Wikipedia:Teahouse

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

Adding friction to AFD process for articles affected by WP:BIAS

Hi! I've been working on rescuing articles that have been AFD'd lately and finding that there is a heavy amount of bias involved in what gets nominated. I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women, and so often these are extremely notable subjects that the nominator has failed to research appropriately. It's so frustrating. Has there ever been a move to add a condition to the AFD process such as "is the article's subject from a category often affected by bias?" I'm currently working on rescuing Mary Mgonja, a Tanzanian plant scientist. I've rescued Leyla Soleymani and Mabathoana High School and I'm upset by how casually these articles are dismissed without the slightest bit of work. I'm not alone in noticing this of course, but I would like to see action to make it less easy to list articles for deletion that fall into underrepresented categories. If anyone is working on this, I would like to help. Thank you for reading. H0n0r (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that different notability standards should pertain to subjects "affected by bias", in other words, for Wikipedia to apply a counter-bias of some kind? If an article on, say, a female social media influencer from an African country gets taken to AfD, is that evidence of bias on the part of the nominator? And if the community then agrees to delete the said article, is that the community also being biased? Or could it be simply that there are many articles in Wikipedia on social media influencers of various origins and demographics that do not meet our notability criteria, and some of them almost certainly deserve to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that AfD nominators have biases that are unchecked. I am pointing out that women and other subjects affected by bias are over-nominated in a casual way. Research backs me up here (see Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.") and I'm wondering what is being done about it? H0n0r (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Rereading what I wrote, I realize I was answering only the first part of your question. I don't know where you came up with 'female social media influencer from an African country', but yes, I'm saying article nominators are provably biased, and that the community working on AfD appears to be also, and that this seems to just... continue. Wikipedia's multiple deletion of Donna Strickland prior to her Nobel win continues to get press coverage and nothing changes. I'm asking if anyone is working on changes, and if so where, and can I help? H0n0r (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. The draft was speedily deleted because the entire draft was a copy-and-past copyright infringement. This is a legal requirement, which would have been done for any draft submitted in such a way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I think your response was meant for a different question? H0n0r (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r read the 2014 PROD on Donna Strickland and tell me what you see in the edit summary Mausfield (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I feel the same about the article on school choice where it’s explained as “non-public education options” … “[that] include scholarship tax credit programs”. The article then proceeds to explain some random school financials, homeschooling, online schooling etc. Finally there’s a list of ‘school choice’ for various countries.

As far as I know, and teacher unions, and the schoolbooks write about, it’s a concept that started as the opposing counter-reaction that formed after school desegregation after Brown vs Board of Education. The ‘bussing’ policies.

IMHO a kitchen sink article like that will only confuse the reader away from what the [US] National Education Association states the "#1 takeaway" that it's "a policy rooted in resistance to school integration." This applies from the founding of the USA itself untill time of writing, february 2026: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-school-vouchers. I wrote my thoughts and references in the talk page there.

Most worryingly, that article revises the history of black emancipation, because it is linked from pro-segregation politicians / famous people… This makes it seem like they proposed other means of finance instead of apartheid.

Note that Google’s AI uses this Wikipedia article instead of, and in complete opposition of, what the US National Education Association wrote, or what the Retro Report classroom material teaches the actual kids, better imho than that Wikipedia article.

Especially with the current state of society, it greatly scares me for folks to forget recent history. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

NEA is a teacher's union that primarily represents public school teachers. Even if I happen to largely agree with them (and I do fwiw), we can't just cite them as if they're a non-partisan authority. Wikipedia needs to present things from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to the viewpoints that have significant sourcing. This doesn't mean that we have to give equal space to fringe theories but in the case of something like school vouchers we probably do need to represent the viewpoint that school vouchers are a good thing for students to the degree that viewpoint is backed by reliable sources.

That Wikipedia strives for neutrality is one of the reasons why it is a project ill suited to righting great wrongs. Wanting to change the world is commendable but Wikipedia exists to document it as is, warts and all. Packrat3860 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You write "I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women . . .". That in itself means you are not selecting a random sample. How do you know that there is not an equal proportion of (by your criteria) unfairly nominated articles in areas that do not fit into those categories?

You may, of course, be right, but your methodology does not seem to warrant blanket accusations of (presumably anti non-Western and anti-women) bias.

I'm sure most editors are not consciously applying biases, but we are all only human and a volunteer crowdsourced project is never going to operate to perfect standards. How would your proposal actually be effected? Who would decide which categories are underrepresented, and judge whether nominated articles had not been properly assessed, beyond what is already done?

Remember also that proof of Notability requires Reliable sources, and the World is such that Reliable sources themselves have biases, particularly of omission – we can only work with what there is. I myself am particularly interested in science and scientists, and despair over the poor cover that the media devotes to scientists of all sexes and ethnicities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you might be new here. Here's Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. H0n0r (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here for over 24 years (from quite soon after Wikipedia was launched), but have always deliberately chosen not to have a User account.

I am well aware that there are general gender and ethnic imbalances (resulting in biases) in both the editorial makeup and the coverage of Wikipedia. I think these stem from biases in very-long-established cultural expectations (leading for example to a deficit in female editorial volunteers) and in the published Reliable sources we are (rightly) constrained to use. I do not think these biases are consciously maintained by any significant number of Wikipedia editors, and while biases may be inherent in sources generally, this ought not to change the way in which Reliable sources are searched for and used, and articles in general edited and assessed.

In particular, I am a little doubtful that the specific issue that you raise, discriminatory lack of care in dealing with AfD candidates, is real, but until someone chooses to perform a statistically valid survey we cannot know either way. That is all I have to say on the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often. We don’t need a new survey because you’re doibtful. Further, if people are targeting those pages, there’s no reason others can’t target those pages to save. It’s no different than any of us editing subjects we’re interested in. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often.

Was it demonstrated at the same time that the two groups of articles were equal in terms of their adherence to Wikipedia policy? If not, then the claim hasn't been shown. And this is very different from editing subjects we're interested in, because editing according to interest is useful and inspiring, but pushing to save a bad article about anyone just because of their body parts is simply dishonest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No one is talking about saving bad articles. The OP was concerned about articles where the nominator hasn't done their due diligence but she thinks sources exist and can be added with a little bit of research. I'm also talking about saving articles where the sources exist to meet notability. If those happen to be articles about women or POC, what do you care? Mme Maigret (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Here's the study I was referring to: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023772, from Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women." H0n0r (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Avoid WP:BLUDGEON, especially with that paper (which I presume you did not read entirely), because it is empirically garbage and starts out with a blatant lie.

For it's introductory citation it mentions the speedy deletion of Donna Strickland "six minutes after the article's creation" as clear evidence of gender bias, but somehow the author did not even decide read the PROD, which was for unambiguous plagiarization (ie copied from some external source). The editor who added the PROD created, among many others, the articles Women LEAD and Feminism in Nepal, and contributed to Women's colleges in the United States, Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame, Women in the Maldives, List of women explorers and travelers, etc. Definitely sexism, right? Tripodi says:

Despite clear evidence of Dr. Strickland’s professional endeavors, some did not feel her scholastic contributions were notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography.

Which is simply a lie. One person PROD'd it for plagiarism, a user with a history of creating and contributing to feminism-related articles. I am going to avoid any statements about the evidence-basis in modern sociology, you can check Tripodi's methods section and tell me what you think:

First, I conducted an open coding (Charmaz, 2006), consisting of listening to recorded interviews while reviewing my fieldnotes and writing down emergent ideas on a series of notecards. Second, I arranged these cards in clusters, identifying which themes were the most salient. After flagging particularly salient “in vivo codes” (Charmaz, 2006), I conducted a more focused coding of my transcript data, determining the accuracy of the threads identified.

Mausfield (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Mausfield Yikes, this is an unpleasant, condescending and unhelpful comment. The paper I cited is peer-reviewed, has over 150 citations, and yes I read it. Please find some way to be civil in discussions. H0n0r (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming you didn't read the entire thing. I just imagined if that blatant lie as the central narrative starting point of the paper stood out to me, it would also stand out to someone with way more experience on wiki than me.

Did you look at the PROD? Mausfield (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r When you say "notable", it seems you might mean it in a way that's not only different, but in fact almost directly contrary to what it means on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call that your fault, because Wikipedia uses the word in a non-standard way.

Here's my ultra-short summary of the difference: Wikipedia rejects the idea of deserving coverage. Only those who already had lots of coverage are notable here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Right, this is semantics to what I'm actually bringing up. Leyla Soleymani and Mary Mgonja have had lots of coverage. The nominators simply didn't look for it. H0n0r (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE describe what nominators are expected to do as part of the AfD process. If you have suggestions about how to beef up these requirements, I suggest you make them on its talk page. You are probably correct that many AfD discussions start without adequate checks and I suspect that is not related to any specific type of article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you very much. H0n0r (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE are often inadequately applied, and disproportionately so, and that the disproportion is related to the demonstrated bias that @H0n0r has already linked to here.

H0n0r, I am currently working in different areas of Wikipedia from you and don't have any good leads on other Wikipedians who might be trying to correct this bias, but I am interested in any constructive responses you find here. I'm honestly aghast at the pushback you've had so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Suðurhafsljósæta. I've never nominated an article for deletion. I'm wondering, are there boxes to check as there are when uploading a file to commons, affirming that one has done one's due diligence? Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it appears to be a very simple (way too simple) process. Surely there should be a way to slow this down and make nominators jump a few 'Before' hurdles? H0n0r (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The process is too slow when dealing with bios of non-notable living persons. Such articles should be deleted at once to spare the person the embarrassment and occasionally severe anxiety of being subjected to an often insulting ripe-or-rotten-tomatoe debate. Wikipedia should have a much clearar bias against such treatment in better alignment with our quite strict WP:BLP policies. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing I don't disagree with you on this point, but do think that we try to cast a wide net instead of looking at individual cases, which is why I think it would be somewhat prudent to effectively hide an article amidst a BLP-deletion discussion (if, and only if such concerns have been raised), while slowing down the deletion process for other articles more broadly. The latter part I've raised several points about in the recent past, but I'm actually quite interested in whether the community would be on board with the former, if it's plainly obvious that there are character-assassination-esque concerns.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I might suggest that, taking care to consider the concerns and counters raised by others here, you bring this up at WP:Village pump (idea lab), as this isn’t really the appropriate venue for it.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 That's a good idea. Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I've finally brought this proposal to the idea lab. Thank you for digging into this here, giving me a lot to chew on, and the push to take it further. I'm so appreciative! H0n0r (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r If I could give you one piece of advice, save yourself the stress and avoid AfD. I also tried broaching the issue at the Village Pump – I found the discussion to be disappointing. That's when I realised I could have more impact rescuing articles that have been PRODed and expiring drafts. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret this is so nice of you, thank you. Afd is pretty awful. No, it's really awful. There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles and it's so disheartening. I can't understand this issue gets continual, high level, international press and yet goes unaddressed. Thank you for your work and camaraderie. H0n0r (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret @H0n0r @Suðurhafsljósæta @Mike Turnbull @~2026-41275-62 Given your comments, I suspect you may be interested in this discussion I've started at Village pump. Any input is welcome / encouraged, as I'd like to get the ball rolling on something that might serve to address this problem in the near future. The more we let ourselves get caught up in despondency the worse it's gonna get.

I don't disagree with Packrat3860 that we need to operate with NPOV at front of mind, but I don't think that necessarily clashes with the notion of this site serving as an instrument to right great wrongs. I think we often conflate one with the other because those attempting to right those wrongs are unable to detach themselves from their biases in their editing behavior, which leads many editors to take on an unnecessarily broad view of what constitutes biased content to guard us against off-wiki accusations that we have an irreconcilable liberal/progressive bent. The thing is, just as conservative editors are at times correct that we've failed to include relevant context that supports their worldview (whether intentionally or not), so too is this sort of overactive policing of acclaimedly 'biased' content in fact impeding our site's ability and responsibility to tell the whole story, most often silencing the perspectives of those who've never had a seat at the table in the first place. As others have pointed out, we only have so much time until a great deal of that relevant context is gone, and even less time before those that care enough to tell the story lose interest, or are stopped from ever getting the opportunity to do so again by those who committed the great wrongs in the first place.

This thread, which was one of my first major disagreements here on the website, might help to contextualize the issue I'm describing. I just think we need to be able to separate these concerns in a rational manner which nonetheless acknowledges that relevant facts are rarely biased, and undue weight is typically a reflection in the eye of the beholder.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just because I'm referenced here, I want to go on the record that I don't think WP:RGW should be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia does not have systemic bias, or that it is even possible to not have systemic bias. I also don't think it means we should unquestioningly accept systemic bias (and I commend those who try to improve them).

I only meant that we should be cautious about thinking about article content as a convenient vehicle for changing hearts and minds. I think Wikipedia has some duty to consider to consider its role perpetuating certain kinds of bias (as does any sizable organization), and neutrality does not mean uncritically presenting "both sides". But I value the neutrality of the encyclopedia even when my personal views are (at times) trying to chip away at the bedrock of established thought. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, in theory, undue weight is not in the eye of the beholder at all, but determined by what's in the reliable sources and what isn't. Of course that is always distorted to some extent because it's humans analyzing those sources, but we hopefully want to correct that distortion without swinging the pendulum. This thing gets handled wrong in all kinds of different ways and I don't blame anyone for wanting to improve it.

Wikipedia doesn't just prohibit righting great wrongs because of NPOV; wanting to right great wrongs goes directly against most of Wikipedia's basic principles, not just one. Righting great wrongs is vitally important and must be done, but not here. A scheme to right great wrongs using Wikipedia is just a sabotage plan, not a noble cause or even an intelligent one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, based on the way you seem to be characterizing this. Nothing wrong with disagreement if not, but I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 this is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be what I'm talking about so much. It's certainly a piece of it, but what I'm really after is that by not going and looking for sources that are reliable and definitely exist, Wikipedia continues to essentially commit great wrongs. AfD routinely nominates and deletes non-western articles, particularly on female subjects, without doing a lick of research. I'm trying to be charitable and assume this is laziness or unconscious bias, but whatever it is, it continues daily, unabated.H0n0r (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I don’t disagree with you, and if you have a strong argument to make I encourage you to make the case. It’s nominally a location for proposals but, as you can tell, many editors have thrown in alternative ideas and reflections on the issue. If we want something to get done about it everybody has to be involved, so please do share.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you have to get everybody involved to tackle the issue or that you will. In fact, I think trying to get everyone involved is like trying to boil the ocean. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Pretending that "Wikipedia" should do "a lick of research" is badly missing the point. Anyone who comes here wanting to publish something must finish the research before they arrive here. Wikipedia is not a person. Wikipedia can't possibly do anything. Wikipedia has no obligation - and no ability - to do even the tiniest lick of research. That's on the person who wants something published. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers WP:BEFORE? WP:DILIGENCE? H0n0r (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, [...] I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

"Righting great wrongs" has a more or less accepted meaning, from what's been written about it. To badly oversimplify, it means having a goal bigger than "What's in the reliable sources?". Any guiding principle that isn't subordinate to that one is against Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r "There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles."

