Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1310

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1305

←

Archive 1308

Archive 1309

Archive 1310

Ian David Marsden

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,

For transparency, I am Ian David Marsden. I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the sources below could support an English Wikipedia biography covering my work as an illustrator, cartoonist, designer and graphic novel author.

My early Google Doodle work is probably the most widely documented aspect of my career, but there are also sources covering published books, product design, an international sporting event mascot, exhibitions and Cartooning for Peace. I would welcome advice on assessing this body of work together.

- Google Doodles**

The opening paragraph of the English Wikipedia article on [Google Doodle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Doodle) already identifies me as an outside contractor who designed Doodles before Dennis Hwang took over that role in 2000. I mention this as existing Wikipedia context, rather than as independent evidence.

The sources include:

[Google’s history of 20 notable Doodles](https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/doodles/doodle-me-20-notable-doodles-google-history/), written by Ryan Germick and published on 13 September 2018. Under “First Doodle series: Google Aliens, 2000”, it credits me with the five-part series published in May 2000.
[Google’s official archive entry for the first Google Aliens Doodle](https://doodles.google/doodle/google-aliens-2000-1/).
[Lambiek Comiclopedia’s biography](https://www.lambiek.net/artists/m/marsden_ian-david.htm), which describes me as the first artist to create Google Doodles for Google.com and also covers my cartooning career.
[The Week’s published excerpt from Douglas Edwards’s account of Google’s early years](https://theweek.com/articles/483199/inside-secret-world-google), which names me in connection with the May 2000 alien-themed Doodle and links to the original [Wall Street Journal article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304911104576444363668512764).

- Illustration, cartooning and design**

The Lambiek biography documents my beginnings in the Swiss satirical magazine *Nebelspalter*, subsequent work for Swiss and international publications, and my creation of the official mascot for the 2003 Alpine World Ski Championships in St. Moritz.

My work for the German manufacturer Ritzenhoff is documented in [the company’s official 25-year retrospective](https://www.ritzenhoff.de/media/pdf/f6/ff/4b/The-First-25-Years.pdf), which includes “Ian D. Marsden” in its list of designers.

I was also a Wacom Featured Artist, with drawing and illustration tutorials presented through Wacom’s website. My [archive of that feature and video material](https://marsdenillustration.com/wacom-featured-artist/) provides background and leads to the original material. I recognise that this particular link is my own website and should not be treated as independent coverage.

- Books and reviews**

The Jewish Book Council published an independent [review of *Marvin*](https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/marvin), written by Richard C. Kraus and dated 29 September 2020. It identifies me as the adapter and illustrator of the graphic novel, based on Marvin Hamlisch’s autobiography *The Way I Was*. [Schiffer’s publisher record](https://schifferbooks.com/products/marvin) confirms the publication details.

My published bibliography also includes the following titles, listed in the existing German biography:

*Zürich, my little town* (1988), Nebelspalter Verlag — ISBN 3-85819-124-8.
*Football Heroes* (2006) — ISBN 978-3-9523088-0-6.
*Willkommen im Kollegenzoo* (2008), Droemer Knaur — ISBN 978-3-426-64568-0.
*Footballheroes: See Red!* — ISBN 978-3-9523088-7-5.
*The Secret Egg* (2019) — ISBN 978-1-78127-834-5.
*Marvin : Based on The Way I Was by Marvin Hamlisch* (2020), Schiffer — ISBN 978-0-7643-5904-0.

A [publisher declaration hosted by the Bibliothèque nationale de France](https://nouveautes-editeurs.bnf.fr/accueil?id_declaration=10000001326804&titre_livre=SAMARA) also credits my illustrations for *Samara : de minuit à minuit* (2026), ISBN 979-10-985294-0-5.

I include the bibliographic records to document the publications, alongside the independent review.

- Cartooning for Peace and newspaper coverage**

The French newspaper *Midi Libre* published [“Ian Marsden rejoint les rangs des dessinateurs engagés pour la paix”](https://www.midilibre.fr/2025/12/01/ian-marsden-rejoint-les-rangs-des-dessinateurs-engages-pour-la-paix-13083231.php) on 1 December 2025.

