4] HealthLibrarian (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No, don't delete them, because hopefully they can be fixed, or substitutes found. But please do place a message on the article's talk page saying what's wrong with these links so people will know they need attention. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You can use the {{dead link}} template to identify the reference as broken. A bot will automatically try to find an archived version, failing that it will signal to other editors interested in trying to fix the issue. Athanelar (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete request G7

Hey guys! I placed the g7 tag on the page I published by mistake. Page is here- Further AI

It should have been my sandbox, as there are no rs to use for it, after my research. I am the sole editor. I was wondering if I should nominate the page instead. Nomination does not make sense, because the article was not even reviewed in the first place. Thanks. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It might be better to move (rename) the page to your userspace instead. Then you won't lose your progress.

To move a page, simply click "Move" in the top right corner. Speedrunz (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! But I think I moved it the wrong way. Is there a button that I can delete it? There are no RS at all. I put it together and then went to verify sources and saw that it is pointless. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately only administrator can delete pages Speedrunz (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Speedrunz So would the admin see the tag for deletion in my user space or do I need to move it back? WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I moved it to User:WestwoodHights573/FurtherAI draft. Admins should still be able to see the tag. Speedrunz (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Speedrunz thank you very much ! I don't like when pages mess up my "your impact" dashboard. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Need help please

Hello, I’m working on a biography draft and would appreciate feedback from an experienced editor, especially regarding wording, sourcing, and neutrality before resubmission.

Draft link: Draft link: Draft:Emad Kassem CairoWriter72 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. You've used AI to write your draft. Therefore, except for the references, everything in it is worthless and must be thrown out. Keep the references, delete everything else completely, and write the whole thing over again by yourself with no AI. Forget about the rest of the things until you're finished rewriting without AI. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks CairoWriter72 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Under what criteria can opinion pieces as part of reliable news sources be used?

I think the title says it all. VidanaliK (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You can put in an article "In Author X's opinion, [insert author's idea]", if it's relevant to the subject of the article.

But you can't state anything from an opinion piece without literally saying it was that author's opinion. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. VidanaliK (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Need Help Understanding Declined Draft

I am a first-time editor and I'm not understanding why my draft was declined as sounding to much like advertising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ubicquia. I thought that all of the questionable content had been addressed and updated to avoid promotional sounding text. Does something like the awards section cause a problem? Thank you so much for any advice you may be able to offer. Melissavanmeter (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome!

Making it not sound promotional is nice, but we also have to make it not be promotional. That means intentionally cutting out the information that's useful for customers or investors, and keeping only the information that belongs in a history book. If potential customers would complain that the article is not at all telling them what they need to know, you've succeeded. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Also - and this may sound like a mere technicality, but I don't think it is - it's false to say on your user page that you "may" have a conflict of interest, and misleading to say you "work with" them. (Conflict of interest does not mean doing wrong, it means having divided loyalty. In your situation it's inescapable.) Please change your statement so it says that you are "paid by" the company instead of "work with", and remove the "may". TooManyFingers (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Regina Smith

Regina Smith Historic Head Acrobatics and Tumbling Coach ~2025-41569-62 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

What is your question? Athanelar (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Help Understanding Declined Draft!

I have submitted a draft for Surf Lifesaving New Zealand and efitetd it yet it is still declined. I am new any any help/suggestions would be aprecciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Surf_Lifesaving_Clubs_In_New_Zealand Chris.day144 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The main point that the reviewer is making is in the second box, the one that begins "This draft's references ...".

They're saying you haven't shown where reliable independent sources have (by themselves, no interview) published detailed full stories on the history of these clubs. Or perhaps that you haven't shown enough of those yet.

This kind of full, detailed coverage in reliable independent sources is the main factor in Wikipedia's decision to accept an article. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks for that I will add those now thanks :) Chris.day144 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to both Thilio and QEnigma. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.day144 Thank you for creating Draft: Surf Lifesaving Clubs In New Zealand great work but currently draft relies heavily on primary and affiliated sources and also largely functions as a directory of member organisation so it triggers WP:NOTDIRECTORY. So my suggestion Please consider substantially rewriting the draft using multiple independent sources that discuss the organisation collectively. @45dogs Thanks for the ping. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 05:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

So what your saying is to refrence sources that arent the offcical surf lifesvaing page? ~2025-41467-41 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Things from the official page should be a very very small part of the finished article. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Almost all of the article needs to be whatever is in those published independent sources I mentioned earlier. And "independent" especially means "having no relationship, business or personal, to the club or its leaders". TooManyFingers (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Tea

I am British Hamburgerinthegrave (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! I promise I'll warm the pot properly etc. (From a Canadian who has reluctantly learned not to bother asking for "tea" on any trips south of the border) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Your list of contributions suggests that you are enjoying yourself here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Mousqueton (brand) page article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mousqueton_(brand)

Hello! Is it possible to make an article about this French (Breton) brand? It has enough valuable informations to make a page about it and I have been interested to make it. ~2025-41492-91 (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)