Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

User:III/DoNotArchiveUntil

The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

Article Ideas for Creation?

Hey all! After editing some articles I've been challenged by some people I know to create a new one entirely! Overall I'm just trying to find a good topic right now and figured I would reach out to see if anyone here had some ideas. Anything y'all have been meaning to write about or wished there was an article for? I'll be doing my absolute best to research then create the best article that I possibly can, not just trying to put minimal effort in. Any and all ideas are appreciated! I may not even select one here, just looking to brainstorm if possible. Thank you! JT U26 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Requested articles has quite a lot for you to look through if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As a disclaimer: Requested articles are not very well maintained, and many topics there might not be notable. If you're interested in Canadian topics by chance, I do maintain the requests board at WikiProject Canada, and every topic there is confirmed to be notable. MediaKyle (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The other piece of advice I've been given is to just find something your interested in. If you've ever seen something and thought "odd that his doesn't have an article" or something like that, go back to it. See if it may pass the notability guideline(s). That's how I got my first draft started, and while it's not finished yet, I would say it's pretty close. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are interested in a specific area, check for a WikiProject on that area. They may have a list of articles they would like to see. For example, WikiProject Chess has a list of Grandmasters who don't have individual articles and it would be very natural (if one is a chess geek) to pick one of those. This is a good way to make sure your topic is notable, and save you sweating while it goes through review--I just did this with a chess article on a less well known player, and I was biting my nails! (It did get approved but I really had to dig for sources.) M kuhner (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@JT U26: Here is a link to drafts that are expiring. Before jumping to creating an article, why don't you see if you can rescue one of more of these and get it/them accepted. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

i want a article on forest "Yeo" sterling, i put in my own request, shouldn't be too hard. im new and dont want to try making my own article yet though Bob the 67th (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Resubmission: Making Reader Expectation Approach neutral and properly sourced.

Hello Team!

I am attempting to make my article on the Reader Expectation Approach neutral and encyclopedic with proper sourcing. I resubmitted following two declines for NPOV and essay concerns. I revised to remove promotional language, distribute attribution throughout, reduce primary source citations, and restructure Core Concepts section around four principles corroborated by independent secondary sources (Lingard 2022, Kraus 2025). Do you have any other suggestions?

Thank you for your work!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This one? Draft:Reader Expectation Approach

It does not work for me to give one sentence on the Reader Expectation Approach followed by two full paragraphs on the academic credentials of the person who wrote it. If I were to visit this article I would be looking for information on the approach, not the author. I would rearrange to put the emphasis on the Approach--the first para under Structural Principles would be a much better start. You might consider putting some of that material in the lead (the un-sectioned first paragraph). I'd put the Background after the description of the Approach itself, and consider whether there is too much of it relative to the amount of material on the Approach.

The constant "Gopen contends" etc. makes it sound like this is a one-man show. It would really help to find an explanation by someone else. A slight improvement would be to make it clear at the top of Structural Principles that this is all Gopen, so you don't have to mention it every time.

Has there been any published critique of this method or comparison to other methods? That would make the article feel a lot more solid. I think this is the most critical point. It's all very well to publish a book, but is anyone talking about it? (Given how closely the Approach and the books are coupled, you could look for a serious academic review of the books--might find something useful there.)

I will not second-guess the page reviewers, but these are things that might help.

M kuhner (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed critique! This is actually helpful information! This is my first Wikipedia article and your specificity is what I need to get it right. Deeply appreciated!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, @Rewagoner, I can see from your userpage that you have been paid for your edits by Dr. Gopen, and it's clear this is tainting your ability to write neutrally. You will notice that our article on Newton's laws do not begin (or in fact mention at all) Newton's educational background or qualifications in order to justify their content to the reader.

The standard you have to meet, just like any other article, is notability. In this case, that means you would do well to find examples of other papers critiquing or reviewing Gopen's research, because Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. We need to see what other people have written about this "Reader Expectation Approach," we can't accept an article full of what Gopen has written about his own ideas; Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.

I can see that you're simultaneously trying to get a draft published about Gopen himself. Regarding both that draft and this one, please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and relay the contents therein to Dr. Gopen. Please ensure that both of you understand that Wikipedia is not a place to publicise or promote oneself or one's research, and that the definition of 'promotion' is often wider than you'd think. Athanelar (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Your linked information was helpful. My employment situation aside, I deeply respect Wikipedia and strive to uphold the establish standards. I sincerely do not want to write in promotional tone and I think that you are correct that this is a broader definition than I was aware.

I have found three sources for describing the REA framework and I believe they are independent and reputable: two from peer-reviewed journals by scientists that use the method and on from an unaffiliated author and science communicator discussing REA principles in his book on communication.

I think the confusing part for me is that I am supposed to use my own words to describe what other people have written about the subject. Is that correct? So, I think that I did that. Do I also need to say, for example: "Lingard describes the principles of REA as..." (Lingard being a secondary source on the material) or do I just describe the principles themselves as they are written in the primary literature? Is there a difference between how I am expected to describe the framework itself and how I am expected to present the ways in which it is being evaluated? Basically, when do I need to quote the primary and secondary sources or reference what they each said and when do I use my own words? Sorry its taking me awhile to understand these details. I have difficulty with these kinds of written instructions—but once I nail the method, I can become quite accurate with it.

In cooperation, Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than direct quotations, most of the article should be a summary in your own words of what is written in the secondary, independent sources. You can see more about the expected style at WP:SUMMARY. Direct quotes may still be appropriate in some cases to illustrate a point, for example. Athanelar (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I think I'm figuring it out! I added many secondary sources today and summarized them! I appreciate you! Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have just declined Draft:George David Gopen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Thank you for your feedback. I have discovered many more peer-reviewed articles on Gopen's influence in writing across disciplines and added them to the reader Expectation Approach (REA) article and a sampling of them to the George D. Gopen article. I removed some of the lesser reliable sources, have a look?

Thanks again for your hard work!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see any sources there, which meet all of the requirements at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the notability criteria. I have revised the article substantially since the initial submission and would like to address the sourcing directly.

The article currently contains the following independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of George D. Gopen.

Heaney (ref. 7) — Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney credits Gopen by name in the acknowledgments of The Testament of Cresseid and Seven Fables (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), p. xvii, stating that Gopen's prose translation helped him persist with the work at a moment he might otherwise have abandoned it. This is an unsolicited acknowledgment by one of the most significant literary figures of the twentieth century, in a book from a major independent publisher with no affiliation to Gopen.

Alda (ref. 15) — Alan Alda discusses Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach by name across multiple pages (pp. 134–136) of If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? (Random House, 2017). This is independent coverage of Gopen's work by a prominent public figure in a book from a major publisher.

Legal Writing Institute, Golden Pen Award (ref. 6) — An independent professional organization's named lifetime achievement award for contributions to legal writing, received by Gopen in 2011.

Lingard (ref. 2) — A peer-reviewed article in Perspectives on Medical Education devoted entirely to explaining and demonstrating Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach, crediting him as its creator throughout. Published by Ubiquity Press/Springer. This is not a passing mention — REA is the subject of the article.

Reynolds & Thompson (ref. 11) — A peer-reviewed study in CBE–Life Sciences Education evaluating REA-based writing instruction, naming Gopen as the creator of the framework under study. Published with open access via PMC.

Riebe (ref. 4) — A peer-reviewed law review article in the Gonzaga Law Review applying Gopen's reader expectation theory in depth to bar exam writing pedagogy.

Dankoski et al. (ref. 12) — A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Faculty Development reporting on a faculty writing program at Indiana University School of Medicine built around Gopen's framework, with Gopen named as a co-author of the study.

Petersen et al. (ref. 10) — A peer-reviewed article in Neuroscience Letters identifying Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach as a best practice for teaching writing in STEM fields.

Samaraweera et al. (ref. 5) — Peer-reviewed IEEE conference proceedings proposing the application of Gopen's reader expectation principles to source code readability.

Kinnunen et al. (ref. 14) — Peer-reviewed EACL conference proceedings describing an automated writing tool built on Gopen's REA principles, crediting him as the theoretical foundation.

Schmolke et al. (ref. 13) — A peer-reviewed article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution citing Gopen's principles in guidance on communicating ecological models to policy audiences.

Kraus (ref. 3) — A peer-reviewed article in the Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association crediting Gopen with reshaping scientific writing.

I acknowledge that refs. 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are institutional, self-generated, or affiliated sources and are used only to support specific uncontested biographical facts such as dates and positions, not to establish notability.

Taken together, refs. 2–7, 10–15 represent twelve independent, reliable sources — including a Nobel laureate's published acknowledgment, a major public figure's book, a lifetime achievement award from an independent professional body, and ten peer-reviewed articles across six disciplines — that discuss Gopen and his work directly, substantively, and independently. I would respectfully submit that this record satisfies the requirements of significant coverage in reliable independent sources under WP:42.

I welcome any further specific guidance on what would bring the article up to your standards.

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Gopen seems to have an unusual view of how people understand English prose. Maybe this accounts for so much of the draft being hard to understand. This first sentence of the "Reception" section is an example. Maproom (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it is not Gopen writing this. I am doing it on my own so I'm not influenced by his opinion. I appreciate you pointing out that awkward sentence structure. I shortened it and hopefully it will be easier to read.

