Wikipedia:Teahouse#Want to understand SIGCOV and if it applies to all articles?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling

add Approve or Oppose with your Reason down below YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere. Like (probably) 95% of the people here, I have no interest, and don't care either way.

But I will point out that you can "revive" till you're blue in the fact, but if you don't have several people actively interested, and willing to spend time working on the project, "reviving" it will be an empty gesture and a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean arent most of them dead? (inactive) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the best way to really promote the topic of bowling on Wikipedia would be to look for articles on that topic that need improvement, and fix them up. I think the best project for bowling is, when you get done editing, go bowling! :) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I want to revive it because I do leagues for my school and a league that they have YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know your school bowling league is never getting an article on Wikipedia, right? TooManyFingers (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then ... I'm guessing you only mentioned them because the whole thing has inspired you to try to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bowling. That's great! I hope you find lots of good sources of bowling information to improve articles or write new ones. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could it be like for PBA Players (Ex: E.J. Tackett Kyle Troup) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understood your question. Could what be like for PBA players? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add like a daily article about bowling in the WP:Bowling (for ex. ej tackett or 9 pin no tap bowling) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like what they do on the main page YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it!

I don't know the answer, but someone somewhere will know. :) Sorry I wasn't more helpful.

One thing: I wouldn't try changing it daily. The main page has enough people to keep working on it, and they always have tons of possible choices for what to put up next. Bowling doesn't have those advantages. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I would do it. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD, you could just start doing it. Then if anyone objects, pause what you're doing and discuss it with them until you and others reach consensus. -- Avocado (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright (Zakk😎) 16:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with any moribund Wikiproject, there are a number of things you can do to revive it:

1. Post a query on the talkpage, provided that query is along the lines of "please can anyone here advise if -------- is a typo or some specific bowls jargon" and not "would anyone watching like to revive this project?"
2. Check the timeline of the subject of the project and look for a notable anniversary. If one is coming up in the next couple of years, try to get it in Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#Steps_for_suggesting_new_listings. If the article isn't yet good enough, but you have a year or three, all the better - you can raise this on the Wikiproject talkpage and ask for help to get the article up to standard before the anniversary. Bonus points if you can get a relevant article to featured status - but that is a major undertaking.
3. Look at the WikiProject history, postings on the talkpage and people who have the Wikiproject among their userboxes. Check which of them have recently edited and ask them for advice and help with queries such as the two above.
4. Watchlist articles relevant to your WikiProject
5. Look at the relevant categories for your WikiProject and check that the articles in them have a talkpage tag for your WikiProject
6. When new editors make substantial edits to articles in the focus of that Wikiproject, check if they have been welcomed, and if not drop them a welcome, personalised with a mention of the WikiProject
7. If established editors who aren't members of the Wikiproject make substantial edits to articles relevant to the WikiProject, ask them if they'd be willing to help the WikiProject, or better, ask if they could help answer a specific query on your wikiproject talkpage
8. When Xmas or New Year are about to happen, send out greetings cards from the Wikiproject to those of its members who are still active on Wikipedia. (If you can find a vaguely relevant image or two, I can even make you a customised greetings card)

Hope that helps, and no you don't need to do all of these steps. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a customised greeting card image? (I can make the award pretty easily) I gotta send them out before the end of December 18th. Because then I will be inactive for 2 weeks YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my greeting card making abilities are permutations of User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20 ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does the mean? Zakk😎 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if you pick a couple of images I can make you a card like User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add an external link to a page, so I need to submit an hCaptcha, but the hCaptcha isn't showing for me. Joetheman67 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @KHarlan (WMF), @EMill-WMF. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more about what you're seeing? Are you unable to submit an edit when you try? EMill-WMF (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce this on enwiki. Can you provide us with more information about what you see after you press "Publish changes"?

The expected workflow for adding an external URL is:

• press "Publish changes" on an edit that adds an external URL
• the page reloads
• at the bottom of the page, this text appears above the submit buttons: "Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha"
• press "Publish changes"
• the challenge appears

Note that next week, when hCaptcha is at 99.9% passive mode, the workflow for adding an external URL will be:

• press "Publish changes"
• hCaptcha doesn't think the session is suspicious for bot activity -> the edit is published
• otherwise, same steps as above

KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps using an ad-blocker that is preventing it from showing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite likely. As an ad blocker user who's fortunate enough to be long-since autoconfirmed but has encountered it on other sites, I can attest that hCaptcha is one of the worst "doesn't work if you block ads and trackers" offenders out there. I'm disappointed that it's what Wikimedia has chosen. Don't we want Wikipedia to be usable by people who use ad blockers to disarm web trackers? -- Avocado (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hCaptcha does work with most ad-blockers; the bug was the result of a technical issue (T411927) which has since been fixed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that the main image of an article should always be a featured image if possible? Sometimes I feel that there are images that better illustrate the subject. Bloopityboop (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bloopityboop. If I've interpreted your question correctly, the first image of an article does not need to be a featured picture; whatever is necessary and illustrates the subject the best should be used. Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 03:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you interpreted me correctly. Thanks for letting me know. Bloopityboop (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloopityboop, I agree with Tarlby. A Featured picture may do an outstanding job illustrating some narrow aspect of a topic. Another high quality image may do a much better job of illustrating the topic more broadly. The lead image should do just that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and just wanted to point that one thing making this unworkable is that some topics have many featured images, but some have very few. In those topics where there might be dozens of articles with only one featured picture between them, it would not help readers to keep seeing the same lead image across many different articles. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be decided by consensus. Most are probably not aware of featured pictures. Koriodan (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does the community feel about a long time 30k edits plus editing from this NHS hospital because I don’t know my password??? ~2025-39086-72 (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fine? It's not a real problem? It will be fine when you get home? I'm not sure how you would expect people to respond. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible to change your password now, using the "forgot my password" function. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community recommends Bitwarden, a free password manager. Polygnotus (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank all. Being optimistic I could be out in 24 hrs. I’m going to chill instead, and investigate bitwarden when I get home ~2025-39086-72 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus The entire community? I have a different preference, KeePass, but any good password manager, written by coders who know proper key handling, is better than trying to remember passwords. I know very few of my passwords, but my password-protected password file is backed up in several places. And it has a strong, unique password! David10244 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 The kind of people who need help when they forget their password should use Bitwarden not KeePass. And most people who use KeePass should probably use KeePassXC. Polygnotus (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank responders to my question, but note that to change my password would have been disastrous without a mail program on my iphone, which I do not have. I have recently got rid of my iphone SE because Apple, and am instead using an iphone 12 without a mail program. Yep, you guys should not assume people who need help here have redundant systems on their phones. To have followed 'Fingers advice would have been a disaster for me. Walter Ego 11:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I use a system called "The Monet Box" in order to keep track of my accounts and passwords. It works well, but relies on strict adherance to the internal workings of "The Monet Box" systems. the box used to contain stationery in it's Monet artwork covered container, now consists solely of scraps of paper, old envelopes etc each holding details of individual accounts that "The Monet Box system" maintains records for. - Walter Ego 12:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, this is my first time writing in wiki. Hence, please do help by specifically mention which part that I need to revise and edit- see Draft:PTTI (Pusat Tuisyen Teratak Ilmu). I revised my own draft many times, found grammatical errors but could not find the sign of using large language model as this draft was created by scratch. I have checked words to watch since I might use promotional words and changed it. Is it possible the draft got rejected two times by @Aydoh8 and @Rambleydue to the list of programmes or visuals that looks promotional? Please entertain my humble request of help to get this draft approved. Thank you in advance! Snurnas (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snurnas, it looks incredibly promotional. You need it to write it from a neutral point of view. I'll note the citations, formatted like Template:Cite web, but you are not using the template. An AI would do that. The main issue is that it's very promotional, though. win8x (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional does not mean a style. Promotional means writing for customers or investors. Wikipedia needs writing that ignores customers and helps history students instead. When customers and investors complain "There's almost nothing in this article to help me decide whether to do business with these people", you'll know it's not promotional. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way you said helped me understand of how it should be. Thank you! Snurnas (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIs love to use lots of bullet points and over-use boldface text for unnecessary emphasis. There are other signs too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your point of view. Understood. Snurnas (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Snurnas, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

If it says what the company says, or what the company wants people to know, it will sound promotional.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the long tips! I should be more clearer now of what I shall improve. Snurnas (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I submitted a draft for a new page for myself about six months ago and never received a confirmation or any review. Can someone help me locate it?” ~2025-39419-87 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name or URL of the draft? qcne (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-39419-87, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My guess is that you did not actually submit the draft, but just picked "Publish" which simply means "Save" (it was changed for legal reasons), and so the draft is simply sitting there where it's unlikely anybody noticed it.

However, please notice that writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is extremely difficult, and hardly anybody has ever been successful doing so, so Wikipedia very strongly discourages people from trying to. See autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a lot of confusion about that "Publish" button when it comes to draftspace. I wonder if there's a better word which clarifies "pushing this button will make your changes visible to everyone who reads the draft, but will NOT actually move the draft to mainspace." It really doesn't help that 'publish' is the word people often use for graduating a draft to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar Yes, this confusion is common. As you probably know, the button used to be labeled "Save", but some people got mad that others could see the text (if they knew where to look). I have tried to think of a better word or short phrase but I haven't succeeded... David10244 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the real story behind the changed name of the button, and I don't know how the buttons are constructed.

Thus, knowing nothing much, I might suggest a button that contains two lines:

Save

Saved material is not private

... maybe that could help TooManyFingers (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39419-87: If you are unsure of the page name or url then at least give your own name if it was about you. Otherwise we have nothing to search for. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Publicity? Vanity? SEO? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am working on the draft Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir and it has been repeatedly declined via the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. The primary reasons for the decline seem to be lack of notability (WP:GNG) and potential WP:BLP (Biography of Living Persons) issues due to the inclusion of the Anti-Corruption Commission case (which I was advised to keep by a previous editor).

I have added what I believe are strong independent sources (national/regional news coverage of the FIFA 2026 bid and the ACC case). I am blocked from moving it to the main space. Could an experienced editor please look at the draft and advise me on these specific points?

Are the sources strong enough to pass WP:GNG, or are they too promotional/regional?

