Wikipedia:Teahouse

External videos
External videos
	Two YouTube videos
	That Gangnam Style MV that broke the internet and became one of the four horsemen of the ongoing korean wave
	Some clips of the original first Inside Out film by Pixar

Shortcuts

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

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

Most recent archives
1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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

How do I change the following to remove copyright

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender for renovation of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's official residence owing to administrative reasons, according to documents.The cancelled tender worth ₹60 lakh was related to proposed installations at her residence, including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures

This is taken verbatim and was removed from an article how do I change to it get into a wiki article Stanjik (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanjik, are you asking the following?

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender [...] including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures is taken verbatim from this page of The Hindu. But simply shoveling it into an article would amount to plagiarism. How might I transform it so that shoveling in the transformed version would not bring a charge of plagiarism?

-- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep how do I report factual info in a different way Stanjik (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the biography of Rekha Gupta, you could simply say that the government decided that her official residence would not be renovated but then you have to ask yourself the question "what has this small fact to do with Gupta's life story?". Only if you can find sourcing that describes why this is relevant to her personally should you expand on that and explain the details. Note that the policy on living people applies, so you need to be careful about the background. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude this not about her this about her governance as covered by RS Stanjik (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her governance doesn't automatically affect the story of her life. Sometimes it does. Reliable sources about a political issue are important for that issue, but they don't always say how the issue affected a politician's personal life. A politician may do great things that bring them no personal benefit, and may do very bad things without facing any consequences. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« The Indian govt cancelled plans to renovate the Chief Minister’s residence; renovations which were to cost 60 lakh rupees. » MmeMaigret (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to AfD nominate at scale and not one-by-one?

Articles related to Miss Grand International appear to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:SPAM (Advertisements masquerading as articles) operation. There are hundreds and hundreds of them. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims do not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

Some of the articles very obviously fail WP:N, some aren't as obvious. It is very time consuming to nominate AfD on them manually, one-by-one. Is there a way to do that at scale, especially the the ones that obviously fail WP:GNG? University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend addressing the promotional editing first and then going for AfD so that promotional editors don't gum up the process and so that we can get wider community input on the issue before AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the promotional articles. Excessive spamming at best

This is WP:SPAM.

See the collapsed list, the entries never end and there are additional hundreds and hundreds of them.

University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Horse Eye's Back

Where or how would you recommend to address promotional editing? University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend WP:COIN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Miss_Grand_Lithuania
University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@University of The Purple Unicorn: you have created 19 deletion discussions, I would withdraw all but the first and see what happens at COIN. Possibly a discussion at WP:ANI will be needed, possibly a large number of nominations can be bundled. A WP:AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) user may be able to help with tagging the articles. I have found 451 articles with Miss Grand in the title and we should avoid having 450 separate discussions. @Horse Eye's Back: what do you think? TSventon (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about posting an image.

I tried to post File:Prince Valiant 6 April 2025.pdf on the Prince Valiant page but it didn't work. Any help I can get will be appreciated. 20:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC) 20:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to upload it as an image (.jpg, for example) not a PDF.

You should also note WP:IMAGERES. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. The picture is a Chrome HTML, which is on the list of acceptable formats, is lo rez, and is "fair use" as many Wikipedia pages about comic strips have pictures of those comic strips. I still don't know how to post it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rick Norwood. The image you have linked to above is a PDF - which is presumably what you uploaded to Wikipedia, not an image format. If you found it on an HTML page, either it was a PDF linked in that page, or you downloaded it as a PDF. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I just tried to upload here the real image, which says "Chrome HTML document, Size 8.69 mb" but I could not figure out how to upload it here. Any help greatly appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Rick Norwood. If you give us the full URL we could try and work out how to do it. (On the image page linked above, you have only given https://comicskingdom.com , which is the top level of the site and doesn't take us to the actual image). ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have the image on my computer, but all my attempts to upload it on Wikipedia have failed. I'll be trying to do so all day today. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a lot of progress. Thank you for all your help. I've been able to upload the page. The file name is now File:Prince Valiant by Thomas Yeates.jpeg. Is is uploaded to this location: File:Prince Valiant by Thomas Yeates.jpeg. But I still cannot upload it to the Prince Valiant page.

I hope I can continue to have your help for what I hope is the last step. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was Andy Mabbett who told me (see above) that I could not publish a tiff and needed a jpeg. But now, Andy proposes to delete the jpeg because the file already exists as a tiff. What should I do? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not; and no I do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

I asked something here, and it happened on my user page again, because I edited it and added more info about me. Can someone again remove it and prevent this from happening, and tell me why this is happening? Regards ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the template is being substituted onto your userpage, not sure why it's happening if you're not doing it manually. I've removed it for now, but you may have to remove it manually each time. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@I am bad at usernames thank you! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be its a visual editor issue. But I don't know beyond that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs maybe. Though I remember it happened at the source editor too. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelthegreat, that was my guess based on it only seeming to happen when you are in visual editor; see this this and this in source. It doesn't appear to be happening in source, judging by the tags on your edits. Every time it has happened has been in visual. I am fairly certain visual editor is causing it to be substituted, though not sure why. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs you are probably right. IDK though. VisualEditor is a little bit wonky at times. I remember at my edits I was alternating from source editing to Visual editing so I don't really remember. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelthegreat, based on my own testing here, I can confirm that some action is being done that is making it be substituted, rather than transcluded. Help:VisualEditor#Substituting templates has a guide on substituting templates. Make sure you aren't causing it to be substituted instead of transcluded. You alternated between source and visual here, whenever the tag says Visual Edit:Switched in the history page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs oh I see. Thank you so much! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos

if some youtube videos can be licensed by cc-by-sa is it recomended to use <youtube></youtube> tags if you're lazy to uploaf the video

read the tile! 38.248.158.239 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RSPYT before you think about YouTube. Basically you can't use it. Most of the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RSPYT language says regarding YouTube, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. So, a small percentage of YouTube videos are reliable. But these are produced by highly professional outlets and highly unlikely to be freely licensed for financial reasons. They need to make their money back. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or, for showing examples like a Gallery section with the external media template, like Example: .38.248.158.82 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The <youtube> markup stated in the thread title is supported by Miraheze (I believe), but not on WP (where either traditional external linkage [i.e. [https://youtube.com YouTube]] or {{cite youtube}} must be used). External-media embeds are outside Wikimedia's purview.

However, as long as the uploader set their video's license under CC-BY, then it can be uploaded to Commons (subject to review/verification). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"read the tile!"—Please make your points in the body of comments, and keep subheadings short (as I have now done), for ease of navigation by others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How not to start an edit war across multiple articles

Just stopping by for advice on this one. I know some will say: "Drop a note on the editor's Talk Page" or "Start a discussion on the article's Talk Page"; but really I'm just here to see how one goes about editing an agenda pattern across multiple articles. On my Watchlist I saw this edit: [1] claiming the television sitcom Cheers was the "first installment in the Cheers franchise"; and that subsequent TV sitcoms: The Tortellis, Wings and Frasier were the next installments in the franchise series. (BTW Wings is not an installment or even a spin-off of Cheers; it merely shared creators and occasional appearances by characters from the original show). But I digress. In clicking on the other spin-off WP page links, I saw that the "concept" of Cheers being a franchise has traveled to the other article pages: [2], [3] and [4]. All in a very short span of time and without any history summary or RS to back the claims. In searching other TV sitcoms with spin-offs at WP (i.e. All in the Family is not the "first installment in the franchise", and the spin-offs: Archie Bunker's Place, The Jeffersons, Maude etc), they are not considered "franchise installments" on their pages. If I'm not mistaken, it just doesn't work that way like the second or third installments (films) of the John Wick movie franchise. My case for discussion toward reverting is one thing; but my Teahouse Question is this: how do I go about challenging (or even reverting) an "edit agenda" across several articles without it coming across as "trolling" or starting an inter-connected edit war? (Pinging the editor in this discussion @HollandJack2002) I consider the edits as WP:GF. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your description is complete and accurate, then I think you're dealing with someone whose edits are high-profile enough and bad enough that they can make a disastrous fool of themselves without your help. I say, just make some popcorn and open your dictionary to Schadenfreude. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits across multiple articles isn't edit warring. It can at worst be harassment if you're targeting a particular editor for no reason, but if an editor is making bad edits to multiple articles you can revert all of those edits without concern. it only becomes edit warring if you're continually reverting the same edit without trying to discuss and resolve the matter more productively. Athanelar (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the more i think about it, the more i can say is... What was my brain thinking? So now that i learned my lesson, all of the articles with the mentions of "the installment of the Cheers franchise" are now removed. By the way, i hate to ask this question. If Mario was a Donkey Kong spin-off, why can't Banjo-Kazooie and Conker considered to be Donkey Kong spin-offs? I don't know, Nintendo owns the first two, while Microsoft owns Rare (including the latter two). HollandJack2002 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, by the logic presented, basically all of existence is part of the St. Elsewhere franchise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs Thanks for the chuckle! Maineartists (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite accurate, according to my research. Ronny Cox was on St. Elsewhere, but we know his true origin. All of existence resides, in fact, with Deliverance. [cue the banjo players. All of them.] TooManyFingers (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Becket controversy

A great article. But I don't understand the Citations and References sections. Can these be improved? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse, @Kingsacrificer! It looks like the sources are organized by author, title, and page number. This is an appropriate formatting style and I see it a lot in higher-level articles. "Citations" applies to inline citations, and "References" applies to the works the inline citations refer to - in this case, books. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 22:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's suboptimal. A typical example is Barlow Thomas Becket pp. 189–192, but there's no link from "Barlow Thomas Becket" down to the explanation below that this is a book by Frank Barlow, with publication details. It would be better if there were. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. Should the Citations sections be modified to fit into the usual References format? Although, this would mean that the Citations section gets removed. Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsacrificer The article was first created in 2010. Its structure with citations and a bibliography of the books from which these citations are taken would today be done using the template {{sfn}} (shortened footnotes): see the template page for details. Usual practice is not to change citation style once set for an article (see WP:CITEVAR). However, you could seek consensus to do so for this article via its talk page. I wouldn't expect others to object to a move to use sfn, which ends up looking very much like what is already there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bug prevents new users creating pages

FYI: There is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages with external links

Per this Phabricator ticket, there is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages which contain external links, due to an issue with CAPTCHA. The user will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use the Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

This should be fixed by Monday.

We're seeing quite a few new users report this across various channels, so I thought I'd make an FYI here. qcne (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is my rewritten sandbox draft ready for AfC submission?

Hello, I’ve rewritten User:Hend.Alhinnawi/sandbox in my sandbox based on independent sources with neutral tone.

Could someone please review it and let me know if it’s ready to go through Articles for Creation? Hend.Alhinnawi (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- the best way to get feedback is to submit the draft. You're asking for a pre-review review, which duplicates the process. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hend.Alhinnawi. The key thing you have to ask yourself is, have I proven that this person meets our criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people)? qcne (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. I’ve reviewed the notability criteria and believe the sources in my sandbox (e.g., Wall Street Journal, STAT News, Bio-IT World, RAPS, and Healthcare IT News) provide independent, in-depth coverage of Kass-Hout’s professional work. I’ll go ahead and submit the draft through AfC for formal review. Hend.Alhinnawi (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hend.Alhinnawi, apart from the LLM concern raised by the reviewer, you may have missed an important thing: your sources must be all three of independent, significant coverage, and reliable sources. See WP:42 for more information. Interviews, for example, are not independent (because the subject is giving the information directly). Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources need to meet those criteria, we simply require that at least three do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am being denied normal access of Wikipedia

My USER name: "Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas" My last entry was 2025-07-08 I’ve made over a thousand entries, mostly minor edits. WHY AM I BEING DENIED MY NORMAL USE OF WIKIPEDIA NOW ? A long involved series of 4-digits appeared: 2605:A601:AABF:9700:9455:DC68:8F0F:4515

Has my IP address has been hacked ? 2605:A601:AABF:9700:9455:DC68:8F0F:4515 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user account User:Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas hasn't edited much during 2025 but looks healthy enough. I imagine that you simply weren't logged in to it. Try logging in. If your attempt is unsuccessful, please describe the error message or other problem (but of course without divulging your password). -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When is bias in article/tone acceptable?