If you mean "under-researched by the editors who wrote the articles, making the Wikipedia articles be of poor quality", then we want all under-researched articles to be nominated for deletion.

If some editors are only nominating under-researched non-western articles, that's unfortunate. I suppose the way to balance that out would be for editors to nominate more under-researched "western" articles. We don't need fewer under-researched non-western articles to be taken to ADD if they are really poor quality articles.

But there is really no way to force that to happen. Editors do what they want, and we can't assign "areas of focus" to anyone.

Your original premise might be right, but it's pretty hard to fix.

If by "under-researched" you mean something else, then what I said might not apply. David10244 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Warning: Long Read

@David10244 @TooManyFingers I think what they mean is that there’s a far lesser degree of what we (meaning the community writ large) would consider to be reliable sourcing on account of the critical lack of informational/reporting infrastructure in many of the nations we consider to be the ‘non-Western world’. This is where I think there’s some disagreement:

1. Because there’s less easily identifiable reliable sources in say, Zimbabwe than the UK, it’s less likely that a typical WP:BEFORE based on notions of Western source reliability will yield qualifiable results (See my point at the Mary Mgonja AfD (or the collapsed portion at the one for Ainamoi) for further elaboration on this point).
2. There’s also the problem of editors who don’t perform an adequate BEFORE ahead of time (which is the primary reason for my having raised the referenced VP discussion in the first place), who would presumably find it easier to disqualify sources that are considered substantive by Zimbabweans (but not by Americans) than sources of similar societal weight in the West. It’s thus easier from the outset to go after pages about non-Western topics, especially if they haven’t received considerable attention from Western scholarship.
3. Many editors seem to disdain IAR because it necessarily clashes with Duty to comply, which complicates efforts to salvage pages that face this sort of bias because such defenses can ostensibly fall under WP:RGW, as was raised by the closer at Ainamoi (who I’ll tag here, as I’m curious (without malice) to hear what their thoughts are on this point). WP:SYO is a really interesting essay confronting this exact issue of editor bias as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA.

My problem with this is, if RGW is itself rooted in that same bias, how do we confront it in the first place, or can we even do so? The sources don’t magically appear, and they won’t in the immediate future, but that doesn’t give us license to erase history outside the West because the West didn’t bother to write about it, or depict it solely from a Western perspective when it did.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified (similar to BusinessDay, which is one of a handful of reliable Nigerian sources that routinely gets flatly discounted not because the editor has actually considered whether it falls in the use case under the tenets of NEWSORGNIGERIA, but because they read ‘Nigerian sources typically unreliable’ and don’t feel the need to investigate further (a common problem with NEWSORGINDIA as well))). Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

This is where the confident assertion that RGW is clearly present or applicable when editors put up an IAR defense of non-Western articles (usually construed by editors in opposition as being WP:ADVOCACY) gets iffy in my opinion, because it treats the community’s consensus as necessarily fair and even-handed, as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

‘

TLDR: We sort of just assume that the rest of the world should conform to our expectations of source availability and verifiability without considering what it actually means to live in those parts of the world, which is the reason IAR exists in the first place. We’re committing just as big a violation in terms of NPOV if we wipe whatever we can’t see on the public facing internet about these places (e.g. activists, civil society groups, political parties) when the public facing internet is routinely shut down in these countries precisely for the purpose of restricting societal and global access to coverage on activities and organizations these countries’ governments don’t appreciate. That’s never really addressed, cause it’s much easier to say “holy yap if you want to RGW go do it somewhere else.”

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I like the vibe, but the directional solution you're proposing doesn't guarantee these suppressed and factual sources get included, it just opens the door to any propagandist adding content without needing to cite it, which we have to now defend them because persecution exists in the world, which is true. I don't see how that helps the persecuted more than it helps their persecuters, who certainly have vastly more resources.

as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA. My only problem with NEWSORGNIGERIA is the lunacy in thinking it isn't widespread everywhere in the world where free press exists. It should just be NEWS. Half of the "SIGCOV" I see for recently created BLPs are very obvious churnalist fluff pieces, because having a Wiki article is now a CV line and SEO gold. There is no way to solve than other than increasing stringency on RS, and yes it means some factual information will be left out.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified... Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

The very simple solution to this is simply to include their content as claims by the source, rather than as statements of fact in an article with them as refs. We do this all the time, with mainstream American sources like Fox and Breitbart.

as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

You should avoid equating skin color with political worldview. Those nations are some of the only places a widespread cultural movement of equity exists, and those "white guys" are a substantial demographic within that movement. You are also on English wikipedia, so obviously Anglophone cultural norms exist. That's not something you can fairly criticize purely on the basis of it being different, in the same breath as advocating for intercultural tolerance. Mausfield (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @David10244, sorry for being unclear. I meant that nominators don't do the research they are supposed to do given WP:BEFORE. I agree with @CSGinger14 also, but that is what I was trying to say at the outset. H0n0r (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

(1) You can call them out in the discussion. I've only seen this have success, however, if others haven't started voting yet.

(2) However, I think it would be more realistic to introduce a pause between an AfD nomination and the discussion. I'd say 7 days just like PROD. This would allow the creator or any other interested user to bring the draft up to scratch (particularly for articles created before GNG) or rework the article to clearly show that it passes. The nominator can then revisit the nomination before it goes live and, if they don't withdraw, they can answer questions at AfD. It would also likely reduce the number of AfDs. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Under-researched articles need to be deleted. "Under-researched articles" is a euphemism for "garbage articles", and here's why:

Some people create under-researched articles for games. Some create them to promote their side in a war. Some write under-researched articles about their grandmother, or the terrorists and murderers who fascinate them, or what they think will soon be the fastest train in the world, or curing cancer by standing on one foot, or to promote hatred of whoever they don't like, or to promote hair salons. And most of all, they write them about themselves and their colleagues and associates. It isn't benevolent or helpful to create an under-researched article; it's irresponsible, and it's dumping one's own job onto "someone else will just have to take care of that".

No, someone else won't. Unless you are volunteering yourself to be that someone, the one who promises to spend every day as the write-articles-to-order servant for those who couldn't be bothered to do it themselves. Creating an under-researched article, or fighting to get it preserved, is not a worthy cause; it's presumptuous and lazy. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Here’s what I think will work.

• If you see an article that’s been PRODed, AfD’d or is expiring in a week that you think is notable, you add a custom category.
• You start a topic on the talk page and add links to the minimum two sig cov sources. This is also where @CSGinger14‘s refideas template could come in.
• You bookmark the category yourself and check it frequently
• Anyone can follow and uplift the articles that have been categorised.

(ps. Btw, I know you can see the PRODs by date, and AfDs that have been categorised as WIR, and the expiring drafts by week but you have to look at each PROD to see if it’s suitable, not every article is tagged WIR, and the expiring drafts list is too unwieldy.)

• We could also start a Wikiproject taskforce but to keep it simple I think we just need the categories. (They can also be hidden categories.)

Mme Maigret (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Old language translation

Hello Editor, I am working on the history of minority community, while working I got an idea, can we translate the old chronicle extinct language with the help of dictionary and ethnolinguistic language cognates , is it possible? and written on historical page with the secondary refrence . 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do modern scholars agree on the correct translation of these texts? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Many scholars disagreed because, when I read other reference histories, I found that many translations were written for mainland people and were not written with that specific community in mind , they were written under the influence of the mainland's religion. Therefore, many scholars agree that most translations were misleading and too biased toward a particular religion, which is not the native religion of the minority community. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If most scholars disagree with you, then what you have is innovative new research, and you should publish it in an academic journal. DS (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

We can do this work, but I have heard that we cannot publish our research paper on Wikipedia, is it true? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 13:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Wikipedia does not permit original research. If you get it published in an academic source, and you then try to cite it, that would also be a self-citation, which falls under a conflict of interest. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the solution? When I explored I found WikiJournal, is it possible to write a research in WikiJournal and then use it as a reference? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand why it is a bad idea to let people create their own reference sources which they then cite? DS (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I know that many editors will misuse this and write articles in their favor, which will start an edit war.

But my intention was different, I am just focusing on translating the Chronicle in a neutral context and I think other editors of the WikiJournal will review it and give their opinion, then I used it as a reference and provided a secondary reference, this will make it easier for other editors to understand. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What you are saying is "I know that other people would abuse this. But you can trust me. I am special. I would not abuse this."

But everyone will say this.

Creating your own sources which you then cite is a bad idea. DS (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't do that if it's wrong. I just want to provide more accurate historical sources and references, that's why I thought of this idea. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 I completely understand. There is a big difference between "wrong" and "bad for Wikipedia". What you want to say may be right (the real-world kind of right), but what you want to say would be bad for Wikipedia; if you are allowed to put your interpretation here, then everyone else must be allowed to do the same. In that way, mainland opinion (having larger numbers) would be the final winner of "the Wikipedia war". I think you will see from that, that it's better to block everyone's personal opinions from Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers It is not about my personal interest. Actually, I don't want to take any name of that country but their are heavy old mentality religion who where discrimination against minority community . If i talk about this thing it will create political debate But for many years, minority were not part of that country. They became part of that country in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Mainland people also wrote the history of that community, but they gave a strong bias towards their own mainland religion.

Many scholars from different countries have written about this, and in recent times many local authors have corrected the old translated books, but only a few have properly addressed the problem .

So I want to help this type of community, because it is connected to one of the largest family communities that came from South China and To find meanings of words, and tones that match the extinct language of the community from which they migrated.

And I will also take the secondary reference book where I mentioned this here and I will also take the book in which the mistake of the secondary reference was criticized, so that people do not get confused and this will help in understanding the history in a better way. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I know you want to find these things. I think you should do it - it sounds like the right thing to do. I want you to do it.

But not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia will reject it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia will reject my theory or viewpoint, that's why I am saying this here in a discussion with another editor. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond, maybe you misunderstood. I mean that this part of the discussion is over; the answer to this part is "No", and the answer to "Then how do we continue negotiating to get this part onto Wikipedia?" is "No". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

It was a very long discussion here, so I am gaining knowledge of the policy and how it works, and I will not do anything that affects Wikipedia’s policies. Now the discussion is continuing; it was originally just for my curiosity.
That conversation has already finished, but if there are more editors who understand the policy and can suggest alternative solutions in the comments to explain how to provide proper sources without breaching the policy, that would be helpful.
Do you have any solution? Without affecting the policy, how can this be handled so that primary sources are provided in the correct way? . 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 19:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Anything relating to 'I created this piece of writing and now I'm going to cite it on Wikipedia' is a conflict of interest, unfortunately (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). I understand you do not take the viewpoint that any personal opinion has influenced/will influence your work, but the rule remains both to make Wikipedia more verifiable and to reduce the number of events in which case-by-case reviews will have to be made.

I wholly and entirely agree with TooManyFingers on this subject: please do this research and publish it! Somewhere, anywhere! But except for Wikipedia. It is a nature of the encyclopedia that you cannot publish your own work on it. If you'd like to learn more, then the help page I cited at the start of this reply will be of assistance to you.

If your work becomes popular enough, then maybe another Wikipedian will cite your work.

And, no: myself or TooManyFingers can't cite your work as that would be categorized as a conflict of interest now that we've entered discussion with one another. Amber (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Amber Thanks for your approach, but that's already been clarified.

I've come here as the primary consultant for some translation problem books, where people use blind and dependent translation book without proper research.

for example-

If I write the chinese text- 我们的祖先来自云雾缭绕的山区，而我们定居在了这片平原地区。

It can normaly translated - Our ancestors came from the misty mountains, but we settled in these plains.

It can usually translate with the help of a dictionary and language source.

But the scorlar book translate misleady - Our ancestors come from heaven and we settle on earth ..

How many differences arose between the two sentences. That's the problem I'm talking about.

It's understandable that the scorer writes some parts metaphorically, but this creates a lot of differences and gives the tag of mythology.

This is why it's important to use a dictionary of primary sources and secondary references to strengthen historical pages.

@TooManyFingers My friend, do you think it's wrong if the scholar writes this way and the local community knows that the sentence was written in a misleading way?

I'm not saying I'll remove the secondary reference, but the sentence should be translated correctly.. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

When we discuss an original source that is so old, I think it's clearly wrong for you to do that. If there's a mistake translating between modern languages, I would be ready to just trust you, mainly because if you were wrong someone else would soon correct you afterwards. But the old languages need experts, and on Wikipedia you do not get trusted as an expert - no one does. You would need to show a published reliable source for the new translation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If it depends on the source, can we use the local book of their community? It was written by a priest who also has knowledge of the old language and who travels to Southeast Asia and China to discuss and correct errors in the language. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Is his book for sale from a commercial publisher? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

It was published by the villagers, where local people used to write their information in a book. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 04:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Wanting some support to get a wiki article please

Hello,

My name is Valentina G R Cavallaro, founder and creator of Sule Sul Mare 222, an Australian spiritual brand specialising in oracle card collections, tarot and spiritual guidance.

I am interested in understanding the process and eligibility requirements for having an independent Wikipedia biography created about my work and contributions.

I would appreciate guidance on the necessary published sources, editorial requirements and how to request an impartial assessment.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Valentina G R Cavallaro

Founder of Sule Sul Mare 222 ~2026-57689-55 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

For starters, see WP:ABOUTME (on writing about yourself on Wikipedia, which is strongly discouraged) and WP:NOTABILITY (the general notability guidelines). Additional things to note:

Writing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and new editors are strongly encouraged to start somewhere else and build up to article-writing. There is a good chance an article about yourself will not be accepted.