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rewagoner, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

It follows that almost nothing written, published, or commissioned by Gopen or any associate of his is relevant to the article - and nor is anything that you know about the subject, unless it happens to be covered in one of the independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Perfect! I think I'm getting it now! I found tons of secondary sources today! check it out! Rewagoner (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, one small funny question, how do you cite text in a notelist? The template you click on does not have any space to cite. Is it only available in source editing?Welovecontributors! [talk] [contribs] 23:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed your <big>....</big>. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking about. Each of the notes that are currently a, c, d, e (and more) within the article Mechanical Turk cites one or more of the references: what's now a cites 7 and 8, et cetera. (This was done by editing the source; I have no idea whether it would also have been doable with the visual editor.) Is this similar to what you hope to do? -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also doable with the visual editor using the "Reuse" tab. Reuse is about the only thing I use the visual editor for! M kuhner (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw: you don't have to use reuse. You can just copy and paste the citation. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Using named references is even better and very easy; then you can use the same source as many times as you like without having it appear repeatedly in the reference list. Meadowlark (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors! You have to look in source editor to see what reference style they're using, eg {{Sfn|Standage|2002|p=95}}. But you don't need to use source editor to insert it. You can format the citation in a notes app for example and then copy and paste {{Sfn|Standage|2002|p=95}} into visual editor. Visual editor will convert it. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Long waiting time for approval

i had submitted an article for review and it has not been reviewed for about 3 months now ~2026-26055-12 (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26055-12: If you mean Draft:House of Treasures Ministry, it was never submitted for review. I have added a button to help you submit it when you're ready. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Actually, it was submitted in February, until the tag was removed in this edit in April. I don't know whether @~2026-26055-12 is User:FikiMasilela, who originally declared their COI and drafted the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello - yes - it was submitted it February then I edited it in April ~2026-28786-15 (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

When you removed the tag a month ago, you also removed the article from the review queue. The review queue is dependent on the review tag because it adds the necessary categories for reviewers to see the draft. Without those categories, it is impossible for draft reviewers to know you wanted your draft reviewed. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, there's a HUGE AFC backlog as well. That's probably why. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In its current form it will never be accepted being AI-generated. Catfurball (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much - how do I fix this? I did run it through an AI platform to improve it and have tried to reduce this by reediting - what do I do next? FikiMasilela (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, in this situation the best thing to do is WP:TNT. You may find the essay WP:BACKWARDS helpful in explaining a good approach to take. Keep any sources which are of the best type and work from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@FikiMasilela Running a draft through AI usually makes it worse rather than improving it. David10244 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Igbo people

Howdy am new here can someone help me update the population inside the info box of the Igbo people page if you check the resource that support the number it puts it at 41 million not 39 million please and thank you very much. It seems i can't edit the page. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Y Done. Thank you. (FYI: the reason you can't edit it is WP:page protection. Next time, you can make an WP:edit request to have it updated instead of posting here. Just be very specific about what you're looking to change, to make it as easy on the person changing as possible.) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

alright thank you very much, still learning how this place works. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page for San Francisco Film Commission

Hi all, I am drafting a new page about the San Francisco film commission. There is an interesting history behind the department and its incentive programs in the past and in the present. I want to include a list of movies/shows filmed in San Francisco under the incentive. Can anyone give any suggestions on this page? Is it suitable for Wikipedia, is there a better format I should take like just a list or something, or any advice would be helpful! This is my first Wikipedia page. Allieaard (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing you'll have to do to Draft:San Francisco Film Commission, Allieaard, is to remove external links from the body of the draft. Rightly or wrongly, I infer that "Other Notable Productions Shot in San Francisco (2000-2024)" – which, if retained, should be "Other notable productions shot in San Francisco (2000–2024)" – weren't "participating productions". If they didn't participate in the "incentive" that the draft is about, then why list them in the draft? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood, is there a better place to put external links. I think they should be included. Allieaard (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If they're appropriate, Allieaard, external links can go in references, in notes, and even listed under "External links". (The article Jindřich Marco has external links in all three.) See also Wikipedia:External links. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Rural cemetery

Rural cemetery is notable but can not get published due to requirements for secondary resources?

First time editor - been trying on behalf of our cemetery board to create a foundational article on Wikipedia (Draft:Redford_Cemetery) about our beloved, historic cemetery. With each decline (3 so far), we revise to address all comments and then a new decline comes along with new concerns not received before with little explanation. Most recently, we're being asked to add secondary, interpretative, analytical, evaluative materials with majority and minority view or legal analysis (secondary resources). By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries. We don't want to give up - we just need some specific guidance beyond general statements and links to very broad guidance. Can an experienced reviewer explain what policy issue is still preventing acceptance and some suggestions for resolution? Thank you so much for anyone willing to offer more direct guidance. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

IntrepidWanderer, I wonder whether the list of the interred would be appropriate, even if referenced. (Perhaps others here will give their views.) And the body of the article seems digressive. Sample: In 1926, the City of Detroit annexed a portion of Redford^[10] which included approximately 7 acres on the Eastern portion of the cemetery. This began along a line 200 feet east of the center of Telegraph Road (US 24) which became a paved two-lane road that year. In 1936, Telegraph Road was expanded to four lanes and in 1963 it was expanded to the 6-lane, divided highway with median crossovers that we know today^[11]. As a result, the dividing line between Redford Township and Detroit is roughly 200 feet East of the middle of the center northbound lane. (Incidentally, if dimensions are worth providing, then they're also worth providing for non-Americans, many of whom are likely to be rather mystified by "acres" and "feet".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Metric measurements are best included by using {{Convert}} (but can be entered manually if you find that more convenient).

The list of burials should not be included (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTMEMORIAL); list only burials of notable people. It is acceptable to say something like "the graves of 23 WWI servicemen and 43 from WWII", if sourced.

However, if there are no secondary sources about the cemetery, it is not, by (Wikipedia's) definition, notable. Remember, though, that source do not have to be online, books and old newspapers can be cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I've now removed references to over 100 veterans as non-notable, removed many details of how the cemetery evolved over the past 200 years, and removed references to measurements. IntrepidWanderer (talk) IntrepidWanderer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntrepidWanderer "By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries." If that's the case, then (as Andy says) the subject is not notable as Wikipedia defines it, because independent, published sources are exactly what makes notability in the Wikipedia sense. Being beloved doesn't actually factor into notability, sorry to say. David10244 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, thanks for your reply. I hope we are beyond the question of notability given we've now found and added several secondary resources and most reviewers have suggested it is notable given several factors including it's status as a Registered Historic Site, notable burials, and it's interplay with early pioneers. I think what's tripping things up here over the past four months and 3 reviews is our initial efforts to submit a larger piece given limited knowledge as a first time editor. It has since been reduced by 80%, simplified, revised based on reviewer feedback, and further bolstered with additional secondary sources. Hopefully, it can proceed. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntrepidWanderer I hope so; good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War

Anyone can create scheduled 2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War similar 2025 timeline of the Somali Civil War and 2024 timeline of the Somali Civil War QalasQalas (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Many people could have, QalasQalas, but nobody did. A vacuous "timeline" was created, but it was rightly moved to Draft:2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War. It has remained vacuous since then. You might consider adding (referenced) incidents to this draft, and, when the result can reasonably be called a timeline, submitting it for review. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

yea, absolutely its lacking meaningful content, so I should have rewritten similar written pages Thank you. QalasQalas (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite a few MOS:INFOBOXFLAG violations

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Hi all, long time lurker here. During my random wandering on Wikipedia, I noticed that File:BJP_Flag.svg has been used quite liberally in the infoboxes of biographies. This seems to directly contradict MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but I'm not sure what to do here - there must be a better way than just manually go through each article. And is this something that needs fixing at all?

LkL-70547 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to request a mass edit, you can look at some place like WP:AWBREQ. ScalarFactor (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

My Career Page!

Briefly...it is my 60 year career (I am now 95 years old) in Film- Televidon and Theater.!)...and I am pissed. A friend who is/was a certified contributor to your site decades ago..was a fan who found me, and as a favor...and with much work...found me and created (researched and wrote) my Wikipedia site. He was not paid and took the time and patience to compose the site page...all confirmed by mostly MY PERSONAL "SCRIPTS and photographs" which have since then, been sent to Emerson University and reside there among their Personal History archives. Since then, my fully (nearly as I'm not dead yet)_complete history resides in their "Special Collections".. Every singel episode of the signifiicant number of TV show appearances have no "reviews" as do other appearances of my 6 decades career, have no reviews available. Please , let me know how one olld performer manages to get a printout of their life's work? You can chack around youtube/Sylvia Lewis Career Bio/ but your demand at t his point is not possible. It has been on your site for decades now,, and no onehas questioned my pages' honesty and viability. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST I DO NOW --ASK MY DEAD CO-WORKERS TO CONFIRM THE VIABILITY ~2026-29254-77 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-29254-77, please indicate which page you are talking about 🍅 fx (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that this is Sylvia Lewis. DS (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29254-77 If someone contacted you by email asking you to confirm the page was yours, it wasn't someone from Wikipedia. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29254-77 Please tell us who is the "you" that made the "demand" and how did they contact you? There has been a comment at the top of Wikipedia's article Sylvia Lewis since 2010 pointing out that it would benefit from additional published sources. If you know of such sources, then it would be possible to add them at Talk:Sylvia Lewis for others to incorporate in the biography. If you don't have such material, then don't worry, no-one is going to delete the article. You might also like to provide some pictures from your career, assuming that you have some which can be suitably licensed for use in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

What does this BLP subject actually want from us? Am I being obtuse, because the posts here are very unclear. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 11:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Walter She's asking how does WP suggest she confirm the veracity of the information on the page about her. (The page was created years ago by a Wikipedia editor who reached out to her and confirmed the material, which has since been sent to Emerson University and is in their personal history archives.)Mme Maigret (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also point out that Ms. Lewis is 95. She may have misinterpreted the "BLP Sources" warning at the top of the article about her. DS (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Tone-fixing in articles

I found a huge chunk of promotional content in the article Richmond Sockeyes while following some newcomer tasks. Could anyone help fix the tone in the long paragraphs, especially in the #PIJHL History section, or give me some help articles to fix tone? Much appreciated! Garethphua (言) 02:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Garethphua I just revised the lead. My advice is to break the task into smaller tasks. Do 1 paragraph at a time. Suggest do 1-3 paragraphs a day. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi how do I link interlanguages together?

Here are the 2 articles on the same topic, but in different languages. Thanks (:

• Comandos de la Frontera
• es:Comandos de la Frontera

-- Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You might be able to find help here Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article). Happy editing! Garethphua (言) 03:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 The linking is done on Wikidata. The necessary edit was made today, so you should find that each article now has a "1 language" link present. See the edit history at wikidata:Q116264713. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you this is perfect :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

New Article

I want to add a page for Forest "Yeo" Sterling, he is mentioned in Dudley W. Morton's page, but doesn't have his own page. i only have a book to cite, DIVE! by Deborah Hopkinson. Bob the 67th (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You might find something useful at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm let me see what I can do. Coding is not my specality. Historyguy1138 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bob the 67th There are plenty of mentions of Sterling and his book at newspapers.com. For example Los Angeles Evening Citizen News Mon, Apr 11, 1960 ·Page 14; The Berkeley Gazette Wed, Apr 13, 1960 ·Page 18 and others around 1960. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Best welcome templates

Which welcome templates do you think will most likely make a user advanced the fastest? ~2026-29052-60 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say Template:Welcome graphical is the best template. CostalCal (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

To become "advanced" you need some passion and time, I don't think welcome template will have much influence on that, but that's me. I use Template:Welcome because I like that it's simple and short. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this a too-close paraphrase?

