Wikipedia:Teahouse#doubt

Hello! Editors and communities of the English Wikipedia! Today is a great day, New Year's Day is widely celebrated on Wikipedia, and perhaps all over the world, as a global holiday! Never tire of developing and protecting Wikipedia! We wish you all a happy New Year 2026! We appreciate every edit!😍 Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Iluziya7: Happy New Year! 2026 will mark Wikipedia's 25th anniversary! Yup, a quarter of a century of existence, I don't think Jimmy Wales ever thought that this project would last past its first year, let alone 25 years. Let's hope that this 25th year of Wikipedia's existence will be a great one! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger. Oh, so be it! I believe Wikipedia will last forever! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Me too! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, its been 25 years since this has started? Guess I chose the right time to join.

(happy early new year) Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Thank you, thank you, and may you be blessed! Now 2026 has arrived! (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

You too lol

(It was already 2026 for me when I said that) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

abit late but you too! Someone667 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Me to! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@72011copperfan2, @SignedInteger, @Starlet147, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you. Today is the first day of 2026, January 1st. Can you imagine? Let's all imagine, this gives me some great motivation, great, may this year be a good one for you on Wikipedia and in life! Good luck to you all! Thank you! 🌍👋 (04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)) Iluziya7 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@72011copperfan2. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

@Starlet147. Okey, Thanks, 2026 New Year's happy (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year all! Ajron Bach (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late but happy new year! DominikTuazon (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless /) Ajron Bach (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, 1 week and 2 days passed since. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If those 9 days were bad, there are still 356 days to work to compensate for that, and to end up with a positive year "score" 😁 ~2025-41312-06 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Well, yes, there is mate! Let’s make it a good one for the Wiki. Ajron Bach (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy new year ;-) — SimmeD (talk) 08:07, 10 January 213y713g2yyuy432yu432uyg3u4y23gyu4 (UTC)

Next up is Burn’s Night if your Scottish. Ajron Bach (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Cheers! DominikTuazon (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR ~2026-16002 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's Jan 12, and people are still celebrating. Forgive me if it's timezones, but wow. Not complaining, though. Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is 25 years old! Although I’ve only started editing I’ve been using Wikipedia since I was 12 2021. It’s not perfect but it’s GOOD ANOUGH! Thank you to everyone who keeps it great. Thank you! Ajron Bach (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you too! ♥️ Zycone (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to everyone. Just as if Wikipedia turned 25 years old already. ~2026-34318-9 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you posted that at 5:00pm on New Year's Eve, not New Year's Day. IOFun2 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Time zones exist you know. Someone667 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im aware IOFun2 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day to you!
Happy birth-day Wikipediaaaaaaa...
Happy birth-day to you!
--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DollarStoreBaal44. Thanks! I congratulate you on Wikipedia's 25th birthday too! We wish you success in your work on Wikipedia! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

@Infinitywiki2 The same for you! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never new I would see knock-off Ba’al celebrating Wikipedia but here we are, the Phoenicians would be confused 😂 Have a great Wikipedia 25th anniversary! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• knew (can’t believe I used the wrong word 😂) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I missed the stream even though I had a snow day yesterday... I was there in spirit. Happy birthday Wikipedia! I hope this website helps everyone to gain more knowledge about the world around them. Much love! jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 13:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

≽^•⩊•^≼ ~2026-50238-2 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UwU DominikTuazon (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOO I MISSED THE LIVESTREAM BECAUSE I HAD TO PAY ATTENTION IN SCIENCE CLASS :( --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you have the powers to just destroy the building, you are Ba’al after all Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recording of the stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rPmv27YzY. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stream's already happened, so there really isn't any point. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

same here :( I was at school I believe Weez3rforever (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, today is the 25th birthday of the English Wikipedia - we know that everyone has been waiting for this day! We have been developing Wikipedia for 25 years! I would like to express my deep gratitude to all of you for your every effort on Wikipedia! And at this point, we would like to congratulate all Wikipedians on Wikipedia's 25th birthday! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

🎉🎉🎉 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

🥳 Happy Birthday to the greatest human project of the Internet age imo! User:KeyolTranslater it was cool to see your name in the chat on the livestream just now, as someone who has been lurking Teahouse to learn and has seen you around. This is my first attempt to indent-reply on a Talk page, fingers crossed this works! 😀

Sophiatries (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn’t think some would recognise me 😂 thought my muttering were drowned out by everyone else. It was amazing to hear about that WW2 Veteran who still edits Wikipedia now at the age of 100, genuinely amazing. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What livestream? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now i know what livestream, i haven't heard about this livestream. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for the benefit of any other Talk Page newbs, looks like if you add your four tildes on a new line you need to indent that manually as well, adding this to try to fix 😭 Sophiatries (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday Wikipedia! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DominikTuazon, @KeyolTranslater, @Sophiatries, @~2025-43053-85 Thanks everyone! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

No problem, enjoy! DominikTuazon (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DominikTuazon – Thanks! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

@DominikTuazon – Thank you and everyone! We will love and develop Wikipedia forever! Your work is appreciated! We appreciate your edits! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

You too, have a great year! DominikTuazon (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DominikTuazon – Thank you, let's be together!!! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

:D

DominikTuazon (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Wikipedia - oh, this beautiful website - stays up for another century. Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

Lemurik the Historian - president of Alternia and brand-new user of the Wiki Lemurik the Historian (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemurik the Historian. Thanks! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Today is the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia! ~2026-34318-9 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are a day late unfortunately, but you can still celebrate and you can rewatch the livestream from yesterday! 🎉🎉🎉 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I upload an article on Peter Stilton from my Sandbox? If it requires review and approval first, can someone please tell me how it needs to be improved? If it's OK, what are my next steps? I'd like to upload and attach a photo of one of his paintings, but I understand that the article must be approved first. Thank you. Evelyn Evbless (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your draft to here Draft:Peter Stilton and added a submit button, but please be advised that currently there is no indication that Stilton passes the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is also incredibly refbombed because <ref name> hasn't been employed properly. @Evbless Please see WP:REFNAME for how to properly name and reuse refs without them ending up with a new citation number every time. Athanelar (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fixed, using reFill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will rework the references. I find this section difficult to follow but assume the system will show me if I’ve redone it correctly. I will also work on making his public reknown more clear. ~2026-43732-0 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Evbless You don't need to Wikilink common items like "pianos". Not every term that has an article needs a link; people know what a piano is. David10244 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of that old Polish dictionary entry; "Horse: Everyone knows what a horse is." Athanelar (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that could be put as a definition for horse on wiktionary for an april fools day joke mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile right now and the 'add topic' button at the bottom keeps flickering along with the bar, is this normal? -Weez3forever(ttm!) (check them out! Weezer) 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It often does for me too; it's a browser glitch, not a Wikipedia issue, and occurs on other sites too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also on a phone and the same thing happens. Are you using Safari? Because that’s where the problem comes from, not wiki. I have to turn my phone 90° (from portrait to landscape) and that normally fixes the issue for me. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0 @Pigsonthewing I forgot to mention I'm on a Nokia when I'm on mobile. Whoops. A Nokia 2780 to be exact. -Weez3forever(ttm!) (check them out! Weezer) 21:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Checked the link, that is not my phone. -Weez3forever(ttm!) (check them out! Weezer) 21:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using an android app or a web browser? Someone667 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone667 I use the KaiOS Google client (the link on my phone is www.google.com/webhp?client=kaios-nokia if it helps.) on my Nokia 2780 Flip. I'm on a Chromebook as of typing this, though. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 21:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the issue is that you are using an outdated low powered device. Someone667 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone667 Fair point. I've had this phone for a bit over a year now, I can see why it wouldn't work too well. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 22:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very new device; I don't see why the age should be a problem. I'm writing this on a (refurbished) 2015 laptop. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Huh, I wonder what's up with it then. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's certain browser software and the coding of that button being incompatible with each other. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of trivia (since you don't run into KaiOS users on enwiki very often) wikipedia used to (or maybe still does? the wikimedia page gives conflicting info) have an official KaiOS app mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgjertson Oh neat, I'll have to check that out -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 00:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weez3rforever A gentle suggestion -- if people are using the table of contents to look at this page, it would help them if you would use a relevant title for your topic. "Uhh" is not very helpful; something like "Add Topic button flickering" would be much more informative. Notice how other threads are titled. It's like getting an email where the subject line is "Question". Thanks! David10244 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want wamiqa gabbi 2024 profile where she was snapped outside Maddock office from March to whole Year 3 years

a request also that i also want Akshay kumar 2019 profile where he is receiving an award for March to 3 years ~2026-38011-5 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear. Do you want to add information to an article? Athanelar (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to my LLM, This person might be trying to say is “I am requesting a 2024 profile of Wamiqa Gabbi, featuring images of her being photographed outside the Maddock Films office, starting from March and covering the full year, with the profile spanning a total period of three years. Additionally, I am requesting a 2019 profile of Akshay Kumar, focused on him receiving an award, beginning in March and extending across a three-year period.” I do not think question has anything to do with wikipedia. Someone667 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unni mukundan 2019 outside traditional house in whole sleeve white t shirt profile back ~2026-38011-5 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This question is unintelligible. If you can't write English well enough to be understandable, you should edit the Wikipedia for your native language. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be a child. Someone667 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the words used, I'm sceptical that it's a child; I'm more inclined to think it's an en-1 or -2 reader. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could be both, in my opinion none of those words seem to advanced for a small child (so under the age of 5, although I would assume at 4-5 you would be able to read and write properly but that doesn’t always happen, or a foreign child/non-native speaker) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I tried making sense of it and what they might be saying is "Javed Jaaferi was featured in a Colors TV Indian awards profile spanning from April and continuing over the next four years, while Unni Mukundan was seen in 2019 outside a traditional house, photographed from the back, wearing a plain white full-sleeve T-shirt." I dont how this relates to wikipedia though. Someone667 (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he wants an article to be written about Jaaferi Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

children are also smart

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Teahouse! I’ve been editing an article on the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, more recognizably known as the NO FAKES Act. I was looking at existing articles, like the ELVIS Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act which are also backronym laws. The sources I consulted use both 'NO FAKES' and 'No Fakes,' but the former is more common. A few editors have changed the article title and some in-text references from 'NO FAKES' to 'No Fakes.' Is there a preferred way I should be handling this? (I have no strong preference on this either way - I just want to do whichever is correct.)

I’m not looking to start an edit war :) I’m just hoping to understand what the rules are. If anyone could point me to relevant guidance or policies on naming/capitalization for backronym legislation, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you! Librarygremlin (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Librarygremlin, and welcome to the Teahouse! While generally Wikipedia articles should adhere to WP:COMMONNAME (you should use the common name of a subject), if other editors disagree it would be best to start a talk page discussion and find out WHY they disagree. Hopefully you can reach a compromise that is acceptable to everyone. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - thank you so much for the advice and guidance! Librarygremlin (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there's a specific exception to COMMONNAME saying that names in all caps are forbidden, regardless of common usage. See WP:ALLCAPS. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for what that's worth, that doesn't seem to apply here, unless it can be proven that the usage that isn't in all caps is more common consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm pretty sure we don't require Fbi, Cia, or Nfl. So maybe the problem is finding out what the definition of "name" is supposed to be. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I checked in the Manual of Style and found that according to ACRO and CAPS, yes, the general rule is to keep acronyms capitalized. There are a few exceptions, but not the kind that would come up a lot.Augnablik (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these points to my attention, I appreciate it! Librarygremlin (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sidenote, why do politicians insist on doing this? I've always found it dumb and immature. Has this phenomenon been researched? It seems like a recent thing though I could be mistaken mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's just an image thing—make your opponents vote against your AMERICA Act or Make Everyone Rich Act or I Support Cute Puppies and Oppose Kicking Them Act. When opponents vote against it because its only purpose is actually to (for example) make trans people miserable or lower taxes on the wealthy, they look to a low-information public like a bad person who's unpatriotic, opposes making everyone rich, and supports kicking puppies. As to when it started, I couldn't say. LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Juan Cortina

Juan N. Cortina was not an outlaw. Juan merely stood his ground when the white man tried to overthrow his endeavors for Mexicananos. 5ReyAce (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My guess is you are asking how you can change that? If you think the statement of him being an outlaw is incorrect, the best move is to first find reliable sources that support the claim, then edit it to reflect that. If someone reverts your edits, discuss it on the talk page. Happy editing!

(A side note that the term "outlaw" doesn't have to have a negative connotation; it could also mean someone that broke the law justly, but that is getting into a matter of opinion) VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a surname. Many years ago on the way to school I would drive past a dentist's office with the sign "John D. Outlaw, DDS" in front. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also also, isn't wikipedia meant to be neutral? Arthur Deetoo (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Deetoo - well, we strive to have a neutral point of view while summarizing what reliable sources say. So if all the reliable sources are leaning in the same direction, so does Wikipedia. Meadowlark (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral means taking no side. We just rewrite the opinions that are already written by reliable sources.

People often say "Wikipedia should be neutral" when they really mean "Wikipedia should publish my version of the story even though the actual reliable sources disagree with me". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First off, as a retired journalist, I love working on Wikipedia articles and contributing to this community! I would love to edit a couple of entries that I see errors in, but some are autoprotected. I have made 10 edits now. Do I need to edit more? Or is there a way I can gain access to make adjustments? Reiki. Thank you! Jennifer Jalsever (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're auto confirmed, so you should be able to edit it. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult page to edit in that many many reikists want to add badly sourced or unsourced stuff that just isn't acceptable in an encyclopeadia article. be very certain that the sources you use comply with our requirements.

On the other hand, lurkers will be sure to help you . - Walter Ego 15:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jalsever, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To add to what others have said: yes, you now have the technical ability to edit that article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea for you to do so directly. Make sure you understand what are reliable sources, and if what you are talking about might in any way be construed as medical information, be aware that we have a tighter set of criteria for reliability of sources on medical subjects: WP:MEDRS.

If you are not certain of the reliability of your sources, it might be better to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page first, rather than going ahead and editing directly. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! Well, I understand that Reiki is a spiritual practice but it is not necessarily a medical treatment. I think that the terms "psuedoscience" is very biased and not at all accurate to the experience. We could call all spiritual practices psuedoscience. I would cite this reputable publication The Atlantic which explored the practice, and concluded that top tier medical institutions are embracing the practice without understanding how it works. It just does. Also https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/04/reiki-cant-possibly-work-so-why-does-it/606808/

Also, I would reference this organization as a source https://iarp.org/ and this one, https://www.reikiassociation.net/ and this one, https://www.reiki.org/ to help people understand the practice from people who are practice it and understand it, versus citing skeptics on the outside. I have personally experienced reiki and it's incredibly powerful, so I would hate to discourage people from trying it to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing.

Fine to source skeptics, but the entire post is written from that point of view. I worked as a journalist for top publications including Fortune Magazine and NBC for decades, and I understand the need for a balanced perspective. I also understand credible sources.

Would it be okay if I went in and offered this perspective and then put it to the community to ensure it's fair and balnced? Jalsever (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to discuss changes, but our articles are largely sourced by reliable, independent sources, especially when we're sourcing facts that could possibly be disputed. WP:PRIMARY sources have a limited usage, far more limited than what you appear to desire. And yes, the very high standards of WP:MEDRS applies here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of balance of the newspapers, we call it WP:FALSEBALANCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally experienced reiki and it's incredibly powerful, so I would hate to discourage people from trying it to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing.

What you're doing then falls somewhere inbetween promotion and righting great wrongs and I would suggest that yout petsonal experience and bias here probably means you had better edit in a different topic area.

Wikipedia is not journalism. We do not aim to create a 'balanced perspective.' We represent what the preponderance of sources on a topic say; see WP:WEIGHT. If the majority of discourse and scholarship about Reiki is from a skeptical perspective, then Wikipedia will reflect that. If the sources describe reiki as a pseudoscience, then Wikipedia describes it as a pseudoscience. To give undue weight to a pro-Reiki perspective which is not reflected in the breadth of the sources, or to avoid terms like 'pseudoscience' even if the sources use it, would be to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Athanelar (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalsever A word like "pseudoscience" is often added to an article after a long discussion among many editors, and is sometimes added after an RFC on that exact word. This represents "consensus". If you want to remove that word, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page first. And there may very well be existing discussion already there about the word; I haven't looked, but don't blindly remove the word. David10244 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

to ease anxiety and improving overall wellbeing is a medical claim, by our book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could call all spiritual practices psuedoscience This is an accurate statement. Spiritual practices that claim to have medical benefits not verified by scientific experiments are called pseudosciences. Words have meanings. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, saying it's "not necessarily a medical treatment" is SO close to admitting it's pseudoscience that there's no real difference between the two.