If you do decide to write an article, please note that editors are not permitted to use AI to write on Wikipedia (see WP:NOLLM). ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The sources would need to be without contribution from you, free from your influence, no announcements, no interviews, no press releases, and they need to be three or more long articles written about the exact topic (i.e. they can't be writing about someone else and just mention you). In other words, very big articles about exactly you, written all alone by the reporter. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, which policy page or guideline demands three or more? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

None as far as I know. But which policy page or guideline specifically prescribes just one? The original question was not a request for policy particulars; it was a request for actual help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The closest I've found is WP:GNG: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I suppose it's partly a matter of degree, each of significance of coverage, independence of source, and reliability of source being a continuum rather than simply yes/no. If each of two sources unquestionably scores high on each of those three criteria, then the two sources should be enough. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

There is thus no actual policy about number, yet people generally want a number to work with, and three is a reasonable start in most cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect this hubbub arose from User:RoySmith/Three best sources, which is an essay and not a policy or guideline. It's a great place to start, but by no means is it mandatory. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not mandatory. If we're insisting on not saying "you need X" when things aren't literally mandatory, there are a lot more important things we'll need to take care to not say. For example, we'd need to stop claiming you need to have sources demonstrating notability before you try writing a biography. There is in fact no such policy; they're only required to be there in the finished biography. But we often pretend they're required at the beginning, because that's a pretty good idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: This is the Teahouse, where people aren't necessarily as familiar with Wikipedia's workings as we claim to be. Your explicit "they need to be three or more long articles" is misleading. Please try and keep your answers and many subsequent answers accurate so we can be sure the person asking for assistance is being helped rather than misled. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

If you have ever said "Hey - they wrote a five-page article all about me and they never even told me about it!" then the chances are better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I noticed you created a draft article Draft:Sule sul mare 222 that has a brief introduction and a list of products/services which reads like a (very) rough outline of what you do. The sources and links are very scant: just your own website, and a link to your Australian business regisration. A Google search reveals additional links to Amazon and the usual social media sites, only. In fact, it doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedic article, but like an advertizing brochure with the sole aim of driving traffic to your business. Wikipedia should not be used to advertize your business. As the others have said above, you will need much better sourcing from reliable sources where your business has received multiple mentions about whatever innovations you have made in your chosen field - in other words, do those sources show your business is notable for something? Astronaut (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding a bridge

List of bridges known for strikes Hello this is an anonymous user basically im trying to add a bridge to the list the problem is an editor keeps oversimplifying the description and name because apparently i did original research well personally i think that hes way too oversimplifying and plus the name is obviously oversimplified can anyone help me solve this argument ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you try to include something you know, but it isn't officially published? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I literally just wanted to share something I knew with you guys. I mean, how do you explain a low clearance bridge with the concrete looking like it survived the Battle of Stalingrad? Guys, are things really not Wikipedia-worthy just because they're obscure? Like, if i needed to cite a source then someone needs to have came before me, so, if you're the first person to know, then logically you should share it with the world. If you personally invented a recipe, just because it hasnt been written about yet, does that mean the recipe doesn't exist? See what I mean? I'm just trying to share stuff and the editors keep butting in. ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But what is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't? The way we decide here is using the notability guidelines. This also includes no original research allowed. If you want to include this information, write it up, get it published somewhere that is reasonably reliable, and submit an edit request to add it. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You and me ... on Wikipedia, both of us are Just Some Guy, and nobody should believe what we say unless we can show published proof of it in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Mapsax ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I looked at what you wrote ...

I've been in that exact place many times, and I believe you. But Wikipedia won't believe you yet. Have the papers in Bellingham ever said anything about it? If they have, I bet whatever they wrote would be enough to support your statement. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Aren't all bridges registered with their respective state or local DOT depending on the type of road it's traversing? I believe you can access that information through those agencies. This might be the level of verscity needed to make your entry Wiki-worthy. Semera (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Correction: verscity should be verAcity Semera (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You’re allowed to make small edits like that to your own comments, if you didn’t know :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 04:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Shadestar - I'm still leaning the navigation. Semera (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55845-16: You seem very concerned about this bridge. Have you contacted the Bellingham paper, Seattle TV stations, the city, or WSDOT about it? If they haven't addressed it up to this point – the "citation black hole" that you referred to on your talk page – then they likely felt that it wasn't worth addressing, and therefore that would also make it non-notable on Wikipedia. If you feel that it is a concern, let them know. If they acknowledge it publicly, you will know that it was worth letting the public know about, and on top of that, you'd potentially have your reliable sources for Wikipedia. Mapsax (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Need advice

I need advice on whether Dr. Shiao Woo qualifies for a biography and if so, how do I find an uninvolved editor because I am Dr. Woo's spouse.

Below are three source links for Dr. Woo's work:

IMRT contribution — “History of Tomotherapy,” T. R. Mackie (2006)

See page R432, which credits Dr. Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler with treating the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994.

University of Louisville — “Faculty Excellence Series: Newly Endowed Faculty” (2010)

Documents his Louisville appointment and the Kosair Children’s Hospital/Norton Healthcare Chair in Pediatric Oncology.

Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society — “History of the Society”

Identifies Dr. Woo as a founding member of the society. ~2026-57903-42 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

My honest advice is to give up on trying to have an article on English Wikipedia about your spouse. Also , watch out for WP:SCAM. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 21:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your responses and guidance. Shawwoo (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-57903-42. In order for anyone to create an article about your wife, they're going to need to clearly establish that she meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) by showing she has received the type of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources required to establish Wikipedia notablity; no Wikipedia article about her will have any chance of avoiding deletion if there's no clear-cut indication that she's Wikipedia notable. Please understand that in a Wikipedia context the word "notability" means something specific that might differ with how the word is used in everyday conversation.

If you feel your wife is indeed Wikipedia notable and want to try to create an article yourself, you may. However, I strongly suggest you read the following before doing so: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I also suggest you start by creating a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then submitting the draft for review when you think it's ready. One important thing to understand is that you nor your wife will have any form of final editorial control over any Wikipedia article created about here. All article content (positive or negative) will be assessed in accordance in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, even if an article is created about your wife, she any anyone associated with her will be expected to not directly edit it; there are Wikipedia processes in place to help address any concerns she might have, but neither she nor anyone connected to her will be able just to change things to the way she wants them.

Assessing the Wikipedia notability can sometimes be a bit tricky, especially for academics. This some guidance on this given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but you might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia to ask one of the members of those WikiProjects for such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your responses and guidance. One clarification, Dr. Shiao Woo is my husband. I recognize that this creates a conflict of interest, which is why I disclosed our relationship.

The strongest evidence I have identified is T. R. Mackie’s 2006 review, “History of Tomotherapy.” On page R432, Mackie credits Shiao Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler at Baylor College of Medicine with treating the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994. I believe this may demonstrate a significant contribution because it places Dr. Woo on the team responsible for an early clinical milestone in IMRT, rather than simply listing his publications. I understand that a team accomplishment does not automatically establish his individual notability.

The University of Louisville also documents his appointment as an endowed professor holding the Kosair Children’s Hospital/Norton Healthcare Chair in Pediatric Oncology.

Could you explain how these sources should be evaluated under Wikipedia’s academic-notability criteria—particularly criterion 1 concerning research impact and criterion 5 concerning distinguished professorships? What additional evidence would help establish whether his contributions and appointment meet those standards?

Thank you for helping me understand the requirements. Shawwoo (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable soirces. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself. Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar! Thank you for clarifying. I understand that I need to assess the evidence against Wikipedia’s standards and explain my reasoning. As disclosed, Dr. Shiao Woo is my husband.

My preliminary assessment of the two strongest sources is:

T. R. Mackie’s “History of Tomotherapy” (2006), page R432: This published scholarly review identifies Dr. Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler as the team that treated the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994. I consider it potentially relevant to academic-notability criterion 1 because it documents his participation in a clinical milestone. However, I recognize that recognition of a team achievement may not establish the significance of his individual contribution.

The University of Louisville’s “Faculty Excellence Series: Newly Endowed Faculty” (2010): This confirms his endowed professorship and named chair in pediatric oncology. I consider it reliable evidence of the appointment, but it is an institutional source, and I understand that an endowed position does not automatically satisfy criterion 5.

My remaining uncertainty is what evidence would distinguish participation in a significant team achievement from an individually significant contribution under criterion 1. Would additional scholarly histories specifically discussing his role help address that gap?

Thank you for your time and guidance. Shawwoo (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding criterion 5: The criterion is fixed very clearly on having the specific literal title "Distinguished Professor". Endowed chairs have nothing to do with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

(It would be an exaggeration to say that endowed chairs only exist as a method of donor recognition, but not a terrible exaggeration.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

kurdKUfhedgh

ᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐤᐣᐥᐢᐭᐅᓊᓝᓬᓬᓄᓓᖔ what is ᖆᖇ? DABRUV (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DABRUV,

This is the Teahouse, a friendly space for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing the encylopedia. I can't understand what you wrote.

A note: Google identified this as being written in the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Unicode block. Not sure if that's relevant or not. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti hello I wrote this comment while being a loser posting this comment because I was mad so I wrote this comment but I am sorry https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA_cjwRx4QRc also this link is my show on YouTube The McArnold's but you can see the 6 minute episode I have on it but yeah I do most of the voice acts while my friend voice acts one character DABRUV (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about Wikipedia editing? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise anything or spam. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit my user page.

Just please don't. The Coder77 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

No one here has any intention to do so. We prefer to edit articles.Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you again put promotional content or copyright violations there, then those will be removed, again. Please see WP:UP for some guidance on what can and cannot be put on a userpage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: a copyright violation that was removed from the user page was a file hosted on Wikipedia Commons.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 14:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The only time someone will edit your user page is when there is content against guidelines, as long as you follow the guidelines no one will touch it. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 15:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Just going to add, a Wikipedia user's user page isn't really theirs per se in the sense that they have total freedom and control over it; rather, it's more like a free rental from the Wikimedia Foundation that users are allowed to use as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. User pages can be edited by others as explained in WP:UPOWN, but usually this is only done when necessary (e.g., to remove copyright or BLP violating material). For the most part, a user's user page will be left alone as long as it doesn't stray too far outside the lines of what's considered acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible edit warring?

How do I deal with a temporary user who keeps adding unsourced content to an article? I keep reverting their edits and they have a level 3 warning now. Limmidy (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, did you check whether the change (while unsourced) was correct? It seems it might be (https://eu.news-leader.com/picture-gallery/news/local/ozarks/2026/04/30/see-how-today-show-celebrated-springfield-route-66-live/89875099007/). If it is correct, I don't see any other sources tagged to the list of hosts in the Infobox so I'd let it be. Depending on the change being made by the other person, rather than going straight to warnings I start with a welcome template or a personalized message, in the hope that this is more effective at communicating the wiki policies in a positive manner. GreyZoneLife (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hey! So on the Today Show's 3rd Hour website, Jarrett is not named as a host anywhere. She is also not named in this role in her official bio either at https://www.today.com/about/laura-jarrett-rcna592584. Jarrett has occasionally filled-in as a host, but I haven't found any announcements or reliable coverage regarding her becoming a permanent host on the Today's 3rd Hour. Limmidy (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what saw too, after a bit of digging. What an odd edit to try to stick in! I have added a note to the temp user's talk page to try to be specific about what needs to change. I'll revert in the meantime. GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted. In the meantime, here's the link to request protection of the page to prevent getting into an edit war:

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It looks like they're still trying to get this edit to stick. A level 4 warning has been added to their talk page. They don't seem to be responding to talk messages at all! Limmidy (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Did you request page protection? If they aren't communication or changing their edits, that's a good approach. Also check out:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. GreyZoneLife (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The article is now temporarily protected! Limmidy (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Limmidy, this TA seems most interested in Laura Jarrett, the article about whom starts by saying that she "is an American television journalist working for NBC News. She currently serves as an anchor for the Saturday editions of Today and NBC News' senior legal correspondent" -- an assertion that comes with two references. The TA fiddled with this, and I'd been thinking of suggesting that you might ask the TA why they had falsified the attribution to one or both of the two sources when I realized that I should first look at the sources. So I clicked on both references. One doesn't even mention Jarrett. (The other is indeed about her, but I didn't read it.) That first one (named ":0") is also used later. I don't rush to condemn its original use, when its content might have differed considerably from what we see now. (You can probably check this via the Wayback Machine.) Anyway, for an embattled article, check that the version you're protecting (with the everyday sense of "protect") is referenced, and that the reference does actually say what its use for the Wikipedia article implies that it says. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The TA fiddled with this"? GreyZoneLife (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I mean this, GreyZoneLife. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The part about Jarrett being an anchor for the Saturday Today is referenced in the career section of the article. I can look into fixing the ":0" source with something more current. Limmidy (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

APA 7 Reference Style

Good Morning, I am looking for a way to put references in my draft in APA 7 style. Please comment below if you know how. Thank you. Lily.Chandan (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Lily.Chandan, APA Style differs in some ways from the style most commonly used here: one that's not compulsory, but that is generated by the (widespread) use of Template:Citation. How does APA Style promise to be more helpful? (If your request is for something specific to Draft:Foyez Ullah, please explain what this is.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Lily.Chandan, I see that Draft:Foyez Ullah uses Template:Citation (via Template:Cite web, etc). If your question is "How can I get these templates to output in APA style", then my tentative answer is that the only change you can make to the format of the output is whether this should use periods (full stops) or commas. (But I'm no expert and now lack the time or inclination to search within the documentation.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Translating articles

Hi! I'm surely just blind but would someone please direct me to where I can find information on how to translate articles from other Wikis to English?

1) On the page for the rock band BAP , when opening editor, it says googleTranslate or AI can be used if ensured it's translated correctly - meaning an extent of AI is ok in this case? I'm a native speaker, using a translator to start with sounds very reasonable.

2) Does it generally make sense to have the translated article be a copy of the original - only in a different language?

Thanks! ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-57064-06. There is information on this kind of thing found at Wikipedia:Translation. You might also want to take a look at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION and WP:OTHERLANG. In general, neither machine translations nor using WP:LLM are considered OK, and it would be much better to try to write things in your own words. In addition, each Wikipedia project is separate and distinct from the others; so, articles existing in different languages don't need to be verbatim translations of one another. All articles on English Wikipedia are going to be expected to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and be written in accordance with other relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g., MOS:MOS). Please keep these things in mind if you decide to translate articles from other languages into English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Marchjuly. I found Bucerius Kunst Forum via Wikipedia:Pages needing translation and clicked on German which gave me this random article.

