Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

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

Most recent archives
1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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


User talk:7amithorn

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

What does "{{!} }" mean?

ANSWERED

It's a bar symbol! (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Without the extra space between the closing rooster brackets. It sometimes gets automatically added to text after publishing. What does it mean and how can I stop it from being added? ~ Hogshine (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogshine There's a rather technical explanation at Template:!. I think that the visual editor sometimes adds this where it isn't needed and you can try to remove it in the source editor, previewing to check whether its absence makes any difference, before you save/publish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should have figured out it's a template. Thanks for the reply, I think I‌ get it now. ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogshine: For future reference, you can use {{tl}} to refer to a template without it actually doing something. No need to mess with inserting spaces to prevent the template from working.

So What does "{{tl|!}}" mean? will produce What does "{{!}}" mean?. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly useful to know, many thanks! ~ Hogshine (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach, useful for all kinds of Wiki markup and not just templates, is to put <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags around the thing you would like to discuss. I learned this at the Teahouse and it has been amazingly useful. M kuhner (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska

Teahouse is not the venue to discuss article improvement. Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 21:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! Please, responsible editors out there, look again at a draft of my article on a neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska again. After critique (thank you!) from .nhals8 and Devonian Wombat, I removed what was considered as a promotional language; citations of opinions of other neuroscientists not related to her in any way ; I reported with sources which support that the person meets overwhelmingly all specific criteria for inclusion among academics, and belongs consistently year after year to the top 1% of all neuroscientists cited by the most recognized brain research journals worldwide and by 12500 other neuroscientists in them, with a frequency of 120 citations per publication, on average. At the start, I reported some so called conflict of interests. I believe that this part of the American neuroscience deserves some attention of the reading public. Thank you. Walerus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Maria Dorota Majewska ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Long live solidarity of all Wiki writers, thank you! Walerus (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being a neuroscience ignoramus, I do not intend to review this. But here's one pointer, Walerus. The draft says (for example): Majewska’s 1987 invited review on steroid actions in neurons further developed the concept that steroid hormones [...] could regulate neuronal excitability through direct effects on GABAA receptors. And it cites for this: Majewska, M.D. (1987). "Actions of steroids on neuron: Role in personality, mood, stress, and disease". Integrative Psychiatry. 5 (4): 258–273 – via PsycINFO. So the claim that Majewska's 1987 review further developed a concept is sourced to a 1987 paper (the same one?) by Majewska. Er, no. If a draft says that Majewska achieved such-and-such an advance, then the claim needs to be supported by a reference to a reliable source independent of Majewska. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very good question. From 1984 to 1987 she coauthored 11 papers on the subject, leading to the discovery of the function of neurosteroids. Then she had 2 more publications on the topic in 1988, but while they were in preparation, the team already knew their results. In the most of these papers she was the first author. The most important paper of this NIMH group led by her is the 1986 publication, ref. 8. All 13 papers 1984-1988 are on her Google Scholar profile attached as an external link. Her work is recognized as an important discovery in a series of papers by other neuroscientists, references 9,10, 12, 13, 14, 17. Thank you. Walerus (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone note we have here a cross-wiki SPU in self-declared COI (see fr:User:Walerius), previously blocked for one week on plwp for POINT (pl:Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Walerus#Blokada) after spamming talk spaces, today rebuffed on frwp's village pump (fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/26 juin 2026#Restauration de l’article Maria Dorota Majewska) for doing always the same, after his undeletion request was not accepted. CaféBuzz (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have, in this curious affair, a kind of international vigilante — a gentleman who fancies himself a modern-day Hercule Poirot, though with considerably less charm and rather more zeal. It is not enough for you to deliver sharp, intimidating remarks on the French Wikipedia; no, you must travel further afield, rummaging through the Polish Wikipedia to collect whatever rumours happen to please the local custodians there. Having gathered these tales — as thin and fragile as cobwebs — you carry them triumphantly to the English Wikipedia, where, as if by magic, the draft of Maria Dorota Majewska is promptly rejected.

One might almost suspect that such coordinated enthusiasm is not entirely spontaneous. Private correspondence, conducted beyond the public record, would certainly explain why the chorus on frWiki sings in such perfect unison.

And how neatly you denounce the author — “SPU”, you proclaim, as though it were a mark of infamy. You seem to prefer lifelong writers of your own kind, those who claim expertise in every subject and therefore possess none. Then comes the darker insinuation — “COI”! How dare anyone submit a draft to more than one Wikipedia! In your haste, you did not even glance at the article itself, where it is stated plainly that Majewska worked for forty years in Poland, the United States, and France — and not, I assure you, in any occupation you might casually presume. She is a neurobiologist cited in ninety‑two countries, invited to lecture in fifteen.

But such facts do not trouble the small, accidental guilds that have fashioned private fiefdoms within a public encyclopedia. You conduct a hunt, a kind of witch‑finding expedition, and you call upon others to join your pursuit.

For years I have answered Jimmy Wales’s appeals with contributions of a hundred dollars at a time, helping to raise the hundreds of millions required to keep this vast enterprise — with its data centres in Ashburn, Virginia and elsewhere — alive. And now Larry Sanger observes that anonymous groups have quietly privatized entire language editions of Wikipedia, honouring neither the principles nor the responsibilities entrusted to them.

To me, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the privatization of national assets in the early 1990s, when small circles of men seized control of entire systems without oversight or accountability.

Larry describes how, little by little, small cliques have taken hold of local Wikipedias. Possessing unchecked authority over one of the largest information platforms in the world, they enforce no rules but their own, reciting policy acronyms to newcomers while disregarding those same policies themselves. They are answerable to no one, supervised by no one.

When I speak to Polish editors about neutrality and balance, they laugh.

This is why Larry proposes ending the draconian blocking of contributors at the whim of the loudest administrators, introducing term limits for editor‑administrators — especially those who have ruled their domains for twenty years — subjecting them to annual performance reviews, and ceasing the practice of rewarding mere edit counts with higher rank.

A reform of Wikipedia is coming. If not from within, then from without. And some of the more troubled language editions may yet meet the fate of the Croatian Wikipedia ten years ago.

Walerus (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest taking discussion of how to improve the article to its Talk page. The Teahouse is for questions: it is not a forum for general debate. M kuhner (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noob Question

ANSWERED

Feel free to raise the dead. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noob question, but what is the regard toward necroposting here? I've seen talk page discussions from years ago that would really help the article. What should I do about these? ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 00:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discussions generally move much slower than social media discussions. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with responding to an old talk page discussion. I just wouldn't expect the original poster to respond (although someone probably will, depending on the article). That's just me, though. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will keep this in mind. ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 01:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure necroposting exists on Wikipedia. If you came from fandom like me, necroposting seems to be a large thing there, but not on Wikipedia. Just make sure the discussion is appropriate and productive for the topic and you’re A-OK. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 17:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename category that closed for rename

COMPLETED

Category renamed. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can someone rename this category, Iraqi Kurdistani politicians, per the closed discussion [1]? Thanks. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PresentlySuraye3

Done ~2026-37189-39 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should this be removed as a source?

Editing Maria Antonia of Austria and found this Youtube video [2] as a source in the last section. Already by seeing the thumbnail, I don't have high hopes and I'm wondering if it should be removed. Should I be watching those types of videos first or removing them as sources right away? Though I've used YouTube as a source when appropriate before. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem appropriate, I've removed it. However, the video description does link to the sources the YouTuber used, and they seem to be much more appropriate for the page. Those sources should be used instead of the video. jolielover♥talk 04:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was sure that video wasn't appropriate but glad this one did their research (hopefully!). I never would've found those sources down there, so thank you. I would be happy if they were good to use. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I put a note in the talk page (with the links) for future reference. Maybe I'll come back to it later. jolielover♥talk 04:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OliviaRigby, the general principle that your question helps bring forward is that just because a source is not appropriate for use as a reference on Wikipedia does not mean that the source is without any value. Many blogs and user generated websites and yes, YouTube videos may contain both accurate information, and also hints and clues about how to search for better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad that I learned something from this. OliviaRigby (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New here to Wiki. How do I edit my profile? Add a photo, address, verification I am NOT AI, for legitimacy?

Brand New here to Wiki. How do I edit my profile? Add a photo, address, verification I am NOT AI, for legitimacy? LMK RobGreeneEsq (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That depends on what you mean by "profile". You have a user page (User:RobGreeneEsq) where you can tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, but not anything and everything about yourself. If you are referring to an article about yourself, something part of the encyclopedia, there doesn't yet seem to be one about you. Writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience, please see the autobiography policy. Also know that there are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your username might be in breach of WP:PROMONAME: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. If I put in your username into google, the second result is what I presume to be your law firm (first is your X/Twitter account). Your username is the name under which you conduct business, so that's why it seems promotional to me. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is promotional, how could it not be? I am a solo attorney, Rob Greene, Esq. I have 25 years of criminal law experience and served on the PA District Attorneys Board and in current litigation with the Federal Government for taking Veterans 2nd Amendment Rights for using cannabis for PTSD! So yes, am I promoting, of course, but I have a lot to offer being an expert in the field of Pennsylvania Criminal Law.

Just putting my toes in the water. 💦 RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candor. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. While your work may be admirable, we have to treat everyone the same. I think you should request a username change. There is nothing stopping you from writing about yourself, the work you do, or linking to your website on your userpage. Wikipedia has a rule that usernames cannot be names of websites, businesses and the like. Nothing against you, and your expertise is very welcome, we all have to abide by the same policies and guidelines. Please read the conflict of interest policy if you wish to edit articles that may be closely related to the work you do. Again, this is not against you and we welcome your contributions, I am just trying to save you headaches down the line. Wikipedia is a special place and new editors may find it all a bit confusing, frustrating even labyrinthian. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I get it. Thanks TurboSuperA+. What will my new name be? See ya on the other side. - Rob Greene, Esq. 🧙‍♂️

Honor420Freedom🏴‍☠️💚🇺🇸 RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PUBLIC NOTICE:

“I served on the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute (PDAI) from 2019 to 2024. During my tenure, to the best of my knowledge, the PDAA/PDAI did not take an official position regarding medical marijuana or adult-use cannabis legislation.”

- Rob Greene, Esq. RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in this, why are you posting it here? Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and am still learning how things work, so I appreciate your patience.

Could someone please point me to the official Wikipedia rules and guidelines, particularly those governing sourcing, editing, and dispute resolution? If possible, you can simply post the link here. Thank you!!!

I understand that editors often use usernames rather than their real names, and I'm curious about how the system of volunteer editors and administrators works. Who wrote these policies, and who is responsible for enforcing them?

@Theroadislong: May I ask whether you saw my first post where I mentioned I was new to Wikipedia? One of the things that attracted me to the project was the opportunity to contribute to a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I admit that some of my initial interactions have felt more formal than I expected, but I'm hoping to better understand the process and contribute constructively.

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

— Rob Greene, Esq. RobGreeneEsq (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your first post and sent you a welcome message on your talk page with some useful links. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you. I will go check out my "talk page". TTYL RobGreeneEsq (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are hashed out by volunteer editors, except for a very small number which are imposed by the WikiMedia Foundation (those mostly deal with legal matters). If you want to see the process in all its messy glory, visit the Village Pump and look at the Policy tab.

Dispute resolution is covered at WP:Dispute resolution. (As a helpful tip, if you want advice and instruction documents, search for "WP:thing I want advice on" and you will often find it.)

Enforcement is generally by administrators, who are chosen by the English Wikipedia community as described in WP:Administrators. Extreme issues can escalate to the Arbitration Committee.

For sourcing, you might start with WP:Reliable sources and work from there.

Things are definitely more formal than they were early in Wikipedia's history, partly because the project has gotten so big, and partly because the environment is different (due to LLMs among other issues). M kuhner (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Questions

I was going to request one of you ladies and gents to write an article on my Principle of Persistent Structurization on Figshare, but I noticed that it said you generally want multiple sources--would something like an acceptance to present orally at the Constructal Law Conference in Paris this year be high quality? I have the letter from the Université Paris Sciences et Lettres. I didn't think LinkedIn would be acceptable as a source.