Reiki has been around for many years, leaving no excuses for anyone who wants to just say "studies are inconclusive" or that sort of thing.

If someone had invented a machine a hundred years ago, and if today's advocates for that machine were still saying "scientific studies of whether it does anything are inconclusive", it would be easy to understand what the real problem was. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A note: I've experienced it, and here's my non-certified analysis of why it "works": kind, gentle, respectful attention from another human is a good thing, and Reiki provides a plausible reason for that to happen at a time when it otherwise might not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing body of research that while no scientific explanation on how it works, Reiki as better than placebo for anxiety, overall wellbeing and reduced pain, and there are dozens of hospitals, including Yale, Harvard and Cleveland Clinic that offer it as a complementary therapy. This is documented with several 2024 and 2025 meta analysis of studies of reiki in these benefits, not for "curing" medical ailments. Wikipedia has a responsibility to offer comprehensive pages of information, versus the biased opinions of people who have no experience or knowledge in the area. I would also question why some individuals or celebrities or companies are allowed to write and edit their own Wikipedia pages? Trust is eroding for all sources of information in the world today, and this is an opportunity Wikipedia to remain a reliable source of information from all sides of a particular topic. Jalsever (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We operate on verifiability; you have to provide the studies. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I understand the importance of legitimate sources, and I have cited all of the studies and their sources, ie. PubMed as well as the American Health Association etc. Jalsever (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

rather the American Hospital Association I mean. Jalsever (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nature.com/articles/526295a argues that Reiki works, but not in the way most people think. I.e. it is used for soothing nervous patients. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

definitely that's the whole point. It is for soothing, overall wellbeing. It's not saying it's curing cancer and never promises to cure anything. It's used as a complementary therapy. Can we put talk therapy under the same microscope? Can we prove that it scientifically works? Or do you say it subjectively works, depending on the circumstance, the people, etc.? But you don't call therapists fraudulent. Same with yoga, meditation, breathwork, etc. You're not holding those up to the scientific method. They're soothing and not the same for everyone. Jalsever (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalsever What you say may be true, but you still can't delete the word "pseudoscience" from the article, because of the consensus issue that I pointed out just above... plus, what other experienced editors are telling you. David10244 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless definitions across the web and in major publications and on medical websites, including pubmed, that do not use "psuedoscience" word. That is an inherently biased word used by skeptics. And it's inaccurate because reiki and its practitioners do not portend to be science-based. It's a spiritual healing technique passed down for hundreds of years. Even the Cleveland Clinic does not use that word or your definition.

My question to the Tea House and the editors here at Wikipedia: What is the resistance for creating a page that is balanced? Why are you so against giving any credibility to the technique just because the mechanisms are not understood? Even in the face of recent (2024 and 2025) meta analysis data that shows it does work, it's growing in acceptance among the overall population and among major hospitals as a "complementary therapy" to make people feel better-- not to cure them.

Are you letting your own biases dictate this page? If so, I'm concerned about all of Wikipedia and the information in general if a handful of people are determining what kind of information is out there on certain topics. I am not the only person who has brought this page to the attention of Wikipedia and suggested changes, but there is a resistance to changing. Jalsever (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have off wiki evidence that celebrities and companies are editing the articles about themselves and have not disclosed this as required by WP:COI and WP:PAID, please see WP:REPORTPAID for how you can provide that evidence.

You misunderstand what we do here- Wikipedia is not journalism, it is a content aggregator. You've already been pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not create a balance when the prepondereance of reliable sources do not. We're not here to give credibility to anything. One is free to read an article and disagree with everything presented. This is not a problem as long as the sources are accurately summarized.

Yes, we're only as good as the people who choose to help us. You're welcome to help, but you need to abide by policies and consensus. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the site is leaving out the vast majority of content that is in the mainstream, and it is aggregating only the skeptical point of view, which may have been the preponderance of information in 2008 but in the last decade or so, it's changed. I abide by policies and consensus. I'm just skeptical by the consensus and the resistance to updating information to reflect the true picture of content out there.

In addition, I know businesses will write their own wikipedia pages. I edited one for you all, and it was submitted by the company itself. I also saw a post on this platform that someone was suggesting that celebrities are editing their own wikipedia pages. I have not investigated this. But I'm curious to know why there's a labeling of certain pages and not looking at updating information.

Is this something that could be updated? Jalsever (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For medical topics on Wikipedia, "the mainstream" means only mainstream medicine's reliable publications, according to WP:MEDRS. It has nothing to do with mainstream journalism as a whole.

And when any health claim is made in an article, then the article is automatically a medical topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalsever "In addition, I know businesses will write their own wikipedia pages. I edited one for you all, and it was submitted by the company itself. I also saw a post on this platform that someone was suggesting that celebrities are editing their own wikipedia pages. I have not investigated this. But I'm curious to know why there's a labeling of certain pages and not looking at updating information.

Is this something that could be updated?"

Most of that is a separate issue from Reiki, and you should start that as a new topic. I don't know what you mean by "labeling of certain pages", unless you are talking about medical-related articles and their standards for sourcing. We DO look at updating information when the sourcing meets the standards that were developed by consensus. David10244 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/correlation/1133_the-distance-between-saturn-and-the-sun_correlates-with_customer-satisfaction-with-hp

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/correlation/2733_the-distance-between-jupiter-and-the-sun_correlates-with_the-number-of-secretaries-in-alaska

In other words, Statistical hypothesis test#Courtroom trial measures how unlikely it is to get such results by mere chance. A statistical significant effect of Reiki never proves Reiki is real. In other words, statistics never proves it is impossible to get significant effects due to mere chance. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://manhattan.institute/article/new-study-finds-political-bias-embedded-in-wikipedia-articles Jalsever (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What has Reiki to do with politics? I'm an adept of Reagan and Thatcher.

I also have a systematic review: Hauptmann, M.; Kutschan, S.; Hübner, J.; Dörfler, J. (2023). "Bioenergy therapies as a complementary treatment: a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of bioenergy therapies in relieving treatment toxicities in patients with cancer". Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 149 (6): 2607–2619. doi:10.1007/s00432-022-04362-x. ISSN 1432-1335. PMC 10129966. PMID 36166091. Retrieved 20 January 2026. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting go now of what I have control over. I have offered suggested edits that represent the updated data and information on the practice. You all do with it what you will. I'm bowing out now. Appreciated the opportunity. Jalsever (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for a company representative to submit a draft for a review by an independent editor as long as they have openly identified themselves as a company representative per the Terms of Use(see WP:PAID). Again, if you have off wiki evidence that an article was written by a company representative that failed to disclose their status as required, we want to know via WP:REPORTPAID. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consider: "While I was striking that person with a stick, I was thinking bad thoughts; it was my bad thoughts that caused his injuries".

It shows exactly the same faulty reasoning as "While I was kindly paying attention to that person and gently touching him, I was thinking Reiki thoughts; it was my Reiki thoughts that caused him to feel better". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Your comment gave me a mental image of going to a doctor and having him beat me with a stick while thinking kind thoughts. I'm not sure whether that would cure me, or make me worse... David10244 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of reminder tool or script that I can use to ping myself to a specific discussion in X number of days? Something like the RemindMe! bot on reddit? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrubbedFalcon Yes. User:SD0001/W-Ping. The only thing is that it creates a watchlist item, not a ping, since I assume the ping system is near-impossible to manipulate like that. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Ahh brilliant, thanks! Any other useful scripts a new user should now about? I just found the easy-merge script ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few I find useful:

User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion.js

MoreMenu

User:BrandonXLF/TodoList.js Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion says, as its first sentence:

Google on mobile uses "en.m.wikipedia.org", this scripts redirects to the normal desktop version.

This is outdated, since the .m is no longer in use. Is this a mere technicality of not updating the documentation, where the actual script is working fine? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've had the script for a long time and didn't know that .m was no longer in use. That must be a recent change. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is recent. I still get the mobile version, it just has no .m anymore. I haven't tried the script. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra A-ha! The script was updated a few months ago so that it would continue to work, but the explanation wasn't changed. I'll reword it (as slightly as possible) to take the change into account. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn’t someone program a bot to do that for any user that requested it for a specific discussion and time? The bot could add a courtesy ping to the discussion, or just tag the user on their own talk page to remind them of it. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 07:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reply of two halves:

1. Idealistic (so not immediately helpful): This seems to be a topic that crops up from time to time. It at least got recognised as something reasonable and desirable: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88781. (My own suggestion, before knowing of that, was in this village pump suggestion.)
2. Pragmatic workaround: I maintain a personal subpage (like a personal sandbox) where I jot down self-reminders. It doesn't actively remind me, but at least the info is there... so long as I remember to check it periodically!

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a To-do list script that's very helpful for this. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on the South African wikipedia page that entries on people like Karima Brown have been removed for not being notable enough when she is comparably far more notable in South Africa than many entries on others in other countries. I've had the same experience trying to add an entry on Mark Heywood who is likewise a very famous activist in South Africa. See my draft for details. Yes, I started with AI assistance, but have gone over it so many times it is now 100% my creation. Twice (including the most recent STOP), it was rejected for his not being notable enough. I addressed multiple other rejection reasons and the article is, I believe, of a good enough quality for acceptance.

However, I do believe that this entry being on a South African person is causing different treatment to, say, an even far less notable American.

I'm keen to be an active wikipedia contributor, but this experience has left me rather disappointed. Ayalbelling (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused about the way Wikipedia uses the word "notability". You can't be blamed for that, because Wikipedia has its own twisted definition for that word.

On here, notable means the person's full story is already published, by reliable publishers, without any input from the person themselves (or from their friends or supporters). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayalbelling To put it another way, 'notability' on Wikipedia is not about whether a person has actually done something significant, but whether appropriate secondary sources have already taken notice of it. Athanelar (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you think about notability as the extent to which a topic has been noted. Has the media written about this topic? Do independent sources exist?

We have articles on tremendously unimportant topics that nonetheless received substantial media coverage. And there are great and influential people who never make the news. DS (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I hear you. But, for example, in the case of Mark Heywood, the sources are prominent and multiple: Guardian, Al Jazeera, a lifetime achievement award from one of South Africa's most prestigious news organisations. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Heywood.

Hence, not just my claim, but also a discussion about this issue on South African Wikipedia page. Ayalbelling (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayalbelling Did those prominent sources write their own full-length in-depth "Mark Heywood" stories? Or is he only interviewed, or mentioned in some other story? Interviews and mentions don't count for much.

Awards give nothing to notability on English Wikipedia, unless that award already has its own article on here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They interviews and mentions on the Guardian and Al Jazeera confirm his being a founder of TAC. That is all they're used for. Being one of the founders of South Africa's most impactful campaigns, makes a person notable. But, honestly, I give up trying so hard. I could go and dig up a thousand people who are far less notable even relatively speaking within their own countries (USA, Germany, UK, you name it). But that seems pointless.

That Heywood article is an example of a well-written, well referenced piece by average wikipedia standards and I would ask that it be put forward to editors in South Africa or perhaps several editors to to see if its rejection is a sign of a systemic anti-global-south bias. Ayalbelling (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely certain you could find a thousand inappropriate articles. We're only as good as those who choose to help; if you want to identify these articles and nominate them for deletion, you may. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that we could guarantee that only South African editors could examine a draft. We don't ask for the nationality of editors; some choose to identify their nationality, but we have no way to know if it is accurate. If a draft or article truly meets the criteria on this global website, the nationality of the editor shouldn't matter. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayalbelling Wikipedia doesn't use the word "notable" the same way you're using it. I consider that a weak point in Wikipedia's terminology, and I wish we used a different word. But (for an extreme example) if I look for reliable independent material about Einstein, I quickly find 2500 pages of published biographies. Hundreds of pages of biography on Mandela, in addition to reams of newspapers and magazines. Hundreds on Pinochet. These people, with hundreds or thousands of pages of reliable publicly-available material, are relatively easy to put together an article about. But go to libraries, newspaper archives, bookstores, and look for me: nothing. Not one page anywhere. They're notable. I'm not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation! There is, for example, a wealth of material interviewing Heywood and about Heywood as founder on, for example, the Treatment Action Campaign website, or Corruption Watch (South Africa) and other orgs like Section27 which don't yet have a website but are in the layman's sense very notable in South Africa so should have their own wikipedia page.

Shouldn't references about his founding Treatment Action Campaign and Corruption Watch help, combined with the fact that he has the lifetime achievement award from another entity with a wikipedia page, Daily Maverick, push him over the wikipedia notable threshold?

If so, and there's simply an issue with the references given in the existing draft, might you be able to suggest how better to reference his notability? Ayalbelling (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Maverick can not be used to determine notability, as Mark Heywood is an editor of it, though it may still be used as per WP:ABOUTSELF. The Guardian and Al Jazeera are generally regarded as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and most editors would be familiar with them. The other sources are all South African specific sources which most editors are likely unfamiliar with, and may not know if they are reliable or not. GroundUp is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable South African Sources (a page of WikiProject South Africa), SA Good News and The Witness do not appear to have a mention on the page. I think that finding references from some more sources deemed reliable, either amongst the sources recognised as reliable South African sources or at the reliable perennial sources page WP:RSP.

Make sure to read the comments left by the reviewers, as well as help pages. I recommend you check out WP:REFB, and the information pages linked to in this comment. Mitchsavl (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can Geni be seen as a verifiable and notable source? Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geni.com. Seems user generated, so I'd lean no; Geni has been cited in academic journals, though some critics remain concerned about the accuracy of collaborative trees as a whole (from the page). jolielover♥talk 04:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Landonwantstoknowthat. I am assuming that you are referring to the genealogy site Geni.com. It is considered notable since Wikipedia has an article about it. However, that site is based on user contributed content so it is not appropriate for use as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It may well be useful for genealogy researchers, though. "Notable" and "reliable" are different concepts. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A source that allows users to edit can't be reliable, because that means the site owners can't be held responsible for mistakes. The ability to hold the publisher responsible for their mistakes is a very big part of reliability. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Quick etiquette question. Today I added a few categories to an article (Hồ Ngọc Hà), but I did it as several small edits (each one adding a category) with the same summary (“Additional category”). In hindsight I’m not sure if this looks like edit-rushing or if it’s acceptable.

Is it better practice to bundle multiple category additions into one edit, or is doing them separately fine when each category is a discrete improvement? Also, should I use more specific edit summaries (e.g., “Add Category songwriters”)?

Thanks for any guidance. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the edit count, if that's what you mean by 'edit-rushing'. The only consideration is whether you're cluttering up the page history. As for the edit summaries, the most popular tool for categorising, WP:HOTCAT, does leave the name of the category in the edit summary, so people might expect you to do so, too. In general, the more descriptive, the better, but I wouldn't say 'additional category' is a bad edit summary. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!, that’s helpful. I will continue with category edits manually for now. Will also take a look at WP:HOTCAT and likely use it going forward. Much appreciated. LionmerterTHE (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lionmeter, individual edits per category is fine, especially if you flag such small edits as minor. Flagging such edits as minor enables those who have set their watchlists to ignore minor edits to ignore your edits when they are looking for edits that add text to articles they are interested in. Conversely if you make lots of minor tweaks and don't mark them as minor you do irritate those who are using their watchlist to follow articles they are interested in (I say that as someone who does lots of categorisation and quite a bit of typo fixing). ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right and thats an interesting point of view. Thank you for the feedback! LionmerterTHE (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried editing in Wiki but so far I think I've done a less than mediocre job. How do I improve on this. Another question is are we allowed to use British English or stick with American while editing. QwertyChaos2012 (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@QwertyChaos2012 To your first question: practice makes perfect. To your second, the idea is that some articles have obvious ties to a version of English (e.g. London in British, New York City in American). There is full advice at WP:ENGVAR. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll look into it. QwertyChaos2012 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use whichever English style the article is already written in, just to keep the continuity, for example all my Wikipedia articles are written using British English (as I’m British) and therefore any new editors would need to continue that same trend. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an existing article, always just continue to use the variety of English it already uses. The main aim is to leave this stuff alone and not fight over it.

There's an exception when an article is already messed up by inconsistent spelling. In that case, you need to find out which version is right for that article; if the article has been tagged for a long time with a certain version, change all the spelling to use that. If the article has a quite recent new tag, it might just be from someone who likes tagging articles, so take such a tag much less seriously. The other indication is to look in the edit history for the first identifiable variety of English in the article, and follow their lead.