Hi guys and girls of the Teahouse,

I and my friend have run into some issues while on this site, and I'm curious - when is bias in an article and its tone acceptable on Wikipedia? There's pages like Mass killings under communist regimes (don't get me wrong, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot did a lot of very bad things) which cite the Black Book of Communism as a source (which is known to be very bad and has inflated figures). But there's no such pages like, for example, Death toll of capitalism or American empire (though there is American imperialism). There's also bias IMO in how pages are named, such as a difference between "Nedelin catastrophe" and Apollo 1's "accident" section.

Is this because of sourcing? Or bias of editors? Or something else?

I'm just curious, sorry if I grind gears with this post or my questions. Also sorry for all issues I've caused in the past, really want to contribute here but I'm still new Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss deaths caused by capitalism as a distinct topic, feel free to summarize those in a draft by using the Article Wizard- or discuss them on Talk:Capitalism.

If you want to challenge the use of a source in an article, that's what the article talk page is for. That a source is biased does not necessarily preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless it is so biased it makes things up out of whole cloth- in which case WP:RSN is probably the best venue. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can know if a source is reliable or not, besides taking it to RSN or seeing that it's a private blog or something? Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more about what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source but in short, a source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control to be considered reliable. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. thank you 331dot! Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good start can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that articles have the names they have, is that we try to stick to the way the topic is referred to in the reliable sources we're aware of. The result is that we usually name things according to what the majority of people really call them. We don't try to create names that are "better".

The disadvantage of this is that when mainstream usage has settled on an inappropriate name for something, Wikipedia will probably still call it by that name.

If we did start renaming things by what each of us as individuals would prefer, there would be so many bitter arguments over names that we'd soon be forced back to doing it the way we do now. "Just call it what all the reliable sources call it" is the best, most neutral way out of the fight. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense! Thank you TMF! Matrose-von-Kronstadt (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to create pages or save edits - page keeps refreshing

Hello! I have a 6-year-old Wikipedia account (DrustvotouhouSI) but no edit history on English Wikipedia. I'm trying to create my first article (Draft:Association Touhou) with proper COI disclosure.

Every time I try to publish a page (draft, sandbox, anything), the page just refreshes without saving. I don't get an error message - it just returns to the same page.

I've tried: - Creating a draft - Creating content in my sandbox - Multiple browsers - Waiting between attempts

My user page edit did work, but nothing else will save.

Can someone help me figure out what's blocking me, or help me create the draft page so I can edit it?

Thank you! DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DrustvoTouhouSI, please see #Bug_prevents_new_users_creating_pages (above). -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worthy of deletion?

I found the article Cell Phone Seat via the filter logs when it was being made and have been surprised it has remained untouched ever since. The content personally struck me as weird (e.g. how much the article talks about intellectual property), and the author having no prior contributions gives me a gut feeling of COI but there's no way I could really verify that.

Rather than gut feelings of weird-ness, it seems like a concrete rationale for deleting the article might be it failing WP:NCORP. I haven't proposed any articles for deletion before though, and I'm hesitant to do it for that criteria because the article just has so many refs. I did a quick overview myself, and it seems like refs 1, 2, 6, and 19 are primary, 3-5, 7, and 8 aren't significant coverage, 8 and 9 are gadget reviews, and 10-17 are not independent.

Am I doing this right? If so, what avenue for article deletion should I be trying to take?

Thanks, Yhvr (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say a concrete rationale for deleting the article might be it failing WP:NCORP. Nope, Yhvr. Wikipedia:Notability#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability tells us that if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability. (As for your question "Is this article worthy of deletion?", I haven't looked at the article, let alone attempted to find good sources for the subject.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be a valid reason for nominating the article for deletion should a search reveal a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Seat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll watch how the nomination plays out. Yhvr (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to update A person's life information

Hi, I know someone who is listed in a wiki page that recently passed. When I edit the information, do I need to provide an obituary for verification? Ron Ronbalazs (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronbalazs--yeah, you do, and the more reliable the sourcing, the better. A newspaper article is better than an obituary placed as an ad. Sorry for your loss. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Ronbalazs (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place

Not exactly new, but really inactive. Just wanted to know if it was fine to edit articles without warning if it's minor ish and violates WP:NPOV:

"The police stood by and did nothing as a group of black attendees assaulted a white female teenager; when a white male bystander, Kris Kime, attempted to protect her, the group of black attendees beat him to death."

- Seattle Mardi Gras Riots pg.

I want to edit this because I'm pretty sure this is racially charged to incite a black vs white feeling. Am I fine in changing this? 2601:600:8D00:7EB0:D404:3A6B:EEC:8F85 (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source it comes from is one of the main keys to this. If this is really what a solidly reliable source intended to say, we're going to need to keep it. But if a Wikipedia editor has twisted what the source says, then it should be repaired, to make it say just what the reliable source intended. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(And since this is a question on how to edit right, I do believe you're in a good place to ask it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the two sources cited for this passage, I myself think that it overinterprets what they say. The most relevant sentence seems to be

"Witnesses said the man who hit Kime from behind was black, that he may have been part of a roving group of young black men and women who police say attacked many white partygoers in the crowd. But police spokesman Benton yesterday cautioned against concluding that the attackers were motivated by race".

However, as someone from and in a different continent, I am not going to involve myself in editing the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every continent, including the one discussed in the article, would benefit from listening to what thoughtful intelligent foreigners have to say. However, I understand not being familiar enough with the event, or wanting to avoid becoming a target for anger and arguing. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to an earlier version because a lot of racial language was added in this diff back in July which is blatantly not NPOV.

For your knowledge, it's always fine to edit Wikipedia. That's the point of WP:BOLD. If you make a bad edit someone can always revert it. Athanelar (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong stuff

Hi, if I rewrite an article and put all the wrong stuff will i get banned or something like that

the same that i said up there 138.84.45.31 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes jolielover♥talk 04:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be counted as vandalism, or disruptive editing. You could expect warnings, and then a block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are genuinely trying to improve it, you won't be blocked, even if you're mistaken (unless you ignore people's advice and keep on doing it).

If you're obviously doing it to damage Wikipedia, you will get warned and (if you don't stop) blocked as Graeme says. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It: Welcome to Derry; Episode 2

Why is the "Original Release Date" of Episode 2 listed as November, 2? I saw the information tab that indicates the show aired on streaming first (on October 31, to coincide with Halloween) and was being broadcast over the air on November, 2. However, IMDB lists the Original Air Date as October 31, 2025. The show was ORIGINALLY AIRED on October 31, 2025. Can we please report accurately the ORIGINAL AIR DATE, please? You have left the information citation indicating the episode was broadcast on 2 separate dates. Isn't that good enough? As of right now, your Wiki page is a lie and I would like to see that fixed, please. I can do it myself. Please give me permission or explain your reasoning for reporting false information. Thanks. Banueloschris (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Link: It – Welcome to Derry#Episodes

IMDb is not considered by Wikipedia to be a Reliable source, because its information is user-contributed and often unreferenced – see Wikipedia:IMDB.

Currently the information in the article is cited (Ref No 10) to a source considered reliable. The details on IMDb (here) state "Release Date . . . United States October 31, 2025 (internet)" My understanding of the term "air" is that it refers to TV broadcasting, not internet streaming: however, I am not an expert in this field.

When multiple forms of dissemination are being used, the term 'Original Releae Date' may be an over-simplification; editors can differ in interpretations, and being human they can make mistakes – mistakes are not "lies", and are always open to correction after civil discussion and consensus. Does anyone else care to comment? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits rejected by ClueBot. How can I make progress?

Dear All,

I made substantial edits to this wiki: Global carbon reward, but my extensive edits were all rejected by ClueBot.

I followed the links and instructions to ClueBot NG Report Interface // Viewing 4440176, and filled out the small form at the bottom of the page. This process is rather mysterious. Does anybody know what happens next, and can I continue to revised the Wiki?

Many thanks

Bandicoot66. Bandicoot66 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bandicoot66. ClueBot NG is just an anti-vandlism bot; it uses machine learning in order to detect vandalism, and when it does, it reverts the vandalism. In this case, it looks like your edits were a false positive. From a brief look, it seems your edits were largely improving the page, so I would recommend going ahead and continuing your edits. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-instated your edits. Reporting a false positive to ClueBot just helps the developer refine what it flags as vandalism in the future, it doesn't mean ClueBot will restore your removed edits, you have to do that manually, but I already did it for you. Athanelar (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding submission

Hello,

I wanted to confirm that my article is being considered for AfC approval, and if so, that it would then be moved to the main space. Please advise if there are additional steps to take.

Link: Draft:Everard Entertainment

Thanks,

Jared Jared Press (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is awaiting assessment and approval (or being declined for needing further improvement, or being rejected as unsuitable for Wikipedia at this time). As the topmost text in the template currently says:

"Review waiting, please be patient.

This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,817 pending submissions waiting for review."

There is no way of predicting when one of our (too few, overworked) volunteer reviewer will get to it; in the meantime you are free to continue improving it (no Wikipedia article is ever considered finished).

One thing I notice is that, though titled 'Everard Entertainment', the draft appears to be 99% about Ben Everard himself. This is not critical as, if a reviewer approves and publishes it, they may well change the title to what they deem most suitable anyway, but it might help to focus your further efforts if you decide what the draft's subject actually is. Hope this helps. {The poster fornerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen.....

this: I have seen claims about the Atlas comet all over the place claiming that a group of aliens has tested Earth and found humanity wanting and humanity will be quarantined and/or destroyed, and that humanity at large did not know that humanity was being examined. There are other claims that a alien race will conquer Earth making claims that humanity will be terminated. This is all over the place. Can you imagine some explorers going to the Moon, even Mars only to have a "light" fire a laser-like/ phaser-like weapon at the exploratory ship? Some of this I have seen on YouTube, some I have seen elsewhere. Allegedly famous scientists were making quotes like these are allegedly Michu Kaku, Stephen Hawking to name a few. Is this all BS or is there something to this? I have also seen some science fiction similar to this in which humanity not only broke out of imprisonment with alien help, but has destroyed the opposing spaceborne political entities as well. Can this be of use on Wikipedia as well? This sort of thing, properly sourced, if possible, could be useful. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's never aliens —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comet in question is 3I/ATLAS and it has an unusual orbit. If Stephen Hawking had commented on this comet, that would be remarkable no matter what he said. The comet was discovered on July 1, 2025 and Hawking died 7-1/2 years ago. The scientist who is speculating that it might be an alien spaceship is Avi Loeb, who is prone to such flights of fancy. That's all described in the article about the comet and in Loeb's biography. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hey, I just started editing and it’s not clear to me how to translate pages. I know how to request for a translation, and I did one already correcting the automatic translation, but it’s still not published. Is it because I’m new, or just missing something? Mag-871 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mag-871, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you told us which article you are talking about, we might have more chance of helping you.

