The Teahouse is frequentlysemi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited byunregistered users (users withIP addresses), as well as accounts that are notconfirmed orautoconfirmed (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.Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
Recently I was reading the article about the city ofNiš in Serbia, and in the introduction I came across the following text:
After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city was liberated in 1878 and became part of the Principality of Serbia, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.
Specifically, the word "liberated" caught my eye. In a historical context, the term "liberated" carries a value judgment, doesn't it? It implies that the previous rulers of the cith were inherently oppressive and unjust and that subsequent control was inherently freeing or positive. While I'm sure that is indeed how some view it in this specific example, I'm unsure whether it’s a neutral description of what happened: it feels kind of subjective rather than objective. Would it not be more appropriate to phrase it like this:
After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city became part of the Principality of Serbia in 1878, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.
Decided to ask here in Teahouse before I consult the talk page, to see if there is even merit in my question.Curious to hear your thoughts as someone who isn't well-versed with Wikipedia's editing guidelines, cheersHavzali (talk)02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to say that liberated is never proper--it might be okay in other articles if that's what most reliable sources use, and I can see it being appropriate in a case where a city was originally part of Nation A, was taken over by Nation B, and then was shortly thereafter returned to Nation A--that return from being taken over could be described as "liberating" the city. But in this example, I think your rewording is better.SomeoneDreaming (talk)03:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SomeoneDreaming I agree 100%, I can definitely see there being appropriate uses of the word, especially in the circumstances you describe. In this case, 400 years is a long time and I'm sure there's more neutral words like reconquest to signify change in ownership.Havzali (talk)03:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thesource uses "liberated", altho it is a Serbian source. I would suggest looking for sources that have a different wording before doing that. I am taking an educated guess that you are Turkish and can bet that a Serb editor would take issue with that. Balkans issues are on theContentious topics list and requires more delicate handling. Perhaps propose it on the talk page and do some research to see if other sources dont use that term. This is a goodmanual of style question tho. Looking at other examples, there isLiberation of France as a whole article. And a number of concentration camps are recorded as being liberated.Metallurgist (talk)23:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been using AI on Wikipedia for about 4 something months now. I love using AI on Wikipedia. It makes long edits feel easy. Of course, I always fact check the information, and add links. And, I just leta bot fix the disambiguation links I add sometimes. I want to ask: is anyone fine if I partially use AI in my articles. It is kind of to late because I have already worked it hundreds of times. I want rollback rights to. Do I have the experience in undoing edits to get the rights? If so, how many edits will I need to get rollback, and submit my case for the third time?CostalCal (talk)16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CostalCal. Artificial intelligence should not be used to edit Wikipedia, as it is known to hallucinate and make up sources as well as information. We havean essay on LLMs if you are curious.
I am sure your edits have been in good faith, and you have not meant any harm, but I strongly advise you to write yourself and not use AI in editing. If you are concerned about your edits needing to be reverted, I took a glance at a few of them and they seem to be largely alright. If you have any major concerns still, you could post somewhere like theAI Cleanup noticeboard to let others know and allow them to help revert, if you so wish.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of work you put into verifying LLM nonsense could just be put into writing it. We are here to write articles for fun, not use automated pattern simulators do things. A lot of the fun of this SI writing those long grueling articles. Ive spent hours researching and writing new articles and improving others. What would be the point of using a generator to do that?Metallurgist (talk)22:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may lose the charm, I don't know. Yes it loses the human aspect. But you didn't mention the important part: AI can never tell the truth, because it has no idea what that is. I guess I'm in a small minority when I say I think anyone using AIfor anything on Wikipedia - even drafts, even discussions - should be permanently banned after their second offence, and anyone twenty timesmerely suspected of using AI should be banned too, but an encyclopedia full of lies is bad, even if the lies are arguably accidental.TooManyFingers (talk)03:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with you, I’ve asked AI simple questions to test it and it got it wrong, it is u reliable and should only be used for calculations and data collection, nothing creative or anything about humans, for AI isn’t a human and therefore does not understand us and our immense history. I think they should be banned as well, it would be horrible if this site was filled with AI photos and text.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)11:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently wrote a Wikipedia draft titled “SMKBUD4 Incident”. Unfortunately, it was declined with the reason that it reads like a news article.I understand that Wikipedia requires a neutral, encyclopedic tone, but I’m having trouble figuring out how to improve it properly.Would you be willing to review my draft and share some advice on how I can make it meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and neutrality? Here is the link to my draft:Draft:SMKBUD4 Incident
I’d really appreciate any guidance or suggestions you could offer.
Bare urls: Your citations are all what is known as bare urls, ie you should go in and add the name of the author, the title of the article, the newspaper, location where it's published (if that's not in the name), date you accessed it etc.