Compared to the German version, the structure is different, e.g. "Building and location" at the bottom of the page in the current English version (I haven't saved any edits yet!) compared to this being the first section on the German counterpart. I'm wondering if it's ok or encouraged to swap this around? With the articles structure being more similar to the original, I suppose a potential future expansion of the article would be much easier and coherent.

I'm planning on first focusing on translation, maybe restructuring it a little for better readability (more logical flow) without adding/changing the content or sources. Then if I feel like it I might expand on the article's translation using the German version as base. Would this approach make sense to you or other experienced editors? ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, is it better to piece by piece update the article directly or is it encouraged to copy the whole thing into my sandbox and then essentially "replace" the current version with the fixed one (only looking at proofreading/ strange German translation things)? ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I failed to mention earlier that rather than diving into citations and sources, I decided a (hopefully) simpler task to start is to proofread and improve the language of a translated article, which is why I ended up with the Bucerius Kunst Forum. ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-57064-06, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no requirement that articles on the same subject in different language have any similarity in structure. They could be direct translations (as long as the citations they are based on meet the requirements of both Wikipedias), or they could be entirely independent creations, based on a completely different selection of sources; or anything in between.

If you are updating an existing article, I would advise doing it piecemeal, unless you are making significant changes to the structure.

Please do not assume that anything in the German article is necessarily better than the English article: consider each change you want to make critically, and especially according to English Wikipedia's principles for verifiability. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi again ~2026-57064-06. What ColinFine posted above is very important to remember when translating articles into English for English Wikipedia. Each of the different language Wikipedias has their own policies and guidelines, and their own respective editing communities applying/enforcing its policies and guidelines. It shouldn't automatically be assumed that because an article about something has been created on another language Wikipedia, it should also be created on English Wikipedia. Everything you translate is going to be expected to be in accordance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regardless of what was done for the source article.

FWIW, lots of the other language Wikipedias have policies and guidelines similar to English Wikipedias, but there could also be some differences. Moreover, since English Wikipedia has the most articles and has the largest community, its policies and guidelines tend to be perhaps applied more rigorously that is done on some of the other Wikipedias. You can, for example, use WP:NONENG sources in support of English Wikipedia content, but the cited source will need to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources for it to be acceptable. Similarly, your translation should not only be in accordance with things like English Wikipedia's MOS:LAYOUT, WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, etc. but you should also try to be consistent with how articles about similar subjects are also formatted on English Wikipedia. It's often the case that similar articles are formatted a certain way in accordance with a local English Wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject's guidelines as a way of trying to keep things consistent for articles falling within its scope.

So, before you make a major changes or try to totally rewrite an existing article, it might be a good idea to ask for input on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to see how much should be WP:PRESERVED. Completely replacing/overwritting an existing article with your preferred version should only be done in extreme cases when the other content was so bad per WP:TNT or the improvement would be so obvious to everyone else; otherwise, you run the risk of having problems with other members of the community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Amazing thank you @ColinFine @Marchjuly for your help and input! I will read through the pages you referred to and stick to small changes (hopefully improvements) piece by piece. For now I will keep the focus on proofreading already existing translations before doing anything affecting content, to familiarise myself with editing, policies and the community.

Regarding the articles' talk page: Would you mind pointing me in the right direction for which project is best to "announce" my proofreading and asking for feedback? Somewhere here in the Teahouse I read it's discouraged to ask the same thing in more than one place? I see it's rated low on importance for either... ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The project talk pages would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Neither is very active in getting any responses, but you can try. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hatsune Miku songs

would a wikipedia page about a list of Hatsune Miku songs fit the wikipedia guidelines for notability

statement above

secondary question is there like a good way to phrase questions on the teahouse Terry625972 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Terry625972,

It could go either way. All songs could face AfD, though culturally important songs might be able to stay. Please read WP:Notability

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 16:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Vocal synth fan here, my analysis:

Vocal synth is very unique; it has a lot of songs, but its popularity is fairly small. There's probably thousands of non-notable songs, so it would have to be a list of notable Miku songs, and there aren't that many.

Personally, I don't see a way to make a list of Miku songs extensive, but maybe we could have a list of songs by notable artists such as Deco*27 or Flavor Foley (to name a few). DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 19:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The way you phrased your question is fine. However, it is better to use a short heading and then put your question in the body of the comment. I've fixed that for you here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Exemple of a sub task force

The task force article says there are sub-task forces, can You give me some exemplele ? Furbchess (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any example is necessary; knowing they're possible, you will understand if you see one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Furbchess (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

See this search. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Furbchess (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Why am I getting notifications about Deletion sorting/People

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

This may be a strange question to answer, but why am I getting notices about the delition sorting page for people? I created an AfD listing for an article in there, but sometime recently I have begun to get "notices" (the little inboxy looking tray, not the alert bell) about replies to entirely separate AfD listings. I don't even recall having ever touched this page (I suspect my nom is included in it by transclusion?) and it isn't on my watchlist. Is getting these just like a normal consequence of allowing oneself to become embroiled in AfD? I don't even know how to unsubscribe because the UI makes it appear as if I must subscribe first.

Apologies if this seems like a silly question or if there's some obvious button I should have clicked to disable this functionality (or did click unknowingly enabling it). Packrat3860 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how you got subscribed in the first place (I don't have much experience with AfD), but if it's listed in Special:TopicSubscriptions you should be able to unsubscribe there. You could also just try subscribing and then unsubscribing if it is a glitch. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 20:38, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This is a bug with Twinkle, sometimes when creating an AfD is subscribes you to the sorting topic. Just unsubscribe from it at Special:TopicSubscriptions qcne (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Packrat3860. The feature is WP:SUBSCRIBE. I don't know the precise rules but if you get subscribed to a topic which transcludes discussions from other pages then you may get notified about edits to those pages. If you never want to subscribe to topics and get associated notifications then you can disable "Talk page subscription" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Special:TopicSubscriptions is linked there on "(Edit subscriptions)". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Happens to me too when I use twinkle to report someone to AIV. St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 01:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I want to make small edits without getting banned

this happened before what do I do (like grammar errors) ThatGuySal (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, ThatGuySal, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are getting messages about grammar edits, you may want to slow down on that particular kind of edit, but small edits in general are certainly welcome on Wikipedia. You might want to consider trying your hand at other kinds and seeing if you enjoy any of them! One particularly helpful one (even more so than correcting typos) is adding references to statements that don't have a source – you could check out this referencing introduction for more information on that kind of edits. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

What was the user name you got banned with? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@ThatGuySal Or do you just mean you edited something and your edit got reverted? That's not called being banned. ("Banned" basically means kicked out.)

I see what you're talking about, and it's a tiny misunderstanding. You intended to make a good edit, but you accidentally typed "bring" when you meant "being". The next person only saw "bring", which didn't make any sense to them, so they put it back the way it was. If your finger hadn't slipped, then I'm sure they would have seen that your way was an improvement. (Note: Every editing screen on Wikipedia has a Preview area to show you what your edit will look like; on some of them you have to click "Show preview" to see it, and others are automatic.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

How can I add pictures on article ?

Thank you very much for invited on Tea House .May I know , how could I add pictures, on Wikipedia Editing Article ? ""Thank you""

"Hajiani , AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen,

(On the visual editor) You can use the + button then click Images and Media. For images already on Wikimedia Commons, you can search for them, or else you can upload them.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 02:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen, let me rephrase and elaborate on Bennett Li11's last sentence. At Wikimedia Commons, you can search for the images that you want. Any that you find there, you are free to use. Or you can upload to Wikimedia Commons ("Commons") an image whose copyright you own. As for images you may find in books or periodicals, or elsewhere on the internet, you should assume that they are conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright unless you find, and can present, clear evidence that they are not. Do not upload to Commons any image that is conventionally copyright. You may upload to Commons images that you can show are in the public domain (where "in the public domain" means not "already available to many people" but instead "free of any copyright claim". ¶ Copyright is not a simple matter. As many of your edits to text were reverted, I think it would be better if you first concentrate on text edits. When you've become consistently (or almost consistently) successful with text edits, then start to think about adding new pictures to Commons (or to Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

For a more though introduction, see WP:Images for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Differentiating between two categories

What is the difference between Category:Old age and Category:Ageing? Puzzlepiecelad (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Ageing is a longer process that begins much earlier. Sort of a "destination vs journey" difference. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Can primary souce can cited if secondary sources are not available

Can we use primary source like law websites or gov .related press releases as source if secondary source is not reliable or unsupervised.And also limitations for using primary source .

Spbvj (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj: Welcome to The Teahouse. The important part of an article is that wikinotability needs to be demonstrated; this is done by using good secondary sources, which should be reliable and independent of the subject. Primary sources can be used to support the existence of a subject, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily noteworthy to others.

ETA: You asked for limitations for using primary source [sic]; I should have pointed you towards the section in our no original research policy that talks about primary sources: WP:PRIMARY. Another important point to be aware of aside from "do not use only primary sources to cite an article" is "do not interpret primary sources". (added 13:36, 3 November 2026 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

No. Primary sources can't be used for anything, unless the secondary sources are already good. They can't be used as the basis of an article, because such an article would not be able to meet the notability requirements. They can be used to support only minor facts, in an article that already meets the notability requirements. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Not so, it's more complex than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

That's quite misleading. The skeleton of an article is built on reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources may be used to flesh out the article, but said article must not be wholly composed of them per policy point 5. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

User:TooManyFingers Is wrong. Read the policy at WP:PSTS.
However, for demonstrating WikiNitability, you need generally two sources that meet the WP:GNG, and neither of these two can be primary sources. Once WikiNotability is established, primary sources may be used, especially for important facts where the primary source is most reliable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I quickly assumed that the original question was about notability, and obviously it could have been about something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used only to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.", according to WP:PRIMARY. — qkuldo(tell me about it) 09:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj. reliable primary sources can be used for facts in an article. See the policies at WP:Primary and WP:PSTS, which says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you Spbvj (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Seeking Advice on Wikipedia Notability for a Skin Care Clinic in Bangladesh

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Wikipedia editors, I am seeking guidance regarding Wikipedia's notability requirements for an organization. I am associated with SUO XI Hospital (Skin Care), a skin care clinic organization based in Bangladesh. We are interested in understanding whether our organization could qualify for an article on English Wikipedia. Currently, our organization has an official website and an established presence in the dermatology sector. However, we do not yet have significant independent media coverage from reputable newspapers or magazines. I would appreciate your advice on the following questions: What specific criteria must a healthcare organization meet to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article? What types of independent and reliable sources are considered sufficient to establish organizational notability? Are newspaper features, interviews, and independent magazine articles useful for demonstrating notability? Should we first establish independent media coverage before preparing an article draft? Where can we find experienced Wikipedia editors or consultants who understand the Conflict of Interest (COI) and Articles for Creation (AfC) processes? I understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and that an article is not guaranteed to be accepted. My intention is to understand the policies and follow the correct process. Thank you for your guidance. Basil (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Basil Khongstia: Welcome to The Teahouse. In the future, please do not use AI to generate text to be used on Wikipedia. Please see WP:42 for what is considered generally necessary for a subject to be on Wikipedia.

As a pro tip, be very wary about people reaching out to you unsolicited who offer writing services for money. Many are scams, and no one can guarantee content that stays permanently on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Significant independent coverage in the media is in fact the main requirement. ("Independent" means the reporters wrote all by themselves, with no contribution from the hospital or anyone associated.) Being a large or important organisation does not help; having a website and an industry presence also do not help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Hoping to get your assistance ahead. Basil (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. It seems you won't need my assistance because there is not going to be an article about the hospital. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:51, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Sarfraz Khan ke liye naya draft banane ke baare mein madad chahiye

Hello! Mera pehla draft (Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor)) notability ki kami aur purane sources ki wajah se reject ho gaya tha. Main is actor ke baare mein naye sire se ek naya aur behtar draft banana chahti hun. Kya aap mujhe bata sakte hain ki Wikipedia ke niyam anusar mujhe kis tarah ke reliable aur independent sources ki zaroorat padegi, aur kya main wahi purana page use kiye bina naya draft safely kaise bana sakti hun taaki G4 speedy deletion se bach sakun? Richa002 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Teahouse. Please ask at Hindi Wikipedia. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Since the question is about to draft on this Wikipedia, that's not a helpful reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. I understand. I will create a new draft at Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor) 2 with better sources as per WP:42. Richa002 (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

For sources, see WP:42.

You can start a new draft at Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor) 2, if you really think the original rejection was in error.

We would advise you to post comments here in English - you can use Google Translate if you need to (but please don't use AI). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If a draft author takes issue with the rejection of their draft, they should approach the rejecting reviewer to discuss this. Creating further drafts, and especially submitting them without a single source, is not helpful. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

OP's original draft had six sources when first submitted, and three the second time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Banana

Banana Republic and a few others are the same person that is trying for a change to their country. ~2026-58484-42 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58484-42: Welcome to The Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I've been scrolling through the teahouse for a bit, and to me it seems like one person is trolling or just spamming here. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thai celebrity BLP names

Hello, I'm just wondering if it's worth moving a lot of Thai celebrity BLP pages to this name format: [Nickname/Stage Name] + [Surname]. I'm an European of a different Asian ethnicity, not Thai, so maybe there's something I'm missing?
For example, Sarocha Chankimha. I looked her up, and most of the English headlines under Google News refer to her as strictly Freen (her nickname/stage name) + Sarocha. As in Freen Sarocha, not "Sarocha Chankimha." Similarly, a lot of articles about Metawin Opas-iamkajorn refer to him as simply "Win (nickname) + Metawin."
I have noticed that a lot of Thai celebrity BLP pages use full names, even Becky Armstrong (half-British, with a fully English birth name) previously. And the editors/her fans keep trying to refer to her as "Rebecca Patricia Armstrong."
Is there something cultural I might be missing, or is it fair to change their page titles to the Nickname + Surname format, as the majority of English sources use that name format for them? Thanks. Handsome Ellis (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it should go through WP:RM as this is a WP:COMMONNAME situation. You could go boldly and move, but a fair warning, it could be reverted, thanks for asking! In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the RM on a few Thai celebrity pages. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I wish we had a clearer more-specific way to describe the English-language uses of names when the person's original name follows a separate pattern. I'm pretty sure that by "nickname" you don't mean a joke name invented by friends, and it's not your fault that there isn't a suitable easy word for this thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Just to explain it a bit, Thai people go by nicknames they've had since childhood. I'm aware of that cultural practice, but yeah, it's tricky to know what to call these celebrities on Wikipedia. Here's a blog post on the US Library of Congress website explaining it. Extract:

Although it is not officially registered or recognized under Thai law, nicknames are widely used in everyday life. Most Thai individuals receive a nickname at birth. Thai people do not usually change their nicknames; some do, but fewer compared to changes in their first names and surnames. Thais’ nicknames have changed over time. In the past, most nicknames were in Thai, which were short and simple. usually named after animals, fruits, colors, and nature, such as Khao (Rice), Kai (Chicken), Fah (Sky/Blue), and Ploy (Gemstone). Nowadays, the number of syllables increases, and the use of foreign languages in nicknames has increased. Nicknames can be random English words, such as Donut, Golf, or New Year, brand names, such as Porsche, Benz, or Pepsi, or even be an alphabet letter, such as A, B, S, or X. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

What to call the celebrities is not tricky - you call them whatever they're called in the reliable sources, even if the reliable sources are out of date or incorrect. What's tricky is only that "nickname" has a different status but the same word for it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure a person is a reliable source for their own name if we prove it's really the person, but just "everybody is using a new name for them now" doesn't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Can a normal title be created as a redirect to a category?