How can I make the language in the "Anti-Corruption Commission Case" section perfectly neutral to avoid future BLP violations? Abujahangir (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this attempt at autobiography is marginal regarding notability. The newspaper coverage in Alberni Valley News is from a regional paper and is based on interviews, so is not independent, as required. You may not care but once in mainspace the biography will be open to editing by anyone and might start to include well-sourced material about the alleged corruption, which isn't likely to be something you would want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a draft is declined after all possible existing sources have already been included, it's often because the subject is not notable. If that's the case, there is absolutely nothing that the draft's author can do to change it. You can't build something if there's no material to build with. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abujahangir Is your unsigned reply below generated by a large language model, or AI, or ChatGPT? AI will ofren use two asterisks to indicate bold formatting, which us not what we do here. And you forgot to sign. David10244 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @David10244, I explained in my talk page and in the subject heading "Use of AI tools – short explanation". Please take a note from my conersation with [[User:Meadowlark]] Hope those are well explained. I am taking the guidance from [[User:Meadowlark]]. Would like add any more suggestion, I will be glad to comply. Thanks for your caution and help Abujahangir (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Mike Turnbull and TooManyFingers, for your candid feedback, which helped me identify the exact policy issues (BLP/Due Weight) and the perception of the sources (too regional).

I have fully implemented a major revision and resubmitted the draft for a new review.

=== Specific Actions Taken and Sourcing Clarification ===

1. **Addressing Sourcing Overlook and Regional Scope (Mike Turnbull's Point):**

• I agree that the regional/interview-based sources alone are insufficient.
• **Action:** To ensure the national/international significance is not overlooked, I have strategically placed **national Canadian sources (CBC Radio, Times Colonist)** and the **Bangladeshi national media sources (Daily Janakantha, Dainik Sangram, ATN News)** directly into the **Lead Section**. These are all featured, in-depth articles that cover the FIFA achievement and his career, providing strong evidence against the 'too regional' objection.

2. **Addressing WP:BLP and Due Weight:**

• I acknowledged that the ACC matter was structurally dominating the draft.
• **Action:** I **removed the bolded header** for the ACC matter and integrated the information neutrally into the 'Career' paragraph. This fully adheres to WP:BLP and Due Weight by preventing the allegation from overshadowing the verified career facts.

I will continue searching for further national Canadian coverage while the draft is under review. Thank you again for your time and helping me adhere to Wikipedia's standards.

Abujahangir (talk)

Resubmitted with ACC integrated/neutralized and sources verified—volunteer to review/promote? Ping all (e.g., @TooManyFingers: @Mike Turnbull:).

— Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC) 

Did you know that it’s a proven fact that people that think they are smarter than everyone else, as you people do, become closed minded and petty. How dare anyone question these smart people instead of just excepting the fact that they are smarter and should be believed. Thank God that Tesla, Einstein, and many others didn’t think this way. If they had our world would be a much different place. By acting this way you are writing your own obituary. Many people you don’t agree with are just as smart as you. Wake-up before your site is gone. I will not be donating until you change your ways. ~2025-39596-79 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp! qcne (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not give money to WMF. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carrite That’s not very helpful. Why are you asking people not to donate? David10244 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing to do with the donation process, which is conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Feel free to complain to them.

We're happy to hear your grievances if you tell us what they are. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change things for the better, hurling vague, non-specific insults around is a very poor way to do it. For decades, critics have been predicting Wikipedia's demise, and yet it still remains a top ten website worldwide because billions of people find it useful and interesting. I agree with Carrite. English Wikipedia is created and run by unpaid volunteers. We do not care in the slightest whether or not you to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a separate organization that is rolling in cash. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Tesla's personal life. I do know that Einstein was a great conversationalist, but he had no patience for people spouting vacuous nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which out of the more than 100,000 different people who edit Wikipedia each month the OP was thinking? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arrogant, elitist ones! HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CANCER. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you’ve come straight out of an 1800s novel,, like Scrooge with that phrase “Change your ways” Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39596-79 "Excepting the fact that they are smarter"? David10244 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an article that links to itself. The Markdown article has multiple links to CommonMark, which itself leads to Markdown#Standardization. Is there some sort of template to mark this, should the link be removed, or should it just be kept as-is? Mxwllhe (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Mxwllhe. If the link is not in the Standardization section then it's fine, since the link goes to a specific section of the article. See MOS:CIRCULAR. Perception312 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see.

Mxwllhe (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the linking to itself can be fine as long as it's a specific section on the same page. Koriodan (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a complaint concerning that I'm trying to publish a document and page for my upcoming band but I wrote it all myself and did not use ai and all the sources truly do come from me. It has been rejected two times after fixing part of it, but I'm not rewriting the whole thing EH Records (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EH Records. This draft reads more like an advertising piece than an encyclopedic article, nor does it seem like this band is worthy of one per WP:Notability. A page like WP:42 can help you understand. Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 00:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, even if they came wrapped in a bit of tough criticism toward the band. We genuinely appreciate every piece of feedback, whether it’s glowing praise or something a little less kind, because all of it helps us grow and figure out who we are becoming as artists. We’re still in the early stages of our journey, carving out our sound and building our presence step by step. We may not be a huge name yet, and we might not have some grand, dramatic origin story or a meteoric rise to fame yet, but we’re working hard every day to create something real, meaningful, and true to who we are and be like the greats. Every comment, every listener, every moment—positive or negative—helps add another brick to the foundation we’re trying to build.

Wishing you a blessed day,

EH Records EH Records (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We’re still in the early stages of our journey" is a strong indicator thar it is far too soon for an article about your band. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. Our articles are also typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thanks for the feedback. The main reason I was hoping to create the page is that people searching for our band often look for a central, neutral source of information, and I thought Wikipedia might help provide that as give more things and information on google.

EH Records EH Records (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not merely provide information, it summarizes what has already been written about a topic by independent reliable sources. If no or few sources write about your band, there is nothing to summarize in an article.

You would need to set aside everything that you know about your band and limit yourself to summarizing what others have said, to show how your band meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. It is usually very difficult for people to do that. Companies/organizations trying to force the issue and create an article themselves are rarely successful; you should go on about the work of your band as if you had nevee heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the band and chooses to write about it. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thanks for your explanation. I understand that Wikipedia relies on independent sources rather than firsthand knowledge. I just wanted to note that a number of people in the music community and local scene have already written about or discussed our band publicly. I’m happy to provide references or let the usual process take its course. Since they've rejected me at the moment, I can't make any new edits.

EH Records EH Records (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that have written about your band, and can show that it meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND, you may edit the draft and ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider.

Also be advised that an article about your band is not necessary desirable. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thanks for the guidance. I understand that an article isn’t automatically necessary or desirable, and I appreciate the clarification about WP:BAND. I’ll review the sources I have and consider whether the draft meets the guidelines before requesting reconsideration. EH Records (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EH Records Hello. I added some information to your Talk page that might be helpful, underneath all of the warnings. David10244 (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that's a really good comment. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I just looked at the draft. It looks like an example out of WP:GARAGE. Give us a break, please! ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Still in the early stages" you say? You can't have an article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. Meet one of the WP:BAND criteria, and then you can have an article. It's that simple. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EH Records I don't think there was any criticism of the band at all! People playing real music, live, in front of other people, is far more important than it gets credit for.

Encyclopedia articles about people and about businesses (a band is both, in a special way) cover only the parts of their history that are already well known to the public. Wikipedia is a copy of what the public already knew. Getting the word out to the public about someone is the opposite of what we do here. (Not technically a real opposite, but I think you see what I mean.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently got my article published, and I noticed this whole article grading system. I am wondering who exactly decides the grade, and how to notify them once I believe it has met criteria for the next level. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BluePixelLOLLL. Any editor can rate any article in good faith, with the exception of Good articles and Featured articles, which have formal processes. Ratings are usually added on article talk pages. You can examine the talk page edit history to see who rated it, and leave a message on their user talk page. Frankly, the lower ratings are considered unimportant by most experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly grade my own articles since I've noticed they're often ungraded for a long time if I don't. It isn't all that important, nor a formal process with rules and restrictions. Just decide based on your unbiased judgement - if an article is not comprehensive enough, is lacking things like images, or isn't sourced in some parts, I give it a C. If it's too short, like under 2000 bytes, I give it a start. I mostly base it off the ores scoring, it's a pretty useful script that can distinguish between a stub, start, and a C pretty accurately in my experience, which is usually what most articles start off as. jolielover♥talk 06:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tool called "Rater" that will suggest and apply grades for you, and tidy up WikiProject templates as it does so. It's not infallible in the former, but makes a good first-pass. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it worked. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 05:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a summary of the criteria for each rating at WP:GRADE. A few projects, like the Military History one, have their own criteria that are slightly different in specifics but aligned in spirit. -- Avocado (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft keeps getting declined as they say its promotional. How can I fix it so it will be accepted ? Sherry180 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sherry180. What is your connection to CambriLearn? qcne (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. If you are associated with the company you are editing about, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI.

In terms of Draft:CambriLearn, you are just telling about the activities and offerings of the company. This does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, coverage that goes into detail about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company as the source sees it, not as the company itself sees it. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to them. Just trying my hand at writing. Sherry180 (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sherry180 Promotional is not a style. Promotional means letting customers or investors know what you offer. Anything intended to inform customers or investors needs to be completely cut out of the article, no matter what way it's worded. Good Wikipedia articles about companies are history, with no view to the future other than to say they're still in business. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's also kind of a style.

"Example Inc is a software company which develops payroll software for commercial applications" vs "Example Inc is a software company which develops a robust suite of payroll software to enhance the reliability and efficiency of commercial payroll operations"

Both communicate the same information to the reader, and both 'let customers or investors know' what the company offers, but one is obviously promotional and the other is encyclopedic. Athanelar (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional writing often does have a distinctive style. But if you change the style, it's still promotion.

I would prefer if promotional writing always did "look promotional", because it would be easier to spot, but well-disguised promotion still needs to be removed. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the point is that just as promotional writing doesn't always look promotional, an article that isn't 'unambiguous promotion' can still be written in a promotional tone which makes it unfit for the encyclopedia; that's exactly why WP:CSD#G11 permits speedy deletion of 'unambiguous advertising or promotion,' whereas a merely promotional tone will simply get your draft declined.

I think what you're talking about is the stuff covered under WP:YESPROMO; i.e., people who say "my article isn't promotional! I'm just trying to raise awareness/clear up misinformation/etc" Athanelar (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So for interest sake, if I were to write about the history of art instead of a specific company, would it still be seen as promotional? Or is the topic I chose just a bad topic that can easily be flagged as promotional? Sherry180 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to write about a company and not be promotional, especially as a user new to Wikipedia who may not yet understand what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the history of art", and there's a big clue there. Writing the history of a company, leaving out everything that wouldn't belong in a history textbook, is something that people connected with a company often have a tough time doing. They tend to include, and greatly overemphasize, a lot of things that wouldn't interest the author of a textbook on general history - and they leave out or minimize the things that would interest that author.

