Wikipedia:Teahouse#Changing class

Hey,

I've tried to change my signature earlier but it seems like the colour doesn't change. I think it's because I've clicked on the link before. Is there a way to change the colour of that?

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) ☺ 10:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jacksonvil. It's nothing to do with whether you've clicked the link: it's blue for me as well. The problem is that you've set the style in a span which includes the wikilinks; but they set their own style in inner spans when the software expands them.

So you'll need to set the style within the Wikilink.

At present you have:

<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen"> [[User:Jacksonvil|Jacksonvil]] ([[User Talk:Jacksonvil|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacksonvil|contribs]]) </span>

You'll need to change it to something like:

[[User:Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">Jacksonvil</span>]] ([[User Talk:Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">contribs</span>]])

That produces: Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has 380 characters. The limit is 255. This is closer at 273 but still needs trimming:

<span style="font-family:Georgia;background:#F5FFFA">[[User:Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">Jacksonvil</span>]] ([[User talk:Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contribs/Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">contribs</span>]])</span>

It produces: Jacksonvil (talk|contribs). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping me. I just had to get rid of the font, which trimmed it down to just 253. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 07:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked as a sock per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abduvaitov Sherzod 2. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Assalamu alaikum Alhamdulillah wa rahmatullahi barakatuh! Have a nice day! First of all, we really appreciate all of your contributions to Wikipedia! And I sincerely congratulate you on the arrival of the holy month of Ramadan! May you always be happy on the path of goodness! (Flipped the (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC))[reply] Ramadan Mubarak! jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Jiraijohnny Thanks! (Flipped the (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]

how to make a good topic? Rgarci7267 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase your question? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "the ba club"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pattern to these. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think these accounts who ask weird and very short questions like this are trolls, or they don’t understand fully what Wikipedia is. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am facing two difficulties:

1. I created some redirects which does not land in the right place:

• K. Manzoor Elahi
• K. Mushtaq Elahi
• K. Taufiq Elahi
• K. Tausif Elahi
• K. Iffat Elahi Mahbub
• K. Mahbub Elahi Biplob
• Captain Iftekhar Elahi Shanto
• Ershad Elahi Shuvo
• K. Daad Elahi

2. Also I wanted some advice if any of the aforementioned articles are notable to have a proper mainspace article. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TrueMoriarty, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm dubious about the value of these redirects. First, is anybody likely to search for these names (I have no idea)? And secondly, if they do so, is there any value at all in directing them to the article on the surname? (I don't think so).

As for whether they are notable or not: in order to demonstrate that a subject is notable, it is necessary to find several sources which meet all the criteria in golden rule. It is very unlikely that anybody here is going to be willing to do that research on a list of names that you have come up with. If you want to know if any of them are notable, it is almost certainly up to you to do that research. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. But if you notice K. Mushtaq Elahi, do you think atleast he might be notable enough? You can notice some independent sources about him in the elahi (name) page

Thanks again!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueMoriarty: Section links should only name the subsection like Elahi (name)#Elahi family (Rangpur, Bangladesh), not Elahi (name)#Surname#Elahi family (Rangpur, Bangladesh). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those redirects should be deleted, as they do not redirect to articles. I also believe that those names should be removed from Elahi_(name), which ought only to list notable bearers of that name. TrueMoriarty, if you can show that any of those people are notable (and it seems likely that some are), please go ahead and create articles about them. Once the articles exist, add links from Elahi_(name). Maproom (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that as you will notice that a lot of articles about prominent families have lists of member which are not fully notable (but still very notable for a person) for Wikipedia. The names are usually bolded with redirects. I followed that pattern but thank you for the suggestion.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 09:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i need some help please on wikipedia Make out you own thing (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with?   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Make out you own thing Another editor has left some suggestions on your talk page, which gives general advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, is Wikipedia a place to collect hats, and the reason for this? WillToSay31 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WillToSay31. Welcome to the Teahouse.

"Hat collecting" is indeed a pathology with which afflicts some Wikipedia editors. See WP:Hat collecting. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a new editor, I just don't know where to find this information.

My question is what to do (or to not do anything) in the presence of slurs in user pages. I would assume to do nothing, but I'm unsure. What I saw had one slur, and the page in which it was in included a lot of other content that was non-offensive. This user hasn't edited in a few years, as well, so I doubt I could leave them a message.

Thanks to anyone that can help. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored so I think you shouldn't do anything unless if it's genuinely offensive or intended for personal attacks to someone. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivebeenhacked, Wikipedia is not censored applies to articles and images. Wikipedia's userpage policy says "there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". @Organhaver, whose user page is this -- I think that seeing the context would help. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially want to call them out, but I guess if it helps? It's in this section of the user's subpage. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiktionary that term isn't even a slur, just "offensive";

quote: "4. (informal, offensive) A person or being who is extremely stupid or slow to learn."
--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 22:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the countless sources that state otherwise. Also, the Wikipedia article (which is... literally the project we're on) states that it is a slur (see this link). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the user to remove it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I said before: this user hasn't edited in 4 years, so I really doubt that I could ask them to remove it. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I have removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An offensive name for a category of human beings is a slur by definition.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so after spotting a discrepancy in the article about Poland, where (in my opinion) it is wrongly classified in the info-box and article as having a "semi-presidental system", In my attempts to figure out the root of this I have discovered a small rabbit hole.

Basically the whole thing originates from the classifications of what is a parliamentary and what is a semi-presidental system.
After reviewing the sources both in the article and finding more, there seem to exist 2 main definitions in literature:
first, more popular one which considers what powers lie under the president and parliament, and
second, which considers a semi-presidental system to include any otherwise parliamentary system where the president is also elected trough a direct vote from the population (sources using this definition list eg. Ireland as an example of a semi-presidental system)

So, the article Semi-presidential system clearly uses the first definition, as countries such as Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia, Moldova, Bulgaria, etc. are categorised as parliamentary. However, after reviewing the references Poland has been categorised using the second definition as semi-presidential. The majority of the sources online (including official Polish Government website, European Union website, and CIA Factbook, as well as multiple published sources) classify Poland as a parliamentary republic, however some argue (mainly because of directly elected president) that Poland is to be considered semi-presidential republic.

This turned into kind of 2 separate things so the talk page links are: here about the two definitions, here about the classification of Poland itself, and here about my problems with the currently listed sources
--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 22:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least your second attempt to bring up the matter at the teahouse (the/an earlier attempt being here). Meanwhile, you seem to have brought it up at Talk:Poland, Talk:Semi-presidential system, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and (as I didn't look at all carefully) possibly more. If you want to launch a RfC, then go ahead; consistency of labeling as "parliamentary" versus "semi-presidential" may indeed be very important, but it's not a matter for the teahouse. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however I asked the first time on teahouse earlier before I figured out the whole 2 definitions thing.

I decided to ask on the teahouse as to whether this is the kind of thing that RfC is meant for, as I haven't made a RfC before.

I only brought it up in the links above (and i cross-linked everything, if someone looked at any of the discussions they would be aware of the other ones), and in the teahouse itself.

--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name for scar tissue after being struck by lightning? ~2026-11216-63 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a better question for WP:Reference desk. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First a wound from lightning bolt, after healing, what is the Medical scientific name given the scar? ~2026-11216-63 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer, the name for healing scar tissue after being struck by lighting is possibly a formation of a Lichtenberg figure, it can happen to humans after being struck by lightning. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse specifically is for questions about the workings of Wikipedia. Questions about finding information on wikipedia are for the Reference desk. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the essay WP:WAW there is a claim that "As a result of sourcing issues, almost all^[quantify] biographies before 1900 are of men." Occasionally, I'll see a maintenance tag and take it as a challenge, and today is one of those days. I have two ideas for how to quantify this using Wikipedia data, but I need to know if there are any relevant tools. I either need
a) (preferred) a tool that allows me to browse pages by birth date and gender (obvious reasoning here) or
b) something that allows me to see the full number of pages in a category, including subcategories.
If anyone has one of these, or another idea, could you please help me? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FloblinTheGoblin, the folks at Women in Red might be able to help with this? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't organized by Wikipedia language edition, but Humaniki is the best representation that I know of. The graph is rudimentary at best, but at least it is something. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeycdiamond @Sarsenet Thank you! I will pursue both of these. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wavv.Music That's the example of the page which recently published and some editor tagged it and nominate the article for deleting. Please help me to understand how to handle the situation professionally. Thank you. RedOwl (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RedOwl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavv.Music has a very simple "delete" rationale: "Fails to meet WP:NORG". Well, does it fail to meet WP:NORG? If so, then say nothing -- you'll be saving wasted effort and time. If it does meet WP:NORG, then in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavv.Music briefly and persuasively say how it meets WP:NORG. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply @Hoary. Can you tell me does it meet WP:NORG or not? And how to analyze it? RedOwl (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RedOwl, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the other comments at the deletion discussion that Hoary linked to above. They explain exactly how, in the commenters' opinion, Wavv.Music fails to satisfy NORG.

If you wish to challenge that, you need to refute their arguments: to find sources that are not all routine coverage, primary sources and press releases. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I was asleep, RedOwl, ColinFine adeptly answered your question. I have nothing to add. -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time @Hoary and @ColinFine. RedOwl (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to include Canon Cinema EOS cameras in Template:Canon EOS mirrorless cameras similar to how Sony cinema-line cameras are included in Template:Sony MILC cameras? Suro1234 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Cinema EOS Suro1234 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Suro1234, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Questions about what should go into a particular article (or template) rarely get useful answers at a general help page like the Teahouse. I see you have asked at Template talk:Canon EOS mirrorless cameras, which is a better place to ask.

If you think that not many people will see it there, then put a note at a relevant WikiProject (probably WT:WikiProject Photography) directing people to your question. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I have a draft pending at AfC (Draft:Island Styles) that I've been working on. I've disclosed my COI and I'm just waiting for review. However, I realized the target title "Island Styles" is currently a redirect to the band Candlebox (the redirect was created a few years ago by an editor who is now blocked: User:FMSky. Redirect link:Island Styles (musician)). I'm worried that when a reviewer finally reaches my draft, they won't be able to move it because of this redirect. Should I file a technical move request now, or should I just wait for the reviewer to handle it? I don't want to create extra work for the admins! Thanks in advance for the help! Islandguitar (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandguitar Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I don't think you should worry about this one too much, as Wikipedia does have policy resolving ambiguous titles like this, as outlined in WP:D. Should this be passed and moved to main space, I think the reviewer would move your article to something like Island Styles (musician) or Island Styles (composer).