I don't mind writing it, but I'd rather have someone who's been here a while at least edit it. I'm pretty intellectually forthright and honest to the point of self-deprecation, so I'm not sure there'd be much bias in it if I wrote the article.

Just wanted to clarify on the Figshare question. Hopefully, that will be enough of a source to at least get my foot in the door. JustMichael80 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptance letter would not be considered a useful source in this context, although a writeup of the talk published afterward in the conference's Proceedings volume would potentially be a start. That having been said, for novel scientific concepts, generally we'd want to see peer reviewed literature discussing the concept by a researcher independent of the person who coined/discovered the concept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Glad I asked. It's still so new that it hasn't really had time to work through academia. Would plainly stating that it is still awaiting peer review get around that? Not that I'm trying to "get around" anything, just want to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as I honestly can.

Really appreciate you taking the time to answer, Rosguill! Thank you! JustMichael80 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no getting around that. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote brand new concepts - this site exists to summarize what others have to say. It needs to be more like this: [Your primary publication] -> [Other Academics write about it] -> [Wikipedia summarizes what the other academics wrote]. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I don't want to be That Guy who clutters up Wikipedia. I'm working on alternative ways to legitimately get cited on Wikipedia to keep everything above board and in line with the ToS. I hate the idea that I might become noise, so I'm trying to do everything I can honestly and by the book. You say, bring us peer review, and I go to Paris to get it in October.

I was going to try getting some stuff published on Medium, too, and maybe see if I can get Sabine Hossenfelder herself to give me a citation. No matter what, I'll follow whatever advice you ladies and gents give me, and if it takes working more on getting citations and published articles, so be it.

Really appreciate the feedback to help keep me within the ToS. Thank you again, MrOllie and Rosguill! JustMichael80 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustMichael80 There is exactly one way to get cited on Wikipedia. There are two important steps to it:

1. Get cited in real life.

2. Completely ignore Wikipedia for an extremely long time.

Wikipedia stays deliberately way behind the curve. We publish nothing but third-hand information that has no connection with the original author, and we're volunteers. So expect your work to just start filtering onto Wikipedia after you retire. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean it will necessarily take that exact length of time; I do mean you should give up hope now, to save time and frustration later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Many people in history were told to give up and didn't, and were later vindicated. I'll take inspiration from my heroes like Ramanujan, Tesla, Maxwell, and Faraday.

inb4 "You're comparing yourself to them??" Nope. They're the bar I set to cross. Better to be inspired than a worn down cynic. JustMichael80 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have a letter from Université Paris Sciences et Lettres that declares their registration and submission process as peer-review--happy to post that to satisfy your "peer review" requirements. Or does an actual university not count?

To quote from the email, "Following the peer-review process, your contribution has been accepted for oral presentation and will be included in the official conference proceedings, provided that the registration requirements are fulfilled."

The PPS has been peer-reviewed or it wouldn't have been accepted at the Conference.

Peer review? √ JustMichael80 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely irrelevant. Something like 3 million peer-reviewed articles are published every year. The mere fact that something is peer-reviewed does not contribute (for or against) to notability at all - we're simply not in the habit of starting a Wikipedia article for any result anyone publishes. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

reFill

What's up with reFill? I get a blank screen when I try to use it. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. Could you give more details? Hi, I'm Popingry!|Talk|Contribs 00:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It just worked for me a few minutes ago. Whatever the problem was (with it or with me), it appears to be fixed now. TwoScars (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

How do I disambiguate the title of my article and add a qualifier, or a more specific moniker? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the article. The most common way to disambiguate is to add a set of parentheses after the name, with a noun describing what it is. For example, Georgia (country) vs Georgia (U.S. state).

Sometimes natural disambiguation can be used though, which keeps a naturally worded title while successfully removing ambiguity. For example, hand fan vs Fan district.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a reviewer accepts Draft:Walter Stephen Taylor, they'll handle its retitling. (One thing you should do is work out how to create internal links, and to turn your nonfunctional attempts at these into working internal links.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks! but I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "create internal links, and to turn your nonfunctional attempts at these into working internal links." ? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, Joseph G Morgan, you write [[Colgate University]], whereas I'd write Colgate University. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! thank you Joseph G Morgan (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use sections, like this:

== Early Life ==

(if you look at the source to my post, do NOT copy the nowiki tags! I am using them here so you can see what I actually typed. You just want to put the equals signs around the section name.)

Sections are very helpful to other people who will edit your article in future, because they can edit one section at a time rather than opening the entire article. This doesn't work if you use formatting that just looks like a section.

~2026-37627-15 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! When I added an equal sign- on the first one- it automatically flipped it to a section. I wasn't able to add more, but I think this was what you meant? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! Those are real sections now, as you can see because each section has an "edit" button at the top.

You might consider consolidating a few sections that are very short, for a smoother flow to the article. M kuhner (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images displaying when hovering links

Hi, I've been adding photos for members of the Scottish Parliament that were missing them and have been trying to add to their infoboxes as well but I'm not able to figure out why some of the pages don't display the photos when you over over the page preview. For example: Liam Kerr compared to Katie Hagmann. I'm guessing it's just something about the templates I don't understand but any explanation as to how they work would really help me out. Tigered27 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page previews dont pull images directly from infoboxes. They usually use the page image selected through page properties (often from Wikidata or metadata generated by templates). So even if an infobox image is present it may not appear in the hover preview. In the examples you mentioned I'd check whether the article has a page image set and whether the image is available through the associated Wikidata item. Differences there often explain why one article shows a preview image and another doesn't. More Than Nothing (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigered27, welcome to the Teahouse. A page image is selected by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. This image may be used by several features. One of them is Page Previews but it has a size requirement with an unclear formulation at mw:Extension:Popups#Known problems. As far as I can tell from that, experience and the source code, width × height must be either at least 320 × 200 px or 203 × 250 px. File:Liam Kerr MSP.jpg is the page image for Liam Kerr but 170 × 201 px is too small to be displayed by Page Previews. File:Katie Hagmann, Official MSP Portrait (cropped).jpg is 250 × 333 px which is enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the responses, I didn't know that's how the page images worked but now can hopefully get the pages sorted out with this information. Thanks for your help! Tigered27 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI & vandalism from UN staff user

Hello, I have doubts and no idea what to do about this strange case of a user without a page but with a COI discussion that has been vandalizing the UNODC page for more than a year.

User is a paid worker of the UNODC and is visibly paid to update the office's information.

I had to revert a ton of edits that this user made, not because the edits were substantially bad but they were formally unacceptable (from a 101 editing perspective); the edits made just on the first few lines of the article, to give you an idea, were:

deletion of the United Nations infobox
In the intro, the word "French" for the French name of the UNODC used to link to "French language", user deleted the link…

This kind of things.

Deleting references and places direct external links to the UNODC website in the body of the article.

After I reverted the edits, the user sent me an email asking me why, and mentioning a few elements that highlight the user's limited understanding of the international legal regime that underpins the UNODC as an intergovernmental body (user referred to the UNODC as a "NGO"…) I note that advices have been given already a year and so ago by others, and I think just restrict the account won't work, they may just come back with another account. The user seem to be paid to edit the article (sadly, not to learn the rules for editing it).

Would blocking the IPs from the location of the UNODC headquarter be an option to prevent such issue from happening again? No idea, just sharing doubts. Cheers. Teluobir (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the IPs would work, but might be a bit of an extreme response. For now, I would recommend raising this at Wikipedia:COIN and potentially placing Template:COI editnotice on the affected page. Tantomile (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Teluobir It's not helpful referring to this as vandalism or suggesting she may be committing a crime (on the talk page). There is a clear COI, and the user also refers to 'we', suggesting that more than one person may be using the login. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, as a fellow new user, is that adding the template is not saying they're committing a crime, as COI is not a crime. It just means that they need to disclose that they have a COI, and then submit edit requests instead of directly editing the affected page(s). Kimakishi (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the template is fine. But "vandalism" has a very specific and extreme meaning on Wikipedia, and these edits, while likely improper, are not "vandalism." Vandalism is something like blanking the page, replacing it with nonsense or obscenities, or substituting an irrelevant picture. M kuhner (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to edit only sporadically, so we might have to wait quite a while for a response. I've therefore blocked them from editing United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which seems to be their sole interest since 2010. Once they confirm they understand and will comply with our PAID rules, and also that their user account is only used by a single individual, the block can be lifted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I will try to reach out to the user and see what is happening. More widely can I ask if anyone sees any issues related to UN staff having issues editing Wikipedia please ping me, I've been working with the UN on Wikipedia projects for over 10 years now so I can usually help in some way. John Cummings (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you everyone Teluobir (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines for musical instruments?

Hi,

I was doing some research on south-east Asian musical instruments and realized that many don't have proper Wikipedia articles. Now, I couldn't find any criteria for inclusion or notability guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability_(music), thus I wonder if there is any established guideline for the converage of non-mainstream or regional musical instruments.

Thank you in advance Nyraxis (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. You'd just follow the general notability guidelines. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 12:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, not for "non-mainstream or regional" or any other musical instruments; they all come under WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you very much! Nyraxis (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DMG Media Sources

I am trying to add a source from the website 'This Is Money'. It is part of the DMG Media, which also owns the Daily Mail. DMG also owns other publications such as the i and New Scientist. I assume these are acceptable sources. Is "This Is Money" banned or has me putting DMG Media in the reference falsely triggered an alarm?

For the record the page I am trying to edit is Samuel Leeds. It am trying to add uncontroversial biographical information about Samuel, I'm not trying to rant about UK politics.

Puffin123 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

@Puffin123: This Is Money is on the edit filters' deprecated sources list, alongside quite a few other DMG publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I should find another source? I am here to play by the rules and not annoy people. Puffin123 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, exactly; find a reliable source. I suggest you at least skim through WP:RELIABLE; it lays out a lot of the rules for what is and isn’t a reliable source. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (any/all) In solidarity. 03:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the reliable sources lack some important information. In those cases, Wikipedia must also continue to lack that information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Un-unreferencing "synthesized" lists

What should be my approach to citations in what could be called "synthetic" list-class articles? For example, the suggested edits feature has taken me to 800s in poetry. This page has the {unreferenced} template. Indeed, looking through the edit history the names appear to be pulled from nowhere. However, I imagine this list was synthesized by correlating 800 births and deaths with categories of poets, rather than drawing from a specific source (e.g. Blumpy's Chronology of Every Poet Ever) listing all the poets born and died 800-809. If this is the case, what is the expectation for sourcing on a list synthesized from wikipedia categories? Should there be a citation for every single entry in the list? Is the {unreferenced} tag even necessary? Gebble (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST talks about this a little bit, and notes that it's an area where views are still in flux. From my experience at Articles for Deletion this is true: there is no consensus about lists and how they're best handled. There seems to be a general sense that listing by date is acceptable, though, even in cases where there is no sourcing for the concept of that particular date range. M kuhner (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The overriding principle on Wikipedia is that everything must be based on a source that the reader could go off and look at, assuming they have the time, energy and dedication to do so. If a list is purely navigational (e.g. poets from a particular century, or castles in a particular country) then all the items in the list should have their own articles (or at least be obviously article-worthy/notable). On this basis, they don't need to be sourced, because the information that they are a poet from the 8th century, or a castle in Spain should be in the target article, and properly sourced there. The reader is only one click from the sourcing. Navigational lists aren't synthesis, they're just a structure very similar to categories, but more appealing to a particular sort of reader.