Inline citations: Your citations are not lined up with the fact(s) they support. To reuse a citation: in visual editor, either copy and paste it, or choose reuse. If you're using source editor, you need to repeat the name of the citation, eg. <ref name=name></ref>
Article title: The title of the article is not user friendly.
However, that said, this article will not likely qualify for an article on Wikipedia. The incident only happened recently so, as the reviewer has pointed out, it's not possible to tell if it's a single passing event. It will probably be years before it's obvious whether the incident has had significant cultural significance. Suggest you consider posting it atWikinews but first look to see if someone has already posted about it first. In which case, you might edit the article.MmeMaigret (talk)03:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m a musician named M.G Hkh from Zimbabwe. I have several media features (e.g. 263Chat, NewsDay). How can I get help to create a neutral Wikipedia article about me?”77.246.52.180 (talk)14:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and for explaining everything clearly. I’ve reviewed the information about WP:NMUSICIAN and I believe I meet the criteria.
However, I’m not very experienced with creating or editing Wikipedia pages. I have several reliable sources — including articles from 263Chat, NewsDay, and Heart Entertainment Magazine — that cover my music career and releases.
I would like to know if there is any volunteer here who could help me create the article using those sources, since I can provide them all.
I am seeking assistance in creating a neutral and well-sourced Wikipedia page for Zimbabwean musician M.G Hkh, born Prince Peter Moyo on October 18, 1997, in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. I have compiled a comprehensive list of references that cover his life, career, music releases, and online presence. Below, I have categorized these sources to facilitate your review:
Thank you so much, Andy. I really appreciate your time and response.
I’m not familiar with how to create or publish a Wikipedia article myself, so I would be truly grateful if someone could please help me write or create the page for M.G Hkh (Prince Peter Moyo) using the reliable sources I’ve already shared.
I’m happy to provide any more information if needed.
was using a chatbot just to help with drafting ideas, but I understand that edits and comments need to come from me directly. I’ll make sure of that going forward.Nomusamutandadzi (talk)04:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
only need a volunteer who can help me create a Wikipedia page about M.G. Hkh. I don’t know how to do it myself. I have resources from newspapers and streaming platforms, and I can provide all the sources as references.77.246.52.37 (talk)04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how to create a Wikipedia for M.G Hkh but he got all the source that requires in to get a Wikipedia só any volunteer here can write for him then l can provide the reference77.246.50.217 (talk)10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeyolTranslater IP users cannot directly create articles as you say. They need to use theArticle Wizard. We also usually advise against new users diving right in to creating articles. The user has also indicated they don't want to write it themselves.331dot (talk)10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
77.246, I'm not sure who "M.G. Hkh" is or what they do, but you're unlikely to find someone willing to write an article for you. If you have evaluated the relevant notability criteria(fornotable people or more narrow categories likea notable musician) and truly feel that this individual meets the requirements, and you have gathered independentreliable sources with significant coverage of them that are not interviews, press releases, and announcements, you can use theArticle Wizard to create and submit a draft for review.331dot (talk)10:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you go on about the work of your career as if Wikipedia did not exist. You're not likely to find anyone to do this for you here. There are alsogood reasons to not want an article about yourself. If you are truly notable, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose on their own to write about you. That's the best indicator of notability.331dot (talk)11:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that makes sense. Could you please point me to the best place to learn more about how notability is determined and what kinds of coverage would qualify? I’d like to understand the process better.77.246.50.217 (talk)11:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
M.G Hkh has been covered in several independent and reliable publications. For example, [Name of Magazine or Website] published a detailed article/review on [date], and [Another Source] also discussed their work. These meet the criteria for significant coverage under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.77.246.55.238 (talk)16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how to create Wikipedia page that why am asking a volunteer to do it for myself all the references l have M.G Hkh qualify for a Wikipedia page as a musician217.15.117.127 (talk)08:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked this twice previously. The answer isn't going to change. Please go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia.331dot (talk)09:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My father recently wrote a 140 page thesis on the first chief of intelligence of the USAF. How do you recommend I adapt that into a new article. His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man, from where he was born, his father's profession, ofc his military career, and into his affairs. This will be my first time writing an article, where do you recommend I start. How do I submit my hundreds of sources?Thecommunityhelper (talk)21:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thecommunityhelper, in "His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man", is "article" a sleepy typo for "thesis"? Either way, your father wrote a thesis. Has it been accepted for a doctorate or similar? If I came across dozens (let alone hundreds) of reliable sources that promised to be usable for an article I was proposing to create or augment (or expecting/hoping that somebody else would), then submitting them anywhere in Wikipedia seems an odd idea, though I could put them in thetalk page of the relevant article (or draft). (See a very much shorter example of such a listhere.) What one definitely shouldn't do is simply dump a list of putative sources as "Further reading" (or, worse, within "Citations" or similar) near the foot of an article (or draft). --Hoary (talk)06:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible to use the thesis as a source as long as it's not the only source. I made use of Mark Calhoun'sthesis on Lesley J. McNair as a reference for the Wikipedia article when I overhauledthe article several years ago. There's atemplate for citing a thesis. Add "|page=" when using it, and use the appropriate templates for your other sources, and I think you'll should be in good shape.Billmckern (talk)14:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will be posted through Air University later on. I wish that there were a way to share downloads through the Teahouse, but whatever. He took a trip to USAFA to gather hundreds of sources, ranging from articles to physical WW2 letters. George McDonald also has his page on The Air Force website, but I think that his hundreds of sources will suffice. Do I need to drop those sources to wikimedia one-by-one?Thecommunityhelper (talk)18:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I would recommend that you go to requested articles page and add Macdonald’s name. An article can be drafted now based on what is publicly available (2) When your father’s thesis is published, you can come back. An article can cite the thesis as a secondary source. There is no hurry - GCM has gone this long without a page and he will still be notable in 6 months or a year. (3) A page on Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on Macdonald even if your father’s thesis going into more depth. They’re two different media.MmeMaigret (talk)01:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I flag a new starter article to the greater Wikipedia community as something that could use additional editorial eyes and input? Is that done here or at another board? Started this page:2025 Pentagon press pass forfeiture and would love to get more people interacting and also would like to start a 2025 Wikipedia Culture Wars article to discuss investigations aimed at Wikipedia.Xkeylimepie (talk)05:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, friends. I've recently taken an interest in topics related to childfree living, and I am working on a biography for the solo-aging expert Sara Zeff Geber. I've worked on this for at least 5-6 hours. You can find it onmy sandbox page; I'm feeling not-so-confident that it's a good article yet. My concerns are as follows:
The Personal Life section is long and depends heavily on a single, not-great source. I'm not sure what I should do here - is it way too long? Should I cut it down to a single sentence or two?
In the Career section, I'm worried that I'm trying too hard to establish notability and am overdoing mentions of appearances and credentials.
The second sentence feels long and awkward to me, but I'm not sure how else to concisely build that information.
Am I including the right categories along the bottom?
Note: I'm in the process of reaching out to Geber to arrange for a headshot for the article.
One bit of guidance is to write the article yourself. It looks like an AI had a heavy hand in it. If you did use an LLM to help you, at least it seems that you're thoroughly checking its output, which is a good thing. The personal life section has a lot in it about her career path, and those elements could be moved up into the career section, or removed completely. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)00:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's AI generated? I wrote the entire thing by hand (look at the revision history for evidence of all the edits I put into it as I went). I did ask ChatGPT to review it when I was done, but only to spot check 2-3 things (like a spelling error, or a spot where I could make the language more neutral). But literally 2-3 small things.
Thanks for the advice about the career section. I did wonder if I should add an Education section and cut all of that out of the personal life section, but it seemed so hard to extricate from the narrative (it seemed like educational milestones guided the choices to move, for example) that I wasn't sure how I'd make that happen.
I didn't say it was AI generated, I said that an AI had a hand in it. ChatGPT loves to insert headings in the redundant form "X and Y", like "Awards and Recognition" or "News and Media" (it particularly seems to love the word "recognition", which is often redundant). AI likes to use platitudes like the subject "had been featured in..." rather than saying what the subject actuallydid. It also doesn't know that Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings.
That said, you did exactly how peopleshould be using AI on Wikipedia: to check work you've already done. I found it refreshing to see; the AI seemed to be there but only as a collaborating assistant, not as a primary author. And that's how it should be with AI. Congratulations. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so this will probably clear it up. When I first started the article, I was a little unsure of how to do the strucutre and approach overall, so I made a sort ofamalgamation of pieces of other articles of people similar to Geber in the field - So that's where the title case came from. The line "had been featured in..." was also an artifact from the original copy/paste - I didn't think of a better way to word it.
My general advice would be, Be guided by the independent sources. 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 inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
The Podcasts areprimary sources, and so are acceptable sources for the fact that she made them; but if no independent source has talked about them, should they really be in the article? (this is an editorial decision for you and anybody that reviews the draft). Note that such sources cannot contribute to establishing notability: seeWP:42.ColinFine (talk)08:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I really appreciate the advice, and the time you've taken to provide it.
I've been trying very hard not to build content off of Geber's website, articles written by her, or direct quotes from her. But wouldn't common sense say that a PORTION of the facts about her (such as being adopted, losing her home in the Tubbs Fire, getting her BA in psychology at West Chester University, or working as a flight attendant) come, at best, from a sourcesomewhat close to her? How would an even more detaced source be more credible/useful when reporting matter-of-fact things?
Regarding the podcasts, I was referencing the article onMaddy Dychtwald when I wrote that, where an almost identical approach is taken. Should I just remove all references to the podcasts and say something like "Geber has also been a guest on various podcasts, and has spoken at numerous events, such as" and list the events she spoke at? I did understand that I wasn't establishing notability with those references.
