Wikipedia:Teahouse

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]

For my draft, i had used AI to find sources. I cross-checked with the reliable sources list thing. I also read the entire page.

Would that be okay? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 02:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention how you wrote. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you personally chose every single word (except for the sources), then your chances of success are good. If AI chose some words, then delete the whole thing except the sources, fully delete all of the AI words from your own machine so you can't ever find them or look at them again, and rewrite all by yourself with no AI. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also investigate the AI-supplied references yourself to check that they are (a) real and (b) actually support what you are citing them for? AI frequently 'hallucinates' references; that is, it makes up something that looks like a reference, or adds a genuine item that doesn't actually contain the relevant information. It's OK to use AI to help look for possible references, but never, ever trust everything it tells you to be real and accurate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31359-08, it’s refreshing to find messages like yours that mention one of the often overlooked legitimate and helpful uses of AI in work like ours. There are many more. But they’re often indiscriminatingly tarred with the same brush we use against AI’s questionable or dangerous uses.

Recently I’ve been noticing how often this topic is being discussed in respected news media like The New York Times, with articles drawn from the real-life world of work that show what a difference AI can make when used in an assistive role with human oversight … the more conscientious, the better, but Augnablik (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that most Wikipedia editors are conscientious ...

That could be the opening of a standup comedy routine. Of course AI can be used for good purposes, but the overwhelming majority of the time it isn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To AI, a few other things could be added in that comedy routine, TMF — things that have similarly received their share of demands to outlaw. At least initially, when they were invented.

For example, the Internet. I once met someone in person who strongly wished that would happen!

Then there was the calculator, that stirred up quite a commotion when it was invented, especially in the educational world. Why? Because people would lose their math skills and become overly dependent on machines!

Going back a little further, the dawn of electricity brought fear that it wasn’t natural and could lead to serious health issues.

Yes, TMF, I’m sure quite a comedy routine could be created if we keep going … Augnablik (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that looking at the proportions of how AI is being used can paint a bleak picture. However, I don't think it means we shouldn't use it altogether, I think we should educate ourselves on how to use it correctly.

If planes were sold to the mass public when they were invented, I'm pretty sure there'd be a similar situation to what we have now with AI: a lot of accidents or even nefarious actions that draw more attention than the correct applications of the creation itself Dinis12481 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They get a lot of pushback from people because the people that try to use it for good purposes aren't the kind of people with enough wikipedia experience to have proper judgement. It's kinda like machine translation, iirc we limit that to extended confirmed users because it can be really useful if used with proper oversight mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To the temporary account, I in fact did read the entire source. SomnambulantLobster (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'm SomnambulantFish's alt account, btw.

(I promise i'm not a sock) SomnambulantLobster (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI is a scam. ~2026-36303-7 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I’m working on a draft article about a company I’m affiliated with and want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia’s neutrality & notability standards. I got feedback that earlier versions were too promotional, so I’ve significantly shortened and neutralized the draft (removing any funding and awards entirely). Could someone take a look at this sandbox draft and advise whether it’s appropriate, or what further changes would be good to make? I’ve disclosed my conflict of interest and am looking for independent editor guidance.

Here is the draft: User:Willetling/sandbox

Thank you Willetling (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've placed your draft at Draft:Swoogo, draft space is the preferred location for submissions, which can be accessed via the Article Wizard.

Please disclose your status on your user page; if your affiliation is employment, you are considered to be a paid editor, see WP:PAID.

Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their routine activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage offers critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what tbe company views as its own importance. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. Frankly, most people in your position fail at what you are attempting, because it is difficult to set aside what you know about your company and limit yourself to summarizing what others say. Are you one of the rare people who can? Possibly, but the odds are against it, especially without prior experience editing. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral is good, and required of course, but neutral-sounding promotion is still promotion.

Making an article where the boss shouts "This is no use at all!" is exactly what's needed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Willetling, 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.

If it tells what the subject wants people to know, and not (almost exclusively) what people unconnected to the company have said about it, then it is promotional

Unless it cites, and is almost entirely based on, several sources that meet the requirements above, it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Willetling!

Currently, your article contains no references. For a subject to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it must have multiple independent (not from the company), secondary, reliable sources (you can learn which sources are considered reliable and not reliable at WP:RS) that cover the subject in reasonable detail, not just a passing mention. While there is no specific minimum of sources, I personally use 3 or 4 as a baseline.

You will also need to declare a Conflict of Interest on your user page and when creating the draft at the Article Wizard. Once you've created a good article that explains some of the basic facts about the company and can establish that it's notable, you can go ahead and submit it. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling over the requirements in everyone's responses, I reckon the company doesn't currently merit a Wikipedia page. While we have a real presence in our particular industry, and some very notable companies use our products, I can't point to any noteworthy media coverage that would meet these guidelines.

Almost 20 years ago I was in a band - back then we just slapped a Wikipedia page up and it was good to go, lol. I think the world of Wikipedia has changed, and that's probably a good thing. So, thank you for all that you do Wikipedians, I will shelve this idea for now unless something changes. Thanks for the insight. Willetling (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hope this is the right place to ask a question about an article draft that´s been declined.

Trying to create a page for an artist, got very good feedback for changes, then not much happening. Should I post link to the draft here?

Any assistance in getting the submission right would be greatly appreciated! ComputerSaysYAY (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you're talking about Draft:Pekka Stokke?

Have you read the comments left on your draft by the reviewers? I'm not talking about the rejection reason (the big red box at the top), but the comments that are right below them. The give a pretty good explanation for the rejection of your draft: the article currently doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. 🍅 fx (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ComputerSaysYAY!

I looked at the draft and the rejection reason (it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article).

Generally, the structure of a Wikipedia article for a person goes something like this:

Biography

Career (their main milestones in their career, chronologically)

Personal life

Most of what you are putting is their art style, which would be best under its own section near the bottom of the raticle. Notable works is also fine, that can all be put under career. The main idea is you also need biographical information. You found a bunch of good Reliable Sources there, so you're already halfway to a good article. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply responding to Malikindahood07 and Mandruss removed my message, the message said "Well... Half of americans are Trump supporters, and Wikipedia follows others (reliable sources and other stuff) rather than having its own opinion about it, therefore as Mandruss said, establish a consensus.", I didn't said anything bad, yet Mandruss removed it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for additional context, i responded to Malikindahood07's message "It is time to qualify trump as a far-right politician, calls human immigrants animals, said why won't we get some people from Denmark or Norway, banned 75 non-European countries from applying for an immigrant visa. Trumpism is far-right. Not to mention his other policies or comments.", and i responded with "Well... Half of americans are Trump supporters, and Wikipedia follows others (reliable sources and other stuff) rather than having its own opinion about it, therefore as Mandruss said, establish a consensus.", Mandruss had also responded to Malikindahood07's message, saying "Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. -- Response per consensus 74. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow.". ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered talking to Mandruss first? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the US post 1996 have an active arbitration remedy, that information should be in a banner at the top of the page. Except for making an edit request, users who don’t meet the required permissions should not engage in conversations on the talk page. See Contentious Topic procedures. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl: AP2 does not have a blanket 500/30 rule, and the talk page is not protected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not exactly a new user, but I would like to have some opinions about creating a certain article. I am planning to make an article on a certain family. Three of the family members have their own Wikipedia pages and two have redirect pages and six others are mentioned. The family on the whole is extremely influential. Also, some members are kind of notable but not that notable, so I was thinking to include them in the family page.

• Hasan M. Elahi
• K. Maudood Elahi
• K. Mukhtar Elahi

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueMoriarty The challenging part is demonstrating that the family is notable. You need to have sources that discuss the family as a whole in some detail; notability is not inherited from the notability of individual family members. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only emphasizing something Helpful Raccoon already said: Wikipedia will only publish a whole-family article if reliable independent sources have already published whole-family articles that are significant. Wikipedia won't accept something that's put together from sources where they're discussed individually. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now the thing is that this family has a book written about them. Also in multiple websites they are mentioned that they are 'notable for their academic and philanthropic activities'. In a lot of newspapers also I found mentions about them and their activities. Also I found out that 2 or 3 times the family members murdered another family member. One murder amongst them created a huge wave all over the country as the judge was bribed with 30000000 takas (according to some websites and newspapers). The family is also notable for being amazingly rich and philanthropic and also for a few other things

But are they notable for Wikipedia?