A few examples:

Historians don't care about the qualifications of the people who run an organization, unless they're very surprising ones.

Historians don't care about the curriculum of a school (unless it's a highly abnormal curriculum), and they wouldn't think to mention accreditation unless the school was illegal.

Historians don't mention a school's authorized examination centres, again unless there's something highly unusual about the situation.

It's certainly no coincidence that these items, of no concern to a historian, are likely to be of concern to prospective students. In other words, most of this article is promotion. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sherry180 What has been published about this school in independent, reliable sources? What makes this school different than any other similar school? Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, and it's not meant to be a place to look up businesses or schools. Harvard and Howard are notable universities. Many schools are great places to learn, but might not merit an encyclopedia article. David10244 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see many Irrelevant (no offence) questions on Wikipedia Teahouse and other forums, and perhaps this isn’t the right forum to say this but perhaps in the account creation process there should be a notice which says something along the lines of:

”Warning- Wikipedia isn’t a promotional or social media site, if you are joining to make a page about yourself or a company/band/etc. You are affiliated with please reconsider”

I feel like a warning like that could perhaps cut down on the amounts of people who come thinking Wikipedia is a social media site, or who want to make a page for themselves or something they are affiliated with, I see many editors (who I thank for their diligent work), always answering those questions and it seems like a waste of time having to answer and decline all those drafts when there are plenty good ones which are “pushed down the pile“

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this query.

Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @KeyolTranslater. I don't think it's the right forum - I think one of the sections of the village pump would be better.

I have often wished we had a way of doing this. My personal opinion is that it wouldn't make very much difference. I doubt if most people read the edit notices that appear on various pages, any more than most people read the "important information" leaflet that is stuffed into every box of medication. ColinFine (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, perhaps I will ask/inform the people on Village Pump, I do think it won’t deter everyone (people will certainly be stubborn and try), but perhaps the odd one person will reconsider if they genuinely didn’t know you couldn’t self-advertise. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyolTranslater For what it's worth, I think a warning on the Account Sign up page would be a very good idea. This is, however, a centrally managed page via Wikimedia so I'm not sure where you'd go to propose that. The Village Pump folks might have a better idea. qcne (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I say this a lot, but the people who need the warning are all going to click past it without reading. We could test the truth of my statement by putting up another warning before yours, that says "People who don't care about warnings must exit the signup process now". :) (hint: they'd still sign up, after ignoring both warnings) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you’d at least get one person who “changes their ways”, most won’t and will be persistent, I do like your idea though of the second warning. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. :) I think really putting two warnings like that would be useless clutter. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100% on the merit of at least trying to do something to prevent such messages, @KeyolTranslater. Although nothing will stop 100% of them even with an outright request, I have a suspicion that similar counterarguments arose against putting up STOP signs when they were invented.

@Qcne suggested above that a good place to post this request would be the Account Sign-up page. This seems to fall under the WikiMedia Foundation, so perhaps writing to info@wikimedia.org would be one way to reach those in charge of the page.

Count me in as an ally on this … it’s one of my own concerns. It’s commendable how our long-suffering Teahouse staff tirelessly deal with it day in and day out! Augnablik (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of anything that will help. Just when I see "A warning will help", my mind immediately applies [citation needed]. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can email them with all your approvals, if you all want. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email who?

I expressed doubt about the proposal, not approval. (I did say I'm in favour of anything that will help, but I questioned whether a warning would help at all.) TooManyFingers (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it deters one person that would be a success. The email would go to the WMF Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to e-mail the WMF, @KeyolTranslater, feel free to include me along with you on it — or not, your decision. But as for others who’ve replied to your topic, you’d need individual “green lights.” Augnablik (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. Who knows perhaps it will work Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be involved as a supporter for some kind of warning message on the Account signup page. qcne (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @RatulH21, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Maybe just barely.

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

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

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. So, while the first one and perhaps the others could contribute to that, they are not enough on their own.

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a new editor here on Wikipedia, and as I learn the ropes, I'm starting with low-stakes edits on relatively low-traffic, low-importance pages.

At times I've noticed passive-voice verbs, random commas, and other choices related to punctation, grammar, syntax, style, and diction that contribute to weak writing. I'm not knocking anyone. After all, everyone is doing this for free.

That said, how are more experienced editors thinking about past editors' choices that aren't technically wrong but aren't strong either, with "strong" itself being pretty subjective? What's your editorial credo or philosophy here on Wikipedia?

I'd appreciate any input. Mcalchemy (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same reactions you do. If my change could legitimately be criticized by someone as not truly better, I try to leave it alone; otherwise I change it. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent rule of thumb. Thank you. Mcalchemy (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already know that sometimes passive really is the better way to write something. In my experience, it seems the passive most needs changing when it's being intentionally used to make it appear that someone didn't do what they did. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to passive voice, I ask myself, "Would trying to change this to active voice make it sound strange?" If the answer is yes, I usually just leave it. All that to say, I agree: "sometimes passive really is the better way to write something." Mcalchemy (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing-style standards also vary among different fields of study, and this might be simply inertia among those working in that field or even a written guideline for them in the real world. Wikipedia editors might simply be using the style of the refs for a given article, or they might be using the style they use in their real-world context. Wikipedia does have some written standards, especially for punctuation and tone. Could you give us an example or two of what you are seeing as sub-par itself or inconsistent (especially within one article itself)? Someone might recognize why it is that way, or lend support to your thinking it could easily be made definitely better. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, though all of the examples I ran across I kind of ruined after I edited them. That said, I'll keep an eye out and will report back here. You bring up a good point that different editors can import certain conventions or "normal" choices for them from different fields and disciplines . Mcalchemy (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd probably benefit from taking a look at the WP:Manual of style. Obviously our primary focus is making sure Wikipedia contains well-sourced enyclopedic content, but we do have a manual of style and it absolutely is good and productive to make sure it's adhered to where possible. Athanelar (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good reminder. I've got the link saved in my Wikipedia notes in Notion, but admittedly, I haven't delved too deeply into the manual of style. Mcalchemy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot in there. Reading just the parts that directly concern you at the moment is probably how it gets used the most. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the most Wikipedia features on that are that we haven't standardised on a house standard for spelling or CE/BCE v AD/BC, instead we standardise at the article level and usually default to whichever editor set the standard for that article. Though there are exceptions, I once started an article about a place in California and obviously that was going to wind up in American English. Another is that we are neutral, So we can quote a critic dissing a film as miscast and poorly shot with a choreographer and "fight sequence consultant" who should have been swapped with each other. But we attribute that criticism to that critic rather than put it into Wikipedia's voice. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcalchemy Keep in mind that there are more than 7 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There aren't enough editors to re-review them all. There are far more readers than editors, and I would venture that most readers don't know that they could notify editors of any mistakes they see (or fix mistakes themselves). And some articles are likely not read very often. David10244 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a new editor. I think it would be valuable for there to be an article that lists the impacts of climate change around the world. Something similar to the current events project but just for climate-related impacts. It would list the impacts from typhoons and hurricanes as well as fires and floods.

I imagine one page where a reader could see how climate change is impacting the world right now. This wouldn't be a place for renewable energy news or climate policy current events, it would just focus on impacts.

Perhaps there are better structures for this idea? Being new, I'm unsure how to proceed. Thank you for any advice or guidance.

-dan UserDani (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could propose this at WP:Village pump (proposals). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dani.j.lombardi. We have the general article Effects of climate change and Category:Effects of climate change. The risk and severity of some events increase with climate change but you cannot say a specific typhoon or flood was caused by climate change so I don't see how this could work without running afoul of WP:NOTADVOCACY. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there would have to be a standard developed to avoid advocacy. Many "natural disasters" have attribution studies that can say a specific typhoon or flood was x% more likely to happen because of climate change. UserDani (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was responding to a feedback request/RfC and as part of that, I am now wondering where to find inclusion criteria. The "category:false allegations of sex crimes" page currently says

The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed. Please see the relevant discussions on the talk pages of those individual articles. Consider rewording the inclusion criteria of this category if they are unclear. See also the guidelines at WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people.

So I am wondering where to find these criteria, because I think it would really help the discussion. For your information, the discussion this is about is at RFC about inclusion of "false allegations of sex crimes" category

Thanks in advance. If you know the answer and reply here, I can take it from here and see if it is useful to bring to the discussion. Alternatively, if you know and want to, you could also share it directly in the discussion. Slomo666 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the category has specific criteria for inclusion, you'd probably be able to find them at Category talk:False allegations of sex crimes but it doesn't seem like anybody ever bothered to come up with any.

I'd say BLP applies here, though. By default, any allegation of a sex crime is always going to involve an alleger, and stating conclusively that an allegation is false requires some serious evidence. Including an article in this category without having solid evidence that an allegation was conclusively proven false is libelous/defamatory toward the alleger in a way that is almost certainly a BLP violation; so as a start for inclusion criteria I'd say that you should be able to point to a reliable source(s) which demonstrate conclusively that the allegation was uncontroversially false. Absolutely any doubt whatsoever about whether the allegation is true or not should automatically mean the article can't be included in that category. Athanelar (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I should not import the RfC here, but the issue is whether or not the subject's aqcuittal and coverage thereof suffices as reliable source(s) which demonstrate conclusively that the allegation was uncontroversially false. I was hoping the category would have criteria that clearly state or negate this, but it does not appear to have any whatsoever. I don't think you can say it is "libelous" if there has been a court case about it, but I think it is more nuanced than that. There's something between libel and what we deem ok to say about people or their statements in wikipedia's voice. I am becoming more convinced it should be kept out of the category. Thank you.

Sidenote, mostly technical: when I am on this (teahouse I mean) page, there are two arrows (^) on my screen that block the reply button. Do you happen to know know how to get rid of these/move them?

Thanks and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An acquittal is not the same thing as proof that an allegation was false. People can be acquitted for lack of evidence, etc. Unless there is specific documented proof that the allegation was false (a Jussie Smollett situation) then it should not be included in this category, I think. Athanelar (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>Unless there is specific documented proof that the allegation was false

We literally have this for the Michael Jackson trial, and it''s overwhelming. So these cases are not the same. Never17 (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question is, what can be regarded as "specific documented proof". For example, all jurors rejecting an allegation because the accusers' claims they saw them as "plain not believable" would be documented proof? You bring up Jussie Smollett but also that if any doubt exist it shouldn't be in the category. There is however most certainly doubt about the Smollett case. castorbailey (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not split the discussion. It should take place at the RfC. I merely went here to ask a question about where to find information on inclusion criteria. Slomo666 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomo666, for your technical sidenote:

You can change the visibility of the annoying navigation arrows by adding a CSS definition for them at the bottom of your your custom stylesheet.