Please note that interviews are generally primary sources, and sources that are simply asking the subject for a quote on an issue doesn't constitute significant coverageof the subject. The problem here is thequality of the sources. What would you say are your threebest sources, all of which are independent of Geber, provide significant discussionabout Geber, and are published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking?CoffeeCrumbs (talk)11:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 100%. Geber has many articles where she's quoted and/or referenced for part of the content of an article (such as a recent Kiplinger's article) that I did not use in this draft.
Regarding the sources you're mentioning, I guess I don't really know? Before writing, I looked at the articles for peers such asMaddy Dychtwald,Ken Dychtwald,Teresa Ghilarducci,Vicki Robin,Frederick Vettese, andCarolyn A. Brent, and the sources on those articles don't qualify for the criteria you're mentioning pretty much across the board. Should those articles be deleted, or am I just not seeing something correctly?
I do think it's problematic that I leaned on the 100 Redwood Circle newsletter so heavily for information about her personal life, but none of that is really what makes her notable anyways.
With a few more tweaks, do you think this article would be OK to go live? Is there just not enough to go to publish? I've noticed in the page history that several editors went in and made improvements, which did feel like they felt like it might be OK as a start?
The short answer is no. If her self-published works are cited by reliable sources, then maybe, but this would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's better to report what secondary sources say. Her own self-published work hasn't undergone peer review, so it would be considered less than reliable for verifying statements of fact, but could be used to attribute quotations to her. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)00:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then the rules around reliability strike me as overly limiting here, when it comes to topics of political theory. If Bhatt is the one coming up with these theories and putting them out there, and these theories are being accepted into the the reliable discourse on the topic, and cited by reliable sources, shouldn't wiki be able to source directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak? I understand the need to stick to more robust verification on topics that have a less subjective nature, but if Bhatt is influencing the theory, then shouldn't the wiki article on the theory reflect that?Flockofsparrows420 (talk)00:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. This is a political ideology, after all, and Bhatt is a political theorist. Her works and writings have been praised by authorities within the field, too. Shes quite influential, as sparrows outlined. I don’t think it would be violating Wikipedia’s neutrality rules or anything to take directly from her writings. She is, after all, the one coming up with this stuff.Missmonstergirl (talk)00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Self-published material that has been referenced in secondary sources is fair game to cite. Self-published material that hasn't gone through peer review, however, is just original research on her part, and can be mentioned only with attribution, not as statements of fact that imply the consensus among the community of her peers. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm a little confused here. what would qualify material for being "referenced in secondary sources"? and how is that different then the situation with the essays I want to cite?Flockofsparrows420 (talk)03:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a secondary source reports something that Talia Bhatt wrote, then that could be cited to report something that she wrote, because it's a secondary source. If you are citing Bhatt directly, then you cannot state her assertions as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice, you must attribute the assertion to her. However, I have difficulty seeing where this would be necessary, because determine what assertions are important enough to include in an article (other than mundane things like age and birth date for the purpose of verification) cannot be made by the personal whims of any Wikipedia editor, they should be based on secondary sources. If the essays you want to cite are noted by other sources, then cite them. Otherwise, why would you cite an essay? ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)05:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The easy solution is to just cite the secondary sources where possible.
If I say "X is true" and you cite that, that'sWP:OR and doesn't meet wikipedia standards.
If a number of reliable secondary sources conclude that "X is true" and part of their evidence is citing my initial work, then it makes much more sense to just cut out the middle-man and cite those secondary sources rather than citing my initial assertion with the asterisk that it was affirmed by secondary sources.
If the information you want to include is described in reliable secondary sources which cite Bhatt's work, just cite those rather than Bhatt directly.Athanelar (talk)05:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pedant, but wouldn't this be putting the middle-man in?
Anyways, yeah, that's what I've found too, although now there's another whole dispute on the talk page because the article is talking abt both trans studies in feminism (trans feminism) and transfeminism, which have similar titles but are different things, and have overlapping areas of concern but do not share opinions.Missmonstergirl (talk)06:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of putting in the middle-man (or -woman), by deliberate policy, is that the middle-person in question should have no personal or professional connection to the originator of the information (eliminating anyConflict of interest), and what they say has been published by aReliable source, i.e. one that exercisesfact checking and editorial control, so that the information is notWP:Original research, which Wikipedia does not host. Such sources areSecondary sources, and Wikipedia is, by design, aTertiary source that is based mainly on summaries of independent secondary sources.
This is, in Wikipedia's collective view and experience, the best way to prevent bias, imbalance and outright false information appearing and persisting in its articles. Sometimes this may exclude valuable information presented by aPrimary source until others qualified to assess it have published about it, but that is the price of maintaining the reliability of the material that Wikipedia contains. I hope this clarifies things. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)03:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome @Mgorman32, please readWP:COMPANY. Since WorkWave does not meet the requirements it is not fit for inclusion.