Please note that, because English Wikipedia has stricter rules on sourcing than many other Wikipedias, translating an article to English is often (not always) a much bigger task than simply translating an existing article, and I would give the same advice as I give to new editors wanting to create articles: 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.

Looking at your contributions, I wonder if you might be talking about translating from English? If that is the case, beyond pointing you at WP:translate us, we can't help you much here, and you'd be better asking on the target Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the Italian translation from English of “Arcuate Nucleus”, “Nucleo Arcuato”.

@ColinFine Mag-871 (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I get it right you translated it from English to Italian, and want to publish it on the Italian Wikipedia? If so, you would need to ask at the Italian Wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mag-871: I can see that you've added the {{Expand Italian}} template to Arcuate nucleus (medulla). Is that what you mean? All that template does is make the point that the Italian Wikipedia article it:Nucleo arcuato has more content, which could be used to expand the English Wikipedia one. (I'm not sure that's actually the case here, but that's beside the point.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some guidance at WP:Translate us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to split an article

I think a section from the page National Testing Agency should be a stand alone article named Controversies of National Testing Agency. About 60% of the page alone is about the controversies so i think it is better to split that part into a new article. No idea how to split..should i do it manually? Dagoofybloke (🥀) 10:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Splitting Lectonar (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Read it and i have splitted the article just few mins ago. New article is National Testing Agency controversies Dagoofybloke (🥀) 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dagoofybloke. You may want to reconsider this, in the light of WP:CSECTION. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

didnt know about that. But considering so much controversy weightage being put into the main article, i thought it was better to split. I had seen articles being split like that so i considered it. An example. NCERT textbook controversies Dagoofybloke (🥀) 12:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no authority, but to me, splitting controversy away from the main article seems like a pretty bad idea. 1) It gives a lot of extra weight (probably WP:UNDUE) to the controversy, basically inviting fights. 2) No matter which side of the controversy you are on personally, it brings disadvantages: splitting "lets them off the hook" because it makes it easier for readers to ignore that part, AND it turns the controversy into a semi-permanent feature of Wikipedia. Keeping it inside the article can BOTH "hold their feet to the fire" more effectively, AND make everyone look less hotheaded when the controversy is over. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution here is to keep the old section and add a {{see also}} hatnote linking to the new article, but: (a) make the section short, or (b) have it transclude the lead section of the new article. CheckNineEight (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

biography draft

Hi there, could someone please help move my draft page User:Pablo246g/sandbox to Paul Spong Musician Trumpeter?

It’s a biography draft for Paul Spong (musician/trumpeter). I’m not yet autoconfirmed so I can’t move it myself, and I want to preserve the edit history.

Many thanks! Pablo246g (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit it for review through WP:AFC. Looking at it right now it would be declined because it does not cite any sources. Ultraodan (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already have an article about someone else at Paul Spong, it is likely your article, if and when it meets our standards, would be moved to, say, Paul Spong (musician). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, that makes sense.

Please could my draft User:Pablo246g/sandbox be moved to Paul Spong (musician) instead? Pablo246g (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd first need to address the points made by Ultraodan, above. I'm also not clear why you think we'd publish an article which includes the line "Based on the research from our previous conversation, here are the documented singleswhere Paul Spong is specifically credited with trumpet contributions:". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's written by an LLM, as Pigsonthewing has pointed out, it would also be rejected on that basis alone, and the tone is pure self-promotion too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pablo246g, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like almost everybody who starts editing Wikipedia and immediately tries to create an article, you have written something that superficially looks like an article but is completely unacceptable in its present form.

To use an analogy from housebuilding, it is as though you said "I want to build a house, and I know what a house looks like, so here is the house I've made", without knowing anything about surveying, structural engineering, or legal requirements for new houses. If people tell you what you're doing wrong, you probably won't even understand them.

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, and not much else. What the subject, or their associates, say or want to say is almost irrelevant. Also irrelevant is what you (or I, or any random person on the internet) knows or thinks about the subject, except where that knowledge has been published in reliable secondary sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prete Bhutani

Im having difficulty publishing the article, It comes up as draft only. And not allowing me to 'submit for review'. Please could you look, as what am I missing? And help me publish if possible. Bhupinder29 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the appropriate information so you can submit it(it's provided if you use the Article Wizard). However, please see Referencing for beginners; references should be in line next to the text they support. You should also review the definition of a notable actress to make sure that she meets it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that Times of India is not the greatest source to use, see WP:TIMESOFINDIA. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also ~Im not able to delete the term Draft from Draft:Prete Bhutani. When Im trying to submit, its findable by this name only. Bhupinder29 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhupinder29 Yes, that correct. It is at Draft:Prete Bhutani and won't be moved to mainspace until submitted for review and accepted. At present, it would cetainly be declined if submitted because it does not comply with the policy concerning the biographies of living people. Please read that carefully. You are a new editor here and it might be better to put the draft aside until you have learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by contributing to existing articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Password

I'm Hell yeahhhh man and i made this to contact bcuz i forgot my password Hell yeahhhh mann (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! What exactly do you need help for? You might want to read WP:PASSWORD for more information regarding passwords and account security in general. jolielover♥talk 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot my password and cant reset because I didnt set my email. "Hell yeahhhh man" was my original account Hell yeahhhh mann (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be somewhere in your browser settings. But ultimately, if you forgot your password and didn't give the system an email address for password resets, you're probably out of luck.

That said, you only created that account a few days ago, so it's not much of a loss. If you want, you can put a notice on your userpage saying "I used to be 'Hell yeahhhh man' until I forgot the password for that account". DS (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell yeahhhh mann, you can also make the user and talk pages of your old account redirect to your user and talk pages on this account. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Updates

I need assistance in updating facts and figures on a Wikipedia page for a federal agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you give some more information so we can better help you? (Including if you are employed by or otherwise associated with the agency you are interested in) Also, this is a global website, which federal government are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SDP DPA, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your wording, together with your username, suggests that you may be employed by this agency, and also that you may have the (very common) misconception that your agency has some sort of ownership over the Wikipedia's article about it, and it is your role to update it.

This is not the case. On the contrary, nobody owns the article, and almost anybody in the world may edit it except employees and associates of the agency.

What you may do, however, once you have made the mandatory formal declaration of your status as a paid editor, is to suggest edits, using the edit request wizard. Please be as precise as possible in your requests, and remember that all information which you want added to the article (including replacing existing information) should be verifiable from a reliable published source, which you should cite. As far as possible, this should be a source wholly unconnected with your agency - and unless the information is uncontroversial factual information, it must be in an independent source. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

I also have a suspicion that your username is not acceptable, as it may suggest that the account belongs to the agency, which is not permitted: all accounts must be personal. (I'm guessing here that "SDP" is your role and "DPA" is the agency, but I may be wrong. If "SDP" is your own initials, so that it is an account which is clearly personal to you, that would be acceptable, even with "DPA" as part of its name. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page

I would like to know best strategies to update information on a Wikipedia page for an agency. Thank you. SDP DPA (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an agency that you have a connection to, please have a read of WP:COIE for the correct process to follow. Nil🥝 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, SDP DPA, please read, digest, and respond to the comments and questions posted in response to the thread ("Information Updates") that you started earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the answer you were given at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Information Updates, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't publish my sandbox page

I’m trying to publish a test sandbox article for my project titled GoalSphere (sports news website). But when I click on the “Publish changes” button, it only shows a preview and doesn’t save. Could you please check if my account has any edit or autoconfirmation restrictions?

Thanks! — User:Amjadwriter Amjadwriter (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a bug that prevents creating drafts/articles if any external links are in the text. The workaround is to first publish a page without any content at all, you can then edit that page to add the content. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Edit History

Hello, I've been editing and publishing the article "Center for Internet Security however", however my edit history is not available, and I was wondering why that is. I've been using the direct edit button from the article as my sandbox is not working. Remadjiadda (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Remadjiadda. I'm not sure I understand, but I suspect you are getting caught by the same bug as in the last but one question on this page. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Mobilart

Hi, I previously worked on a draft titled ‘Draft:Mobilart’ but can’t locate it now. Could someone help me recover or find it? Mobilart Meubles & Décor (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobilart Meubles & Décor I see no contributions under this name. What user name did you use previously, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:46, 3 November 2025 (UT

Mobilart Meubles & Décor, a draft by that name has never existed as far as I can see. And your account has never edited a draft. If you started a draft but did not click the "Publish changes" button, then your work has been lost. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to change your username as it's that of your business, your username needs to represent you as an individual. I can change it if you tell what you want it changed to. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I approve a draft article?

I am still relatively new to Wiki, but I have declined a few submissions, while having provided detailed reasoning for my decline. Today I am dealing for the first time with an article, that- after a series of improvements- is ready for getting published. I cannot find a button or instructions HOW TO APPROVE a pending article. You can find the draft here: Draft:PARP7. ApoieRacional (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest directing this to the AFC Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you had already submitted it for re-review the day before you posted this question (if I'm reading the timestamps correctly). MmeMaigret (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back. We may have a misunderstanding: I did not contribute to this draft article at all. Other people wrote it. I think it is good now, I want to approve for publishing. How do I approve a draft written by others? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing

To become an AfC reviewer, you need to meet the criteria listed on the main page. If you are not already an administrator or New Page Reviewer, you can obtain approval at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ApoieRacional, to ensure the smooth, consistent operation of Afc, in my opinion you should not approve, decline, reject, or make official {{Afc comment}}s on drafts under review at Afc. You have an exemplary academic background which should prove highly valuable at Wikipedia and you meet the minimum seniority requirements to be a reviewer, but it is clear from these 4 edits at Draft:Victor Pavlovich Spiridonov, for example, that you do not yet have the knowledge and experience of Wikipedia procedures necessary to advise others about the state of drafts at Afc. This is neither surprising nor a reproach, as you are still very new here. Instead, for now please make your comments on the talk page of such drafts, which is the dedicated venue where editors collaborate to discuss how best to improve an article or draft. While gaining experience at Wikipedia, please have a look at the Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, so that when you do attain the threshold of familiarity with Wikipedia procedures as you inevitably will, you will then be well placed to take on the responsibilities of an Afc reviewer. In the meantime, I look forward to your contributions to articles in pharmacology, genetic disorders, nuclear medicine, and other topics of interest to you. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This stupid robot

A robot named ClueBotNG keeps telling me my edits are vandalism and deleting them. Is there any way to get it to stop interacting with me? IGV-1 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, @IGV-1! See Template:Bots. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IGV-1, if its a false positive, report it so that it can be fixed. Also, Taking Out The Trash is not a bot; he just warned you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IGV-1. Here are some suggestions to you as a new editor to make things easier for you. Do not engage in edit warring behavior to try to force through your preferred wording in articles. Do not use confrontational or insulting language in your edit summaries. Do not try to argue with useful bots. They do not have the ability to argue with you. Just report false positives. Do not confuse human editors with bots. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh God I'm so sorry IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each time you edit something, it finishes by asking you for an "Edit summary" where you explain what you did. Vandals don't fill those in. Real editors do fill them in. When you don't explain, it makes you look like you're hiding something. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks IGV-1 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals don't fill those in. TooManyFingers, they can and they not infrequently do. When they do, the summaries tend to be generic ("Fixed typos", etc), but there are exceptions. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, some of them do. And there are decent editors who often don't. It would be wrong to spread some idea that edit summaries are a conclusive way of determining who's who. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So.. are edit summaries needed or no? IGV-1 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, IGV-1, use them, and make them informative and accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IGV-1, every edit you make, should improve an article in some way, no matter how small. How does your edit improve it? The answer to that question may be included in the edit summary. Wikipedia is by its nature a collaborative volunteer enterprise; that is core to its very DNA. Writing an edit summary is a way of collaborating with your fellow editors, letting them know what you are up to, and why your change to an article is for the better. This helps other editors decide how to budget their time, if they wish to dive deeper and look at the edit, or move on to something else. Editor time is the most precious resource we have at Wikipedia. So, yes; please do use an edit summary with every edit. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for this, I'll do this going forward. IGV-1 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same!! ~2025-31290-55 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For real DaytonJupiterSABFan2015 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to Restore Old Parent Categories I Previously Removed

Hi everybody! I recently received guidance from another editor named Smasongarrison about non-diffusing categories under WP:EGRS. I had previously removed parent categories such as Category:American lesbian comedians and Category:Filipino gay comedians, but now I understand they should remain included.