The sorts of lists that fail at AfD tend to be lists cross-categorising things that no reader would reasonably be looking for: e.g. Football players who also play the flute. This could very well be a navigational list - we my have articles on multiple football players that mention their fluting exploits - but even if it's immaculately sourced, it's not a grouping anyone discusses and no one in their right mind is going to expect Wikipedia to have a permanent article answering this very obscure google-search. So even as a navigational list, it would get deleted. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I went ahead and removed the template. I've since come across WP:CATV and though the page is not, strictly speaking, a category, I can't find a more specific policy. Gebble (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possible press release circa 26 March 2026 on Wikipedia AI policy

I am assuming that Wikipedia/Wikimedia issued a press release on or around 26 March 2026 covering the new AI guidelines for Wikipedia EN. The reason I think so is because several notable media organizations ran similar stories during the same news cycle. Three examples are provided here (but I have more).^[1]^[2]^[3] Was there indeed a press release? Or was this simply one news story that generated others? If there was a press release, could someone point me to a copy? TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia does traditional press releases. It looks like your sources point to the relevant policy change. Is there an issue with citing that? For what purpose per se do you need a press release? Gebble (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the governance issues surrounding that new policy guideline. For example, that particular guideline has been edited 130 times since it was first put to the vote. To be honest I don't believe that to be good process. I would like to see versioned policy with identified release candidates, similar to good practice in software engineering. Call this grass roots interest, if you like. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change how policy guidelines are handled could appropriately be made at the Policy section of the Village Pump, WP:Village pump. But before doing that, I recommend reading up on the current process, to avoid errors. (In particular, those are not votes: they can be, and sometimes are, settled against the numeric count of supporters and opponents. It's quite an interesting system which I have not seen anywhere else, and takes a while to grasp.) M kuhner (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the reasoning behind the policy, the consensus-based essay is Wikipedia:Large language models. As for versioning, the infrastructure of wikipedia is inherently incremental and non-hierarchical, and edit histories don't really distinguish between major, minor, and trivial changes like versioning does. The governance question I will leave to more experienced editors, but in the meantime, you may find some value in the WikiBlame tool for unpacking edit histories. Gebble (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison Wikipedia itself doesn't have a community-maintained "press release" channel I think; public-facing communication is often handled through its parent Wikimedia Foundation and it's social media accounts, though most of the time they don't really care about publishing posts about individual policy changes in local wikis and its sister projects. A likely origin point for this reporting probably came from Reddit posts about this change on a subreddit like r/Wikipedia or tech-related subreddits, then reporters picked up the story and reported as such ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 16:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the closest equivalent is the WP:Signpost, but still. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I am reading the replies with interest. Many thanks, best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: All three examples link to https://www.404media.co/wikipedia-bans-ai-generated-content/ from 26 March 2026. 404 Media is not affiliated with Wikipedia but https://www.404media.co/tag/wikipedia/ shows they are interested in how AI affects Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also logged 404 Media but didn't realize its significance.^[4] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ropek, Lucas (26 March 2026). "Wikipedia cracks down on the use of AI in article writing". TechCrunch. San Francisco, California, USA. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
^ Milman, Oliver (27 March 2026). "Wikipedia bans AI-generated content in its online encyclopedia". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2026-03-27.
^ Sparks, Hannah (28 March 2026). "Wikipedia officially bans AI-generated encyclopedia entries". New York Times. New York, USA. Retrieved 2026-05-24.
^ Maiberg, Emanuel (26 March 2026). "Wikipedia bans AI-generated content". 404 Media. USA. Retrieved 2026-05-24.

WP:BANBLOCKDIFF and WP:STATUSQUO

A question, but first some background.

I recently found edits to an article that were made by a sockpuppet three months ago without any discussion.[3] No other editors had edited the page after the sockpuppet so I undid his edits.[4] Another editor restored the sockpuppet's edits with ES, [5] "Wp:due sockpuppetry is not reason to remove a valid edit". I undid his edits[6] and started two "Deletion" discussions on the talk page citing WP:NOBLANK and WP:DENY. Another editor effectively restored the sockpuppet's edits again with two edits[7][8].

My questions are these: 1. Do indeed WP:NOBLANK, WP:DENY, or WP:BANBLOCKDIFF apply here? 2. If so, is the pre-sockpuppet version the WP:STATUSQUO version? 3. And if so, should the article be restored to its status quo version until discussion concludes? Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy seems to be that ban evasion can justify removal, but does not force removal. When another editor disputes the removal it turns into a standard content dispute, and methods in WP:DISPUTE are relevant.

However, if there is a flurry of different editors restoring the same edits by a previous sockpuppet, you might consider filing a report at Sock puppet investigations and asking those who have appropriate tools to check whether these might be additional sockpuppets. They have access to technical evidence which can settle this conclusively in many cases. M kuhner (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK question

Recently, my DYK nomination for Frankfurt Airport Terminal 1 was accepted, but pulled a little after that due to sorcing problems. I have resolved the sourcing problems (I think) and removed the template (which I'm not certain that I should've done that now), but I want to know if I should put the DYK nominations back or if someone else could do it upon review of the article. TY Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlittlebigbeard There is no need to resubmit anything, although you did not sign your most recent message at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1, so no ping will have been made. In general, you should continue to watch and engage at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1. CMD (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I do anything or will it be reviewed one last time before they go ahead and mark it as denied or whatever they do? Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely someone will come along and look at it. If they do, they will post their comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1. You can continue to work on the article in the meantime if you wish. CMD (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Rodammer personal memoir

I wrote a personal memoir of my experiences growing up in a company my parents started in 1973. “The Listening Room Inc” listeningroomsaginaw.com

I would like to formally submit my memoir and have people make changes. Either create a new page for “The Listening Room Inc”. Or a new page for myself, Keenan Rodammer.

I would also like people to take my Federally recognized copyrights to six Lana Del Rey songs and use them to cite how and when I came up with the stage name for the singer, Elizabeth Woolridge Grant. KeenanRodammer (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is not a place for people to publish their original works. You'll have to find a publisher to publish your memoir. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s published at a local print shop and notarized by “The Listening Room Inc’s” accountant team where it gained Federally recognized authority over the origin of the name “Lana Del Rey”. Blocking the true origin recognized by The United States Federal Government is considered a Federal offense. KeenanRodammer (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT make legal threats, or anything that can be construed as a legal threat, on Wikipedia. WP:No legal threats gives policy on this, and it is likely to get you banned.

The things you seem to be asking for are just not things Wikipedia does. (You can read about this at WP:What Wikipedia is not.) You will need to look elsewhere. M kuhner (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the US federal government has to do with this. Are you saying that your name is trademarked? No one is preventing you from publishing your memoir; you simply don't have the right to force a private entity to host it, just as I cannot forcibly enter your residence and force you to hear my views on a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeenanRodammer, when I see this post of yours, I wonder if you are even familiar with the notion of encyclopedia. Either way, Wikipedia is just one among a vast number of websites. Here are some alternatives, and of course you can construct your own. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this is a memoir. It is published at my local print shop after being notarized and fact checked by listeningroomsaginaw.com their accountant team. I am merely presenting this memoir as an article to cite while making a new page for “The Listening Room Inc” formally 5801 State Street, now 404 Court Street in Saginaw, Michigan. It can also be used as factual statements from when I met young Liz Grant in 2003 and suggested she should change her name to “Lana Del Rey”. It is simply a memoir published at a small shop with large and loud claims to fame that I would like to be noted in their respective articles on your encyclopedia. KeenanRodammer (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now.....your description of your experience at the company would be a primary source; it can be used for certain things, but not to establish notability of a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeenanRodammer: Please don't post your memoir here. I have removed it. And we cannot use it as a source for claims about other people. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Meters (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeenanRodammer

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. As a result, memoirs have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review help for Draft:Senses of Fear

Hi! I submitted a draft titled Draft:Senses of Fear about 14 days ago. It has multiple reliable, independent sources and meets notability guidelines. Could someone please take a look and let me know if anything needs improvement before review? Thank you! Draft link: Draft:Senses of Fear Musicman7381 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Musicman7381 Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Senses of Fear]]. You have submitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, and I am Glad to be here. Musicman7381 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged several issues with the draft. Firstly, it appears you may be using AI/Large Language Models to write content, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia per our guidelines which I suggest you read before resubmitting in the future (WP:LLM). There appears to be no reliable sources actually cited in the article (in fact some appear to be highly questionable), so therefore you have failed to demonstrate any subject notability. Please read the guidelines for sourcing to understand what we mean by reliable sources (WP:RS).

Finally you also appear to be operating multiple accounts as I'm presuming you are also Musicman8173. Please could you only use a single account in the future. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that i don't know why it did that i was creating my account and it didn't go through so now its this one, sorry, I changed everything, and did a Clean rewrite to comply with WP:NOLLM, WP:RS, and WP:N; I also removed unsourced sections. I hope I did everything correct. Fingers crossed. Musicman7381 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Each claim in the article needs to be supported by a source. Look at the last two paragraphs in "Origins and Style"--what is the source supporting those paragraphs? Also the whole run from "Formation of..." to "Modern era..."--what is the source supporting that material?

The text has a lot of hints that it was written (partly at least) by an LLM. This is not allowed on Wikipedia: WP:NOLLM is the current policy. If this is the case, please rewrite in your own words, and check each source to make sure that (a) the citation is correct and (b) it actually supports what the article claims. M kuhner (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote everything, and thank you all for the super fast reply's and the problems with the draft, if there are and more please let me know. Many Thanks in advance, Musicman7381 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Um. It was 34 minutes between our comments and your response. From bitter experience, an article like this can't be purged of LLM text and bad sourcing in such a short time--when I've successfully done this it took me many hours.

People are giving you examples of the problems and hoping you can learn from them and correct those problems everywhere, not just the specific ones that were pointed out. In looking at the draft it's clear that did not happen (hint: look at the last section, where it says "subject of several Rock Era Magazine" articles. That is not a citation; there's not a single citation in this whole section.)

Please don't just fix one thing and ask again. LLM articles have very pervasive problems and they all need to be fixed. If this seems like a lot of work--you're right! That's why using LLM is a trap: it is more work than writing a human article. If these articles get into Wikipedia someone else ends up putting in the hours of work, not the author, which is unfair: that's why our policy is never to allow LLM use for article writing. M kuhner (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Musicman7381.

I have answered you at length at the Help Desk. Please don't post the same question in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback before resubmitting an AFC draft

Hello All,

Thank you for all your efforts behind the scenes.

I would appreciate some help with my Human Metabolome Project (HMP) article. I currently work part-time as a scientific writer/editor for Dr. David Wishart. I have not worked on the HMP or the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB) described in the attached article. However, because of my professional connection, I've used secondary sources where possible. I would appreciate independent feedback on the HMP article before resubmitting it. Additionally, are there any concerns about sourcing, neutrality or style?

This is the link to the article: Draft:Human Metabolome Project - Wikipedia

Thanks for your time,

PaperTempo PaperTempo (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI tools to assist in writing the draft? It seems like that was the reviewer's decline reason. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. For the original drafts (version 1 and 2), yes, a LLM was used to write the article from a list of facts. However, for the 3rd and final version I shared today, I revised and reduced the text. PaperTempo (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revised LLM content is still not acceptable in articlespace per WP:NEWLLM. You should start over. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PaperTempo. My recommendation is to copy all of your references but none of the prose to a new draft and abandon the old draft. Do not use any AI/LLM tools to write your new draft. We want prose written by a human being - you. This is easier than trying to eliminate all of the AI/LLM content from the old draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revised AI content does arguably even worse damage to your credibility than the more obvious stuff. Don't revise it - delete the whole thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for your thoughts about credibility. Much appreciated. PaperTempo (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PaperTempo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Besides the problems with LLMs that others have pointed out, I think your draft suffers from not being focussed on its subject. Part of it is about the HMP, but other parts seem to be about particular parts of the Metabolome. This is not how a Wikipedia article is structured. An article about the HMP should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the HMP have published about the HMP and little else. It should not contain more than a brief overview of metabolomes, but should link to the existing article metabolome (or more specific articles, if they exist) for any deeper explanation. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for your suggestions. Much appreciated. PaperTempo (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Retrieved" Field in References

Hello! If I'm editing the references list of an article, such as filling in a bare URL, what should I put as the "retrieved" date? I assume(?) it's good practice to put something there as to help with future archival, but what date should I put? Should I look back into the edit history and find when the edit that added the citation was made? Or should I just put the current date? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at this Guardian article. It's timestamped "Tue 2 Sep 2025 16.27 BST". I don't know where you are, but where I am it's 09:47 on 1 July 2026. So I'd write |date=2 September 2025 |access-date=1 July 2026, of which the "access-date" would be rendered as the "retrieved" date. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I made my question clear! I'm specifically asking about citations which already exist in articles, but that do not have a filled date or access date field.