Also note that those awards are basically fake. Best in Biz Awards is a pay-to-enter business awards program founded by someone who worked in corporate communications... So they pay money to get meaningless awards they can brag about.Polygnotus (talk)13:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I hadn't realized the awards we paid for, good to know. I'll try to see if I can find any notable sources for WorkWave but my guess is I likely won't be able to. Appreciate the help!Mgorman32 (talk)12:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Earlier, I asked here about where I could get help or suggestions on an essay I wroteWP:OAFA. Someone suggested I tryWP:VILLAGEPUMP, but I’m not sure which section would be best. I also noticed a link toWP:PEERREVIEW, but most of the requests I checked there seem to be unanswered. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!Wikieditor662 (talk)18:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend sticking it in your userspace. It doesn't appear developed enough for the Wikipedia namespace. The best essays develop very very slowly over time. They are an idea you have in the back of your head for years, and you can't get rid of it.Polygnotus (talk)19:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The essay? No, because it is 2 distinct ideas, neither fully fleshed out:
Solve problems once and for all, which is too hopeful, people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a 'binding' decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid.
Occam's razor for solutions for problem, whichcan be a good idea, but that isn't an iron law. In some cases picking the most minor solution will ensure the conflict keeps festering, and you need bigger guns.
people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a 'binding' decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid. But the point is that it willdecrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely. But yeah, I'll moveWP:OAFA to my user page and delete the mainspace one. Thanks!Wikieditor662 (talk)15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I probably should've clarified it better in the article. As I explained to someone else in this page,But the point is that it willdecrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely.Wikieditor662 (talk)15:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha! I am the information manager for USINDOPACOM's Pacific Multi Domain Training and Experimentation Capability (PMTEC). Given our activities and mission, as codified in the U.S. Pacific Deterrence Initiative, I believe PMTEC warrants a Wikipedia page. After reading Wikipedia guidelines, I believe I should not be the one to create it.
Is that correct? Any advice on how to get a page established, and if it is established would it still be a conflict of interest to edit it? Mahalo for your input and guidance.Tai Indo (talk)19:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject warrants an articleonly if it meets one of these criteria.
You may submit anarticle request, but other than that there’s not much else to do except wait until the article is created organically.
If you wish to create the article yourself, you can go toWP:AFC and submit it there, where it will be thoroughly reviewed by an experienced editor for common problems with COI editing before it’s published live.SnowyRiver28(talk)19:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will check out both of the notability links you provided, and if warranted, submit an article request for now. Appreciate your response!199.211.150.27 (talk)21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And whatever information you write in a draft or article must be based on previously published sources. So something that you know, that is not published, should not be included.Graeme Bartlett (talk)23:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write the article yourself:
1. Make sure you disclose your COI on your user page. SeeWP:COI andWP:PAID for guidance on COIs and how to disclose COIs and paid editing (which yours would be considered as)
3. Once you feel your draft is fully-formed, submit it atWP:AFC for review. Again, make sure you note your COI. The article will be reviewed for both normal wiki standards as well as any issues arising from your COI, and if the article is suitable for Wikipedia it will be approved and created as a main article.
Hello, @Tai Indo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo all that other editors have said in reply - including, particularly, acknowledging you for disclosing your connection with the subject.
But I would add something a little stronger about experience: My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)12:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very wise advice, as I am learning through this process. I definitely need to spend time on Wikipedia before attempting this. I appreciate the thoughtful guidance. Mahalo!Tai Indo (talk)23:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My username is an archaichanzi (Chinese character) for five (𠄡), a character outside the Basic Multilingual Plane. I'm also wondering how others would be able to create a talk page for my user if they're not an admin. The following pop-up appears when trying to create the page:
"Creation of this page (User:𠄡) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry.*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the [[Basic Multilingual Plane]] are useful in titles on thelocal orglobal blacklists.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Be sure to specify theexact title (especially bylinking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
If you wrote any text,save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page.
Thank you."
I know I should follow the instructions, but I don't think this is such an important matter to request in the noticeboard. It's also not an article, so I think maybe the steps would be different? I'm not sure what to do. Will I have to change my username?