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for anyone to tell without seeing the sources. A book written about them is a good sign, assuming the author is unaffiliated with the family and it is reputably published. If you want a second opinion you can always submit a draft through articles for creation (although drafts often take a while to get reviewed). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I will try that.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 06:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Example: If they paid for a book to be written about them, or if one of their companies or their friends' companies published it, the book would count for almost nothing on Wikipedia. But if the book is from someone who has no connection with them, it matters a lot more. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A problem I noticed that K. Mukhtar Elahi's page in English and Bangla Wikipedia are not connected. Could you please suggest me how to fix it?

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is an issue with Wikidata, which I am not too familiar with. There are two Wikidata items wikidata:Q137644969 and wikidata:Q118216704, one associated with each article, that need to be merged together by following the instructions at wikidata:Help:Merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the tone of the text. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template you're looking for could be Template:Tone or Template:Tone inline. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 23:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like for the entire article. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's Template:Tone. It would be implemented with {{tone}} which produces

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Does this work? VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, maybe also neutrality, but i don't know, can you show me the code for it so that i can put it in a article? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{tone}} toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 20:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about neutrality? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV}} VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird question (considering I'm currently in the Wikipedia Teahouse), but how can I answer unanswered teahouse questions? Thanks! Ilovebread7271 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovebread7271 hello and welcome to the Teahouse! If you know the answer to a question asked at Teahouse, click the blue "Reply" next a comment's signature, type your answer in the the text field, and click the blue "Reply" button below.

For more details, see Help:Talk pages#Reply tool. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovebread7271 Please make sure you are deeply familiar with all of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia before answering questions. There are many subtleties involved, and it's easy to give incorrect answers if you are not an experienced editor. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone help me with this article. because I written it and I don't know if is meets NPOV ~2026-31993-5 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is a device that you have no connection to, then it should pass NPOV, I read the article and all you did was state the facts, seems pretty neutral. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-31993-5, NPOV is not the problem. You need to find at least three sources that discuss the subject independent of Xiaomi and its employees, in reliable sources, and at some length. See WP:42 for more. Meadowlark (talk) 08:09, 17 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]

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]

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]

Hi, have had a new page I have created rejected as not having enough references. My problem is that some really worthwhile references - a full page of coverage for the subject in a national newspaper, and an extensive review of the subject in a different national newspaper, are both behind paywalls, so it is impossible to link to them in a meaningful way. I don't know if there is a way round this? Tom Canavan (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tom Canavan. Paywalled sources are fine to use, and drafts shouldn't be declined for this reason alone. If you have paywalled sources, cite them as normal (with full bibliographic information to allow a reader to find them), then wait for a reviewer who has access to come along and review the draft. qcne (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Canavan, you can also include a highly relevant quotation from each paywalled source in your reference to that source. I suggest limiting that to two sentences. And you can describe the depth of coverage of the paywalled sources on the talk page of the draft and offer to email copies to AFC reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful - thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviewers will have access to the Wikipedia library and hence resources like newspapers.com and other newspaper archives. The key is to give a full citation, preferably using the template {{cite news}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom Canavan (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Also, if the Wikipedia Library doesn't have it, the Wayback Machine (often used for dead links on Wikipedia) removes paywalls automatically so you can see the entire content. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. Many thanks. ~2026-35113-4 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inexperienced editor here, I was wondering if a book by an author who experienced an event first hand (like Requiem for Battleship Yamato by Mitusri Yoshida, who has a navigator on the Yamato during her last sortie) would be considered a reliable and trustworthy source, Thanks! Panzer VI 17:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, you should read WP:RS (Wikipedia's guideline on how to tell if a source is reliable or not) and WP:OR (wikipedia's policy about original research). Good luck editing! Much love jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 17:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Panzerkapmfwagon. You are describing a primary source, namely an account written by a participant. Secondary sources are best for such articles, such as books written later by naval historians. But primary sources can be used in limited ways, with care. The overall policy is No original research and the specific policy language can be found with the shortcut WP:PRIMARY. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s interesting, I get no original research but I thought first hand war accounts would be reliable, maybe not for notability but for the course of events, them being there, as opposed to someone else writing and perhaps get confused accounts, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i think it should be discussed on Wikipedia about whatever or not it is reliable, original research and notable. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A single person writing about their personal experience can produce a faulty account for a number of reasons. Human memory is much less reliable than most people appreciate, and a person may even have reasons to deliberately falsify their report, to make themself or a group with which they are associated look good, or to make someone else look bad. On the other hand, reliable secondary sources will presumably do research and use multiple sources to cross-check and verify what they report. CodeTalker (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes that makes sense, I guess it depends on context and whether the account seems real or not. I suppose a book written b a veteran in 1950 would be for more reliable than one written in 2020 for example. I suppose most media would be biased, especially in the context of war (and depending on the views of the author, even if they don’t realise they are being biased), for example at school WW1 was taught in a pretty biased way, although in my view The German empire wasn’t “evil” like we were taught (unlike WW2). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New to editing - found a definition for a medical term "Dependent" trying to edit and replace - gotta go thanks and thanks for Wikipedia

dependent drainage

de·pen·dent drain·age

drainage from the lowest part and into a receptacle at a level lower than the structure being drained.

Synonym(s): downward drainage

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012 Tobyw (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear which article you think this applies to, or why, but Wikipedia is not a not a dictionary; try Wiktionary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I save edits to an existing very small stub article without publishing the edits until I have completed all edits intended, which will take a long time? I am under the impression that I will lose any edit to any article unless I publish the edits before closing wikipedia. I could not find an answer to my question after hours of searching, and then attempting the sandbox subpage for my account. If you also can tell me which template to use for an namespace Article that includes common categories and the sidebox summary about the individual, please do. I do not want to start as a new Draft article if possible since the page already exists. Link is C.W. Kim Reply to visual editor. Thank you. Emanresu0 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just put a work in progress notification and work on it, with a couple of edits, and then save, and then continue, you can do that work over multiple days, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the article to your sandbox (or another page in your user space) and work on it there. Copy it back when done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that’s a smart idea Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need this. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanresu0 The article is currently very poor and lacking in citations to show how Kim is notable in the way we require. No-one will mind if you expand it one part at a time. I suggest you work on one new source you can cite and summarise, save/publishing your work as you go. Then move on to the next source and add the information it provides. Edits to Wikipedia don't have to add everything all at once and many editors here would suggest that a stepwise approach is best. Once you have added substantial information, the article can be summarised into an associated WP:Infobox using a template such as {{infobox person}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which template is the easiest and most comprehensive for expanding an existing stub article into a full Article about an individual? Is there a way to upload typed text from a word or notepad document into a wiki article OR save my edits in wiki an exist wiki without publishing the edits until I am done? Emanresu0 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad is a good fit for Wikipedia stuff; Word is not. But the best way is to open your material in Notepad, copy it, and paste it into your sandbox, then work with it there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the way to upload text from Notepad app on my computer to wiki. Where or which icon is it in the wiki bar?

Also which template is most efficient for a long article? Thx. Emanresu0 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanresu0 There is no direct icon to upload from Notepad into a developing article. Instead, you need to use the standard copy/paste mechanism (Ctrl-C and then Ctrl-V in most standard applications). The paste part is easiest in Wikipedia's source editor but should also be possible in the visual editor. I'm not sure what your question about templates refers to; perhaps you could clarify. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Before seeing your reply, I decided to test Notepad and Wiki sandbox, and learned that the cut and paste appoach appears to be the technique. The template inquiry is because wiki has a library of templates to structure articles and produce them more efficiently. Unfortuanately, they are not named or sorted in a way that is easy to find the basic template for an article about an individual that includes headings, images, summary text box, references already in the structure so that the author doesn't have to figure all of that structure out. Emanresu0 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have some experience in another language section, but I'm not very active here, so that's why I decided to choose this forum. I created an article about the Russian science popularizer Alexander Panchin. A colleague placed a template requesting confirmation of the subject's notability using secondary sources.