Oh and by the way, writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged, so keep in mind that. Cheers! --- n✓h✓8 03:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Islandguitar (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me merge Q126524681 into Q21127844 Vitedg (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is the Wikipedia Teahouse. You probably should ask this question somewhere on Wikidata. The help page for merging pages on Wikidata is located at d:WD:M. dot.py 07:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For Sankar Basu, I see hidden categories for missing birth year and place, even though the page has them. Is this normal behavior? If so, what is missing? Thanks for clarifying this.

B030510 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC) B030510 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For that page, someone had manually added those two hidden categories. I have removed them.

P.S. You seem to have double-signed your message. This usually happens when you do ~~~~ at the end of your message when pressing "Add topic"; you do not need to do this, as the message is automatically signed after pressing that. dot.py 07:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to no more what it takes to have biography published and established on Wikipedia? Kindly assist in this.Sorry I am new here. Chizobe (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chizobe. Please read and study Your first article. If the person is alive, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. If the person is yourself, be aware that self-promotion is not permitted, and writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chizobe (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Thanks so much![reply]

@Chizobe Also see almighty 42 The answer to life, the universe, and everything. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is actually to become really really famous, then somebody will write a biography for you. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 10:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chizobe (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Humorous 🤣[reply]

they're not even really joking though. That is by a long shot the best way to get a Wikipedia page. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be so kind to read P. 183 of the linked article, and perhaps copy it out here or on my talk page, I’m researching the uniform of a regiment and I would do it myself (as I have a JSTOR account), but the device I am working on for some reason won’t open the JSTOR document properly. Here is the link and thanks in advance.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44225148

The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've downloaded the article and will email it to you in a moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks that helps too. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need us to access JSTOR. Since you are an extended confirmed editor, you may access JSTOR and other resources via the Wikipedia Library. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Mike has emailed me the section I want to read but next time I will use the WL The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need access to specific sources that you can't get through TWL, WP:RX exists for this exact purpose. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull thank you very much for the help, I was able to add a description of the uniforms to the articles I wrote and managed to change the images (which weren’t accurate) to the best of my ability, have a great day. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hope everyone doing great. I want to know is that possible to change the title of any page, if yes than How? RedOwl (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC) @RedOwl (talk)[reply]

You can take a look at WP: MOVE. Toarin (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "Move" tool located in the Tools sidebar TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, @RedOwl, your account won't be autoconfirmed for another 24 hours approximately, so you won't have that option available to you until then.

If you have a move that can't wait that long, you can ask at requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/RedOwl is an example of a page that you won't be able to rename. -- Hoary (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi everyone. I'm a contributor to the French Wikipedia and I just wanted to let you know that André Obami-Itou passed away a long time ago." TGD2000 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TGD2000 Could you please present a source proving his death so we can verify this? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's in French. I am the creator of the same article in the French language. You just need to read the French version with the sources." TGD2000 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, but you must wait for someone who knows French to come along. I cannot help you as I know not a word of French. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just use machine translation. They are quite reliable nowadays, especially for a quick check of information like this. TGD2000 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for his 2024 death date. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the death date, with the same source as in the French article. Deor (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! TGD2000 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I attempted to edit the No Doubt (band) page because of incomplete and inaccurate information. I was a member of the band for two years and just wanted to correct the timeline and other inaccuracies currently published on the page. Evidently, I made an error in the formatting and was admonished by a user threatening to remove me. I was wondering if somebody can please help me to make the corrections that need to be made properly. OldSchoolPlaya (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a member of the band, you have a Conflict of interest and should disclose that in your edit. Alternatively, you could submit an edit request, which is a better idea for articles with which you have a COI. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OldSchoolPlaya More fundamentally, the issue is that you're changing/adding information without citing that information to a reliable source. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and all factual information must be cited to a reliable source such that anyone on Wikipedia can verify the origin of that information. No doubt you have factual knowledge of the band due to your affiliation, but obviously none of us have any reason to simply take you at your word. Athanelar (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above answers, see WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get this done without messing up formatting. Could someone add the hockey player Sofie Lundin to the Olympians section of Ohio State Buckeyes women's ice hockey ? Kivi36 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivi36 I note that Sofie Lundin is Swedish. What source do you have for the suggestion she plays for Ohio State? You should add that first to her biography and then the addition can be made. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/womens-ice-hockey/roster/sofie-lundin/6522 --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing—lots of school pages go under vandalism.[Probably the students of the school editing without citations.]

So, I propose that we protect all school pages. [[User:SomnambulantFish|SomnambulantFish]}}] _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is not a page for making proposals, but for asking for help.

Try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but first read Wikipedia:Protection policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SomnambulantFish, we do not preemptively protect groups of articles based on the possibility of vandalism. We protect individual articles based on repeated and recent vandalism or other disruption of that specific article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly inquire about the status of my draft, which has been under review since 19 January. I would appreciate your guidance on whether the submission was completed correctly and if this review duration is within the normal timeframe. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Draft:Kevin Chesters; it has been submitted and is awating review. As noted, this could take "6 weeks or more", please be patient with this entirely volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am Paul Bate, Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency. I understand that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged and that this is a conflict of interest. I believe I may meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria (there is independent coverage of my work in strong independent sources, listed below not just gov.uk). Would any independent editors be willing to consider creating an article about me, or to advise whether this would be appropriate? Thank you.

Example sources: Pdbate (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Example sources"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren’t enough to use to make an article then you could probably add yourself to the UK space Agency article (if there is one, probably is) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is, and he is already mentioned and pictured there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok that makes sense. Well then @Pdbate if you can demonstrate your notability (through at least three in-depth and reliable sources), then go for it. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into and advising on this. Below are examples of publicly available sources (apologies, previous message was truncated) - does this help?

• BusinessCloud – article on move from Babylon Health to UK Space Agency CEO: https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/babylon-health-exec-given-job-in-a-million/
• Civil Service World – article on UK Space Agency chief’s departure and reorganisation: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/uk-space-agency-chief-to-depart
• Physics World – “Once a physicist: Paul Bate” profile: https://physicsworld.com/a/once-a-physicist-paul-bate/
• The Independent (or other national outlet) – coverage of new UK Space Agency headquarters and regional offices, quoting Paul Bate as chief executive: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/uk-space-agency-cardiff-andrew-griffith-wales-scotland-b2517933.html
• SatNews (sector outlet) – coverage of changes to UK Space Agency and government arrangements, mentioning Paul Bate as chief executive: https://news.satnews.com/2025/08/21/forresters-digest-uk-space-agency-absorbed-by-british-government/
• GOV.UK – official biography for Paul Bate as Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-bate
• GOV.UK – news release announcing appointment as UK Space Agency CEO: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paul-bate-appointed-as-uk-space-agency-ceo
• GOV.UK – news release announcing decision to step down as UK Space Agency CEO: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paul-bate-to-step-down-as-uk-space-agency-ceo
• Space‑sector conference site – speaker biography for Paul Bate at UK/European space conference: https://www.spaceconference.co.uk/2025/speaker/1776968/paul-bate
• Space‑Comm or similar event – speaker biography for Paul Bate: https://space-comm-scotland.co.uk/speaker/dr-paul-bate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, I created a draft for you: Draft:Paul Bate

This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Could be sooner too. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thank you for taking the time to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pal.. Draft was not approved. Inadequate sources LionmerterTHE (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We need a minimum of three sources that meet the requirements at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and for the guidance on sourcing and WP:42. I've had a look at what would meet the requirements. Do you think the following do the trick?

1. Physics World – “Once a physicist: Paul Bate” (2024) A profile and interview that traces my career from the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit, through my role as senior health adviser in No 10 working for David Cameron and Nick Clegg, then on to my appointment at the Care Quality Commission and later Babylon Health. It provides narrative detail, quotations and context on why I moved between these roles and what I was responsible for. Link: https://physicsworld.com/a/once-a-physicist-paul-bate/

2. HealthInvestor – “babylon: Paul Bate” (2016) An independent health‑business article covering my move from the Care Quality Commission to Babylon Health. It confirms my title as Director of Strategy and Intelligence at CQC, describes my role in implementing post‑Francis reforms and leading CQC’s five‑year strategy, and explains that at Babylon I would lead NHS work and expansion. It offers secondary commentary on my impact at CQC and the significance of the move to Babylon. Link: https://healthinvestor.co.uk/executive_moves/babylon-paul-bate/

3. City A.M. – “UK Space Agency taps Babylon Health executive as new boss” (2021) A business‑press piece reporting on my appointment as chief executive of the UK Space Agency and summarising my earlier career. It identifies me as a senior executive at Babylon Health, notes my previous position as Executive Director of Strategy and Intelligence at CQC, and states that I served as senior health and care adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron in Downing Street. This helps to corroborate the No 10, CQC and Babylon roles from an independent outlet. Link: https://www.cityam.com/uk-space-agency-taps-babylon-health-executive-as-new-boss/

4. BusinessCloud – “Babylon Health exec given job in a million” A technology‑business article focusing on my move from Babylon Health to the UK Space Agency CEO role. It covers my position as a Babylon exec and places the appointment in the wider context of UK space and tech policy, adding independent coverage of the transition from digital health into space leadership.

Link: https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/babylon-health-exec-given-job-in-a-million/

5. The Independent on the new UK Space Agency headquarters and regional offices: Link: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/uk-space-agency-cardiff-andrew-griffith-wales-scotland-b2517933.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In short: no.

1. an interview, so not independent
2. routine announcement
3. ditto
4. ditto
5. not about you, so not significant coverage; routine announcement and a quote, so not independent.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing

Thanks for the clear feedback, Andy. I've had a look for stronger candidates with analytical coverage. Do these add enough to the ones before?