Theres a category about a music video director (Category:Music videos directed by Stuart Gosling), but no page for Stuart Gosling. He is not notable enough to create a page, but I wonder if his name could serve as a redirect to the category? Emcgonigle (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I would wonder if there should be a category related to a person without an article. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The category should not exist. If he becomes notable in the future so that there's an article about him, the category could then be created too. But right now it should be changed so that his name definitely fails to appear in redirects and categories. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:18, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Nominated for CFD. In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Request to add photo to 2008 Mumbai attacks page

2008 Mumbai attacks

Hello Editor, any Extended Confirmed user can accept my request to add a photo to the 2008 Mumbai Attacks page. Because this photo was published by the government and is evidence of the Mumbai attacks. It was uploaded under Section 52(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act (fair use). Used for non-profit education. This will help better showcase the article about the incident.
Full details in the talk page 2008 Mumbai attack talk page - my comment 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 17:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Etymology

What's the etymology of Teahouse like what inspired the name and why this nane ? Furbchess (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

A teahouse is a place where people gather for tea and conversation. It represents the sort of environment we want here. Athanelar (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, thats cool. Furbchess (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

13 colonies flag

Concerned that the 13 colonies 13 star flag is not put up but is instead of the British flag that is not the United States original flag Uscitizen1988 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Uscitizen1988 Which article are you talking about? Athanelar (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

13 Colonies Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thirteen Colonies Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The revolutionary flag the Star-Spangled Banner flag of the 13 colonies of the 13th states on the East Coast of the United States of America Uscitizen1988 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're saying at all. Also, you do not have to make two Talk Page discussions about this. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Uscitizen1988 I understand your concern is that on some article we are using the British flag rather than the Betsy Ross flag, but which article is it that you saw this on? Athanelar (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thirteen colonies but it’s the British flag Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The article Thirteen Colonies is specifically about the period of time when that territory was colonies of the British. After that it stops being the Thirteen Colonies and starts being the United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

That is neat information. I still believe that the 13 colony flag should be under the 13 colonies subject. Uscitizen1988 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

If your wondering about Thirteen Colonies, I believe that article is on the colonies before the states were founded. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 23:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I believe the Thirteen star betsy Ross flag should be displayed as the victory of the United States not as the original failure from the British Uscitizen1988 (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

How to add images?

hello, so I was planning to add new, more up to date photos to the article for jujo station. However, i don't know how to replace pictures or edit the date. I also don't know if I have to save or archive the previous pictures in any way or if I can just delete them. Thank you. Hellothe22 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Help:Pictures — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 23:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

These "more up to date" photos, Hellothe22: are they already at c:Category:Jūjō Station (Tokyo)? If so, all you need do is edit Jūjō Station (Tokyo) accordingly. If not, and if you own the copyright, then you first need to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (adding them to c:Category:Jūjō Station (Tokyo)), and then edit Jūjō Station (Tokyo) accordingly. Even if you are convinced that a newer photograph should supersede an older one (because it depicts the station as it now is, because the lighting is better, because the resolution is greater, or whatever), you should give it a new filename and you should not attempt to delete the (in your view) unneeded older photograph. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

ok! Thank you. Hellothe22 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hellothe22, if when you talk of deleting pictures you mean removing them from an article (as opposed to deleting them from Wikimedia Commons), then yes of course you can do this. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you for the clarification. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Lapaine

Daniel Lapaine

Hi I've just added a role to the TV table but noticed that the heading to video games is there above TV and the video games (which I didn't edit) are below the TV and without an edit button. I was going to try and move the Video heading but I can't see how to with the body of it having no edit button. Ive worked on a few tables and never seen this before. Any help would be appreciated. Lakelady2282 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The table for TV had no ending bracket. Please see if it's OK now, or if I fixed it wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

All good. Thank you so much. Debbie Lakelady2282 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Searching Newspapers.com for overly-initialed names

I'm trying to search Newspapers.com for articles about W. F. R. Mills, who's name has three initials. By searching "W. R. F. Mills" on the website, however, I'm told it has too many single-character words (that being the W. F. R.). I know he has mentions with his name like so, but I just can't search them due to this stipulation. Searching "W.F.R." or "WFR" doesn't work. Is there any avenue I can take to be able to search this guy's name on Newspapers.com? Roast (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Does F. R. Mills work? (It's in the right order, just missing the first "word".) Or does that become too general with too many hits? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: Welcome to The Teahouse. I unfortunately don't have access to Newspapers, but search fields like this usually allow for the searching of phrases with the use of quotation marks. "W. F. R. Mills" could work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Guerreroast I have a newspapers.com account and after a bit of trial-and-error I think that your best bet is to search for "William Mills" (loads of hits) and then refine by places he lived and times he was in those locations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This works thank you Roast (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Changing errors on pages

I have found several pages that are out of date or based on an algorithm that is inappropriate so full of errors about individuals. I naively thought I could correct the errors using edit. They keep getting reverted or whatever. How should I actually go about drawing attention to pages with a lot of errors and getting someone who DOES have the authority to fix them ? Ianjcmcgrath (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be editing British Journal of Pharmacology and replacing large chunks of article text with instructions like "please remove so-and-so". If you want to suggest or discuss a change, please use the talk page: Talk:British Journal of Pharmacology. If you blank out big parts of the live page just to say what you want done, that's going to get reverted. Packrat3860 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

What algorithm do you mean? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I believe User:Ianjcmcgrath might be referring to the article Regius Professor of Physiology (Glasgow). There is a list of holders of the professorship there, most of which were cited to their page on a University of Glasgow subsite that was taken down at some point after early 2023. Only some of the references contained an archive url, so the others just had dead links. I've cleaned that up now. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Your username seems to indicate a conflict of interest with some of your edits. Read the policy to check if it is or not. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 15:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

can you right article about you day to day experience

thinking of writing my a article

Watchnbe3 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Watchnbe3. No. Please use socal media for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and contains articles about notable topics. See WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a digitally drawn map

I’m in the process of creating a drawn map for a archaeological site but I’m using another map as a reference, the author of the map is unknown since this map has been used by several authors without credit, this map is extremely important for readers of that specific article to understand the site, what am I supposed to do and how can I upload it to wiki.

I don’t know if I’m just being cautious for no reason, if that’s the case let me know. TeenX808 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

TeenX808, I recommend that you ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and that when you do so, you link to a page in which the map appears. (If the page includes more than one map, of course say which map you have in mind.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary:- The page isn’t found online but found in a book from 1994, sure I will copy past this message over there, thank you so much for the advice. TeenX808 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Published Book Cover page image Ownership

Hi everyone,

I recently created an article for a book and uploaded an image of the book's front cover. I downloaded the image via Google Images from an Amazon listing because it was high quality, though the same cover appears on the publisher’s website and other media outlets.

Shortly after, I received a copyright notification regarding the file. I want to understand how copyright works in this case:

Does copyright belong to Amazon, the publisher, or the cover designer?

If taking a personal photograph of a physical book cover is also considered a derivative work of copyrighted artwork, what is the proper procedure?

What is the correct way to upload a book cover under Wikipedia's Non-Free Content (fair use) policy so that it complies with guidelines?

I want to make sure I follow all copyright policies properly for future contributions. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Rashesh purohit (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Rashesh purohit, the covers of most books you'll find on Amazon are copyright. The copyright holder is likely to be the publisher. As an example, the book that's in front of me now is from "Vintage Books", which (the copyright page tells us) is, or at the time was, part of "The Random House Group Limited"; it says on its rear "Cover illustration © Vicki Gausden". I'd say that the front cover is copyright "Vicki Gausden and the Random House Group Limited". Wikipedia holds that the photographer/scanner, no matter how skillful or painstaking, of a two-dimensional object does not have copyright; so whether I scan it myself or get a scan from some web page makes no difference. (Also, the author of the book is not a/the copyright holder of the cover.) The only way I can upload such a scan is for "fair use" within a specified article (not for a draft). Please read and digest Wikipedia:Non-free content; if you don't understand something within it, feel free to ask. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed and clear explanation. Using the concrete example really helped me understand how copyright works between the illustrator, publisher, and platform, as well as why scanning or photographing the cover doesn't create a new copyright. Rashesh purohit (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to us. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of a deletion discussion

Hello, I am Luca Poma, the subject of the article Luca Poma, which is currently being discussed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Poma.

Shortly after the discussion was opened, I was contacted privately by someone offering, for a fee, to "defend" and "protect" the article. I did not accept, and I reported the matter to Wikipedia's dedicated email address for paid-editing cases. I therefore decided to take part in the discussion personally and transparently.

In the discussion I have disclosed my conflict of interest and listed some independent sources (Adnkronos, Manageritalia, FashionUnited, Wired Italia), but so far no other editor has commented.

I understand that each edition of Wikipedia applies its own criteria, so I am only asking that an experienced editor assess the English article on the basis of the available sources, against WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.

I will not edit the article myself. Thank you for your attention. ~~~~ ~2026-58613-59 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The deletion discussion will result in editors reviewing the article as you are requesting. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please also note that it is forbidden to add any text generated via AI to any Wikimedia projects. I have put {{Uw-ai1}} on @~2026-58613-59's talk page. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 17:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am Luca Poma, the subject of the article. I read thet my comment added to the discussion, listing national-level third-party sources, has been collapsed as AI-generated. I understand the concern, and I apologize, but I was not aware of this rule: English is not my native language and I used an AI tool to help translate and format my text, but all the information and sources are my own and can be verified. I would be grateful if editors could look at the sources themselves (Adnkronos, Manageritalia, FashionUnited, Wired Italia). Thankyou~2026-58613-59 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

We do not expect your English to be perfect. We would rather speak to you directly as one human to another. As I said, the deletion discussion will result in editors conducting the review you are requesting. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Forgive me, but I'm a victim of impostor syndrome and I'm very uncomfortable with my lack of language proficiency (my second language, which I speak better, is French). Thanks and have a nice day~2026-59000-74 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Article on Viking combs

Hello, I'd like to get some advice on whether creating an article on Viking combs would be sustainable as a standalone article. I'm unsure whether Viking combs would warrant their own article or if they would be considered too specific, since they are a type of comb. I'd be covering the archaeological excavations and finds, the history dating back to the Viking Age, as well as their dating and construction. I'd also include documented uncertainties where relevant, particularly when discussing whether a find can actually be dated to the Viking Age or is from an earlier or later period. I'd appreciate some editorial advice on whether this would be a suitable article and what areas would be most important to cover before I get into the research.

Thanks StamoFamily (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @StamoFamily. The general rule of thumb to test if a subject merit's a standalone article is three strong sources that each are independent, from reliable publications, and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. I think you could probably find three academic journal articles and book chapters that discuss Viking combs as a distinct object! qcne (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Can I reference a strong source with a weak source to back up a claim?

I'm looking at a paragraph which makes a claim, and I found a secondary source which backs up most of it, but not all of it. I also found a primary source that backs up whatever the secondary source could not. Can/Should I reference them both? BoldedExclamation (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

i am not a professional editor, but I have seen 2 sources for one claim on multiple articles before. not sure if the reason for it is the same as your case and I'm not sure if this info is helpful, but that is just from my experience from viewing articles. Pottedpots1929 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This depends on what type of claim and what primary source. For example, if there's a claim that Company X's machine produces 10 units per hour, and a company source confirms it, then this claim must be deleted from the article. What claim do you have, with what primary source? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at Charriol, and trying to source the first paragraph under History. From my searches, I found that I can cover (most of) the first sentence with https://www.charriol.com/pages/charriol-history, but that's a primary source. The rest I think can be sourced in a foreign-language article I found at https://www.journalduluxe.fr/fr/montres-joaillerie/charriol-luxe-accessible-alexis-de-prevoisin

I also found another source (Coralie Charriol interview) which in my opinion has better information overall, but I'm unclear as to how reliable it is considered. BoldedExclamation (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@BoldedExclamation: Welcome to The Teahouse. My view on this is that this article could benefit from having more secondary sources. The references currently used are either advertising products from the brand, focusing on the founder's death than the company, or showcasing that a philanthropic foundation in the founder's name gives scholarships to promising design students.

(TL;DR)  The article should focus on establishing that the company Charriol is wikinotable before adding details like history from primary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I think I might have used some confusing language, that's on me. I meant more that I was trying to provide references for the material already in the article, and that some of the references could verify different parts of said material. BoldedExclamation (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find your language confusing; I'm just saying that the sources being used look poor and unfit as references, even if they are secondary. Were I bolder, I'd slap a {{promotional}} on the top of the article with some of the sources being used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. Given that, and that these sources were the best I could find, I'm not sure how I should proceed from here. What are some common things editors might do in such a situation? BoldedExclamation (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

That makes no sense: if a primary source supports a claim, it could be included; whether it should is a different story. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Including a (potentially) self-serving claim by the subject is a detriment to the article. It depends what might or might not be self-serving TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I said it should be determined if it should be included. If it's non-controversial, it's generally fine, but many times it gets into minutiae that isn't required for or wanted on an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding sentence about a character's gender identity in the Gorillaz article

hello, I was wondering if it is okay that I added a sentence about a character's (Stuart "2-D" Pot) canonical gender identity? It was confirmed nearly a year ago on December 12th 2025, and I didn't see anything about it in the article. Is there a reason for that? Should I remove it? Pottedpots1929 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If it was reported on by reliable independent sources then it's probably worth including. If it's just a tweet from the artist or something then probably not. What would be the source? Packrat3860 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The source is from https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/69260/1/the-unknown-is-whats-exciting-gorillaz-upcoming-album-tackles-death . Dazed did an interview with Jamie Hewlett and Damon Albarn (the creators of Gorillaz)

It reads:

Albarn: That’s the lovely thing about Gorillaz – it’s still committed to everything existing in its own world. It’s why I put that sound on my voice to separate me from [cartoon lead singer] 2-D. He… Well, I actually don’t think he’s much of a he, he’s more of a ‘they’, isn’t he?