It seems to me that these two links (1, 2) sufficiently cover both his work (the book) and his overall activities. The first one is written by the editorial staff of Snob magazine, a fairly large publication founded by Vladimir Yakovlev. The second is published in the journal Novy Mir, one of Russia's oldest monthly literary-artistic journals; it was written by the award-winning writer Maria Galina.

Furthermore, several of Panchin's works have been awarded prizes: the Enlightener Prize and the Belyaev Award. 1) The Enlightener Prize's importance is reflected in the direct reviews in major newspapers and magazines: 1 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), 2 (Daily Journal, article by Galina Yuzefovich). 2) There is an article in the online Great Russian Encyclopedia about the Belyaev Award.

I believe that together, this satisfies point 4 of the WP:AUTHOR guideline: "The person's work (or works) has: <...> (c) won significant critical attention".

Panchin is frequently invited as an expert by major Russian-language publications, including Vokrug sveta (the longest running magazine in the Russian language), Forbes Russia, RBC, and BBC News Russian calls him "one of the most famous popular science bloggers on YouTube". I think this may satisfy the first point of WP:AUTHOR: "The person is regarded as an important figure".

I am asking for assistance in removing the template, since as the article's author, I have a conflict of interest. All the provided links are already on the page. Metra pro (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss this would be on Talk:Alexander Panchin. You can WP:Ping the reviewer, Ldm1954, by putting their name in brackets like User:Example. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, thanks for the answer. We've already had a conversation on that page (actually, my post is a summary from there), but we still haven't reached a consensus. I understand that this is a ton of text in an unfamiliar language, perhaps someone will be interested in this topic. This may not be the best place to bring my issue to attention, but I saw that there were responses from experienced editors here. Metra pro (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, my bad, I should have checked. In this case, I think it's not a bad thing to leave the tag if there's some doubt, but we'll see if someone who is more familiar with Russian-language sources can offer an opinion. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read/speak Russian, but I've joined the conversation on the talk page to hopefully clarify what we're looking for in an article :) Meadowlark (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Replied on the talk page. :) Metra pro (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We started drafting an article in English about a francophone musical artist, and realized that the sources and information was better supported in French as the primary language. Will it go through the regular channels of AfC for review or should I submit elsewhere? Thank you! Arthelme (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the French Wikipedia? randomdude121    01:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the French Wikipedia would be better for this. With AfC, we cannot accept articles that are not in English. You may use non-English sources and references, but the article itself needs to be in English. • Quinn (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Quinntropy and @Randomdude121, that makes a lot of sense. I will submit the draft to French Wikipedia. Arthelme (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arthelme, who is this "we" you are referring to? Is more than one person accessing the 'Arthelme' account? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anachronist, sorry if that led to suspicion! "We" is me as a main author + two university friends who are better acquainted with the topic culturally and have access to physical sources that I don't have direct access to. Arthelme (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthelme: The language of the sources is immaterial; we accept non-English, print, and non-English print sources. All that matters is if the sources have editorial oversight and discuss the subject at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They were asking to write the English Wikipedia article in French, not if French references are OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arthelme, The language of the sources is immaterial; you may write the draft in English using all French sources, or you may write it in French and submit it to French Wikipedia, or both; your choice. If you write it in English, you may submit the draft to me and I will review it. Before you do, though, please read through Help:Your first article, and go through your draft following the Help page step by step, and make sure it is compliant, as I won't review it if it is not. Write to me on my Talk page if you want to take advantage of this offer. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mathglot, super grateful for the offer! The current draft is in French so I will roll with that. Glad to see people keen on helping! Arthelme (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arthelme, I see that you are developing your draft at fr:Utilisateur:Arthelme/Brouillon, and the submission was just declined an hour ago by User:Matpib, for reasons that we would call here at en-wiki as failing to demonstrate the WP:Notability of the topic due to a lack of citations to reliable sources in your draft having significant coverage of the topic. But note that these links are all English Wikipedia links, and at French Wikipedia, you must comply with French Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular; fr:WP:Notoriété, fr:WP:Vérifiabilité, and fr:WP:Sources fiables. The key sentence to pay attention to for you in your draft, is the first sentence at fr:WP:CGN, and the definition of Couverture significative et durable right after it (not shown):

Si un sujet a fait l'objet d'une couverture significative et durable consacrée à lui par des sources fiables et indépendantes de ce sujet, il est présumé être suffisamment notoire pour rendre possible la création d'un article ou d'une liste indépendant(e).

That is what you have not yet shown in your draft, and must show before it will be accepted. Good luck with your draft at French Wikipedia, and if it is accepted there, feel free to translate it yourself, and submit it here in English. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Arthelme: because you started here at en-wiki before your first edit at fr-wiki, your volunteer mentor is English Wikipedia user Whpq. The mentorship program by default only supports one mentor per user (although you can add more) so you won't have another mentor at French Wikipedia yet, only here. If this situation is acceptable to you, you don't have to do anything. On the other hand, if you would rather have a volunteer mentor who is more experienced and knowledgeable about French Wikipedia (not me—I am only slightly familiar with it) then you can ask for someone to "claim" you at fr-wiki, after enabling your user homepage there. You are always welcome to ask questions at the fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux, regardless who (or where) your mentor is. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know 17 January is an official day worldwide to recognise mentors and all they do ? It began as an extension of National Mentoring Month in the US throughout the month of January, but it’s now celebrated on just one day.

Navigating the twists and turns of becoming Wikipedia editors is so much easier with the help of a mentor. Here in the Teahouse, as well as at other Wikipedia help venues, we also get quick, insightful, and ongoing help—day in, day out from tireless hosts, who, like mentors, receive no pay other than the happiness that comes from helping. So ...

◆ Let's "think and thank", pausing to consider all we receive from them and perhaps sending them a few words of gratitude.

◆ Perhaps this occasion could also be a time for some to think of becoming a mentor or a help venue host themselves as a way of giving back.

◆ This year seems a perfect time to begin a new annual tradition on 17 January, as it's the 25^th anniversary of Wikipedia and mentors have been a large part of its success story! ~2026-35535-5 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

when I first joined and started editing a few weeks ago, I had edited the Weezer page and someone needed to check it in order for it to be published, but now it just publishes without needing to be checked (I think) Weez3rforever (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Weez3rforever. That page has and is still under Pending Changes protection, which means that pending changes reviewers or administrators must review an edit before it is visible to those without an account. Funny thing; I'm actually listening to Weezer right now as I'm answering! toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 05:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby ah, thanks !! oh haha cool!!! I like paperface, I just heard it today but it's already my favorite by far Weez3rforever (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if you have 10 edits and have been around for 4 days, you gain the confirmed status. This allows you to edit most pending changes protected pages without having to be reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or an admin. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs oh alright!! how do I check that?? Weez3rforever (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind I found out Weez3rforever (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:UserRights/Weez3rforever for future readers of the archives. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i had asked someone else but I got confused uhh how do I make my signature all cool and colorful and whatever | there's just one thing her wedding ring, or anything she left behind, forgot to pack how the hell is she gonna get it back? PAPERFAAACCCEEE!!!!!!!!! -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 05:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signature tutorial Versions111 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

your signature now is much too long with these song lyrics. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "reach out a hand (hold on to hers)"? There are much longer signatures on this page, and nobody says anything about those. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers, I'm pretty sure the entire signature is everything past the |, not just the linked part. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that works, but if it's true, then OK yes it's way WAY too long. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume so since several [1] [2] [3] of their other comments include it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I thought I was going nuts reading that message, now it makes slightly more sense 😂 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no it's everything past the |, I don't know how to make it like colorful (the actual links I mean) | there's just one thing her wedding ring, or anything she left behind, forgot to pack how the hell is she gonna get it back? PAPERFAAACCCEEE!!!!!!!!! -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 18:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Osa Akwamarynowa i'll try that, thanks | there's just one thing her wedding ring, or anything she left behind, forgot to pack how the hell is she gonna get it back? PAPERFAAACCCEEE!!!!!!!!! -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 19:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

replied to the wrong person. sorry I'm a little tired, I meant @Versions111 | there's just one thing her wedding ring, or anything she left behind, forgot to pack how the hell is she gonna get it back? PAPERFAAACCCEEE!!!!!!!!! -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 19:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