I've created your user page and talk page for you, so you and others should now be able to edit both. If you no longer want a user page, you can request its deletion by putting{{Db-u1}} in the page using source editor.Tenshi! (Talk page)22:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi𠄡, welcome to the Teahouse. It's an impractical username for an editor at an English wiki. I suggest you create another account with a name which can be understood and written by English-speaking people, unless you plan to mainly edit the Chinese Wikipedia or other wikis in Chinese. You only have three edits. Then it's easier for both you and us to just abandon the account and create another than torequest a rename. With the current name you can get problems again if you want to make talk page archives or user sandboxes (test or draft pages for edits), or use certain tools which create a page in your userspace to keep track of something.PrimeHunter (talk)22:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot
The above is how your post looks for me, in desktop view on a fairly standard Android device. Now imagine a talk page conversation between two or more users whose user names display in the same manner.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits07:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I’m new here and would like to request that an article be created about Tova Laiter, a film producer and executive.I’ve disclosed my connection on my user page and added a request under “Requested articles → Film producers.”Here are a few reliable sources that provide independent coverage:–[1]–[2]–[3]Could someone please review or advise on next steps? Thank you!WiciLici4 (talk)23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem you are trying to prevent is known asWP:Link rot, and there are automated measures in place to deal with it. Including a quote in the reference footnote is still helpful, but it should be a small part of the post and not the whole thing, for copyright reasons.Perception312 (talk)03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we do not add that copyright symbol to anything written in Wikipedia's voice. A large majority of material on Wikipedia is copyrighted, although much of that content is also freely licensed. A free license does not eliminate the copyright.Cullen328 (talk)06:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are balls of gas, like they are superdense clouds of fire, balls of fire, if I put it very simply, every glowing object has a luminous intensity what we call its glow due to the heat it produces, that is energy it emeanates, so thing is look at it like this, the Sun is our nearest star, so naturally it would seem brighter since it is at a lesser distance to the Earth and intensity of the body remains same, but the observation depends on the distance, hene the sun glows brighter and its glow makes all other stars disappearDhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk)08:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Stars are not rocks that can glow at night but in the morning they disappear but instead are spears of gasses like hydrogen and helium that perform fusion and produce heat. In the morning they do not disappear but their glow is overpowered by the sun's glow so we don't see them.
Combining science and religion using metaphysics plus mathematical and physical tools
Hello I am new and my aim is to unify religion and science together using quantum physical concept like QFT, Uncertainty Principle, De Broglie's equation, Schrondinger's Wave Equation and also The Theory Of Relativity, I notice that whenever the topic of metaphysics or subtle realms or dimensions come up, a religious connotation is attached to it... For instance the multiverse theory and whatnot, I have my thoughts on these, and I AM NOT BIASED in the slightest, I would like to approach everything scientifically, so how do I go about it?Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk)08:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your question?
If you already developed your theory, write a self-published article or a book about it, or publish it in an academic journal if it's scientific enough. Unfortunately, you can't write a Wikipedia article about your own theory until there's a bunch of other sources talking about it.fx (talk)08:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the best first step is to write a shorter article/blog post on the topic and get people's feedback on it.LessWrong could be a good fit for you - if your theory is actually novel and interesting, the audience there may appreciate it and give you some insightful discussion on it. And if it's not, they're more likely to give you constructive criticism instead of just calling you stupid or whatever.
WikiBooks is specifically for books/guides. I'm not familiar with the guidelines over there so I don't know if writing about your theory is allowed, but even if it is, I think it's not the best venue to first introduce your ideas to the world.fx (talk)14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open Letter from Lars Ek – Cultural Contributor Seeking Transparency
I am Lars Ek, a Swedish accordionist, composer, lyricist, poet, and cultural ambassador. Over the course of my career, I have contributed to the preservation and promotion of Nordic accordion music through performances, publications, and educational outreach.
My work includes:
Over 200 musical recordings published on YouTube
Original compositions, poetry, aphorisms, and books
International tours and TV appearances in Europe, the USA, Hong Kong, and Italy
Founding the Frosini Society, dedicated to preserving artistic accordion traditions
A strong presence on social media, with thousands of followers engaging with my cultural content
Despite this, my article on Swedish Wikipedia was removed, and my attempts to contribute have met resistance. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality. My concern is not about personal promotion, but about preserving a documented cultural legacy that spans decades and continents.
I respectfully ask editors to consider the broader context of cultural relevance. The accordion holds different status in different parts of the world, and its role in Nordic music is significant. I believe Wikipedia should reflect this diversity—not by lowering its standards, but by expanding its understanding.
I remain committed to improving the article with reliable, independent sources and proper formatting. I hope to collaborate constructively with the Wikipedia community to ensure that cultural contributions like mine are documented fairly and transparently.
We cannot help you with issues on the Swedish Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies. You will need to address this on the Swedish Wikipedia with the Swedish Wikipedia community, using whatever processes they have to do so. If you have done that, and they were not persuaded, there isn't anything more you can do.
I do not know about them, but we strongly discourage people from editing about themselves per theautobiography policy. We don't want to know what people say about themselves, we want to know what others say about them.331dot (talk)09:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a section on the use-case for a decentralized operating system
Hello,
I would like to add content to a wiki page about the intended use-case for an open-source, decentralized operating system based on first-hand sources by the OSs creator and developer, whose authority on the subject is documented and verified. The use-case would be strictly based on the intentions that the developer himself, in no uncertain terms, set out when making the OS. Sources would include: 1) the academic paper about the OS, 2) personal interviews, 3) in-person conferences, 4) essays and 5) online documentation about the OS. The developer has made it very clear how and why he designed the OS to be used in this use-case, but this information is not necessarily found in the same place. So my goal is to compile this information together and write out the use-case as a section on the OSs wiki page.