I’d like to add these pages back to their old parent categories, but I’ve made several edits and it’s taking time to find them all manually. Is there a faster way or tool to identify my past edits involving these categories—or perhaps a bot that can help restore them more efficiently?

Thanks so much for your help and patience! Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the page where you view the list of your own contributions, there's a Search function. If you click the little triangle beside Search, there are choices to let you search for only special items - do any of those help? (I often need to play around with the choices many times, to improve the results I'm seeing.) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the tip! I didn’t realize there was a search function with extra options on the Contributions page. I’ll definitely try using the triangle menu and play around with the filters to find my past edits more efficiently. I really appreciate your helpful advice!

Best, Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 wikipedia pages!!!!

So far ive made 20 wiki pages, so, yippee i guess Rishi88888888 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishi88888888 great! But the Teahouse was made to ask questions though. Do you have any questions we can answer? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make your userpage next? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions.

If you make very short pages, you can tag them with {{Stub}}, or one of the similar but subject-specific stub templates. This flags them to other volunteers as having potential for expansion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishi88888888 or if you want to tag short articles easier, see WP:STUBSORTER. I recommend you try it out! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer tasks - arbitration?

I saw the newcomer tasks where it directed me to Pakistan Military Academy. I slightly improved the English there for a smoother flow. But it got reverted with the reasoning that I need extended confirmation. [5] I read the arbitration ruling[6] and it's meant for the "contentious topics". I doubt this military academy is a contentious topic and it's not directly subjected to any known controversy or charged debate. If you read the whole article, there is no real potential for dispute over this particular topic in terms of politics, let alone any real risk for politically charged edit wars. It's just a school to train recruits. Also my own edits were merely neutral copy edits that doesn't even add any new info or censor out info. Is that article still deemed a "contentious topic" despite it's currently recommended to "newcomers"? Just want to understand the basis of boundaries here. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also if an article is blocked to those without extended confirmation. There really should be a template or block to avoid wasting newcomers' time. I restored my edits as the article has ridiculously written in the opening sentence that a certain military academy is a military academy. It's redundant. However if I wanted to edit yoga, or butter chicken recipe or talk about a generic high school located in Sri Lanka ete - that is articles related to India or Pakistan but have zero controversy or potential for contentious info - are newcomers with less than 500 edits also unable to edit them? Seems mindlessly beaucratic to have a blanket bans on all India- or Pakistan-related pages, and no longer understanding the point of the arbitration ruling that it's only intended for high-edit-war topics - articles like Kashmir, Partition of India, Modi and not EVERY single topic that's related to India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc. (zero plausible potential for edit wars, let alone many edit wars) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JaredMcKenzie! To clarify, within WP:CT/SA there are two sections under the extended confirmed restriction; articles related to WP:GSCASTE, which this article pretty clearly isn't, and Indian military history. The history section fairly clearly falls in the latter, though I am not sure if the entire article should be off limits. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, 45dogs. That's exactly my concern - while I understand why Indian military history as a whole falls under the contentious topics framework, it seems counterproductive when non-contentious subtopics (like a basic description of a training academy) end up being caught in the same net. If an arb ruling was to prevent edit wars over politically charged or disputed subjects - Kashmir, Partition of India, Modi, etc - then blocking routine grammar or clarity fixes on neutral pages really misses the spirit of that decision. It risks deterring genuine newcomers who just want to improve readability, not debate history.

At the very least, if a page is indeed under extended confirmed protection, there really should be a visible notice or warning so editors don’t waste time drafting thoughtful improvements they’re not permitted to save. It’s especially confusing when the same article is featured in the newcomer task recommendations, which signals the opposite.

If certain categories (like military academies) are automatically but mindlessly swept into "contentious topic" status, maybe there needs to be a more granular approach - or some exception for clearly apolitical articles.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a page goes under extended confirmed restriction, then people who don't have EC will be entirely unable to edit it. But again, ARBECR is a bit weird; if a page doesn't entirely relate to a specific topic, it can be preferable for that article to not go under that restriction, and instead have the restriction imposed through things like reverting. I will add invisible comments in the history section that it is under ECR restriction, but again, I'm not confident the entire article should be under protection. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reply. It's no skin off my nose but it just feels like inefficient bureaucracy. Personally, if I were to define the policy with aim to better Wikipedia, it should only apply to sections that actually discuss contentious EC-barred topics like Indian military history. Not those that just talk about a school and nothing more. Regardless I will reach EC status eventually and maybe will raise it at WP:ARCA. Seems I need EC status first to have the luxury of even questioning the policy. I will leave this topic alone for the time being, and thanks again for your time and response. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it more efficient to take a granular look at a page than to simply say only confirmed users can edit it? You might not think the change that you want to make is controversial but pages become protected or semi-protected because there's a history of vandalism or disruptive edits. Someone actually has to apply for the protection. So the suggestion that we should have little exceptions seems to me to be the height of inefficiency. To get to 500 edits, you only have to make 10 edits a day for 50 days. You've only been on Wikipedia for a week and you've already complained twice and suggested improvements. Could you imagine if you went into a workplace and started complaining during the first week. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody will edit war on those particular articles and you only waste newcomers who are being encouraged by the auto system to edit it. My first edit was a newcomer task. So seems like a workplace that encourages newcomers and automatically recommends tasks for them to practice their skills. They take the time to improve something, but their effort is wasted if the manager forgets to flag certain tasks in advance as off-limits. If certain articles are off-limits to newcomers, they shouldn’t appear on the recommendation list; otherwise, newcomers may lose trust in the system. This particular article is now recommended to newcomers for practice, and it was just on my list for that purpose. That said, my comment wasn’t meant as an attack on anyone’s intelligence, but rather as a reflection on what seems like an unintended overly broad application of the policy. I appreciate the explanation about why protections exist and the effort required to manage them. I'll leave this alone for now and continue working toward 500 edits. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discovered, the battleground editors who have caused a great deal of trouble on this topic area will find almost every opportunity to get into edit wars. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If those editors were genuinely "battleground editors" rather than simple one off vandals, I'm not sure a 500-edit threshold would be enough to deter them. In any case, I wasn't familiar nor interested in Pakistan Military Academy beforehand however it just doesn't seem like an article to attract politically partisan disputes, though I may be mistaken. I only asked one question on whether the protection applied to the entire article and still haven't got clarity. Nonetheless I don't have a particular interest in it otherwise; it just came up through the newcomer task recommendations. Going forward, I'll probably avoid all South Asian topics in those newcomer tasks suggestions for simplicity's sake instead of figuring out the nuance on whether it applies to all or only part of the article. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECR is just one method to deter battleground editors. Put together, the entire arbitration process helps to deal with battlegrounding, and ECR is part of that. Most importantly, ECR provides justification for page protection. Page protection isn't supposed to be preventative, except in cases where ECR mandates it (for example, WP:PIA). Since ECR is essentially the only method to apply protection before any disruption happens, its intended to be fairly limited in application, since we would rather not lock editors out of pages. Sufficiently determined battleground and POV pushing editors do make their way through, but they are much smaller than the potential hundreds of less dedicated POV pushers, which makes it easier to deal with. (Also, battleground refers to WP:BATTLEGROUND in this case). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is BAPS apart of the Swaminarayan Sampraday?

about BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday

1. Legal and Organizational Split The 1935 Legal Ruling: The legal case in 1935 between the Acharya of Vadtal and Shastriji Maharaj made it clear that BAPS swamis had been excommunicated from the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. A local judge ruled in favor of Shastriji Maharaj, recognizing his organization as independent from the Vadtal diocese, and stated that BAPS had no right to use properties belonging to the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Independent Institution: BAPS operates as an independent religious organization with its own governance, hierarchy, and temples, distinct from the traditional Swaminarayan leadership. The excommunication and subsequent legal ruling solidified the independence of BAPS.

2. Theological and Doctrinal Divergence Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar: In BAPS, Gunatitanand Swami is worshipped as Akshar (the eternal, unchanging divine counterpart to Purushottam Swaminarayan). However, this concept of Akshar-Purushottam is not found in Swaminarayan’s original teachings and was introduced later, particularly by Shastriji Maharaj who claimed he was a manifest of god. Doctrinal Innovation: Swaminarayan emphasized strict adherence to Purushottam as the Supreme God. The Akshar-Purushottam doctrine, which became central to BAPS, was developed after Swaminarayan’s passing and represents a departure from the core teachings of the original Sampraday.

3. Leadership and Succession Dispute Shastriji Maharaj’s Claim as Manifestation of Akshar: Shastriji Maharaj (Yagnapurushdas) claimed to be the third manifestation of Akshar, a direct divine successor. This claim to divinity and the establishment of adoptive succession for leadership in BAPS contrasts with the traditional Swaminarayan Sampraday, where leadership is passed through the Dharmakul (Swaminarayan’s bloodline). Adoptive Succession: Swaminarayan Sampraday stresses that leadership should stay within the Dharmakul, the hereditary lineage of Swaminarayan. BAPS, on the other hand, adopted a system where Shastriji Maharaj’s nephews and later BAPS gurus were chosen as spiritual successors, which was not part of the traditional Swaminarayan system.

4. Contradiction of Swaminarayan’s Directives Swaminarayan's Command on Leadership: In his writings such as the Desh Vibhag and Satsangi Jeevan, Swaminarayan made it clear that leadership should be within the Dharmakul and that only those from this lineage should hold the position of Acharya. He also emphasized that tyagis (renunciants) should not take the place of the Acharya, and anyone outside the Dharmakul should not be made a guru. BAPS's adoption of a new succession system and the selection of leadership outside the Dharmakul violates this central directive. Desh Vibhag Lekh “….It is my command to all sadhus, brahmcharis, and all satsangis, that for the purpose of your kalyan you must obey and follow the two Acharyas of the Dharmakul, and obey their commands by thought, action and speech. Whoever turns elsewhere (rejecting the acharyas) will find that they will never find happiness in this world or the worlds beyond, and will experience immense distress…” Rejection of Acharyas: The Satsangi Jeevan and Shikshapatri explicitly state that followers must adhere to the commands of the two Acharyas and their wifes of the Dharmakul. BAPS’s rejection of the authority of the traditional Acharyas of the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses is a direct contradiction to Swaminarayan's guidance on obedience to these established leaders. They have no acharayas.