Hewlett: They’re definitely more at home in that [non-binary] world. They’re a sweetheart, they’re open and accepting new information.

Albarn: Exactly, it’s such a nice place to sing from. Pottedpots1929 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

draft good enough?

is my draft at

User:Terry625972/sandbox

good enough to submit yet Terry625972 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Seem rather small to me, also I'm not sure the topic is notable enough since List of Vocaloid songs is currently a redirect to Vocaloid#music ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Terry625972 have you seen our criteria for inclusion for lists at Wikipedia:NLIST? qcne (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so um should I keep working on it or just drop it Terry625972 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You'd want to prove that the list distinct grouping is discussed in three or so reliable, independent sources. qcne (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

In other words, that "All Hatsune Miku songs" is already the title topic of reliable articles - not just that you can find info on each of the songs. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so in sum I need to prove that my article is good enough and sourced enough in order to keep working on it to maybe get it submited as a draft? Terry625972 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not enough. You need to prove that "All of the Hatsune Miku songs together in one article" is already the topic of major reliable articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

articles as in wikipedia articles or news articles

also for 3 sources do I want primary or secondary sources Terry625972 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources including news - not Wikipedia. In those sources, it needs to be a topic they're discussing, not just something they mention.

Secondary sources TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so I need to prove that the list of songs is already in a article and then move that list to Wikipedia adding sources for each one? Terry625972 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You have to prove that it has become "a thing" for reporters to write a big article discussing all together all of the songs - not just listing them, but talking on and on about all of them in one big article. How many reporters have done that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

ok so i've read your earlier comment on the Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-TooManyFingers-20261104071300-H0n0r-20261026142100, and my article idea falls under one of the garbage articles you described, one without many citable sources

why you may ask, I was just bored and reading the teahouse to maybe answer some of the questions I had

yea sorry for wasting your time

I'm not smart enough for this, and reading that and the rest of the current teahouse gave me more knowledge about how Wikipedia articles are created, specifically the notability criterion, than Wikipedia:Notability

-Terry625972 Terry625972 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

An article not having good sources to back it up is not a problem - if you know good sources and you're volunteering to fix it!

My problem in that other thread is an attitude of insisting that somebody must keep and fix a big pile of never-finished articles, except they personally are not volunteering to be the one to fix all of them, but saying somebody must!! There are people who "volunteer" by sticking up someone else's hand instead of their own.

I encourage you, if you think there are great sources to write this songs article from, go for it! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:20, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Hatsune Miku songs

I have done a little more research, my page would essentially do this page's purpose I think because this category page is essentially what my list is doing except in a different form Terry625972 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thank you for checking on that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:03, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

How to remove a dangling 'citation needed'

I found an instance of a citation needed being added when there already was an existing citation for it on the article. That was the only change made in that edit -- should I revert it, or just remove it? BoldedExclamation (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Was there some other problem? For example, is the existing citation not good enough (maybe the necessary fact isn't in there), or it's a good one but it's not near the fact it's supporting? (The same citation should be used again if it will really help the reader see what's going on.) If there were no such problems at all, revert it. Otherwise, fix the (maybe minor) problem and remove the tag. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's just that the existing citation wasn't near the fact it's supporting. So I will go ahead and fix that. Thank you! BoldedExclamation (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Notability assessment for a biography of Roch Domerego

Hello,

I have been preparing a draft biography of Roch Domerego, a French beekeeper, author and apitherapy specialist.

Before considering submission through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the available sources are sufficient to establish notability under English Wikipedia's guidelines.

My draft is available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christarakaza/sandbox

Some potentially relevant independent sources include:

• Alpes 1 (2012): https://alpesdusud.alpes1.com/news/locales/22457/un-scientifique-dignois-explore-la-therapie-au-venin-d-abeille
• La Dépêche du Midi (2001): https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2001/03/25/216727-il-faut-sauver-les-abeilles.html
• ELLE à Table (2018): https://www.elle.fr/Elle-a-Table/Les-dossiers-de-la-redaction/News-de-la-redaction/Pollen-frais-3646097

I have a professional connection with ROBEEC Ltd, an organization associated with the subject, and wish to disclose this relationship transparently. The current sandbox was prepared with AI assistance; I understand that it requires an independently written, policy-compliant revision before submission.

Could you advise whether the independent sources demonstrate sufficient significant coverage, and whether additional sources are needed?

Thank you for your guidance. Christarakaza (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Christarakaza. You're asking for a pre-review. Submitting via Articles for Creation is how your sources are judged. However, none of your sources independent of Domerego - the latter two are interviews. The first source is just briefly promoting his book. qcne (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable soirces. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself. Athanelar (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The use of AI is grounds for an immediate fail; an AI-assisted article has no merit, and nothing in it is worth saving. It would be to your great advantage to delete everything - yes, lose the whole thing, blank - and start again with no assistance. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Why does AI think we do notability assessments? We don't! That's what AfC is for! DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It's not even what AfC is for, really. AfC is a "double-check," ideally you're supposed to have made an actual good faith effort to check notability yourself, since by submitting to AfC you're saying "I believe this article is ready to go to mainspace, I just want an experienced editor to make sure of that first."

What AfC is explicitly not for is for people who know nothing about our policies and guidelines to write down whatever-the-fuck and then have somebody do all the legwork of checking whether their subject is notable on their behalf. That is increasingly what it's turning into, though, since nowadays for a lot of people the creative process seems to be to discuss it with ChatGPT, have ChatGPT generate a draft, and then submit it to AfC and give some poor reviewer a headache. You can see a lot of this at User:Athanelar/Chatbot transcript analyses. Athanelar (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Since I agree with you, and since it's easy to see that theory and practice are currently quite far apart, I'm considering making a proposal that amounts to gatekeeping the process of writing articles, having three main features:

• make it impossible to create an article, submit a draft, or make an AfC submission without a ticket unique to the topic;
• the ticket is obtained by passing Source Review, which of course currently does not exist;
• source reviewers must either issue the ticket or give their reasons for refusal, and are prohibited from providing assistance beyond that - if refused, the submitter has no recourse but to try again.

Is this as stupid-crazy as I'm afraid it might be? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. I feel like that many roadblocks would also filter out a lot of potentially notable articles whose authors don't want to go through all the hassle.

Maybe we should have an automatic check-and-reject system to detect various AI signs, including (but not limited to):

• The AI exposing itself in the citations (|utm-source=chatgpt.com, for example)
• Large copy-pastes

The flagged articles would have a comment added to them automatically. This comment would notify AfC reviewers that the draft was flagged and specify what check failed. This way, the AfC reviewers would have to spend much less time with the flagged articles.

If needed, we could add a scenario that automatically declines the draft. I was thinking this could happen if over 3 checks failed. Thoughts? DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 19:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

My idea was not AI-focused, or at least it wasn't meant to be.

My idea has only one roadblock: if you don't have good sources lined up, you aren't permitted to begin. No other obstacles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think either of these really address the problem at hand, which is that people are going to ChatGPT and saying "I want an article about xyz" and ChatGPT is saying "Wikipedia requires that xyz be notable if you want to have an article about it, so rather than submitting to mainspace you should make a draft and submit it through AfC so that somebody can check whether xyz is notable."

If we want to keep drafts out of AfC that haven't even been checked for notability by their authors, the best thing we could do is provide a legitimate avenue for people to request source assessments as a separate thing entirely from AfC. Let the chatbot direct people to that queue, let people dump an AI-generated source assessment request in there where it can languish for however long until someone gets around to declining it for being AI generated, and AfC gets freed up for people who've actually done the reasonable due diligence. The good thing about these new editors who rely on AI for everything is that they're generally profoundly lazy, and if they get told "Yeah, your submission's in the queue, please just wait however long it takes" they're likely to actually wait (or maybe at worst come to the Teahouse to ask for an expedited review) rather than trying to circumvent the process; as evidenced by the amount of people we get coming here and posting AI generated comments to the effect of "I submitted a draft SO VERY LONG ago (normally it's like, 3-4 weeks tops) and nobody has reviewed it yet, please check!"

So yeah, that's my proposal. We add a new "request for notability assessment" feature as basically a honeypot for these sorts of requests and let that get backlogged to fuck instead of AfC. Athanelar (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty much what I said? I think? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You suggested requiring people pass this step before they can submit an AfC, but I don't think we even need to go that far. Just having requests for source assessment as a separate thing should be enough. Plus as a bonus, any editor in good standing could carry out a source assessment since it's merely an opinion and wouldn't directly approve an article to go into mainspace, so the pool of potential reviewers would be much higher. Athanelar (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I get the difference now. You certainly have a clearer view of what might or might not actually work, so I'd happily go along with that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea, mostly because it's incredibly funny. Of course, we would need to make sure we directed people there enough that the models pick up on this, so it would take a bit. I think we should be able to implement this if we add a button to the AfC templates. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 20:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I think if the concern truly is limited to LLM use, it would probably be simpler to add two checkboxes to the process, the second one to only be shown after the first one is completed:

• "AI was never used at any time on any part of the material I am submitting."
• "If the reviewer believes there is evidence of AI anywhere in the material I am submitting, I agree that my entire submission will be immediately deleted and I will not be allowed to try again."

After the second checkbox is clicked, the Submit button becomes visible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:31, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

TF bot undoing CL edits

Edited the indiantown, FL article to remove unconstructive whitewashing language; TF undid revision, claiming the edit wasn't constructive.

This is opposed to the purpose of the project, which is to provide informative and accurate articles, information and language in a helpful manner.

Whitewashing and soft, neutralizing language are contrary to the purpose of bias removal. ~2026-58618-14 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

While I personally agree with your idea (the word 'settled' implies that nobody was there in the first place, which there clearly was), the content (especially the wikilinks) that you added were not constructive. Though I do agree with the use of the word 'colonist' over 'migrant'. I'll rephrase that sentence a bit. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You are right that neutralizing is contrary to the purpose, but antagonizing is equally contrary to the purpose; in fact it's the same error in both cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Your edit was not vandalism and User:T430 should not have described it as such.

Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Good place to promote an RFC?

Hi, I'm a newer editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to make some additions to the Stranger Than Heaven page (an upcoming video game) over the controversy regarding the game's use of Tupac's likeness (after his death). Those edits were stridently opposed by two other editors who, after both talk page discussion and a DRN case, remain unconvinced of the merits of my edit(s) in any form.

The volunteer leading the dispute resolution created this RFC (just linking to the diff for my proposed edit).

This has, thus far, attracted no attention (the only "No" vote there currently is one of the editors involved in the dispute) as at a glance it's unclear what's going on and requires people to do too much reading on what really is a personal dispute between three people. Both editors have indicated they will revert anything I apply to the page (including relevant WP:RS) rather than applying edits over my own. Discussion on what they'd like to see changed in my edit has become circular.

This isn't a conduct dispute—I'm sure both other editors are sincere in their belief that my edit is unacceptable—but this has gotten very drawn out and I just want a couple other uninvolved editors to weigh in. What is the best place that I could promote this RFC or otherwise ask for some input? TrainTrash (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The best way to promote the RfC is to put a neutral announcement (i.e. "there is a debate about whether or not to do X", without the detail given above), on the talk page of one or more relevant WikiProjects; in this case that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! TrainTrash (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Questions about campaign sources and a former surname

A previous discussion about a biography draft raised concerns about independent coverage. I have since obtained complete newspaper reports through public libraries:

• Gord Howard, “Falls needs jobs, opportunity: mayoral hopeful,” The Niagara Falls Review, July 18, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Mayoral contenders Craitor, Mansour debate Thundering Waters,” October 11, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Please don’t call me a politician: Mansour,” October 15, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Falls mayor holds off challengers to win seat,” October 23, 2018, p. A1.

The first and third are campaign profiles; the second reports a debate. The fourth mentions me briefly. All share the same reporter and newspaper, and the profiles contain substantial interview material.

How should I assess their independent secondary content and their common authorship when considering notability? What published evidence would be appropriate to connect my historical candidate surname, Mansour, with my current surname, Mourise?

I am asking about those sourcing questions, rather than requesting approval of an article. Dlilamourise (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

campaign profiles (not independent), brief mentions (we require significant coverage) and interviews (not independent) are not sufficient. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Academic notability

I would appreciate some guidance concerning WP:NACADEMIC.

I am Thomas P. Devereaux, a theoretical condensed matter physicist at Stanford University. A previous draft biography was deleted under G11 for promotional language and sourcing problems. I understand those objections and do not intend to recreate the deleted article.

My research has approximately 33,300 citations and an h-index of 94 according to Google Scholar. I have received the Humboldt Research Award and am an elected Fellow of both the American Physical Society and the AAAS. I have also served as Associate Laboratory Director at SLAC.

My question is whether this record might satisfy WP criterion 1, concerning significant scholarly impact, even without several lengthy independent biographical articles.

Given the previous G11 deletion and my conflict of interest as the subject, what would be the appropriate way to request an independent editorial assessment?

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zFJUD8EAAAAJ

Thank you for your advice. Tpdevereaux (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dr. Devereaux! Using the golden rule, you can create an article if you have three sources that are reliable, independent from the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject (you), then you can create an article. I recommend just making a draft with the same name as the previous, so you'd click the little red link on your user page. And you'd write it without AI. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 22:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Phoenix. I understand the importance of independent sources and the concerns about my previous draft. My question was specifically about WP, which I understand allows academic notability to be established through significant scholarly impact, even without three independent biographical articles. Would my citation record, Humboldt Research Award, and APS/AAAS fellowships be relevant under that guideline? I'm trying to establish whether I meet the academic criteria before attempting another article. Thanks again! ~2026-58716-12 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dr Devereaux. The criteria most relevant to you are at (surprise!) Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm sure you're capable of reading them and determining if you can fulfil them. (I strongly suspect that you can.) Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI. I can tell because of the shortcut fail (specifically about WP, which I understand). — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 04:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Improve Science page

Can anyone tell me whether science articles require long sentences or short sentences? I think they should have clear and short definitions, with examples and formulas on the page.