Would I still add the current date as the access date if the citation was originally added years ago? My concern is that if I'm, for example, filling in a bare URL that was added 5 years ago, the website could have looked a lot different back then than it does now, and adding the retrieval date to be the current date would cause the archived form of the website to be an inaccurate representation of what was cited when the article was written.

Do I just use my best judgement and go through the edit history if I suspect that the website likely changed between the time when the citation was originally added and the time that I'm adding the retrieval date, and otherwise add the current date? Or do I always go through the edit history and check when the citation was originally added? Or always add the current date? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You encounter a "reference" that's a bare URL. This might have been added twenty years ago or last week; when it was added it might or might not have pointed to a web page that confirmed the assertion(s) that the Wikipedia article had just made; and the web page might or might not have been independent of the subject of the Wikipedia article, and reliable. On 1 July 2026 you click on the link and if the linked-to page still exists and says what the Wikipedia article implies that it says and is reliable and (for most kinds of assertion) is independent of the article subject, then you fill in the details, among which is |access-date=1 July 2026: when you verified that the reference was a good one. If the series of conditions I laboriously wrote in the previous sentence aren't all met, there are of course various possibilities. I think I know what I would or wouldn't do, but hesitate to attempt to write it all out as I'm lazy (and I imagine that some energetic person has already devised an explanatory flowchart somewhere). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RefToolBar Archive-date question

RESOLVED

Another win for Rubber duck debugging. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi! I was just wondering:

When using RefToolBar, why do you need to enter an archive-date, when the date is already present in the archive-url? I haven't double checked, but I seriously doubt that you can enter just an archive-date without it throwing an error. So why can't it do it for me? Is that beyond the capability of whatever the RefToolBar program is?

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait I've just remembered that there are other archives besides the wayback machine, that may not include archive date in url. So I guess that makes sense... JordyGrey _talk🧸 15:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why Is The "Publish" section on Making A New Page Broken?

the "Publish" Section on Making New Pages is Broken., Please Give Me An Answer!!! GlammySammy (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you attempt to follow the suggestions of the "article wizard", GlammySammy? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was Trying to Edit My Sandbox (my Sandbox, Not to Be Confused with Wikipedia:Sandbox), and It Did Not Publish, it just sat there not Publishing GlammySammy (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GlammySammy, The history of Wikipedia:Sandbox shows that you have five edits there, starting at 03:05 1 July (UTC). When did you try to edit your sandbox, some time after that? What happened after you hit the Publish button? Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Work. GlammySammy (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GlammySammy, try clicking this red link: ⟶ User:GlammySammy/sandbox and tell me what happens. Do you see a page that says 'Creating User:GlammySammy/sandbox' ? Type something there, and scroll down. Do you see a Publish button there? Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Did Have A Publish Button, But it Didn't Work. GlammySammy (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does an error message appear? 331dot (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible this is a misunderstanding of the button's function? "Publish" doesn't mean "convert this to an article and put it in main-space like all the other articles". All the "Publish" button does is update the current text wherever you happen to be, to include the changes you just typed. If you're in a sandbox and you hit "publish", the sandbox now has your text in it - that's all. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Work., One of My Screenshots Has Proof. GlammySammy (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I Found An Error Message!!!!! 📢📢📢📢😡😡😡😦😦😧😦😧😦 GlammySammy (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please type the error message below, and if you can, please take a screenshot of the error and upload it to Commons. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for assistance. If it is easier for you, you may instead upload a screenshot to a free image hosting service. Either way, please leave a link to the image you upload. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that you have now created your sandbox; so does that mean your question is resolved, and we can close this discussion? Please note that there is a speedy deletion message on your sandbox, so it may be deleted already by the time you read this message. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Keep this Talk Open just so New Users can Learn About Publishing on Wikipedia. GlammySammy (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your wish to help others, but new users usually want answers that are fast, and simple. To be honest, this discussion is neither. If you are satisfied with the responses you have received, I would like to close it now. If you still have questions about this topic, you are most welcome to ask. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps if this exchange might have useful value in the related documentation and essays, incorporated there …? Augnablik (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the public domain licence valid for the photos in this Facebook album?

REDIRECTED

Complex copyright questions are best taken to WP:MCQ or C:COM:VP/C. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I just saw someone else (not me) upload a pic from this Facebook album under the PD-PhilippinesGov licence.
This is what the licence says:
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of their regularly prescribed official duties; consequently, any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted. However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. (Emphasis mine)
I would love for the photos here to actually be under PD-PhilippinesGov, because that would mean a lot of these Filipino celebrities would finally get lead images or better ones. For example, the lead image for Angela Ken right now is extremely dark and blurry, you can't even see her actual face.
But yes, do you think the licence applies here? I think it does. The photos are from the Quezon City Government page. The "as a part of their regularly prescribed official duties" part is a bit murky, as LoveL4ban is a university event, not a political one. However, I think the photos are a part of the local government promoting the city.
The post also mentions that several local political figures and organisations gave speeches at the festival such as Risa Hontiveros, so I guess that's why the government photographers were there as well.
Please let me know before I upload anything myself. If the licence is valid, it would be really great for these Filipino celebrities in need of good pictures. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Handsome Ellis, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Questions about copyright that may require specialist knowledge are more likely to get useful answers at WP:MCQ or C:COM:VP/C ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm taking the question there. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Translating an article – what do I need to rememeber of?

Courtesy link: User:Sxruvendrajer/sandbox/English articles

Hello, I'm planning to translate an article from Polish wikipedia and paste it into the English version. I believe it to be a good idea since I know a lot about the subject myself, and the Polish article is a very-detailed featured article. As it's very long and I don't want someone to revert my change, I wanted to ask whether there is something I need to remember of. Also, do I need to include the current contect of the English article into the new translated version? ~2026-37657-76 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should say in Talk:English articles that you intend to do this, briefly explain why doing so is a good idea, and wait at least one week for other editors' reactions to your proposal. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-37657-76, welcome, and thank you for planning your translation. That said, it is serious business, and there are several things you should be aware of before you start:

at English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia rules apply. It is possible that an article that is suitable at Polish Wikipedia might fail to meet the criteria required for an article here.
likewise, by saving content at English Wikipedia, you are subject to en-wiki rules of neutrality and WP:Verifiability. In particular, all content must be verifiable (backed up by) reliable, independent, secondary sources. Even if the article topic is WP:Notable, if portions of the content are unverifiable in sources, they will be tagged or removed. The burden is on you to see that everything is verifiable, regardless what is allowed at pl-wiki.
English Wikipedia explicitly permits sources in other languages, *however*, only if sources in English of equivalent quality do not exist. For topics poorly covered or not at all by English sources, Polish (or other language) sources are fine. However, if good English sources exist, you must use those in preference.
Whatever citations you include, by hitting the publish button, you are responsible that the content is verifiable. If the original content was never verifiable, the responsibility for publishing it here is yours, not the original authors.
You must be sufficiently bilingual in English and Polish to create the translation yourself, *and* to be able to read, understand, and verify that the sources back up the content.
If you use generative AI to write any part of the content, those portions may be removed, or the article deleted. You could also get blocked from editing, although you would probably just get a warning the first time. Your English does not have to be perfect; you can make errors of spelling, grammar, or style, as long as your meaning is clear to other editors who can improve the English later through copyediting.
Your translation edit(s) *must* be accompanied by a translation attribution statement. This is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy with legal implications based on the WP:Terms of use common to all Wikimedia projects, and may never be ignored.
If there is already an English article on the topic, you should not just throw it out and replace it with your translation, unless the current English version egregiously violates Wikipedia policies. Even then, WP:TNT is radical surgery, and a decent respect for the work of dozens of other editors that came before you suggests that you should start a discussion at the Talk page before you start, seeking input from other editors about whether it would be acceptable to blow up the article and start over from zero with your translation or not. Most likely, you should try to merge your translated content into existing content. That is not always an easy task, especially if the existing article is mature, or long.

Assistance is available here at the Teahouse, the WP:Help desk, at WT:Translation, and perhaps at WP:WikiProject Poland for certain content questions or issues. You may also contact me at my Talk page. Good luck with your translation! Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added courtesy link above. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some help needed

I've just made a page on my sandbox about the 192nd Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, even though I've done a significant of work on it, it still needs a lot more work to do, such as adding new content from A Daily Journal of the 192d reg't Penn'a Volunteers, alongside some images of Gallipolis, Ohio. If you do wish to contribute to this page, I'll be grateful for it. Cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck asking at some of the WikiProjects, like Military history and/or Pennsylvania? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve request

Hi editors, I made what I had hoped was a fairly straightforward request to update the key people and finances in the infobox of the Azrieli Group article but so far it has not really gotten any traction. Is there something different I should do with the formatting to make it easier to review? My main concern is updating the current CEO. ~~~~ RM Azrieli (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RM Azrieli As it says on the notice at the top of your request, The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 432 requests waiting for review.

COI requests particularly tend to take a while; to be frank, those of us who are here to contribute to the encyclopedia with our own time and passion are often not in any hurry to assist those whose effort in doing so is limited strictly to their own personal/business publicity interests, so even among the editors who like to deal with the edit requests backlog, COI requests are typically not top priority. Wikipedia is, ultimately, not a business directory and there is no rush to make sure your list of executives and your financial figures are up to date. Athanelar (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this sentence in “Greenlandic independence” is inacurrate

Block evasion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I believe that this sentence “Greenland was effectively independent during the war years, and allowed the United States to build bases on its territory, in spite of the Danish pre-war neutrality.” is inaccurate. Instead of it effectively be independent during the war, it was instead effectively controlled/occupied/colonized/goverened by/part of the United States. But i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37526-71 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are welcome to start such a discussion on the associated talk page, Talk:Greenlandic independence. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotBut the last answer on Talk:Greenlandic independence is 8 years ago on 11th April 2018. So it will most likely not have a answer. Hence, why i wrote here on the Teahouse. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source to back up your statement, you can also just put it in the article with that source as evidence. If anyone disagrees and takes it back out again, then the discussion should move to the talk page. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ElemimeleLook up Talk:Greenlandic independence, and you can see that the last answer to a topic was by Batmacumba on 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) on the topic titled “Opinion”. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotBut i did right now copy and pasted this text on Talk:Greenlandic independence, and mentioned that there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Teahouse. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the “Sápmi” article, there is a sentence in this article that says “Sápmi has never been a sovereign political entity.”, which i think is inaccurate, but again, i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i think that in the article “Tornedalians”, the sentence ”are an ethnic minority native to the Torne Valley (Meänmaa) region in northern Sweden and Finland.” could be changed into “are indigenous people native to the Torne Valley (Meänmaa) region in northern Sweden and Finland.”. The words “indigenous people” could be added in the top lead of the article “Kven people”. But again, i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sentence “although some herd reindeer across much of the region.” gramaticlly correct? It’s in the section “Soviet and modern periods” in the “History” section in the “Kola Peninsula” article. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've done a good job alerting people that you're working on the article and hopefully attracted some attention. Further discussion should go on the Talk page.