Only jump in and change all the spelling of an article if it's a VERY obvious American-only or British-only topic, where "wrong English" is actually getting in the way. Example: I think American English describes a cricket match as "Uhhh...?" :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any consensus in the community on the area of knowledge or the general subject that needs the most contribution? GnosticMarley (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Many of us have interests and priorities that are very diverse. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can all spend time working on content that matters to us. There are people out there who talk of "important" articles, there are also people that talk of popular articles, and there are differences of opinion both on the definition of important and the definition of popular. My suggestion is that you focus on subjects and processes that interest you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Informal opinion, but I've heard a lot of people agree that Maths is pretty neglected! jolielover♥talk 14:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that in my experience many maths articles are written in too technical a manner for the ideal target level of readership – see Wikipedia:Readers first and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ~2025-31359-08: I've seen many articles in math and advanced science that are definitely written in language that is difficult to understand for a user who does not have a university degree in those areas! Of course, improving this aspect requires a good grasp of the matter at hand. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also have quite a number of botany articles in which the plants are described truthfully and correctly but in a kind of highly-compressed and jargon-heavy style that only a botanist can successfully read through. Those ones may have the advantage that real in-depth knowledge of botany might not be required to fix them; it might just be hundreds of visits to glossaries and dictionaries to sort them out. I'm not sure.

(I don't trust myself to fix the math ones, because I often won't know whether I've got it right.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same for me. I don't dabble in the math ones because I don't trust myself either about getting them right, especially when the task at hand involves synthesizing or explaining concepts. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This being Wikipedia, synthesis can't be part of what we as editors write. If it is, the article is faulty.

BUT if some source presents its own synthesis, and if I can't follow what they're saying, then I know for sure I'm in over my head. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! By synthesizing, I meant finding better explanations for concepts that circumvent cut-and-dry university-level mathematics explanations. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Articles on GCSE level maths sound like aeronautical engineering, lol. jolielover♥talk 06:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and cannot find how to send it for approval to make it public. It is a DRAFT: Yuliya Alagir. Help Please! ArtEnthusiast369 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ArtEnthusiast369. I have added a template which will allow you to submit the draft once it is ready. It will be sent to WP:AFC reviewers where it will then be checked for quality control. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! Done! ArtEnthusiast369 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtEnthusiast369 "...allowing viewers to experience emotional resonance..." What does that mean? David10244 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i found a grammatical error in a high visibility article, along with some of thee stuff just being straight up incorrect. do I be bold?????????????????????????????????? Sinai Peninsula (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Sinai Peninsula. The first thing that you should do is limit yourself to one question mark per sentence. If you speak English fluently, please correct grammatical errors. As for factual errors, you need to cite a reliable published source that verifies any information that you want to change. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai Peninsula, can you explain the bizarre and disruptive material on your user page? Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged their user page of 377,000 bytes as it was annihilating my low-end device. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got bored and decided to see how many templates until my device is fried Sinai Peninsula (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sinai Peninsula. Regarding self-consistency, all material in this English-language Wikipedia should comply with the rules of English grammar (allowing for the fact that there are different versions of English, see WP:ENGVAR). However, given that in any month approximately 100,000 different people from all over the globe, many for whom English is not their first (or second, or . . .) language, make edits on Wikipedia, it is inevitable that some mistakes are made. Correcting them when encountered is a routine background task of all regular editors who are sure of their command of English. Given the arguably nine mistakes of orthography in your query above, I trust that you will be cautious in your boldness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm trying to get this article published: Draft:Credit Canada. I've tried submitting the article three times, disclosed COI, and every time I think I am addressing the issues, it gets rejected. I want to do this the right way and comply with all policies. The reason for rejecting this last submission was the following: "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include..." I created the second submission/draft of the article entirely from scratch and without the use of LLMs. The second rejection said it sounded too promotional AND it showed signs of LLM use. So then I drastically edited down this third submission manually, and once again, it was rejected for the reasons listed above. I am looking for guidance on how to get the article published. Could you please provide me with notes on how I can improve the article, while abiding by all policies and disclosing COI, so that it is approved and published? Any help is much appreciated. Thank you. Amolina1225 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amolina1225 Hello and welcome. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

As you are employed by Credit Canada, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead of a COI disclosure.

You have made a common- but fundamental- error with your approach in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company. Instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The draft says "Credit Canada is cited in academic and policy literature examining the development of the Canadian credit counselling industry" but it does not elaborate beyond that. What is it that is said about Credit Canada and what makes it important to credit counseling in Canada? That's what the article should focus on. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional isn't really a style, even though the style can be a clue. The problem is that the things you're choosing to mention are just the sorts of things a promoter would want to mention.

The solution, unfortunately, is to remove all mention of those things, and write a different article altogether - one that isn't written from your own point of view and that doesn't contain any of the information you consider essential. Instead, it needs to be from the point of view of reliable mainstream publishers who aren't associated with you or with the credit business in general (i.e. no industry publications). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Industry publications can be used to provide isolated neutral facts, but only insofar as those facts were already part of the mainstream publishers' stories - for example if a mainstream publisher quoted a number that is now out of date, or named a person who no longer works there.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I ask you the question 'why are you so determined to get this article published?' Your likely answer ('the boss is asking about it'/'we have a big trade show coming up and want the SEO'/'I got told to do this months ago and still haven't been able...') will explain why your draft keeps getting declined for being promotional; because it is.

I advise you to read WP:BOSS and relay the information therein to whoever set you on this doomed affair. Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do accounts that go for many years without activity get deleted?

I remember having an account a very long time ago (like from 2006 or 2007) which I, for various reasons, discontinued using. It wasn’t anything to do with a block or ban.. I just stopped editing.

Would that old account still be in existence, or because of the LONG period of inactivity would it be deleted/removed ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Deleting accounts is not possible for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. So- yes, your old account is still in existence. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I’m trying to find my old account, but I’m not successful so far. It’s embarrassing but I honestly can’t remember my username from all that time ago.

I’m trying to go through the edit history pages of articles I think I remember editing to find myself. But it’s a needle a Haystack. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to log into your old account or to find something you wrote? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they want to log into their old account. Perhaps there is a way for them to ask an admin to check his TA’s IP and then match it to another account’s IP which (if the user still has the same IP from 20 years ago) would work to retrieve his account, apart from that I would say it would be hard to retrieve the account without knowing the username, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, access to the old email address to get a temporary password will also be needed. Maybe check that email address's inbox and archives to see if there are any old messages from Wikipedia or editors? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, and forgive me for my late reply I’ve been exceptionally busy.

I’ve done a lot of thinking and I am 100% certain my old username included part of my name “TigerTaylor” or TaylorTiger” followed by some numbers.

Somebody has already mentioned on here that old accounts (with long term inactivity) still do not get shut down.. but is that always accurate?

Throughout 2006 and 2007 I made hundreds of edits on various Pages related to British military history, the Renaissance, religion, music, political figures, and several other topics I have an interest in.

I remember getting thank yous from other editors for the articles I edited.. and some of the work was a collaborative effort with myself and couple of others working together.

I’m going through the edit history pages of all the articles I would’ve contributed to BUT I can’t find my name anywhere. Which is why I’m wondering if maybe the account had been closed and/or deleted.

I’m not giving up. I’m still looking.. I’d love to find my old account from 20 years ago and make a return. But if it’s not possible I’ll let it go. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can remember the beginning of your username, you can look it up here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&offset=&limit=500

Do you remember specific articles that you edited and specific things that you added? If so, you can search their histories here:

https://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: “do i want to log in to my old account or find something I wrote?” .. A bit of both really. It started out as the latter.. but now the former has got into my head. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors are involved in a move discussion regarding name of a Khmer temple located on the Cambodia-Thailand border Talk:Prasat Ta Krabey#Requested move 6 January 2026. Two users favor the retaining of existing title which is based on Khmer language whilst one support the move to a title based on Thai language.

The discussion diverges into the two users who favor Khmer language name throwing accusations at another user of not being neutral. While the accusations might be valid, I do not believe that move request is the appropriate place for such accusations. Should something be done about this?Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 21:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Steering all of them toward neutrality (NOT balance) and trying to get them to be WP:CIVIL with each other may help.

Also, pointing out to them that the name has to match what's used by most of the reliable sources that are in English; that name might be different from the latest accepted usage in the area. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish for others to be the ones to tell those people to calm down. As, I'm Thai and most of my edits are related to Thailand, accusations could arise against myself of not being neutral. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 21:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. My skill as a mediator is pretty low, so be glad I'm not volunteering. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just submitted a revised (third) draft of an article I am trying to submit. The second time, I was first told there was a suspicion that I used an LLM, which was not the case. After that, the reviewer made some specific suggestions about formatting and a couple of references, which I have addressed in this third draft.User talk:Jpfrendreis I cannot tell if I submitted it properly. If I did, what happens next? Jpfrendreis (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to Draft:James L. Gibson? It appears you didn't actually resubmit it. To submit it, press the "resubmit" button. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for next time, it would be helpful to name which article you are referring to without leaving me to guess based off your contributions page. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just tried again, and it appears to have been submitted properly. Sorry for omitting the article name, and thank you for your quick and effective help. Jpfrendreis (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Herstmonceux castle. Iam trying to add a matter of public interest. Regarding Herstmonceux Castle being awarded with the royal horticultural society's and plant heritage. National collection status for the water lily in the grounds of the castle. I try to edit in the information but it gets taken down. Please advise any help would be most appreciated. Best wishes Graham Fisherwarner (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should take the advice already given to you on your talk page, particularly as you are conflicted. Sources are the thing that will decide. - Walter Ego 01:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, two hours before your post above, editor Dormskirk added this information correctly by Citing it to a Reliable source (a BBC News article) so that readers can if they wish Verify the information and know that it was not made up by somebody pretending to be you – that sort of thing does happen, so we have to do everything according to the proper procedures and only use Published sources that can be trusted. Now the article has a direct link to that BBC report with its quotes by, and a photograph of, you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create a page for my employer? can anyone advice me? TechEditorUAE (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your sandbox was deleted for G11. Courtesy ping to DoubleGrazing, who declined and deleted the page. Since it is deleted, I can't check; however, I would guess that it was largely due to the sourcing. As Chaotic Enby says here, Wikipedia doesn't care what the organization has to say about itself. Sourcing consisting entirely of the organization's website makes it both likely to be deleted under G11, and doesn't show that the organization is notable enough. Wikipedia needs multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. If those can not be shown, it is not notable, and can't have an article about it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft I deleted wasn't especially promotional in tone, but it was only supported by the company's own website, and therefore purely promotional in the sense of being them telling the world about their business. This came straight after the user had been unblocked based on the understanding that they would not promote their employer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Experience has shown me thus far that "I won't be promotional" typically means "I removed the part of the article that says 'FooBar Inc is the leading provider of foo solutions preferred by most customers in the Examplia region' and made no other substantial changes"

WP:YESPROMO needs to be on some kind of required reading list at this point Athanelar (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TechEditorUAE. The essay "Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia" covers this type of thing; so, you might find the information it contains helpful. I also suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because nobody is going to be able to create an article about your employer if they're unable to clearly establish your employer is Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , now I can understand what was my mistake. Is there an option i can post in for review so that I dont publish it , and experts can review it and later I can publish it if accepted. Like I can do paragraph by paragraph. TechEditorUAE (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS as shown by Marchjuly, and show it to your superiors and colleagues at your company. In short, you are extremely unlikely to succeed in writing about your company; this is based on the experience of many thousands of people who came before you, attempting to write about their own companies. People in your position have great difficulty editing as Wikipedia asks, you need to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, limiting yourself to summarizing what others have written about it. Are you one of the rare people who can do this successfully? Possibly, but the odds are against it.

If you truly feel that you can do this, you may submit a draft via the Article Wizard. You should first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company- like critical analysis and commentary about how your company is viewed(not how it views itself). Routine business annoucements and interviews do not contribute to notability.

You should also be aware that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. For example, disgruntled customers could vandalize it, if only temporarily. Good or bad information about your company can be in an article as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really use wikipedia, but I have this incredibly annoying guy who refuses to revise their addition despite multiple attempts to show issues. They've reverted my changes like 20 times now and wasted a ton of my time. What can i do about this. My issue is that they are using citations which contradict the stuff they're saying. I put this on talk page:

The above editor cites two studies. Had this editor read the material they cite, they'd know that the second study provides additional data and findings which are contrary to assertions made by the first. Namely, the assertion of the first study that "data" "empirically" refutes Graeber's analysis. The second study directly references the first study and regularly counterposes the two. The reason this is significant is it indicates clear academic disagreement on the utility of Graeber's "bullshit jobs" theory. Because there is academic disagreement, the first study cannot be understood as an authoritative refutation of Graeber's concept, and I don't see why it belongs in the lead.

Bullshit Jobs. ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-23986-9 and @Avatar317, it looks like both of you have been edit warring over the past week. Per WP:WAR, this can lead to blocks. Can you both agree to discuss the problem cordially rather than through reverts? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i mean just frankly, and I apologize for the harsh words, im pretty frustrated here, but my perception of wikipedia before joining was that it was filled with arrogant pricks and this pretty much confirms it. This guy doesn't even seem to understand the subject matter and just wants to see some of their words on a page on the internet. So reflecting on this, I think I'd rather just stop contributing and leave the site. ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know I came in hot but because they dont understand the subject matter, they perhaps don't even understand that they're presenting a deeply partisan argument as neutral, which is incredibly irritating. I tried softening my tone but I dont think they noticed. anyway im out this site is a waste of time thanks for helping me clarify ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. "I know I came in hot" means "I know I was an arrogant prick too". This thing is definitely not just their fault. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well thats a fair criticism

I think what pissed me off is here's this academic who's released a paper making what I view as a pretty underhanded attack that could easily be disproven by this dude David except.. he can't because he's recently died. ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a person saying this is right, AND is also an arrogant prick themselves. The solution is for somebody, anybody, to stop being an arrogant prick and start actually solving the problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm struggling to understand why this particular album, The Crux Deluxe, keeps being removed from Joe Keery's Discography. I mean I understand at first glance why, generally we're not supposed to list duplicate material and it's called "deluxe", but this album isn't a duplicate: it contains exactly as many new tracks as The Crux and has reliable secondary sources about it as it's own work and the physical releases (vinyl, cd, cassette) don't contain any old tracks. the latest removal of the album from the discography cites the repeated The Crux tracks on Spotify as reason and I can't argue that fact, but it still doesn't make sense to me why that should erase what is otherwise a full new album (and a fourth of the artist's solo discography) from the table. D-sides, which is included under EPs, is a physical release of the new tracks from the previous Decide (Deluxe), so I'm even more confused as to why The Crux Deluxe keeps being removed despite being the same situation. Is the important distinction here just that Spotify doesn't list The Crux Deluxe songs independent from The Crux? and it just doesn't matter that the physical releases were all independent? This is different users removing it so I know its not just one person I disagree with, I know I've been wrong on here before and am usually able to move on fine if my edits get undone, but I've gotten frustrated and probably too worked up about it's removal lately just because I cannot understand why people would want it not listed so badly. Any help or two-cents would be appreciated, thank you.

(do want to clarify I'm trying to avoid edit warring, I added it to the chart after a removal twice prior but am bringing my question here instead of editing it further now. I didn't bring it to the talk page because it's different people and not one person I disagree with, and to be honest I'm scared of direct confrontation on here because of how tone can come across through text.) Devonias (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is essential. If you go to any kind of dispute resolution, the first thing they check is did you use the talk page appropriately.

You are free to use individual editors' talk pages too. But not free to avoid the talk page route. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

understood thank you Devonias (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am looking for assistance from an uninvolved editor who may be willing to review and, if appropriate, submit a draft biography via Articles for Creation.

I am the subject of the article and therefore have a conflict of interest, so I prefer not to submit it myself. I have prepared a neutral draft offline purely to make review easier, and I understand that any editor is free to revise, shorten, or decline it entirely.

The draft relies on multiple independent, reliable secondary sources from national media in Honduras, Japan, and Taiwan.