What other editors think about this? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 04:44, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁: Welcome to The Teahouse. There's no policy or guideline requiring science articles to have long or short sentences. One could try and establish consensus to maintain consistency across articles, but until it becomes a guideline, it's editor's choice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, as I've seen some pages that have definitions written in long sentences and no examples or formulas. So I'm worried that if students come here to get information but it's not written properly, they'll get confused.

It's odd to said why students come to Wikipedia for information, especially for studies. But I think if people come here and see short defination withexamples , they will understand clearly. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it probably wouldn't be good to make a policy about this. But if you find the thing you're talking about, too-long sentences making a science article hard to understand, I certainly encourage you to improve it by making the sentences clearer, or shorter, or both. (But please don't change them just because they're long - only change them if they truly are hard to read.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:41, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I am only changing the definition part, making it short and clear, and giving examples, formulas and references, I will not remove the rest of what he has written extra. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:12, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines includes: "It has been proposed by members of this project that the first part of article be targeted to the general public, while the second part be targeted to the scientifically inclined." PrimeHunter (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I also think it should be like this. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

You mean something like an abstract preceding the scientific discussion in the article, @PrimeHunter?

Even with an abstract, though, @刘宸宁‘s original question would still need to be addressed because there are varying opinions about whether scientific publications—not to mention academic-in-general publications—should aim for using simpler, clearer words or continue using the multisyllabic words often of Latin derivation that we’ve come to associate with this sort of writing.

Tomorrow I’ll share a hilarious research study that shows how even academics can be fooled by it! Augnablik (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

@AugnablikOkay, I'll wait for you. We can use multisyllabic words, but I think short sentences with example would be perfect for understanding the science, and it would be easy for other people, including someone with zero knowledge of science, to understand clearly.

In my other idea, I also think that Wikipedia has several concept pages. Could we make one model that maps the concepts of science to a single page, so that other people can click on a concept and go to that page? I will talk about this in Meta-Wiki. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 19:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, longer sentences aren't necessarily syntactically intricate sentences. Chopping up a sentence that's long but not syntactically intricate into short sentences doesn't necessarily result in increased readability. Chopping up a long sentence that is syntactically intricate may well be an improvement, but the person who chops it up must first be sure that they fully understand it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:15, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

yeah, you are right 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 19:55, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit on verious page about Controversy news update

Hi, I wanted to update controversy of any personality, entity, institutation published in news paper/website, will it be ok ? Rashesh purohit (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

You will need to find reliable, independent sources, and have a balanced view of the controversy. It may take some practice! But yes, you can do this. Maybe start with an easy one. M kuhner (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, are you asking permission to update a § "Controversy" section, or something else? If the first one, as long as you adhere to the NPOV policy, you will be fine (see above reply). It also seems like you are getting this information from a newpaper/news site. For that, look at the reliable sources policy (especially § News organizations). IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 06:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

This user name directs to an article. Is this OK? ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

What? IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 20:57, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

If you click on the user name of the original question(Rahesh), it links to an article about a book. ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. It looks like it redirects because it was moved to that article. The user pages policy doesn't seem to indicate it's not allowed... I personally will leave it alone, if you want to know for sure maybe start another topic. — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 21:15, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Finding people to help me write an article?

Hi,

I was planning on making an article on Lilith Walther but I've been having trouble finding sources and knowing how to put it all together, she's responsible for such projects as Bloodborne Kart (later adapted into Nightmare Kart), Arcus, and most recently It's Bunlith! The Witch Upstairs. Unfortunately a lot of the sources mostly talk on Bloodborne/Nightmare Kart as this is where she gained most of her notoriety. Most of the other information on her and her other projects are limited to sites that are considered not reliable, such as the Kickstarter page for It's Bunlith!, and very obviously her own social media pages.

I'm wondering if there's anyone (or anywhere I could find someone) who could possibly collaborate with me in terms of finding more sources and getting a first draft ready.

Thanks in advance. Crababiner (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I can't help directly but one thing I do know is that unreliable sources sometimes cite reliable ones. For example her Wikitubia page has some cites: you could try looking at those and see if any are usable. M kuhner (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead, unfortunately all of those link to either bluesky, youtube, kickstarter, twitter. The only two leads are itch.io which is about Bloodborne Kart, and glitchkarts.com which just says she made that game in a footnote. Crababiner (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that you might have found everything already. That would mean there's nothing to write and not going to be an article; almost every person on the planet is like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

It just feels weird that it's possible to write an article on the things a person has done, but not on the person herself Crababiner (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

It happens a lot though. I do understand that it feels weird, but it's because we go by whether the story has been told already in reliable sources. Example: If I write two books, and one gets no coverage but the other one gets a lot, then it's easy to see why the second book gets a Wikipedia article but the first one doesn't. It's just that we apply that rule about coverage to people too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Question about the sources.

I want to write an article about Jirai lifestyle and fashion, they're two different things but I want to write about them in one article. Problem is; there is no official sources, because no one made them before. So I want to be the first one to do that. I know a lot about both of jirai fashion and lifestyle, and after one year I would want to write an " official " meaning for the " jirai kei " that is available only on social media. Can I do that? If there's no official sources? ~2026-58759-70 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if there are no independent reliable sources that discuss your topics with critical analysis and commentary, there can be no Wikipedia articles about them. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, because we only summarize what others have already written. We follow the coverage, not lead the way. Wikipedia is not for topics that were just created. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

ja:量産型・地雷系 is bristling with references. (NB I haven't read the article, let alone looked at the sources to which the references point.) I can't imagine what could be meant by an "official source" for such a subject. What do you mean by "official source" and "official meaning", ~2026-58759-70? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:14, 5 November 2026 (UTC)　

I think what OP means by "official sources" is reliable sources. A quick skim of the article in Japanese using Google Translate nets around 39 in-text citations, but I have not checked these citations for reliability. — qkuldo(tell me about it) 12:03, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Kurzzitation in Einzelnachweisen mit Verlinkung zur Literaturliste

Hallo zusammen,

zur Zeit arbeite ich daran, den deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel über Aelia Eudocia mit Informationen aus dem englischen anzureichern. Im englischen Artikel ist die Zitationsweise wunderbar (siehe Aelia Eudocia). Es gibt Kurzzitation und weitere Informationen in den Einzelnachweisen ganz nach wissenschaftlicher Fußnotenart, und dazu eine alphabetische Liste sämtlicher Werke unter "Literatur". Die Kurzzitationen verlinken jeweils auf das Werk in der Literaturliste. Genau so hätte ich es gerne auch im deutschen Artikel. Wie geht das auf möglichst einfache Weise? Aktuell kann ich bei Einzelnachweisen auf verschiedene Seiten desselben Werkes nur entweder jedes Mal die kompletten Daten samt relevanter Seitenzahl neu in die Vorlage eingeben oder aber die Seiten bei Wiederverwendung desselben Werkes durch die Ergänzung von Details einzeln angeben, was dann aber seltsame, unschöne Fußnoten (2.1, 2.2 ...) erzeugt. Ich hoffe, es gibt eine unkomplizierte Lösung! Danke! Aelia Eudokia (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, we need you to speak in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. If you only understand German, you should use the German Wikipedia instead. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Here in English: How can I use the same way of quoting sources that is used in the English article on Aelia Eudocia in the German version as well, that is, short quotations with occasional additional information under "Einzelnachweise", and the short quotations including links to the respective bibliographical information in "Literatur"? Is there an easy way? If I understand correctly, the German Wikipedia has some other templates, or simply less templates, and functions slightly differently. Aelia Eudokia (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for asking in English, Aelia Eudokia; but if I understand you correctly you are asking about German-language Wikipedia. If I'm right, then you should be asking (in German!) at German-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:18, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Binomial name's authority?

I am working on an article about a moth. The moth was reclassified in 2019. I noted the change in the article and added the old synonym to the taxobox. But I am confused about the taxobox parameter "Authority". Is the authority the name of the person who first described/named the moth? or the name of the person(s) who renamed it?

For example: In 1906, Mr. Taylor, described a moth he named Enypia packardata. In 2019, Brehm et al. reclassifed the genus and the moth's new official name is Sabulodes pachardata.

Should the taxobox read...

• Binomial name: Sabulodes packardata (Taylor, 1906)
• Synonyms: Enypia packardata (Taylor, 1906)

or

• Binomial name: Sabulodes packardata (Brehm et al, 2019)
• Synonyms: Enypia packardata (Taylor, 1906)

India indie (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

The latter, @India indie. You should cite each name to its source. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 15:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

polish article to publish in english

Hi All, there is a polish article I would like being published in english, but I don't have the knowledge on how to do it.

It's about the pianist Yehuda Prokopowicz.

GabbrielaP (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRANSLATE for more information on how to translate an article from one Wikipedia for another. You will need to make sure that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion, which may be different from the Polish Wikipedia. Please see the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

And if you are related to the person, you must declare a "conflict of interest": see WP:COI. Feline Hymnic (talk)

Module:ISO 3166

Sometimes I see warnings when previewing an article in Source Editor - for example Chigumisirwa - where Infobox settlement has a subdivision hierarchy that isn't recognised by Module:ISO 3166. For the example, the messages are:

Script warning: MASVINGOPROVINCE ("Masvingo Province") is not a recognized subdivision in ISO 3166-2:ZW (Module:ISO 3166). Script warning: BIKITADISTRICT ("Bikita District") is not a recognized subdivision in ISO 3166-2:ZW (Module:ISO 3166).

I've dug around a bit to try to understand how to fix them but aside from learning too much about the complexities I haven't seen any general advice on how these warning can be resolved. I think there may be some maintenance lists for the warnings, I assume someone somewhere looks at them and follows up. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand all the complexities of such warnings, but in the case you cite I seem to have removed them. In the infobox of Chigumisirwa, the infobox had "Masvingo Province" rather than just "Masvingo" in the |subdivision_name1= field and "Bikita District" rather than just "Bikita" in the |subdivision_name2= field. When I piped those entries to display as just the bare province and district names ("Masvingo" and "Bikita"), the preview warnings magically disappeared. Deor (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, so the script reads the piped label, which is not what I would have expected. Thanks for looking at it. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to get a new article published that was accepted by one editor and repeatedly denied by another.

I wrote a draft Draft:Charles_J._Lockwood that was denied once for being too promotional in nature. I cut a lot of the content, and rewrote the text to be more encyclopedic. It was the accepted and published by a different editor. However, the same day it was published, the original editor who denied it, rejected and unpublished it, claiming that it was written using AI. I did not use AI, I did have a co-author who is a staff writer at my university. I asked the editor who denied it for clarity on what about the text seemed problematic and got no response for 20 days. I made minor edits to the text again and was immediately rejected by the same editor for the same reason with no added clarity. I am not sure how to rewrite the text to prevent it from flagging an AI response. I need guidance. Dwayneburtinusf (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I did have a co-author who is a staff writer at my university Did your co-author write using your account, or their own? We require that each account be operated by one person, just so you know.

As for the rest, I agree with @Sulfurboy that there are signs of AI generation in the text. Did you use a writing assistant like Grammarly to help you with "tone" or layout or anything like that? These sorts of tools use AI under the hood and result in your writing sounding like it was written entirely with AI even if it wasn't. Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

We co wrote offline together, but I’m the only one with access to my account and I have been doing the posting.

We definitely googled in the beginning to get an idea of structure because traditionally we write for marketing. And I needed help on properly citing and formatting sources, so I did use technology on that.

If there is guidance you can provide on how to rewrite this, or an example of another wiki page that has the proper tone that would be helpful. Dwayneburtinusf (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Please look at referencing for beginners; we want people to do the work themselves. AI quite often gets thing wrong. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

We did find our sources and verify them ourselves. I used google to ensure I formatted and added them properly in Wiki. I am a web developer working with a professional writer. We just don't know what in the text to address. Dwayneburtinusf (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

In general LLM text should be discarded and the article rewritten from the sources. I have tried doing it the other way (slowly editing out the LLM) and can't recommend it; it's more work and catching all problems is very difficult.

Some general advice that may improve this article: It reads as a jumble of facts that jump back and forth chronologically. Admittedly some of the sources are like that too, but put the work in to try to get events in order. It is very flat: it says what his research is about but provides no perspective on its importance. Are there review articles discussing his research? It seems like an area where a Cochrane Review might exist. Are there reviews of his books? Do the award granters give any details on why the award was given? Finally, too many of the sources are clearly not independent of the subject (I think that's part of why it reads as promotional): CV-like documents, press releases from past and present employers, etc. Some are uncannily similar and are clearly repackaging the same text--probably a press release.

I spot-checked sources and did not find any issues; while I tend to agree that there is LLM in the text, the sourcing is much better than would be expected for pure LLM, so well done on that. M kuhner (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dwayneburtinusf. Does WP:WRITINGFORWP help? ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment on user-generated audio files

There is a Request for comment on user generated audio files at the "No original research" page. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

i wonder why...

why is the lapis lazuli page and la peace not in their own pages? ~2026-58951-79 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

To qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject must be considered notable, which typically involves multiple independent, reliable sources. The "La Peace meme" presumably is not notable on its own, so it is bundled into Lapis lazuli. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 16:26, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

but la peace is notable :( ~2026-58870-94 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Have multiple third-party reliable sources (KYM isn't one of them) written about it at length? If no, then it is not notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 16:29, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

La Peace got mentioned in Lapis Page Furbchess (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Being mentioned makes zero difference to notability. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

True. Furbchess (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

citations needed.

recently expanded a article about a type of spider. I want to add more, but I'm running into a major issue.

I cant find ANY citations. none. all the citations I need are from unreliable sources. if I can't find the proper citations, or the proper research, I can't add anything major. so I was one, hoping for some help with the actual article, and two, help finding citations. the article is Heteroscodra maculata. Zwardo (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to find the references from the World Spider Catalog link at the bottom? https://wsc.nmbe.ch/spec-data/44154/species -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm not able to open anything from world spider catalog. it just buffers out 🤷 Zwardo (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

If you do somehow manage to get through to the WSC, you can download some articles for research with a free login. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. United Kingdom, n.p., 1899. 840.

I found this by clicking the "books" link in the template at the top of the "Heteroscodra maculata" page. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

A question about contradictions.

The ethnology section states that the name Azerbaijan never extended north of the territory and that the name Azerbaijan was only adopted from Iranian Azerbaijan in 1918.But the article titled "This Azerbaijan Name Dispute" states that it expanded northward. So which one is true?