My membership is also documented by [my profile on the official Cartooning for Peace website](https://www.cartooningforpeace.org/en/dessinateurs/ian-david-marsden/).

- Exhibitions of Swiss press cartoons**

My participation in successive editions of *Gezeichnet*, held at the Museum für Kommunikation in Bern, is documented by:

[The museum’s press release for Gezeichnet 2023](https://www.mfk.ch/fileadmin/files/01_Besuchen/03_Ausstellungen/09_Gezeichnet/20231214_Medienmitteilung_Der_humorvollste_Jahresrueckblick_der_Schweiz.pdf), listing “Ian David Marsden | Nebelspalter” on page 3.
[The organiser’s participant list for Gezeichnet 2024](https://www.gezeichnet.ch/news/gezeichnet-2024-50-teilnehmerinnen-sind-dabei.html).
[The organiser’s participant list for Gezeichnet 2025](https://www.gezeichnet.ch/ausstellung/teilnehmer.html).

There is an existing [German Wikipedia biography](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_D._Marsden), with additional references. I understand that its existence does not itself establish eligibility for an English article.

I believe an English-language article existed many years ago, but I have been unable to locate its deletion record. If relevant, I would appreciate help identifying it and advice on the appropriate procedure.

Would these sources provide a reasonable basis for pursuing a biography through Articles for Creation? Are there particular gaps in the sourcing that should be addressed first? Given my connection to the subject, I would welcome independent editorial assessment rather than making that judgement myself.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

All the best,

Ian

For additional background and an overview of my work, my official website is https://marsdenillustration.com/. I provide this for context, rather than as independent evidence of notability.

Marsdenillustration (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Marsdenillustration. Please re-write this question again in your own words as a reply to this comment, without using an AI Chatbot to communicate with us. We find it disrespectful for editors to communicate to us via AI. qcne (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

How would I rewrite the question in my own words? These are my own words. Did you even read what I wrote? Marsdenillustration (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You very clearly used an AI chatbot help to write that question, so please write it without the usage of AI. qcne (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Blogs, passing mentions and listings do not count towards establishing notability, we require in-depth significant coverage of you in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to jump to if this is AI or not, either way, this is very hard to read and please write it properly. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Your comment surprised me, 16dvnk, as I've found LLM-generated text easy to read. But LLMs are evolving, and, for all I know, moving in the direction of opacity of output. Anyway, my curiosity was piqued, and so I un-collapsed the text above to take a look. But what I saw was easy to read. (Or so it seemed. Could this have been a delusion?) Which part of it, or which aspect of it, is very hard to read (or very easy to misread)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Ancient joke: Q: "How can you know Martha Stewart has visited your back yard?" A: "The dog turds have been sculpted into swans."

The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing might be what 16dvnk meant. It makes me want to bang my head against the wall in an elegant and stylish manner. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

P.S. And the The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing. is also something that bugged me. @Marsdenillustration, please rewrite your question and show more sources per WP:42. Also read WP:LLM for legitimate uses of LLMs. Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was for them not to have an excuse to avoid rewriting the text. ~~It was super obvious though.~~ edited to avoid misunderstanding. 16dvnk (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

16dvnk, I've read this (your 23:20 comment) several times, but it still baffles me. Possibly: "I didn't find it hard to read; and I said that it was hard to read simply in order to apply more pressure on Marsdenillustration to rewrite it." I rather hope that I have misunderstood. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. I was editing on mobile, and their wall of text and poor LLM-like format made it hard for me to read. I don't want to assign blame or add pressure on anyone, I want to help them. 16dvnk (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Marsdenillustration, when I looked at what you posted here, I thought "this is AI-generated slop. And there's a lot of it. If this guy doesn't even have the courtesy to address us in his own words, he's not getting any help from me." Maproom (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I also thought it was AI slop, but I found it hard to read and I wanted them to rewrite them in their own words.

I didn't want to argue with them (per above discussion) if it were AI slop, so I just told them to fix what they wrote.