A. Dods Westminster Guide (2012) profiling me as No 10 Health Adviser: "The man who took the health bill by the scruff of its neck and gutted it after the 'pause'": https://downloads2.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/2012/House_Issue_Supplement_10_Guide.pdf Political monitoring service with attributed policy impact.

B. BMJ (2020) on my leading Babylon's major Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust partnership:

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m266 �

Independent medical journal

C. The Health Foundation – "From rocket science to babylon: my career in quality improvement"

https://www.health.org.uk/newsletter-feature/rocket-science-babylon-my-career-quality-improvement

The Health Foundation is an independent UK health charity and think tank and the profile covers gives independent editorial context to pre-space career.

Pdbate (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just 72 words, so not significant coverage. I can't access the second, but it seems to be another routine announcement. The third is another interview.

I think it's time to draw a line under this; you might find WP:TOOSOON helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy - very clear and I appreciate you letting me know the score.

Dear concerns,

Regarding the Draft:Scott Woodward (marketer), Mr. Scott has contacted me requesting that this draft be deleted. Kindly let me know if it is possible to have this page taken down. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted in six months if no-one improves it; or you could try nominating it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are also noindexed, so every reputable search engine that honours robots.txt shouldn't be showing it in search results anyhow. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Melon the dominator

It’s not notable.. Melonman221 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't. It has been rejected as utterly unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As like A thing that was on the News of that was mentioned on the News Website without having any issues? WhatABanger (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks you WhatABanger (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to 'adopt' inactive drafts that other people have created? (Plus a question around what qualifies as COI when it comes to hobbies and the like.)

There's a draft that hasn't been edited in five months and is nearing its deletion period that I'm interested in 'adopting' and working on myself. I have checked news searches and believe there may be enough reliable sources for a page based on this topic to be theoretically accepted if it was to cite them, but the page does not cite most of these sources and is generally quite barebones in what text it does take from the few places it does cite.

I understand that smaller edits to other drafts are allowed but are you allowed to completely rework drafts that are not yours, or would it be best if I wait for the existing draft to reach its deletion time and then create my own?

BTW: Could someone here please clarify what specific scenarios COI applies for users who are members of creative websites? I'm a user on the SCP Wikidot but only have a single fairly small tale on the site that is entirely unrelated to any topic present on Wikipedia. As far as I understand COI mostly applies to monetary/familial connections, which wouldn't apply here; but I'd still like it clarified, just in case there are any other cases that I'm missing that might apply. Not only to check if it already applies for me, but also where it might in the future if it doesn't already. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ThyCheshireCat, you're welcome to improve abandoned (or other drafts). ¶ I'd never heard of "the SCP Wikidot". I started reading the article SCP Wiki but soon dozed off; somebody else will have to comment on this and your "tale", I cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI means what it says on the tin; if your interests conflict with those of Wikipedia. This normally comes in the form of personal or financial connections, but it doesn't necessarily need to. If you're a diehard fan of a particular property you might also have a conflict of interest. In this case I don't think that applies, though. Athanelar (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make a redirect from The Noble Experiment to Prohibition in the United States as it had been called by such as people including Herbert Hoover^[1], but a redirect already exists to The Noble Experiment (distillery) and I do not believe that that is the most common use of the term, so should I try to create a disambiguation page for The Noble Experiment linking to both, or should I just edit the redirect or what? If I edited the redirect how would I add the thing at the top of Prohibition in the United States saying that ""The Noble Experiment" redirects here, for the distillery see The Noble Experiment (distillery)"? If I should make a disambiguation page what process should I go through? Fun Chaos (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start a brief discussion on the talk page first to see if others agree before making any changes. LionmerterTHE (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the redirect is sensible, no need for a disambig page for just 2 options. The template you're after is probably {{redirect}}

Namely, {{redirect|The Noble Experiment|the distillery|The Noble Experiment (distillery)}} will produce "The Noble Experiment" redirects here. For the distillery, see The Noble Experiment (distillery). Athanelar (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new editor and I am looking for advice before making changes.

I proposed a rewrite of the Capers Williamson article to condense the wording and make it more encyclopedic while keeping the same sourced facts. The original version relies heavily on a feature-style interview with detailed narrative quotations. My goal was to keep the verifiable information but summarize it more concisely so the article better reflects the subject’s athletic career.

Another editor suggested I ask here before re-implementing. I am not trying to remove sourced material, only to improve neutrality and proportionality in a biography of a living person.

Could someone advise whether this kind of rewrite is appropriate and how best to proceed while staying within WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Uscathy (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First: you appear to have written this comment with AI. Please don't do that. We're all volunteers dedicating our human time and effort to help you. Please return some of the favour by discussing things with us in your own words. You seemingly also used AI to rewrite the article, which is what led to the trouble here. Using AI to add large amounts of content without proper human review is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am curious about these temp accounts. I just wanted to see what it's like and what number I would get. So I logged out and then edited an article that I have never edited before here [1] (just to test). My first edit gave me a unique temp account detail. That's cool. But I logged back in and then eventually logged out. And then edited that same article a second time [2] but I realised I now have lost my temp account in just 2 hours. What gives? Must I stay logged out just to keep my temp account number? Or does it expire in a few hours or randomly? ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personal feedback - I honestly don't like it and probably won't be using it further for other articles. With mobile browser, the floating notice at top is distracting. The navigation bar also won't let you access your edit contributions history. And I have mixed feelings about hiding IP addresses. I think it creates more problems than it solves. After this experience, I think I'll stick to my own logged account from now on. ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You tried a temporary account; you didn't enjoy the experience; you don't think you'll try it again. That closes the matter, no? But if you do still have questions, try reading Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my expectations. I did read it. It says "As long as the cookie exists, you will be automatically logged into this temporary account, meaning all edits made from this device and browser will be attributed to this temporary account, even if the IP address changes." I assumed that as long as I don't clear my cookies and use the same browser and same device and also I am pretty sure my IP address didn't even change. Then my temporary account should have the same number name. I am just shocked that it is not this case at all. The instruction page should maybe explain why but can't find it so why I asked here. But yeah, if you're not interested in answering this question that is just out of curiosity then I suppose matter is closed. Thanks I guess ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is your browser set to delete cookies on exit, or are you otherwise using incognito/privacy mode? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano I am using Chrome. (The normal non-beta version). It doesn't delete cookies. I am definitely not using privacy/incognito mode. The only thing I did was log out then edit with temp account. Then log in and cycle my bike a fair distance. Then 2 hours later - log out and edit. And that's it. Afterwards - I haven't yet logged back into my account as I prefer not to lose my temp account quickly again. ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that the act of logging in resets that cookie. Ideally it shouldn't work like that; the login cookie should be independent of the temp account cookie.

I recall on another wiki (https://minecraft.wiki I think) temporary accounts appear to preserve a username embedded in the coded numbers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another test would be to see if you get the same temporary account on different browsers running on the same computer; the IP address is the same in both cases, but different browsers would require separate cookies to be set. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was ~2026-11516-52 only a few minutes ago. I then logged in to account then logged out. I cannot actually see my temp account number until I edit. I can't even see my "preview" comment on talk when writing this message. Not sure if that's ideal. I wonder if my temp account number is the same or changed again. ~2026-11572-17 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Nope, it did it again. Two out of two tries have consistently got same results. I used the same browser tho (Chrome) and didn't use a different one. It appears the mere act of logging in and logging out - indeed resets the cookies and I got a new temp account again. If this isn't intended, you probably should ideally get it fixed. Or give a notice on the Wikipedia temp account page to give people a heads up on this bug. Anyways I replied to test it out. And thanks for answering as I think I understand it now. ~2026-11572-17 (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Wikipedia talk:Temporary accounts, with a permalink to this discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks. I am now confident it's a bug. Btw besides the Teahouse and the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Temporary accounts, the ONLY other page I have edited with a temp account is; Snowboarding at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Men's slopestyle. I believe I have acted in good faith and provided sufficient transparency. Given that, I'm somewhat surprised this issue hasn't been raised before, but I hope the focus can now remain on identifying and addressing the underlying bug.~2026-11680-32 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys do little domestic businesses qualify as notable enough? My nation is littered with huge online dress businesses which are undocumented here. I would love to write about them. ~2026-11506-23 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and digest WP:NORG. Whether your question is about "little" businesses or "huge" ones, does WP:NORG answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Tsunami for Brainrots, look it up, it's yet another brainrot game that averages around around 500k players Anotbe (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it may not have enough reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. If you can find enough reliable sources to prove its notability, then you may create a draft at Draft:Escape Tsunami for Brainrots or your sandbox. dot.py 21:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are using sockpuppets, or even if you are coordinated, but stop your spam campaign. Your game isn't notable enough to be added to List of Roblox games or have an article. Stop spamming the talk pages of the list or random articles. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm a new user and just wants to ask this, i am not associated with anyone Anotbe (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. There has been a few people spamming talk pages about this game. To answer you question, no, the game doesn't meet our notability criteria. Only 5 games on Roblox have been shown to meet our notability criteria because news and gaming outlets are unwilling to cover games that nearly no impact on the industry. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , hope u are well, Please I need to publish the Event Miss Europe who i am organising from 2015 till this year 2026. Pls what exactly you need as news or update about these competitions of Miss Europe during these 12 years. I am ready to provide any details you need to show that I am only one as organization who did these events from 2015. Thanks in advance. Elie Style Europe (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing the attention of people here to the article Miss Europe. In some places at least, it's quite stunningly bad. Sample:

Delegates from all over Europe gather to compete for the prestigious title of Mrs. Europe in the largest beauty competition on the old continent! In modern times women are philanthropists, entrepreneurs and social activists, mothers, sisters and daughters which every day must deal with the responsibilities of being the Mrs. Europe we are looking for. Europe is the continent from which art, culture and democracy began and it deserves a worthy ambassador, to serve as an example for all citizens, and empower women. Delegates will have to prepare a report, compete in different categories every day and work together to overcome the challenges they will face during this glamorous international competition

I hope that somebody with no conflict of interest may be tempted to transform this into reliably sourced, encyclopedic material. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went partway by removing all the promotional text I could find in the article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what exactly [we] need as news or update about these competitions of Miss Europe during these 12 years, Elie Style Europe. Material that (i) is published by reliable sources and (ii) is independent of "Miss Europe" or anyone running it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's Zinedine and I need a bit of a favor. I just created a article about the Dutch Reformed Church in Middelburg, Eastern Cape and I've been trying to link it to its Wikidata page, but I can't because I'm blocked on there. And even when I try to add the link when I'm logged off, it didn't let me because it said temporarily unable allow logged out editing. So please, can someone please link the article to its Wikidata page? Here's the link for anyone that's looking for it. d:Q13035573 ☀ Dutch Reformed Church, Middelburg, Eastern Cape☂ Thank you and goodbye and goodnight to you all. 505noscope (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not just blocked, 505noscope: d:Special:Contributions/505noscope talks of "an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Long-term abuse)". So "a bit of a favor" means assistance in evading this block? -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, every Wikipedia article is required to be linked to the corresponding Wikidata item.