M kuhner (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M kuhnerWell, i guess it’s better to call it a call for discussions and fixes, but yes, you are correct. I think that informations on Wikipedia about indigenous people need to be discussed about it and fixed when the discussion concluded that it is needed. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a page I submitted for review

About a month ago I created and submitted a draft for an article on Beyond Shelter. After submitting it I received the message that there were approximately 4,000 submissions ahead of mine in the Articles for Creation queue. I am logged in as Oniongod, but I can't find the draft in my contributions, userspace, or the Draft namespace. Could an admin help me locate it or determine whether it was moved or deleted? Oniongod (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not under your account edit history(either deleted edits or live edits). Perhaps you created it while logged out? Are you certain that you clicked "publish changes" when creating your draft? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Beyond Shelter has never existed, nor Draft:Beyond shelter. Would it possibly have been under a different title? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not showing on Google

This article, Beatrice Mensah-Tayui is not showing on google and has no panel. Please check Createphoto.jpg (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not indexed by search engines until marked as reviewed by a New Pages Patroller or after 90 days, which ever is first. Note that the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible input into "knowledge panels".

You've never edited that article, what's your interest in it appearing in search results quickly? 331dot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created on 8 December 2025 and its past the 90 days. That is why I am have an interest in it. Thanks Createphoto.jpg (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Createphoto.jpg: It's indexed by Google now because it was edited after your post. Before it had not been edited since February. Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace") says: "After indexing is allowed, some external search engines like Google may discover this quickly if any edit (except an unlogged null edit) is made to the page. Otherwise it may take a long time." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotAdditionaly, Google Search has been known to block certain Wikipedia articles. I tried finding a source (that isn’t a post by a user) to back it off but i coundl’t. The only source would be r/epstein, but you know that posts by users don’t count as a source to back off information about something. I’m not saying that this article has definetly been blocked in Google Search, but this can happen to this article. Whatever, i’m not here to add information about it in Wikipedia anyways, it’s just something that i know about it. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable way to deal with someone who is adding unsourced material to a BLP page who also seems related to the subject

I've just started editing wikipedia and would like to have someone more experienced look at my edits and confirm they are reasonable/suggest ways to move forward. I was looking at Recent Changes, and found the article Caetano Altafin, which had a large edit. From my reading the page and history it looks like someone had repeatedly added this unsourced material, which is also too much detail for the level of notability this person has I think (sometimes non published details, like job name). I edited removing all claims which I could not find in the sources, including the subject's main reason for being notable.

This also leads into another issue where all sources that are reliable come from globo.com, at least in my view. I mostly want to know if this is something that should or could be nominated for deletion, or if an article makes sense, and whether the repeated editing by one editor, sometimes undoing reverts, is an issue. Mostly looking to learn and get the vibe...

Thanks! The guy not from ipanema (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|The guy not from ipanema}},

It looks like the same user keeps adding problematic edits to the article. If they are unsupported claims/ unsourced materials, then yes, in my honest opinion it would be the right move to remove them, or at the very least add a "Template:Citation needed" next to the unsupported text. It looks like the same user has done this before and has had edits reverted. If they keep doing this it could be categorized as WP:WAR, which can be annoying, unless they are being done in good faith (WP:GF). It looks like the same user has been warned on their talk page that their edits look like promotional material (WP:PROMOTION) which is also problematic. It is always good to remember to write from a neutral perspective and keep WP:NPOV in mind when making edits. Thanks. HappyHistorian1862 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at the steps described in WP:Dispute resolution. This talks about how to start out gently and try to avoid a fight, and also about what to do if you can't avoid it. M kuhner (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from political entities on Wikipedia

OP is blocked. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know there is a discussion in “COI & vandalism from UN staff user”, and this discussion is a important context behind my post, but here’s my response to the user Teluobir about this, “This is not only happening to this article, but currently on multiple articles. And it definitely isn’t a single UN staff member that edits Wikipedia articles. This is currently happening on Epstein-related Wikipedia articles, including the deletion of a very major article in topic and length about the relations between Jeffrey Epstein and the Rothschild family. There is a comment i found in Reddit from user “u/Thou_Art__That”, and the comment is about this until the end where it goes on a very slightly related but different topic, here is the portion of the comment that talks about this topic in question before it goes on a different topic, “This is still not widely known but Wikipedia can not be regarded as a reliable source of information, regardless of the topic in question.

Look up the wiki-scanner which empirically demonstrated that US intelligence and corporations were actively and systematically weaponizing the site in an ongoing information operation. The scanner allowed the IP address of editors to be checked instantaneously which revealed that CPUs in Langley, Virginia and so on made up the vast majority of edits.

Wikipedia's model is established on the requirement that all claims be backed by a "reliable source." But how this is or should be defined is in no way an objective, neutral, or agreed upon, scientific consensus.

By establishing a rigid, homogenous, ideological consensus, regarding which publications are deemed reliable, the administrative class of Wikipedia effectively controls the boundaries of permissible reality on the platform.

The co-founder of the site, Larry Sanger has stated that highly organized "reliable source groups" dictate what rules qualify, noting that they frequently change when its ideologically convenient to do so.

He also made statements to the effect that Wikipedia is the most successful propaganda conduit in World history.

While obviously an overstatement, it illustrates how one of the founders regards his site these days.””

~2026-37738-29 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question of some kind? 331dot (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it up to the light,

Not a source in sight.

- Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 18:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think that there's never going to be a rigid scientific, objective consensus on what « reliable source » exactly means, even outside Wikipedia. It would sort of boil down to questions relating to the blurring of politics and truth and power and whatnot.

I'd be interested on actually looking further into whether or not WP:RSP really has this huge ideological bias rather than more practical concerns (i.e. doxxing, Wikipedia harassment, etc.), though ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 18:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an ideological bias in RSP, there is a bias against outlets that lack basic standards of journalism. Fox News said in a legal proceeding that it is entertainment and not news. There are plenty of conservative outlets that are valid sources. But I digress. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this for BE, !HERE, and whatever else alphabet soup you'd like. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Job offer :-)

Courtesy link: Draft:Jack Denst

Is there anyone out there that I can hire to rewrite/correct my submission? I have researched references and interviewed his peers for over 5 years. I'm just wasting time trying to understand how to submit correctly. ~2026-37917-25 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like the reviewer for the draft saw issues with non-neutral writing. I also recommend looking at Easy referencing for beginners as your references lack bibliographical information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you cited personal interviews as one of your sources. Unless these have been published somewhere, they would be considered as original research and therefore fail WP:NOR. Freddieh9 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-37917-25: No, and anyone who emails you as a result of you writing this is trying to scam you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 21:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While what Jeske said is technically an exaggeration, they aren't far off. The problems with hiring someone to edit/create a Wikipedia article are:

95% of the "firms" that say they will write a Wikipedia article for you are scams
The few legitimate firms are out of everyone's but a few very large companies price range.
The people editing/writing the article know as little as you do, since every experienced Wikipedian is a volunteer, and there is a large bias against paid editors due to problems we have had with them for a long time.
Even if they write a legitimate article, they likely don't understand the rules of Wikipedia, which could expose the article to nominations for deletion.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zoshia

Some general (free) advice about your draft:

The content is too long and full of minutiae. A biographic article should be concise and only contain encyclopaedically valuable information.
The language is fairly casual and in some parts emotive. An article on Wikipedia must be dry, descriptive, and only a summary of what reliable sources state.
Many biographic statements lack an in-line citations. Every statement should be accompanied by an in-line citation that verifies the statement.
Some of your sources are inappropriate. We don't allow personal interviews and documents as sources because every source must be published and available to allow a reader to verify it accurately reflects what it is citing.
Your references are all generic, making it impossible for a reader to verify the sources are real. Which records? What pages? What dated newspaper article? What website URL specifically? When was the book published? By who? etc. You should be writing an academic-style bibliography.

Hope that helps. qcne (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-37917-25.

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. ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on my first Articles for Creation draft

Hello! I recently submitted my first Articles for Creation draft about Jardín Memorial, a privately owned funeral and cemetery services company in the Dominican Republic. Before it is reviewed, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to provide feedback on whether there are any issues I should address or additional improvements I could make. I appreciate any guidance. Thank you! CamilaRT04 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whereupon, CamilaRT04, you posted the same invitation here (WikiProject Companies) and here (WikiProject Dominican Republic). I suggest that attending to the copyright status of c:File:Parque Cementerio Jardín Memorial Aerial View.jpg and c:File:Funeral of former First Lady Rosa Gómez de Mejía at Jardín Memorial in March 2022.jpg (and perhaps other files too, but I didn't look) should be of more immediate concern to you. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page with mostly incorrect references

I came across the page Bahirka, nearly all the references in the page are cited incorrectly, or to different wikipedia pages. Should I propose it for deletion or does it just need cleanup. I would consider trying to change it myself, however, I don't speak Kurdish. Thanks Freddieh9 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thilio has now "draftified" this to Draft:Bahirka. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to CSD tag articles on other Wikipedias?

I fight vandalism. You know me, but not Google Gemini, that redirects to my English Wikibooks userpage. Back to the story: I saw a TA, ~2026-37772-77, create two incredibly short articles in the Hungarian Wikipedia, and I don't think {{db-<some thing>}} CSD templates exist in the Hungarian Wikipedia. I also don't think any admin here is an admin in huwiki too, but... is this even allowed? – SimpleObjects-9 ei 🇺🇸/🦅/🥳^{(Happy 250 years of America!)} (🌎 CentralAuth) 23:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HI SimpleObjects-9ei. Wikipedia languages have different policies. I don't know Hungarian but Wikipedia:Deletion policy has links to many languages including Hungarian: hu:Wikipédia:Törlés. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleObjects-9ei, no, I don't think I know you, but no matter. Perhaps see also "Non-English Wikipedias". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can redirect this without discussion?

I saw that somebody removed a redirect and just wrote an article in that space. I looked it up in previous deletion discussions and found it under another name, when it was deleted in 2020 due to lack of notability. It was more of less a list of non-notable descendants of hers because she was "royal" (debatable) and that is what it is now. That's mostly what that person does here, but that isn't important. What I would like to know is if I can change it back to a redirect without another discussion, which I've seen somebody do before. Called Princess Dorothea of Bavaria and deleted under Archduchess Dorothea of Austria. I checked the talk page on the current one and that's what it was called before. OliviaRigby (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, OliviaRigby. It's now reverted, to a mere redirect. (A redirect to Archduke Gottfried of Austria, about somebody whose notability isn't obvious to me.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I always see these kinds of things. Always by the same person by the way, though I feel that would give them the impression I'm "targeting" them or something if I redirected every page of theirs, which is not what I want to do. In that case, what is the right thing to do? OliviaRigby (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A polite warning or question on the editor's Talk page would be a reasonable place to start. If this gets no response, my usual next step is talking to an experienced editor, especially if you can find one who has also been involved with these edits, and asking their opinion. M kuhner (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for Lawyers

Hello. I am a law student studying at the University of Mumbai Law Academy. I would like to create my college's Wikipedia article and occasionally make law-related edits as well. Are there any specific Wikipedia guidelines or rules that I should be aware of before doing so? BriefX (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although only when it comes to editing about your college or any cases you're involved with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 07:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, before you start creating anything new, WP:NOTABILITY. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have ignored the advice and created a poor draft cited to primary sources and blogs at Draft:University of Mumbai Law Academy. Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just have created a draft but I have not submitted it through AfC yet i need to visit my college on monday and I plan to ask my principal whether there is any significant independent and reliable coverage available about the institution. If such sources do not exis i will drop the work on the draft rather than continue pursuing the article ok... BriefX (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BriefX: If I were you, I would not bother asking your principal about it, unless they happen to be an archivist, reference librarian, or search expert, as you can very likely do a better job yourself as you are likely to spend more time on it than they will. Plus, they are far from WP:INDEPENDENT, so in the unlikely event that they come up with some sources for you, I would not trust them without additional investigation on my own. Honestly, I think asking them is a waste of your time. Save yourself the hassle, and just search on your own. You can ask for additional help searching at the Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Mathglot said, getting the principal actively involved in the creation of the article could lead to WP:COI issues that don't currently exist. It would be best for the article -- and probably for you -- if nobody affiliated with the school is involved in the creation of the article or even knows that you're the one creating it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot and @CoffeeCrumbs I'm honestly a bit confused by all of this guidance and the various comments. What exactly is being discussed here and why was this tagged? I'll take some time to read everything carefully and understand the advice before responding. Thank you. BriefX (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BriefX, yeah, I can see why it would be pretty confusing. It's partly due to a thicket of rules we have (we call them Wikipedia policies and guidelines), such as WP:Conflict of interest, and partly due to long experience in understanding how things go around here. But you get to decide what you want to do, and if you want to go talk to your principal, I can advise you what I think, but in the end, the decision is up to you. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to offer you advice so that you avoid headaches and roadblocks later. You don't have a WP:COI with an article about your school. But your principal does have a conflict of interest with the school, and the strongest one as they would have a WP:PAID relationship. Looping in your principal into this article could create some serious issues, and that may become very difficult to navigate, especially for someone with minimal Wikipedia experience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs and @Mathglot Thank you. Today I carefully read all of the guidance that was given to me. As far as I understand Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project and editors are expected to remain neutral and follow policies such as conflict of interest and verifiability i also understand now that if there is a potential conflict of interest regarding an article it should be disclosed and discussed on the articles talk page. I appreciate both of you taking the time to explain these issues and I have a much better understanding of them now. BriefX (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may be different in law, but there is not going to be a "potential" conflict of interest on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia's rules on this topic make it clear that any potential greater than zero is already conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well i understand the distinction and will keep Wikipedias conflict of interest guidance in mind when editing. BriefX (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox or Draft namespace for a COI contributor?