~~P.S. The only other good faith explanation for this editor is that they used AI for translation, but even that may be a stretch.~~ (EDIT: Reading their history, this has become increasingly unlikely. They either suddenly changed up their style a lot, or just got lazy.) 16dvnk (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Citation needed on Gwangyang Re: Steel Works

Hello,

I wasn't sure whether or not my decision to add a 'citation needed' tag to this paragraph: Gwangyang Steel Works was reasonable. I looked at the other source in the paragraph and couldn't find a mention of the statistic that 300,000 people visit each year. I also couldn't find any sources by googling when they have visitation hours or about tourism to the plant. I admit that I don't know Korean and can't examine any sources that are in Korean regarding the Steel Works.

I found this post mentioning that the site gets 'hundreds of thousands of visitors each year' and I suspect that this fact was sourced from Wikipedia.

Thanks, Aperture LENS (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It sounds as though this may be unsourced. If a source in Korean tells how many people go there in a year, that part of the Korean article should be readable enough from an automated translation to at least confirm that the statement is in there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, @TooManyFingers.

Taking a look at the sources that are present, it looks like 4/10 of them are referring to the sister city programs the city has. Other facts such as the temperature and precipitation, geographical features, and more statements that are present don't have citations. Also, some of the statements seem to be inaccurate. The article states that the steel works is the largest in the world, but this Reuter's article says that it's "the world's fifth-largest steelmaker ". Aperture LENS (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

User Page

How to add my impact on my user page?? AsterixSC (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Write about all the helpful contributions you have made to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Text colour

Hi! How can I add colour to text, just out of interest??

AsterixSC (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Help:Using colours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Antinous

Already at Talk:Antinous#This whole article is an excerpt from Lambert's book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I leave this message because I accidentally noticed that current Antinous article features less the historical person and more Lambert's book.

The important thing is to trim out everything that Lambert writes about Antinous. Lambert often has no sources, and when he does, he just points to other writers who also have no sources. It goes in circles. We need to separate the contemporary sources, which are mostly artifacts, damaged and fragmented: the obelisc, the poem, etc.

These are very valuable, but does not clarifly clarly Antinous' personal relationship to the emperor, which makes the "lover" word dubious. We shall use "favorite" as it covers a larger spectrum.

Then we can have all the rest: Pausanias — 2nd century AD writes about Antinous being “highly regarded”, and nothing else.

Senator Cassius Dio about 100 years later, starting "the scandal", we need to write about how reliable source Dio is (or not). Historia Augusta in detail (reliable or not). And then modern authors and interpretations, including Lambert's book, maybe an entire analysis of the book itself.

It is a huge work. ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Antinous is rated as a good article, so its content will have been considered in detail by editors interested in the topic. You have already made a similar comment on the Talk Page of that article, which is the correct venue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I was directed here to share my concerns. The "Good" article rate is wrong. Although it contains a lot of text and is formatted nicely (It seems to be the mere criterion of being "good".), it is mostly based on one book with dubious claims and no sources. The book itself is where you should look for answers, as I have already highlighted some of the most exaggerated claims (but there are many more).

Lambert's book is only a small part of history, but a significant part of it is speculation, and historical fantasy.

The Talk Page of that article is abandoned seemingly. I get the feeling that years ago, someone sat down with that book in hand and copied down whatever they could, and ever since then, that's become “history”. ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for an article to be rated 'good' are certainly more than just "a lot of text and is formatted nicely": see WP:GACR6. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The six good article criteria

Antinous fails at:

2,b (The whole article is essentially an excerpt from Lampert's book, which fails to cite its sources many times and points to other authors.)

3.b (We descend into a rabbit hole created by Lampert, discussing whether the historical figure was hairy enough to create a distance between himself and his assumed partner, the emperor. We also consider whether this hairiness contributed to the historical figure's assumed suicide. I consider it completely unworthy of serious discussion, as it belongs entirely in the realm of fantasy.)

4. neutral (As far as I know the artice entirely ruled out the research of Robert Turcan, while many historians take a purely romantic or scandalous view of the relationship, Turcan provides a critical academic perspective. ) This last is very serious, and when you check the "talk" page of said article some earlier editor especially was against to portray the historical person anything else than accepted by the modern public view of the internet audience. ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the rating, register an account and file a request for reassessment. 16dvnk (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you should read the criteria first and determine. Your challenge must be based on policy, and trolling is not allowed. I have read through it and it seems that it passes the criteria.