In the article Guianan warbling antbird the Description section seems very, very close to its first listed source (Zimmer et al. 2020). But as a novice editor I'd like a second opinion. Could someone take a quick look? It is just one paragraph. M kuhner (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The Description section and much other material was added by @Craigthebirder: in June 2024. I myself am not a Birds of the World subscriber, so cannot view the source text, but perhaps you and Craigthebirder would like to discuss the matter and agree on whether more recasting of the article text is called for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There are only a limited number of ways to paraphrase and still include all of the information. But feel free to edit as you see fit.Craigthebirder (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a problem that comes up regularly. In general, species descriptions use standardised vocabulary in order to avoid confusion. They are deliberately intended to be usable by the entire scientific community rather than copyrighted information. The further our text migrates away from the official species description, the more likely it is that we are misleading our readers. For that reason, paraphrasing of sources should not be encouraged. If the source says a bird is brown with a white streak don't say it has a light-coloured mark on a dark-tan background! It's as bad as reporting that Norwich is 98.68 miles from London because we're worried that if we say it's 98.69 miles, "98.69 miles" is a close paraphrase of the true value. Elemimele (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate the help in understanding where the line is. M kuhner (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sort AfDs

Hello!

How do I sort an AfD page after creating a deletion discussion page? Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting AFD discussions are usually done before the AFD is started. When I create deletion discussions, I use Twinkle. If you don't already use it, I would highly recommend it. While I am sure there are other people at the Teahouse who can explain directly how to sort discussions, you don't have to worry about it. If you would like to, that is fine, but there are people at AFD that sort all of the discussions. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I have seen editors sort after an AfD has begun as well. Re Twinkle: I believe you meant to advise me about starting an AfD with the help of Twinkle? _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Twinkle allows you to sort the AFD before you create it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You can also use this userscript after creating the AfD: User:Enterprisey/delsort. There's also a manual way but it's really annoying. InfernoHues (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

godzilla x kong supernova

You guys took long so I edited it don't block godzilla x kong supernova danny Steven's us the hero just like in tmdb cast list check it for yourselves

time hours ~2026-29158-06 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

So you have made this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

What do I do?

Hi, I'm new, but not completely new.... I'm having difficulty dealing with something. A user with 140,000+ edits has posted on my talk page that I'm engaged in an edit war and that I'm not adhering to NPOV.

This is the second time he's done this. He also did it back in January or February or so, and after that, another editor gave me a barnstar and said I was acting civilly the whole time.

What he posted was very threatening and I think it is a form of bullying. I shouldn't have to be scared of editing in good faith. This is in relation to the Never again page. I don't need or want any help with editing the content there, but I need help in figuring out how to get him to stop trying to intimidate me. There were several back and forth reverts yesterday (I reverted him twice, and he reverted 3 times). He mostly ended up with what he wanted, with the exception of the short description, which he has allowed so far.

Today, I looked at the page again, and made two more new edits, which I fully stand by as high-quality npov edits, and I can explain more if anyone is interested. After today's edits, he posted those messages on my talk page, but he has not reverted the edits (thankfully).

I don't want to have to file some kind of report every time I happen to come across him, and I know this will inevitably happen again as we have some overlapping interests and he is an extremely prolific editor. Slava570 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Please follow the guidance at WP:Dispute resolution to deal with the content dispute between the two of you, which seems to be the core of the problem. Athanelar (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... I read over the page and just decided to post on his talk page for now. I appreciate your response... I think this can be archived now (or whatever the procedure is...) Thanks again Slava570 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

good luck bro Nerd-in-history (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Elections notability

Are there any sorts of special guidelines for whether or not an election is notable? I've been looking for a WP article mentioning it, but can't find any. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot Probably WP:NEVENT is the nearest guideline beyond the usual WP:GNG. The problem is that elections cover everything from the US president to a local council in a tiny municipality, so it is certain that not all elections will be notable. Do you have a specific case in mind? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I was mainly thinking on regards to Draft:1874 New York City mayoral election. I'm leaning toward a no on that one. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a tough call, given that the infobox shows that virtually all other NY mayoral elections have articles and at the time in 1874 it probably got plenty of coverage. I found over 2,000 hits for ""new york" mayor election wickham" at newspapers.com, for example! e.g. New York Daily Herald Sun, Oct 11, 1874 ·Page 9 Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll decline it for now - While there's definitely a lot of content that could be added, it needs to be added to show notability and thus get accepted. I appreciate your help! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

amature rugby club

hi guys, im working on an article page for the historic preservation of a rugby club its very amature but love the idea of the data and historic events being documented. every score has a source from a third party. events all retold with articles from news outlets and individual coverage from journalists or youtube channels. i listed myself as a COI for the article. any suggestions or things i should know? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Central_Florida_Claymores_Rugby_Football_Club thanks again guys! CarlosLavayenCFL (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CarlosLavayenCFL.

I'm afraid that the chances of an amateur sports club meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability are rather small.

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.

As far as I can see, you have not got a single source that meets all the criteria in WP:42: most of them are primary sources, and the only ones that are independent (the newspaper articles about the plane crash) do not even mention the club, much less contain significant coverage of them.

Without several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42, no article is possible - sorry.

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) 16:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

would I be allowed to edit the "On This Day" for May 14th for this?

• 2026 – Weezer's self-titled debut album is inducted into the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress, which is one of few alt rock albums to be preserved in this way.

^ this is what I had typed out, but I don't want it to be reverted, so I'm going to ask before I do to make sure that I can safely add it without it being reverted -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about the main page, the items that go in the OTD there have to be approved and then go into a queue. See WP:OTD.

You could just put it on the article for May 14, though (with a reliable source, of course) Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you! I will do that -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm i wonder if your a weezer fan Nerd-in-history (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

i love weezer lol -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not so sure... maybe they're a Weez3r fan, but I've never heard of Weez3r. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah weird.... Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah I mean people who haven't heard of weezer still might check them out if they hear they're inducted into stuff -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 21:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

we just joking with you Userbox-man (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The main article associated with this event has to be of sufficient quality (sourced throughout, no plagiarism, neutral etc); I assume the album is the main article, it's GA so probably meets that criteria. It probably is fine for OTD. Add it to May 14 & OTD, when it gets closer to the date someone looking at the queue should (theoretically......) do a double-check just to be sure. It's another year now lol. Also, OTD is like, the least monitored place of the main page, from my experience. I've seen many worse, hardly cited articles appear, and sets are rarely swapped out year to year so we get the same events over and over. I tried to extend my hand but got pretty busy due to a war. Anyway my ultimate point is that from my experience, I was struggling finding new events with well-cited pages. So anything's more than welcome. There was the 'notability' thing some people believed in (not even really enforced) but with how few articles there are to the point where there has to be repeats in most sets, I think this is the last priority of OTD right now. Good article + variety, imo, most important. jolielover♥talk 08:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What hatnote should I add to the Power conferences article?

I asked this at the talk page for the article but didn't get a response within the last six days, so I will copy my message here verbatim.

"There is already a WP:HATNOTE about "Power five" redirecting here pointing to Power five (disambiguation). However, I think more disambiguation is required as "Power 4" redirects here as well, and that can refer to an IBM microprocessor or a Slayr song. How can I add this to the hatnote without causing unneeded clutter or confusion?"

Any input is appreciated! nameless⁷³⁵⁷ 18:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There's not currently a Power four (disambiguation) page, so you could create that and then add it to the hatnote on the article. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Trying to get a company on wikipedia

I know I went about it the wrong way. I just tried to submit a very basic, not very interesting couple of paragraphs for LazyOne, inc which is an apparel company.

I was rejected, and while I think some of the rejection came from what a crap job I did with the initial draft (I was taking an iterative approach where I planned on adding more once I had an approved article since I worried that it might take many hours to research how to get an article written and then have it get rejected anyway).

But it seems like writing about a commercial company is also kind of frowned upon as promotion. Yet I see a page on Vermont Teddy Bear Company, and Hatley (brand), which is a competitor...so maybe it was just the "way too draft" of a draft that I submitted, or is there something else that I am missing? Wadeolsen (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by sources wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it. Just documentation that the company exists or the mere reporting ofits routine business activities is insufficient.

Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the notability criteria, just as most people do not. Do you have any independent sources that discuss this company? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand...I actually do have some intersting things I wanted to mention. For example, there are a lot of interesting considerations that companies need to take into account when designing children's pajamas since there are flamibility considerations. I was going to explain that within this article since LazyOne has dealt with this quite a bit, and it might be intersting to explore. But maybe it isnt. Either way, it was with this understanding that Wikipedia might not be a "place to just tell about a company and its offerings" that I included examples of other companies. They are longer and more imformative, so perhaps I just need to add more meat to mine? I will try to keep it neutral. Not biased. But I thought it was important to have a listing.... Wadeolsen (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

To write about your company you would need at least three independent, unsolicited reliable sources that discuss what in their view makes your company notable.

Please read WP:BOSS; I will be frank, most company representatives fail at attempts to write about their companies, especially without prior editing experience. It's not impossible to succeed, but the odds are not good. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are employed by this company, that must be disclosed per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's dangerous to use "I see an article that's like this" as a guide to what's acceptable on Wikipedia. You might find it helpful to sample a day's worth of the WP:articles for deletion board; watching that makes it apparent that there are a lot of business articles that are created, last until someone notices them, and are then summarily deleted. It's much better to read up on what's needed for an article, so you can make one (if the company is notable enough) that will actually last.

Please note that you can't write about your own knowledge of the subject, even if you are an expert. If you want to write about flammability you'd need to source it with published material on that topic, not your own expertise. M kuhner (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Wadeolsen (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

your contempt towards some French candidate to presidential election

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.