5. Distinct Organizational Identity Independent Religious Entity: BAPS is a distinct organization that not only has a separate leadership but also a different set of practices and interpretations of Swaminarayan’s teachings. The BAPS Guru Parampara and temples are not part of the original Swaminarayan Sampraday’s ecclesiastical structure. The formal split between BAPS and the traditional diocese of Vadtal and Ahmedabad was finalized both doctrinally and legally, marking it as a separate entity.

I believe that in a encyclopedia, BAPS is not part of the Swaminarayan Sampraday due to its court ordered separation, doctrinal innovations (particularly regarding the status of Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar) and Dungar Patel claim that he is a manifest of god, organizational independence (separation from the traditional Acharyas and the Dharmakul), and the legal excommunication that occurred. BAPS changes many core teachings of Swaminarayan, and is a separate religious organization that diverged from the traditional Swaminarayan Sampraday in both theological and organizational terms.

Is this a fair assessment to remove BAPS from the Swaminarayan Sampraday page? Touchedme123 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Touchedme123, whether, for en:Wikipedia purposes, "BAPS" (whatever that is) is a part of "the Swaminarayan Sampraday" (ditto) depends on what reliable sources say. If there's some kind of dispute between BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday, then it's particularly important that the article depends on reliable sources that are independent of both BAPS and the Swaminarayan Sampraday. You can discuss what the article should say in Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday, and I note that you have already started a discussion. There's no point attempting to start a discussion here; the teahouse is not for disputes over what articles should or shouldn't say. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] The fact that BAPS is mentioned 55 times in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article (as well has having its own Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha article) suggests that removing mention of it would be a major and probably controversial change to make, which others are likely to disagree with. Additionally, if BAPS was originally part of SS and was later split (in whatever way) from it, that fact and the prior history should still remain in the article.

Since this is a controversy about the article's content, the Teahouse is not the proper venue to discuss it. It should be raised in the article's Talk page – as you have already done – and debated there over an extended period (i.e. a week or more). If an agreed consensus is not reached, you may have to resort to dispute resolution by reading Wikipedia: Dispute resolution and following the routes described there. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2130.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself

I read Wikipedia:NOR, and maybe I'm missing something, but are you allowed to cite yourself? For example, if one were to do research on a topic and publish a paper, could that same person cite that? staglol ctbs
talk 01:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFCITE would be useful to review. It will still have to conform to all the content policies, and needs to avoid undue emphasis on your own work. This also means it must be consistent with WP:SELFPUB, meaning that it's not enough for you to publish it, you'll have to pass the bar of there being consensus that reliable, independent sources have identified you as a subject-matter expert in the specific topic. And even then, not as a source about living people.

I would certainly try and avoid it until you're far more experienced with community expectations for sourcing and where the line of promotional editing is generally drawn. What you'd like to do is possible, if certain conditions are met, but it's fraught with peril; it wouldn't take much of a whiff of self-promotion to end up with a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that's very helpful, thank you! staglol ctbs
talk 01:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A subject matter expert has often spent much of their time in an environment where being a subject matter expert confers automatic legitimacy and automatic trust. In such environments, the experts have already been vetted (by job interviews, proof of qualifications, etc).

But on Wikipedia, we are forced to act as if each expert who shows up and declares themselves might be a random crank with no qualifications - because there are so many people in the world who like to pose as experts, and we aren't set up to do job interviews or requests for documents. We have to use other means of determining whose information to publish, and that is what the pages recommended by CoffeeCrumbs are part of. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 'noteworthy' discussion of billionaire vs grassroots PACs

In the article 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina I included an endorsement of a candidate by a grassroots PAC, which was removed because the editor felt that the PAC did not meet Wikipedia endorsement standards of a noteworthy organization. I undid the revision twice, but invite other editors to review the discussion on the talk page, considering the purposes of various PACs, and whether editors ought to include only endorsements by PACs launched/controlled by the powerful and the wealthy. I think we could do that, but would miss important dynamics that various PACs represent in a given election year's political contest, dynamics that are important to presenting accurate content.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not summon people in this manner. WP:INAPPNOTE describes how to invite editors to a discussion and it's important that the message is neutral. Framing it as a fight against "the PACs launched/controlled by the powerful and the wealthy" that you need assistance with is not a proper method. Nor was reverting a second time.

If you'd like to propose a change to a guideline, then you should go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Based on WP:ENDORSE, the removal of the endorsement was the correct move. Whether or not that's good on an ethical level or not, well, that's not really our jurisdiction here. We merely record the knowledge as found in society, we don't WP:RGW. And that frequently means that yes, people or entities that are powerful, rich, and/or connected may have an easier time being WP:NOTABLE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable secondary sources that cover the endorsement, then it's likely a noteworthy endorsement. If you have to rely on a primary source, such as a Facebook photo from the organisation, then it is not a noteworthy endorsement. Wikipedia is more interested in what reliable sources say, than what organisations say about themself. Nil🥝 03:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review h11qq11

Please review Gravitational water 2550 69 11hne (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual for a topic like this not to have coverage already. Is it related to Soil_mechanics#Soil_classification or Seepage? I have a concern it is a term with no significance in science or engineering that is used by a particular textbook, but an expert opinion is needed. Are there more sources? Commander Keane (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing enough varied websearch hits to suggest that it is a recognised term; but the term is seemingly also used to refer to water pulled by gravity (only) through a filter for drinking purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, the links I gave were engineering orientated whereas I think gravitational water is a sciencey thing, perhaps for agricultural understanding. Soil_moisture#Moisture_level_concepts mentions the term. I found that article through the {{Soil science topics}} template which should be added to Gravitational water.

Maybe the current article is trying to describe soil moisture levels, and should called that? See Wikipedia:Summary style; the parent section in Soil moisture can link to a more in-depth article.

My meagre understanding is that soil gets saturated, and after 24-48 hours is said to be at field capacity (the excess removed was gravitational water). Soil can have hygroscopic, capillary and gravitational water within it. This is also related to Pore space in soil.

I would say you have stumbled upon an underdeveloped topic 2550 69 11hne :-). Commander Keane (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😮 2550 69 11hne (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need it to be marked as reviewed because it is an important science topic.2550 69 11hne (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2550 69 11hne That isn't how Wikipedia works. New articles are reviewed by the New Pages Patrol in due course - there are thousands of new articles awaiting review and only a small number of volunteer Patrollers. qcne (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved and modified the article. Commander Keane (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info

So I was making an article which already has a counterpart in French, but some of the info is unverified. There are no public records that I could find. If I were to email the Regiment (the article in on the 152nd Infantry Regiment) how would I cite that? Vestrix (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, email exchanges or interviews that you yourself conduct with an article subject are not acceptable sources. The policy on WP:original research requires that all Wikipedia text can be verified by reliable, published sources. In theory, if you convinced an article subject to self-publish said information, on say, a website they own, then it would be acceptable for certain statements but not considered universally reliable (see WP:ABOUTSELF).

Your best bet is to find reliable secondary sources, or otherwise remove the unverified text. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Vestrix (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vestrix! One of the key policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, meaning that readers should be able, with enough resources, to double-check information on Wikipedia by themselves. If the regiment replies to you by email, you cannot cite that directly, as other people will not be able to access the email to verify. What you can do instead is ask the regiment, in your email, to publish the relevant information (on their website, or through some other outlet whose provenance can be verified), and cite that instead. I also invite you to read how to handle non-independent sources (which the regiment itself would be in the context of its own article) and primary sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Vestrix (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, they will direct you to, or supply you with, material that you can cite. So, if you email them, suggest you might ask them for or to point you to sources and material, as opposed to asking questions for them to answer. (But there are quite a few hits when you google "152e régiment d'infanterie" particularly Google Books - they may only be mentions but they might allow you to verify some facts.) MmeMaigret (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the above answers are correct, you could email the regiment and ask if they know of any sources that you can cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a great answer – they might know of secondary sources about their history that could be better suited for the article than an official statement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veefin Group

Hello, I am looking for help. One of my article is rejected thrice & this time there are no comments for improvement. Draft:Veefin Group. What is the next step? -- 36Flames (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask the same thing in more than one forum. You have also opened this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, which is a more appropriate location. Meters (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will wait for revert there. I tried live chat however, there was no response. No worries, lets wait for help desk & next time I will take care of it. Thanks. 36Flames (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @36Flames, and welcome to the Teahouse. A little note about language: I am aware that "revert" is used in Indian English to mean "reply to a message", but that use is not widely understood in the rest of the Anglosphere, and furthermore, in Wikipedia "revert" has a specific meaning: to undo an edit. I suggest, for clarity, that you avoid the word in the sense of "reply" when you're posting on Wikipedia! ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert" isn't just used in Indian English. It's commonly used in other countries, esp. by lawyers and civil servants. The issue with his sentence is revert, as in to reply, is a verb, not a noun, eg. Are you in a position to revert? I will revert re your query on Monday. (But then thrice has gone well out of fashion too.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MmeMaigret for explaining them in details. 36Flames (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine, I was asking for help and you only understand "revert" and that was on my reply to Meters which I was acknowledging. 36Flames (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@36Flames The reviewer doesn't have to leave you specific comments - the decline notice explains that the issue is still that your subject doesn't meet the criteria for WP notability. You need at least two sources that discuss the subject in detail in independent (ie not connected with the subject) reliable, secondary sources. You don't seem to even have one source that discusses the subject in detail.

Examples: Here's an article about Nathaniel Levi that discusses him in detail - this is an example significant coverage.

Here's an article about a party that Levi threw - the article only discusses him in passing, it's really about the party and talks about other people. It's long enough to meet the criteria but it doesn't tell you anything about Levi - this isn't significant coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MmeMaigret, the example you are referring to Nathaniel Levi is related to Biography. Can you please send an example of organisation? as I am not able to relate it. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@36Flames

Here are three examples:

MmeMaigret (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mmemaigret for the examples. It really helps. Also, there were more discussions on WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk I got to know about notability. I did cross check with Veefin Group article as well. To have a glance, you can read nearby content around table. Closing this thread. -- 36Flames (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at most of the sources in your draft, but I suggest you see the WP:CORPTRIV guideline. Sources such as these[example of a non-SIGCOV source from a draft], which only report on e.g., an accquisition and nothing else, are not considered significant coverage and thus do not contribute to notability. OutsideNormality (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OutsideNormality, I have read WP:CORPTRIV as guideline. Can you share a good example of significant coverage? I have checked many other organisation articles, however, not able to get one. Acquisition is just a point or a statement which I have mentioned as it was 100% acquired. Thehindubusinessline.com domain is a perennial source & it has journalist involved so it is actual & factual fact. -- 36Flames (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage means they are intentionally telling a detailed story about the history of the company - not just mentioning it because some event happened. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TooManyFingers. -- 36Flames (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Great explanation! MmeMaigret (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

I want to know that does global voices, is reliable source or not. 獅眠洞 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞 It's evidently not a reliable source. They state We have hundreds of volunteer writers (like Wikipedia) and I couldn't find any mention of editorial oversight. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help publishing my sandbox article (Sebastian Brameshuber)

Hi! I have written an article draft about Austrian filmmaker Sebastian Brameshuber in my user sandbox. Could someone please move it to the main namespace? Here is the link: User:Sbrameshuber/sandbox. Thank you very much! Sbrameshuber (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sbrameshuber. The vast majority of your content has no in-line citations. In a biography, every biographic statement requires an in-line citation to a reliable source. qcne (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbrameshuber Judging by your username, this is an attempt at autobiography. As that link explains, this is very strongly discouraged here and almost always fails. You must use the WP:Articles for creation process and be aware of the policy on biographies of living people summarised by Qcne. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined twice, advice please

Hello, I am writing an article about Greater Manchester's oldest pub. For some time the title had been claimed by The Wellington, however this building was demolished and rebuilt and also didn't operate as a pub until 19th Century. The article is to help build the narrative that The Olde Boars Head, backed by plenty of evidence and references is actually Greater Manchester's Oldest pub.