Hi everyone, I'm a new COI editor working on a draft article about my employer. I've started drafting the article in my sandbox and beofre doing so, I've disclosed affiliation with the company on my user page per WP:PAID guidelines, and advised by another editor to "have a complete conflict of interest declaration somewhere before submitting a draft for review.".

As mentioned, I've been using my sandbox to develop the article before submitting it through AfC, which I thought was the recommended approach for new editors. However my sandbox got tagged for WP:G11 speedy deletion for promotional content and deleted shortly after.

The draft was not finished and was not intended to be reviewed in its current state. The tone was still being worked on to achieve a neutral pov, I was still working through sources, and consulting other editors about specific sources before finalising anything. It was very much a work in progress.

Is there anything I should add to my sandbox to make it clear it's a work in progress for AfC? Or should I work outside of Wikipedia entirely and then go directly through the Article Wizard and submit for AfC review by experienced editors?

Is there anything I should do at this stage given the speedy deletion tag? Appreciate any guidance.

Thanks! Ahakobjanyan (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of promotional nature that gets something deleted under G11 isn't just a matter of "tone", and it's not normally something one can eliminate. It's often a product of the fact that your employer (and likely you) have no idea actually what Wikipedia articles are for.

Please read through WP:PAIDGUIDE. In short, whatever your employer is hoping to achieve with this article, Wikipedia is probably the wrong place to achieve it. Wikipedia is not the place to inform the world about the products/services you offer, or to make sure customers looking up your name are able to find information about you, or anything like that; we consider all of these types of goals to be promotional in nature, and promotion is not permitted here. Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion is not a tone, it's a goal. If you care whether the company will soon be in a better position financially, your writing is likely to be promotional. The proper person to write the article is a foreigner who has never heard of the company and doesn't care about its prospects, but who has carefully read what the reliable publishers have written about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Altering Biography Page

Hi! I had a quick question regarding making edits to one’s Wikipedia page. I am currently working under Paulo Barrozo, whose Wikipedia page was first created by a former research assistant of his a few years ago. However, as his new research assistant, he has asked me to contact Wikipedia as a means of altering said page. I have no way to contact the original creator of the page, but would like to know how I may gain access to it and edit it to make adjustments. Please let me know if there is a way to remediate this issue; I greatly appreciate any time and feedback! ~2026-37787-87 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may use the edit request process to propose edits to the article. Please first read the paid editing policy and conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Paulo Barrozo was deleted in 2014 due to falling short of notability guidelines. I would suggest making an account, then reviewing WP:PAID/WP:COI (as noted by 331dot), making appropriate disclosures on your userpage, and then requesting that the article be restored via WP:RFUD (although before you do so, I would recommend identifying new reliable, independent sources that could establish that Barrozo meets the notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User profile

Is it allowed to copy the source code from another users profile page and modify it for our own profile? BriefX (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BriefX: As long as you understand that (1) your user page is not a social media profile and (2) you're not attempting to impersonate the person whose user page code you're copying. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to create my own design by combining and modifying code from different user pages. I will not be attempting to imitate or impersonate any other user BriefX (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be courteous to put "copying from NameOfUser" in your edit summary. M kuhner (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Parcinq and Kasing2 reliability

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Filipino_indie_magazines_Parcinq_and_Kasing2 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

parcinq.com
kasing2.com

I've tried at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Tambayan Philippines' Sources talk page but didn't get a response. Hoping to get one ASAP because these Filipino indie magazines are both relevant to pages I'm either editing or reviewing.
TL;DR for Parcinq, it is an independent fashion and lifestyle magazine in the Philippines. Ielooked around and apparently ven after a few years of asking, no consensus has been established regarding its reliability. I did see archived discussions say that it's fine for pop culture. I agree it is TBH.
It's used in Bini and I'm GA-reviewing that page. Does anyone here object to Parcinq being established as reliable for Filipino pop culture or do we all agree it is?
Kasing2 is new (launched just a few months ago) and very niche, as it apparently focuses on a specific ethnic group in the Philippines. However, looking at their masthead and editorial policies, it seems they are legit.
I would really like to use their reviews and news pieces especially, e.g.

Their review of Hell University
Their interview with the writers of "Lagi" by Bini

Both of these indie magazines seem completely acceptable and reliable for Filipino pop culture IMO. Handsome Ellis (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the RSN thread appears to have been opened yesterday ([9]), and remains open. It's pretty typical for discussions on Wikipedia to take some time to attract responses. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I guess I'm just a bit stressed because of the Parcinq thing especially, because a number of people (not just the nominator) are pinging me to make progress on that GA review. Bini is a really popular subject on Wikipedia it seems. Handsome Ellis (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've now given a more substantive and hopefully helpful reply at RSN, so I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion to point people towards participating there instead. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

False Positive?

I spend a lot of time fixing pages found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names

There is a page listed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Eala
that has no error when opened.

Any ideas why?

Quebec99 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec99, I extracted all the named refs with PCRE <ref name="?([^>]+)"?\s*> and sorted them, which revealed two definitions of "WTA-AE"; now fixed. Don't know why the page was not flagging them; probably worth continuing to pursue this. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Quebec99 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Help talk:CS1 errors § Categorized, but unflagged multiply defined reference

Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep getting 500 on 2026 Iran war

I keep getting 500 when editing the lead. The page is a monster. The warbox is too big. There are too many citations.

Any idea what would be the best way to reduce server demand? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it easier if you instead click on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_war&action=edit&section=0, Selbstporträt? (Or is this what you're already doing?) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty trick. Will try. Am using the 2017 editor, so I guess I'll have to add "&section=0" by hand.

An Internet to you, Sir! Selbstporträt (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Selbstporträt, I don't use this technique often enough to remember it, and therefore do it in the following way. I set out (conventionally, by clicking on "edit") to edit the section that immediately follows the lead. For this article, this would bring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_war&action=edit&section=1. Without editing the section at all, I instead edit the URL, simply changing "1" to "0" and hitting Enter. (If the section immediately following the lead were itself problematic in some way, I could use another section, changing "8" or whatever to "0".) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Selbstporträt Maybe it's because I use the default Vector 2022 interface but on all articles I see a link immediately to the right of the article title which is clickable link to edit just the lead section. That avoids all this fiddling about with URL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull. I seem to remember that link is an option in Preferences. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, too but I couldn't find it when I looked, so I assumed it had been promoted to be a full part of Vector 2022. Maybe someone will mention how to add it in other skins. It is certainly very useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, @ColinFine, It's a gadget in the appearance section, "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". --rchard2scout (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rchard2scout Thanks. I did have that gadget active, now I check. No idea why it isn't in the editing section where it really belongs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: The Gadgets tab is for features added at the English Wikipedia with our own JavaScript and CSS like MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.css. We cannot add items to the other tabs which are made by MediaWiki itself or MediaWiki extensions. But maybe this gadget should be under the "Editing" heading on the Gadgets tab and not the "Appearance" heading. The old phab:T2156 has discussion about adding a MediaWiki feature. phab:T20113 is an old request to allow gadgets to be placed on the other tabs. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thanks for the explanation. Yes, it would be better in the "Editing" section. I looked there when I was trying to remember where I had activated it but didn't notice it as it was in the following section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-appearance" trick works on MinervaNeue too! Selbstporträt (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: still getting a 500. This is getting annoying. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "section=0&" seems to work better than to click on an edit lead section button. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright query

I'm looking at adding media to Davis Fire and I stumbled upon this PDF. On page 4 there is an image of the fire I'd like to use in the article and the document states, "Courtesy of an NWS off-duty employee". I believe it is OK to use because the NWS employee provided it to the agency to use in the September 2024 weather report, but I'm checking here just in case I'm missing something. Thank you, and please ping me when responding. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 21:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Wind and Fire, is your argument that provision of a photograph to the photographer's employer for a particular use in a publication of the employer constitutes release into the public domain? If this is your argument, it puzzles me. If you're suggesting something else, then what? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary From Commons' PD-USgov template: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government as part of that person's official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The National Weather Service (NWS) is a federal agency, meaning images taken by employees for their profession are public domain. However, the NWS PDF stated on page 4 the image I wanted to use was taken by an off-duty NWS employee yet it was still included in the NWS Reno's September 2024 weather summary. Thus, I believed the image was in U.S. public domain as it was taken by an employee of a federal agency, however I was just ensuring because I did not want to unintentionally violate copyright. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the NWS employee was off-duty when they took the picture, it cannot (I would argue) have been part of their duties to take and supply it. I would regard it as equivalent to a picture provided to the NWS by an ordinary member of the public, which I imagine means the photographer retains the copyright. However, Copyright law is complicated and varies greatly according to jurisdiction. Unless I could access definitive legal advice otherwise, I myself would assume the picture is not in US public domain. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36805-68 OK, thank you! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 14:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Am I allowed to make articles for musical artists? Hiphophead2010 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if the musical artist is you, or anybody you know, that is highly discouraged. Write about musical artists you have no connection with all you want. See Help:Your first article. Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to make drafts? Hiphophead2010 (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiphophead2010, absolutely; in fact, that is preferred method. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Because I just made a draft that redirects to MC Eiht, is that okay? Hiphophead2010 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiphophead2010, No, not really, because there was no point to it. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox instead. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to delete a draft? Hiphophead2010 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do anything. You blanked your draft Draft:Blue Stamp Music. This is considered to be a request for deletion and it has already been tagged for speedy deletion. Meters (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's already tagged for speedy deletion, so you don't have to do anything. Just please use your sandbox for editing practice. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not banned? If not, thank you. Hiphophead2010 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, no. You're just starting out, and we're happy you're here! Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hiphophead2010, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination deletion ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinu_Udani_Siriwardhana

This article reference check this article nomination delete??? Sources include Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, but some content has already been removed from those websites what can be done about this?

Botempa (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"This article reference check this article nomination delete???" is a knotty sentence indeed, Botempa. My guess: "Please check the references to this article. Should I nominate it for deletion?" Well, the article is junk. But being junk isn't a satisfactory reason for deletion. WP:DEL-REASON lists 14 reasons for deletion. The seventh is "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify [what's said in the article] have failed". Have you made thorough attempts? If you haven't, are you ready to make thorough attempts? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. Yes, I searched for reliable independent sources, but apart from social media (Facebook/Instagram), there are no reliable third-party sources to verify the content. Therefore, I believe it qualifies for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Botempa (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the recipe. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine page

Is there a particular reason as to why does the title image of TIME's Wikipedia page includes AI related magazine? Is there nothing more important that TIME ever published? What about their first ever cover which could be much better to use here? I would be willing to swap, though. Morris (talk with this worm) 05:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That, Morrisworm, is something to bring up at Talk:Time (magazine). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Morrisworm. The article in question is Time (magazine). Any image used must not be restricted by copyright, since many old TIME covers are now in the public domain. We never use a non-free image when a free one is available. The vast majority of TIME covers published since 1963 are protected by copyright because they include original creative artwork. This particular cover consists only of text so the image is not eligible for copyright. I agree with you that this particular cover is strange and not representative of the look of the magazine over the years. There are two possibilities. The first is to use a public domain illustrated cover from 1963 or before. The second is to use a more recent cover that is one of a handful that are public domain because they are text based and include no original creative artwork. One could be selected that is more representative of the appearance of the magazine over the years. I have included an example.