---

you contempts towards some French candidates to presidential election as you qualify their websites of "vandal, unapropriate, Block evasion:"Disruptive editing ".spamublock}} Sockpuppet unsourced content".Sock puppetry ; that proves that wikipedia is not neutral, nor free, with no respect for democracy, and political oriented! RivagesdeFrance (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the French Wikipedia, that's an entirely different group of people. But if you're on Wikipedia to promote a political candidate, then blocking your account is what's supposed to happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see why Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" when de facto control is relegated to cliques of entrenched power users with all sorts of pretexts for banning anyone they don't like in their back pockets. How free and open, or encyclopedic is this project after 25 years, really? Even after all these years, essential articles can't be trusted, and new eager users are driven off yet sketchy manipulation campaigns are tolerated to the point where state-sponsored troll farms like the IDF and Russia find it laughably easy to circumvent the official guidelines and the unwritten rules alike. Just stick to the script, cite deliberately obscure and unverifiable or out of print texts, lace your article with weasel words and passive voice...This isn't an encyclopedia at all and never will be. Wikipedia and its crabby self-appointed middle managers should at least be accurate about what this site really is and stop pretending to care about "neutrality" and tone, as if neutrality is even possible, let alone desirable. Not every issue is bland and objective-looking to the milquetoast enlightened centrists and trolls that run this place ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@RivagesdeFrance: "Block evasion" is a valid reason for a block on any Wikipedia regardless of circumstances. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 21:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, UK royalists don't need any primary, coz theey have no presidential election, lol! RivagesdeFrance (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

They still have to elect their ministers of Parliament, which have far more power than the British Crown. Are you here to do anything other than promote French political candidates and flame everyone else? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The Crown is a giant landlord and also heads the Church, and the monarch does have veto power and ability to dissolve Parliament de jure, no? Not to mention their inexplicable level of privilege and the crass cottage industries built around ogling the idle rich. They must have SOME power, otherwise Mr. Doesn't Sweat wouldn't just get shuffled off to a corner with a slap on the wrist for heinous crimes on private islands... ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 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.

what am I supposed to do bro

i made an account today, so cool amirite

however, I feel like I need to do something that benefits both the WikiReaders and WikiEditors to warrant an account.. so like what should I do??? UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You could be right, UselessAccount20. Don't feel obliged to do anything. Just read articles that interest you. When you find some part of an article that reads strangely, stop and think hard about how you could improve it. Then think a bit harder. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Geninuely how does this help at all

I know I can make minor edits, like typos and all that stuff, but what I'm asking is that what should I do that would actually benefit basically everyone, like I actually want to make major edits..

Idk bro this feels like you don't wanna help me at all on my situation ✌️ UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to do anything. But if you want to make contributions, you can write a draft of a new article, check out Wikiprojects on topics that interest you, or get involved in behind-the-scenes work like cleaning up vandalism. Check out Help:Introduction too, there's plenty of tutorials on editing there. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for actually helping me bro ✌️ UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Creating new articles is really challenging, though, so probably not where I'd start. Checking out the WP:Wikipedia Adventure is a good way to get a sense of policies. And then Wikipedia:Task Center sorts tasks by how challenging they are. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @UselessAccount20, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

By far the most valuable thing anybody can do to improve Wikipedia is to find existing articles that lack independent reliable sources (see WP:42) for some or all of the information they contain, and find and cite those sources. We have thousands and thousands of articles that are seriously lacking in this way (mostly because they were created long ago in prehistoric times when we just wanted to get Wikipedia populated with articles).

Unfortunately, this is often one of the most challenging tasks, so not many people spend much time on it (myself included).

Ideally, somebody would

• Find a reliable source for every piece of information in an article, and cite it. (In most cases the source should be independent and secondary, but there are limited cases when a primary source is acceptable).
• If no source can be found for a piece of information, remove it from the article (even if you know it is true - the criterion is verifiability, not truth
• If there are essentially no reliable independent sources about the subject, nominate the article for deletion.

If that challenge appeals to you, go for it! But read WP:verifiability, WP:REFB, WP:42, and WP:BRD first, and remember to explain what you're doing in the edit summary, so that people won't see text removed and think it's vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @UselessAccount20 and Welcom to the Teahouse. I've added a Welcome message to your talk page that has some helpful links. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

talk page archiving

hiya! a while ago I tried to add archiving to my talk page but it didn't work and I think created a few archive pages that were blank. could someone help me set this up correctly? thank you. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 23:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your archiving system and moved the talk topics incorrectly archived to the correct archive. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 00:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

is it possible to block anyone

I've always wondered if I can uhhhh block people... And by that I mean like blocking on social media, where basically nobody can see my stuff, replies, etc UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And if it were possible, that would make collaborating with other editors incredibly difficult if one of those users happened to be in a discussion you were in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

But what if... If the user who blocks someone cannot join the discussion for anything that the blocked user is in? Wouldn't that like, solve the issue? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Look at it from the reverse position: If the blocked user enters a discussion that the user blocked them is in, who deserves the siteblock? The blocker for trying to screw over someone who has good-faith arguments, or the blocked for trying to contribute to a conversation they can't see the entirety of? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 I might have misunderstood what you are asking, but blocking people on social media does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. And yes, you can block people on social media. Wikipedia is still not related... David10244 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

if u don't understand what I'm trying to say, then perhaps you should reply to anything that you are unsure of..

Like I know you are tryna help, but this doesn't help me at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Everything you write on WP is public, there is no way for you to stop other people from reading it if they find it. Even if you delete a comment you've written, people can still read it in the page history. There is no "private space" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there a way to like remove page history to prevent anyone from seeing what someone edited? Would it be possible to use that tool to theoretically "block" people for preventing viewing the messages of a person? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, UselessAccount20, if one editor adds libelous (or similarly problematic) material, then certain editors (called "administrators") can revert the offending edit(s) and hide the affected version(s) (other than from "administrators"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:OS exists, but I don't think that helps you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the salient question is why, after 14 edits, you're asking this question? Have you had a dispute with another editor? Athanelar (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it not possible for me to ask any questions?

Anyways, uh no I don't have anything against editors or nothing like that, just wondering that if Wikipedia somewhat has the same thing going on like other websites, and I don't seem to find a way to block anyone at all... UselessAccount20 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 When you say "block" on WP, people will probably hear that as WP:BLOCK, it's our jargon. We also have something called WP:PROTECTION. You can WP:MUTE people, and use WP:EMAIL. But you can't write "secret stuff" on WP, that's not what this website is for. Journalists (and of course redditors, instagrammers etc) can see what you write and write about it in their articles: WP:PRESS 26. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @UselessAccount20.

This question really is about whether Wikipedia is like social media (in that particular way).

The answer is no, Wikipedia is absolutely not social media: see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and any editor who spends much of their editing time on anything else is at risk of finding themselves blocked (in the way we mean it here). ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

how to make trust worthry content and sorry for editing your page

how do I show that I know it's true but it's not on a website because even if I just change selected to drafted for NBA it gets reverted Helloit'smetoday (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look through your edits and I think you're asking how to add a source? You've been given links to a few information pages, these show as blue text and you need to click on them to read the guidance page.

Pretty much every claim on Wikipedia must be verifiable to anyone else who reads it. This is done by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that independently confirms the information you've added.

If you can't find a reliable source for the claim, it's usually best to leave it out of the encyclopedia article. Blue-Sonnet 02:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

but some stuff is plain wrong and I can't change it Helloit'smetoday (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC) and most likely I'm right I play piano I've had played many of his songs and if you go to all my stuff you can tell by just learning it by hands on experience

@Helloit'smetoday Yes, some stuff is wrong on Wikipedia. Sourced information is more important than what you know to be true. See WP:NOTTRUTH. David10244 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Helloit'smetoday We don't know who "he" is, or what "his songs" are, since you didn't tell us. David10244 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

edit sorry if that sounded rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloit'smetoday (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this article even true at all?

Hello, i came across this article about the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873), and I'm wondering if this is real or not, since I'm not sure if they were ACTUALLY mustered in 1873, and that it claimed they fought in multiple battles in the Civil War,keep in mind, there's already an article for ANOTHER 27th New York Infantry Regiment, need an experienced editor to check on this, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy3523, the article has a curious history. (Consider this edit, for example.) This "1873" article started as a write-up of the subject of today's article 27th New York Infantry Regiment. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeRandomGuy3523, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article of the 27th New York Infantry Regiment that it was "Mustered out May 31, 1863", and then "reformed following the Civil War to replace the 3rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment that was disbanded." That re-formation was presumably in 1873, after a 10-year gap, as the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873).

I can't speak to US 19th-century military practice, but I do know that in the UK, when a regiment or Corps was/is disbanded, a few members of the Officers' Mess (which may in itself be a legal entity with often valuable assets and property) usually remained nominally on its strength so that it could if necessary be reconstituted as the same regiment with a continuity of its history, including retention of its former battle honours.