The feedback is that there isn't enough 3rd party references. There are currently 22 references 3rd party societies, newspapers and bloggers.

Any advice on what I could add to help have the article accepted would be really helpful.

Thank you so much in advance.

Draft:The Olde Boars Head Public House - Wikipedia

Many thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft- which is the best way to obtain feedback. That said, it would be nice if Rambley elaborated on their decline- as the subject seems notable as a formally designated historic structure. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a grade II* listed building, cited as such to English Heritage, is not shown to be notable is laughable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is notable, however there are concerns about tone and LLM use. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. It is much appreciated. I have removed any words and phrases which could be seen as promotional. My hopes is that the article can provided an informative view on a building of importance. Do you believe that the reference and source are all acceptable and should just concentrate on the tone. Is it worth writing the whole article again? Many thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooredoor1986 I'm not sure it needs a full re-write if you address the concerns of the reviewers. However, an additional point is that your WP:LEAD is much too long (see that link). It should just summarise the main text, which is where most of the information and sources should be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, thanks so much for the advice, totally get what you mean. I will make the recommended changes. Really appreciate it. Thanks Mooredoor1986 (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I amended all your recommendation including removing any promotional wording or tone, removed red links 'see more' section, rewrote all copy so nothing written influenced by AI. Hopefully it all reads better. Rally appreciate your recommendations and support. Many thanks Chris Mooredoor1986 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

Just a question, is the New York Times mostly reliable or is it just dependent on the article they made on the subject? rave (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_New_York_Times. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix a double redirect?

(from link redirect page to new main article)

Hello Teahouse folks! I have a question, I have created a draft/an article named as Thick and Thin (LANY song) (a single from LANY sophomore album 'Malibu night') and I decided move it to the mainspace/publish it as article (I'm sorry) since it stuck in AfC, and when I search it using Google search and Wikipedia search bar, it redirect to the album instead the single (the article that I had created). Turns out there is a redirect page that exist with the same name. I don't know how to fix that, so out of curiosity, I try edit it by change the #Redirect Malibu Nights to #Redirect Thick and Thin (LANY song) and when I publish it, it redirect to the same page, keep looping into the redirect page, so I have no options but to undo both. How to fix this because I want to know/learn how to fix it since I'm planning to do articles for singles from the Malibu Nights, in which i found all the singles that doesn't have their own article yet, all redirect into the album. Im sorry if my grammar is bad. DuskSky2018 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DuskSky2018, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When a draft is accepted through AFC, the reviewer will handle any issues with title, disambiguation, redirects.

If you choose to move it yourself, you have to handle those; but moving over a redirect is something that ordinary users cannot do in many cases. In that case you should request it be moved at WP:Requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see, thank you and i want to ask that, if an article have move to mainspace, how to clean/delete the draft? DuskSky2018 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why temporary accounts?

it has been IP addresses, now temporary accounts, why is this happening for me ~2025-31180-06 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor. Does Wikipedia:Temporary accounts answer your question?

You are more than welcome to create a free Wikipedia account by following the process at Special:CreateAccount. qcne (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: it should increase the protection of your privacy; more info here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Temporary_accounts_rollout. Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It actually puts a cookie on your device, allowing tracking of all of the networks you view Wikipedia from over 90 days. You must delete the cookie before changing networks, or provide a history of when you go to the coffee shop for break. Overall, much less safe. It's similar to Facebooks tracking cookies. ~2025-31252-16 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31252-16 not all cookies are for spying on you. The cookie saved on your device is simply there so that your device can be identified by the same string of digits regardless of whether you are at home or in a cafe. Previously, if you edited Wikipedia on the same device at home and at a cafe, you would have been identified by the two places' different IP addresses, which would have made it easier to track your rough location. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to summarize by saying that this cookie allows Wikipedia to know it's still you, while preventing malicious people from harvesting your location by checking your Wikipedia habits? Clearly, TooManyFingers (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page notice

On some pages, like here on the teahouse or on AlphaBetaGamma's (no need for ping) user page. How would I make one for my user page? dot.py 16:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is Template:Notice what you're looking for? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dot.py. I guess you want an edit notice which appears at top of the page when it's edited. Template:Notice is not that. AlphaBetaGamma uses User:AlphaBetaGamma/Editnotice. See Wikipedia:Editnotice for general help, or just try making a page at User:Dot.py/Editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that was what they were talking about. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is what I wanted. Sorry I wasn’t able to respond as I was in class, and also I only just realised that I accidentally omitted the explanation for what I was looking for. dot.py 20:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

man of the match parameter in the football infobox

I was editing the UEFA Futsal Euro 2026 page and I wanted to add the motm (man of the match) parameter in the football box for the tournament. However, nothing shows up when you put a name in the parameter. Is there any way of fixing this? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006 That's because the article uses {{Infobox international football competition}}, which doesn't have that parameter. The template you linked does have it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006: The article also uses {{Football box}} later like in UEFA Futsal Euro 2026#Group A. However, there have been no matches yet so I don't know why you want man of the match to appear now. Anyway, it appears that motm is only supported by {{Football box collapsible}} and not {{Football box}} which claims to support it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add the motm parameter in the football box? I want the parameter for the future when the tournament starts. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ILoveSport2006. Template:Football box is protected, so only authorised editors can edit it. I suggest that you make your suggestion at Template Talk:Football box. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Roman

Ric Roman, born Earl Breitbard, was the brother of DJ William B. Williams. Can somebody add that to his bio? I am reluctant to add a biography or family section to attempt this. (Their father owned a department store using the family name-Breitbard.)

Thank you. Ric Roman Cleftonefan (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that confirms it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP name

TBJZL

Does it make sense to address this person as 'Brown' throughout the article when Tobi or TBJZL are much more common ways to refer him in the media. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to him as Brown or TBJZL. If you do refer to him as TBJZL, I would refer to him as Brown until he adopts the name, eg Brown was born on X at Y. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SURNAME has your answer here. For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally [...] use the legal surname. If they use their mononym or pseudonym exclusively, then use that name.

If he often uses his legal name professionally, then use 'Brown.' If he exclusively goes by his pseudonym, then use that.

Also, the "Tobi" in quotation marks should be removed as per MOS:HYPOCORISM but I'll go ahead and do that while I'm looking at the article. Athanelar (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Dandy

Please help me alter my article to conform to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you to whoever changed the title to Fine Dandy (horse). I appreciate this as I was worried about the duplication. I’m stunned at this review as the reviewer has made a massive error. I have never used AI. I don’t know how to use ChatGPT and don’t know what a large language model is. From what I’ve read in newspapers AI can’t be trusted. Every reference I’ve given in this article is genuine and correct, the result of painstaking research through old newspapers. The reviewer’s comment that “The references seem to be made up” is ridiculous. I’m a retired academic who has written books and many publications in journals and have also been a reviewer of articles submitted to journals. When I showed my wife the reviewer’s comments she couldn’t stop laughing. She’s a linguist and now teases me that “I write like a large language model” and warns me to stop making up references. She’s still laughing as I write this.

When I review an academic paper I try to be helpful, referring to specific parts of the text and pointing out errors or omissions. It would be really helpful if the reviewer or other experienced editors could pinpoint specific parts of the text that are problematic such as “sentence X has characteristic Y which transgresses Wiki’s policy and needs to be omitted or modified”. I would really like to be told which of my statements are vague and speculative and which are hallucinations (plausible sounding but false information). It’s quite possible that I am guilty of Essay-like writing but I’d like these aspects to be identified for me. However it’s logically impossible for me to Close Paraphrase sources that don’t exist.

No form of AI has been used to write this article. The newspaper references are all genuine. In the late 1950’s, early 1960’s horse racing was very popular in Australia and dominated the Sunday Sports Section. Rugby League was a few pages further back unless it was a Final or Grand Final. The Sydney Morning Herald and the Age (in Melbourne) were the leading reporters on horse racing. They are the best sources to use to get an accurate picture of a race. The reviewer tells me that “The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them…”. This is what I have done.

Please help me alter the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. Bg1970 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Fine and Dandy (horse). Nil🥝 00:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earth605 (who declined the draft) may wish to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a spot check of some of the references on https://trove.nla.gov.au/ show that they do exist. It may be helpful to reviewers to include URLs to the articles (along with headline/titles), but it's not a requirement (as offline sources are still sources), and not something that a Draft should be declined for. If the reviewer is able to comment which references they think are non-existent that would be useful.

Racehorses (and WP:NSPORT in general) is not an area I'm familiar with, but a quick search on Trove indicates the subject would easily pass WP:GNG due to the abundance of significant coverage available. Nil🥝 00:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you put the doi of the papers and the links where you find the newspapers. Simply putting a name and a date doesn't mean anything. Also, the ISBN must be linked to prove the references are real when it comes to books. Just putting Sun Herald, date and a page doesn't help with the never-ending "Wikipedia ain't reliable, folks!" movement. AI likes to make up references too and I once approved an AI draft that got deleted on the basis of made-up references (Steering links). Personal experience. Sorry for the inconvenience. Earth605^talk 06:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bg1970:

Most importantly: I think you need to revise the [sections] into shorter narratives. They're very long and filled with puffery.
Also please:

convert the inline textual references (eg "SMH, 13 April 1963: 15") into actual inline citations (with titles); and
fix the inline citations that you have inserted, by turning them into full citations. (Also write out SMH in full.)