I have now done this. WP:IAR applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Pigsonthewing for adding the link. Really appreciate it. 505noscope (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, "required"? Is that a WD requirement? I don't know that that would govern how an en-wiki editor ought to behave, but if it is a requirement for WD can you cite it? Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I approach Wikipedia as a newcomer writing an article and find many parts of the process very confusing in the extreme! I am having problems with uploading images to an article I am writing. The images are book covers to illustrate an article on the author of those books.The owner/publisher had already given me written permission to use an image in wikipedia. But Wiki refused my first attempts to do this. Further research seemed to direct that the images needed to be part of Wiki Commons. I then went through this whole process including use of the Wiki formatted email to enable photo owner/publisher of images to allow permission. The owner then refused saying 'If it was just going on a site we could sign it, but this would give grant anyone the right to use the cover for whatever they want - it puts it in the public domain.' Totally understandable on their part. Could you direct me if and how I could still be able to use the book cover images to illustrate my article without putting them out for use in Wiki Commons and therefore for use in the public domain. Thank you, Anne Disdoris (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Disdoris, firstly, don't worry about images until your article is accepted. The lack of images will not prejudice the acceptance and the presence of images will not increase the chances of it being accepted. If/when your article is accepted you might be able to add images at en.wikipedia (not Commons) under a claim of fair use, but these images are not allowed to be used in drafts. However, we do not allow a gallery of book covers, as each claim of fair use is only for an article on that specific subject, not a general article on the author. - Arjayay (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is all very helpful to know and has clarified things on several points. Wish I had understood earlier that images (not Commons images) are not allowed in drafts - that certainly was not made clear in all the available instructions I could find when approaching this. Disdoris (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disdoris, the publisher seems to be using "(in) the public domain" in a way that's likely to confuse. This image of a book cover has been "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license", whereby "You are free: to share [...], to remix [...]". But the copyright holder has not released the file to the "public domain" as the term is understood here. By contrast, this image of a book cover has been released by its copyright holders into the public domain. For an introduction to the public domain (as we understand it here), please see Wikipedia:Public domain. (If this seems forbiddingly long, note that much of it -- e.g. the discussion of sound recordings -- is of no concern to provision of book covers.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Disdoris. I just wanted to add that using images of book covers (and of many other things) runs into copyright laws, which are very complicated and which Wikipedia is very careful to avoid breaking. It's not that we're trying to make things difficult – these things are already difficult. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creating a new article is indeed a very complicated thing for new editors.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all above for giving time to help with my questions and confusion. I obviously have more work to do, but will no doubt revisit with further questions as they arise. Thanks. Disdoris (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a new wiki user and I was hoping to gain some insight into establishing my own page. I am an honorably retired, disabled veteran who is running for political office and I would like for my potential voters to be able to learn about me. Thanks so very much! ErnieBrummitt (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service, and please don't try to create an article for yourself. Please refer to WP:BIO. Simply running for office doesn't make you "notable" by Wikipedia standards. --Onorem (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have a wonderful day. ErnieBrummitt (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, politicians must hold public office, or have won election to public office, to merit an article, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Merely being a candidate is insufficient, unless the candidate is known for something other than seeking public office. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie, the best way to allow your voters to learn about you would be to set up your own campaign website. Self-promotion isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you know those grey boxes at the top of most Wiki articles with information and an image - what are they called?

Also, is it possible for me to add one to my User Page? (when I make it)

Thanks,

-Walnut WalnutBloom (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

are you referring to an Infobox? if so yes you and them to your user page, in fact there actually a version specifically made to be added to user pages PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 00:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was referring to, and thanks for linking the user page version! WalnutBloom (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Icon (computing) should be promoted to C class.

Am i allowed to? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 05:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For any article assessed as "Start", SomnambulantFish, if you believe that it meets the standard for "C", you are allowed to promote it to "C". (Or so I believe. There may be exceptions for protected articles and articles on contentious topics. Offhand I don't know. But even if there aren't, you'd be wise first to suggest promoting such an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomnambulantFish It is much more important to work on the article itself, as you have been doing, than to worry about its rating, as few readers will notice or care below WP:GA and WP:FA. That said, this article is well beyond "start" IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the tool WP:Rater useful for suggesting the correct grade and/ or applying it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not fish to assess the page yourself, there is this page as well: Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests for sub-GA assessment. It will be assessed in a few days to few weeks. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering if there's a guideline regarding location such as province, mountain, village, peak, etc., when their page name doesn't include this title (such as Hallasan), and when the original name is in a foreign language, which often means that the English translation may or may not be standardized. Hallasan is a good example of this, because in Korean, Halla is the name, and san simply means "mountain", so Hallasan=Halla Mountain. This query also covers names of provinces, for example, where WP doesn't seem consistent when it comes to capitalization. Examples include Amnat Charoen province and Kars Province. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I’ve learnt, the most common names are the ones which are used, although redirects can be set up for the alternative names. So if a majority of scholars/sources use “Hallasan” then the name of the article should be the most commonly used name, however for Paektusan the article is called “Paektu Mountain” as the latter name is the most common (in English-speaking circles).

For the province query I’m not so sure, although usually most things aren’t capitalised unless a proper noun (so if the name is actually XYZ Province, then I suppose it should be capitalised), I believe it depends on context. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku See WP:PLACENAME and WP:GEOCAPS for some guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeyolTranslater and Michael D. Turnbull, thank you both for your input. I'm afraid I didn't express my query clearly enough: my concern isn't so much about naming an article but referring to geographic place names within a page, such as Hallasan mountain versus Hallasan Mountain, Seongsan Ilchulbong Peak versus Seongsan Ilchulbong's peak, Udo Island versus Udo island, etc. Please advise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In a situation like that I usually put the parish (or province if it’s clear it’s in one country) and if it’s more obscure then the country. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic naming conventions are always hard to figure out. I think in the body of an article it should be:

• Hallasan Mountain not mountain
• Seongsan Ilchulbong Peak not peak
• Udo Island not island

Based on WP:NCGCLASS, MOS:JPPLACE, and [3] elchupacabra (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MacabreChupacabra, thanks for your input. Bongaigaon district is actually a good example of my confusion here. Why isn't "district" capitalized, in this case? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NCCS "Administrative subdivisions" I think it's basically just been left up to the editors working on articles about a particular country/region to come to an agreement on subdivision naming. Korea WikiProject MoS says to capitalize but the India WikiProject went with lower case. Check out WP:NCKO I only just found that, their name guidelines page is very detailed, should answer everything elchupacabra (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to create some articles and I found that every generation before the Lost Generation does not have an article and is in Strauss–Howe generational theory, and I want to create an article for all of them. ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 10:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find multiple sources, as described at WP:42, for each of them.

Other than that, what is your question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I can create an article for all of them ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 13:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may, if they meet the criteria described above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone :) Im working on the suggestion random edits, and came a cross an article that needed sources, to prove the different medals someone received. I found one source that talks about all the medals he received, and that section in the Wikipedia article is in a form of a bullet list rather than a prose, how many times should i place in the citation and where? Can I place it just once in the title of the paragraph? Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe won these medals:[1]

• Foo
• Bar
• Bas

works in most cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

perfect thank you :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you suggested, thank you. And If the section in the article had a specific template that said ‘section doesn't show any sources’, if I just added one good secondary source, can I remove the template? or should i change it to a different template asking for sources in general? Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; one source should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, i'll remove the template. Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across an editor who has made just 53 edits over nine years (WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA), the majority of which occurred before they were advised that their edits looked suspiciously like WP:PAID. In January 2020 they were challenged, and subsequently happily confirmed they were an employee for a particular company. Since that date their contributions have been minimal; in fact they only edited two articles, one in 2021, the other in 2024, both routine non-controversial updates (AFAIK). However, I am a little concerned that their 'back-catalogue' of edits has not been examined in the light of their admission. Indeed this whole matter came to light because I was unhappy with an article containing input from them dating back to 2017, and I now suspect there are more examples. I should add that their advocacy is quite mild, and clearly WP:GOODFAITH.

Having made over 3000 edits myself, I should be WP:BOLD and get stuck in, but I am one who typically avoids conflict, and I am not feeling entirely comfortable with this task. It's just not in my nature.

Is there a task force here at Wikipedia that would take this on, or maybe just a friendly editor (with a slightly thicker skin) who could back me up with a second-opinion on specific edits? For now I have avoided identifying the editor in question, although as we have all signed up to Wikipedia knowing that our every move is in the public domain, any desire to spare possible embarrassment is almost certainly misplaced; another failing on my part no doubt. Lol! (Plus those who know Wikipedia well enough can follow my footprints anyway)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN is a noticeboard for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. If you're looking to get COI edits scrutinised for policy compliance they could probably help. Athanelar (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COIN is for ongoing editor-behavioural issues; for historic matters it would be better to raise concerns on the talk page of the article(s) concerned; these now being matters of content quality not editor behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing

After sleeping on it, and fortified with a strong coffee, I grasped the nettle firmly and posted the following on multiple Talk pages;

The Palladium Group are a business consulting firm who gave an award to Avinor in 2015. The only coverage of this event appears to be from Palladium, possibly by Avinor too, and through PR Newswire, a distributor of press releases. I cannot find any evidence of coverage in mainstream media or by independent sources. I believe this is a classic case of WP:CORPTRIV and as a consequence I am removing the Awards section.