Interestingly, the article titled "Arran" states that the name expanded northward over time, but the article on the Republic of Azerbaijan unequivocally states that it was adopted politically in 1918.Which one is correct? ~2026-58591-73 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

This sounds to me like it's a long-running political dispute. I think you need to look to the reliability of sources for such a question, and you may easily end up having to say that reliable sources disagree (even after you've discounted what comes from maybe-unreliable sources).

I expect that if the Republic of Azerbaijan itself has made statements on this, those statements should probably be recognized as coming from someone who has a stake in the dispute, and mostly ignored. And the same is true for whatever their political opponents say.

Sometimes it can seem that everyone who even has an opinion on such a dispute has also taken a hard-line position, which would reduce your ability to trust them.

In any real-world political dispute about origin of a word, it's probably necessary to put much more attention and weight on evidence of where and when the word was written in historic documents, and much less on where and when it was thought to be spoken. This unfortunately creates a very incomplete history, but at least it will be a history that's harder to twist or to argue with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:52, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

idea for template thingy

Ok so I recently had this idea: what if there was a template with a parameter specifying a certain date an event scheduled for the future at the time of writing will take place, and displays as saying "will be" and then automatically changes to say "was"? like for example, you could write "something {{FutureEvent|2036-8-12|will happen|happened}} on August 12 2036", and it would work like this:

before August 12 2036, it says "something will happen on August 12 2036"

on or after August 12 2036, it says "something happened on August 12 2036" EditWarCriminal (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Events scheduled for the future shouldn't be mentioned at all. There may be a few little exceptions, but they aren't enough to need a template. Wherever you are mentioning future events, just delete it. Write about it after it's happened, if there are reliable sources to support it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:59, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Not a good idea. If the event failed to take place on the date when it was supposed to happen, and nobody updates the template, Wikipedia would then be claiming that an event happened on a particular date when it in fact did not. Not to mention that the source attached to that claim would still be an outdated source talking about the predicted event rather than a source actually stating that it happened.

Claims about future events are, first of all, something to tread lightly about; see WP:CRYSTAL. Even where it is appropriate to mention a future event, once it happens, we need to manually check that it did happen, when it happened, and update the claim with a reliable source containing that info. Athanelar (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately would be contrary to WP:CRYSTAL; when an event is scheduled to occur, it doesn't mean it will always happen on that day. It would have to be supported by a reliable source, such as news coverage on said event starting. Either way Wikipedia editors are known for updating things from "is" to "was" very quickly, don't think a template would be needed. Fortek67 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Nice so we all replied within 1 minute lol Fortek67 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

The important thing about those four answers is that a fifth person has answered, in the future. I can prove it. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:22, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi EditWarCriminal. You can use {{Update after}} to indicate than an update is likely to be needed after a certain date. By the way, we have a whole Category:Cancelled events. COVID-19 probably cancelled or postponed thousands of events which were mentioned in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Volunteer editors interested in fictional AI performers?

Hi everyone,

I work in film production in Paris, and our company, So Freakantastik, has developed two fictional AI performers.

Ayaan Malhotra is a virtual Indian singer with an established music catalogue, over 58,000 YouTube subscribers, and a song that has passed 800,000 views.

Sacha Laurent is a fictional French actor starring in THE LIFE WE MISSED, an ongoing anthology of short gay romance films, with new episodes released regularly.

Both are openly presented as fictional AI personalities.

I'm involved in these projects, so I wouldn't be the right person to write Wikipedia articles about them.

I wanted to ask whether any independent editors interested in music, film, or virtual performers would consider researching either subject and, if there is sufficient independent coverage, writing an article.

I've seen the Wikipedia Requested Articles page, but I'm not sure whether that's the best place to suggest them.

I'd be interested to hear where such requests belong. Etshk (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

@Etshk As an editor with a conflict of interest you are permitted to write an article draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submit it to be reviewed by experienced editors.

Any musician - virtual or not - would need evidence of passing our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It's a fairly straight forward set of criteria, so examine it and see if you think either of these "singers" meet the criteria. qcne (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Etshk (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Sacha Laurent is a fictional French actor starring in THE LIFE WE MISSED, an ongoing anthology of short gay romance films, with new episodes released regularly. As a Wikipedia editor, I have nothing to say. As a queer person, I have to say: what an appalling thing your company does, taking the real-world emotional experiences and struggles of a marginalised group and stripping the literal humanity out of them to turn them into a mass-produced consumer product. Truly, truly disgusting. An affront to the queer experience and to humanity in general. You should be ashamed. Athanelar (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

creating external links

I am creating my first article. It involves naming several artists with their own websites but not listed in Wikipedia. Am I able to make a link to their websites please The really real bill (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the policy on external links. External links cannot be in the main body of text; if you are writing about one artist and mention another, you can't have a link to the personal website of the second artist. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Is this worth of an article?

Hi! I've been wanting to write a new article about someone who is relatively unknown but whos music style has influenced many others in the scene. His name is Kinloch Nelson, he does guitar and is 76 years old. If anyone here has watched him live his strumming technique is pretty unique. Any help in appreciated! Chongyunnnn (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary- have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable musician. If you have at least three such sources, an article may be possible. They don't have to be widely known, but they have to be known enough to have had sources written about them and what exactly their influence is as they see it. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks this helps! Would the persons personal website be considered a source? I'll like sources if anyone wants to look over it. Source 1 Source 2 (Personal website) Source 3 Chongyunnnn (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Chongyunnnn.

The person's personal website may be cited for certain limited information, but most of the article must be based on sources wholly independent of the subject: not only created by people unconnected with the subject, but the subject and their associates must have no involvement in any way with the sources. 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.

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) 23:11, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Chongyunnnn. The essential thing to take on board is that Wikipedia is never allowed (by our self-adopted policies) to be the first to reveal facts to the World, however true (or worthy) they are.

Wikipedia only summarises facts that have already been published in what we call Reliable sources – this is what we mean by "notable", that someone (or thing) has already been noted in newspapers, magazines, journals, books or whatever. If enough of such sources (as a rule of thumb, we prefer at least three, independent of each other and the subject) have not published material about Kinloch Nelson, Wikipedia cannot have an article about him.

However, if an elderly musician truly has been influential, it is likely that somewhere articles in reliable sources have been published about him. The hard part is to find them, and that's your job, which you can probably do better than anybody else likely to see this query.

If Paste magazine is a reliable source, then articles like this are something like what we need several of (and they don't have to be online, just available for a member of the public to read somewhere) but unfortunately a good deal of it is (or derives from) an interview with Nelson, which is not independent of him, so can only be a source for uncontroversial facts (i.e. ones that nobody is likely to dispute) but not a support for 'notability' in our sense. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you this is a great help! I’ll see if I can find anything else that is independent before I think about writing. This definitely makes it more clear as I found most of the rule pages very confusing. Chongyunnnn (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I am blind and do not speak French. I use AI as an accessibility aid to help me understand French-language sources and prepare material. I want to disclose this openly and follow Wikipedia’s rules. What assistance is permitted in my circumstances?

I am blind and do not speak French. I use AI as an accessibility aid to help me understand French-language sources and prepare material. I want to disclose this openly and follow Wikipedia’s rules. What assistance is permitted in my circumstances? Yusef Brooks (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yusef Brooks, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You may use LLMs to understand what your sources say (though since an article should be almost entirely based on what the independent reliable sources say, I would be concerned about anybody writing an article where most of the sources are in a language they do not understand, irrespective of what technology they used to read those sources).

But you may not use LLMs in any part of writing your text, apart from the two limited exceptions listed near the beginning of WP:LLM. ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine As an FYI, judging from their edits, I feel like they're talking about the French Wikipedia. I don't know if they have anything analogous to NOLLM over there. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested in m:Artificial intelligence/Policies by project. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:37, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Yusef Brooks, great question! Speaking personally, I'd advise using against machine translation to understand sources written in languages you don't speak. Whether or not it's allowed by either the English Wikipedia or the French Wikipedias, it's not a good idea. Machine translation is often wrong and, without speaking the source language yourself, you might not realize it.

What languages do you speak, if you don't mind my asking? There's lots of different language Wikipedias, and multi-lingual projects you can volunteer at. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:14, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

1CA isn't working for me

i put the code inside the common.js 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 01:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Which page have you tried to archive? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia editing

I've gotten some nice input from Wikipedia folk, and have been welcomed into the fold. I may not be very good at it just now, but will work to improve. I thought I was gonna get banned for life on the first day. I played football at the University of Alabama, way back in the day and went into our 1979 Wikipedia page, in order to add my jersey number to my name. From there, I went to the 1978 site, my freshman year and have noticed that a bunch of names are missing from there. My name is one of them, so I attempted to adf it to the list, and basically nuked the whole site. Fortunately, I found the "undo" button, and things returned to normal. However, early this morning, I had been told I had been banned for a year because of what I had done to the 1978 site. Apparently things caught up, and I was permitted to do some work on one of the flag sites today. Haleiwa1960 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

The bottom line is not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. Does the full roster of a football team need to be on Wikipedia? There's a standard that Wikipedia uses called "general notability". It is a helpful guide to what is appropriate for the site: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Trumpetrep (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

(Off topic) It says there "Trumpetrep". At three bars before rehearsal number 11 in Hindemith's trumpet sonata, there begins a little descending sequence in the left hand of the piano part, using four-note cells. It continues until there have been 17 such cells. I don't know whether he wanted a private laugh for the piano player, but it has happened. Maybe this was already famous and I was last to know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:12, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

That's an odd story, because one year blocks hardly ever happen (it's either a few days or indefinitely), and also you can check your block log (here it is ) and see that you have never been blocked. If someone said this to you, likely they were trolling you or making empty threats.

Everyone makes mistakes. A helpful thing to know is how to undo your last edit or edits cleanly. Go into "History" for the affected article, look for your edit, hit "undo" next to it. As long as no one else has edited the article in the meantime, this will cleanly undo what you just did.

I once turned a major noticeboard purple by mistake. It was embarrassing but entirely survivable. I have also utterly destroyed a few tables. Thank goodness for "undo." M kuhner (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I forgot my password. What do I do?

its pretty unlikely I'll ever log out, but just in case. 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 03:49, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Before you get logged out, go to Special:Preferences and set an email address. Then, you can use Special:PasswordReset to get a password reset email. RudolfRed (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

but, it asks me for my password to set my email address 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 04:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Which name should be used in the website parameter for GMA Network webpages?

Hello, I would like to ask for guidance regarding the appropriate value for the "|website=" parameter in "{{cite web}}" when citing webpages from GMA Network's website.

I'm talking about GMA News Online, GMA Entertainment (and others), because they are considered as the official news website, and entertainment website, respectively.

For example, consider a news article published under: "https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/" There are a few possible names that could be used in the citation for the website parameter:

1. GMA News Online – the name associated with the news section where the article is published. 2. GMANetwork.com – the name of the larger website.

According to the documentation of {{cite web}}, the website (or work) parameter identifies the title or name of the website, while publisher parameter identifies the organization that publishes or controls it. Also, it explains that when a cited webpage belongs to a more specific publication or organizational subsite within a larger website (like gmanetwork.com), it is generally preferable to use the name of that more specific publication.

I ask for guidance because there is an editor who cite "GMA Network Inc." in the website parameter despite it being the parent company. The editor said because GMA Network Inc. is the owner of the domain. I think it doesn't seems right, because it might fall into the publisher parameter.

so I think there are 2 options here: 1. Cite the specific publication (GMA News Online, GMA Entertainment, etc.) 2. Cite the larger website (GMANetwork.com)

But for me, citing a more specific publication (like GMA News Online and GMA Entertainment) are I think common in English Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedian editors cite BBC News rather than British Broadcasting Corporation in the website parameter despite the domain bbc.co.uk. Same with ESPN under Disney/ABC. So specifc publication is for me better because they have their own identifiable name, editorial content, contributors/authors, and intended audience.

I'm asking because I would like to apply a consistent and accurate citation format across articles that use GMA Network sources.

Thank you!

Eegnetwork (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Do not have access to mentor, can I ask questions here?

The mentor I was assigned is apparently away until December 21st, and the temporary mentor I was given still has yet to respond to two questions I asked 24 and 17 days ago. Is there any issue with me bringing those (and more) questions to the Teahouse? BoldedExclamation (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what the Teahouse is for, so feel free. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I found an article that is mostly plagiarized, what to do?

I stumbled upon an article (Black_Walnut_(Clover,_Virginia)) that has large swathes of it lifted verbatim (or near verbatim) from one of its sources. What do I do in a situation like this? BoldedExclamation (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@BoldedExclamation Great question, thanks for asking! If you're not comfortable dealing with an issue like this yourself, then you can ask for help at the WP:Copyright problems noticeboard. (It's a bit clunky, so you can always ask for help at the talk page instead. Alternatively, you can reach out to one of the editors listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters or Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

In this case, I've had a look at the article. Indeed, it looks like it was copied from a web source that pre-dates the Wikipedia article. I'll remove the problematic text and ask an administrator to deletion the text from the page's history. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 11:34, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

If this happens again and I decide I want to be able to deal with it myself, are there any guideslines for the proper procedures? BoldedExclamation (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@BoldedExclamation Yes, and I'm so happy you asked! You can find a longer guide at Dealing with copyright violations -- but the steps I normally follow are

1)confirm that the Wikipedia article is copying the text. Lots of blogs, books, and newspapers copy from us -- you can use tools like WikiBlame or Who Wrote That? to figure out when the text was added to the Wikipedia article, then compare it to the external source -- if the external source has a publication date, this can be easy. If it doesn't, you sometimes have to use something like the Internet Archive to figure out how long the text has been on the internet.

2)check if the text is freely licensed: this isn't as common, but sometimes, the text might be in the public domain or under a liscense which allows Wikipedia editors to copy it. If this is the case, the Wikipedia article should normally have some sort of notice, but sometimes people forget to add these.

3)Remove the problematic text! (this is my favourite step)

4)request revision deletion of the old page history. Not all copyright violations will get deleted, but, when possible, admins like too. You can request this by either asking an admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters or by placing the {{cv-revdel}} template on the article. (The template can be a bit fiddly -- if you do this regularly, you can use a tool to make this easier: I find User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel is a good one)

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 12:08, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit on published page

HI I have researched and edited some content with cite links, can anyone guide me were i can edit end of the page or inbetween . because i have created table. Rashesh purohit (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)