MmeMaigret (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bg1970 Another point. I get the impression that you've only cited the source at the end of each paragraph. This is very common in academic writing but, on WP, we need a citation for each fact (which sometimes means a citation for sentence fragments). Because people can and will amend your text, they need to now which facts are supported by which citations. So that when they rewrite sentences, reformat paragraphs or restructure articles, the citations do not get separated from the citations.

tl;dr So if a citation at the end of a paragraph supports each sentence in the paragraph, can you please put (ie reuse) the citation at the end of every sentence in the paragraph not just at the end of the paragraph. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmemaigret I thought that was only for WP:BLPs? WP:CITETYPE allows for end-of-paragraph citations. Nil🥝 05:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil NZ I shouldn't have said "need" but the problem was there was a mix - most paras had inline paragraph citations but some paras had inline sentence citations (and those didn't always have citations for every sentence). MmeMaigret (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bg1970, How are you accessing this newspaper page information? For example, I am looking at section § 1958 Breeders Plate, 5f of your Draft, where citation #4 says, Sun Herald, 5 Oct. 1958: 34. Are you using the Sydney Morning Herald Archives search? When I do, I get this result, from which we can construct the following citation:

<ref>{{cite newspaper |author=<!--staff writers; no byline--> |date=5 October 1958 |title=Front Cover's Bold Display : Shock for Stable in Plate Win |newspaper=[[The Sun-Herald]] |location=[[North Sydney]] |issn=1323-1987 |page=34 |url=https://smharchives.smedia.com.au/Olive/APA/freesearch/?action=search&text=5_October_1958#panel=search&search=6 |oclc=67710301 |quote=Front Cover upset his stable's bets as most punter's when he beat stablemate Fine and Dandy, in yesterday's Breeders' Plate at Randwick.}}</ref>

You could style your citations like that. Only one citation for the Sun-Herald needs to include the unchanging information in every citation (location, issn, etc.) others can skip those, but you should repeat the full newspaper name in every citation, even though it repeats. Including the article title and date are usually basic, so should be in every citation. So is author name, if known; if not, adding  shows that you didn't forget. The quotation is not required, but may be helpful for WP:Verifiability; if you are already looking at the page with the quotation and it doesn't cost you extra to include it, then why not. Here is an abbreviated version of that citation, with minimal required info:

<ref>{{cite newspaper |author=Author Name (if known; otherwise:<!--staff writers; no byline-->) |date=dd Month YYYY |title=Title of the Article |newspaper=[[The Sun-Herald]] |page=1234 |url=smharchives url here</ref>}}

Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft approved. Fine and Dandy (horse). Commander Keane (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Hello! I am looking to write an article about the Sunset Fire in Idaho this year. However, searching "Sunset Fire" ends up as a redirect to the January 2025 Southern California wildfires page, where there was a small wildfire named the Sunset Fire. While I would move the redirect to have a (2025) tag at the end and make the main page a disambiguation page, I am unsure whether I should make the current redirect include (California) in the title and the article I will create include (Idaho) in the title or if there are other conventions I should follow. Consulting WP:WILDFIRE-NAME did not give me any information. If you cannot answer my question, if possible, could you point to a page that would help? Please ping when responding, and thank you, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Wind and Fire Hello! I would recommend a title like Sunset Fire (Idaho) and probably a "... redirects here. For..." hatnote. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramachandra Kripalu

It Says "this article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. (October 2025)" I read the article of layout guidelines but didn't understood what was wrong with the article So I have decided to take help in the teahouse Please, If you can help me regarding how can I reorganise the article Gamerzer (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If after thoroughly reviewing the article, you don't find anything wrong, you might wanna post a message on the talk page inquiring about if the tag should be removed. Earth605^talk 06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 sources are mentioned as references here, and neither of them are reliable. Should this article be marked for AfD? @Earth605 Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That tag was originally placed in August 2020. The article has been massively rewritten since, then; you can just remove the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idk how to use this

have you ever thought you knew stuff then poof its gone LOVEDOGS1234567890 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm assuming you're having trouble learning how to edit around here? "The Wikipedia Adventure" is a relatively short game you could play to understand how to do so. If you have any further questions, kindly reply back. Thank you. randomdude121 03:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do edits by temporary accounts can be edited by registered accounts?

im just asking this question because why? ~2025-31290-55 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31290-55 Edits made by any user can be reverted, undone or changed when someone else edits the same article. Ultraodan (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix specific Info box errors?

I noticed on many articles like Old Bar, New South Wales and Wallabi Point, New South Wales - there are these errors saying "LUA ERROR in module..." within their infobox. I would like to help fix it but have no idea where to start. Could someone please explain what causes these Lua errors and how editors can fix them? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one for Wallabi Point was a typo - merely a missing space in two places. If you examine my recent edit you'll see exactly where the extra space needs to go. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A typo? After checking both pages just now - the errors seem to all have dissapeared. I noticed you edited and fixed Wallabi Point article. Thank you. But the Old Bar article seems to be also simultaneously fixed too just now despite nobody had edited it for 2 years. Could you explain how that article got fixed just now? 😕 JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I can do long-distance magic unintentionally and without knowing.

OR

2. Somebody else fixed it. 😁 TooManyFingers (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it was you who fixed it. It seems inputting one proper formatting (needs a space afterward) fixed not just that article but also automatically fixed the other closely related articles. I can learn by seeing others do it first. If I see another Lua error, I am just going to try that proper formatting and see if I can make the same "magic" happen - or you could just explain it so I don’t have to guess and have a better chance of understanding next time. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I thought you had seen it already.

I changed this: name=gnbsuburbPSC/>

to this: name=gnbsuburbPSC />

If I also accidentally fixed a different page, I have no clue how that happened. But a good result is a good result, regardless. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JaredMcKenzie: Lately, people have been converting {{Infobox Australian place}} into a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}} and have been dealing with a number of errors that have popped up in the process (see Template talk:Infobox Australian place). It's possible that this was the result of an error that just happened to be fixed by them while TooManyFingers was attempting to deal with it. (If the message was "Lua error in Module:PopulationFromWikidata ...", Template talk:Infobox Australian place#Williams Landing may explain things.) Deor (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of reliable sources

Hi everybody,

I am creating my first page for a new novel series and the issue is lack of sources... any sources. This is a self published author they started on REDDIT and people then did live narrations in their own YouTube channels but when the author turned them into a book series he had them taken down. Now the only sources I can find are through Audible and Amazon kindle. I used the website/page for his Amazon kindle page for the series as the only source and the page was denied due to "not being adequately supported by reliable sources".

His books have ISBNs, but there is not one created for the series just for each individual book and right now I am creating the main page for the series.

How can I get a reliable source or get WIKI to allow the page to get published with the lack of other sources?

Thank you for any helps and advice. Zerfear (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. Incidentally, anything else written by the author wouldn't be an acceptable source either. For a series of novels, you'd need reviews or critical analyses of the series. or its individual books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without WP:GNG sources, an article will not be accepted. Such sources may or may not appear at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside – anyone can obtain a 'block' of ISBNs (International Standard Book Numbers) from the issuing Agency, usually by paying a modest fee. How they then assign them to their books is entirely up to them, and it is not uncommon for some of the issued numbers never to be used: sometimes the Agency (The International ISBN Agency) will assign an ISBN to a book that its publisher (usually a private individual or very small concern) did not give one to. ISBNs are not compulsory, but they make selling a book very much easier.

It would not be usual to assign an ISBN to a series of books, unless it was a publication as a 'boxed set' or something similar. International Standard Series Numbers (ISSNs) are applied to periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals, comics etc.). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zerfear, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wkipedia.

I'm afraid you're having a common experience for people who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works.

To use a housebuilding analogy: imagine somebody saying "I'm quite good at carpentry, and I know what a house looks like, so I'm going to start building a house". Unfortunately, what they don't know is rather a lot of things that are crucial to building a house but don't actually appear in the finished product, like surveying, structural engineering, requirements for legal permits etc. So if they get something built, they probably won't even understand the comments they get from builders and inspectors.

The situation here is that you do not yet (or, not until you read the answers above) have any idea of the requirements that Wikipedia puts on the subject of articles - requirements we call notability, but mostly mean "enough has been reliably published about this subject to base an article on" - remembering also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

You're asking the right question about sources: but (like surveying the plot to make sure it's suitable to build on) your very first activity in creating an article, long before creating a draft or writing a single word, should be finding suitable sources. Because if you cannot find suitable sources (see WP:42) then the subject is not notable, and doing anything further on such an article would be a waste of your time.

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) 11:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a word is missing in an area that I don't have an account.

This is the paragraph below:

Hava Mehutan, 84, is both an internationally acclaimed artist and a passionate Zionist. She claims to have been attracted to art since infancy. It took another 20 for her to embrace Zionism, leave her comfortable life in the US city of Philadelphia behind, and move to British Mandate Palestine in early 1946, soon after the end of World War II.

I believe "years" should come after "20". I saw this Woman's Mike5one7 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mike5one7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Reading the paragraph you have quoted above, I think you're right. But what article are you talking about? We don't have an article Hava Mehutan (that's why that link appears in red) and while she is mentioned in Dizengoff Prize and Israeli ceramics, neither of them contains the paragraph you quote.

For future reference, if you see an improvement that you think can be made in an article, but are unable or unwilling to make the change yourself, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest it. ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike5one7 The only Wikipedia page on that artist is in Hebrew חוה מחותן - ויקיפדיה| here at this link. As I don't speak Hebrew, I don't know whether that is where you saw the paragraph and you translated it. If you are interested in her, you might attempt to WP:TRANSLATE that article into English, assuming that there are enough reliable sources to show notability as we define that here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, accounts are global and you should be able to edit in other-language areas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just learning to use this. I do wish to be of some help if I can. I do donate money to Wikipedia when I can, but I am on Social Security, my funds are limited. ~2025-31407-86 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; but please don't feel obligated to donate if funds are tight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the paragraph in question is from a JPost article. @Mike5one7, if it's not hosted on Wikipedia, then it's not something we can assist with here. Thanks, Nil🥝 11:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm logged in on this area of Wikipedia but the page I found a possible error says I'm not. Man, I need to do this on my desktop computer, my phone is a problem doing this. I do apologize for wasting your time.

Mike Mike5one7 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not logged on when you think you should be, reloading the page often fixes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Airplanes (song)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Airplanes (song) § An entire section was removed. Was that a valid action?. If using {{pls}} is not appropriate for Teahouse, I'm sorry and please let me know if it was wrong to do that. CheckNineEight (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CheckNineEight. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page was a good move: even better would have been to ping @Nikkimaria, the editor who removed it. (I've pinged them here, so they'll see this discussion)

Resolving disagreements on Wikipedia begins with engaging with the other editors(s), and trying to reach consensus. If you collectively are unable to do so, dispute resolution lays out other things to try, including some ways of inviting others to join the discussion.

I don't think it's wrong to come here and invite others to join the discussion; but I don't think it's helpful at this stage, and it rather suggests something like "I don't think I will be able to convince the other editor on my own, so I'd better get some other people to weigh in". (I'm not saying that that is what you intended, but that's how it comes across to me). ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that that is what you intended, but that's how it comes across to me

The {{pls}} template was not appropriate, got it! I was more wondering how to decide when something is "poorly sourced", and whether the deletion of the section was "illegal" or not, that's why I didn't even think to ping Nikkimaria (I don't think I can argue about that particular decision). CheckNineEight (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General questions like that don't usually get useful answers, @CheckNineEight. You can look at reliable sources and WP:42 for overviews, but in many many cases it will depend on the particular instance. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and language match

Draft:Shihan_Igor_Soloshenko

Hi dear team, I would like to create and add the article about karate master - Shihan Igor Soloshenko. Would grateful when you can educate me on sources I use and the language. The article is in English, however the sources are in Ukrainian language as the master has started practice in Ukraine. Iaroslav Dyshkant (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:Referencing for beginners is what you seek? Sources in languages other than English are acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does require sources that are reliable; "reliable" is explained at WP:RS. But the reliable sources can be in Ukrainian, or other languages. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iaroslav Dyshkant. I see you are just starting out, so I have added a Welcome message to your Talk page. Creating a new article at Wikipedia is not easy, but all of the most important points are covered in Wikipedia:Your first article. I urge you to go through that page carefully; you will find that all the most common issues about creating a page are addressed there. Questions about citing sources, including foreign sources, are covered there briefly in section § Citing sources, with links to more detailed information. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Reliability

Is a Google Scholar profile considered a reliable source? I've only begun looking for sources for an author by the name Rob Larson (author of Bleakonomics), so far I've only found enough to make a stub level article. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 15:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SenatorLEVI. A "profile", wherever hosted, is usually compiled by the subject or their associates, and so is not an independent source. It can therefore be used for the limited purposes of a self-published source but does not contribute to establishing notability.

In my opinion "only enough to make a stub level" indicates a misunderstanding. If a subject meets the criteria for notability, then an article is possible; if not, then an article is not possible, even as a stub.