The use-case itself is not speculation and direct quotes from the developer can be sourced and attributed for all axioms and arguments.
Furthermore there are a number of second-hand sources about the OS I may mention in the use-case, such as: 1) recent online discussion from within the OS community 2) expert opinion pieces on the operating system and 3) Testimony from individuals who worked with the original developer directly.
The page as a whole is technically involved and therefore quite lacking in active contributions, so I would like to expand it based on the intent for how the author made his OS to be used.Turdbit (talk)10:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Turdbit, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with what 331dot says; but it sounds to me as if you may be veering intooriginal research (or at least,synthesis).
A Wikipedia article should summarise what independent sources say. If a source presents an argument or a conclusion, Wikipedia may summarise that argument or conclusion; but it should not advance any argument or conclusion that is not clearly contained within a single source; nor should it present any argument or conclusion which is synthesised from material in more than one source.ColinFine (talk)12:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's only going to be so many airports with unusual codes. IMO I think it should stay in WP:Unusual place names. But, on that note, I've added another - so now at least 2 airports with rather strange codes!jolielover♥talk15:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta be honest, I'm not sure its unusual, just kinda silly. I don't think there's a need for a page "airport codes that form three letter words that makes first graders giggle."CoffeeCrumbs (talk)20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello editors! I'm trying to move two categories at Wikimedia Commons (this one andthis one) but I have no idea how to proceed. I am seeking your guidance (of course in a simple and understandable way). And yeah, don't forget to ping me so I can read your reply.–𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿16:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm new to this so apologies for what may be a duh question... If I notice that some figures are out of date (and there are more up to date figures on the webpages cited), is it ok for me to just update them and publish? Like the number of students at a college dating back to 2020-2021, for example. I'm not yet clear on when I should be making suggestions on the Talk page vs just going ahead and publishing edits. I want to make sure I follow proper etiquette. Similarly, if a cited webpage no longer provides updated figures for numbers that are mentioned in the article, can I just remove that sentence?Stephcard7155 (talk)20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Stephcard7155! You canbe bold and update articles, as long as you include a citation on your addition to a reliable, published source. Make sure to also write in an edit summary explaining what you are updating and why. As for sources that no longer verify the information: yes, either remove the information, find a new source, or check for archived copies of the source that still verify it.qcne(talk)20:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have run into a problem and I don't know where to go to get an explanation or solution. I use a laptop and at the top of the screen there is a pulldown menu with tabs like "Page", "User", "More", "Edit" and "TW". For some reason today, the tabs moved around from the order they are normally in (left to right). When you edit as much as I do, you can get used to all of these tools being in the same places all of the time. So, is there any device or page that has information on how to reorder the tabs to where they usually are? I've tried dragging them around (no good) and looking into Preferences. If anyone has a clue, that would be very helpful. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!20:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Hm, that is difficult to diagnose without a screenshot. Is it possible you zoomed in too much, which thanks toresponsive design can turn a horizontal list into a vertical one.
Try pressing Ctrl-0, this should reset the zoom level to the default. Holding down Ctrl and pressing the plus sign zooms in, and minus zooms out. Hope that helps. If not, maybe you can upload a screenshot somewhere?Polygnotus (talk)00:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspectLiz used incorrect terminology and isn't actually seeing a vertical pulldown menu with tabs but is just seeing normal horizontal tabs, some of which activate a vertical drop-down menu when clicked. The reported problem is only the horizontal order of the tabs. Some of the mentioned tabs are made by gadgets which run JavaScript in your own browser after the page has loaded. It varies in which order scripts are run and this can effect in which order the tabs are displayed. It varies for me between reloads of the same page. I don't know a way to fix the tabs in a specific order.PrimeHunter (talk)01:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using inaccurate terminology in my initial post. WhatPrimeHunter described is what is happening to me. Over 12 years though, I have dozens and dozens of scripts installed so figuring out which one might be causing this would be a very big challenge.
I have noted two things today that might be pertinent in solving this problem and that is, I've noticed in some screens, the tabs have a different order so it's not a static change. Also, on some of these screens, the order of the tab has gone back to what I'm used to. The main glitch which prompted this note here is that I'm used to the TW/Twinkle tab at the far right. I use Twinkle for so many activities throughout the day, it's just a hassle to go looking for it rather than moving the cursor directly to the same place. I also have had the same order of tabs now for years and years so I was wondering what would suddenly cause them to move around.