You will find the same actions at Christus Health, and when the dust has settled I might search out any other instances originating from the same WP:PAID editor. Or does that count as stalking?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WendlingCrusader, you are concerned about a few dozen edits made over six years ago by a paid editor who was undeclared back then. I cannot imagine how anyone could reasonably accuse you of stalking for cleaning up any affected articles. Just keep improving the encyclopedia as your #1 goal, and avoid any edits that could be reasonably seen as punitive or retaliatory. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I opened a marge discussion two weeks ago here, but I a not sure how to actually perform the merge. There has only been one response, and it has been in support during that time. Where can I request merges be performed once there has been discussion? Pietrus1 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging explains the process for proposing, discussing, and performing page-merges. It sounds like this specific case is at step 4 and 5. DMacks (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read that page, but it seems to be a rather involved process, and then wouldn't the page need to be deleted at the end of the process? I was under the impression that I do not have the permission. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither step 4 nor step 5 mention anything about deleting after a merger except in the case of a deletion discussion, which is not what you have. If you plan to copy (much of) the content from South African statutes and other legislation (source page) into Law of South Africa (destination page) (step 4.1), then you replace the content in the source page with a redirect pointing to [the destination page. That is just a regular edit, not "deleting" in the technical sense (WP:AFD or such) because the old content remains in the visible history of the old page. It's actually prohibited by policy to delete that old page altogether (not keeping the history). Everything can be done by a regular editor.

I am unable to reply directly to that post, but are you saying that we are to leave merged pages up after performing the merge. Should it go to AfD at that point. Pietrus1 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will you check those two pages to see if I correctly performed the merge? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The merger looks fine. I fixed two technical details of your closure of the discussion at Talk:Law of South Africa. Please also close the parallel discussion at Talk:South African statutes and other legislation. I can see some ways to improve the tagging of the pages to clarify the merge history. But again, it is forbidden by policy to delete the old page, so don't waste your time at AFD. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pietrus1 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:ArtisticIn/sandbox

my new project Patricia Elisabete Cernikova - European and World Champion 2024 in artistic inline skating is a big achievement. She still is the holder of record score points. It was blocked for an information about becoming 4th runner up at Miss Europe. This was only an additional information to her big achievements in artistic inline skating. Not reason to be in wikipedia - just a part of her life. As she is listed at the Wiki page of Miss Europe as well ArtisticIn (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article was not "blocked for an information about becoming 4th runner up at Miss Europe"; it was declined (most recently, and for the third time in one day) because its "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", and subsequently rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and why wouldnt it be? How can person get any better in something then an European and World Champion? It was a big thing for the Czech artistic skating community- ArtisticIn (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I agreed with the rejection; I was pointing out the facts of the matter.

Perhaps User:DoubleGrazing, who rejected it, would like to comment, or even reconsider? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that she hasn't done enough, but it is that she hasn't received enough coverage from reputable outlets. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your explanation.It helps. ArtisticIn (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, @Pigsonthewing.

@ArtisticIn: I'm happy to undo my rejection and replace it with a decline, if you can show any evidence (meaning, cite appropriate sources) that this person is in any way notable. You also need to reference the draft properly, as required by our policy on articles on living people (WP:BLP). Your citations at the time of rejection were largely useless, I'm sorry to say, and four submissions in a space of a few hours without addressing the fundamental issues was, in my opinion, a bit excessive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. ArtisticIn (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of need everything for my theory of everything, could you help xdd Camilobillo666 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camilobillo666. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? It's not clear from this post that you do? qcne (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilobillo666 Yes. Have you read theory of everything? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much! Camilobillo666 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, simple question, if a city has been renamed subsequently (under the same people/civilization, often this is the result of a dictator naming something after himself) should the name of the city at the time of the publication be used or should the modern name for the city be used? Pietrus1 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the location of publication of a source you're citing, use the name as given in the source.

Otherwise, please clarify your question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question :). Pietrus1 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg is a good example to look at as it has had 3 names at different times. ~2026-84942-3 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the example I noticed was a more fleeting renaming in a more obscure country (Santo Domingo to Ciudad Trujillo/Trujillo City). Many nowadays do not even know of this former name. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again :) Are there special guidelines for how to write prose and describe sports or soccer matches for example? Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WikiProject Football. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a milion, will do. Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editor community, appreciate the wisdom on the following: if I have a question about a change to a BLP, am I better off asking it here, or posting it to the page's Talk Page? I was advised by another editor that if the person's Talk Page is not very active you run the risk of then having to wait an undetermined amount of time for a response... Appreciate the feedback on this. With thanks- Cloudchaser92 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cloudchaser92, and welcome to the Teahouse. Good question.

It depends what specifically your question is about, and so which audience is appropriate. If it is a general question about how to do something, it's good here (though please still be specific about which article and what change you want to make).

But if it is about the content of the article, or content that you want to add, it's likely that most of the people who read this page will not have any useful response; so in that case, the article's Talk page is a much better place.

If you think that few people look at that Talk page, then one thing you can do is to post on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, saying that you have opened a discussion and linking to the discussion. (Most article Talk pages list one or more relevant WikiProjects at the top). ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudchaser92 If your talk page gets no response in a reasonable time (say, a week), you could ask again at WP:BLPN, which is specifically for BLP policy issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I eliminate erroneous material in endnotes? Roger Pilon (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You meant the notes section commonly found at the end of articles? Toarin (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an example, with a link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toarin & Pigsonthewing, I want to delete endnotes 2 and 3 (I don’t know how they got there) because they’re irrelevant where they are (they appear elsewhere, where they belong), but I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DELETE THEM. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From which article—do you refer to User:Roger Pilon/Roger Pilon revision draft?

Are you using Visual Editor or Source Editor?

Also, note that you cannot cite Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using visual editor. These rules are so complicated that I hardly know where to begin. In Word, for example, deleting a mistake is simple. Here, it seems to require a multi-stage process, which I'm far from having mastered. I simply want to delete endnotes 2 and 3 because, as I said, they don't belong there. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Edit the page
2. Highlight (select) the endnotes you wish to delete
3. Press the "delete" key
4. Publish the page.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I've followed your instructions, every which way, and even when I get to the "Publish" stage, they simply don't work. The textual numbers and errant endnotes are still there. I need help. Thanks. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I even get "Your edit was published." But it wasn't, even after I reload, the textual number and endnote are still there. Why can't I simply delete a mistaken endnote? Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend removing them in Source Editor, as it doesn't seem to work in Visual Editor in your case, can you perhaps link the page where you are trying to remove the endnotes? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Campssitie, OK, I've just hit "Source" here, and here is the link I'm trying to edit: [4]

I'm trying to delete endnotes 2 and 3, since they're misplaced here, while their content is properly included elsewhere in the post. Roger Pilon (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best way (or, in other words, the least problematic way) to reopen an AfD that was once closed as delete? In the particular AfD I was talking about, I found new sources that might be able to overturn the AfD after it was closed. As the closure itself was not problematic I think that WP:Deletion review might be too strong. Toarin (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One option is WP:REFUND, asking for the article to be recreated as a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could could also rewrite the article as a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. When you submit the draft, the reviewer will check if it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no way to "reopen" an AFD; the decision the people make is final. You can get the article refunded as a draft or start from scratch, but you can't "overturn" an AFD. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toarin. Generally, the advice given above only really applies to situations where an article has been WP:SOFTDELETEed. Since most AfDs resulting in deletion are based upon community consensus, REFUND is typically not an option; moreover, recreation only tends to work for articles deleted years ago in which the situation has radically changed. Perhaps if you provided a link to the AfD discussion for the article, someone might be able to give you a more specific answer. The best thing to do, however, would be to probably follow the guidance in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with the closer of the AFD first. Since articles can only be deleted by a Wikiepedia administrator, it's best to discuss things with the administrator who actually deleted the article. If you do this but are unable to convince the closer to reopen the AfD (it is possible to do so despite what was posted above) or restore the page to the draft namespace, you're probably going to need to start a WP:DRV to get that to happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly This is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber). As for sources, they're in this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/KyleHill/s/OJ9qQEd4ej Toarin (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources in that link, Facebook, IMDb and Linkedin and fandango!!! Theroadislong (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer. Toarin (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Toarin. Thank you for the links. I don't think that AfD would be something that would be eligible either for recreation or WP:REFUND, given that it's only about a month old and seems to have had quite a number of participants making !votes based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The source assessment table also seems to be fairly thorough. I think you're going to need to come up with much stronger sources providing significant coverage of this person for it to even be considered for recreation/undeletion. Most of the sites you linked to on Reddit is pretty much WP:UGC content that's doesn't help at all in establishing Wikipedia notability, and the rest seem to be trivial mentions at best. It could simply be a case of it being WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written about this person. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube about this, but it seems establishing this person's Wikipedia notability is going to be a near impossible issue to WP:OVERCOME at this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I give my user page a subtitle, like how the luna moth has "Species of insect" when you search it? I saw a user with one, and would like to know how it's added. ArthropodEnjoyer2202 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ArthropodEnjoyer2202, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of places where it can get set. See WP:Short description#How to edit. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring to is a short description, accessed by what ColinFine linked, it is a "subtitle" under a page when searching, I even have one! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Visual editor, I can just click on a ref to open a menu where I'll be able to edit all of the fields of the citation template. The wikitext editor (with the 2017 mode) has the same menu as VisualEditor for creating citations, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way of editing existing ones aside from manually editing the template wikitext. Is there some toggle/gadget/userscript which allows to edit citation templates (or any other templates, for that matter) using the same menu as VisualEditor has without having to switch between wikitext and visual modes? 🍅 fx (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2017 wikitext editor you can edit a template via the Template dialog (puzzle icon) if it has TemplateData, but I think there’s no gadget that gives full VisualEditor-style click-to-edit citation menus. Otherwise you still edit the wikitext manually. LionmerterTHE (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the puzzle icon? I can't find it anywhere, there's only one to insert a new template but not to edit an existing one. Is that what you mean? 🍅 fx (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats what I meant LionmerterTHE (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cite illegal-ish websites with pirated content?