If someone is willing to take a look or advise on next steps, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance you for your time. ~2026-44832-5 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main purposes of the Articles for Creation process is to allow editors with a conflict of interest to submit drafts that are then evaluated by an uninvolved reviewer. It is not necessary and out of the ordinary to recruit an uninvolved editor to submit the draft. A draft should be submitted by the person who wrote it. You should move the draft to Wikipedia draft space so that people can check it out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi ~2026-44832-5. If you're asking for someone to contact you outside of Wikipedia to review your draft, then you're probably asking a bit too much (at least in my opinion). It would probably just be better for you to register for an WP:ACCOUNT, make all of the necessary conflict-of-interest declarations, and then create a draft yourself via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. While it's true that Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages people from trying to create articles about themselves, it doesn't expressly prohibit them from doing so. As long as you're upfront about what you're trying to do and adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you should be OK in at least creating a draft. Once you've done that, it will be easier for someone to assess whether you meet Wikipedia:Notability for a stand-alone article to be created about you and whether the sources you want to cite are as reliable as you're claiming they are. In addition to the pages I've mentioned so far, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing since you might decide after reading what's written there that you don't want to be written about on Wikipedia after all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what the other people here have said, the fact your comment is written with an AI leads me to suspect that you also asked that AI how you should go about getting your article published. As you can now see, these chatbots have absolutely no idea what the proper procedure to follow here is. We strongly prefer that you communicste with us in your own words, please. Athanelar (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that if you engage a third party to work on and submit your draft on your behalf, by so doing your COI transmits also to that third party. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition that third party will have to jump through all the Paid editor hoops or try to explain why they don't need to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have begun to work on clearing "pending changes backlog", but I don't seem to be able to access my history of accepting or rejecting revisions, and any comments that I have left. Please help. Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! How do I get here organically? _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Special:Log, just select 'Review log' from the options. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically in the combat part It uses economictimes,NDTV(owned by a goverment friendly oligarch) and in one instance used a tweet (from a propaganda account) one of the worst article I've viewed but it's protected and I can't put NPOV if someone explains how to put NPOV or other issues in general it would also be appreciated Stanjik (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stanjik. Brahmos is brief disambiguation page. Is this about BrahMos? Here you should see a button to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, you'd be able to edit an article yourself, but, as you've noticed, because this article is on a controversial topic, this is restricted to more experienced editors. In this case, you can bring up any concerns you have on the article's talk page — in this case, Talk:BrahMos. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear wikipedia team,

This is about how to add an article about the "TANGO-DJ.AT Database" which is the world's largest digital accessible tango archive and database. It is used as resource for meta data information of tango recordings by National libraries and many tango collectors and tango-djs. Because it is the only service worldwide where it is possible to compare individual tango transfers with each other, which enables to verify a given recording and compare the qualities of releases.

I am the founder of the association running the database and I disclosed that accordingly. And I think limited every statement of the draft to very neutral facts about the database.

Seeing that National libraries as well as plenty of the most specialized people in tango in the world are using this database as reference for tango recordings, I feel that a wikipedia article covering the most basic existence would be appropriate. However there is little to no coverage in books or papers. There has been an article in info7, a specialized magazin for media and archives - which obviously is not enough, as the draft was not accepted due to the lack of multiple independent sources.

The database is mentioned a lot in various blogs and social postings of tango collectors and tango-djs, but I understand that those don't meet the requirements.

The problem seems to be that the work with tango recordings itself is done by a very small community and there is hardly any source which seems to fit the requirements wikipedia asks for adding a new article.

I just find it a bit of a contradiction, that on one hand this resource is used as source of information by National libraries, but is rejected by wikipedia, because there is no coverage in a book or alike. And my experience with some public information of independet coverage of topics can be less than precise and reliable if not researched properly. I regularly find erros in tango books with the help of this database. So in many times to reliability is even the other way around!

Is there a way to create an article in this circumstance for this highly specialized database, which is used and recommended by professionals and tango aficionados alike, but doesn't make it into wikipedia?

best regards,

Bernhard BeG42 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the kind of resource that, if as significant as you make it out to be, should be covered in scholarly literature. I would recommend looking through databases of academic publications on dance to find relevant sources. You should also make sure to comply with our conflict of interest guideline before resubmitting an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also consider WP:JOURNALCRIT which covers vital journals that don’t have much written on the journals themselves. If so little is written about it, it won’t be much more than a stub even if notable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your fast replies! (and also regarding the article itself - even if not accepted - the decision came very fast..:)

The unique nature and importance of this database is about the various tranfers of tango recordings. I am afraid there are hardly any journals working on comparing the quality of tango transfers/releases. So I am not sure it is mentioned therefore in such.

And I am sorry, but I don't understand "it won’t be much more than a stub even if notable."

Does this mean that unless mentioned in some scientific journals, there is no possibility to be added to wikipedia? BeG42 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia terms, a "stub" is a very very short article - sometimes only one or two sentences. Because we can only summarize what other people say about subjects, if there's not much to say then the article will have to stay small.

Your sources don't have to be scientific journals, but they do need to be reliable and independent. Read through the policy Shushugah linked, WP:JOURNALCRIT, for more information on what you are looking for. Meadowlark (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thx for your explanation.

I was considering my draft almost like this. My thinking was, that I started to add pieces of tango information based on the database to relevant articles referecing to the database. And in case users wonder what is this database being referenced to, it would make sense to have a short article about it, just stating the most basic facts about it. BeG42 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you.

I think I did that by declaring my relation to it as asked for? BeG42 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" isn't the same thing as "importance". "Notability" is "the extent to which a topic has been noted". Are there sources we can use that are more than just "this is what the founder of the association says about their database"?

That said, this might go on our sibling project Wikidata. And, depending on whether we already have entries on tango recordings, it might become the basis of a property. DS (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. thank you. It's also a bit tricky for me as 1. English is not my native language and 2. new to contributing to wikipedia at all.. So I try my best, but I am not used to all the termininology yet..

It also probably doesn't help that full access is limited to supporting members, so the majority probably doesn't bother and looks for less quality stuff which available for free. Sadly a common thing in the tango community..

I will try to get in touch with the people at the libraries and look out for mentioning in other/more publications in order to find more sources which might be working for wikipedia too.. BeG42 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding COI disclosure, looks like you have made an effort to disclose it in an up front manner (I should have acknowledged that, mea culpa), although I would suggest that the disclosure on the draft would go best at Draft talk:TANGO-DJ.AT Database, using the {{Connected contributor}} template. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BeG42, having a separate article devoted to a topic is not the only way that information can be added to Wikipedia. One possibility is that a properly referenced section about the database can be added to Tango music. Then, a redirect can be created. That means that any reader searching for information about TANGO-DJ.AT would end up at that section of the Tango music article. If additional reliable sources cover the database in the future, then perhaps a separate article could be created at that time. You should make a formal Edit request at Talk: Tango music that would then be evaluated by an experienced uninvolved editor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknogledging, but as I pointed out, I am very inexperienced in the way this works here. So I try my best to stay as neutral and as transparent as possible. I am working for 30 years in argentine tango and I know all the resources available, I do not exagerate with my statements.

Thank you also for the suggestion to add references to tango related articles. However the suggested article "Tango music" is actually quite a big mess. Part of the problem here I think is based in the fact that there is very different tango music (European standard tango and Argentine tango which to some extend are almost opposing. Which also shows in the contradicting and "editing wars" going on in that article. So many statements there are so much less based on any references than the few facts I tried to mention about the database..

I did start to contribute bits of tango information being unique to the extend of the database in more specialized existing articles, like argentine tango orchestras and artists, where the content of this database can contribute so much to the quality and information of those specialized tango articles.

Any yet, it seems almost impossible to just state some very neutral and obvious facts about the database as independet article for it. But I understand and except the guidlines. I guess it's just a matter of time.. I personally just feel it would contribute to the quality and extend of wikipedia to have coverage of such a resource. BeG42 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone feels that their information would contribute to the quality and extent of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to throw all of the world's information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but at the same time - when I take a look at references being used in plenty of tango articles, it's less than reliable and in many cases even not existing sources...

At the same time, facts based on 30 years of experience and reserach don't make it in.. BeG42 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did start a talk about TANGO-DJ.AT Database and I hope I included the {{Connected contributor}} correctly?

I work with argentine tango recordings for 30 years professionally, so I am happy to help with any information about it. I really think it would be a good addition to wikipedia and I'd love some experienced editor to decide to take a look at it. BeG42 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been published in reliable secondary sources, we'd be happy to take a look. But if you have this information because it's your personal experience, Wikipedia won't even look at it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BeG42 You want to make an article about that database, correct? You're not trying to use the database as a source for another article, right?

As others have said, if sources have published articles about this database, and not just used this database, those sources could be the basis for you to make an article about the database. I hope this makes sense! David10244 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was the idea. There has been an extensive article published in info7 a specialized established magazin for media and archives which was edited by an independent editor of that magazin. I cited and referenced to this article, but I guess that isn't/wasn't enough and I am currently not aware of other publications who wrote about it. (other than tango dj blogs and collectors) ~2026-49798-5 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to change my username? I looked through my settings but I can't find a way to do it. Can you help me change it?

RoTML (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoTML You have to put in a request at WP:CHUS or Special:GlobalRenameRequest and a renamer will do it if the username follows our policy and is not taken or restricted from creation. HurricaneZeta^C 15:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help @HurricaneZeta! RoTML (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But also, @RoTML, you only have 51 edits - you could also simply abandon this account and make a new one with the username you want. Accounts can't be deleted, but you can just log out and not use it again. If there's only a few edits linked to an account, it's not really worth the time and effort involved going through the username change process (for both you and a volunteer with renamer rights). Meadowlark (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Meadowlark I think it's worth a try to get it renamed. Otherwise I suppose that's the only other option. RoTML (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a tough process and from my experience it's pretty quick, and easier than abandoning an account. HurricaneZeta^C 16:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They rejected my first one, saying that wikipedia strongly advises against using real names or nicknames which can be traced to you, even though I didn't use my real name. I tried again saying I understand the risks, so it should be done in an hour or two. RoTML (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously taking longer than last time (Probably a good sign) so I'm not abandoning accounts yet... RoTML (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being strongly advised against isn't a rejection. Resubmit the request, and make it clear that the username is a pseudonym and not your real name. There are plenty of people here who have real-name accounts. This is common for company representatives or people who are the subject of an article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks RoTML (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix something at Portal:Tornadoes and after publishing my change the page became filled with an error saying "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." I've never encountered this before; how do I fix this? ^EF⁵ 15:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EF5. You tried to make it analyze 75 articles to look for images. That was too much. Template:Transclude files as random slideshow#Usage says:

Note: Though there is no fixed limit to the number of pages that can be specified, or images per page, be aware that technical limitations may be encountered for very large numbers of pages or images.

Reduce the number of articles. If you only go a little below the number which produces the error now then it may reappear later. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

After adding an update about actor Werner Klemperer with verified source link as evidence, a user named FlightTime promptly deleted it with the comment that it was nonsense. First, my understanding of Wikipedia dispute guidelines is to be polite, civil, and not personal. Also to avoid deletions as a first reaction, it is recommended to attempt compromise on the update if there is a disagreement. This is not what happened.

Since I believe my update is accurate and verifiable, please advise how to proceed. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user.

Regards,

Richard8666

RF8666 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RF8666. Your addition to the article was not appropriate, considering your addition is not verified by the source you gave. The reversion was correct. Please very carefully read WP:VERIFY qcne (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I gave did confirm the update. I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. And what about how my update was handled? Immediately deleted and labeled nonsense? Is this how the Guidelines recommend be processed for disagreements, especially new users? I understood friendly discussion first before deletion with attempt to compromise. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For biographic articles we do delete harmful additions without warning or discussion. qcne (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the word "prose" in either reference provided. How hard would it be for you to simply give a brief 1 or 2 sentence update on what prose means? I really find you to be unhelpful and somewhat rude. I'm about ready to give up on Wikipedia as a friendly information environment where users can share information and discuss disagreements in a collegial way. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have two user accounts? I did not mention the word prose, so I do not know what you are referring to. qcne (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My original account is very old and was deleted on the cable provider's server. As a result, the associated email for user versification by Wikipedia was deleted as well. So I had to create a new account with an email to work for Wikipedia verification.

Regarding my prose comment, I was replying to FliteTime who is the user who is deleting my article update. I meant it for him and mistakenly sent it to you. Sorry for the confusion. Rfischer8655 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfischer8655 You have two user accounts, and one was deleted? You were able to post using one account at 19:10 on 21 January. Then at 19:53, 43 minutes later, you posted with a different account and said the first account is very old and was deleted. And that account being deleted caused your associated email address to be deleted?

That does not make sense.

Wikipedia accounts don't get deleted by a cable provider.

And even if a Wikipedia account were to somehow be deleted (which is not possible by anyone), that would not cause the email address linked to that account to be deleted.

You have posted here in quick succession using two accounts. I don't see how one of them was "lost". Can you explain that any better? David10244 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfischer8655 @RF8666 I don't intend to be rude, but your comment about your accounts was confusing. David10244 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. The 2 accounts is because I hadn't logged into the original for many years, and could not remember the password. It just seemed more expedient to create a new one as I'm rarely active on Wikipedia. You were not rude, it was a user named FlightTime who repeatedly deleted my small update calling it "ridiculous". He would not engage with me to discuss politely, so I came here ( Teatime) for help. My update was based on a linked reference (newspaper interview with the article subject), and the context of the article was based on that interview. I basically gave up as it seemed this user had a bias, and seemed to think my update was a criticism of the article's subject. Long story short. Rfischer8655 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the following edits made to this page last year about an Indian computer scientist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._K._Raju&diff=1293288632&oldid=1292193479 (the previous version seems to me not perfect but still much better than the post-edit version)

The person who made the edits, @Shantisundaram1234, has since closed their account, so I can't discuss with them. However, it seems to me their edits are consistently irrationally pro-Raju and intended to quiet criticism of his controversial and often plain unscientific claims. This is bolstered by the remainder of their contribution history comprising three sessions of bolstering historically dubious notions of great Indian mathematical and scientific superiority (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jye%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADhadeva&diff=prev&oldid=940173912—the modern article, by way of contrast, states that "The Yuktibhāṣā is now believed to contain some elements of calculus . . . However, it did not combine several ideas under the two unifying concepts of the derivative and the integral, show the connection between the two, or turn calculus into the powerful problem-solving tool we have today"), mostly on the Raju page.

I can't fix their edits (for example, the removal of the criticism of the Telesio Galilei Academy (which does appear based on everything I can find to be effectively a fraudulent award mill for "alternative" scientists) or the discussions of criticism of (for example) Raju's arguments that Einstein simply failed to make use of functional differential equations) because I'm not extended confirmed and apparently effectively everything to do with Indian mathematics/science history is considered controversial topics, but I still feel it would be appropriate for those to be fixed. Can someone who is extended confirmed take a look at the C. K. Raju page and make appropriate edits to restore the well-founded criticism of Raju's theories? Or tell me where I'm wrong if I am. LieutenantZipp (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: it's basically impossible to close a Wikipedia account, and Shantisundaram1234 has not closed anything. But I understand that they haven't been seen here for half a year, meaning there's currently no practical way to contact them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I must have misinterpreted the lack of user/talk page and link to the former being in red as the account no longer existing. LieutenantZipp (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"No user page" is not the same as "no account". DS (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it (with respect to the lack of user page versus closed account, that is). Thank you! LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[[Draft:Man Dhaga Dhaga Jodte Nava]] please some approve this i added soures please Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gujarat Samachar. It is awaiting review. This may take two months or more. Please be patient. I will note you should not use The Times of India as a source for entertainment-related articles. qcne (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then how i make article? If times also not reliable so? I am very much fractured 😮‍💨😮‍💨 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the Times of India source with a high quality reliable source. qcne (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://maharashtratimes.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/television-news/star-pravah-serial-man-dhaga-dhaga-jodate-nava-going-off-air-this-month-will-be-replaced-by-ude-ga-ambe/articleshow/113903788.cms

This is work? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But this is indian language but Maharashtra its very known online paper also come in my house 🥰 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If Maharashtra Times is reliable (according to English Wikipedia's standards), then it doesn't matter if the paper is not in English. Reliable sources are reliable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-language sources are fine to use. I don't speak Marathi so cannot evaluate, but if you think it is a high quality source you can use it. qcne (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaw...How sweet both thank you 😊 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One more question → I had try put 'Gadasari Atta Sogasari Kodalu' in draft mode, so how did it get directly published?? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Draft:Gadasari_Atta_Sogasari_Kodalu for you. You created it in the main encyclopedia. qcne (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible without review published? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may directly create articles instead of via Draft. But I would strongly advice you do not until you have more experience. If that new article had been seen it would likely have been sent to draft / deleted as not yet meeting our criteria for inclusion for a new article. qcne (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a good article to meet Wikipedia's criteria? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Wikipedia requires evidence that the subject meet's Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. It requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

You should summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. qcne (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boss why is the replay space so short? I am not understanding because the grammar format and there is no tense match for understanding..Please explain another way😮‍💨 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Please could you rephrase it..? qcne (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying this every time replies are being made, why is this space getting reduced, I myself am not able to understand the guidelines explained by you Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every reply gets tabbed over one further to the right in order to make it clear who's responding to what. If you want to fix that issue, respond to their first comment on this thread. But it should be readable either way, I think. LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gujarat Samachar That's how threading on Wikipedia works. Please try reading this simpler overview of our guidelines: Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. qcne (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Samachar, the use of colons above has been proper, but you may sometimes wish to use Template:Od, just as I have done for this comment. (It means something like "Although standard etiquette would require this comment to have a large left-hand margin, I thought you readers might prefer this move to the left and the resulting longer line width".) As for Draft:Gadasari Atta Sogasari Kodalu, I don't see any demonstration of how Gadasari Atta Sogasari Kodalu is notable. Was it critically or commercially successful? (Or indeed was it newsworthily unsuccessful?) Success (or lack thereof) aside, did/do film critics/historians write anything perceptive about it? Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

some content in my first article was not as per policy but I dont understand why. Pls help me refine my article to meet this pages publication rules. SurbhiBhalla (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is only about your personal achievements, so it reads as self-promotion. Remove the self-promotion and you'll be fine. LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sure got it and removed the entire content its empty now SurbhiBhalla (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not from what I can see. From what I can see, it still says "A Globally Renowned . . . [all the way through] . . . Victoria University (Australia)". LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It's gone now. Cool! LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SurbhiBhalla We do not host resumes on Wikipedia, which is all your page is. Please go elsewhere, for example LinkedIn, to post your resume. qcne (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire content now. Got it and understood the same. SurbhiBhalla (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. qcne (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a policy on trivial or irrelevant facts, and our articles are full of them. Articles on publicly traded corporations always include the CEOs name, and sometimes those of previous executives. Are hospitals different? The chief executive does not control how medicine is practiced or how research is done. This COI editor has asked to include the name of the president of a large medical system, which includes a hospital, research institutions and local doctors' offices that display the hospital's name. Many other large hospitals do not have this in their articles. Is it relevant?