I agree that both articles could make this clearer than they currently do, and I would not argue against them being merged, with suitable redirects created. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly knwon as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Hoary@SomeRandomGuy3523@~2026-27434-43 It certainly needs work as, as written, a regiment active from 1873 fought in battles in 1862. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

suggestion: i think 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873) should be merged with this article: 27th New York Infantry Regiment. SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I made this edit: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Nice one! the edit removed the battles mentioned, but now comes to the article itself, and whether it should exist or not, ive already discussed this on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military History, and one of the users, @Hog Farm, said that he has already " listed the redirect for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 17" SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklist Milwaukee Band -Not on wiki site yet

Hi, I am trying to make visible the Blacklist Band article for the Blacklist Milwaukee Band. Is there anybody who can help me? Blacklistband (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I will try  Helloit'smetoday (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklistband, you asked about this at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blacklist_(Milwaukee_Band). You got two responses, indicating what you'd have to do to your draft in order to make it eligible to be an article. Since then, your draft hasn't been amended in any way. Did you see the responses? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not know it needed to be ammended. No I did not see any responses. Any help on your end would be appreciated. As I was the original drummer and founding member still alive, the article itself is accurate and correct. In fact, the bass player Rick and I still play together to this day. Blacklistband (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blacklistband Click the blue link just above that points to your question, and the answers, that are at the Help desk. The blue parts of the answers are links to more info. Click those links and try to digest the info there. David10244 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklistband, yes, what David10244 says. (You now have three responses there.) As for the claim As I was the original drummer and founding member still alive, the article itself is accurate and correct, you seem to be proposing some degree of dependence on what Wikipedia oddly terms "original research". But doing so isn't permissible. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Need some help with sources

Hello! So I had a recent page rejected, Draft:The Mon Valley Independent, and the reasoning was for no qualifying sources. Now I believe I understand the qualifying but I most just want a second opinion. Just to give some more specific details, the source I am referring to is the 5th citation, from the WVU website. Of course any other feedback on the article would be great as well! Thank you in advance! Tacotyler (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tacotyler Per what I see at [3], it seems to me that this source [4] is not independent of the subject, they are writing about "their own". So, while it won't help with WP:GNG, it can probably be used as a WP:ABOUTSELF source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You are totally right. I probably should’ve realized that when I noticed the link had the word “testimonial”. Thank you for the help. I think I was able to find another source, but now I am worried it lacks significance. I feel like once I finally find one that matches all the criteria I will finally understand, still just am curious if you could confirm the source fits all the criteria. It is under citation 6. Thank you again for your help! Tacotyler (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tacotyler, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that the TribLive article is largely based on quotations (ie interviews) from the personally of the MVI, and so is not independent.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Login verification broken again

Have tried to log in several times, it keeps asking for a validation code that it isn’t sending. Yes, I’ve checked spam. No, it isn’t there. I’d ask at Help talk:Email confirmation, but it’s semi-protected. Anybody know what’s wrong? ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Just.....why? Why would the page that is for new editors be semi-protected? Just delete the damn page now, it's completely useless to literally everybody who would need it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EDIT IT.

Sorry about that. Not sure what SuperMarioMan (the person who originally semi-protected it) was thinking. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same reaction when I saw it was semi-protected lol. ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The log indicates it's protected to prevent test edits, which seems to be the bulk of edits to that page. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd. Why would anybody put test edits on that page? Either way, the page being semi-protected makes it quite useless now to a good chunk of people that are going to be using it. Why is it still there? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

DollarStoreBa'al, I get the impression that you believe that the page Help talk:Email confirmation is for people wanting help in Email confirmation. But it isn't. At its top it tells the reader "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Email confirmation page." -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Is copy+pasting a passage with a citation allowed or to be avoided?

Was fleshing out a few silent film stub pages, Back to Liberty and The Lost Express, and found synopses for these two films on the AFI catalog. I pasted them into a plot synopsis section in block quotes while adding a citation to the specific webpages at the end. I believe adding the sections for the two does not constitute plagarism since I gave the citation, but am I correct? Furthermore, is using the other sites summaries ok/within wikipedia style, or should that not be done? If it shouldn't, I am more than happy to take out the passages and just put in "no plot" tags on both pages, just wanted to get another opinion on it LincolnMagnus (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That depends on the copyright status of AFI. Personally, I'd say copy-and-pasting is a bad idea. Even close paraphrasing is stronlgy discouraged. It would definitely be best if you could rewrite it in your own words. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, ok LincolnMagnus (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

can I have help because I'm working on Vivaldi

i need people to vote on it before it gets taken down in the trust worthy content it says you can vote on it so vote for it Helloit'smetoday (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:COMMUNICATE and start a discussion on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has at least 14 pages named "Vivaldi". We don't know which, if any, of those you mean. Also, if someone is proposing to delete a page they will have given reasons. Fixing the reasons would be the best way forward. (Not enough reliable sources? Add some. Breaks rules? Fix that.) M kuhner (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)V

@Helloit'smetoday, what do you mean when you say 'you can vote on it'? Do you mean the little numbers you see in Contributions and History pages - like this one for Vivaldi? Those numbers show how much data was added (green, +) or removed (red, -) in an edit, that's all.

You keep trying to put information about Spring being used in Grow A Garden, and people keep removing it. If someone removes your edit, you need to go to the article's talk page (Talk:Antonio Vivaldi) and explain why you want to add that information as well as offering a good source to verify the information. WP:RS has more information about this. If you just keep adding the same thing without trying to discuss it, sooner or later you will be blocked so you have to stop. Adding something repeatedly when people are removing it is called edit warring and it's something you want to avoid! Meadowlark (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

it is Antonio Vivaldi-helloit'smetoday.

How to speed up getting a draft reviewed?

Hello, is there any way to expedite the process of getting a draft reviewed? It says it might take up to 3 months to wait. Do we really need to wait that long? Thanks for answering. Jane1289 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 You seem to have already done what it says in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" part of the submission box at the top of your draft, so I think you'll just have to wait. As a WP:PAID contributor, some of the volunteer reviewers may be less inclined to prioritise your drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 First of all, you need to be more specific about your paid editing disclosure; please see WP:PAID. Simply saying "I sometimes engage in paid editing" is not enough; you need to disclose exactly who is paying you and for which edits. For example, I presume your 16,000 byte expansion of The Golden Dream was a paid edit; you need to disclose that in the edit summary when you carry out edits like that. You similarly need to specifically disclose that Draft:Diego Quemada-Diez was created in response for payment. Otherwise, you are on a fast track to being (rightfully, at this stage) accused of undiscloswd paid editing. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

My paid edits where disclosed for each page.. Jane1289 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Where did you disclose your paid edits to The Golden Dream? It's not in your edit summary nor your userpage, nor the article's talk page. Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I still need to edit it actually..the disclosure will be put there... Jane1289 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to this Draft:Diego Quemada-Diez. The disclose is on its talk page....as for this, The Golden Dream, I still have to edit it..the disclosure will be put there.. sorry, I'm new to accepting paid edit coz my previous ones were written for free...

Thanks for the comment, btw... Jane1289 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:PAID#How to disclose. Per the rules, putting it on the talk page is sufficient, but it's really better to put it somewhere a reviewer is more likely to see it; namely your userpage and on the draft itself.

When it comes to editing already-existing articles like The Golden Dream, the best thing to do is put it in the edit summary for each edit. Athanelar (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much... I'll review things about this matter... Jane1289 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The important thing to realize is that reviews are done by volunteers, for whom this is a hobby.

If your draft isn't on a topic that particularly interests anyone, then you'll have to wait for the people who are motivated more by making sure that every draft gets reviewed. DS (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Jane1289, there are two types of drafts that tend to get reviewed more quickly than average. The first type is an outstanding, well written and well referenced draft on a clearly notable topic, produced by an editor without any hint of a conflict of interest. This type of draft tends to get approved promptly. The second type is a poorly written, poorly referenced draft about a topic of uncertain notability, written in a promotional style by an editor likely to have an undisclosed conflict of interest. This type of draft tends to get declined or rejected promptly. The borderline cases take a reviewer a lot more time and work to evaluate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... Jane1289 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can sources be repeated?

Hi! I'm trying to improve articles like Trans-Canada Highway and XZ Utils backdoor, but many of the sources are cited multiple times within one page, like, for example:

This source is used 4 times on this page.

Are we allowed to repeat sources? In the case of the latter, I'm finding a sparse amount of sources, but I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks! --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 18:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Which source is used 4 times on this page? You haven't put it in your message. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just using it as an example. --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite sources multiple times in the same page! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheAuroraBorealis. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for how to cite the same source in several places in an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks! --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I’m new to Wikipedia, and I never read the guidelines yet. Can you please explain on what is Wikipedia, right now? MiniuteHour409 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

We can't possibly do this as well as those guidelines do. WP:About would be a great place for you to start. If you like to learn things by doing, you could try the game version WP:Adventure. M kuhner (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Could someone help me review my essay?

Hello. Before posting my essay to the "Wikipedia:" namespace, could you guys review it? I'd be happy to hear your advises. (And note: You can edit it however you want if you think it would be better with the way you think) Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I did a quick read through your essay, and it is good. I think it can be improved, but it is good. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Birthay boy We already have a much better essay Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. I'm not sure that yours adds anything. I would also point out that your grammar is very poor. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, but I want to say that WP:CREATELEAD generally focuses on how to create lead, while this one is about articles which lacks overview (near but not same). Maybe a merge could be done, I am not against it, but I just wanted to point out this. I agree with you about the poor grammar, it should be fixed (and I will fix it). Thanks again for the review! Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

various questions by a TA

Hatting disruptive questions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

---

How long does it take until a edit is searchable in Wikipedia search?

How long does it take until a edit is searchable in Wikipedia search? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant a new edit. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users think i'm a certain user, because of a same topic, despite that same topic being popular

I'm talking about The Rodfellows Movie, which has garnered 408K views on a saltydkdan video. A previous user had used this as a excuse and now people think i'm them. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Question: if a person admits they're the same user, will they get blocked or not?

Question: if a person admits they're the same user, will they get blocked or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant the same person that did block evasion(s). ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Has something prompted this question? Its always best to be honest and deal with the consequences. Those who do are looked upon better than those who don't. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you would look at spaces where i (~2026-29101-67) talked, you will get a answer. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@331dotIf you would look at spaces where i (~2026-29101-67) talked, you will get a answer on why i have promted this question. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-29101-67.

I don't wish to appear unkind, but you are asking for help, and when people ask you to be more specific so they can help you, you tell them to go and look for themselves. Do you think that will make people more likely to want to help you, or less?

At least tell us which article or page you want us to look at, and if it is a discussion on a talk or project page, which section of the page. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineThen people could help me and also, the saltydkdan video has 408K views, that's a lot of people, meaning there are multiple people in wikipedia, and that other user used it as a excuse to keep block evading and keep disrputive ediiting. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means.

I have no idea what "the saltydkdan video" is or why its number of view is important.

If you want help, explain what you are asking about in a way that your readers can understand. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

They are angry because no one is believing their excuses to convince people that they are not the same person as another blocked temporary account. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they will likely be blocked after saying they are the same person. So will the person who doesn't disclose they are blocked once evidence shows that they are. A person who admits it will find their path to returning to being an editor in good standing a lot shorter and smoother than a person who, for example, continually evades their block because they have an obsession with The Rodfellows Movie and then tells people they're a new user even though it's a very simple task for many editor to click on the TA and the history and see that it is not true. Hopefully this example answers your question. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbsBut what if it's a coincidence? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The connection of town, both on Wikipedia, editing the exact niche content, same approach to getting their edit, same block evasion, same mistakes in spelling and grammar, same spamming of the Teahouse, same excuses when caught, same fibs, and same randomly editing in other sections, means that your question is moot because it's not a coincidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbsAlso, the saltydkdan video has 408K views, that's a lot of people, meaning there are multiple people in wikipedia, and that other user used it as a excuse to keep block evading and keep disrputive ediiting. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What is TA?