If no, could we indirectly cite the websites through internet archive? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 08:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to cite? Sesquilinear (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website with pirated books on the correlation between metonymies and visual symbols for Icon (computing) SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 09:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not just cite the book and relevant page numbers, as that would be allowed The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s pirated then the information comes from another site (which isn’t illegal), so could the original information be found? The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SomnambulantFish. You probably shouldn't be adding any links to sites that you suspect of hosting copyright violating content to any Wikipedia pages for the reasons given in WP:COPYLINK. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles only need to be reliable, published, and (reasonably) accessible for verification purposes; they don't need to be available online. So, if the content you've found on some "pirated content" website comes from a published reliable source, you can just cite the original source even if it's not available somewhere online. This provide as much information as you can about the original source in the citation to make it possible for someone who wants to track it down. Of course, you yourself should be sure that the website where you're seeing the content is actually is true reflection of the original source being cited, and the website's owner/operator hasn't changed the content in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Daniel Aoanan

Came across a draft article needing a Notelist, added it but I have a problem here:

1. Daniel Aoanan appears to be writing an Autobiographical article.
2. The article was made in normal space, and moved into Draft space.
3. The main contributer is User:Daniel Aoanan
4. The user has redirected his own user page to the draft article.
5. I also removed a self-described "Weird photo" - this is NOT what Wikipedia is for.

So the question is how does this get discouraged, and then removed? Matilda 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is what gets left over when a non-administrator moves any page to draft space. I have deleted the redirect.

Yes, it's an autobiography. Draft space is the only venue we offer for that. If it passes review after being submitted, then it can be an article. But it hasn't even been submitted for review yet. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like a self-aggrandizing hoax to me, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion accordingly. This guy needs to use Facebook instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody,

This is my first time here (nice to meet you!), I hope it's ok to ask this:

I'm confused about editing tone. What's the criteria to understand whether facts are self-promotion or objective, for instance? Like if an artist or author describe reviews of their work, and these reviews do exist - how do I decide if it reads like a brochure or ought ot be left in?

In general the question of tone isn't clear, would be grateful for clarification. Raining people (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews can be quoted and attributed to the reviewer, rather than stating the reviewer's opinions as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Any subjective statement, any opinion, any speculation, any editorializing that isn't a dry fact should never be written in Wikipedia's voice.

If an artist or author is writing about themselves on Wikipedia, self-promotion is almost always the underlying reason. There really isn't any valid reason to write about oneself on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Raining people See also Wikipedia:TONE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you write in an article that isn't in quotations is whatwe call wikivoice. This means that you are literally speaking as Wikipedia rather than as yourself. Accordingly, we have to be careful about what we say and how we say it, because we can't present our own personal opinions and biases in Wikipedia's voice. Take the below example:

Company A is the leading manufacturer of foo. They manufacture high-quality foo.

Company A is a manufacturer of thrumbuses. [Reliable source] described them as "the leading manufacturer of high-quality foo."

In the former example, the claims about the product's quality are coming from Wikipedia's mouth, suggesting that Wikipedia has an opinion on the quality of Company A's foo. In the latter, the quote and quality judgement are appropriately attributed to the source that made them; Wikipedia is merely reporting what has been said, and not repeating the claim in itself. That's the difference between tone which is promotional and isn't. Athanelar (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In such a situation you should be looking at the review itself, not what the subject has said about the review. It's likely they will only mention positive reviews (unless they're refuting a critique) - that does not determine whether or not the review itself is reliable. Regardless of whether it's negative or positive, reliability is based on who the review is written by and their relation to the subject. A renowned expert in the field likely merits inclusion; a random person on social media does not. What is or is not considered a reliable source will vary based on the subject matter, but WP:RSOPINION, WP:BLP, and WP:RSP all have useful information that can help you make a determination.

As mentioned above, if the review does merit inclusion any attersof opinion should be added as a quotation. Simple statements of fact such as "Artist published such and such work on X date" may be added in wikivoice. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

additional cast of bhooth bangla ~2026-85927-4 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask on the talk page of the article, and cite a reliable source confirming the fact, when you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia allow editors to insert comments and questions in articles that they are editing? Some areas where the answers are not easy to locate but could be valuable to the article.

Like MS Word and other programs, I would like to be able to add comments when I see things that need to be investigated or checked but do not have time to do the research at that point.

Thanks. WorkingKind (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next to where it says "article" at the top of your screen, it also says "talk." Click on "talk" and in that new page create a new section with your question. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's best if you just post your comments on the talk page, but you can also put them in the text into invisible comments , and then they'll only be visible when someone edits the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustARandomSquid (talk • contribs)

There are maintenance tags like {{citation needed}} which exist for this exact purpose; highlighting to other editors where you think improvement can be made. You can find a list of them at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. Athanelar (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to using the talk page as Athanelar suggested, if you’re looking for ‘answers [that] are not easy to locate but could be valuable to the article,’ you could try asking at the Reference desk, which is for questions that don’t relate to Wikipedia specifically and how to use it, but instead just general information. Talk pages for articles tend to be used to discuss how to improve the article, but you certainly could ask on the talk page anyway. I will say that if your specific article is too obscure, you may not get a timely response, whereas the reference desk is heavily monitored, similar to this page. Good luck! Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I followed a link for an "artist" listed under Notable People from an obscure town in Oklahoma, which took me, via a redirect, not to her, but to a page about her husband, a union leader. In his article, she receives a brief mention as a doll-maker and elementary school teacher. To be fair, there are three citations all related to her dolls. But at this time, 30 years after her death, she isn't notable enough to qualify for her own page on Wikipedia, so is the link/re-direct to her husband valid? Perhaps it is a useful placeholder for a potential future article in her name? Is this practical?

Her name was Ida Roberta Bell, which redirects to Solon C. Bell, union leader.

FWIW I have just refined one of the in-line citations (Google Books) so that it identifies a passage featuring her name, instead of his.

Footnote; Roberta Bell was born in Nashville, Tennessee, and there is no evidence of any citation supporting the claim that either Roberta Bell or her husband were ever connected to Oklahoma, so the link from Poteau, OK, is currently unsupported. What a minefield, eh?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are intended for subjects that have potential to qualify for their own article. If she's not considered notable after being deceased for 30 years I don't think she needs to be linked at all and likely not included in the article - certainly not if there's no evidence of any association with the town in question. You could try to track down the editor who added it and ask them for verification, but at minimum removing the link seems reasonable.

IMHO her husband's article could use cleaning up as well, and the mention of her might not be relevant. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChompyTheGogoat, I have restored the redlink to Ida Roberta Bell in the article about her husband. There are already several references that verify the content about her. Plus, the art museum at Eastern Illinois University recently had an exhibit devoted to her work that lasted for four months. Editors should be hesitant to remove valid encyclopedic content and I hope that some editor will take on the task of writing a biography of her. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure it's relevant to his article, if she isn't considered notable by wiki standards. I don't know anything about her and was only going by the fact that no such article has been created. In any case, the original question was about redirecting from an unsourced and seemingly unverifiable mention of her on another page to his article, which doesn't seem appropriate in any context. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChompyTheGogoat, who says that she is not notable by "wiki standards"? Have you done a thorough notablity assessment of her? Have you read the references in the article or the museum link that I provided? Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, his article is not the main concern here and no one has edited it except you. I just made a made a passing remark after glancing at it for context. I did search for any source showing a relation between either person and the town in question, and like OP found nothing to support her inclusion on that list. If your sources say otherwise they should be added as citations to the article on Poteau, Oklahoma. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What rules are there for adding a language to the {{cite web}} template? (On the article Sint-Lambrechts-Herk in this case.) --A Wondrous Raven (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Wondrous Raven. I'm not sure what you mean by "rules", but you can use the |language= parameter for citations to non-English reliable sources formatted using citation templates like {{cite web}}. Bascially, you can just use the two-character code for the source language (e.g., |language=en for a source written in English). For non-English sources, it's also probably a good idea to use the parameters |trans-title= and |script-title=, the latter particularly for sources not written in a Latin-based script (e.g., Chinese). There are examples of how to use these parameters found on the "cite web" documentation page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I require assistantance on Dzungar Khanate to fix sfn Template issues mainly because I cannot fix it somehow. I currently cannot do it right now as I am really sick and currently dealing with headaches as well that I am somewhat dating someone. So please give me tips and advices on fixing it so I can do as instructed after I get well. The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 15:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific issue? The page currently looks fine to me. Pietrus1 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like the SFN template, I tried replacing them by deleting it and redoing it but it says a note error or some. The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 23:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify what the "note error" says? Also this script may be useful in checking what that error is. Cheers! --- n✓h✓8 01:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, some person fixed it few hours ago The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 02:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use DuckDuckGo. I’m wondering how to edit articles in visual because I can’t find anything to switch between the two. Chuzao (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the guidance at WP:Visual Editor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it’s still the same Chuzao (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, have you check your editing preferences? The option for "Visual editor" might be disabled there. --- n✓h✓8 01:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of browsing on my phone just now when all of my pages started loading in desktop format. I verified that desktop mode was off, tried toggling it on and back off - nada. Everything on Wikipedia is forced desktop. Nothing has changed on my end. Did someone upstream bump the wrong button? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check all the way at the bottom of the page where the links for the privacy policy etc are and see if there's a 'mobile view' button. If you accidentally toggled that, it will override your browser's 'desktop mode' setting. Athanelar (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, bless you sir/ma'am! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's me; I'm the someone 😅 ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ask why my project was flagged for the use if LLMs, even though they were not utilised in the creation of Draft:The Somalia Theorem. However, I am unsure about whether the original owner of the paper used them to create it. Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft is not AI generated, where did you take it from? What do you mean by 'the original owner of the paper?' If you copied the text wholesale from a paper, it is likely a copyright violation. Athanelar (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union. Your draft shows several common hallmarks of content generated by some kind of artificial intelligence. We want original content written by competent human beings. The formatting of the references is exceptionally poor and generates several error messages. The draft bears little resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Did you copy and paste this content from somewhere else? It seems highly unlikely that a new Wikipedia editor would come up with content like this on their own. Also, can you please explain your user name? Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do not believe my name is relevant to this conversation and I will not be addressing it. As said to @Athanelar, this is not copied and pasted. I incompetently assumed the formatting would be as simple as some other tools I have used prior. In regards to "It seems highly unlikely that a new Wikipedia editor would come up with content like this on their own", may you elaborate further? Also as said to @Athanelar, I do have a friend who has been helping with the content and a small amount of formatting. Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which tools are you referring to? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have paraphrased the paper and tried to cite it, it has not been copied. This was my own draft and I asked for help from a friend who knew about formatting on wikipedia. By the original owner of the paper, I just meant the owner of the paper, and I was unsure if they had used AI in the creation of their paper, and if my paraphrasing showed that. Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is something you can do. Fix the version that exists right now. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the reviews, there are a few areas that ought to address of of the bat:

1. Broken markups are present throughout the document, such as: **Institutional Utility** ($U$)

- I assume that this is some attempt at bolding which was copied from the source as **X** for bold is used for bolding in many markups.