Talk:Cedars-Sinai Medical Center#Update History with new leadership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danilo_Two Julian in LA (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this particular CEO has been covered by name extensively enough in independent reliable sources for things they did, or for things that happened "on their watch", it would be wrong to not include that material. But if not? Then I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the press reported that a major earthquake struck on his first day on the job. Yes, he had a lot to do, but nobody said the recovery was more or less successful because of his deft touch. Julian in LA (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years, I've had some hectic first days on a new job, but nothing as bad as that! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question i first saw reviewed someone else's draft Draft:Hage Nasheotwalwa Mukwendje for the first time and I keep seeing many people's draft so I know how to comment on it, so I have commented correctly🙈I thought this opinion was right so I did it. Gujarat Samachar (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tbh I'd say your comment is valid. Many AI signs. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be correct about the draft in question, but I would recommend leaving the draft reviewing to editors who have volunteered and been approved for this role. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry Gujarat Samachar (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I do agree and have declined the draft for AI signs Athanelar (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor seeking guidance regarding the article for Moshe Reuven. I have disclosed my conflict of interest (the subject is a personal friend) and posted a message on the article's talk page requesting assistance with removing several maintenance tags that appear to no longer apply to the current version of the article.

I've encountered some challenges working with one of the editors monitoring this page, who has questioned whether I am a paid editor. To be clear: I am not receiving any compensation for this work. This same editor cleaned up all the promotional content and heavily edited the page, but yet did not remove the tags. I feel like she may have some kind of beef with the subject. It doesn't make sense to correct all the issues, yet still leave the tags up and when someone asks about their removals she attacks them for being paid editor and not following Wikipedia policies. I disclosed my COI in the talk page of the subject, yet she accuses me of not properly disclosed my COI. But from what I can see I have disclosed it correctly.

I would appreciate guidance on the proper procedure regarding the COI disclosers and for addressing these tags, or if appropriate, assistance in having them removed. The tags are no longer relevant for the following reasons:

• Multiple editors have substantially improved the article since the tags were added, and any previously problematic paid editing content has been replaced
• The promotional content issues have been resolved
• The reference bombing concerns have been addressed, with the possible exception of Reference [12], which could be removed if necessary

Any advice or assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Ggreenblue (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! One thing in your message here that stands out (to me anyway) is that the three items you wrote as bullet points, explaining what's finished so far, are (for you as a COI editor) not your decisions to make. Many COI editors say "this is no longer promotional" in cases when something is definitely still promotional, and so on.

About the disclosure, please edit the source of your own user page and type {{UserboxCOI|1=Moshe Reuven}}, then click "Publish page..." or "Publish changes...".

(Note: include all the curly brackets but not the comma.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose, there are three methods to disclose COI. I've already used method 1 on the TALK page of the subject, Ggreenblue (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I did look, and I honestly didn't find it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your CoI seems to be properly disclosed to me, and we don't require anything more than you have already done, in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ggreenblue (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on my very first Wikipedia page (About the game "Die of Death" from the ROBLOX platform) for a while now, but now that I'm nearly the later stages for it, I'm a little concerned:

How do I change the name of the Wikipedia draft/page?
It's currently just "Die of Death", but I thought it would be more useful to rename it to "Die of Death (Roblox game)", or something of that like.

Any help, whether it be about the problem itself this message is about, or making the Wikipedia in general, is greatly appreciated!
Hope to get the page done sometime soon. Kaidigger3 (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some well needed context: I am PAINFULLY new to Wikipedia. I don't really understand all that much, (Though, I did do my best to read all the various Wikipedia etiquette.) and only originally started this project as a joke.

If anyone would like to help me out, whether it be reading my draft (Please, tell me how to, though.), giving me advice for writing, or even just teaching me a tip or two about techniques or etiquette, feel fully free! I hope to get into the community, and thought this place was good to start. Kaidigger3 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaidigger3. First some good news: the title of most Wikipedia pages can be change as explained in WP:MOVE, but I don't think you should worry about that too much now because what you're working on (Draft:Die of Death) is still just a draft. The final title of page can be sorted out if the draft gets accepted as an article.

Now some not so good news: while I'm quite sure you've been working hard on your draft, but there's still quite a lot work to be done because right now this draft has pretty much zero chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article. My suggestion to you, assuming you're asking about a video game, is to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games because that's where you're going to find WP:WIKIPEDIANs experienced in creating and editing articles about video games. One of the members of that WikiProject can probably give you a good assessment of whether the game is Wikipedia notable, which is going to need be clearly demonstrated for any article about the game to be created by anyone. If the game does turn out to be Wikipedia notable, then perhaps the members of that WikiProject can provide you with advice on how to further improve the draft to bring it more inline with Wikipedia's standards.

Finally, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference. Wikipedia can be very different from other similar Wiki sites you might be used to in that it's really only intended to be for content that is seen have encylopedic value to Wikipedia's readers; it's not intended to be a free web host for one to post their own original research, fan pages or other types of personal projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels painful working on something for over a month, first as a joke, then as a hobby, and actually starting to enjoy it, only to get beaten down by 4 people OVERNIGHT... but I understand all of it was with factual information.
Regardless, thank you numerous times over for taking the time and energy to practically write an entire paragraph just to help one person out. It helps so many more times over than it hurts. Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaidigger3 Article creation is, ironically, about one of the worst ways you could've picked to introduce yourself to Wikipedia. It's an extremely complex task which requires a solid understanding of a lot of policies and guidelines. Your draft for example currently shows no indication the topic is notable, and furthermore is written more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia article.

I want to wish you a very, very warm welcome to Wikipedia and politely suggest you get started with contributing in smaller ways for a while before you try your hand at article creation. Athanelar (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I never really expected it to progress this far, but I appreciate your advice as much as any other person's. Thank you! Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaidigger3 I don’t want to discourage you but the whole format you have your draft in now will cause it most likely to be declined, it reads too much like a children’s gaming magazine/website as opposed to an encyclopaedia entry, I suggest you take a look at other articles on video games to get a flavour for how they are set out, secondly I suggest you find better sources because Fandom Wikis aren’t seen as reliable on Wikipedia. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you point it out, I can definitely see your point on formatting. As for the Fandom situation, it's a bit... complex to figure out. Besides Fandom, there aren't really any other sources, and the ones that do exist are sketchier than my Draft itself (No offense to their creators).

And the worst part, probably, there's not really many other alternatives. As I personally learned the hard way, I can't even use the game link itself as a reference, for a reader to theoretically go check it themselves. So, unless I'm going to link a highly popular YouTube video, which I doubt would even be accepted, let alone be found reliable, I... don't really have any alternatives. Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet would be to find gaming articles (from reliable sources) or in a worse case add it to the list of Roblox games (and perhaps you could put a lengthy description with proper sources), I’m not well versed in Roblox so I’m unaware of how many sources there are and how many other people have spoken about it (in secondary reliable sources like news articles), but with topics about games within video games in-depth and secondary articles may be harder to find than just for the game itself (it’s easier to write an article on Minecraft than the server Cubecraft for example) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kaidigger3, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This may not be what you want to hear, but: 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) 17:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit it... despite reading pretty much an official version of your exact first sentence, it never clicked for it to apply to me. It makes perfect sense for it to, though. Thank you for the advice, as much as everyone else here! Kaidigger3 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can the date and english template used in various article's dates are can be changed periodically to current one or it should reflect when it is created.. Spbvj (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you want to do. But if you're asking about changing the date written for when the template was added to the page, no you can't change it ever. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are giving incorrect advice.

Templates like {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}} regularly have their dates updated. The latter's documentation, for example, defines the |date= parameter as "The month and year that the template was last spell-checked for compliance with this dialect of English." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers I was confused by the question too. Is the question about the date inside the template? I don't know if it means the date the template was added, as assumed by an answer below -- in which case that date should not be changed. Or, if it means something else, in which case Andy's somewhat rude reply might be right.

If the date means "date template added", then no, @Spbvj, that date shoukd not be updated. @Pigsonthewing, why would those dates in a template be updated? Or is it easy to misunderstand wthe template parms? David10244 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point out where you believe I was rude; and to read the documentation to which I referred, and which I quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Given An anonymous username, not my real name left a question on your user talk after undoing your changing the date in {{Use Indian English}} to July 2025 just yesterday at Nohkalikai Falls, I just wouldn't touch those templates because it doesn't really improve an article for the readers. As a general note, the only time I've ever seen the date changed is after someone has checked all the dates, and even so, rarely does someone bother to "update" the date parameter of those templates. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(maybe) Ñot an edit conflict;I had this doubt when i create account in wikipedia and someone tolds me to my email inbox change dates year by year as so it somehow helps the bot to crawl and analyse articles..that's why ... Spbvj (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HiSpbvj. It's not really a case of not ever being able to change those dates per se, but rather there's really no imperative to do so. The original date actually provides a sort of reference as to how long the article has been tagged as such, which might be useful information in some cases. So, in a sense, there's no need to "fix" something that isn't broke. You may, however, initiate a discussion on the article's talk as to whether such a template is really appropriate for the subject of the article, and perhaps out of that discussion a consensus will be reached to update the date; however, there's really no need to go on a template date updating binge just for the sake of doing so. I've come across such binges in the past; they've always been contentious and ended up achieving nothing other than wasting the time and energy of everyone involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

is the closed DPRK embassy in Nepal notable for Wikipedia TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who has published stories about it? How big are the stories? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to expand existing text at Nepal–North Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and split off any relevant info than to create an article de novo. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure where to ask questions about this, OliviaRigby (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OliviaRigby. I believe Commons:Help desk is what you're looking for. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know where to look. OliviaRigby (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created redirects for suitable pages on Commons and Wikidata, and interwiki-linked them to this page, so they appear in the (default) sidebar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that. That would help anyone who has a similar question to mine. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected the sources and references. Can any editor help me to complete this draft , as I am busy studying for my final exams. The sources are in the draft.

Draft:Samuel Chang Jae-on. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGreatEditor024. For the most part, there are WP:NODEADLINES when it comes to most things you can do on Wikipedia. There's no specific time period in which a draft needs to approved; so, you're free to work on it as much as you want or as little as you want pretty much whenever you want. The only thing you really need to worry about is abandoning it (i.e., not editing it in any way) for six months or more because then there's a possibility it could end up be deleted; even if that were to happen, though, you can request that it be restored. So, go study and do whatever else you need to do to pass your exams because your draft and Wikipedia will almost certainly still be here when you're ready to come back. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know , but I am interested in this article because I wrote the article on the KCA and I wanted another article on the KCA's president but I have no time. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your "draft" is pretty much nothing more than a list of links to possible sources. What your asking is really no different than dumping all of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into a pile on a table, and then asking someone else to put the puzzle together for you. Part of the fun of article creation is digging around for sources about subjects that interest you, reading and assessing those sources, and then summarizing what they say in your own words until what you've done becomes an article. Wikipedia has all the time in the world for such an article to be written and anyone can do so at anytime as long as the subject is considered Wikipedia:Notable.

Are you, by chance, trying to create this article as part of some school project or assignment? Just asking out of curiosity because students often try to create articles as part of some class assignment, and they often ask questions like this when they running up against some type of class-related deadline. From your contribution's history, it looks like you're also currently working on a couple of other drafts. So, it's not clear why you need someone to write this one for you when you seem capable of doing so yourself. Your draft on Korean Catholic Association was actually accepted by a Articles for Creation reviewer; so, you're certainly capable of developing a draft into a proper Wikipedia article. Just take your time with this draft and work on it when you can, and most likely you eventually develop it into a proper Wikipedia article just like you did before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am an Indian and we don't study anything related to North Korea.

Well, I can do it myself but the issue is that my parents won't allow me use my laptop for more than an hour. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suggest you do little edits every day, and slowly build it up into a proper article. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can try that. Thank you. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel is notable as he is the president of the Korean Catholic Association, former president of North Korean red cross etc. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatEditor024, please read and digest WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks for the link. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve prepared a draft biography of Nishi Chawla, an Indian-American novelist, playwright, poet, and filmmaker whose work has been featured by the Library of Congress, BroadwayWorld, and American Kahani. I’d greatly appreciate guidance and review from experienced editors. Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy/sandbox contains a draft about Nishi Chawla, but one that doesn't indicate which assertion within the draft may be found in which source. These sources must of course be reliable, and for most kinds of assertion they must be independent of Nishi Chawla (and thus of course they may not be interviews). Please see WP:42. When you've added appropriate references, and removed material for which you can't find such references, submit the draft for review. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nishi Chawla is a fairly recent and frequent attempt at promotion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nishi Chawla shows that it has been deleted 4 separate times and is creation-protected

Nishi Chawla likewise was deleted once (in 2017!) for G11 Athanelar (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, not having thought of that possibility. Better just forget it, Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, unless perhaps you can produce a draft that's stunningly good. (Anything short of stunningly good would just be a waste of people's time, your time included.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked over the inline maintenance tags, I couldn't find one that helps. I want to tag Saipem_7000#Incident_in_Rotterdam with a note to fix the grammar. It's just one sentence which is wrong but it is wrong such that I cannot fix it without interpreting a meaning into it which is not necessarily clear.

Correct me if I am wrong, but "grammar" is an article tag and should be at the top to apply to the whole article, but I can't find a similar version that I can apply only to a little piece.