I've set mine to make them semi-transparent:

#skip-to-top-button, #skip-to-bottom-button {opacity: 0.5;}

If you want them to disappear completely:

#skip-to-top-button, #skip-to-bottom-button {display: none;}

I see you haven't used your custom stylesheet yet — I'm happy to help more if you have problems doing this. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were already transparent. They just blocked my ability to click the [reply] button bc if I clicked there, I’d be clicking the down arrow. (Or the up one, I don’t remember) thanks for the help but I will not be doing all of that stuff yet. (I might get into making a custom stylesheet at one point, but I’m not involved enough to care at this point.) Slomo666 (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomo666 Don't the up/down arrows stay in the same place when you scroll the article? Scrolling the article should move the Reply button out from under the arrows. At least, in desktop view, which works fine on a mobile device. David10244 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at the time I was talking about this, the present section was at the bottom of the page, so there was no way to move it above the arrows. Only down, which made it fall off the screen entirely. the issue is solved now anyways, because of the horizontal shift that occurs when continuing a thread. Edit: nevermind. Slomo666 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on my local community's high school for a bit, and I notice that quite a lot of information is severely outdated: captions that mention increasing school enrollment year-over-year with data from 1999-2007. Is there a defined metric to remove these graphs? Or should I be changing captions, and specifying dates?

I believe this leads into my second question: is there a good reason to delete the graph in general? It could be deleted due to inaccuracy based on time; but the whole point of wikipedia is to keep the important information & the historical facts are still important.

For reference: Flower Mound High School Thebest8382 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it's best to avoid putting in content that needs annual attention and updating, especially if the information isn't really relevant to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. In some cases the historical information is highly relevant (like Historical rankings of presidents of the United States needs an update every 4 years or so), but a graph of school enrollment numbers? I don't see the relevance, especially if the graph correlates with the growth of the surrounding community. It would be enough to state that enrollment has steadily increased (or something to that effect) and cite the source for that graph. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might even go a bit further - who actually cares about the increasing enrollment? (My answer would be "nobody who isn't already living there and hearing it firsthand".)

It says at one point a new building was required - that absolutely says enough about the enrollment already, so I would just delete the graph and the text that went with it. Things that don't really help the reader learn what's relevant are just getting in the way, even when they're true. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers I like how you worded that -- just because something is true, doesn't mean it needs to be in an article. David10244 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost count of the number of editors who complain about their article being deleted, insisting that it should be published on Wikipedia because the person/company/band/whatever exists and everything is true, as if mere verifiable existence is enough to qualify. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to translate pages for English Wikipedia, but I noticed this is not allowed if a user doesn't have a certain number of edits. I first tried to translate this Serbian-language article: Jelena Marjanović. Because I wasn't able to, I just created a new page on the English Wikipedia, but the two appear to not be linked: Jelena Marjanović. Can anyone help me navigate this? Is there a way to retroactively link the two? Is all translation of pages into English restricted? Icedshakenespresso (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are only allowed to Extended Confirmed users (users with 500+ edits, and existed for at least 30 days). You can link those two by Wikidata. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it to Wikidata, it works now Versions111 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only EC editors? What prevents anyone familiar with another language and the policies here from translating any article they want? I did this once, and I thought I did a good job (the effort was more "rewrite in English" rather than simply "translate from German"), and I would have done the same job regardless of whether I had reached EC status. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Content Translation tool, not manually Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I wasn't aware of that tool. Still, nobody is prevented from using Google Translate. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is manual translation of a page? Simply creating a new page on the English Wikipedia? Thanks for the help. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Icedshakenespresso, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please be aware that English Wikipedia has one of the strictest policies for article subjects in terms of References and notability.

If an article in another Wikipedia has references that English Wikipedia deems adequate (which means that nearly all of them meet all the requirements in golden rule), then translating the article into English would be a worthwhile strategy.

If it does not have that level of sourcing, then translating it would be equivalent to writing an article backwards, and mostly a waste of time and effort. In this case, a much better approach would be to write a new article in English, starting (as writing an article should always do) by finding sources that do meet the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use my own references and never do a word-for-word translation, but I find the content translation tool's layout to be useful, especially for beginner editors. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my case when translating Paul Trappen from German, "manual translation" meant first starting with the machine translation, then using my limited understanding of German combined with using Google Translate to understand the article on the German Wikipedia, and write a somewhat improved version in English, which was my first saved edit in draft space, not mainspace. I checked all the sources that I could translate, and then made revisions, cutting out unsourced claims, adding another source and more citations, and making sure everything was verifiable. Normal wiki editing. After I was satisfied, I moved it to mainspace.

This was a lot of work, not just a regurgitation of a machine translation. For some sentences I kept the machine translation, but you'll find significant differences in prose and sentence organization between the English version and a machine-translated German version.

One trick I do with Google Translate (especially when translating into a language I don't know) is to run the translation back and forth between two languages to see how the meaning changes on each iteration. If the meaning remains unchanged (even if the words may change) then I know the translation is stable. You can't do this with a one-way machine translation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I don't rely on machine translations whatsoever, I'm just curious about the best method for creating translated articles on English Wikipedia. I find the content translation tool to be useful because I can see and interact with the original article, but my account has too little experience to publish directly using that tool. I am a native English speaker, if that matters. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like some guidance on whether my academic profile is likely to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a biography, before I consider preparing a draft for Articles for Creation.

In general terms, my background includes:

• Over 60 peer-reviewed publications
• Around 2700 citations and an h-index in the mid 20s
• Several competitive international research fellowships
• Editorial board memberships for multiple scientific journals
• Experience organising international scientific symposia
• Research appointments in multiple countries
• Scientific work that has been covered by independent news or science outlets

I am aware of the conflict-of-interest considerations around writing about oneself, so I want to make sure I follow the correct procedures. I would appreciate advice on whether this level of academic activity is typically considered notable under WP:NPROF or related guidelines.

Thank you for your help. John.folla (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our criteria are listed at WP:NACADEMIC. I would think you probably fall under the category WP:TOOSOON, but a lot will depend on the nature and extent of "covered by independent news or science outlets"; for example, do they cover you, or just your work? Do they simply rehash press releases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I and many other Wikipedians highly reccomend against writing about yourself. If you do, you will have to declare a Conflict of Interest when submitting to AfC and look at WP:NPOV after every sentence to make sure you are only presenting objective facts about yourself, and not in a particularly positive light.

VidanaliK (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need assistance in understanding how to write a well-structured Wikipedia-style article about the world’s largest rice conference, BIRC (Bharat International Rice Conference), held in Delhi, India. Could someone guide me on how to begin the draft and what key sections or information should be included for proper encyclopedic formatting?

I would appreciate advice on recommended structure, notable points to cover, required references, and how to present verified information in a neutral, Wikipedia-appropriate tone. Thank you. Rohitkumar775 (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Your first article; but we do recommend that you gain experience making smaller changes to existing articles before you start a new one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already done 90+ edits, I think I can at least go for drafting an article on my space. Rohitkumar775 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

90 edits is nothing in the scope of Wikipedia.

Writing an article is one of the most difficult and technically complex tasks you can undertake on Wikipedia; it's hard even for an experienced editor. You need to know about notability, verifiability, have a broad understanding of setting out articles in line with the manual of style, know generally what information should and should not go into an article, etc. Athanelar (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 10,000 edits and no article. There are a couple of articles where a lot of the words on the page come from me, but I've never tried writing an article because it's hard. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect all of your views but I talking about a draft article that will not live on Wiki main space. Okay, So I think I can start with a draft article on my space. Hope you all understand. Rohitkumar775 (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that the draft can't stay there, right? TooManyFingers (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I mean, not permanently.) TooManyFingers (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more good advice: Writing Wikipedia articles backward.

Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 17:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the circumstances you describe.

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

RuneScape this page is horribly out of date and considering there’s a YouTube documentary about it as well as recently one of the biggest polls in the games recent history just passed CheapHotBrew (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anybody can edit. Be bold and fix it yourself, just make sure you cite any information you add to a reliable source. Athanelar (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still learning how to edit CheapHotBrew (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounds to me like you've found a good first project to get started with, then. Athanelar (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the article needs to be updated, then you can edit it. But remember to cite reliable sources, of which Youtube is not one. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still learning I just feel like RuneScape should be on some kind of list to be updated or something and I don’t know how to put it there CheapHotBrew (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an "Update" tag to the article, letting other editors know about these possible issues. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you teach me how to do that CheapHotBrew (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added the tag to this article, but if you'd like to add them to other articles then you can look at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chorchapu Wikipedia has so many articles, with many (thousands upon thousands) that probably need cleaning up. The cleanup tag is a good start, but editors work on what they want to or are interested in. Thanks for the info, and maybe someone will feel like working on it. David10244 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CheapHotBrew Ack, I think I replied to the wrong editor. Sorry... David10244 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Morne Jaloux Ridge and Morne Jaloux are the same place and therefore don’t require two pages (which lack quite a lot of references, I will try and find some more). How can I move them into one page (I think the name “Morne Jaloux” is fine with a redirect from Morne Jaloux Ridge. Thanks for any help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the map text obstructs some other text just below, which makes it look awkward and hard to read. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For instructions and help with merging you can read Wikipedia:Merging. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no "built-in" process for this. It's done by replacing the text and leaving a redirect. Koriodan (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are two versions of the same list on the pages Digital painting and Digital art. Should they be unified and if so what would be the best approach? Bobble Pi (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobble Pi! They don't look to be the same list from my glance? I see some different entries in each. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 17:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are both intended to be lists of digital art software from the heading but if there is a reason one contains more than the other then I would understand having them separate. Bobble Pi (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is as one is specifically tied to digital painting, whereas the other encompasses digital art in general. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 17:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clarifying. Should items inside of the digital painting list be put inside the digital art list? Bobble Pi (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they probably should, except one thing: before you copy an item over, make sure that it's correct and up to date, and that it really even belongs. Just so you don't waste your time carrying garbage from one house to another, and then having to clean it up twice afterwards. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty thanks for the help. :) Would it make sense as well to have the heading and name of the list on the digital painting page be renamed to be more specific? I would include an anchor with the old heading to preserve links. Bobble Pi (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a WP:BOLD change by transferring this to a transcluded template. Just be mindful that changes in the future will then reflect everywhere all at once. Koriodan (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll have to look into the making of templates/sandbox it and if there are any other places that have similar lists. Bobble Pi (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I go to yesterday's Wikipedia Home Page. More Generally, how can I find the Home Page for a particular date?Rick Norwood (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Norwood You can get this from the main page history, which unlike other pages is a set of snapshots. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I figured out that I need to type into the Wikipedia search box on the main page