2. Many references are broken, e.g.: [3, 4] and other similar references that are not actual references.

3. Please fix the citation/reference list. Every entry in the list appears to be broken currently.

Please fix these points as soon as possible and then you can keep working on the draft until it is in a state that would be acceptable for the main wikipedia (aka Mainspace).

Additionally, if this was copied from elsewhere rather than from an LLM, will you please leave a comment as to where it was copied from so that the draft can be checked before it is accepted to avoid copyright violation? Pietrus1 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not AI generated, I messaged my friend the text, and then he/they formatted it, which I then copied into the article. Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is great. I would recommend you manually fix what is there now as the document has issues. Follow the comment I made to do so. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union, this draft appears to be about a framework that either you or a friend has created. (If I am wrong, can you tell us who wrote the original paper, whether it is published anywhere, etc.?) Wikipedia is not a place to write about novel concepts; carefully read Wikipedia:No original research. If the framework receives analysis or review from scholars who are completely unaffiliated with the inventor, then a Wikipedia article might be possible. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is not affiliated with me, but me and my friend took an interest in the topic and so decided to try to make a Wikipedia article about it. I will quickly check the title of the paper and where it may be published. Although I am biased in that I think breakaway states will almost always become better than the parent one, I have still tried to remain neutral throughout, so I hope that is fine. :) Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How/where did you find the paper in the first place? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We found it by browsing connectedpapers.com . Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. An important point still remains: to show that the concept is notable as Wikipedia defines it, you need to have reliable sources (e.g. formally published research papers) that discuss or analyze the "Somalia Theorem" and are written by people who are unconnected to the original creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That may be difficult, as Google Scholar shows no hits whatever for "somalia theorem". -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange, it should do, I can double check tomorrow. :/ Dave Somal Iland of The Communist Embassy of Somaliland in The Soviet Union (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be grammatically correct? Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) (also called passive radiative cooling, daytime passive radiative cooling, radiative sky cooling, photonic radiative cooling, and terrestrial radiative cooling) For an opening sentence Thatrandompizzaguy (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No; because if you remove the parentheses and everything inside them, you are left with "Passive daytime radiative cooling", which is not a sentence (it has no verb). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a complete sentence. Either add a clause at the end describing PDRC or rework the subject to make what you have written the object of the sentence. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thatrandompizzaguy, even if your sentence was complete, I think that including five alternate usages within parentheses in the very first sentence is bad writing. It tends to confuse the reader who is trying to wrap their mind around a new concept. I think that it would be far better to introduce the alternate names in subsequent sentences. The first sentence should provide the broadest overview of the topic in the least confusing way. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for articles to include synonyms in the lede if people might be familiar with the subject by a different name. It depends on whether they're common enough for that to be a concern, which I can't judge since I have no knowledge of it myself. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did not make the sentence edit, only add the also called. Thatrandompizzaguy (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My personal approach would be to list perhaps 1 or 2 alternate names in that lede sentence and weave in mentions of the other couple of names later on in the article. That way it’s clear that this is known by many names right from the get-go, but it’s not overly consolidated and confusing to readers, and it still manages to list all the names. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Passive daytime radiative cooling

Per that article the quote posted here is just a fragment of the initial sentence, which is in fact complete and correct. The edits made by this user fixed the original grammar by adding missing words. The change from "known as" to "called" are a matter of personal preference and both are grammatically correct. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me understand, as I am a new user. Have a nice day! Thatrandompizzaguy (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to dispute the neutrality and change the wording of one particular article. Here is the way one of the paragraphs is worded on the Wiki page:

On October 26, 2021, a South Korean media outlet published evidence challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing sources from close acquaintances of both parties; the report concluded that the decision to abort was mutual, that Kim had been supportive throughout the process, and that the pair had broken up the following year due to questionable circumstances involving the ex-girlfriend.[191][192]

Here is the problem with the wording: the media outlet that published the article was Dispatch, a very well known Korean tabloid that focuses on Korean entertainment and celebrities. They published screenshots of alleged conversations and mentioned information they obtained from unnamed sources (sources B and C). Those screenshots and claims were not verified by any independent media or any legal authority. There were no court proceedings in that case as neither party took legal action. However, the Wikipedia article labels them as "evidence". The above mentioned Wiki article sites South China Morning Post [191] and [192] Manila Bulletin [192] as their primary sources. However, both sources are secondary sources. They provided no investigation on their own and cited Dispatch article as their primary source. So the Wikipedia article labels media report interpretation as "evidence" and provides gossip based exclusively on unnamed sources. There are other problems with the same article and it appears that the way it is written it is quite biased.

Here are my questions:

1. Does Wiki allow listing secondary sources as primary sources? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
2. Why wasn't the primary source listed? WP:RS
3. Why was the media outlet not mentioned by its name? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
4. Does Wiki have a policy about using tabloids as their primary source of information? WP:RS
5. Can Wikipedia label unverified screenshots as evidence? WP:RS

I raised the issue on the talk page and the editors used WP:DROPTHESTICK.

This is how I would change that paragraph:

On October 26, 2021, Dispatch, a South Korean media outlet that focuses on celebrity news, published an article challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing unnamed sources and revealing unverified screenshots; the report claimed that the decision to abort was mutual, that Kim had been supportive throughout the process, and that the pair had broken up the following year due to questionable circumstances involving the ex-girlfriend. None of their claims were independently verified. [191][192]

Here is another version:

According to various media outlets, on October 26, 2021, Dispatch, a South Korean media company that focuses on celebrity news, published an article challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing unnamed sources and presenting unverified screenshots as evidence. [191][192]

-- NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NothingbuttheTruth101, and welcome.

Not attempting to asnwer your main questions, but you seem to have WP:primary sources and WP:secondary sources mixed up. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Might very well be. Any suggestions? I don't know much about those WP things. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are not Wikipedia (WP) things as such, they are important categorisations in academic and non-fiction writing generally. If you click on the links in ColinFine's last comment, you will be taken to texts that explain them and how they should and should not be used in Wikipedia, which is fairly crucial in contributing here. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you're well aware, that article has been the subject of past vandalism and an extensive SPI, requiring protection on multiple occasions. You have now raised this issue in numerous locations including several user TPs as well as now closed discussions on DRN and BLPN. You will not get a different response by continuing to ask in more locations and WP:DROPTHESTICK does indeed apply. Best course of action (as you've been told) is to allow GA process to continue so that experienced editors can examine and address any issues they find. Threats of not recommending Wikipedia to others do not help your case either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant page is here: Talk:Regulation of radio broadcast in the United States#Requested move 16 February 2026.

IF no one responds by tomorrow, should I just move the page myself? Pietrus1 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait until Tuesday - make it a full week. But otherwise, sure. DS (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to try writing texts in the style of a Wikipedia article (both for practise and just for an activity) on user subpages (such as, for example, User:Example/Lipsum). Is this considered an acceptable use of subpages?

Thanks,

WalnutBloom (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what WP:SANDBOX is for. You can either use the general one there (which is blanked regularly) or your own personal one, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! WalnutBloom (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouesw, @WalnutBloom. Your personal sandbox is one of your user subpages. The only thing that's special about it is that you have a shortcut to it on the user menu. So (apart from that one detail) it makes no difference whether you use User:WalnutBloom/sandbox or User:WalnutBloom/Lipsum.

I notice you talk about "writing texts in the style of a Wikipedia article". While the writing and layout are important, new editors often concentrate on these rather than the much more important (and often more challenging) business of finding and summarising satisfactory sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance! WalnutBloom (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW @WalnutBloom I've also found it helpful to engage in talk discussions and utilize internal links (such as the above to sandbox) as much as possible to familiarize myself with common policies and guidelines as well as overall wiki formatting. The more often you read and reference them, the more you'll remember them when working on live articles. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that shortcut is only present in desktop mode. In mobile the only way I can access my sandbox is via the URL, which is mildly annoying. I only found it initially through the link on the public sandbox. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice! WalnutBloom (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just edited a wikipedia page, "Mrs Grundy", and it made a temporary account so I decided to make an official account to keep track of that edit and any future edits I may do. The issue is when I go on my profile it says I have no edits yet. Is there a way to claim the edit as mine? Caseychiella (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseychiella: No, only the edits after you have been logged in as Caseychiella will be credited to you. Peaceray (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have heard of, Caseychiella. If you want to avoid this "issue" in the future, simply be sure to log in beforehand. (As a log-in can work for as long as one year, the requirement is hardly onerous.) If an edit, or set of edits, that you made while not logged in is especially important, then you can claim on your user page that it's yours. Suggestion: while logged in as Caseychiella, look at your addition to "Mrs Grundy", and add a reliable reference for it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having had the same question myself when I created an account, it was also suggested that I could make a minor change to the same text in order for it to show in my edit log if it was important to me (potentially with a comment claiming the previous edit as well). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If your temporary account was User:~2026-11860-66, you can create a user page for that and leave a note on it saying it was you; and do the same on your own user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Fine