I suggest that you go to Wikimedia Commons and enter "Category:Time (magazine) covers" in the search box. By looking at the decade-by-decade subcategories, you can see about 500 public domsin TIME covers. You can raise the issue and make a proposal for a change at Talk: Time (magazine). Or, you can just be bold and make the change yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems like a good idea. I will see if I can find something more appropriate for a title image inside Commons...I did some search and found out plenty of covers. Here are three covers; two of them are from this century and one of them is from 1960s (I guess too old to use). Anyway, I wish some opinions on these images. Morris (talk with this worm) 07:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Morrisworm Personally, I like the 3d one best but that's neither here nor there. But my advice would have been to be bold and change the image yourself, which you seem to have done. So I think this query is now resolved? Mme Maigret (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do tell what do you mean "neither here nor there"? Because i think it could be still be relevent. I really like the potrait. And yeah I have updated it already since I got no response here. Morris (talk with this worm) 05:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1966 issue — one of the most iconic covers

May 11, 2020

1960 issue

Trigger filters??

Whenever I edit an article i sometimes see filter tags in the page history such as like "possible unreferenced addition to BLP" and "possible height and/or weight change".What exactly do these messages mean and why do they appear in the edit history? BriefX (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are flagging up potential issues and recording some meta data (like 'mobile edit'), which can be useful for those monitoring an article's or particular editor's edit history. You only really need to take notice if the edit filters start giving off warnings or preventing you from saving the edit, or of course if someone comes to raise an issue with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More detail at WP:Edit filter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What you're seeing are tags. Those are messages that MediaWiki automatically marks certain edits with, typically through whether they trigger certain conditions set in the various filters Wikipedia employs. These tags are ubiquitous across Wikipedia and don't necessarily indicate that an edit you made was harmful; they're just there to provide other editors with helpful information, such as whether an edit reverted a previous edit or was made by a bot. In regard to the tags you mentioned, possible unreferenced addition to BLP is appended to any edit to the biography of a living person, abbreviated as "BLP," that may be introducing content not supported by references. This triggers filters because BLPs have heightened quality standards due to the risk of false or libelous information being added. possible height and/or weight change is appended to any edit made by a new or unregistered user that changes the given height or weight of a person in a BLP. This triggers filters because height and weight are objective measurements of a person and are rarely changed in good faith. For a full list of tags, you can visit this page. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay remixes"

Look I know this sounds like a VERY stupid idea for an article but I think it'd be cool to have it be written down somewhere at the very least considering its apart of meme culture similar to things like quandale dingle and damn daniel which are also on this website. I could see how this could be seen as idiotic to have an article about BUT considering how large scope I believe they are I think it'd be cool if there was one. Idiginmynosealotsorry (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also this would be like my first article ever so It would be pretty butt but y'know you gotta start somewhere (also if im talking too like casual and less professional than I should be on this website lmk) Idiginmynosealotsorry (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first thing I will say is:

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.

Having said that: the main point for considering a possible article is whether the subject is notable. In this case it would mean "Have several people independently published (in reliable sources) material about the idea of "gay remixes"? - not just about particular examples, but about this as a concept.

If they have, then an article may be possible - a summary of what those different commentators have published about the idea.

If not, then it is (at present) almost certainly a non-starter.

Your first sentence sounds as if this has not yet been written about much: Wikipedia is not a publisher of new ideas (see original research) - it follows, it does not lead. ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talking casually is fine (as long as you heed WP:NOTSOCIAL). As for your article idea, you need only prove it’s notable in order to have an article on it. For a subject to be notable, it must be discussed in-depth by reliable, independent sources. Notability is the only requirement for something to have an article here. Happy editing! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (any/all) In solidarity. 09:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

contributor who requests sources beyond what Wikipedia requires

CLOSED

Article content dispute belongs elsewhere: see WP:Dispute resolution. (non-admin closure) M kuhner (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, i'm in a situation where I'm not sure what to do :

For about a week, an editor on the Ubisoft article (named @Masem) has repeatedly removed content about the established relationship between Gameloft and Ubisoft over a number of years. Because the editor initially refused to engage in discussion and simply kept reverting the content, I started a discussion on the talk page eight days ago. After three days of discussion, during which we had apparently reached an agreement, the editor once again removed a large portion of the content, claiming that it constitutes original research, even though it clearly does not.

As you can see, my edits simply summarize what the reliable sources state in an encyclopedic manner. They describe the established partnership (with secondary and primary sources that specifically discuss this partnership between Gameloft and Ubisoft) and provide specific examples, such as Gameloft games published by Ubisoft, supported by strong sources including IGN. Furthermore, the Wikipedia articles for those games themselves identify Ubisoft as the publisherand vice versa (Ubisoft developer, Gameloft publishers).

The editor argues that unless a source is a journalistic article specifically dedicated to stating that Ubisoft published a Gameloft game, it is not acceptable. However, the sources I cite explicitly identify Gameloft as the developer and Ubisoft as the publisher. The editor nevertheless insists that this is not sufficient under Wikipedia's policies, even though they have not provided any policy-based justification or cited any relevant guideline. Instead, they simply continue reverting well-sourced content without any consensus to do so.

It genuinely appears that I am dealing with an editor who is not engaging with the sources and is removing information that is supported by reliable references and accepted on numerous other Wikipedia articles, based solely on their own interpretation.

So, what should I do in this situation? I have deliberately not restored the content a third time because I do not want to start an edit war, but I now seem to be completely stuck. What would be the appropriate next step? Royge 12 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my message didn't summarize it very well.

From my perspective, based on the Wikipedia rules and on what has already been accepted on other pages, whether about games or other topics, regarding this specific issue: I believe that three reliable, independent sources explicitly mentioning the partnership between Gameloft and Ubisoft are sufficient. As for the individual examples, I think two sources for each game simply identifying Gameloft as the developer and Ubisoft as the publisher are more than enough, especially since no sources contradict this information.

His position is different: he only considers information admissible if it is supported by a journalist's investigation specifically focused on that subject. For example, with Prince of Persia Classic, even though many sources identify Gameloft as the developer and Ubisoft as the publisher, because no journalist wrote an article specifically about Ubisoft being the publisher(and only talking about that in his article), he considers that information inadmissible. (Obviously, no Wikipedia policy actually requires that.) Royge 12 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to tell Royge that trying to impart an significant relationship between Gameloft and Ubisoft just because we can document that Gameloft published a game based on a Ubisoft series is original research, and that for the Ubisoft we need sources that actually speak directly to the business relationship to those companies, in the discussion of the history of Ubisoft on Ubisoft's article. I have tried to fill in a few more sources since that actually go into that relationship but there's no much that can be expanded from what I've found, and that their insistence on using the existence of sources that only acknowledge games exist (via ways of reviews that only list out the developer and publisher) is synthesizing significance. Masem (t) 11:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lying won't help you. There are numerous sources that explicitly show the partnership between Ubisoft and Gameloft, which are more than sufficien. You are unable to demonstrate that Wikipedia would require more that which is already there : sources on the entire partnership + proof that when Ubisoft is cited as an example, it is indeed a publisher, because, spoiler alert, what you are asking for is not required by Wikipedia's rules; the sources are more than sufficient on Wikipedia.

https://www.pocketgamer.com/news/gameloft-bring-ubisoft-classics-to-mobile/.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gameloft-extends-mobile-games-partnership-with-ubisoft

https://www.pocketgamer.com/features/gameloft-assassins-creed-retrospective/https://web.archive.org/web/20200407154539/https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/06/11/prince-of-persia-classic-review-3

https://bdjogos.com.br/jogo.php?id=5022

https://www.ign.com/articles/2005/09/19/mobile-luminaries-michel-guillemot

These sources are more than sufficient on Wikipedia, you are inventing rules. NO TIME does Wikipedia ask for articles from journalists who investigate information by games one by one as you request, articles that mention the partnership in general + others that attest that for example Ubisoft is the publisher of such and such a game is more than sufficient, and you know it very well, no Wikipedia rule asks for more, none. Royge 12 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I've told you this 10,000 times already, you are incapable of citing the slightest precise Wikipedia rule that would require more than what is already there, you are not superior to Wikipedia rules and cannot demand more than what Wikipedia asks. Royge 12 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed you to WP:NOR multiple times, and this statement in the lede To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite – even if not yet expressly cited – reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. We already say that Gameloft had a partnership to publish titles from Ubisoft. I added more from sources (including several you list above) found during the discussion, but importantly those sources discuss the relationship between Ubisoft and Gameloft directly without interpretation, so they are good sources to add. You want more but you want to use reviews from a reliable source to assert there is a significant business relationship between Ubisoft and Gameloft. That we cannot do by NOR because a review does not directly talk about that relationship. Just because company X does something related to company Y that you can document doesn't mean anything about the significance of the relationship between X and Y. Masem (t) 13:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Royge 12 This is not the place to bring a dispute. Please see dispute resolution for things that you can do.

Note that while content is guided by the rules, ultimately it's decided by discussion and consensus. That said, just as an uninterested observer, no one is demanding more than what the rules ask for. You just have a different interpretation. You need to work it out. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Onboarding help for a Noob: Biography Willi Pelzner - German Flight Pioneer

Hello, I am working on a new article about the German flight pioneer Willy Pelzner. The draft is in my Sandbox. I would appreciate any guidance or feedback from experienced editors. Kind regards, Peter Boylan Ua Baoigheallain (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ua Baoigheallain, the content of your "sandbox" is in German. This Wikipedia doesn't host articles in languages other than English. You should instead be aiming at German-language Wikipedia; see for example its page de:Hilfe:Neuen Artikel anlegen. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary,

many thanks! You are right. I normally work in English, but I will make a new account on German wiki for this particular project. Hope you can help me when I do the English version here. It will be polished by then - just a 1 to 1 translation of my own German text...

Kind regards

Pete Ua Baoigheallain (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ua Baoigheallain Note Wikipedia:Unified login. There's no need to create a new account to edit the German Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pete, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you normally work in English, how does it happen that you created a sandbox with text and references in German? Did you copy it from somewhere?

Or did you use an LLM? ("(Diese Liste ist Wikipedia kompatibel; du kannst sie exakt so übernehmen.)" seems an odd thing to put into a draft). If you did, please throw it away and begin again: English Wikipedia does not accept any use of LLMs in writing articles: see WP:NEWLLM.

I observe that the citations in the German version are rather better than in your English version that replaces it, in that at least some of them have page numbers. The purpose of citations is to allow readers to provide verification for the information in the text that they are attached to: a reference to a whole work makes this difficult.

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. (I am aware that your account has been around for five years; but you have made only 22 edits, so I would still count you as a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine,

I am multilingual. Newly retired, so I now have more time to edit. I still am a flight instructor and a dad to care for so I will not be the most prolific writer here. But I do wish to get BETTER. I do all my own research and write all my own stuff. I am a constructive innovation content generator by nature - not primarily a corrector of old stuff. But I agree that over time I will need to learn the minuteae. I promise that I will learn quickly. Glad to access human WIKI mentors like you here in the tea house. The rules make sense but there are a lot of them. I put a DIFFERENT text about a NEW look at the old saw - who was first to fly in my English sandbox. Do you have any comments on that one?