I wonder why anybody would create a stub in 2025? If you've collected enough sources, you've done the hard work. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that clears up somethings. I did not mention that it was simply for the introduction. I will of course find other sources to expand on the person's work. SenatorLEVI 09:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable is not the same as being well-known or being famous, but it is related.

If I told you I was a well-known scientist, and I tried to prove how well known I was by just showing you my identification, that would be missing the point. Being well-known means "... to a large number of unrelated people", not just well-known to myself.

Notability works in a fairly similar way. Showing someone's ID doesn't really help. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The identification is only for the person's profile. I will find and use other sources to make the article and add actual material to it. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 09:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for guidance on my draft

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get some friendly advice about my draft article for Klippa. It was declined on 25 September 2025 because the sources supposedly didn’t show that the company is notable enough for Wikipedia.

Since then, I’ve gone through it carefully to make sure it only uses independent, reliable, secondary sources (none created or influenced by us), and that it’s written in a neutral tone without any promotional language. I’ve tried to use only articles where the company is discussed in some depth, rather than quick mentions or standard announcements.

Even after those changes, it hasn’t been reviewed again, and I honestly don’t understand why it keeps getting rejected. I want to make sure I’m following Wikipedia’s standards for companies, but I’m struggling to tell if my sources really meet the notability requirements.

Could anyone here take a quick look and let me know whether the sources in the current draft look strong enough, or point me in the right direction for fixing what’s wrong?

I’d be really grateful for any guidance. I want to get this right, and I appreciate the help from more experienced editors here. Borisandre (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted your company logo; are you aware that by uploading it to Commons you have released it for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution? This would include competitors. You are also claiming that you personally created it and personally hold the copyright to it. If those things are not the case, you should return to Commons and work with the editors there to adjust that information. As the logo is just text, it can probably remain on Commons once the description is accurate(if you really want to release it for use by anyone).

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubimtted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You have resubmitted it and it is pending- that's the typical way to get feedback. However, you have just summarized the offerings and routine business activities of your company; this does not establish that your company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. You need to summarize significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond just telling what your company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. That the company was acquired, received funding, and has employees are not significant in terms of notability. Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

Keep in mind that the vast majority of companies do not actually merit articles- just as most humans do not. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Frankly, you aren't likely to succeed at what you are trying to do, at least with what you have so far. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borisandre, see above; in particular, this part: "are you aware that by uploading it to Commons you have released it for use by anyone for any purpose... includ[ing] competitors" ? If you would like to retract this, you can request deletion of your company logo, otherwise anybody on the internet may use it, even make modified copies of it, make money off it, etc. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to download from Wikisources

Hi! Due to the new Wikipedia anti AI-scrapping mechanism I can't download any e-book files from the Wikisources, it either shows me a notice screen that it's checking whether I'm a human, or timeout notice, or just freezes. Samsung mobile on Android 13, tried three various browsers with both mobile and desktop settings - nothing. Is there any way on my side of the screen to solve this issue? ~2025-31427-01 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I used a Samsung mobile to download a file from Wikisource, and it worked fine. My version of Android is a bit later, but I don't think (?) that that should matter for this.

I wonder what else could be different between our situations. (I used Firefox in its beta version; I'll go try some other browser now.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Samsung browser ("Internet"). On it, I'm not logged in. I was still allowed to download a file with no problems. (But my IP address would be the same, so maybe I got exempted from the check.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need a template to store all of my badges earned in The Wikipedia Adventure on my user page

i tried the table template but it didn't work DiamondCat22 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondCat22, Did you try this one: {{Userbox table userbox}}? If not, try it; if so, what went wrong? Describe your problem, or link to a page where it broke. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do i find pages to edit?

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, And yet i feel like i cannot find a place to edit,I would like to know if there was anyway to know that areas of an article need to be edited on your own. (In a Nutshell : I´m asking for a guide of how to tell which parts of an page to edit) - TheHeartAcoustic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way to find pages to edit are to seek out pages with maintenance tags or other issues. See WP:MAINTENANCE for info and Special:SpecialPages#Maintenance reports for pages with known issues. A guide for how to tell what needs editing might be Help:Editing. — Rtrb (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Find any page about something that interests you.

- While reading, if you find something that needs improving, go ahead!

- If it's something that you don't know how to fix, look in the Help or the Manual of Style, or ask at places like this. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheHeartAcoustic, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for wanting to improve existing articles, rather than plunging straight into trying to create a new article! We need people to be willing to do that.

Generally I would answer that by asking, "Well, what on the page could be improved?"; but I guess you haven't been here long enough to answer that.

Two pointers that might help you:

The task center talks about kinds of editing you might do, rather than pointing out where in an article to do them.
People often tag articles with templates like {{citation needed}} or {{copy edit}} in particular places in the article. If you go to Category:Clean-up categories, you can drill down to a particular month and a particular kind of problem tag, for example Category:Articles with weasel words from October 2014 or Category:Articles lacking sources from May 2024, and go from there to the tagged articles.

ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtrb @TooManyFingers, Thank you all for the tips! I´ll get to looking after lunch and during my Study Period! Juno, (IT/THEY) Juno, (IT/THEY) 17:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double Signature, Sorry. Juno, (IT/THEY) 18:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hazbin Hotel Fan Songs

Why do we not have a page for fan songs for Hazbin Hotel, specificly Upside Down. We need to make them. ~2025-31457-11 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make that page, we'd need to see which reporters have written major articles about the songs, or major articles about Hazbin Hotel where a big chunk of the article is about the songs. AND the articles have to be ones that were published by an organization that has a paid editor who fact-checks and approves every article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template for user-specific stats

Hello. I want to make an automatically changing service award topicon template, however to do this, I would need a template that can automatically check someone's edits and days registered (like what TM:NUMBEROF does but user-specific). Is there any template that can do this? dot.py (alt) 22:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about song pages

I saw some song pages, and I wondered how many views a song needs to have in order to qualify for a page. this is for future reference. Cakey-P (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cakey-P. The views that a song has doesn't immediately state whether it should have an article, but rather if it is notable or not. I would suggest checking WP:NSONG to tell if the song is notable. dot.py (alt) 22:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cakey-P: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability standards for songs can be found at WP:NSONG--note that the number of "views" it gets is essentially irrelevant to these standards. Has it won major awards? In anybody independent of the artist or their label or their management writing about the song (on its own, and not simply in the context of the artist or an album on which it appears)? Has it appeared on any major charts? Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and without proper references to independent reliable sources, there isn't really anything upon which we can base an encyclopedia article, number of views notwithstanding. Hope this helps. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 22:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i was just wondering because I wanted to add some pepoyo songs and I was wondering the rules Cakey-P (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(more specifically, rakuraku anrakushi as it has 17 million+ views on youtube and warranted the creation of an animation meme) Cakey-P (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cakey-P: Yes, I see that there seems to be quite a following, but that alone doesn't necessarily make a subject notable (in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term) enough to qualify for an article here. I did just a bit of poking around, and in my initial searches, I didn't find any great sourcing for a potential article on Rakuraku Anrakushi in particular or on Pepoyo in general.

Speaking more generally, creating a new article is actually one of the hardest tasks to do on Wikipedia, and one which has frustrated many a new editor, because more often than not they try to write it WP:BACKWARDS--they write a bunch of stuff then try to find the sources for it, rather than starting with good sources (assuming they even exist) and building the article from there. I'm not trying to be discouraging here, but for newer editors I strongly recommend hanging around for a while, reading up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures, doing smaller edits to existing articles and other smaller tasks, and generally getting accustomed to how things work around here before embarking on something bigger like creating new articles. --Finngall ^talk 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox citation

How do you add a citation on a infobox or is it not possible? rave (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RaveCrowny! It is possible, it just uses source editor in infoboxes. See this page about footnotes for information that should help. Cheers, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

html usage

i use HTML and many people do so, is there a way to use it in templates? Tester6462656543 03:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tester6462656543, you can use some HTML in templates, especially for tables and much simple markup, but some things are restricted. See Help:HTML in wikitext. Mathglot (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Alibi (TV series)

I got a comment that says it's a hatnote? This isn't a duplicate to the film The Alibi. So how can this be accepted? What is your advice? ~2025-31580-53 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The hatnote comment is just a note for if/when it becomes an article, so that the person doing that knows to put a note on it and on the film article so that people who are at the wrong one can go to the right one. Nothing that prevents the article from being accepted!

Instead, the article was declined due to a lack of significant coverage by independent sources. As the reviewer said, the best thing you can do is wait for a bit, and resubmit when the series airs if there are more independent articles about the series (such as reviews).

There's also a note about LLM use--in case you didn't know, we strongly discourage people from using LLMs to create Wikipedia articles due to frequent errors and copyright violations. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Max - Don’t Click Play (song) is officially a single and I need someone to add it.

Hi. I just received news that Ava Max’s 2025 song Don’t Click Play was officially released as a radio single after being sent to German radio. Could you please add the article? Here is the source: https://www.energy.de/news/ava-max-mit-dont-click-play-im-energy-new-hits-friday MusicwikiNerd (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MusicwikiNerd, you want somebody else to add a morsel of information to an article. But you don't name the article. Whatever the article is, it will have a "talk page". (In the same way that for Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band there is Talk:Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band.) Go to the talk page of the article, and make your request there. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Renishaw Hills article

Hello all - I’m working on the article “Renishaw Hills” (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renishaw_Hills), which was recently voted to 'keep' in an AfD, and I would appreciate assistance from editors with experience in South African developments and real-estate/residential topics.

Areas I need help with:

Enhancing structure and neutrality: balancing developer information with critical/independent perspectives.
Improving readability and classification (infobox, categories, links to related topics).

Any contributions - edits or suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks in advance for your help. Van1985 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Van1985, the AfD suggests to me that what must come first is a successful search for good sources. From there, the article is re-created "backwards". Few people are likely to want to do this; you probably have to embark on it yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page review

Hey everyone my page was reviewed then I think unreviewed after a page move. Can any patrollers possibly mark it as reviewed as it was also rated C class on the content assessment scale? Regards, dom 11:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Hello. How are you all?? I have a concern: my September 29 DYK nomination of Titanic Collapsible Boat B seems to be stuck in this sense: It was approved by a user who was immediately blocked afterwards, so, I asked what happened next... But no one answered, and that's not a problem, but I see that it is no longer for further review, and it seems to be in a limbo. May anyone clarify this to me or help me? Thanks. CoryGlee 12:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CoryGlee! It's still listed as a "Pending DYK nomination" in the categories. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bisa buatkan Saya article tentang Opposition Indonesia

bisa buat artikel tentang Opposition Indonesia Masyundai (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to get people to get concensus?

Hi

I am trying to get concensus regarding South Vietnam's status as a "Satellite state of the United States^[1]^[2]". I have asked three people on their talk pages but I do not know how to else get concensus? Is there a page I can go to for "requests for concensus" or something similar?

Thanks

-~~~~ Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either the talk-pages of Satellite State or South Vietnam would be where I would go. It is actually mentioned in the Satellite state article..."... some countries in the American sphere of influence, such as South Vietnam during 1964–1973...", but that has a "citation needed" tag. Try not to get into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory though. Lectonar (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was unaware of the 2nd - I'll fix that Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Vietnam War - CCEA". BBC. Retrieved 2 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ "209. Paper Prepared by the Ambassador to India (Galbraith)". Office of the Historian. Retrieved 5 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1] "The Vietnam War - CCEA". BBC. Retrieved 2 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[2] "209. Paper Prepared by the Ambassador to India (Galbraith)". Office of the Historian. Retrieved 5 November 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1]

[2]