Hello, there has been a discussion on the talk page among a couple editors about the reliance on primary/self-published sources which are almost exclusively flattering about the subject. I attempted to WP:BEBOLD multiple times, but there is one editor that is reverting edits from multiple editors that attempt to clean-up these primary sources or add high-quality secondary sources that may not be as flattering. This editor is almost 40% of all the edits on the article and this article is more than 10% of all of their total edits, so it seems like this article is very important to them and I'm not really sure how to deal with this situation. I would appreciate some more experienced eyes or input on the sourcing and NPOV. Thanks! Edittttor (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edittttor, the proper place to develop consensus is Talk:Laura Fine where discussion is ongoing as you know. Primary sources can be used if the content is not self-serving or contradicted by other sources. I do not see anyone acting unreasonably there, but I would caution all interested editors that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a contentious topic and administrators will not tolerate any disruptive editing even remotely connected to that. Work to come up with compromise language based on the best available sources. If disagreement cannot be resolved on that talk page, use established Dispute resolution processes. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to reach a consensus through discussion, as suggested by @Cullen328. Perhaps if the conversation stalls, a Request for Comment (WP:RFC) could be useful. LionmerterTHE (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just created a new talk page archive for Playboy. However, this new page does not show up in the list of archives on the talk page. Could someone help me figure out how to make it appear? Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. The archiving (and probably the template updating) is done by User:Cluebot III, so we're going to have to wait for a bit. --- n✓h✓8 02:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait it's User:ClueBot III --- n✓h✓8 03:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As above ^^ --- n✓h✓8 04:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@.nhals8, You can see your topic subscriptions at Special:TopicSubscriptions and unsubscribe there. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@.nhals8:You can also click "unsubscribe" at the section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do i find vincent van gohgs starry night from your sunglasses wikipedia page ~2026-11972-92 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is to do with Wikipedia Speedruns, the game? If I hit the jackpot & got that right, you have to navigate through the wikilinks to find your target page. The Starry Night doesn't appear to be linked on Sunglasses otherwise. jolielover♥talk 05:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia introduced a new label and filter system for watchlists. Meta:Community Tech/Watchlist Labels. Wikipedia does have parts of this implemented (you can assign labels) but the watchlist UI isn't the same as on Meta. Is there a way to filter by the new labels so I just see a particular one? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sebastian Clubhouse

So right now I'm working on a wiki, and I noticed warnings of possible copyright. I need a way to fix this. I think my possible solution is to maybe use our own words? Maybe trying to be more clarifying? I don't know. That's why I need help. Thanks a bunch! IzanTehPepeAlt (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IzanTehPepeAlt Welcome to Teahouse! Thank you for your contributions, to address the copyright issues "YES" you need to use or rewrite the information in your owns keep the facts but the sentence and words most be change completely. If you unsure which part is triggering the copyright you should use this tool copyvios it will help you compere thy words. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 08:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also avoid close paraphrasing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can someone check my draft

Draft:Hala Al-Qadi. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking here (or anywhere else) will not move you up in the review queue. It takes as long as it takes. However, I'm fairly confident that a few minor changes in phrasing will not suffice to fix the issues given as the original reason it was declined. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article and added more citations. Secondly, I wrote the article myself and I rewrote the infobox, which as a bit of AI in it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that my article Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area deserves to be rated more than a start article. i believe that he article should be rated C-class. Can someone check. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your article is very good, but quality is over quantity. Some text at the bottom of your article is not accurate/detailed enough. According to the Wikipedia article assessment scale: "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." Your article has only 1 photo, and some citations need to be fixed. You could also add an infobox if applicable. But overall, you wrote a pretty good article on describing the resort. Welovecontributorss [TALK PAGE] 09:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add more pictures. the resort is literally not open for visitors. it is in an isolated and thirdly, all the images of this resort belongs to the state media. Is it safe to add the state medias images to my article.(KCTV) TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to – see Copyright Law of North Korea. Although NK's limited interactions with the rest of the World make their enforcement of their copyrights difficult, the country is a recent signatory to the Berne Convention, and works created by State institutions are (I believe) copyright protected for 50 years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that North Korea had copyright. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Com:North Korea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I do feel that my article has quality. I have fixed the citations and have added more information than before. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rated "C" class. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Russian submarine Knyaz Vladimir

As English is not my native language, I am not sure about this edit? Can someone else take a look and revert it if it is wrong? wimmel (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "by firing" — I think it sounds more natural that way. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The antivandalism tool 'Antivandal' used to explicitly specify edit conflict when there is an instance of one. Nowadays, it idly goes through the motion instead of flashing an edit conflict warning. I appreciated that feature. Is it possible that anyone knows why that was removed? Thanks as always! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I see text in an article that has been there for a long time - is there a quick way to find when it was added rather than going through the edit history manually? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Salmon Of Ignorance Try WP:BLAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the past months, since temporary accounts were introduced, I am unable to save any edits. Each time, I get the message: To prevent spam, we limit editing without an account. Creating an account is quick, free and lets you edit any time. Is this an attempt to stop anon editing by stealth?? I edited for years as an IP and never had any trouble. Obviously, I am able to save my edits right now, but I can guarantee that I'll be "blocked" again tomorrow. What is going on here? ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Which article(s) were you trying to edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, but depending on how you access the internet, your IP could be going into a blocked range? There's not really any other reason aside from editing a protected article. Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed _{(message me!)} 14:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and Emi-Is-Annoyed: I don't remember what articles I tried to edit; I tend to do gnomish edits to whatever page I find myself reading. They weren't controversial topics and they certainly weren't protected articles. At any rate, it makes no difference, since I wasn't even able to post here! And to reiterate, I edited successfully as an IP for years without ever "going into a blocked range". Can somebody at least tell me what exactly we limit editing without an account means, who implements it or what the mechanism is? ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this message. Were you trying to add a url to an article? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to edit as a TA for strange reasons involving my school blocking most (but not all) WMF domains. I got that same message, and my school's range is blocked.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably means that the range you were editing from is autoblocked, this is just a guess.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can always try powering your router off for a while to get a new IP, which might be unblocked. If you automatically connect between two networks (i.e. a school wifi and your personal), that might be another cause. Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed _{(message me!)} 16:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I probably tried to add a url with some edits, but mostly it was just correcting spelling errors and such. @MetalBreaksAndBends and Emi-Is-Annoyed: I very much doubt it is a rangeblock, since I'm able to post here now (and since my IP was never blocked before we went to TAs). ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that users who are encountering this issue are unable to post on any help page, which is why you've never heard of this before. There is no way of knowing how widespread it is. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A way of checking could be to go to Wikipedia:Get my IP address, then go to special:blocklist and searching your ip.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not there. Anyway, why would someone from a blocked IP not just get the "You are blocked from editing" message they've always got, rather than To prevent spam, we limit editing without an account? "To prevent spam" is very specific, isn't it?. An edit to correct a typo couldn't possibly be spam! There's something else going on. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the temporary account creation throttle, most likely. We limit the number of TAs that can be created within a certain period of time per IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

45dogs shared where the text is set and the limits are (see Wikipedia:Temporary accounts):

A single IP address (or /64 range in the case of IPv6) can create a maximum of:

• One temporary account within a period of 10 minutes,
• Two temporary accounts within a period of 24 hours,
• Four temporary accounts within a period of 7 days, and
• Six temporary accounts within a period of 30 days

Skynxnex (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the temporary account creation throttle? Every day for three months?

And what I'm saying is that I couldn't create an account at all, so accounts created in 10 minutes, 24 hrs, and 7 days was still zero. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Vegetarianism page. Islam and vegetarianism already exists. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Varied capitalizations are valid redirects, they aid in searches. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think OP is referring to the fact that they are very similar but redirect to different pages. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently reviewing Scientology and I find some sources simply linking back to templates like "Rfn" and I'm not sure how to access those sources and would love to access them. I'd appreciate some help figuring that out. Also some academic sources/papers are not fully available except for their abstracts and I would like to be able to access them as well. Thanks for your directives, Tea House! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kvinnen

That article uses a mixture of citation methods. I think the ones you are referring to reference items in the "Sources" section - see Help:Shortened footnotes.

For accessing sources which are not otherwise available to you, you may be able to find them via the WP:Wikipedia Library; or if they are not available there, you can ask if other editors have them via the resource exchange. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A person approached me to create my wikipedia page - they charged me £300 they created the page but it hold inaccuracies - I have asked them to alter these and they are asking me for more money - can I take control of this account? ~2026-12179-69 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2026-12179-69. This is a scam, and you should stop interacting with this person. Instructions on reporting this are at WP:SCAM. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm happy to do this but can I somehow reclaim this page? Feliciasdog (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am happy to do that but how do I take control of my wikipedia page which already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliciasdog (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Feliciasdog. Wikipedia articles aren't controlled by their subjects, and in fact, you should avoid editing the article yourself. You can, however, request changes to it by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also be helpful to see what the page is. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page Lynne Ann Barker Feliciasdog (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What issues do you have with the article?   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page Lynne Ann Barker Feliciasdog (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Feliciasdog, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sorry you've been scammed.

Unfortunately, the scammers rely on the fact that many people do not understand how Wikipedia works, and think that it is appropriate to "have a page" on which they can tell the world about themselves and their activities.

But that is not at all the model.

If you are Lynne Ann Barker, then Lynne Ann Barker is an encyclopaedia article about you. It does not belong to you, it is not controlled by you, and it will not necessarily contain what you would like it to say.

It should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you in reliable publications, and not much else.

The scammer broke the Wikipedia terms of service by undeclared paid editing, and I'm sure they will be blocked from editing soon. This is not a reflection on you; but as it stands, the article does not establish that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for "notability", either the special criteria for academics, or the general criteria (most people in the world do not meet these criteria).

While you should not edit the article yourself, as Cordless Larry said, there is no reason why you should not look for suitable sources that are independent of yourself (see golden rule, and raise edit requests to cite these in the article.

But to be honest, unless you know where to find several reliable independent sources which will establish you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, I would suggest you leave the Wikipedia process to take its course, and spend your time and energy on something of more value to you. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]