Kind regards

Pete Ua Baoigheallain (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you give a reference to a source, the real-life test for whether you've done it right is that any random person can, within half a minute, find exactly the sentence you were talking about. You are allowed to assume they have the book or the paper or whatever, as long as it's theoretically not a problem for them to get at it. (i.e. you can't use anything that's private, secret, or unpublished, but if they might have to visit a library far away, that's not your problem, as long as it's publicly available when they get there.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misused reference?

Please check this discussion

“In a similar matter regarding paired male saints, Saints Cosmas and Damian have been referred to as potentially originally having homoerotic overtones, and later Christian traditions added them being brothers to conceal that“

this paragraph in LGBTQ themes in mythology has been in the article for years, yet it seems nobody had checked the reference used to support it before I did,

I tried to explain that from what I could gather, the source doesn’t support the claim, so I removed, before it was reinstated by a user who said that, since it’s a longstanding part of the article, you can’t take it off before discussing. But the thing is, I don’t know who to involve in the discussion, last available discussion on the article was from 5 years ago. So I figured if I brought this issue here, we may reach a solution. Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever told you that since it’s a longstanding part of the article, you can’t take it off before discussing is wrong. If the source doesn't support the information, you're well within your rights to remove it. The WP:ONUS is on the other user to seek consensus to reinclude the disputed material, not on you to seek consensus to remove it. Athanelar (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It sounds like it might benefit from an RFC? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide you do need to start a discussion, use the Talk page of the article. Even if there are no recent discussions this may attract the needed attention (someone is clearly watching this article or your edit would not have been reverted). M kuhner (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

another editor has added birth name for a person on Shamshad Begum (disambiguation)

i refrained adding Ragni (actress) because it is birth name only and is known with other screen name! my question: is it acceptable to add merely because of birth name. কল্কি (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @কল্কি.

Yes it is, as long as that birth name is verified by a reliable source.

Reference 3 of Ragni (actress) indeed confirms that name; though reference 1 says instead "Irshad Begum". I suggest that this discrepancy needs to be addressed at Talk:Ragni (actress) ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Online seling

Online seling products Mr bishnu ji (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking questions related to editing or using Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic Bias on Wikipedia

OP is globally locked. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jafran123 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am Jafran, I am interested in writing about subjects from East Africa but the major problem we are facing is that admins and reviewers who review pages we try to create are foreigners and some consider East African notable and public figures as not. They only take BBC, Reuters and NYT thier home based newspapers as reliable leaving out own newspapers of main stream media which are on the same level as BBC in thier countries. Jafran123 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I request Wikimedia and the other editors responsible to look into this matter. Many notable people are missing here and they have pure work on ground. Jafran123 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to discuss reliable sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, especially if you have what you believe is a reliable source and it is being criticized as you say. Many African countries do not have a history of a free press, free of government interference. Many outlets do not have a history of fact checking and editorial control; some accept and publish paid advertorials as news. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thus is know but its everywhere even those BBC one can pay for it but here in East Africa there are some papers now like Daily Monitor, New Vision, Bukedde, Daily Nation,The Observer, NTV Uganda and The Independent those are the main stream and they do fact check besides these small blogs that accept money from ordinary people these papers don't request for money to publish that why its hard to find profiles of people in them if your not known or significant so I think Wikipedia needs East African administrators not foreigners. Jafran123 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an international project and some of our participants very likely are from east African countries. If there are specific sources an editor has removed as unreliable and you want to dispute that I would suggest rs/n. I am not sure who told you we only accept BBC, NYT and Reuters as sources but that is categorically not the case. Can you please provide some specifics? Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are others but if a consultation could first be done on WikiProjects of a specified country where the subject of the article comes from before any acceptance that would be good but here you find a page for a person in UK with no or two references not from major newspapers and his or her or thier page is approved but a subject from East Africa they want like four mainstream sources to prove significance yet thiers has no sources but the page is live. Jafran123 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft process is not required of all users, and has not always existed. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it meets current standards. See other stuff exists. This has nothing to do with geography or race. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If possible we need to come up with a list showing all reliable sources from all East African countries for reviewers to consider just as you consider your BBC. The funiest thing is that when BBC interviews you, your already notable and significant but if Daily Monitor interviews you, you're not. Jafran123 (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

interviews don't normally count towards notability on Wikipedia, no matter who conducts them. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think only Question and Answer not a report written after conducting some interviews and then you write. Jafran123 (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those that moved directly yes are good but later deleted that no significant coverage. Jafran123 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review My Draft:)

I created a Wikipedia draft about a kidney company and have added a number of news references. Would you mind taking a look User:WhiteFactLoom/sandbox and letting me know if it's good for submission or if there's anything else I should improve? I also have a question about the Articles for Creation process. I know how to move a sandbox draft to the main space, but I'm not sure how to submit it through AfC. Should I copy the entire source into a new draft page and submit it from there, or is there a better way? WhiteFactLoom (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will shortly move it to draft space, you may then submit it. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was moved to Draft:Strive Health. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Yeah User:Theroadislong move it. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteFactLoom

Note: I took a brief look. I would have posted this on the talk page, but I wasn't sure you'd notice it there. My suggestion would be to add more concrete information about the company and its products or services, rather than focusing primarily on its financing rounds. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'll collect more information about their services and add it to the draft.

Thanks for the suggestion:) WhiteFactLoom (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteFactLoom Suggest have a look at WP:42, WP:CORPTRIV, and WP:PROMO. Mme Maigret (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Kill sourcing question

Hi! I spotted this revision while watching recent changes. It adds a statement about an old Lana Del Ray album, referenced to a Spotify link. As far as I can tell, the Spotify link may be a fan page posting old copyrighted music, but I don't know for sure, and I can't easily find any information online. I also expect that a Spotify link isn't really a good source, but I don't want to just revert if I'm not fully sure.

I would appreciate advice on the correct response to this from someone more experienced! Thanks. Kognise (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it. The 'artist' on Spotify, Lizzy Grant, has released an album in 2020 which is definitely not part of Lana's discography. So yes, seems like a fan upload. In any case, claims like this should ideally not rely on primary sources. jolielover♥talk 18:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kognise (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-Sonnet's talk page about the administrators declined to protect templates on RFPP due to not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection

Hi Blue-Sonnet, I have this: According to Blue-Sonnet's talk page about the administrators declined to protect templates on RFPP due to not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, the registered, autoconfirmed, extended confirmed or administrator users or temporary accounts place the template (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Tylorhaphe) to request the protection on the Requests for page protection's increase page, part of Requests for page protection, with the reason (e.g. "Indefinite semi-protection: High-risk template"). the administrators wants to protect the template (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Tylorhaphe), but the administrators declined to protect because not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~2026-37899-91 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I explained we don't routinely protect templates. If it's not being disrupted, it won't be protected.

What is it exactly that you want us to do? I still don't understand. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way: Worry is not the same thing as risk. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring categories

Any way to monitor new articles that are added to a specific category? Now the important thing is that this includes all sub categories of said category. Looking for something like article alerts of WikiProjects but for specific categories. Fortek67 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't each category have a page dedicated to it? Wouldn't putting the category page onto your watchlist take care of this? (Note: I don't use either of these features, so I could be missing the point.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order for lists

Hi, I'm currently working on updating the list List of Welsh women, but I can't seem to find any information on what sort of alphabetical ordering I am supposed to be using. In particular, my queries are concerning multiword strings and Mac prefixes. Also should I follow Welsh alphabetical order put out here, as I am dealing with Welsh names, or just follow standard English orderings? Thanks Freddieh9 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in relation to Welsh alphabetical orderings, the page I linked doesn't give any direction as to how letters such as "â" should be sorted. Thanks Freddieh9 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not every person who is Welsh (by the ordinary definition of that) will necessarily have a name that is Welsh (by language). Many names could be of English origin or other origins.

In my opinion, if you have a list of unambiguously-Welsh names to sort, they should be sorted according to Welsh order as they would appear in a Welsh publication.

So I have a question: is it necessary to compromise? If some English names are sorted as if they were Welsh, would it really be a problem? In other words, is the Welsh sort order mainly the same as the English one but with more features? Or are the orders basically incompatible? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguously Welsh names aren't often used, I think. Anglicized versions of Welsh names are far more commonly encountered. (See for example the preamble to Jones (surname).) At the Internet Archive, one can browse Welsh-to-English dictionaries and examine the sort order(s) that they use. Though one shouldn't simply assume that their sort order(s) would be a better choice for use here (as opposed to, say, the indexes at the back of books written in Welsh) than would the familiar sort order for English -- or indeed that their sort order(s) haven't been superseded by another, used in dictionaries published too recently to be freely "borrowed" from the Internet Archive. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

General question

GearsDatapacks has provided the definitive answer. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where is the place to post my opinion that this Taylor Swift “marriage” is a sham and the divorce is imminent? Flommerflam (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia. Sounds like you want a social media platform, or perhaps a blog. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 01:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page --> disambiguation page?

I found a page with an ambiguous title and I'd like to move to a different name. Where it is now, I think should be turned into a disambiguation page, though I'm not sure if I'm supposed to change the redirect to one, for obvious reasons. What do I do about that? Should I create a new one, the same but with "(disambiguation)" at the end, and add a hatnote to the original, or do I just change the original to one? OliviaRigby (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OliviaRigby I found this a bit difficult to follow. Could you tell us what page you're referring to, what the name is that you propose, and why? Mme Maigret (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The first page is Princess Louise of Orléans. I would like to move it to something like this: Princess Louise of Orléans (1882–1958), which I've just realized is now a redirect to that page, which is a whole other thing I don't know. But I'd like to move that first because there is another person (Louise d'Orléans (1869–1952)) with that name whose page is not at the correct name, which should be something like Princess Louise of Orléans (1869–1952), which I see there is also a redirect from. I want to make the original page (Princess Louise of Orléans) a disambiguation page, but I don't know if that is possible or should be done. OliviaRigby (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OliviaRigby There has to be one person with the primary name Princess Louise of Orleans. It's usually the first person created with that name, rather than say the most important person. So you can't change the name so that there is no article occupying the page. Disambiguations exists specifically so you can find the other Princess Louises. Mme Maigret (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So do I move the first one or not? Because if not I would still be moving the second and just be adding this template to the primary name. OliviaRigby (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We specifically reject deciding what is the right name; we go by the sources. If someone is usually called "Louise d'Orléans" in the reliable sources, we refuse to say she ought to be considered another "Louise of Orléans", even though logically those ought to mean the same thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple offices in the infobox

Hello. I've written Geoffrey de Henlaw, who was prior of Llanthony Priory before becoming bishop of St Davids. What would be the best way to reflect both offices in the infobox? Quoting Querying Questioner (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dislike the way you have it in the infobox now? It seems right to me. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to include when he held the office of prior. Quoting Querying Questioner (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prior of Llanthony Priory (year–year)

_____

And, if necessary, after that you may put </ br> Name of Other Former Post (year–year) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Welby, a modern person with former posts, is a usable example of how to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Quoting Querying Questioner (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

L8X question

How do I become an autoconfirmed user? L8X (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer is (usually, at least) to stop worrying about this and stop wanting to rush into something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What English should be used?

It feels strange asking, but given there are no other types of English other than just "English," I feel like it's a good idea to ask what exactly that type of English is. LookingAtThatWall (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[ropek-2026-1] Ropek, Lucas (26 March 2026). "Wikipedia cracks down on the use of AI in article writing". TechCrunch. San Francisco, California, USA. Retrieved 2026-05-11.

[milman-2026-2] Milman, Oliver (27 March 2026). "Wikipedia bans AI-generated content in its online encyclopedia". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2026-03-27.

[sparks-2026-3] Sparks, Hannah (28 March 2026). "Wikipedia officially bans AI-generated encyclopedia entries". New York Times. New York, USA. Retrieved 2026-05-24.

[maiberg-2026-4] Maiberg, Emanuel (26 March 2026). "Wikipedia bans AI-generated content". 404 Media. USA. Retrieved 2026-05-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]