use html codes. Try span.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueMoriarty what's span?? | there's just one thing her wedding ring, or anything she left behind, forgot to pack how the hell is she gonna get it back? PAPERFAAACCCEEE!!!!!!!!! -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 19:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worked -reach out a hand (hold on to hers) 19:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

good job. Very nice

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 09:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to view the a prior deleted page (Tyson Apostol). I wanted to review what the old page looked like so that I can fix any mistakes and make it into an actual page instead of a redirect. Likely was just deleted as it wasn't created correctly. Dresq23 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dresq23, try a WP:REFUND request. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Apostol is a redirect, and protected. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination). You can already read the deleted article, here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a title in an article in a sandbox? Илларионова Полина (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Илларионова Полина: you can't actually change the title as such, you instead move the page to a different title. I've already moved your sandbox draft to Draft:Tomáš Kulka. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete my draft? Илларионова Полина (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could "blank" it (delete its content, aside from DoubleGrazing's decline message), Илларионова Полина. This would be interpreted as a desire to delete. But I think that this would be a pity, as the draft shows promise. (NB A decline message means "Not yet, but keep trying".) Are there no reviews of Kulka's books that you could summarize? -- Hoary (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some tea for me? ~2026-36161-8 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

☕️🫖🧋🍵🧉

Here are all our teas, pick whichever is to your fancy Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does the “teahouse” actually have anything to do with tea? Has tea (the drink) ever been involver or connected in any way with this place? Just curious. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Teahouses are often associated with socialization, so the theme gives this forum a friendly atmosphere. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 00:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

^involved

which leads me to another question.. is there any way to edit comments / questions after they’ve been posted to correct, for example, spelling errors?? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The same way one would edit an article. Just try not to majorly change the message of your post after it has been read. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 00:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So others can also re-edit my comments if they wish, or is it just me which has that ability? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can edit each other's comment's technically, but there is usually never a reason you should. Fixing your own comments is fine. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 00:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing someone else's comment in an ordinary discussion is very rude; in a tense argument it's dishonest/evil.

Editing your own comment before it gets a response is totally fine. Editing it after it was responded to can be pretty confusing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Last question.. So if for example another person deliberately re-edited my comments with spelling errors (to make me look stupid) or change the wording (to materially change the context of what I’m saying).. I’d be able to change it back? I give these examples because both have happened to me before here on Wikipedia, many many years ago. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 00:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that there's an exception: as far as I know, admins can delete or change any comment if it violates a rule.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. just to clarify the incidences i was referring to was when I was kid writing on Vikidia as part of a school thing. My contributions were fine but someone vandalised my edits and comments. I’m as certain as I can be it wasn’t an admin. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - I knew already that you were telling the truth and that you knew what you were saying. I just don't want people to later flip out on an admin who's only doing their job. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Xiaomi Redmi note 13 4g

How to check if a Wikipedia citation is reliable or not? Cn you give me some guides to cite and add reliable sources as well? Phong062474 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For general guidance about reliable sources, see WP:RS

If you want to ask other editors about whether a particular source is reliable, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Athanelar (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for how to cite, see Help:How to cite and Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to improve the article Double fisherman's knot and found some academic sources and other articles to cite. I noticed that the pages for the related knots Fisherman's knot and Triple fisherman's knot are also fairly short and don't have many sources. I thought it might make sense to combine the three articles instead of mentioning the same sources in all three articles. I'm not sure if that would be contentious or an acceptable project to work on. If it would be ok, I'd also like input on the best way to go about it. Should I draft the new combined article first and then ask for help with the redirects? Is there a best practice on preserving the edit history? Would it be best to just start out with the first article and come back to the incorporation of the other two? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScrubbedFalcon. An "article merge" is definitely a acceptable project to work on. Having a unified article about a parent topic with variants, or set of related topics, that are each themselves too small to merit their own well-formed article is common. I'm not sure how contentious it would be in this specific case, but no harm in starting a discussion to see what other editors of those pages think. One good basis for that discussion could be the draft of what you envision the merged page might be. See WP:MERGEREASON for more details, including how to tag the proposal. Or feel free to ask here:) DMacks (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the advice. I put a draft of what I have in mind here: Draft:Fisherman's Knot Merge Page. I combined the material from the three pages, added a history section and new information/citations. I can't figure out how to combine the info boxes, maybe someone could help me with that before I go ahead with the proposal on the current pages? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given how specific and information-rich {{Infobox knot}} is, it's reasonable to consider having three separate infoboxes for the three separate variants in this more general article. Good detail to ask about in the merger discussion. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the discussion here: Talk:Fisherman's_knot#Merge proposal and added the templates to the pages. I hope I did that right. Any input on how long the discussion should remain open? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a low-traffic page like that, around a week is generally adequate unless a debate arises. -- Avocado (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there isn't a page for The Fox Experiment. I have the game, and am wanting to make the page for it; However, I'm not certain how to go about it. Does anyone have advice for how to create a new page about a board game? UnscapeableDeath (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first step should be looking for sources regarding it, like reveries from board game sites, and news sites etc Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse!

My article Draft:Amaruk Kayshapanta was previously declined at Articles for Creation because it showed signs of having been generated by a large language model. I have now revised the draft.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s standards before I resubmit it.

Thank you very much for your time and help! Ethnolad (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ethnolad, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you are asking for is a review! Please resubmit your draft to get that review. ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have resubmitted the draft after revising it. Ethnolad (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please advise whether I should remove

{{AFC submission|d|ai|u=Ethnolad|ns=118|decliner=Pythoncoder|declinets=20260115033324|ts=20251220155908}}

and keep only

{{AfC submission|||ts=20260117232421|u=Ethnolad|ns=118}}? Ethnolad (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that was not put there by you, you're not allowed to remove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i allways wondered, what would have happened if texas never got annexed by the USA? will it still be here, or be annexed by mexico again? ~2026-37188-2 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question for Wikipedia, @~2026-37188-2- this page is only for questions on how to edit Wikipedia. Try asking on Reddit. qcne (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting that Wikipedia is as an inappropriate place to ask speculative questions, and that this is an inappropriate page on which to ask general factual questions, ~2026-37188-2 might find some material of interest in the fictional Southern Victory series by the historically knowledgeable Harry Turtledove. Strictly, the question falls into the 'Alternate history' or 'Counterfactual history' categories often subsumed within Science fiction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I created an article recently on an, in my view, notable Bengali poet, singer and composer, called Roopchand Pakshi, which as far as I'm aware, is still in the New Pages Feed and remains unreviewed. I obviously understand that reviews are random and can take upto weeks or months, and that I can't or shouldn't request/rush reviews. Keeping all that in mind, is there an approximate duration that I could wait before the article got reviewed, or is there a way to speed up the review process without disrupting the system? Would love some insight! Dissoxciate (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dissoxciate - there is a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed new articles. it may take months, or days, or weeks - as they're reviewed in no particular order. However, the article is live on the encyclopedia and will become indexed by search engines within 90 days or when reviewed. qcne (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I haven't checked the patrol page in a while but 17,000 unreviewed articles? That's nuts. But yes, I understand. Thanks for the heads-up! Dissoxciate (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is actually shorter than usual at the moment as we have a backlog drive. qcne (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DissoxciateOne thing you can do is to be sure that you have demonstrated WP:Notability, because the article is likely to be draftified or nominated for deletion if not. Read through WP:Notability (in particular, WP:SIGCOV), WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources. For example: your first source, banglapedia.org is a self-published source and by definition, unreliable, so you can take that one out.