precisely "WP:MPH", that worked, though even the slightest variation from that didn't work for me. I needed that abbreviation exactly, two letters, colon, three letters. But I've now bookmarked the page, so is well (knock wood). Thank you. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: I asked on the talk page of Monster Energy, to add the tour waters That didn't work out (because Tour Waters are just... Water) so someone suggested on that talk page I edit it to include all of the events Monster Energy that they made tour waters for. Thing is, I don't know how I'm supposed to that, SOMEONE HELP, PLEASE. Thank you in advance SixBlunders (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SixBlunders. Maybe make a new section for it in the article, unless it fits well into a pre-existing section. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 18:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for responding, but) How in the hell am I supposed to make a new section for an article?? SixBlunders (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with that. Are you using the visual editor, or the source editor? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the top bar when editing, there's a bit that says "Paragraph" between the undo button and the text format. Click on that drop-down and you can pick a header. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 18:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I appreciate the help. SixBlunders (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try Help:Editing and happy editing to you! Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand. This part you're adding - is it to say that the company had a deal with a lot of tours to sell them bottled water? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Energy dealt with many tours, and they selled Canned Water one of those tours was the Vans Warped Tour. And There is many more events (but I can't access the info because i'm on my school Chromebook to write this) SixBlunders (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SixBlunders Is that kind of list actually important for readers of the article?

If you do add this, then in the future, I can see someone complaining that the list is out if date. Will you keep up the list forever? I'm not a big fan of adding things to articles that quickly become stale.... making future work for others. But, you can certainly add that info and see if it sticks. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse community!

I am a Conflict of Interest editor. I'm an employee at Dell Technologies and here on Wikipedia to make requests to update information related to the company. I would appreciate some guidance on the most effective way to ask for help from independent editors. My goal is to collaborate with the community in the best way possible to ensure edits are handled smoothly and efficiently.

I have specific questions about best practices for following up on my edit requests that have already been posted but have received no response after several weeks: When following up on an unanswered edit request, is it more effective to send a follow-up message addressed to all independent editors, or should I first try tagging a specific editor whom I have worked with before?

If I do tag a specific editor and they do not respond, then what is the recommended next step? Should I revert to addressing the wider community, or is there another approach you suggest?

I want to ensure my requests are seen and addressed in a timely manner while respecting the community's workflows. Any insights on which follow-up methods tend to lead to better outcomes and a more positive experience for everyone would be very helpful.

Thank you for sharing your expertise! TL with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that the main problem is beyond anyone's control; there's a backlog of requests and it includes some requests that were submitted in the middle of September. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your edit request, reformatted it, and asked a question. Once that's resolved, I don't see a problem with the change you proposed.

TooManyFingers is correct, the backlog is large, and attending to conflict-of-interest requests isn't a high priority for many editors here. At least the requests have greater visibility than just the talk page by virtue of listing it on a category page due to the COI tag at the top of the request. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

copyright question here — does the presence of any, even minimal non-free content in a software screenshot entirely taint the free nature of an image, particularly when the actual subject is freely licensed?

i ask this because most screenshots on wikipedia of proprietary software are reduced in resolution. though in a certain article, i came across this screenshot (File:Magisk_26.4_screenshot.png) which, though magisk is free and open source, is visibly depicted as running on one ui, which is proprietary. the navigation bar and status bar of one ui are visible, and i would like to know if this is still qualified as free or becomes nonfree from the presence of copyrighted OS components.

apologies if this is semantics. Shiypc (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are more usually dealt with at Wikimedia Commons, where the image is hosted (and from where it is, or can be, shared with all the Wikipedias). You can use c:Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright for questions; but in this case it is likely that the UI component falls under c:Commons:De minimis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the open ended title was just here inquiring about science and got some really helpful and friendly responses. Was wondering if there are similar group to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science but for art? I am sure there are I just would like to know what some of these communities are titled so I may be able to start editing pages? I have an art history minor and I am interested in the Art Deco and Art Nouveau periods for context in addition to architecture and Islamic art. Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653 well, broadly, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Art. I don't know much about art, but you may browse a list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Some I found there that may or may not interest you are Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture (that one is semi-active). win8x (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka653, atop Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts we read "Related projects: Aesthetics task force · Architecture · Comics · Dance · Films · Literature" and so on. Click on whichever sound(s) of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome! I love comics! Thanks! Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, Agnieszka653. Well, one idea: Some energetic lover of comics might consider going through the article Here and clearing it of blather contributed by "Artificial Intelligence". Here certainly merits a good article created by intelligent humans (and of course rigorously based on reliable sources written and published by intelligent humans). -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the link--I also make art. It's really frustrating what AI is doing to the creative fields (and Wikipedia) thank you again. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently went to the FBI files on Michael Jackson article out of curiosity for the subject, but noticed a lot of strange or inappropriate content that doesn’t appear to be supported by the sources or doesn't parse properly in English. Also, reading into the issue independently I can now see that the article substantially misrepresents the topic.

On the talk page, multiple editors have raised concerns, but each good faith edit is met with the original contributor reverting, arguing:

• the article passed “Good Article” review, so its content can’t be changed, and
• previous editors requested dispute resolution and the issue in question was dismissed then (it wasn't).

My question: What is the appropriate action here?

Would it be suitable to start an RfC for each of the article’s issues? Or is there a better process for addressing the problem. To me, many of the issues with the article don't take specialist knowledge. Feel free to take a look.

Thanks in advance! CounterpointStitch (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterpointStitch It sounds to me like reading Wikipedia:Ownership of content might give some useful information on this. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterpointStitch It is emphatically not true that once an article has passed a GA review, it is frozen in time forever. For one thing, most articles can generally be improved (Featured Article status is "better" than Good Article status, for example). For another thing, new information may come to light on any subject.

If the other editor keeps reverting improvements, look at WP:DR along with what TooManyFingers linked. David10244 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, and to @TooManyFingers. This really clarifies things. All the best! CounterpointStitch (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

I think I would like to expand the article about self-harm substantially - after all, I have more than 200 scientific articles on this topic on my hard drive. However, I have a few questions before I will be able to begin:

1a. Is there some Wikipedia copyrights automatic scanner I could use?

1b. How big is the maximum percentile of words repeated in other sources? 5%?

2. Is there a way to automatically generate cite template from the online data of scientific journals? And yes, I know I should check manually if everything is okay, my question is about its existence, not being carefull when using it ( :) ).

3. How is called the "little" cite template you use when you have full cite journal in other parts of the article in the bibliography section?

This is all I think for now, but I will be back later if I will have some troubles? ;-) Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaworu1992, I don't understand what you mean by "Wikipedia copyrights automatic scanner". Please explain. Also, I can think of two very different potential meanings of "'little' cite template" and I wouldn't be surprised if neither is relevant here. Please point to an example of an article that uses (or appears to use) such templates. And in this era of large-scale predatory/vanity publishing, the mere number or bulk of scientific (-ish) journal articles has become utterly meaningless. Please check that the journals are reputable. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend.

1. I mean, is there an IT system within Wikipedia that automatically checks the given text for copyright violations? This is what I am looking for.

2. The "little" citing template just prints an author name, year of publication and maybe such things as "a" or "b" in case of prolific writers? It is used altogether with normal cite journal template?

3. I believe most of my scientific articles are from BioMedCentral (which, I hope, is an ok-publisher) plus some find through Google Scholar. I presume they have some scientific quality (but as I am myself not a scientist, I could be of course wrong).

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EARWIG is a link to a tool you can use to check text on Wikipedia for copyright violations. Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 1a. Earwig's copyvio detector, though it only matches copied text, not paraphrasing (and some other issues noted at WP:NOTEARWIG)

2. Automatically? No. Semi-automatically? Yes. You can use the RefToolbar to add the details in so that you don't have to fill out the citation template manually. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1a. Tenshi Hinanawi has answered.

2. You can use Template:Sfn between REF and /REF tags; and below that, a list of "Sources" within which each line has a Cite journal, Cite book, or similar template.

3. Google Scholar includes a lot of stuff that can hardly be called scholarly, let alone scientific.

-- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends.

Thank you for your answers. I hope the scientific articles I have found aren't fake or something? ;-)

Best wishes!

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaworu1992, today's FA is Theodosius III. It's an example of an article making a great use of Template:Sfn. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaworu1992 To answer the part about automating the creation of citations from digital object identifiers, which is what most scientific publications have, you can use the WP:Citation expander or citer.toolforge. As you say, you need to check their output but they are pretty reliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has added a comment on a particular discussion on my talk page, and the discussion seems to have finished, how long should I wait before deleting it in accordance with WP:BLANKING? VidanaliK (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was part of a stressful conflict, it might be to your advantage to keep it longer than normal, to minimize yells of "How dare you delete that!!". If it wasn't that kind of thing, then you thinking "I guess we're done with that" is good enough. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend instead to archive it, but policy allows you to get rid of it as soon as you wish. You just have to get rid of all of it, not select parts. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of what? The discussion, or the talk page? VidanaliK (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave parts of any single discussion, because that looks like you're misrepresenting how it went. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, I apologize for not being specific enough; the discussion thread needs to be removed. You don't need to remove the entire talk page. But you can't selectively cut up sentences. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my question was if I needed to archive/delete the entire talk page, or just a discussion. I wasn't even thinking about individual sentences. VidanaliK (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can selectively archive or get rid of discussions. You don't need to get rid of the entire talk page. Sorry for being unclear. If you would like to selectively archive discussions, using a manual tool would be better. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you want to have an archive bot and don't want to get rid of conversations (for instance, the welcome message), you could put Template:DNAU and the bot won't archive it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

has no reviews by WP:RS, only Press Releases

Piñanana (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did you get the job of writing the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What language did you first speak?

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

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

Associated Press and United Press International photo and caption:

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

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

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

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

agency source for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piñanana (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I do not know how to do that specific search

look at the PD and copyright pages in Wikipedia:Wikipedia

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

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

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

I am trying to get gene box on my page that was in my sandbox, but I keep getting an error that says it has an error in retrieving wikidata. How can I get the gene box to work? (An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox) Schm6041 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Template:Infobox gene and look for "Usage on other pages" - it seems there's a special trick you have to do. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove Homepage for my account?