Thanks RustyOldShip (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{grammar inline}} Athanelar (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 'nineteenth century', 'Nineteenth Century', or one but not the other? I've seen it written as both, and MOS:CAPS doesn't seem to say anything about it. Thanks, Beller0ph0n42 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common noun so there is usually no need to capitalize it, but context is everything. Where have you seen it capitalized? Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"19th century", Beller0ph0n42, other than when quoting something different. Or of course when it's attributive, whereupon it gets a hyphen ("19th-century novels"). -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of exceptions to Hoary's advice. It's only capitalized when it's part of a title, or a literal quotation from someone who used capitals. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers, @Hoary But is that 19 capitalized? David10244 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You use a capital 1, if it's the beginning of a sentence. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would, if it were. But it wouldn't be, because of the widespread typographic aversion to starting sentences with numerals. (This minor matter is probably dealt with somewhere within WP's beloved manual of style.) The question is rather: Where we use lowercase numerals, should they be text figures or lining figures? -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:NUMNOTES for Wikipedia's guidance regarding begining senteces with a numeral. As side note, I don't I've ever heard of a capital 1, except perhaps as Capital One. You can capitalize the first letter in the word "one" but you can't capitalize the number "1". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

in December of last year, i made an edit to the article for the album “Uta's Songs: One Piece Film Red,” and in January of this year it was reverted without an explanation why.

a bit of context beforehand: Fake Type is a duo made up of a lyricist/vocalist (Tophamhat-kyo) and a producer/arranger (Dyes Iwasaki). the two wrote and produced “Fleeting Lullaby” for the aforementioned Uta’s Songs album.

in the album's article, Tophamhat-kyo is credited as the lyricist for Fleeting Lullaby, and Fake Type is credited as the song’s producer, unintentionally implying that they are two separate artists. i figured i would fix this by crediting Dyes Iwasaki where applicable. but a week ago, the edit was reverted without explanation. did i do something wrong in editing it? is there maybe a more formal process for crediting a person on an album article that i'm not aware of? Spilogale Putorius (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spilogale Putorius, on Talk:Uta's Songs: One Piece Film Red, ask -Verso- about their reversion. -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reason I can think of off the top of my head: maybe the other editor wants the credits to literally conform to the way they're given in the source being used, even if it creates this kind of situation. If it's that, then in my opinion both of you are correct, and it shouldn't be too hard to solve. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

now that you mention the way the credits are given in the source...i'm looking a little closer and noticing that across a few different streaming services, Dyes Iwasaki is credited, but he's not credited as the producer for the song.

source 28 on the article (Apple Music) appears to currently list Dyes Iwasaki as the composer on its credits page. source 30 (Tidal) has the producer listed as Fake Type, and Dyes Iwasaki is listed as the recording arranger, which does make sense. his jazz-styled songs are mostly played by live instruments, with a few electronic elements here and there.

now that i've considered the details of Dyes' role in the song-as well as the fact that i've just now noticed he is credited in the personnel page as a recording arranger-i can definitely see why the edit was reverted. my apologies for the silliness. Spilogale Putorius (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF reminds everyone to assume that the other person is acting in good faith - but your actions in this case were so obviously done in good faith that nobody needs to do any assuming about you. OK, you made a mistake at first, but you did the right thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Flagicon}} in this template i want to insert the image File:Proposed Flag of Islamabad Capital Territory.svg so that it appears as an icon in the template, is that possible? Tribol (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tribol, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might get somebody here who knows the answer to that, but I think you're more likely to if you ask at Template Talk:Flagicon. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Leeds Beckett University and I have spent a long time researching and writing a journal article about Goldenhar Syndrome (GS)and we created a new parent’s guide to Goldenhar Syndrome. Both of these have been published, they are in libraries and currently being used hospitals and the guide was also shown on BBC news last summer. We have open access on both publications. The GS community have said it would be great if we could get these on Wikipedia so we can help others. There is not that much research out there on GS so we think it will help.

Shall I send you the links? Please can you advise me what I need to do.

Kind regards Rebecca RHitchen (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well you do have a COI because you helped create the source, it can be used if uninvolved editors review it and see whether it is fit for inclusion Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwen,

Okay great, thank you. So what should I do next? Should I send the publication links to you? RHitchen (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can post the links to the relevant publication here and on Talk:Goldenhar syndrome that would be great. Interested editors could then use the information to expand the article. Athanelar (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are WP:SELFCITE (which says you can cite your own publications, within reason) and WP:MEDRES (particularly stringent criteria for medical topics).

For more specialist advice, particularly on the latter policy, ask on WT:WikiProject Medicine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RHitchen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that Wikipedia does not publish original research, however important or worthy. Once there are several sources about it that are wholly unconnected with your and your team, then an article might be possible. But while yours is the only published source, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which is better thought of as "has been noted" rather than "should be noted"). ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think OP is asking if it can be used in an existing article about Goldenhar Syndrome, not an entire article about the journal publication. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

qual país maior ~2026-47812-9 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by area or List of countries and dependencies by population. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone before working on any sensitive topics, I started by creating fictional character articles. First i worked on Champaklal Jayantilal Gada, and now I have created Draft:Taarak Mehta

I wanted to ask if this approach is okay?? Also i m unable to move Draft:Taarak Mehta to the mainspace. Could someone please explain why the page move option is not available and what steps I should follow next? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted for review, please let this process play out. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before submitting i am getting trouble for move why?? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not in trouble, but you need to slow down. There's a very good reason for an inexperienced editor to submit to AFC first rather than moving the articles themselves: if the article isn't up to snuff, it can very quickly WP:AFD. As it stands, Taarak Mehta is in poor shape: you've provided little significant coverage about the character to demonstrate notability of the character himself. You've also used cites that aren't connected at all with the actual content you added. Some of the sources aren't independent, and the prose style looks like it was written by an LLM. I don't think this article would survive AFD. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, "AFD" means the discussion where bad articles get deleted. WP:AFD has more information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understood 👍 Gujarat Samachar (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gujarat Samachar, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Unless you can find several reliable sources, wholly unconnected with anybody involved in the series, and about the character (not the actor or the series), then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gujarat Samachar, I have just returned your first article to draftspace; you can find it at Draft:Champaklal Jayantilal Gada. You don't have any good sources to show that this character qualifies for a Wikipedia article. At the moment people are being kind and just sending your articles to draftspace - the other option is that we could send them to WP:AFD, and if they were deleted it would be much harder to create them again. Can I suggest you use the Articles for Creation process for all your work until you have a better idea of what can have a Wikipedia article and what can't? You can spend as long as you want working on drafts with no risk of deletion, and reviewers will help you understand any problems with your draft. Meadowlark (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering creating a draft page for the Nebraska Shakespeare Festival. I have gotten a few sources so I think it meets notability requirements, but I want to run it by you because I'm not sure whether it meets notability reqs and whether it's even eligible since it ceased operations in 2022. Here are the sources:

• Theatre Arts Guild of Omaha
• Omaha World Herald (paywalled)
• Internet Shakespeare
• University of Nebraska Archives
  

Thanks in advance! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have found that the University of Nebraska was a primary funder of the festival and as such is not an independent source. Please discard. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... whether it's even eligible since it ceased operations in 2022 ...

Mr. Shakespeare himself ceased operations in 1616, and everyone really does agree that he should still have an article. :)

If the Nebraska Shakespeare Festival had fizzled out after half a season because no one showed up, I might say why bother - but obviously that's not the case. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would the sources provided be enough to meet WP:NCORP? Also, here's another:

ProPublica --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Had this draft declined (although I used multilaw, which has a page, as a standard). I'd so very much welcome advice, feel I've let the team at MI down :(

I do have other sources but didn't use them as I tried to keep it simple (other sources: legal 500, Edinburgh Chambers, Global leader, and LK law for example), was this my mistake and please advise next steps. Thanking you in advance :) PaletteDrift (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PaletteDrift First, read WP:BOSS and show it to your team. Company articles are some of the hardest to create, especially with a COI. You will also have to declare your WP:COI and WP:PAID if you wish to continue. HurricaneZeta^C 15:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, really appreciated. Understood on WP:BOSS and COI. For transparency: I do paid social media work for Mackrell International, though I’m not paid specifically for Wikipedia editing. I’ll add the relevant COI/paid disclosure and will focus on strengthening the draft with independent, in-depth reliable sources before resubmitting :) PaletteDrift (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PaletteDrift please do not confuse Wikipedia with social media. Social media requires inconsequential blether. Wikipedia requires well cites facts 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of strengthening that kind of draft is switching your point of view as a writer so that you're refusing to tell your client's version of the information at all - completely discarding their copy, and replacing it with what's already published about them in reliable publicly-available sources. Using the public sources as supplements isn't enough. This is a major reason why COI editing is hard. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — I’m looking for guidance on how best to demonstrate organizational notability for a company article that was recently declined at AfC. The draft concerns SCS Global Services, a third-party certification and standards organization founded in 1984. The company has operated continuously for more than four decades and today employs approximately 500 people globally, according to company disclosures.

The article includes independent secondary coverage from sources such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times (late-1980s reporting on food safety and pesticide residue testing programs), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy publications (environmental labeling and life-cycle assessment), IEEE conference proceedings (methodological work in LCA), and independent trade and financial publications such as Environmental Finance. Much of the historical coverage relates to the organization’s early role in third-party food safety and certification efforts, particularly produce testing programs in the 1980s. I want to be sure I’m presenting this independent coverage in a way that clearly aligns with WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:CORPDEPTH expectations.

Would reviewers generally prefer to see this type of coverage foregrounded more explicitly (for example, via a short “coverage” or “reception” subsection, or a more concise history that highlights independent media discussion)? Any guidance on how to revise before resubmitting would be appreciated. Thank you. Prroc (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Prroc Pease do not ask the same question at multiple fora. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and is deprecated. This has been answered already at WP:AFCHD. As a self declared paid editor your remuneration is, in a great part, to be used to learn independently how to work here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this and was not intending to "forum shop." Thank you for the feedback. Prroc (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm writing an Olympian's Wikipedia page, and a lot of new facts that are available are verifiable via old images (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos). The athlete retired in 1990s so there's very little public record for most of her achievements. Despite that I've managed to find enough sources for significant additions (which I will include in references for editors to verify).

I am fully aware that everything I add has to be BLP safe and ChatGPT is helping me follow BLP to the T (in terms of writing tone and notability/reliability + verification of sources)!

My only obstacle that remains is verifying her awards and recognition credentials. I am not including many of these new awards as I can't find the proof to back them up. SOME OF THEM, however, do have credible IMAGES as proofs (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos from the 1980s and 1990s). ChatGPT told me to add them as sources, there is separate process where the subject has to confirm the authenticity and copyright of these images to a ticket to Wikimedia (and release the copyright to public domain).

Can anyone guide me to the documentation for this process or share their personal experience in this regard? FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC) EDIT: All the sources that I have added in my WIP article so far ARE publicly verifiable. I want to add more via images that can be released voluntarily by the subject and I am asking for process of that. I understand and respect the sanctity of Wikipedia and I won't violate that. I certainly have no intention of doing that, I am a new user here and I do not want to invite a ban in my first year. Having said that, the photos I am adding are genuine, not AI generated, and can be released to the public domain by the subject of the article. I AM JUST requesting a process for that.[reply]

AS FOR USAGE OF CHATGPT, I have kept the language and rules pretty strict. So far it is doing a great job. I am not against AI, I use it frequently in my own core work (as a B2B SaaS writer). I know how to not use it and how to use it in the correct way. I have trained it on Wikipedia's own BLP standard. I do not appreciate editors here telling me to not use Chatgpt, how I write is my prerogative. As long as the tone suits Wikipedia and the facts follow Wikipedia BLP guideline, I will submit it and provide corrections based on what editors ask for.

FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. First, stop using ChatGPT. It actually does a poor job of writing here

The sources of your information need to be publicly accessible, such as a book in a library. Photographs of documents in your personal hands wouldn't be acceptable. If these materials are publicly available, you don't need to provide photos for that purpose, you just need to write out a citation providing enough information for someone to locate the source(publisher, publication date, author, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FrustratedGamer0909 Please read WP:NEWLLM and abandon ChatGPT.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did this person just appear in the Olympics, or did they medal? 331dot (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Team event, team scored no. 4, they were vice captain FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: some of the sources:

They are from the pre-internet era. The Olympian retired before most of her accolades could be digitized, online news media sites came very late in our country (certainly later than the West, I'd say). So only a part of the facts are verifiable via online sources. certain facts however are physical newspaper/magazine CUTOUTS from her era and her pics of trophies/award booklets from the official events. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, FrustratedGamer0909. In the case of a photo of a newspaper article, you should just cite the article itself. Sources don't need to be available online, so long as they're published, so citing a print newspaper is fine and you don't need a photo of the source to do that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not available online. They are from the pre-internet era. The Olympian retired before most of her accolades could be digitized, online news media sites came very late in our country (certainly later than the West, I'd say). So only a part of the facts are verifiable via online sources. certain facts however are physical newspaper/magazine CUTOUTS from her era and her pics of trophies/award booklets from the official events. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then just cite the offline sources. We don't care if a source is online; we fully accept offline sources if properly cited with enough information to look the source up in a library or archive. (For periodicals we need the publication name, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1926), article name, article byline, and page(s) the article is on. For books we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC #.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have cutouts from the news and you don't know which paper they come from, those can't be used for anything on Wikipedia. But if you can find out the exact answers, like "this one comes from page 5 of the 1976-07-15 issue of [name of paper]", THEN you can just tell where it came from - the photo isn't needed.

This means Wikipedia readers who want to see the proof might have to spend a lot of time (and maybe money) to search for some copy of that paper, but this is considered OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, "Sources don't need to be available online". See WP:SOURCEACCESS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far this has been the most useful thread, thank you! FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AS FOR USAGE OF CHATGPT, I have kept the language and rules pretty strict.

That doesn't help. Please just don't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate editors here telling me to not use Chatgpt

Sorry, it's a Wikipedia standard. Take solace in the fact that EVERYBODY is affected by this rule. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to use ChatGPT to write on Wikipedia. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand everybody's concern. Unfortunately, I am unable to fully convince people at this time how chatgpt is doing a reasonable or at least acceptable job for me. It helps me research sources, that is the primary source. If it can't find it, I've instructed to tell me as is. And any link it generates, I go down and examine it deeply before I use it. Besides, I can't open 10 tabs to find resource. Being ADHD, that setup would kill my productivity. So chatgpt is more of an accessibility tool and a personal accomodation for me. My use is fully aware and fully responsible. Unfortunately, people here are pretty black and white about AI - and I can't help with that. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have ADHD also, and I can assure you from long experience that if we need any machine to help us, an ultra-high-speed bullshit generator is not it. I already DO generate high-speed bullshit.

What you're pushing so hard for is an "absolutely insane accommodation", not a reasonable one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do not define what's accomodation for me. I decide it. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Accommodation" that consistently and demonstrably makes you perform worse at the task that it's supposed to be supporting, is not included in that. Your request is like a factory worker requesting to use a machine that works faster and has simpler controls but always outputs faulty products. Not legitimate. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Talk about yourself mate. I have been using it for almost 2 years now. Mine works well for me. It's almost like the clanker likes being treated like a human being. FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You think an artificial intelligence likes being treated like a human being? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 06:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about legitimate like he thinks he's an admin FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit my talk page nor reply. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On mobile, I've had trouble replying. I switched to desktop view to make this reply. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like your edit is being disallowed, as your talk page is unprotected and there's nothing in the edit filter. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A black popup appeared when I tried to reply on your test message. When I tried to edit the page as whole, it kind of started to shake violently.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly strange. How are you accessing the site and do you have any user scripts or gadgets enabled? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have twinkle enabled. I tried to reply to the section above the test one but I failed so I wrote the reply in another section and coypasted it. I checked now and noticed the black popup appearing for me in talk pages of other articles but not all.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there might be some kind of lag reduction thing going on. Is it ok if I archive some of the old messages on your talk page? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would very grateful.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This mobile reply seems to be working. The problem appears to be maybe intermittent and involve a lag, [speculation alert] as if something somewhere was overloaded and barely keeping up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the message in the black popup: Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m getting the same glitch Mikewem (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only coming up when I try to reply to the initial message in any thread. It seems I can reply to replies Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

is it on your personal talk page? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m getting the glitch message on every initial comment on every thread on every talk page Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a different glitch, Moriarty's issue was only on their talk page, and we just solved it by archiving some messages. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moriarty replied to a reply, not to your initial comment in the thread Mikewem (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bug with a change to heading markup on mobile. More details on the village pump. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed now. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now. Thank you! Mikewem (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Flagicon}} in this template i want to insert the image File:Proposed Flag of Islamabad Capital Territory.svg so that it appears as an icon in the template, is that possible? Really want to know. Tribol (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tribol, and welcome to the Teahouse! You would be better off with Template:Flagicon image which allows you to put your own image in and have it automatically resized. That would look something like this: , whose wikitext is {{Flagicon image|Proposed Flag of Islamabad Capital Territory.svg}}. The normal flagicon template does not allow you to use custom flags. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, i really appreciate your consideration. Tribol (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- little novice problem here -- I want to add multiple references to one cited work in the revision I am doing to William Chappell (dancer) -- when I try to add the new page reference my previous page reference is over written -- how do I add an op.cit. -- does Wikipedia have a way of doing this ?? Many thanks Coejonathan (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Coejonathan to use repeated citations, start your ref like this <ref name="example">{{cite book|last=example |first=example |title=Example |publisher=example University Press |year=2100 |page=123}}</ref>

and in sentences that you want to use the same ref use <ref name="example"/> for full guidance please see Repeated citations CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I do this, I just go into the visual editor and then copy and paste. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update the entry but cannot figure out how to change the citations HMS President (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HMS President, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, I will observe that if "HMS President" means that you are president of the Hartford Medical Society, then you have a conflict of interest (please read that link) and should not be editing the article directly - you are welcome to make edit requests, but somebody unconnected should make the decision about such edits.