Another thing you can do: few reviewers here speak Bengali, and if you make it easier for them to review it by expanding citations to Bengali sources by adding a quotation of a key sentence or two copied from the Bengali source and translated into English directly in the citation using citation parameters |quote= and |trans-quote=, that may help. For example, like this:

{{Cite web |title=মানুষ হয়েও তাঁরা ছিলেন পাখি! পুরনো কলকাতার রূপচাঁদ পক্ষী ও তাঁর দলের কথা জানেন? |url=https://www.sangbadpratidin.in/entertainment/event/memoirs-of-famous-song-writer-and-singer-rupchad-pakkhi/ |website=[[Sangbad Pratidin]] |quote=এখানে আপনি সেই নিবন্ধের বিষয় সম্পর্কে বাংলা নিবন্ধ থেকে একটি বা দুটি মূল বাক্য উদ্ধৃত করবেন, যার ইংরেজি অনুবাদ পর্যালোচকদের ধারণা দেবে যে বাংলা উৎসটি বিষয়টি কতটা ব্যাপকভাবে কাভার করেছে। |trans-quote=(Here you would put the English translation of the Bengali quotation.) |quote-page=123}}

You could try posting a brief comment at the WP:India noticeboard, and if you are lucky, maybe someone will see it who can help. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While helping with cleanup, I’ve been coming across stubs and very thin articles. They don’t appear to qualify for speedy deletion (e.g., vandalism), but I’m wondering whether AfD is the appropriate next step, or if there’s an intermediate process.

Before spending time expanding or cleaning up an article, I’m trying to determine whether that effort would be worthwhile. For context, this is an example of what I’m looking at: Jasper Kim

Most of the references are either self-published (linked in) or the subject is the author of the article. Thank you. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a proposed deletion for these sorts of articles. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion process is basically a 3-step flowchart.

1. Does the article meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion? If so, put the appropriate tag on the article and move on.
2. If not, would deletion of the article be uncontroversial? E.g., the article has no or no good sources, you are not able to find any and you doubt anyone else could either, or would care very much if the article was deleted. If so, then WP:PROD and move on. Be sure to use Twinkle, as it will automatically alert you if an article has been PRODded before (since an article can't be PRODded more than once)
3. If all else fails, open an AfD to get consensus.

Athanelar (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before those three, the first step should be checks and alternatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another question while I’m working through cleanup: this article was on the list: Muslim conquest of Persia

The first source/reference [4] appears to present a theory about what happened, and the text in the article seems to follow that theory closely.

How should articles handle material that is presented as theory rather than established fact?

For reference, the book’s partial synopsis is below:

"Decline and Fall of the Sasanians" has already been praised as one of the most intellectually exciting books about ancient Persia to have been published for years. It proposes a convincing contemporary answer to an ages-old mystery and conundrum: why, in the seventh century CE, did the seemingly powerful and secure Sasanian empire of Persia succumb so quickly and disastrously to the all-conquering Arab armies of Islam?" Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "How should articles handle material that is presented as theory rather than established fact?"

A short and roughly-true answer: They should be constantly upfront about saying the source presents this as a theory. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important that theories be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT in terms of the amount of attention given to them in the article. A theory which represents established scholarly consensus bears discussing at length; a WP:FRINGE theory should get a passing mention at best. Athanelar (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAN

Can just anyone review an article? Do I need a special permission like AfC? I'd love to help out with the backlog but I'm not sure if I can just do it. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to know as well. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @akidfrombethany. Anyone can review a GAN, assuming you're capable of the task! Instructions are located at WP:GAI. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel confident doing so, please do read up on the instructions and review some articles. GAN is always severely backlogged, and there's a review drive in February if you need an excuse to get into it! JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:55, 17 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]

@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]

Hi everyone, I’m a newer editor and I’ve submitted an edit request on the Talk Page of a semi-protected article. The request proposes adding one sentence to the Legacy section referencing the HONR Network, using multiple independent secondary sources (CBS News, NBC News, NPR/Dutton). An editor replied noting that the Legacy section already lists several organizations, and I want to ensure the proposed addition is neutral, appropriately weighted, and policy-compliant rather than promotional. Would appreciate guidance on whether the framing and sourcing of the request is appropriate, or if it should be adjusted to avoid undue emphasis. Thank you. Boluwatifemoses (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say which article, or it's hard to help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

I’ve posted a proposed addition on the article’s Talk Page because the page is semi-protected and I’m not yet autoconfirmed. The request concerns adding a sourced sentence to the Legacy section about an organization formed by a victim’s parent, with coverage from CBS News, NBC News, and books reviewed by NPR.

An editor responded that mentioning one group may require mentioning others for balance. I’d appreciate guidance on whether the proposed addition is appropriate as written, or how it should be framed to comply with neutrality and due weight. Boluwatifemoses (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of guidance is already what you're going to get on the talk page. However, I think it's important to be aware of how balance is expected to work on Wikipedia, as described at WP:BALANCE - and continue reading as it also talks about false balance, where it's pointed out that not all stories really have two sides, and that there are times when people want to add bogus opposition to something just to make an article look "balanced". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox diplomatic crisis

This is my first time making a new infobox template btw 💔 ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 04:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this question is WP:Village pump (technical) Athanelar (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it works. VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you know a solution to cluster a bunch of references of the different pages of the same book, like the three references in the history section of Cius? I can't really unite them because each pages backed up different stuffs in the cited sentence and I can't really put the citation within the sentence.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say you can't put citations within a sentence? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the same reason why overlink is avoided, to make the page neat and easy to navigate. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples are not really very similar. And overlinking is not avoided for neatness, it's to keep useless information out of the way. Your citations are useful. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could try this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking at some pages I edited about FIRST Robotics Competition games. Last May I added a tournament bracket at Reefscape#Einstein Tournament Bracket, based off the previous year's bracket at Crescendo (FIRST)#Divisional Playoff. The content hasn't been edited since then, but the brackets on both pages now appear blank. Could someone help me get this fixed? Allegorically (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very near the top of the Crescendo bracket, a line beginning with RD5 has a pipe at the beginning AND another at the end. Does removing that ending pipe fix it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I don't know how I didn't spot that. Thanks.

I wonder what changed, I swear it displayed right before. Allegorically (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it hadn't worked back then, yes you certainly would have noticed. I have no clue what might have changed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I have been translating and creating new articles via Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia but it seems that I am the only one who's using this list. Why dont other editors use it? it could help out a-lot. Someone667 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this! I created a (worse) version for my engineering class last semester to do the exact same thing! I think the issue is that it is not listed at the New Page tab GGOTCC 08:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

would you like to share us this? maybe I could help. Someone667 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of an article on another Wikipedia, even on many other Wikipedias, is not evidence it ought to exist here, as the warning for new editors says at the top of that page. English Wikipedia has the strictest standards for sources and notability, and many things considered notable on other Wikipedias (like the Henry Stickmin collection) are not considered so here. Athanelar (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes things are on other-language Wikipedias because people put them there after they got deleted off enwiki and they haven't been removed yet. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just because something is on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it should be. DS (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point about notability and stricter standards on English Wikipedia, and I agree that presence on other Wikipedias is not proof of inclusion here. That said, I don’t think that makes the list itself any less useful. In practice, many high-quality enwiki articles have originated from other-language Wikipedias once sourcing and coverage were properly evaluated. The list isn’t about bypassing policy, but about improving editor awareness and workflow efficiency by surfacing topics that may otherwise be overlooked. Dismissing it outright risks losing potentially notable subjects simply due to discoverability gaps rather than policy failure.

Someone667 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm new to this and want to learn all I can about how this works and all the good stuff. I might be a little slow but I want to learn.

Thank you Jonilovelace (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I'm going to place some introductory information on your user talk page, that should provide some good starting points. It's probably good to start with the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia and learning how to contribute properly. I’m interested in improving articles related to education and social work.” LalitKDogra (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LalitKDogra, welcome to Wikipedia! I would highly recommend having a read of our policies and guidelines, an overview of which is at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. Remember that any additions you make to an article must only be a summary of a reliable, published source - and you need to cite the additions with that source. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Education where editors collaborate to improve education-related articles.

Let us know if you have any specific questions? qcne (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LalitKDogra Just asking, did you use AI (like ChatGPT) to help you write your question? David10244 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to find out how to post a profile of someone in wikipedia. Please advise me. I've just opened an account today. Thanks Jaliyaadda (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not host "profiles" that merely tell about someone. Wikipedia hosts articles that summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about people that meet our criteria for inclusion. (there are also more specific criteria for certain fields like musicians and academics). Not everyone merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the coverage in sources.

Diving right in to creating a new article is not recommended and likely to lead to a frustrating and disappointing experience. Please see the introductory information I will place on your user talk page. I would suggest spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well.