Don't need edit suggestions/mentor. Desertmistake (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desertmistake. In preferences under "user profile", you can find a "Newcomer editor features" section. That is where you can disable the homepage. Please also use the new section button when creating discussions in the future. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Yeah I think the Teahouse Template Glitched. Desertmistake (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

I've been goin' around rewriting articles and doin' newbie tasks for a while, and one of the articles I worked on, George Freeman (guitarist), is one I spent a fair bit of time on, so at this juncture, since even after a while has passed it doesn't look like it'd be considered a "drive-by," I'm considerin' trying for WP:GA. I know that the process and all is on the page I just linked, but with me seldom really gettin' the opportunity to speak directly with other editors about content (I don't have a mentor, most of the articles I've worked on aren't exactly popular, and every single article talk page post of mine-- includin' one on Freeman's!-- has never gotten a response) I don't really have a sense of who I might be able to see about what needs to be done on this article to get it there, havin' already compared it to other musician GAs and lookin' for more specific feedback.

To be clear I do also know that I'd be gettin' notes on the quality of the article and what to improve during a potential GA review, but I also know that there's sort of a taboo on "wasting editor time," which I wouldn't wanna cross by submittin' an article that might obviously not be ready. So, long question short: Is there a project or group I can contact to get feedback on how close an article is to GA before actually submitting it?

Thanks in advance! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 03:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janitor Judy: You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz and request a Wikipedia:Peer review. But any kind of review will use editor time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janitor Judy, while you're waiting.... His extended solo feature on Boogie Woogie Joe, recorded in late 1947, has been described by one rock music writer as "...the first scintillating guitar workout in rock history": Why not name the writer? Is a "solo feature" something other than a solo? Why on earth does this one sentence need three references? his brother Von holds down the piano chair Does "holds down the piano chair" mean something other than "plays piano"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I guess you haven't seen those older motorized piano chairs that would bounce around the bandstand if you weren't careful. I haven't either.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that "holds down the piano chair" implied some sort of high-tech antigravity chair that would float away if nobody was sitting on it to hold it down. And even if that's true, it doesn't take any talent to "hold down" a chair, even a bag of sand could do that, so why even mention it? Is "his brother Von" such an imbecile that holding down a chair is all he's capable of? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janitor Judy In other words, and not to put too fine a point on it, please take out all the style and make it boring. Just the facts, ma'am. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Everyone does have a personal style of course, but your true personal style is what happens when you think you're doing no style at all.) TooManyFingers (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i know please don't punish me while I am questioning this, but why I am getting blocked while using VPN, companies are collecting my data and hacking me. PlutoTheCardinal (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is both a local and global policy against editing via proxies, such as VPNs. As such, proxy IPs are blocked from editing. You may request IP block exemption, though it may not be granted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new user with 25 edits won't get IP block exemption, except in extreme circumstances, like the editor is located in a country with severe restrictions on accessing the English Wikipedia.

@PlutoTheCardinal: A better approach may be to start a discussion at WP:OPP about the IP address, if it's a valid corporate VPN and not an open proxy. The key word is open proxy. We shouldn't be routinely blocking corporate secure proxies, if that's what you're using. If you are using an open proxy, then don't use it to edit Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this television produced list of Dreamscape Entertainement is it ok to put a series that's exclusive to a streaming service example a prime video original or exclusive? This list before was here when streaming didn't exist and the production company produced these series before they produced a series for streaming. Should it be added or only add if it will release on TV airing like cable only like a series original network will be a cable channel and not streaming? ~2025-40164-31 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that releasing exclusively to a streaming service is just as relevant as releasing to an on-air TV channel or a cable channel. Especially nowadays when streaming services are so ubiquitous and are touting their original or exclusive content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to add Dreamscape Entertainment produced series on that page, even if they were not released "on air". —LeastConcern 15:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for examples map like this Chinese language and Vietnamese language map, how are they created? Any tutorials in YouTube? Additionally which app or application is used mainly for editing? TIA WinKyaw (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about maps, but I think the information you're looking for is at Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps.

I'm sure you'll understand it better than I do. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diomede Islands

You can use <mapframe>. For example,

<mapframe latitude="65.775744" longitude="-168.997192" zoom="8" width="200" height="194" text="Diomede Islands" />

This is code inserts an interactive map centered on the Diomede Islands. You can also do it Visual editor, by clicking Insert → Map. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that sounds great and interesting. Where do you get the coordinates from? And do you know where do I potentially edit like this for SVG files? Like the chinese & vietnamese language maps I gave above (how to color parts of the country)? WinKyaw (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use blank maps from Wikimedia Commons (see this or this) Versions111 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's really helpful. Thanks. And how about using which software do I use to color the parts in the blank maps? WinKyaw (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use any software, and dont forget to do this Versions111 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same license the original file is published under; If the source is CC BY-SA 3.0, upload it as CC BY-SA 3.0. If it is CC BY-SA 4.0, upload it as CC BY-SA 4.0. If it is CC0, it is free to use and should be uploaded as CC0. Do not change the license Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Win Kyaw (ping) Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is my first foray into the world of Wikipedia editing so please be patient with me if I am stating the obvious at any point! I am trying to update an entry for wine writer Matthew Jukes. Full disclosure - I am also in the wine business, and I know him. He has asked me to help as he is not very tech savvy, and wondered if I could help up to update his page. I am not being paid, nor does this benefit me or my work. I am just trying to be helpful.

The changes have been rejected as it is a COI apparently because I know him. He can't ask someone he doens't know to update it without paying them - which isn't acceptable, is that right? So how can he make the changes? can I ask someone on here who is impartial to possibly update a few items? It's things like including the publication of his most recent book, a change to his current work, and some minor rewording of the existing text.

All guidance gratefully received.

M Marinelf1712 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The basic reality is the changes are not his to make, because Wikipedia only collects the published information that anybody already has access to if they look for it. Personal knowledge of someone, or what they want to have said about themselves, is exactly what we don't want. (Imagine how many faultless politicians and highly successful actors the world would suddenly have, if people wrote their own!) TooManyFingers (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to request changes, one change at a time rather than wholesale, when you can show that each change is already published in what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. Here's a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the more fundamental problem is that you added a lot of information without referencing any of it. All factual information, especially on biographies of living people, needs to be referenced to a reliable source. You're not allowed to simply add things you personally know, because the rest of us need to be able to verify that information, and we don't allow original research. Please see Help:How to cite Athanelar (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking an experienced Wikipedia editor/formatter to assist me. The following is a Tea-room comment received in response to a major rewrite of an existing page I submitted as a novice Wiki contributer: "Thank you for your input here. Please have a look at Help:Wikitext and then submit your edit request by following the formatting guidelines over there. That would make the edit request more readable for reviewers. Especially for references, please use the <ref> tag. Also, please go through WP:COIER and Template:RE/I before making the edit request again. Following the instructions would make it easier for reviewers to understand your input. Have a great time editing!" PerspectiveHub (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the things they recommended you should read? And have you read them? What did you do after reading? TooManyFingers (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have posted that, you need to be aware of scammers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for Frank Little (unionist)'s page, I'd like to adjust the YOB to say 1877 or 1878 (as he was recorded as being 2 years old on june 2, 1880 (please verify [1], on line 41) so it is unlikely that he was born in 1879 as currently stated. AFAIK this is our only source of DOB, but I have not checked. His grave says 1879, which explains the wrong date used on the article. Please let me know what you think. —LeastConcern 11:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LeastConcern. Unfortunately, ancestry.com is generally considered an unreliable source. Any chance you have another source for the YOB? PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 13:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, PhoenixCaelestis. I understand; however, the document is not merely ancestry.com content. It is the only official digitization of the 1880 U.S. census available online ("Search Census Records Online and Other Resources".). So, if we consider it a valid source in this case, how do I format the birth year in the info box?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeastConcern (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signed LeastConcern's comment to PhoenixCaelestis and courtesy pinging per WP:PINGFIX. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeastConcern, you can simply change the year with the source cited in source style. Thank you @Rotideypoc41352 for fixing the comment and ping, I much appreciate it. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 19:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For these sort of primary sources, you have to be sure that the name in the record is the same person as the one in the article. In some cultures, when a child dies young, then the next one born may get the same name again. Hopefully this is not the case here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hello, I am not able to create articles directly, but I found multiple reliable, independent sources about Nigerian content creator Adebayo Temitayo (Realjjfrosh). I am sharing them here in case any editor thinks the subject may meet notability for a future biography:

• Vanguard (18 Oct 2025): https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/10/young-nigerian-influencer-realjjfrosh-bags-intl-nomination/amp/
• ThisDay (27 Aug 2025): https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/08/27/realjjfrosh-urges-nigerian-creators-to-stay-consistent-amid-challenges/
• Business Day (1 Nov 2025): https://businessday.ng/life/article/young-nigerian-entrepreneur-builds-pathways-for-africas-digital-creators/?amp
• Daily Trust (8 Dec 2025): https://dailytrust.com/eksu-student-applies-theatre-training-to-digital-content/?noamp=available
• Punch (2 Apr 2025): https://punchng.com/tiktok-star-realjjfrosh-plans-social-platform-for-creators/

If any editor considers these sufficient for an article, feel free to create it. Thank you. ~2025-40327-74 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, @~2025-40327-74. You may create an article by visiting Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It will be created as a draft, and once you submit it for review, an experienced editor will accept or decline it, with comments.

However, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Nigerian news organisations, I can tell you a few things. Vanguard has historically accepted undisclosed paid advertisements. This may or may not be the case here. Your four other sources are marked as reliable by WP Nigeria, but are borderline not independent. Punch is not independent, it's an interview. The other three sources refer to "statements". Business Day seems to be your best reference here to demonstrate notability.

I would encourage you to create a draft, but to also find more references. Have a good day, win8x (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Win8x

Thank you for your advice and for reviewing the sources. I understand your points about reliability and independence, and I will keep looking for additional references.