Second, role accounts are not permitted. All editor accounts are personal, and may not be shared; and their names must not suggest that they represent an organisation. Since you have only just created the account, it would be easiest (rather than going through the process of renaming) if you simply abandoned that account and created a new one. A name like "(your name) at HMS" would be acceptable - or you can use a pseudonym (I am relatively rare in using my own name).

Finally, to get to your question: references are displayed in the "Reference" section, but they are defined at the point in the text where they are (first) cited; so to edit a citation, you edit the paragraph or section where the little number appears. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am looking for advice before resubmitting a declined AfC draft. The draft was declined with feedback that the writing style resembles LLM-generated content. I want to address that in the correct way and then rebuild the article in a way that clearly shows a sourced summary. Would anyone be willing to look at the current draft and suggest what I would need to change in the structure or style in order to improve its chances? StuartLothEditor (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @StuartLothEditor. the draft reads to me like it was made by an AI. Even if not, it reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. An entire rewrite with content coming strictly from the sources you have may suffice. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

StuartLothEditor. This is about Draft:Stuart Loth. Your draft makes no plausible claim of notability for this person. The sources that you reference are of low quality and seem to be more about Loth's projects than significant, in-depth coverage about Loth as a person. If you are Loth, you should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which explains that autobiographical writing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you are being compensated by Loth in any way, you must comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. That is helpful. I will reassess the sourcing and structure to make sure the draft reflects independent coverage about the subject rather than a resume style summary of the projects. StuartLothEditor (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I wrote my first article, Draft:Axl Protocol, it was declined. First to be clear there is a COI for this draft as I am a member of Axl Protocol. I feel like it would be worthy of Wikipedia, however, even though I know a lot about the subject I cannot write as much as I would like to about the subject, because first-hand knowledge is hard to cite independent sources for. So, I tried to write what about what information I could find or infer from what is publicly available information like release data, but this results in my article being mostly a discography, I know that there are several artists on Wikipedia with discographies, but those artists have more than just that. Beyond released music and social media I don't think there is much more I can add to the article.

The article was declined on the basis of lake of independent sources (which beyond release data is accurate) and reads like and advertisement (which is not what I was going for but I only have release data to go on, as first-hand knowledge is not citable.) I do not know what to do, should I rewrite what I have? or should I wait until there is more significant independent sources for the material? I know I was planning on doing video interviews where ChatGPT voice mode would interview me about my music, but I feel like that would still not qualify as independent as the interview would be conducted by an AI under my control, and published on my YouTube account, which would fail the independent source requirement.

I already see why this writing about yourself or subject you are involved in is discouraged. I am interested in advice about how to move forward or whether or not I should abandon this idea.

Thanks in advance. DarkDhamon (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not contribute to notability, as that is not an independent source, being you speaking about yourself/your project.

If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this, there is no chance an article will be accepted at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the information DarkDhamon (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DarkDhamon. The first thing you should do before even attempting to write an article is to make sure that the subject is notable, i.e., worthy of an article. All of your sources are lackluster. A rewrite to the text is worthless without sources. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, but I understand. DarkDhamon (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've tried to be bold & delete a redirect, but don't really know what I'm doing. I also tried to list this as a technical request to change the redirect, but also couldn't do that. 'Sarah Hillary' redirected to Sarah Hilary. I thought this was unnecessary, as Sarah Hillary is notable in her own right and has a page. A hatnote on both pages, pointing to the other is what is needed here (and I'll do this in due course). Could someone please look at the redirect. Thank you. Blackballnz (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hillary should not and does not redirect to Sarah Hilary; each article had a hatnote when I first saw it, but as this hatnote seemed the least helpful among the options available, I changed it to something I think is more helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS However, Sara Hillary redirects to Sarah Hilary. This is thanks to Roman Spinner, who commented Redirecting main title header delineating the appellation of English crime novelist, Sara Hillary, to its pen name form, Sarah Hilary. If you find this comment as opaque as I do, Blackballnz, and/or if you have a question about the redirect, better ask Roman Spinner. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackballnz I did look at the technical request and moved Sarah Hillary (art conservator) to Sarah Hillary (thanks for finding that) - see this edit summary. Sara Hillary also should not redirect there, and it doesn't look like either of the Sarahs have their names spelled alternatively as Sara, so maybe WP:RFD? HurricaneZeta^C 00:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Blackballnz (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the first two Alone albums have articles (Alone: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo, Alone II: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo), but for some reason Alone III doesn't have one. I would make it myself but I don't know how to use references or where to find them. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 00:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(testing: Alone III: The Pinkerton Years) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it just a redirect to Rivers Cuomo??? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible reasons:

• Nobody wrote an article for it yet, and the redirect is so people will at least find Rivers Cuomo instead of nothing

Or

• There isn't enough reliable material in existence to be able to make a proper article about it, and instead it should be part of the Rivers Cuomo article.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Oh, I guess that makes sense. Still I can think of a few things from that era off the top of my head and such (i.e. the Pinkerton Diaries), should I consider writing an article about it? And another question, as someone who hasn't written an article before (or opened the Sandbox), how do I use the Sandbox? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 01:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When considering writing an article, the most important factor is what's described at WP:42 - if you can't find enough of what they talk about there, then there's not going to be an article.

Here is a link to Weez3rforever's sandbox - when you click it it will tell you you're making a new page, but yes, go ahead, it IS your sandbox after all. Then you, umm, type some stuff. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weez3rforever I see by the link turning blue that you found it :)

Sandboxes can't be found by searching Wikipedia in the normal way, but everyone who has one themselves will automatically know where to find yours too. So, you can work on unfinished articles there, keep a list of references still to be checked, practice on tricky editing features like tables and so on, whatever ... but don't break ANY Wikipedia rules - especially don't paste in any copyright violation, not even temporarily. It's kind of hidden, but it's not private.

(And if your work on an unfinished article gets to a more serious stage where you know it has a half-decent chance of success, you can move that material into WP:DRAFTS.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers alright!! Thanks a lot!! :) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Wikipedia:Redirect and couldn't figure it out. Guz13 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guz13, generally a redirect doesn't need a talk page at all, unless there's a reason to be discussing that redirect -- maybe it's controversial for some reason, for instance. And even then a redirect's talk page might itself appropriately redirect to the redirect's target's talk page.

If you tell us which redirect you're talking about, we might be able to give more clarity. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a redirect is created after a merge discussion and the history of the redirect page and its talk page give the content that was there before the merge was completed. In that case, the talk page could easily still have wikiproject details. Most new redirects would not need talk pages at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources on this TV series draft: enough for main space?

Draft:What Lies Beneath (TV series) Miamiwin (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources look good, but you most likely can't use Youtube or X, depending on what you're adding. Guz13 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Miamiwin Here's an unofficial test: If you were limited to just three sources, and all you were allowed to do was paste the content from those three sources into a blank page - not adding one word - would you be able to say "I guess this will do, I'm hitting the Submit button"? (Of course that would be massive copyright violation - but this is just a test of your sources, not writing advice.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve drafted a Wikipedia article on Nishi Chawla in my sandbox: [Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy/sandbox]. Could someone kindly review it for notability, tone, and references? I’ve highlighted coverage from independent news outlets and literary platforms, including: The News Minute and The Indian Express covering her anthology 'Singing in the Dark' ; Reviews of 'Greening the Earth' in 'Borderless Journal' and Mint Lounge Literary commentary on her poetry collections 'Immigrant Diaries' and 'Random Circles of Belief' Recognition from the Library of Congress program 'The Poet and the Poem.' I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines before moving it to the mainspace. Any guidance or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much! Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy/sandbox Nil🥝 03:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, I've added a template to the top of your page. Once you feel your article is ready, click the big blue "Submit" button, and it will be added to the queue at AFC for review from an experienced editor. Happy editing! Nil🥝 04:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, you asked about this already, and the answer is already given earlier in this page. @Nil NZ, the draft title has been deleted many times and salted. @Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy, please stop. David10244 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve drafted a biography in my sandbox and would appreciate feedback on sourcing and notability. I’ve relied on independent coverage (India Today, The News Minute, Indian Express, BroadwayWorld, Library of Congress). Any guidance would be very welcome. Thank you! Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first 4 sources. Each points to the top level of a website and hence not to the relevant page that might verify your content, as demanded by the policy on biographies of living people. After that, I gave up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turnbull: What do you suggest then? Penguin Random House has published her poetry collections, and the reviews are in national newspapers. Should I delete the first four references? Kindnessloveandcompassionmercy (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not time to shuffle references around while crossing your fingers hoping it helps. It's time to completely give up. Multiple recent tries at writing this article have very badly failed, and yours hasn't turned out any better - not the 50× better that it would need to be, anyway. I'm sorry. It's not that you lack skill, it's that far too little exists for you to write about. I expect that in 5 or 10 years things will be different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I want to help add more information and references to articles, and I am trying to find a good way to do that. I just wanted to get some quick clarification regarding the AI policy on Wikipedia. I have skimmed through this page about rules regarding "Large language models", and I know that it is not allowed to use AI programs to write original content for Wikipedia, and it is also banned to copy text and information generated by an AI program into Wikipedia. However, I was wondering if I would be allowed to use an AI program, like ChatGPT, to assist me in helping to expand articles and find new sources, and even maybe to help create articles later on. What I would do is use the AI to create a structure for the article, for example it would make main sections like "overview", "early life", "achievements", "legacy", etc., and other sections and subsections inside thouse, to get a rough idea of what the outline of the page could be like. I might also use it to find facts and information about certain topics, and to find sources to confirm that those information are correct. And yes I know that AI is not perfect and it can sometimes make up facts that aren't correct or give out sources that don't actually exist, so I would definitely check all of the sources before I would use them on Wikipedia. So basically, I am asking if I would be allowed to use AI programs to assist me in expanding an article, but not to directly modify the article. I would not use the AI to directily edit the article, Iwould not copy AI generated text into the article, and I would do my own research to make sure any claims that the AI makes are backed by reliable sources, and that the sources it gives me do actually exist and confirm that the information is true. Can I do this, or would it violate the AI policy?

P.S. I haven't actually done this yet. Also sorry for the long paragraph. Any help is appreciated! DominikTuazon (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT is notoriously bad at creating pages, even with the structure, and it is immediately obvious when it has been used for new pages – many people working at the new pages feed will draftify pages with clear AI usage.

It's also often unable to find actual sources and will hallucinate things – you have covered yourself in this regard when you said you would do your own research and make sure everything the AI is responding with is correct. This seems more time consuming than just doing your own research and not relying on AI, but each to their own.

I personally advise strongly against everything you're proposing because of my own principles, but solely based off of your reassurances, I cannot see how you would be violating policy. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias, thank you for the reply. Generally, what I would want to do is use AI program to create a rough outline of the information I would want to add, and then do my own research about those areas. So, I wouldn't really use the AI after that. Basically, I would just use it to get an idea of what I should be looking for, without it actually doing the hard work for me. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "not doing the hard work", then - a serious question - what good is it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make a guide to get an overview of what information to look for. But I realized it probably wouldn't be that effective even for doing this. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially then what you'd be doing is writing an article WP:BACKWARD

You shouldn't have an 'outline' of an srticle before you've looked at any sources, because the way you make an srticle is by writing up the information available in the sources. There's no point planning a 'legacy' section if there's been no significant coverage of a subject's legacy, for example (and the fact ChatGPT would even suggest such a thing is one of its flaws - AI models are obsessed with emphasising 'legacy' and 'lasting impact' and 'recognition' for some reason, whether or not it makes any sense to do so) Athanelar (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving my opinion, not Wikipedia rules. If you are skilled enough to responsibly and properly edit the machine output, then you're easily skilled enough to do the entire thing yourself. I don't write articles, but if I was assigned to do so, I estimate it would take me 2× to 4× more work to edit AI than to just write them from scratch. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi DominikTuazon. Why do you need to use AI to do the things you described above? Just asking out of curiosity because you seem perfectly capable of doing all that by yourself and seem to have a plan as to what you want to do. If you're going to need to check everything AI has done to make sure it's OK for Wikipedia, you might as well just not go down that rabbit hole at all. FWIW, Wikipedia isn't intended to be WP:PERFECT and errors are expected. You don't need to worry about making mistakes because others will clean things up if you do. This is how it works for all of us. As long as you editing is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly Thank you. As I said above I would basically be using the AI to get an idea of what to write about, but I would be doing the actual research myself. Since some topics I might not know that much about and I would need to learn more about what I am adding to make sure it is correct. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

100%. A common reason people give is that they don't feel their English language skills are proficient but this is clearly not an issue here. I feel that you're just going to end up creating more work for yourself when you have to verify all the AI's information.

& @DominikTuazon I would personally advise against writing on topics you "might not know that much about" when you're a 'newer' editor. It makes an admittedly daunting experience even more difficult to navigate because information is much harder to verify. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, you're right it probably wouldn't be too good to use AI for this. So thank you for all the feedback. I've been mostly doing small edits so I guess if I need sources I'll just look for them manually. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way I also like to read Wikipedia to learn more about new stuff and sometimes I find small pages that maybe could be expanded, that's why I originally thought of using AI to help me. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DominikTuazon: Perhaps I'm more old-school than you, but you should be able to learn about something new without the aid of AI. In fact, not using AI will probably serve you better in the long run, unless your motivation is not so much to learn about something new but rather to learn how to use AI to learn about something new. In any case, I kind of agree what Aesurias posted above, in that it's OK to focus on subjects you're more familiar with when it comes to Wikipedia. That's pretty much what most Wikipedians do. This doesn't mean you can't edit things you no little about, but it does mean you just need to perhaps be a little more careful when doing so. In either case, just focus on editing in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you make mistakes (pretty much everyone does), just try to understand why they're mistakes and do your best not to repeat them. You don't need to use AI to do any of that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realized that I probably don't need to use AI to help me. I've been working with AI a lot but I don't need to use Wikipedia to help me with that. DominikTuazon (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't want to break any rules or anything... DominikTuazon (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely on the right track, in finding pages that would benefit from expansion. But if you hire a fast, hardworking, stupid liar to help you, he makes your job harder, not easier. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D DominikTuazon (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to use an AI as an assistant or collaborator, but not as an author.

Here's a recent example of an article I wrote with the help of ChatGPT: Star of Pure Land. Here's how I did it.

1. I asked ChatGPT to find reliable sources about "Star of Pure Land", making sure that each source is reliable and independent of the topic and gives actual significant coverage. I didn't ask it to write anything, I just asked for sources.
2. It returned with a list of several sources. I examined each one, and found that several reliable sources like ABC News and Washington Post had simply reprinted the original Associated Press source. I also found that two other sources ChatGPT suggested (Times of India and an India tabloid newspaper) are not considered reliable according to WP:RSP, although they looked reasonable, but I didn't want to rely on them. I pointed this out to ChatGPT, which offered to look into scholarly databases, but failed to find anything. Eventually ChatGPT agreed that only two sources exist that meet all the criteria of being reliable, independent, providing significant coverage, and not a reprint of another source. This didn't surprise me, because the news about the topic was reported only days ago. But two sources, plus a strong claim of significance, and maybe a third non-independent/primary source would be enough.
3. Then I asked ChatGPT to propose article body text only (no lead section or anything else) that summarized the main points of the two sources. It did so without citing anything, so I asked it to cite every sentence. It did so but made a mess of it, repeating full citations for every sentence.
4. This gave me a bare-bones stub article on which I could expand. I rewrote it in my own words (it was short, but that's fine as long as I can show the subject is notable and state only what the sources say), eliminating redundant sections and ChatGPT's seeming love for conjunction headings in the form "X and Y", and consolidating repeated citations using named references.
5. I asked ChatGPT to include information from a non-independent but reliable source, the Gemological Institute of America. It was unable to access the content even after I gave it the URL, so I pasted the content in, and it suggested a revision of one paragraph to eliminate secondary sources that were reporting on what this primary source said. That was fine, because there were already plenty of other assertions cited to the two secondary sources.
6. At this point I was about done with asking ChatGPT for help. While writing in my own words, I checked each statement against the cited source and revised if there was disagreement. I made multiple passes at this because I missed things, and ended up swapping some sources that didn't match their respective claims.
7. I found an implicit assumption that looked synthesized, and went back to ChatGPT one more time to ask about it. The AI agreed and suggested wording more in line with what the sources actually say. I revised the proposed wording a bit.
8. I continued making passes through the article, revising wording and rechecking sources.