If you nevertheless want to attempt to create a new article now, you should first gather sources and determine if the person meets the criteria, you may then write and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not host 'profiles'..."—Please see profile, which incudes the definition "A summary or collection of information, especially about a person." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe 331dot's boilerplate would be better amended to say something to the effect of "Wikipedia does not host 'profiles' in the social media sense of the word" Athanelar (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it would be better not to lecture people on that point when that is not what they have asked for.

Wikipedia articles about people are routinely referred to as "profiles" in the press and everyday conversation: "his Wikipedia profile"/ "her Wikipedia profile"

We even do so on Wikipedia: "his Wikipedia profile (Wikipedia)" / "her Wikipedia profile (Wikipedia)" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully do not think it is correct to characterize a single sentence comment as a "lecture". 331dot (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have lurked at the Teahouse for a long time, and it has been quite common for various experienced editors, for years, to tell new and aspiring article creators that Wikipedia does not host "profiles". That advice has generally not been supplemented with "in the social media sense". Advice here might sound terse, and that's unfortunate. It is important to let new editors know (gently) that Wikipedia holds articles about subjects and not articles for subjects, and certainly not social media type profiles, and certainly not resumes (not that that was brought up). Wording all of that may be tricky. I think @331dot was not overly harsh or incorrect. David10244 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Andy, that is a meaning of "profile", but you're ignoring the context. It's like if somebody were writing about salads, and said "I don't like putting fruit in my salads" and you came back saying "But you put tomatoes in, and tomatoes are fruits". In online contexts, "profile" usually means a brief summary of a person created by that person or their associates, and that is what Wikipedia does not host. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring anything. WP:AGF also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience many people who use the word "profile" are here to write something very different from an encyclopedia article- which is not just "a summary or collection of information". It's not a matter of assuming bad faith, it's just a matter of guidance as to what exactly we do here. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need—especially here on the Teahouse—to falsely correct someone for using the entirely commonplace word "profile". Your reply would have been just as informative, and easier to digest, had your second sentence been omitted entirely. The key information is already in the third sentence, which is enough on its own. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to guide them now, before they start, or after, which will likely make them frustrated and angry when they are told what they are doing is incorrect? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The OP requires no guidance whatsoever over their choice of terminology.

As I noted above, your post without that was adequate guidance on the issue of biographies and notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about terminology. It's about their approach. People write profiles differently than they write encyclopedia articles. If I had read this, I would say "oh, I didn't realize, thanks." I can't influence the rest of the world, but I can answer questions here. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above for evidence regarding the entirely reasonable and commonplace use of the word "profile" to refer to encyclopedia articles.

There is nothing in the OP's post which can be taken as an indication of an improper approach. That is where AGF applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, thank you. The rest of the world is not here. I can only deal with what's in front of me.

I didn't say that they were being improper, nor do I think so. I'm trying to keep them from anger and frustration by getting out in front of a very common potential issue. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly encourage both of you to move this conversation to one of your talk pages if it's going to continue, because the poor OP is probably already immensely confused about why a debate has broken out underneath their entirely innocuous question. Athanelar (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, when you say this, you're not taking your own relevant experience into account. When people ask a Teahouse question about "posting a profile" of someone, you personally are already reasonably sure that they don't mean "summarizing the reliable independent sources about" someone. The fact that words can mean something is not an indication that they do mean it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attempt to tell me what I am thinking.

"The fact that words can mean something is not an indication that they do mean it"—precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 18 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]

@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]

The newcomer task recommender sent me to Anarcho-capitalism and I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to use other academic encyclopedia's as a source. I can't tell per WP:RS. Specifically I'm thinking about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Would that fall under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ScrubbedFalcon, other genuine encyclopedias are tertiary sources which are acceptable as references for certain purposes. You can find the applicable policy language at WP:TERTIARY. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, from which I just learned, "Each entry is written and maintained by an expert in the field, including professors from many academic institutions worldwide." So not only is this a tertiary source, but it's one that is high quality and that we can assume has hcorrect information. DMacks (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

On the page for the artist Mihail Chemiakin an editor recommended that I place a citation as my first footnote.

I am having a bit of trouble doing that but did manage to place the requested citation next to [citation needed]. I would be grateful is somebody could assign a number to this footnote and insert the citation in the appropriate spot in the references. It's been two or three years since I last worked on creating what I could for this page and I can't easily do this myself at this point.

many thanks

Alan Lamb

wiki/Mihail Chemiakin. Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Alan,

You placed the citation link directly next to the citation needed tag visible in the article prose, which is not correct. External links should never be visible in article prose. Thankfully someone came along and properly converted the link into a footnote.

Have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some guidance on how to properly add references if you use the source editor. The visual editor has a very convenient tool built in to automatically format web citations, too, which you can read about at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2 if you prefer using that editor. Athanelar (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Alan Lamb - USA. Welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for adding the citation. If you put the citation between <ref> and </ref>, the system will automatically generate a number, and put the actual text of the citation down in the References section.

Even better, if you use a citation template like {{cite web}} to include useful information like title, date, author, and publisher, it generates a far more useful citation. See WP:REFB for more information.

What actually happened to Mihail Chemiakin after you added your URL was that another user converted that to a properly formatted citation. Unfortunately, the user in question was then blocked, and another user came along and undid their change. However @Athanelar has now restored the citation. Please look at the code to see what they have done. ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone guide me properly?

Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another volunteer has already left some good links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try the Wikipedia Adventure. It's a good guide and you don't have to worry if you make mistakes since none of it is in real Wiki articles. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How comes when using mobile data on my phone I’m unable to post anything here on this website in certain locations.. whereas in some other locations I can?

I was visiting a family relative earlier and wanted to reply to someone’s message here on Wikipedia.. but it said I was indefinitely blocked from posting anything due to disruptive behaviour..yet here at home (still using mobile data) there’s no problem ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-19602-0! What likely happened is that the IP address of your family relative was blocked, because of bad behavior or vandalism by multiple accounts sharing that address or one unregistered IP account (before we switched to temp accounts, but that's another story). As IP addresses are based off location, you would not be able to edit it at that location. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that this doesn't mean your relatives did anything - anyone in their general area could have been the cause.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It’s a very rural area with only 3 homes so now I’m suspicious of everyone in the area of who it could be. My mind is working overtime right now. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well ranges and mobile proxies can be many people, sometimes hundreds, since they work a bit differently (I can't tell you all the specifics about it myself), so it doesn't necessarily have to be someone in your nearby locality. HurricaneZeta^C 21:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0 Many IP addresses, especially mobile proxies, are rangeblocked. This is because vandalism and disruption occurs often on these ranges and they are used by many users. However, in most cases you can circumvent this by creating an account, and if that's not possible you can request one. In very rare cases, the IP address will be hardblocked, which means even users with an account on that IP address will be blocked. This is usually done to prevent frequent disruptors who are long-term abusers. In such cases you can request an IP block exemption user right. HurricaneZeta^C 21:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that i understand I think. I had an account here on Wikipedia a very long time ago (like 8/9 years ago) but I didn’t do anything on it. It may still be active, but I can’t even remember my username let alone the password. Also, just to say, I have never been blocked or sanctioned in anyway.

I’ll be honest I’ve always been a reader but never a contributor.. i only ever get involved in some conversations on talk pages about the content, never the articles. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we love our readers too, but if you're ever interested in editing, we'd love to have you. I think the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Adventure is a great place to start--that's where I started! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to say. I shall seriously consider it. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to me too. Rangeblocks are weird. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 15:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going!! I'm really looking forward to it, I can't lie -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 22:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When and where is it ?