Unfortunately, my account is currently blocked from creating drafts, so I cannot submit an AfC draft myself. I wanted to let you know in case there are independent editors who might be able to evaluate the sources and create a draft. ~2025-40327-74 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your temporary account/IP is not blocked from creating drafts, unless you have a permanent account(a username) that is blocked. You may create drafts via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-40327-74. Do you have a blocked (named) account? Otherwise, you aren't blocked; you can create drafts. win8x (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Win8x: Just whack and ignore the TA. This is one of a long series of sockpuppets whose sole purpose is spamming Realjjfrosh on Wikipedia; the draftspace page was salted earlier today (at time of writing) for being repeatedly re-created by sockpuppets. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. 10 deletions. Impressive. Maybe those articles were paid after all. win8x (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As anybody could've gathered from a TA popping up to say "I just happened to stumble upon some sources for a Wikipedia article about an unnotable online presence and thought I'd let you all know, you know, in case you wanted to create an article!" Athanelar (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to stop particular users from appearing in my Notifications feed? I only want to mute ClueBot NG but it might be a helpful feature to know about in general. lp0 on fire () 17:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lp0 on fire See the option at near the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, which allows muting of specific users. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. lp0 on fire () 18:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also turn off bot entries in your watchlist via preferences. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was disappointed to see that my effort to introduce content was deleted after I carefully inserted a reference and added some nuances to the argument. ~2025-40270-38 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas More (play)#Content — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-40270-38 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-40270-38, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't know why @ESkog reverted your edits. But when that happens, what you should do is ask them, usually by posting a question to the article's talk page, and pinging the other editor. (I have pinged them here, so they should see this item)

Please read WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2025-40270-38 - I think you are right and I got this wrong. When I was scrolling through recent edits, one of your changes appeared to be nonproductive, but upon further reading, that's not the case. I apologize for the error and I've removed your warning. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do a major edit of my bio page, which even Wikipedia says needs editing, but I'm overwhelmed by all the instructions. How do I do it? Roger Pilon (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Pilon, you shouldn't. Please read this page. win8x (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Pilon, the "talk page" referred to within Win8x's "this page" is Talk:Roger Pilon. -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm very new to Wikipedia content creation. I posted an article on Will Woodward Jackson, a Texas educator. How do I get it moved to a permanent post from an "draft" status? This is the link: Draft:Will W. Jackson. GroverscornerNM (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a template to the top of the draft; just click on the big button to submit it for review. The full process is described at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was expanding the Life Nature Library entry and I uploaded a phot of one of the covers to illustrate it. That photo was flagged for deletion due to "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". I'm very confused, how is it not helpful? Couldn't the same be said about the cover of any book? The Life Science Library entry has the same kind of photo but that's not flagged... Can I appeal this or fix the image attribution? I thought I had done so. Sphenacodon (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you said here is missing the actual reason that was given. It's a non-free image, and every use of a non-free image on Wikipedia has to meet some strict requirements. In this case, they said it isn't the kind of image where readers won't understand the article without being able to see it.

I agree with them - your picture is just a "would be nice" kind of addition, definitely not a "we really need this" addition. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but that still doesn't answer why the exact same kind of picture was okay in the sister article? Sphenacodon (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be okay there either. I'm not certain. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So by this logic why are any images of book covers on this site acceptable then? Sphenacodon (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more knowledgeable about the topic will have to answer that. Maybe there's something that can be done to get your picture accepted - I was able to explain why it got rejected, but I don't deal with images all the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you! I'll inquire elsewhere and see :) Sphenacodon (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And wait a second, how did I miss the actual reason? I literally quoted the reason, asked why it's not helpful, and why this isn't applicable to a picture of the cover of any book? Sphenacodon (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, you did quote it, just you copied the second part but missed the first part. I understood anyway - I wanted to make sure you did too. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello everyone. I was pinged in here to comment since I have uploaded literally thousands and thousands of book cover images (and more recently began working on film posters as one of my next major projects which will never end). I work on book cover images very extensively. I would say that the image should have cause to be included provided it is properly uploaded using the file upload image tool and properly abides by non-free file upload use guidelines. These images are generally placed within infoboxes though, not as free floating images simply on any article. Also, if it is part of a series, then an image might not be appropriate because we generally upload such images just for the named article in keeping with the book with that specific title and not an image of one part in a greater series, if that makes sense? Otherwise, I don't think I see a problem here (just always be careful with how an image is uploaded, and if incorrectly uploaded, just delete it and go through the proper channels to upload the image). Iljhgtn (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it. I still can't figure out image uploads so I give up. Sphenacodon (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is uploaded with proper fair use or non-free file uploads then there is no cause to delete it. If it is in violation of those, then there is. What are you unsure of? It can be confusing. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Denton Oliver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! My draft for Denton “Ollie” Oliver was declined with the note that my references “do not provide extensive coverage” and that too many trivial sources made the good ones less visible. I have about 40 references, but I realize many might not meet WP:SIGCOV. Could someone help me identify which of my sources do meet notability requirements (WP:N) and which I should remove? Could someone help me understand how to improve notability? I want to improve the draft properly and focus only on strong, independent, in-depth coverage. Thank you so much — any guidance is appreciated. ADHPWordsWithMeaning (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Probably the best resources on this are Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (the second one is notability in general, not just people).

Try looking through your reference list but ignoring all material that includes material from an interview, a press release, or an announcement, and ignoring anything by someone with a relationship (business or personal). That can give you a general rough idea. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Do you think deleting all those cities / references would be the first thing to do for my re-submission? ADHPWordsWithMeaning (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't delete them - at least not all, and not so fast. But you need to know for sure that you have enough references that are not that type. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, umm, "educational" though, to temporarily cut out everything that comes from one of those lesser sources, to see what you've got left. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all your comments and guidance. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain what to look for. The subject does seem notable, so I’m just trying to figure out the best way forward and make sure I’m relying on the right types of sources. I’ll go back through everything with that in mind. Courtesy ping to @JSFarman to see if they have any additional thoughts as well. ADHPWordsWithMeaning (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denton Oliver looks non-notable to me. And your message, the one I'm currently replying to, seems ... odd. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Sorry for the typo in my previous message, I meant to thank you for the courtesy ping to @45dogs. I appreciate your feedback on notability as well and will take it into consideration as I review the draft. ADHPWordsWithMeaning (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @JSFarman, who declined the draft. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, @45dogs. I muddied the issue when I noted the excessive references in my decline, but I went through 20 of the sources without finding anything that would impact notability. Simply declining the article would have been a better choice. The references used provide only trivial coverage, and the coverage is advertorial. Based on the draft, he does not meet the inclusion criteria. JSFarman (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Iljhgtn: {{filmimage}} was deleted in 2009. It made a box which started: "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster." The comment should have been removed when an image was added but it's hard to detect invisible comments. The editor who added it apparently wanted somebody to leave a note if they had looked for an image with an allowed license but found it impossible. A search [2] currently finds 627 comments with this exact wording. All those I examined were added by the same editor Lugnuts in 2007 when they created the article. Lugnuts was blocked in 2022. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

hello If a citation is from printed magazine material published 20 years ago and not online how does Wikipedia handle it, and will it be accepted? ~2025-40172-12 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-40172-12! Offline sources are absolutely accepted: the only criteria for a source is that it is from a reliable publication and that is is accessible. It doesn't have to be easily accessible, but there needs to be a realistic chance an interested reader would be able to access the source if they wanted to, perhaps via a library or archive. You would cite the source as an offline document, providing as much bibliographic material as possible to allow a reader to find it. qcne (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the good answer qcne already gave, please make sure that the bibliographic material you provide includes the exact page number and which issue it's in. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had a private repository for these so you could upload a scan for admins or some usergroup to be able to access for verification, but wouldnt be public to avoid copyright issues. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Internet Archive (other archives are also available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

with reference to Draft:Unique Homestays

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

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

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

Hey I have a mildly dumb question of no importance (hope I'm allowed to ask those here). I'm pretty sure there was an essay, probably humorous, talking about not meaninglessly throwing out random policies (very similar to WP:WTF?) but it was named to sound like a martial arts move (e.x, WP:TIGERCHI or smth). Am I having a Mandela Effect type thing? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Shadowless Fists of Death!, perhaps? win8x (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much lol! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently coming across an invitation to see the list of Teahouse staff, I took a look at it and found only about 8, maybe 10, names I recognized out of — I’m guessing — at least 70, perhaps as many as 100.

Meanwhile, I thought of quite a few names I’d have expected to see on the list but didn’t. So I wondered how often the list is updated. That’s my question.

The list seems like a great idea to enhance the Teahouse experience for its “customers” — all the more if everyone on the list rather than just some share a line or two about themselves. Augnablik (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik See current thread near the foot of WT:Teahouse, where you can comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, this is uncanny. What a coincidence that a directly related discussion has been going on there.

Yes, that’s where I’ll take this conversation … though I never knew about a Talk page for the Teahouse! Augnablik (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine myself as something of a "probationary Teahouse host" - just some guy who happened to be around in the week when the list got updated.

If I've ever been mentioned in a meeting of the Teahouse Grand Council, then I guess someone gravely intoned "Allow him to continue for now - he might still learn". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I was just added out of more or less nowhere within the past week. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Judy Matheson

Some of Matheson’s valid & true credits keep getting excised, because apparently the only credit that can be offered is IMDB. I am at a loss to know how to add the many credits that someone in their wisdom has chosen to excise.What references can be used? Please advise. ~2025-40345-05 (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If she is named in the film credits they can be cited; but we don't list every credit for every actor, even if so.

I have left some advice about a potential conflict of interest on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If she's properly credited, then they don't need to be cited (as that's considered uncontroversial; viewing the credits would immediately verify). My understanding is a cite is only needed for credits if they went uncredited or took an Alan Smithee credit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Judy Matheson is in the credits of the work quoted; it seems this superMario editor is obsessed with getting her true & valid credits deleted. ~2025-40345-05 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when a person's true credit should not appear in an article. For example, an article about a film shouldn't necessarily credit every person in it.

This case is not quite like that, because this article is about an actor, but it's still possible that the other editor has a point. IF they have a point, it's probably something like "This role was not an important one in the course of her career, and adding every single role clutters up the article with things that are embarrassingly unnecessary". As I said, that's IF they have a point, which I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do we know if that is his reason? And also who actually gives him/her the right to decide what is important in an actor’s ( or anybody’s) career. It seems to me this editor has been harassing this actor constantly & actually how has he/ she got that power? Mr Mouat (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to him, his reason is Wikipedia's explicit policy, stated in multiple places as mentioned above (actually below, on my screen), that IMDB is not a valid source for acting credits. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing about the movie world. Intelligent responsible editors in this thread have implied that they disagree with the policy, or at least they think reasonable exceptions should apply. I can't argue one way or the other because I simply don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's formal policies are very clear that IMDB cannot be a source for acting credits. There is an essay Wikipedia:Citing IMDb with a more lenient attitude, but even it calls acting credits a disputed use.