P.S. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, please declare it. 16dvnk (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Read my observation about these criteria above. However, I would again suggest opening the book and comparing it to the article, as I did. Conflict of interest? How so? ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The conflict of interest part was a precaution, as undisclosed cois are not allowed.

If you think there is a copyvio, you can first leave a talk page message regarding this. You may consider filing a reassessment if consensus has formed in favor. 16dvnk (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m not necessarily thinking of a copyright infringement, but rather that the entire article is practically a summary of Lambert’s book, you know? It is not historical. My understanding is that this book was scanned and is easily downloadable, and that’s somehow become the basis for the whole Antinous-Hadrian thing. (In contrast, the other book I mentioned earlier is very difficult for the general public to access -->Robert Turcan’s research on Hadrian) But Lambert's book is frivolous. It’s full of speculation and hair-raising conclusions (I don’t want to quote it here, but the author didn’t shy away from describing Emperor Hadrian’s imagined anal sex practices). The last place I could have imagined this book appearing is in any kind of encyclopedia. Lambert also "analized" sculptures and wrote personality profiles just by looking at said sculptures. It is wild.

(Sorry for my typos, I am on mobile, it is not easy to write longer sentences.) ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

This is something you should raise on the talk page of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

As it, seems, you have done already. Closing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How come we don't have MyVariables?

I wanted to make a badge system where you have userboxes that show milestones of edits and account length and stuff, but I didn't realize there wasn't a way to get the user who is viewing. The MyVariables extension does solve that, but it isn't installed on the wiki. I would like to inquire as to why not. (I would also like to inquire if what I am doing is okay).

Regards, ZNomad talks 15:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ZNomadYT, and welcome to the Teahouse.

WP:VPT may be a better place to ask this. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ZNomadYT To my knowledge, we purposefully avoid allowing people to have userboxes that live-update based on userstats because the computational requirements of calling for those stats in realtime for however many users have that userbox would be immense Athanelar (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ZNomadYT: Wikimedia projects have around 10,000 page views per second. It's expensive to parse wikitext with templates and so on so pages are cached for performance reasons. We don't want extentions which break caching by giving different results for different users. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Short descriptions

User:PixelsRCool/sandbox/Olalla, Teruel

Hi! I am wondering on how short descriptions are decided and if the short description on my draft above is appropriate. It is currently set as "Spanish locality". Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@PixelsRCool See WP:Short description. The main idea is that short descriptions help readers find the correct page when they see the results of a search and only the article title and its short description will be visible. In your case, most people wouldn't know that Otalia / Teruel is a place in Spain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

(... and that means your short description is good, but just "Place in Spain" is simpler and therefore probably better.)

Short descriptions can sometimes be true but bad; that often happens when they focus on something too small (for example, don't change yours to "Place near Villaspesa") or too large ("Place on Earth").

The best short description is very short, and it answers the questions "What kind of thing is this" and "Have I found the right one" for the majority of people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Editor collaborators

Hello editors, can anyone tell me how to find a specialized community editor on Wikipedia? It's difficult to find an editor on Wikipedia with whom we can work together. I had big plans for the Asian country various type of minority community, like a WikiProject. But it was difficult to find editors who specialized in a specific skill. So, any suggestions? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop looking for help, and just start doing the thing you always intended to do. Almost nobody will join when a call goes out "come and join!" - they wait until they see someone is already doing it, and then they think about helping.

The most popular conclusion to "Someone really should ..." is to call out loudly "Someone should! Someone should!". But the right conclusion is usually "... but no one is doing it, so I will." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You could start by looking at "Parent" wikiprojects (say you wanted to work on articles about Bhutan, and there was no WikiProject Bhutan, you'd look for WikiProject South Asia, or failing that, WikiProject Asia).

Also the talk pages of relevant articles (so, in my example, Bhutan and History of Bhutan, etc.)