And would there be people who are blocked and interaction bans ? (Just Joking btw) ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0 I believe it's in the San Francisco Public Library, at least for the Bay Area. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s well out of my price & travel range. Maybe I can attend virtually… ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0 I think I might have seen something else about it being in NYC or somewhere else as well. Don't take my word for it though -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. anywhere outside of London and metropolitan green belt wouldn’t be possible for me. Is it just a US event? Probably I’ll have to check it out if it gets broadcasts online. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about strassenbahns, circa 1920, in Nurnburg or Nuremburg. I am an American with limited language skills. ~2026-38898-7 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-38898-7, the reference desk might be a better place for this question. HurricaneZeta^C 22:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps use your preferred search engine not for "Nurnburg" or "Nuremburg", but instead for Nürnberg or Nuremberg. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some info can be found at Trams in Nuremberg- Lectonar (talk) 10:35, 19 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 (

•  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]

Hey, I usually edit the German Wikipedia most of the time. But this time I made a correction in IrfanView, correcting the place where its creator lives (Lower Austria, not Vienna). However, I tried to include a reference, but it doesn't work correctly. I think that the main problem is here that I cite a source via the Internet Archive and this complicates the matter. Can someone help me to correct it? Temptos (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Temptos did you try these parameters: <ref>{{Cite web|url=normal url|archive-url=internet archive url}}</ref> (with all the other applicable parameters)? HurricaneZeta^C 01:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Temptos:I have checked, the reference format you included is correct. The cite error happens because you accidentally removed the source named <ref name="about">, which appears several time in the article. EleniXDD※Talk 01:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed another error, you put the archived link in the url=. No worries, I have helped you correct them. EleniXDD※Talk 01:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, I will try to do it correctly next time. Temptos (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem happens in Flourished Peony. Before this addition tag, I noticed there're constant addition of unreliable sources (e.g. social media user-generated, ai sources, synthesis of published material, original content etc).[5] [6] I remove those, but there are always addition of new ones. Since I don't have time to proofread all new added one in details again, and I do think that the viewership content of that section has excessive, unnecessary details and numbers (That part better trim down), I put a tag, hoping the article can be improved. Though the tag is kept being removed now, before the problem is solved [7] [8]

Any advice for me? I previously put warnings on their talk page, but that doesn't seem effective. I am unfamiliar with this situation and the possible next step. Thanks a lot EleniXDD※Talk 01:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EleniXDD: in the WP:BRD sequence, the next steps anfter bold change, and revert should be discussion on the talk page. Administrators can help by protecting the page from editing by most users, and then implementing the conclusions to discussions. If only one user is problematic, they can be blocked from editing that page. Then they should ask for changes on the talk page. user:StillLearningEditing has beed around for quite a while, so autoconfirmed protection will not stop their editing the page. WP:RFPP ia a place to request protection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try to have a discussion with them in the talk page again. If that doesn't work (no response again), I will ask for an extended confirmed protection. EleniXDD※Talk 02:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced content per WP:V and WP:RS

How would I make the WP policies like a hyperlink in an edit summary?

azh 02:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that by putting them in [[]]

e.g. WP:V , WP:RS EleniXDD※Talk 02:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks azh 04:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do i move pages or delete my articles? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For information about page-moves, see WP:MOVE. For informaion about page deletion, see WP:DELETE. There are lots of details because there are lots of different contexts (what page you want to move and where you want to move it; what page you want to delete and why you want to delete it). If you give some specific details, we can possibly give you better guidance about what the process is, and the likelihood that it is a reasonable action to take. DMacks (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Indrajaal

I am writing an article/Page related to an organization which is a startup and making quite a headline. But as I am new to the wikipedia, I am not sure as I have done the right editing to the page. I have made a draft but not sure how to make citations or add the right citations. My article is on company named Indrajaal. My username is:  Invincible0024

I have submitted the draft but need your help to check what I need to change to get it approved and what mistakes i have done.

Thank You in advance. Invincible0024 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you haven't found any independent sources with significant coverage on which to base this draft. All of the material you've used is either not significant (just mentioning the company, not telling a long story of its history) or not independent (someone connected with the company participated in the source, for example if they answered interview questions or sent material for publication).

Certainly this draft will fail unless you find several sources that are both significant (telling a long involved story with many paragraphs that are all about the company) and independent (having absolutely no participation by the company or connection to it). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me in this how to make changes and find the relevant information for the same ? Invincible0024 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did my previous message, about "significant" and "independent", make sense? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a COI concern here. (Went through the citations in draft, all pretty press release-levels of terrible. One is just a Forbes list of 300 corps in India.) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, COI seems like almost an academic issue when there's no possible way the draft could be accepted anyway. But I wouldn't be surprised. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Invincible0024, 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.

If suitable independent sources (which are more than reporting the company's ordinary commercial activities) don't exist, then no article is possible, and you should not spend any more time trying.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Invincible0024 Companies that are just starting out, and are not yet well-known enough to have been extensively written about in independent publications, are usually not established enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is often the last, not the first, place to write about a company. Readers are more interested in what notable things a company has done, and not who its founders are (or were). David10244 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone point me toward a guideline regarding inline citations and brackets? I often see things like (born 1971^[a]) but feel as if (born 1971)^[b] flows much better. Is there a reason editors are choosing the former option that I don't know about? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to personal preference as far as I am aware, but some editors prefer the former if the citation is to verify the birth year as it may be ambiguous which fact the citation is supporting. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias: MOS:PF says, "If a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the tags belong just before the closing parenthesis" (my emphasis). Deor (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind the "inside-the-parentheses rule" is that putting it outside makes it look as if it applies to more of the preceding material. There are cases where that problem might not really be happening, but might as well follow the rule anyway - they all look like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Surendra_Kumar_Munni. Siddharthtanu (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siddarthtanu Hello and welcome. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined for apparent use of LLM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Submission now rejected and nominated for speedy deletion. David10244 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse!

My Draft:Amaruk Kayshapanta was previously declined at AfC due to concerns about AI-generated content. I have since revised the article by rewriting the prose and removing generic or formulaic wording. The draft has now been resubmitted.

Could you please advise on whether any aspects of the current prose might still be interpreted as AI-generated, from a Wikipedia style perspective, so I can address them if needed?

Thank you very much for your guidance. Ethnolad (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Now that you have resubmitted the draft for review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over your draft. You might want to use {{ill}} on your links to eswiki to clarify that there is no English equivalent. Other than that, your draft looks relatively decent for a first article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethnolad General advice: stay way clear of AI. Just don't touch it. It causes way more trouble than it solves. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just wondering how long does it normally take for rollback request to get responds? I think the oldest request now is 8 days. Just wondering, thanks! G Zhong 11:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Variable, but I have drawn attention to the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for permissions/Rollback. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the current photo of Robert Moog is extremely poor and gives a bad first impression. there are other photos online that I think would work much better, but I can't upload them. how do I get an image changed? Arthur Deetoo (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; this is a big problem and it's precisely the work of WP:WikiPortraits. Most of the pictures that are on other Websites are owned by someone who has not given permission. Wikiportraits provide press credentials and otherwise help Wikiphotographers to go out and snap good pictures of notable people to replace bad pictures. I have contributed many thousands of my photos to Wikimedia Commons and they are scattered through thousands of Wikipedia articles but I like places more than I like people, so I don't participate in Wikiportraits. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this... doesn't link to wiki portraits. Arthur Deetoo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moog died in 2005. Good luck with that! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using image found online has to involved copyright and in itself is can be complicated. If you're interested you can look up Wikipedia:Non-free content (simplify version)
File upload wizard G Zhong 12:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the one article minimum. Arthur Deetoo (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When an image is uploaded to Wikipedia it gets a page under the File: namespace. Then you can reference that filespace page to transclude the image into articles. For example if I type [[File:Information.svg|25px]] it will transclude this image:

For a non-free image to be hosted on Wikipedia it has to be actually used in an article and not just sit unused in filespace. Athanelar (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The logic behind the one-article minimum is this: in order to retain and potentially make-available a non-free image, we have to have a pressing reason why we are obliged to use it. If we're not actually using it, there is obviously no pressing reason, so we shouldn't have it. Elemimele (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it on the wizard and I can't use the other upload thing. I don't own the copyright so what can I do? I'm just more confused. Arthur Deetoo (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content can't be used when we have an acceptable free-to-use option, as we do here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but the one we have is horrible! Arthur Deetoo (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a free image being bad is not a reason to use a nonfree one.

Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to be a completely free source of information. Using nonfree content is sometimes a regrettable necessity, but free content is always preferable. Athanelar (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an aesthetic judgement, but in terms of policy it is acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

aesthetic judgement!? look at it right now. it looks like a cheap horror film! Arthur Deetoo (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aesthetic judgement—as the rest of your comment confirms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is right, my apologies. Free to use image supersede non free content especially portraits of people. I think the next step is, how to obtain a free to use portrait of subject. G Zhong 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you leave me no choice. let's see if the bob moog foundation has anything I could use. watch this space. Arthur Deetoo (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that if they give you an image with permission for Wikipedia to use, that's still not a free image. Free content on Wikipedia means free for everyone to use, so they'd have to release an image under a Creative Commons license for example (to my knowledge, Wikipedia typically prefers CC BY-SA 4.0) Athanelar (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

to hell with your red tape! Arthur Deetoo (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be frustrating, as i've mention copyright issue is complicated. There are reason why these policy are there. If you're new to Wiki, maybe you would want to start contribution to Wikipedia with small edits first. Get to know and familiarised with the platform policy as baseline. G Zhong 14:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why? this is meant to be a source of free knowledge. why is there so much bureaucracy. Arthur Deetoo (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because, unlike some sites on the web, we respect the applicable laws regarding copyright.

If we ignore them, we are providing not free knowledge, but plagiarised content.

If you are approaching external bodies to request the use of their media, please first see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that's doublespeak! Arthur Deetoo (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a rebel organisation here to defeat law. Copyright law, love it or hate it, exists to protect the creators of the work. If you're an author and someone makes your writing free for anyone to read, because it's great writing and the world deserves it, then that's very flattering, but it won't pay the grocery bill. Respecting copyright law isn't red tape. It's respecting people's livelihoods. Also, we are not above the law; a free resource that fails to comply with law can be shut down, and then it's no use to anyone. We are both obligated and obliged to do the right thing, even when it's annoying. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a new editor seeking a 'notability check' for my draft: Draft:Ström Paris.

The page was previously declined, but I have since performed a major overhaul to move it away from a promotional tone and toward a historical record. I have integrated primary archival evidence from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and The Henry Ford Foundation (including specific accession numbers for items in their permanent collections).

I have also added verifiable historical context regarding the house's technical patents with the INPI and its connection to the racing driver Alfred Velghe. I have declared my Conflict of Interest as a paid editor on my user page.

Could an experienced editor please review the draft to see if it now meets the required notability threshold? Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you! GraphLumen (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have already submitted the article for review. There is a notice at the top of the draft page that says "This may take 2–3 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,377 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandal, Templated them, then they vandalized again, in a short time frame, which I reverted. Should I template them again, maybe they didn't see the template, but they didn't stop after someone before me templated them. Help? Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 14:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlet147 I'd be inclined to report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. qcne (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

(That was surprisingly quick.)

Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 15:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They also haven't done anything since. should I still report them?Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 15:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if you think it's a vandalism-only account (as opposed to a new editor not familiar with our rules). If so, yes. If not, wait and see if they do further vandalism then report them. qcne (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they stopped editing, and now it's pointless to bring them to AIV. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 18:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It shows that your templating of them has actually worked. So you did a good job there! It's only ever worth taking a user to WP:AIV if they ignore and go beyond the final warnings and show they've no intention of stopping. Warning and reporting at exactly the same time just wastes adminstrators' time, so we rely on all editors to report only when it's evident they're here to cause harm. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have documents that prove my grandfather was the first all male triplets born in the USA. President McKinley named them after the Admirals in the Spanish American War. They were born June 29, 1899. Their names were Schley, Sampson and Dewey Vece. They were born in New Haven, CT. How do I add this article to Wikipedia? ~2026-41092-0 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-41092-0, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

Thank you for wanting to contribute content to Wikipedia. However, doing so is not as easy as many people think, and we are quite choosy about what material we accept.

First to note: for a new editor unfamiliar with how Wikipedia words, writing a new article is much harder than people expect. 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.

Secondly, 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.

You would need reliably published sources that are secondary and wholly unconnected with your family, that talk in some depth about the triplets and their status as the first. Do you have such material? It's OK that it is presumably not online.

Unpublished documents such as private letters and journals will not do; nor will official documents such as birth certificates (these are primary sources).

Especially, a claim of being the first anything requires at least one source which definitely states that it is the first, published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The USA has been inhabited for about 15,000 years. It is extremely unlikely that those are those first all male triplets born there. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira Well, technically, it wasn't the USA 15,000 years ago. North America has been inhabited for a long time, but that's not the claim. On the other hand, even within the history of the USA, it would be hard to prove that there were not any preceding examples (which may have been overlooked). David10244 (talk) 17:49, 19 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]

Are famous people (celebrities, politicians, sports people, journalists etc) allowed to create new articles about themselves and also edit them ?

Would conflict of interest come into play? And can they cite themselves as a source of information, especially if that information was considered dubious/questionable ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTO. Autobiographies are very frequently rejected as they are very difficult to write appropriately, and conflict-of-interest rules apply. We also have sourcing requirements that don't get waved away simply because someone wants to write something about themself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-19602-0, 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.

So, no, essentially nothing that the subject knew about themselves would be relevant, except where it was documented in a wholly independent reliable source. That is why autobiography is so particularly difficult in Wikipedia, and hence strongly discouraged. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0 As to editing existing biographies, the advice to their subjects is at WP:ASFAQ. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 19 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]

My article: Draft:Berthe, Duchess of Rohan, was declined once again. I’m not sure what sources I can use and can’t. Apparently a moderator said the sources don’t include her and yes they do. Only two don’t mention her because, well it talks about her family (father and grandmother). Can you help and tell me which sources are verifiable and trusted? Thank you.

Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are significant coverage of her. Mere passing mentions in geneologies etc are not enough to substantiate notability. We do not make articles about people simply because those people can be proven to have existed. Athanelar (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see my mistake and I can try and look for better sources that cover more of her. Thank you! :) Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’d like guidance on creating a Wikipedia page for a nonprofit I’m affiliated with. The organization appears in several independent media sources, including Business in Vancouver, The Tyee, Vancity Business member spotlight, and Ottawa Business Journal, which describe its work in STEM education and community empowerment.

Independent coverage includes: – BCBusiness article on the nonprofit’s impact in Vancouver – The Tyee feature on its mission and activities – Vancity member spotlight – Ottawa Business Journal coverage on its expansion

Could someone advise whether this meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria and how best to proceed? Aditiupadhyaya (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to comply with WP:COI and, if you have a financial relationship with the organisation, WP:PAID. If they asked you to write this, show them WP:BOSS.

After that, you must go through the process at WP:AFC, and notability will be determined by WP:NCORP. In short: do you have three sources that meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE? What (and where, exactly, are they? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The best way to proceed, @Aditiupadhyaya, is to follow our plain and simple conflict of interest guide, especially the "Advice" subsection. Going back to the first half of your question, you haven't given us enough info to advise whether the organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you use the Article wizard after reading the guide, you can create and submit a draft, which allows the reviewer to determine notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aditiupadhyaya, and welcome to the Teahouse! The general golden rule for notability is that a subject must have coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail. What do all of those mean in practice?

Multiple means you can't just have one-off coverage; while there is no set minimum number of sources, I personally use 3 or 4. It appears you have 4 sources which is a great start.

Independent means they have to be unaffiliated with the source and simply thought the source was interesting enough to do a piece about. Again, this looks good since they are all news sources.

Reliable is covered by a few Wikipedia policies, namely WP:RS and WP:RSP. To be reliable a source must be known for reliability and have a process by which editors fact-check. All of the ones you are looking at seem pretty reliable, so they can be used.

Significant detail means it can't just be a passing mention. There must be enough information about the subject to have an article with more than one sentence. If only one sentence can be said about the subject, it's probably not good for a Wikipedia article.

I can't verify the significant detail part, but if your organisation gets more than a passing mention in 3 or all 4 of the sources, you should be good to go. Just make sure to declare a Conflict of Interest on your user page. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, three editors answered at literally the exact same time. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The effpr shuffle strikes again! MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's effpr? (I hope no one else is asking at the same time) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to ask! VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, where several people will answer reports at the same time (I think?) win8x (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, highest I've seen is 3 or 4x. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:33, 19 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]

While fixing a reference, I became confused about which parameters are mandatory. In the template, the |work=| parameter is absent from the section explaining the mandatory and suggested parameters, but it is present in the list of most commonly used parameters.

How can I be sure a reference is correct when creating one? Mathlock (talk · contribs) 20:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]