What is TA? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Where to put this in article "2026 Cannes Film Festival"?

https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest asking on Talk:2026 Cannes Film Festival, where people with knowledge of and interest in the article will see it. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineBut it is not that active. What to do to make it more active? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineMake the chat active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we have a discussion on the usage of iMDB?

In Wikipedia:Cite iMDB, it says that "IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications." I believe that my edit falls in the disputed category, rather than innapropriate category. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant my edit with The Rodfellows Movie. And also a source of the whole talk of me being a user that did edits. Although it is noted that saltydkdan video has 408K views, which is the same excuse this user did. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users say my edit is disruptive. My edit is not disruptive. Disruptive means "causing problems, stopping something from continuing". My edit isn't problematic and dosen't stop something from continuing. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users each have different opinions. It is simply my opinion that my edit is not disprutive, as i've written above. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No SoGuys881 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881Athanelar wrote that you're not helpful. I think we need other users to talk about it. You can still talk though. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881It's not meant to hurt your feelings, it is a opinion by Athanelar. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Other my conversations in the Teahouse are not active, what do to to make them active?

Other my conversations in the Teahouse are not active, what do to to make them active? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that english is broken. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

idk, reply to them? i dont know either Arenghtqru888 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Arenghtqru888But what should i write? Also you can talk to me about a more imprtant issue, users think i am another user that did disruptive edits. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I dont know, I'm new here too Arenghtqru888 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

you’re making disruptive edits right now - ie this continued flooding of this page with new sections. Please desist. Morwen (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I am keep posting because i want to talk to people in order to prove i'm not that other person. I don't want to be disruptive. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenI am keep posting because i want to talk to people in order to prove i'm not that other person. I don't want to be disruptive. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenAlso, i broken english to hurry. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a break and stop posting. I’m sure someone will look at this in due course and deal with the matter but this isn’t a chat room and you cannot expect instant responses. please consider this a warning. Morwen (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenYes, and also make the talk chat in the talk page of 2026 canned film festival active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there other people that have heard about The Rodfellows Movie? Write yes if you know it

Are there other people that have heard about The Rodfellows Movie? Write yes if you know it ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 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.

Consolidating additional questions by the same user; feel free to expand the hat. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Which template is for a article that needs to be urgently rewritten?

Which template is for a article that needs to be urgently rewritten? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup rewrite works for that purpose. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, i added it to the "Hare and Wolf" article. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Reference in "Too Many Losing Heroines!" and "Traditional animation"

The reference for the text "he closing sequence for the first episode of Too Many Losing Heroines!, was made using cel animation shot with an 8mm film camera, marking the first time a new cel animation has been broadcast on television in 10 years and 9 months." ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

And in the same text in the article "Too Many Losing Heroines!". ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I've shown you how to do it, be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the article template for improving worldview instead of only information from and things from the western world?

What is the article template for improving worldview instead of only information from and things from the western world? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Try Template:Globalize. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

i just so happened to found this template before you commented, but i don't know, is there a similar, related but different template? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Like, rather than perspectives from people from different countries, it is instead information of stuff in other countries. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The foot of that template mentions template:Geographical imbalance which may be closer to what you had in mind. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Should the text in the Draft Critterz article be changed?

From "computer-animated" to "generative AI"? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I added "generative AI" in this draft article rather than just being a computer-animated film. Not sure if my edit is good enough. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, there will be a first-look of Critterz at the 2026 Cannes film festival. Also, the 2026 Cannes film festival is taking place from 12 to 23 May 2026, which is happening right now. So it's worth to look at the 2026 Cannes film festival for updates. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Where should i put this news source from Variety https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ in the article "2026 Cannes film festival"? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I added it in the (Top) section of 2026 Cannes Film festival (it's called the lead section, or the lede, if i'm correct). I geniunely didn't know where to place it, nor how to write it. But i wanted to add information with a source from Variety surrounding Critterz. So i made this edit. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine: you have followed the first part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle cycle, by Boldly carrying out your edit to 2026 Cannes Film Festival. If someone disagrees that it improves the article (or if it isn't Cited to a Reliable source, they may amend (by moving it somewhere else, for example) or Revert your edit (hopefully with an explanation in their Edit summary, which i notice that another relatively new editor who reverted you failed to add), after which the two of you can Discuss the the matter and come to a mutually agreed Concensus.

This is a standard way of working on Wikipedia. The project is necessarily complex, and nobody works on it without making mistakes, which can always be corrected by another editor: honest mistakes are part of the learning process, and their correction should not be taken for an admonition unless they are made repeatedly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

unsure if I put something in the right section

on the article Kermit the Frog, I put in the music video for weezer's Keep Fishin' since Kermit is in it, but I'm not 100% sure if it goes into the internet section, his discography section, filmography, or guest appearances on television. could someone help me? I don't want my edit to be reverted. please and thank you in advance -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 22:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, that looks like the best spot to put it, but another editor may very well move it at some point in the future. Thanks for your contribs! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

talk page archiving to wrong page

I have Lowercase sigmabot III installed on my talk, but for some reason it always keeps archiving to User talk:Dantus21/Archive 8 instead of User talk:Dantus21/Archive 1. What am I messing up here? Dantus21 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dantus21,

I think it's because you have the "counter" parameter set to 8 instead of 1. Try changing it to 1. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 23:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! I'll try doing that. Thanks for letting me know. Dantus21 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

About indexing

Does it always take 90 days for a new article to get indexed by search engines? Are there other ways that new articles get indexed? Mintcookie810 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles get indexed after 90 days or after they have been marked as "patrolled" by a new page patroller. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Mintcookie810, editors with a long track record of writing high quality articles lacking major problems can be granted the autopatrolled user right. Most commonly, this requires the creation of at least 25 clean new articles. Articles created by editors with this user right are indexed by search engines very quickly, usually within a few minutes. I have had the experience on several occasions of moving a new article on a niche topic from my sandbox to main space, and then seeing it appear as the #1 or #2 Google search result for that topic very rapidly. Please read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Help with writing an Article

How do I request help with writing an article? I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? DS (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Start writing article yourself, see Your First Article.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 05:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

fastest way to find categories

yall I have finally decided on what I shall do, and that is basically trying to categorize any article that needs categories, however..... I have an issue

It's a bit time consuming finding categories for an article manually, and I wonder if there was like a tool to find categories kinda automatically UselessAccount20 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @UselessAccount20: if you're not yet using HotCat, you might want to give that a try. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can it be used on mobile devices, or do I just have to use it in a computer? UselessAccount20 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be used, with difficulty, in "desktop view" on mobile, but not in "mobile view". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

UselessAccount20, I'd dissuade you from attempting to "categorize any article that needs categories". Better to limit yourself to articles in a single subject area. When you've moderately familiarized yourself with the category tree(s) most helpful for that (and thanks to this have sped up somewhat), consider adding a second subject area. (Ditto for a third, etc.) And be sure to read and digest Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

i think I'll do my own thing, thanks

I'll read the Wikipedia articles about categories, but I'd rather you not stop me from doing what I truly want to do UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:MILFLAGS and historical flags in military infoboxes

Hi, I'm in a dispute about whether historical national flags should be displayed in a military conflict infobox. The other editor is citing MOS:MILFLAGS and argues that when there are only two belligerents the flags are redundant because they don't differentiate among several parties. My reading is that "differentiate among several parties" is given as one example with "for example" and isn't meant to be the only case where flags are useful. I also think the fact that MOS:MILFLAGS warns against anachronistic flags suggests the guideline's authors saw historical flags as carrying real informational value beyond just the country name in the text. The article in question is the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Both belligerents have well documented historical flags for the 1895-1896 period so there is no consistency issue. Am I reading MOS:MILFLAGS correctly here, or is the other editor's interpretation the right one? Any advice would be appreciated. Habeshakira (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Habeshakira, the two most relevant passages from the Manual of Style are In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended and also flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. So, the baseline practice is to leave flag icons out. If the only two combatants were Italy and Ethiopia, which is easily stated in text, then what additional information do the flag icons convey? If they are for decoration, most editors would probably conclude that they should be left out. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree the baseline is no flags, and that the test is whether they convey additional information. That's exactly why I raised the anachronism warning.

MOS:MILFLAGS specifically instructs editors to use historically accurate flags and avoid anachronistic ones. If flags conveyed nothing beyond the country name already in the text, that warning would be completely pointless. It wouldn't matter whether you used the 1895 flag or the modern one, because either way it's just decoration next to a country name. But the guideline clearly does care which flag you use, which means it recognises that the correct historical flag carries informational value of its own.