Lastly you could ask for a WP:Geonotice, if there is an event you wish to promote in that region. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Help in transcluding

Hello, can someone help me transclude this section and this section to this draft separately? I'm having a hard time not making it a mess. I have already added the templates to them but still find it difficult to use on the target page without repetition. Jô^hola 00:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Josedimaria: It looks like you are trying to use onlyinclude. That's an old messy system when different parts of a page should be transcluded in different places. I suggest using the newer options {{#section:}} or {{#section-h:}} (alternative names #lst and #lsth) at Help:Labeled section transclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I still find it difficult especially as regards to this. Could you kindly help me fix that section while I see how you use the tag? thank you. Jô^hola 18:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding my AFC submission

Last week I submitted the draft, Draft:Metamorphic solar cell, to Articles for creation. It was declined, with the reviewer citing that it doesn't show that it meets WP:GNG. I thought that the sources I provided did prove notability, so I would appreciate any advice or insight other editors could offer. I already made a post on the AFC help desk regarding this, and I know "double dipping" is frowned upon here, but since it was archived with no other editors commenting on it, I figured it would be ok to post here. I also have access to the books I cited, so if excerpts are needed, I can also provide those. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to find three sources that each meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thank you for the prompt response. Looking at what I currently have in my draft, I think I do have three sources that would satisfy the notability guideline:

THREE sources

The reference book, Solar Power Generation, which has an entire section on metamorphic solar cells. It describes what they are, how they function, and their effect on solar cell efficiency. ISBN 9780415621106
The textbook, Solar Cells and Their Applications, which has a section on "inverted metamorphic multijunction cells". Among other things, it describes some of the downsides of metamorphic cells and how inverted metamorphic cells can further increase efficiency despite them. ISBN 9780470446331
The journal article, "MOVPE Growth and EQE Artifact Analysis of Upright Metamorphic Quadruple Junction Solar Cell", from the ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology. The article includes an overview of metamorphic cells and goes into more detail on the materials and growth methods invovled. doi:10.1149/2162-8777/abe2ed

I believe that all three of these sources are reliable and independent, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The books I cited are published, secondary coverage. The parts of the journal article that I referenced are not from primary research, but rather a section where they are documenting background and existing research on the subject, with citations. Additionally, the article is peer-reviewed.

I think these three sources would also constitute significant coverage. The two books each have relevant sections that are at least multiple paragraphs long and cover topics related to the subject. The portion of the article I cite should also be sigcov, with the relevant paragraph I reference being 300 words long and directly addresses the subject.

I also think that the multiple requirement is satisfied here. There is some overlap in the content, especially with what metamorphic cells are and how they work, but each source also covers parts of the topic that the others don't instead of just repeating the same information.

I haven't resubmitted my draft because I haven't substantially changed it since it was declined (only added a source and a brief section on an efficiency world record). I'm not exactly sure what the proper course of action for me would be here and I would appreciate guidance. If possible, I would also appreciate another pair of eyes on my sources. I thought that they proved notability, but maybe I'm misconstruing some portion of the relevant guidelines. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to judge, for something so technical. @Sulfurboy: who reviewed your draft, might have an opinion.

We might need to ask for expert advice from the members of a relevant WikiProject.

Also, did you see Mike Turnbull's practical suggestion, below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ExitTheWarrior Your draft is quite brief and very technical. Why not just incorporate the new material into multi-junction solar cell? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought that the subject should have its own article on it, but if that isn't the case then that could definitely be a good course of action. There is actually a section on Metamorphic Multijunction Solar Cells in the Solar cell research article, but it's quite messy and even promotional as it is. My impetus for making this draft was when I made a redirect for discussion post after writing for a different solar cell-related article.

I made the draft so brief just so that I could demonstrate notability before I spend too much time writing about it. It is however a fairly technical subject, so if the community thinks it would be better served with the subject being covered inside a broader article then that's fine too. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If, as you say, the existing section needs improvement, then it would be a good idea first to to improve that section as far as possible, and then to consider if it could (with minor modifications) stand as an article in its own right. Once an article using that material is accepted, the existing section could then be trimmed down and be given a link to the new article. Many now-existing articles began in such a way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Done I'll see about further improvements later, but for now I've added the contents of my draft to the Solar cell research page. Like I mentioned, the existing content was a mess (uncited, primary sources, promotional tone), so I actually just replaced the entire thing. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)