As you can tell from this process, writing an article involves a lot of work, but using an AI as a collaborator made the process more efficient. If you know what kind of sources you need and can challenge the AI to find them, that saves a lot of time. It also saves a lot of time to ask the AI to pull out the key points in sources and summarize them, which gives you a good starting point for an article. But at no time should you ask the AI to "write a Wikipedia article" and simply copy and paste it.

That is how to use an AI properly on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the "Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1300-1310)" appear below the image?

[[File:Arkyves 242. Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin. Florence, Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore (c. 1280-1300); Author’s photograph.jpg |center |400px | Gaddo Gaddi (attr.), Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1300-1310)]]

Jp1008 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp1008: Try using a WP:THUMBNAIL markup instead. Captions seem to work fine with thumbnail images. If you do this, though, please don't set the image to a fixed pixel size per WP:THUMBSIZE; instead use a scaling factor as explained in MOS:UPRIGHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could also use various gallery options: see Help:Pictures#Galleries but note the advice at the top of that section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am interested in creating an article on the English language Wikipedia for the Belgian gypsy jazz group "Waso" (aka "Waso Quartet"), that presently does not have one. I have some print and web sources to use but there is additional information not contained there contained in an article on Dutch Wikipedia at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waso_Quartet, that has been entered there as "accepted information" but without explicit sourcing. I realise that English Wikipedia cannot use other articles there as sources, but does the same apply to other versions, when the information is not readily available via other means? Informed opinion/s appreciated. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any source that allows public editing is not accepted on English Wikipedia. That means Wikipedia doesn't accept Wikipedia as a source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, unfortunately, "not readily available via other means" = "not going into the article". Sometimes I wish it wasn't like that, even though I understand why it has to be.

I hope you can find the same material in a reliably published form. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the "not explicitly sourced" material there wasn't just completely made up by somebody? Athanelar (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken. To the extent that a Wikipedia page in another language Wikipedia is published, you could say that it is "published purporting to be true", but agreed, that does not mean that it is. Thanks all for your your responses. Tony 1212 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212 You're right that that material is "published purporting to be true", but almost anything fits that description. The English Wikipedia's rules for this basically come down to "Who exactly is doing the purporting? Do they already have a public reputation for truth, fact checking, and corrections? Are they known for badly slanted reporting on certain topics?"

If the answer is "An unidentified individual, with no public reputation for anything, biases unknown", you can see the problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix List of Suits episodes#Season 1–6 Olliefant (she/her) 09:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant GO to source code change "| color = #5FDFCF" into "| color1 = #5FDFCF". CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For future guidance See Television ratings graph/doc CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant: There was also an en dash instead of a hyphen. Fixed in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, amazing people! It's my first time here and I need help on improving a draft. So my draft on Draft:Martina Dimoska was declined by a reviewer who noted issues with formal tone, neutrality, and promotional language ("peacock terms"). The reviewer specifically criticized the first sentence. SpaceTrail (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. the article is clearly, in its entirety, AI-generated

2. the first sentence is a major issue as noted. "published and awarded", "innovator" and "internationally recognized" scarcely belong in a page, let alone the opening sentence of the lede paragraph.

3. you claim the image of Dimoska is your "own work". if so, you have an undeclared conflict of interest. if this isn't the case, why have you lied?

4. there are excessive external links, especially in the lede, that need to be switched out for inline citations

5. most of your inline citations in the rest of the article go before the period/full stop; they need to go after aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias, thank you for your feedback. Just out of pure curiosity, why do you think the article is AI-generated? I'll work on the second point, thank you for that (I had a full list of questions under this same message but I didn't use a source edit so it kinda disappeared 😅). Oh, concerning the image, the description was not aligning properly on the image (when I add it, it moves to the right instead of the bottom of the page) and I honestly forgot before making a review request. Pardon me for that. 😅 Additionally, I'll work on the external links at the top and switch that out to inline. However, since Dimoska is affiliated with one of the external links (International Space Alliance), would adding that inline be an issue? Lastly, I'll fix the citations-period situation! Thank you so much again! Looking to hear from you! SpaceTrail (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious signs that the page is AI-generated are:

a. the overcapitalization in section headers (e.g. "Media and Public Speaking" rather than "Media and public speaking")

b. vague claims like "Her entrepreneurial insights on leveraging analog missions for business opportunities in the Western Balkans were published in Forbes."

c. ChatGPT's "list of three" habit, where it will use three reasons as an explanation for something (e.g. "...began through volunteering (1), analog missions (2), and her 'ultimate pursuit of truth' (3).

d. some parts of the page use the standard short dash (e.g. "(2024-2027)", while others use an en dash (e.g. "(2023–2030)"). this inconsistency indicates the use of a large language model for large sections of the page while small parts were handwritten

e. some of your sources have been hallucinated by AI and do not exist. for example, reference 4

I cannot see how you have addressed my concern about the image. I'm not talking about how it aligns – you uploaded it to Wikimedia and claimed it was your "own work", releasing it under a CC0 agreement. Despite this claim, I have found the image on Instagram.

Perhaps the external link for the ISA group can be included in the external links section at the bottom of the page, but it shouldn't be used in the middle of the page – if you don't feel that it is notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia page, you can simply use the name of the organization normally with no link in the text. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias, I didn't see this on time, omg I'm sorry. So I definitely understand why you would think these point to AI, basically I did use AI to refine some sentences I got stuck with because they sounded weird when I typed it myself. On the first point, I would say it was a silly habit and I forgot to go a last sweep on making sure it aligned with WP's MoS (if you check my "publish summary", I used title case too to describe some if not all edits. Third point of yours with the GPT three reasons: I wrote two reasons initially (you would see it in the edit log) but I felt I needed to cite something there then it would be a claim(?) then I added the last one because 'ultimate pursuit of truth' was a direct quotation from the source I cited in-line. On reference 4, it took me quite a long time to find the actual agreement because I saw Martina post it on her LinkedIn and I felt that was really cool (but even I knew a linkedin citation wouldn't cut it especially since it's NASA so I searched and there is a publicly available document from NASA on awardees of the Space Act Agreement (but when I tried to cite that, it just turned around a message from Wikipedia that says PDFs are not reliable sources. Here's the list, just search Martina Dimoska (and I honestly cannot remember why reference 4 has that particular . Concerning the image, I missed that step and I have no excuses. And yeah, thank you for that notice on the external link. 🫶 SpaceTrail (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SpaceTrail. To add onto what @Aesurias very helpfully said, your draft doesn't actually give clear evidence of how Martina meets our criteria for inclusion. What it does instead is waffle in a promotional tone for paragraphs and paragraphs. I'd suggest substantially cutting down the prose: only summarise what reliable, secondary, independent sources state about Martina. qcne (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne, hi! Thank you so much for responding! So you think the fluff words overshadow what independent sources have said about Martina? I'm curious as to what aspects the draft is failing to meet under the basic (and additional) criteria for inclusion. I'll give that page another re-read but I'm curious on your perspective. Thank you! I'm looking forward to hearing from you as well! SpaceTrail (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing drafts it's fairly common to be able to tell within the first three sources or so if a person meets our criteria. Of your first three sources:

1. An interview (not independent).
2. A listing (not significant coverage).
3. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.

Not a good start, let's look at the next three:

1. 404 not found.
2. Connected with Martina (not independent).
3. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.

Next three:

1. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.
2. A listing (not significant coverage).
3. An interview (not independent).

Next three:

1. Doesn't mention her, which is very concerning as it means the source doesn't verify the preceding statement.
2. Her academic paper (not independent).
3. An interview (not independent).

So, really not ideal.

On Wikipedia, an article must only summarise what existing sources state. The sources need to be reliable and published, and to establish the criteria for inclusion need to be secondary, independent, and provide significant coverage of the person - one of the first 12 sources meet that criteria. More importantly, for biographies of living people, every biographic statement must be accompanied with a citation that directly verifies the information stated - three of the sources don't do that. qcne (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne, I really appreciate you for this, I'll add irrelevant, dependent references declutter to my checklist, among others. I really really appreciate you. I'll be dropping in occasionally and I hope you're here to say something again too. 🥹 Thanks! SpaceTrail (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When this thread gets archived, feel free to drop a msg on my User Talk Page. qcne (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne, omg thank you. 🥹 Will definitely do. SpaceTrail (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For example, there is a comically excessive reliance on LinkedIn throughout the page. This is not reliable or independent. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias, thank you so much for pointing that out. I thought because it directly supports some statements... but I definitely see how that shows dependence to the subject. SpaceTrail (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the team to help me check this account of mine (I opened the account a long time ago and tried to renew it), and advise me, how to move forward from here towards renewing my home page or is there anything else that needs to be done? And maybe I can also help others in the future. Sponsorid (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use multiple forums to seek assistance, as this duplicates effort. I'll respond at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve been working on a draft article for Chanali Village, located in Ajayameru Rural Municipality, Dadeldhura District, Nepal. The draft was previously declined due to limited sources, but I’ve added references including the official municipality website, OpenStreetMap, and district-level census data. Since Chanali is a small village, direct published sources are rare, so I’ve used ward-level data where needed and clearly noted that in the article. I’d appreciate help reviewing the draft and suggestions for improving its reliability and notability. Thank you! ~2026-50376-2 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I think that you inadvertently edited while logged out. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Chanali Village

Most of the draft is unsourced, and the sources you have seem to just document specific pieces of information; where are you getting your information? If, as you say, published sources are rare, then there isn't enough sources to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of proposing a policy on musical genres, specifically regarding which/how many reliably sourced genres should be included. I've noticed that in some articles, only the most relevant genres are included, but in others, there are many, many genres listed (all of which are reliably sourced, but some of which are just cited as influences). I just wanted to make sure there aren't any policies already on this. I know that genres must obviously be supported by reliable sources, as with all info. Are there any other relevant policies here? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloblinTheGoblin See WP:GENRE, as there is already a taskforce on this. See also WP:GENREWARRIOR: it is a controversial topic! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please discuss this at WP:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (and look through the Talk page and its archives. ) before you do anything.

You might also find the essay WP:Genre Warrior illuminating, or entertaining. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike but one types faster than the other. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the function of Bengali Wikipedia ~2026-49934-1 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-49934-1, you will have to ask at the Bengali Wikipedia as it is a separate unaffiliated projected to the English Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @. Try asking at bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:চাঘর ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use MiszaBot to archive my talk page, and am confused why User talk:Gommeh/Archives/2026/January isn't showing up on the list of monthly archives at the top. Not really sure where else I can ask this. Can someone help me figure this out? Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your question. Hasn't your archive always shown the newest month at the bottom? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found the problem. Evidently the {{monthly archive list}} template needs to be updated every year. Someone should really write a Lua module for that, but I'm too lazy to do it. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-

We created a page and it got blocked. We made a mistake in the tittle/topic. 

How can we delete the page and account and start from scratch? 

Thanks F.E. Johnson Jr. (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts can not be deleted due to technical reasons. However I can move drafts or pages for you - tell me what the draft or page is and the new title? qcne (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the user account @ User:Forest Johnson Photography

This user account got blocked!

I would like to change the username to FEJ and change Topic/Biography title to Forest Johnson Jr.

Can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.E. Johnson Jr. (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F.E. Johnson Jr. . The account Forest Johnson Photography was blocked by an administrator named Cryptic for not only a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy but also for making promotional edits. The username problem can be fixed by changing your user name but the "promotional edits" part isn't so easily resolved. I strongly suggest you follow the instructions given at User talk:Forest Johnson Photography#Blocked and request that account be unblocked. Creating a new account to conitnue editing as you did before was not a good at idea at all, and can be seen as block evasion even though you might have thought that doing such a thing was OK. You're really going to need to resolve the blocking of your other account before doing anything else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think, assuming good faith, this is a user who has no idea how Wikipedia works. Pinging in admin @Cryptic.

@F.E. Johnson Jr. you request a username change via Wikipedia:Changing username. qcne (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

F.E. Johnson Jr., the important thing to remember here is that Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion, especially self-promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides independently-written summaries of different topics, and trying to promote something violates this purpose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Representative sample from deleted draft: "After the passing of his father, Forest became totally involved in the family business with his mother, Heidi. Until then photography was only a hobby for Forest. Forest real interest was flying and especially in helicopters. As far back as 8 years old, Forest got an “A” on his Report Card, so his parents rewarded him with a 15-minute helicopter ride." The username was the least of the issues here. —Cryptic 01:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to note is the use of "we", indicating that the account is being used by multiple people. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I recently resubmitted a biography draft at Articles for Creation: Draft:Neel Hurerzahan.

I have addressed all prior reviewer comments, including sourcing, tone, removal of categories (per WP:DRAFTNOCAT), and I have also clarified that I am not a paid editor and have no financial relationship with the subject.

At this point, I am waiting for review. I am not asking for expedited approval, but I would really appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know whether there are any remaining policy issues or improvements I should make while it is awaiting review.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Saafayat (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"At this point, I am waiting for review". Yes, Saafayat, you are, or rather it is, waiting for a review. But in the meantime, here's an example of its references:{{cite web |url=https://mzamin.com/news.php?news=164735 |title=Manab Zamin coverage |work=Manab Zamin}}. No, "Manab Zamin coverage" is not the title. Please use |title= |script-title= |trans-title= |language= informatively and accurately. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's been declined again, so you needn't wait any longer.

See WP:NEWLLM. You aren't allowed to use an AI to write an article from scratch. It's full of vague, vapid LLM-speak that provides zero substantive information while sounding important. Examples are "Her work has been covered by national newspapers", "gained widespread attention", "received national media coverage", and "has been profiled or mentioned". A Wikipedia article should summarize what the sources actually say, and not simply note that "sources said something".

If you don't address this problem by rewriting the draft as a human, it will likely be rejected as contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia next time you submit it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move this page over a redirect to it, but I can't because the page "already exists" as the redirect. How do I swap them? Thank you so much, OliviaRigby (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OliviaRigby, please ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently vandalized an article out of pure frustration. I know this was wrong and I've apologized.

My question is straightforward: Are there any tips for handling the kind of frustration that causes strong impulses to disrupt Wikipedia?

I'm looking for practical strategies. What do you do in that moment? How do you stop yourself and redirect that energy?

Thank you. TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other advice to be given except to walk away. There's an essay I can't recall the name of now but it's basically "don't edit in an impaired state." If you're drunk or angry or very tired or anything that would impact your judgement the best thing to do is simply put Wikipedia down and come back later. Athanelar (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A good start would be to reflect on what you were feeling at the time that made you consider vandalizing, why you decided to do it, and what could be better alternatives if there’s a next time you feel drawn to do the same thing again.

If there is a next time, a long walk or run—preferably out in nature—would help redirect your energy much less disruptively! Augnablik (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have done extensive reading, misguided or not, about the meta workings of Wikipedia; the rules, policies, management, user rights, et cetera. I know that in this day and age, the necessary effort of maintaining and protecting the world's largest English encyclopedia often outweighs the necessary effort of adding new information; and with my interest more in the meta-aspects of Wikipedia, I wonder how I could contribute in ways that are less adding new information, but rather things like helping with vandalism, edit wars, arbitration, administration, conflict resolution, and everything between and beyond those?

Feel free to tell me if this is asinine. I know that I don't have any real history on this account or credibility in general, but a genuine answer would be incredibly appreciated. *LittleFinn9* (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have made no useful edits since being unblocked 4 years ago because it appeared that you were not here to build an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is what happened, which is why I’m asking earnestly what I can do within the interests I outlined in order to contribute.

*LittleFinn9* (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so I'm trying to review this angel cake image's license, and everything seems okay (CC BY-2.0). But when I checked the Flickr source for the license (https://flickr.com/photos/12261156@N00/16459308982), it returned as a dead link, and there are no archived versions of it in existence. How am I supposed to deduce whether or not the image is free to use on the Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites, and what should I conclude about the image itself? — Alex26337 ^(talk) 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]