SuperMarioMan absolutely without a shadow of a doubt is editing according to policy in this case. The policy may be wrong; I can't comment on that. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policies: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:IMDB-EL, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, Wikipedia:RS/IMDB TooManyFingers (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are User:Billy Catt, please sign in to comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to upload a non-free image of a deaceased person taken before their death. But the dimensions of the image are 150x253, and when I use Wikipedia:Non-free content/Image size calculator and IMAGE RESIZE CALCULATOR to get the new dimensions, it says 259x386, which is an increase in the resolution. Do I have to change the target size or can I use the image without resizing? Please help. Babin Mew (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that calculator, it appears to be specially made for situations where an image needs to be scaled down. I think the reason you got a result larger than your original is that your original is already well within the guidelines and doesn't need to be resized. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(In other words, I think the calculator doesn't contain any extra programming to make it say "Your image is already small enough" - it just gives this slightly confusing result.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will use it without resizing. Babin Mew (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I woke up with morning and checked Wikipedia and saw a message for my article that said: "The page South Kitsap Regional Park was connected to the Wikidata item Q137380006, where data relevant to the topic can be collected." What does this mean? Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 17:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BluePixelLOLLL thats normal and nothing to worry about, its simply means article was linked to its matching Wikidata item that stores structured data like location and identifiers uses across Wikimedia CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for telling me! BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 17:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BluePixelLOLLL: Here is a little more background. The Wikidata item South Kitsap Regional Park (Q137380006) was created today by a bot and connected to South Kitsap Regional Park by listing the article under Wikipedia at "en" (English, the only current language). The coordinates were copied to Wikidata but the item currently has no other data so it's a bit boring. You were notified because you created the article, and "Connection with Wikidata" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. See South Kitsap School District (Q7567626) or Dr Pepper (Q623561) for more interesting Wikidata items of articles you have recently edited. The latter has many languages which are automatically linked on the respective articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Now how do I add information to the Wikidata page? BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 23:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BluePixelLOLLL Please See Help Wikidata, Wikidata Introduction and WIKIDATA for guidance. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 00:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BluePixelLOLLL: Most Wikipedia editors don't edit Wikidata and I wasn't suggesting you should do it but I see how my post could give that impression. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 01:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see the encyclopedia article, Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use the word settler or colonizer in one sentence. You either get a settler which hace a complete different meaning tna a colo9nizer. I quote "a settler is a pioneer amongs te first setling of a place that is new to the settlemnt community." YOu dont get something like aa Settler Colonizer The Voortrekkers were Pioneers settlers- they had noCountry or Imperial who gave them money to build SA, they did it themselfs and they did not colonize any black land, should there be any land they possesses, it was paid in full and this was documented. I agree with you regarding Colonizers because that is exactly what happen today in South Africa

Please rectify this Thanking you

Leonie Booysen ~2025-40495-38 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie,

We report what is stated in reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that refer to the voortrekkers in a particular way, then you can include that term and cite those sources. Athanelar (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Maxime from Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok thanks, I will try this way.

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I need some guidance regarding redirects. I recently tried to create an article for an upcoming film titled Pushpa 3: The Rampage but I later realised that the title already exists as a redirect. I was not aware of this at the time. I am now working on the article in draft space, but I am unsure about the correct next steps. Should I continue improving the draft and submit it through AfC, or is there a proper way to request changes to the redirect once the draft is ready? Any guidance would be appreciated.. Draft:Pushpa 3: The Rampage. Edit by Sona (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm not a redirect expert, but to fill you in, in case you weren't aware of it: Wikipedia generally refuses articles for upcoming films unless main shooting has already begun. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Edit by Sona, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer to your question is that you should either submit it through AFC, in which case the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirect; or, if you are very sure that it would survive an WP:AFD, you can make a move request direct to mainspace.

But I agree with @TooManyFingers: see WP:NFF ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women In Red

How do i add a wikidata entry to this project. There are a couple of women who need coverage but i don't know how to automatically populate the article from wikidata. The project info says red links are automatically generated from Wikidata. Is there a snippet i need to add? Any help? Heatrave (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really want automatically generated content. Instead write a prose article using reliable references. Then go to the Wikidata entry and add the link to the English language article you wrote. Just because there is an entry on Wikidata, it doesn't mean it should have an article, so please check the topic is notable before writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you want to add those women to one or more of the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index.

If the list is tagged "CS", you can edit it yourself.

If it is tagged "WD", it is compiled automatically, from the data in Wikidata. Make sure the subject's gender and occupation are included on their Wikidata item.

If you have further questions about the project, you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, where more-specialist help will be available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone please explain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need help with improving this draft before it's reviewed Draft:En Derin. ~2025-33420-26 (talk) 09:31, 14 .December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can you describe what help you are seeking? You have already submitted it for a review, you may wait for the review to occur and see the feedback of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined. Are you the subject, or professionally or personally connected to them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the subject of an AfC biography draft and have disclosed a conflict of interest. The draft was declined due to concerns about LLM-style writing. All statements are based on independent, reliable sources. I am seeking guidance from an uninvolved editor on how to rewrite or trim the draft directly from sources so it can meet AfC standards.

Draft:Joe Pennino

Drjoepennino (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of advice, exactly, are you seeking?

Also, please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY; writing an article about yourself is generally a doomed affair. Athanelar (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking guidance on how an uninvolved editor would restructure or trim the draft so that it complies with AfC standards. Drjoepennino (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first and foremost, your draft was declined not just for LLM tone but also for a lack of sources demonstrating the notability of the subject, and no amount of restructure/trim can overcome a lack of notability.

As a rule of thumb, you need to find three sources meeting the criteria outlined in our 'golden rule.' Then, you need to include only information which is discussed in those sources. This is obviously difficult when writing about yourself; you need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and only write things that have already been written.

You should be mindful of passing mentions, i.e., sources that briefly mention your name but don't cover you in any depth.

It's also abundantly clear that you're using some kind of AI chatbot like ChatGPT to help you write this article (and, indeed, to talk to me); and you need to stop that. First of all, writing new articles from scratch using AI is not allowed, nor is using AI to communicate in discussions like this. Secondly, even if it were, they tend to 'hallucinate' information and sources; for example, your draft contains the statement [Joe Pennino] has also served in a senior administrative role in Roswell city government. which is linked to this article which doesn't mention your name at all.

In summary: find three sources which are not affiliated with you in any way, which cover you specifically and in depth, and aren't merely passing mentions of your name. Find these sources yourself, using google/other resources, and not using an AI to search for sources for you; because as you can see, it's turning up sources that don't even mention you at all. Then, summarise the information available in those sources (and ONLY that information) in the article; and again, do so in your own words, do not have an AI do this for you. Athanelar (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Athanelar. I appreciate the help. Drjoepennino (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

I am contacting you regarding the Algerian artist known in Algeria as "Max Marginal". Internationally, he is not a mainstream global artist, but he has received numerous articles and media coverage for his work. He was the founder of the technical death metal band "Silent Obsession" and the creator of “ Café Le Boulevard,” a cultural café concept aimed at bringing together local artists for live interviews. He is also active as an artist in the "folk-rock" genre.

Silent Obsession has been featured in several outlets, including Metal Hammer Italia and many others. Le Café Le Boulevard was covered by the local Algerian newspaper L’Expression DZ . His folk-rock music has also received multiple articles worldwide and very positive reviews for his singles.

Do you think it would be possible for him to have a Wikipedia page? If not, could you please advise on the steps to follow?

Thank you very much, and have a good evening.

Karlito Karlito 1982 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we can only give advice based on what sourcing he has; please see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, and reliable sources. Could you please link some of the articles/media coverage? Thanks. jolielover♥talk 18:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your reply and for your guidance.

Here are some examples of independent media coverage related to Max Marginal and his projects:

– Articles and reviews about the band "Silent Obsession" published by international metal media (including Metal Hammer Italy and other specialized outlets)

https://www.metalhammer.it/2022/01/05/silent-obsession-il-nuovo-singolo-della-band-algerina/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOr4jxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeCm314cNezR5duxo03_l01hu4bVv0jsEmTHEUHQxGpAchrKIStPAdGsl7N_4_aem_zjkcJAprK9p30AF1WN_5mQ

https://metal-temple.com/review/silent-obsession-countdown/

– Press coverage and interviews related to Max Marginal’s folk-rock solo work, with reviews published by international webzines.

https://www.musicnewsmonthly.com/in-review-max-marginal-home-aint-on-the-map.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawOr4wxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeHS--pOW_vRmdeCIxhVxij_2wAe39dwW39YawBubRohGKAthe4JcooH0T7vo_aem_tu7UBUYeDMMdBk3JeSFxbQ

https://musicmediamadrid.com/max-marginal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOr42pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeH_uf50V7LJuRv0DqBWt6XuSYSFmudnbZwOopNat0H-llvf6jpcdYFpR2LDQ_aem_ELw-U9nhNwhZ6JgKSnZT2w

https://www.coyotemusic.com/artists/max-marginal?fbclid=IwY2xjawOr5LdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeGhp6ivnmtvOEHGkJrwniPpiG9hAyuQ_MXwBnDYcmfokbb4GHoGxdL0lr_dc_aem_7e1nIIA3FB0qJ3FAuL7DpA

– An article about *Le Café Le Boulevard* published by the Algerian newspaper "L’Expression DZ".

https://lexpressiondz.com/chroniques/de-quoi-jme-mele/le-cafe-le-boulevard-deux-ans-au-service-de-la-scene-artistique-algerienne-330118?fbclid=IwY2xjawOr4qBleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFZRDFaT3d2eVFCY3NFbEJWc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHv9PnhIjc_mS-5MSw9E_vAZ6yrE0gKeOhfdgEwu150Vbh4d_sIUYpPdVbcST_aem_Q37HB2U6KRXi1QOWAeWQZQ

I can provide direct links to these articles if needed, and I am currently compiling them in one place to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements.

Please let me know if this type of coverage would be considered sufficient, or if more specific sources are required.

Thank you again for your time and help.

Best regards, Karlito 1982 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Karlito 1982, could you maybe write your comments without the use of AI? PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 19:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Karlito 1982.

Does each of those meet all the criteria in golden rule?

Interviews with the subject or their associates are usually not independent, though sometimes there may be some introductory material which does not appear to come from the subject.

Reviews of works are often good sources for those works, but unless they contain significant coverage of the artist, they do not meet the requirements for an article on the artist. ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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