In this case the 1895 Italian flag looks quite different from what most readers would associate with Italy today. Showing the accurate historical flag tells the reader something about the period that the text "Kingdom of Italy" alone doesn't. That seems to me like exactly the kind of additional information the guideline is asking about. Habeshakira (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, Habeshakira, I am just expressing my individual opinion as an experienced editor who knows that arguing about flag icons is frowned upon. The article is about a late 19th century military conflict. It is not about the history or the evolution of the Italian flag. Any reader interested in that defunct kingdom can read Kingdom of Italy and if they are curious about its flag back then, we have Flag of Italy which covers all versions over the years. It seems to me that the images most useful to readers would be paintings and photos of the political and military leaders, the most important battles and the aftermath of the war. And sure enough, First Italo-Ethiopian War already contains quite a few images of that type, specific to this particular war. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't read it this way at all, and see it similar to how Cullen328 does. Instructions that suggest you generally avoid flags in military infoboxes and that they should be historically accurate are not in conflict. I believe it simply means that in the rare case in which a flag is an appropriate inclusion then in that case, one should make sure to use historically accurate ones. I don't think that the flag is conveying specific enough information to be one of the exceptions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Need help with citations

Hello, I've just made some changes for the Oneida Independent Company New York Volunteer Cavalry, and I see that there's some issues with the citations I've made, need some help on that, also help is needed on any parts of the article, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You cite something by Eric J. ink [sic]. It's a "PDF" that you "retrieved". I infer that it's on the web. But where? You also cite something by Eric J. Mink. You give its url as chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/armament-aop-chancellorsville2.pdf , which doesn't look like a URL to me; if you remove the mumbo-jumbo that precedes "https", you get an actual, working URL. You give as the date "November 30. 2008". This won't work: change the period into a comma. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I've just fixed some of the citations, but on the infobox, cause Im still not sure on how to fix my citation when its on an infobox, need help, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another link is to https://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://museum.dmna.ny.gov/application/files/5916/1488/7255/IndCavTable.pdf ; again, remove the junk that precedes "https". (Indeed, you'd be wise to search through this draft for the string "chrome-extension", and for any example that you find, to cut the junk.) In various references, you give the domain name of the website as if it were the title of the website. Sometimes the domain name is the title, but more often it is not. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using different archival services

Hello, I am a novice user and I wanted to ask a question regarding archival services in references. I do quite a bit of translating/expanding articles here on the English Wikipedia from information written on the French-language website, and one of the issues I encounter is with differing archival services in references. On this website, references only use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for archived URLs, while on the French Wikipedia they instead use a service called "Wikiwix Archive", which seemingly functions differently from the Wayback Machine (no interactive scroll for multiple images, etc.) My question is: should I use the Wikiwix archive URLs in English article references, or should I try and find an archive on the Wayback Machine instead? Zach1055 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zach1055 I would just continue to use Wikiwix. The bonus is you'd be raising awareness of the site. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Zach1055 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Searching for a Page that doesn't Exit...

I'm a rather inexperienced user of Wikipedia—so I'd rather someone more capable do this than me, but I've noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for The Property of Hate (webcomic), in fact I've never seen it mentioned anywhere...slightly odd, given that I think it'd meet the requirements of Notability, and perchance it could be another situation akin to the likes of Battle for Dream Island, but, as I've stated previously, I don't have much experience in Wikipedia's process, much the opposite in fact. Could someone raise a page for this? Thanks! (Sorry if I was rambling a bit, I can do that sometimes when online...) ~2026-25400-68 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Requested articles, but it's so backlogged that it's useless, frankly. It's unlikely in the extreme that someone else interested in the topic will see this request and take up researching and writing about it. If you want to see an article about it, you're the best person to write it, though it certainly is a challenging task that we don't necessarily recommend new users dive right in to. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't easily find any WP:GNG-good sources, which are the best 2 you know? User:Njacobs6/sandbox might interest you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Silesian Railways

Take a look at this article. It is very long, and doesn't seem constructive. I assume it was machine translated from its Polish article, possibly by an LLM or something like Google Translate. After looking at the article's authorship, it seems that it was expanded by a now inactive user named KolS AHK just under one year ago, they made 85% of the contributions to this article, which accounts for over 135,000 bytes or over 108,000 characters.

Could I possibly delete all of this information? I don't think leaving it as it is for another editor to fix it up is a good idea, as it has been left that way for almost a year. So, what do I do? Fortek67 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you can go ahead and boldly delete the parts of the article that seem excessive or that are poorly written. If you think some of the information is important, though, and is sourced, I would leave that in. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Advice for Draft: Phulgenda Sinha

Hello Everone!  I am looking for some advice regarding Draft:Phulgenda Sinha

This draft is based on varifiable independent newspaper coverage and library of congress catalogue references. However, it has twice been declined at Articles for creation citing the use of LLM to generate the content. At the first decline, I revised the wording strucuture manually before resubmmitting but the second review raised the same issue again and there is no specific feedback.

I would really appreciate adcive from expericened editors before resubmitting agian. Thank you in advance for your time and help. Factualresearchers (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the most important question is; did you use any AI or LLM tool, including both chatbots like ChatGPT and 'writing assistants' like Grammarly and DeepL Write, to write this draft? Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I did use language tools during initial drafting, but all references were added and manually checked against the original sources. After the initial feedback, I also revised the article manually before resubmitting it.

I understand the concern regarding machine-generated prose, which is why I came here to seek advice before resubmitting again. Factualresearchers (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

When you say you 'revised the article manually before resubmitting it,' what does that actually mean?

Does it mean you rewrote the article from scratch, ensuring that all of the AI generated or assisted prose from before was fully replaced by entirely human-written prose? Because that's what we require. AI-generated text is not allowed in articles. Simply 'revising' the AI generated text is not sufficient. Athanelar (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I understand the concern being raised.

To clarify, during the initial draft I mainly used language tools for copyediting grammar and spelling, which I understand is acceptable under the guidance you linked. The references and citation links were added manually from the original sources.

During the second submission, I rewrote the article manually, but it was still declined for the same reason. The article itself is also relatively short.

I will go back to the cited sources again and take a fresh look before rewriting it once more. What I would appreciate are a few practical pointers while I am rewriting. Factualresearchers (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Factualresearchers. Is this Wikipedia account for one person or for several? When I read your draft, the impression that I get is "just another moderately successful yoga teacher mentioned occasionally in reliable sources". In my opinion, your draft does not make a compelling case that he was a truly notable person, as Wikipedia defines that term. Please read WP:NPERSON, which says, For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen328. This is a single user account. Also, your feedback is indeed helpful for writing the next iteration. I found substantial coverage spanning several decades, and your comment also makes me realise that I should draw more directly from those sources while rewriting the article. Factualresearchers (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be correct. A Wikipedia article is merely a summary of what other sources have said, with no extrapolation and minimal editorialisation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Jéské Couriano Factualresearchers (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For your offline sources, I would also recommend following this list of what to include:

• newspapers and magazines: Publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1925), article name, article byline, page(s) the article is on
• books: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or the WorldCat catalogue number.

These are the minimum metadata we need for a reader to look the sources up in a library or offline archive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Many Thanks @Jéské Couriano. Your advice is very helpful. Factualresearchers (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

New here

Hi there, I have recently joined Wikipedia. I have been here for a few days, and I also worked on two new articles Glanadda and Garth, Gwynedd. But they keep being tagged as AI-written. I admitted Glanadda used AI, but not Garth, which I wrote with AI helping to find and verify sources. I have written about Garth and spent around an hour writing it. Please could some users look at it and offer their help with it? Would I be happy to learn? Yes, and also, is it now a thing that all new articles get slapped with the AI tag? Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using AI to "find and verify sources" is also inappropriate, and one of the worst possible uses for AI, because it has a habit of editorialising or interpreting sources in a way which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

AI generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Seeing as you've now admitted that both of these articles signifcantly relied on AI for their creation, I'm going to move them to draftspace and you can submit them for a review to get them moved back to mainspace only once you have rewritten them without any AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not use AI to write my second article, I said to find sources. I written it myself and most of the sources for Garth were actually okay. Hope this helps, Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"Most" of the sources being okay is not acceptable. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and the problems associated with sources found by AI is one of its biggest issues; although maybe we should specify in the guideline that it's not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So I guess all new articles that are made on Wikipedia are subject to AI tags? Is that what you mean? Thanks Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Using AI just to find and verify sources is easily one of the worst ways to use it. AI naturally tries to satisfy the prompt and is prone to making up sources out of thin air to do so. Any sources found by AI are by default suspect unless checked by a human - which, coincidentally, takes at least as much time, if not more, than simply doing the research yourself without the AI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I mean. Your articles were tagged as including AI generated text because... well, they did. Many of the editors here are very good at spotting this sort of thing, and check new articles specifically to find and tag AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, Glowr Curt Ryder. Most new articles written by competent editors show no signs of AI use and therefore have no need of AI tags. This is a human written encyclopedia, not a robot written encyclopedia. In 2026, AI tools are incapable of distinguishing between reliable sources and sources that are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. They are incapable of accurately summarizing sources. They cannot properly format references accurately. Their prose is stilted and banal. And until a new editor has a well developed understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms, it is unwise for them to try to use AI tools in any substantive way. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand all the points raised, I no longer will use AI going forward. For help with sources or anything. I will make sure to write it as humane as possible. Thanks all for clearing this up, as I am new here and want to contribute to Wales and articles relating to it. Thanks all Glowr Curt Ryder Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My new file

My new file :D

SoGuys881 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

SoGuys881, you identify that logo as your "own work". Are you the graphic designer who created it in 1997? Are you the copyright holder? If not, what gives you the right to freely license and upload this image? Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, and I got this from logopedia SoGuys881 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Treehouse TV made it SoGuys881 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

so not me SoGuys881 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

When you uploaded this to Commons you legally declared that you are the creator of this image and are the legal copyright holder. You then declared that, as the legal copyright holder, you released the image for use on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons licence.

If you do not hold the copyright for this image, you've violated copyright law and need to get this deleted from Commons urgently. You've also caused Wikipedia to violate copyright law, by having this image on our website without permission from the true copyright holder. Please do not upload any more images that you do not own the copyright for. Blue-Sonnet 18:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Treehouse TV is pd and Corus is pd SoGuys881 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you know their logos are in the public domain? Can you clarify? Blue-Sonnet 18:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You keep using those words. I don't think you understand what they mean. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Corus likes pd

pd = public domain

treehouse tv is pd SoGuys881 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(PrincessBrideIDoNotThinkItMeansWhatYouThinkItMeansImageMacro.jpeg) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That does not mean that everything that they or their employees does is automatically in the public domain. What about the designer they hired to create this logo - what happened to their copyright? You need to give specific proof that this exact logo is released under the public domain. Blue-Sonnet 18:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It was created by me SoGuys881 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that Treehouse TV commissioned you to create this logo in the 1990’s? You're the person who designed this logo? Blue-Sonnet 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Corus made it SoGuys881 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So by what you're saying, these logos are copyright violations and should be removed wholesale. I doubt that the logo for Treehouse TV is underneath the threshold of originality and the logo for TVO kids is quite obviously over that threshold. You're thus misrepresenting their copyright status. Mind mulliganing on your public-domain claims? (I strongly suggest reading the linked article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another file is thumb|100px SoGuys881 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop uploading files that you do not own the copyright to. Blue-Sonnet 18:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Since 1997 and 2009 are years SoGuys881 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

🙂I created these 2 files SoGuys881 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881: If they were created by essentially copying the old logos, then the copyright remains with the person who originally created those logos in 1997 and 2009, not with the person who converted them into computer-readable image files. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated them for deletion, please do not remove the deletion tags - that will happen after the discussion is complete. Blue-Sonnet 18:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

thumb|100px SoGuys881 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop this before it becomes a conduct issue. Sanctions come quickly on this kind of thing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to notify this thread I have opened up a case on Commons. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Please note that while the uploader did upload some copyright violations the original file at the start of this section is pretty clearly below threshold of originality (there have been different variants of it uploaded to Commons and used on Treehouse TV page for years before) and the discussions above started on false terms. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That still doesn't excuse the TVO Kids or Disney Channel logos, both of which are still clearly over the threshold and both of which were posted here as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I going insane?

Am I going insane or were the articles for UEFA Euro 2016 and UEFA Euro 2020 expanded and than reverted? I remember going on the article for the UEFA Euro 2020 and noticed somebody added a whole segment (for lack of a better word) detailing the qualification process, which seemed redundant as there is already an article on the qualification process for each European Championship, FIFA World Cup, etc. I checked the version history and it seemed this segment had always been there, even though I remembered it not being there. Later, I checked the article again and that segment was gone and, just like the last time, no revisions contained this segment. Has it ever happened before where the same article, for whatever reason, looks different depending on settings or the device used or something like that? Cheeky91021 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find anything in the history, you might have just not being paying attention to something or your memory is deceiving you. I have experienced incidents were edits cause issues or bring back information that was deleted without me adding it, but that appears in the edit history. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

how the hell do i change my name

I want to lowk change it to "userbox man" because i love userboxes Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

See Special:GlobalRenameRequest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Error during image upload

Hello, I am facing an issue while uploading images from my PC. It says "You don't have permission to upload this file". Can you guide me on this, what makes me eligible to upload an image on my draft article. Bhavishjan (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bhavishjan. This usually means that you are not autoconfirmed - either your account is not four days old, or you have not made 10 edits.

At present you have made 15 edits, but when you posted this question it was your thirteenth edit. I don't know when you tried, but is it possible that it was before you have made your tenth edit?

Note that images will not play any part in getting a draft accepted. You may add an image to Draft:Akhuwat_College_Kasur, but I advise you to spend your time finding the sources that are absolutely necessary to establish that the college is notable - sources where people wholly unconnected with the college have chosen to publish significant material about the college in reliable publications (see WP:42). At present, you do not have a single independent source, and there is no chance of your draft being accepted.

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. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

What ColinFine says above. Also: What would make you eligible to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia for use in a draft would be a credible explanation either (A) that the image is in the public domain (in the legal sense of this term) or (B) that the person (whether you or somebody else) who owns its copyright has copylefted the image in a (very permissive) way that is acceptable to Wikimedia (Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, etc). (As the image is for a draft, no claim of "fair use" would be relevant.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Inactivity vs death

Bit of a morbid question and I'm sorry for that, but how do wikipedians know the difference between a wikipedian who has died and someone who has just been inactive for a long time Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

As a general rule, there needs to be some form of external confirmation for a Wikipedian to be marked as dead, either from a close family member or friend or from an obituary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If nothing is given and they just... disappear, they are marked as missing, if they said they were leaving, they are marked as retired, if proof is given that they are dead, like Jéské Couriano said above, they are marked as dead. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats all very sad. Thank you Starlet and Jéské for your answers Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Article class upgrade?

Could the Soviet space dogs article be upgraded from C to B class perhaps? I've been working on improving it for some time, In my opinion it meets the criteria for a B-class article now, but since I've made lots of changes to it I might be biased, so I wanted to ask for other opinions. I know I could just update it myself without bothering to ask, but that feels... weird, so please let me know if you think it's okay to upgrade it! Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vicccqh7 There's nothing weird or biased about changing or updating articles even if you're the OP or just an improver. If you think an article meets a certain criterion be WP:Bold and make the change yourself. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's also not judged very harshly (I've many times seen quite blatant class-fraud, it's common) and no one will fault you for getting it 'wrong'. jolielover♥talk 08:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Content assessment on Wikipedia

Hi there. I have recently contributed a moderate amount of content to KakaoBank. I see that it is WP:ASSESSed as a stub right now, reflecting its state from several weeks ago. I was wondering, is it poor form for an editor to assess an article to which they have contributed significantly, themselves?

I have gone over the content assessment criteria, and I feel that KakaoBank is currently probably WP:CCLASS. Although I have not yet looked at other financial articles in great detail, I suspect there are probably notable gaps in discussion and/or areas where an additional graphic would be helpful, which prevent the KakaoBank article from reaching B-class. But it would be great to get a second opinion on this, before I even consider assigning my first content assessment grade.

EDIT: I see now that my question is very similar to @Vicccqh7's, just above! Sorry about that. Still, I'd appreciate a bit of individual feedback here, if possible. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is no inherent issue with editors reassessing articles they have worked on between Stub, Start, C, and B-class. If you think it matches C-class then you can change it, at a quick look it has expanded beyond a stub. CMD (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you for the quick reply! I shall reassess it to C-class, for now. NeuroJasper (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If an article is decently long (1500 bytes of actual written text is a common guideline) it's generally best to remove the Stub tag and reassess it as something higher, yes. I would recommend using the WP:RATER script for helping to judge this, too. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for asking on the English Wikipedia. But is it allowed to be an editor of the Russian Wikipedia anonymously?

On Russian Wikipedia, articles can be created by anonymous users. I usually create them for redirects. On here I often have to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. That is why I made Геймовёрс on the Russian Wikipedia redirect to Glitch Productions (but English Wikipedia has an article, Gameoverse.) I am not fluent but I do use dictionary resources like OpenRussian and Wiktionary and machine translation (i.e. DeepL.) Also, I have to use a word declension tool (СловоРул or similar), a grammar website, and a dictionary. I'm pretty good at reading Russian Cyrillic because I can pronounce some words in my head. I frequently look at Russian Wikipedia articles, and even English Wikipedia for Russian phonology. I am not Russian or from Russia, but I use a variety of resources to study it. If you can, can you relay this information to Russian Wikipedia translated into Russian? Sorry for asking about Russian Wikipedia here. But i do know a few words and continue to learn with dictionaries. I've been an anonymous user, but I plan to edit the Russian and English Wikipedias. Does it matter if an English Wikipedia editor also edits other languages' Wikipedias or creates redirects, if their grammar can be fixed. I may have broken grammar in non-English languages. Sorry if I asked here. Thanks ~2026-29694-34 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate you asked this in good faith, ru.wp advice is out of scope for the English-language Teahouse. We don't know what their policies, standards, and practices are, and it would be foolish for us to blindly assume them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Edits to various fungus articles

Hey there! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this (I apologise if it's not), but thought it couldn't hurt to try. In patrolling recent changes, I've found a TA making edits to various articles, particularly articles of different fungi. I have found similar past edits under a different TA identifier in some of the article histories. I think the edits may warrant removal based on a lack of citations provided in making them, but I don't know enough about fungi and the content in the edits to evaluate more thoroughly. I wanted to ask if users more familiar with fungi and the general formatting of fungi articles on Wikipedia could review the recent edits. To save on the length of this message, I'll hold off on listing the articles in case my request is more appropriate elsewhere. If the Teahouse works, I can list them in a reply. Please let me know, and thank you for any help anyone can give. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 01:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pikkupapupata, welcome to the Teahouse!

It depends on what the TA is doing and what sort of information they're adding. I'm not much of an expert on fungi either; you might want to bring it up at the talk page of WikiProject Fungi if you aren't sure. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 03:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

The TA in question has been blocked now with their edits reverted, but there are identical edits from another TA earlier in the month that I think should be reviewed (in some instances, they were adding unsourced information about some fungi being edible, which is what raised my concern most). I will visit the project page and see if I can ask for some assistance there, that is an excellent idea.

Side note: fantastic username.

Thanks for your help! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced information that says a fungus is edible is so dangerous, I would recommend removing it right away. If you want a second opinion on that, I'd be happy to take a look (am a biologist though not a mycologist)--you could put the TA or a list of affected pages on my talk page. M kuhner (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Translation of the German wiki about Euphrosine Aue into English

Dear all,

Last week I translated the German Wiki about Euphrosine Aue (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrosine_Aue) from German to English. This was rejected the first time around as the subject apparently did not meet Wiki's notability criteria; a decision I found curious, given that a German Wiki about her already exists, and that I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue, who was one of the few women I know of who wrote Latin verse in seventeenth-century Prussia, and was certainly a celebrity in her time, as witnessed by the numerous funeral orations printed in her honour.

I subsequently revised the article by finding new secondary literature, as well as reading the various funeral orations that were delivered about her, adding to the English draft details that are not even in the German version. Logging on today though, I have found that the second draft seems to have been deleted without any further commentary. Again I find this difficult to comprehend: why is someone with a Wiki in another language not notable enough for English? And what were the reasons for deleting my second draft?

Yours sincerely,

SK Samkenn2 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The German Wikipedia, in some areas, has very different policies than the English Wikipedia. They encourage the use of accounts that represent a business, whereas that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia, for example.

You have no deleted edits from your account; did you create it under a different account? 331dot (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and apologies - I have since found the second draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Euphrosyne_Aue). I am still getting used to the backend of the site, hence the error. Samkenn2 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue I'm not sure who gave you that impression, there are no special considerations or exemptions to the criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BlueStaticHorse, you declined the translation on grounds that secondary sourcing didn't indicate notability. The draft appears to have very substantial sourcing. Would you be able to elaborate on your grounds for believing this sourcing is poor? I must admit I'm struggling to believe she's not notable. For a 17th Century female poet to have any work still extant, or to be remembered at all, is quite unusual. Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can i remove stubs?

Hello, while i was looking through a List of Wisconsin units in the American Civil War, I saw that some articles have their service been expanded, but the problem is, I see that there is still a stub for these units, can i remove them incase they've been expanded? Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can reassess them and remove the stub tags if they’ve been expanded. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BIOGRAPHY QUESTION

Hi! I was browsing a biography article and came across a inaccurate timeline. Will somebody please lead me through the process of editing a biography timeline? Thanks and have thebest day :) :) :) QueenBeeeeee (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you link the article that you’re asking about, and/or specify what kinds of changes you’re hoping to make? Right now I’m not clear how to answer your questions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)