But given your advice, I'll see if there is a script that has been recently installed. Thanks for giving me your best guess of what the problem might be. Much appreciated.LizRead!Talk!03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not used that often, but under my interpretation (disclaimer: I could be wrong) ofWP:ELYES, external links can be made to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". Since the copyrighted work cannot be viewed on Wikipedia, it can then be linked externally per that guideline. However, it cannot be linked if it violates another individual/website's copyright.
In terms of GA, it might be addressed, but I personally have not been involved with the process so I cannot speak on that. Other editors with more a better understanding may be able to clarify, but I figured that I could respond in the mean time since it's been 6 hours.GalacticVelocity08 (talk)02:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When can requested moves be procedurally closed, and is there a template you should use? I don't think you have to wait at all to close them, right? --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<––20:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that there are two accounts which have extremely close ties to one another, I want to open an SPI, but I am not sure how to do this as I have never done one before. I believe that there is historic evidence of one of the accounts being run by now a new account opened and then not disclosed. I know you are allowed to have more than one account, but you must disclose all ties to which accounts you have, right? Anyway, I was not sure if this is the appropriate venue to ask about this as well. Sorry in advance if it is not.Iljhgtn (talk)21:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chnsrao,Draft:Naga Sudharsanarao Chinchili was not rejected; it wasdeclined.Qcne pointed out thatThis submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). A number of the words in that may be unfamiliar to you. As posted on the draft, they are linked. If you click on a link, you'll find an explanation. If something that you read is hard to understand, you may ask here. Incidentally, your username Chnsrao resembles the subject's name, NagaSudharsanarao Chinchili; are you perhaps related? --Hoary (talk)22:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular,Chnsrao, a reference that reads[citation to reliable source, print or e, goes here] -- and I've quoted that verbatim -- is of no help to the reader and does nothing either to verify what's said or to demonstrate notability. --Hoary (talk)05:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advice for adding image of my own Optic Nerve Hyperplasia for either the article on ONH or the other on Strabismus
I have ONH, and was born with a turned-in left eye (Which was quickly corrected). I've managed to take a photo of my eyes, showing the difference between the 'healthy' right eye and the affected left eye, which is slightly off-center. As the title suggests, I don't know which Article to add. I'm still kind of new to editing and stuff, so I don't know if i can add the image. I'd like to have some advice on what to do, as I don't want to add/edit anything without permissionRaine Foll (talk)23:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks likeoptic nerve hypoplasia doesn't have an image, so yours could be great! To add it, I would recommend starting byuploading the image to Commons. Once you've done that, you'll add the image to the infobox by putting the file name under "image" and adding alt text under "alt" and caption under "caption." Or if you'd like, tag me and post the Commons link, and I can add it to the article for you.
A few months ago (?) I was working on a Wikipedia article about the Cypher System RPG by Monte Cook Games. Consensus was that the game is not encyclopedic enough for the creation of such article.
Not long time ago MCG ran a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for the new edition of the game. It reached a level of 1 million dollars. Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? Or maybe it is meaningless in the big picture?
Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? I don't see how it would do so directly,Kaworu1992. But it could well make the game newsworthy. If it did, then I suppose much of the "news" would be little more than recycled PR junk and interviews with the people behind Monte Cook Games. Very little of this would be usable in any way. But reaching a million might also lead to publication of intelligent material from reliable sources; and if so, then this might might be informatively and helpfully summarizable and might propel the game to encyclopediaworthiness. --Hoary (talk)05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and for bringing the paid editing disclosure policy to my attention. I want to state unequivocally that I have no financial stake of any kind in promoting World Camel Day or any related topics. I am not being paid, nor have I ever been paid, for my edits on Wikipedia.
My motivation is purely academic and advocacy-driven. I am a researcher and advocate focused on sustainable agriculture. My work centers on promoting the camel's role as a key animal for food security and adaptation to climate change in arid regions. I saw Wikipedia as a platform to share this important, factual information with a global audience to raise awareness, not for any personal or financial gain.
I apologize if my edits appeared promotional; I am still learning Wikipedia's complex policies on neutrality and notability. I understand now that I must demonstrate the topic's importance through independent, reliable sources rather than personal advocacy.
I would be grateful for your guidance on how to properly develop the Draft:World Camel Day article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am committed to learning the correct process and contributing constructively.
I was googling myself just now (Yeah, I'm that guy) and the A.I. assistant was saying that Wikipedia informed it that I don't have an active user page. I appear in categories - African Wikipedians, Nigerian Wikipedians and the like - but it seems as though my user page itself is blacked out... Why is this the case?
@O.ominirabluejack Welcome! The AI tool was unable to fetch the page. Not sure which AI assistant you were using, but in the case of Claude, Wikipedia is marked as a "cache-only" domain in the web_fetch tool. With OpenAI's ChatGPT it does work.Polygnotus (talk)09:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus, thank you... I was using the A.I. functionality of the Google Chrome browser... I'm glad to hear that it isn't a bug with my page in particular, though.
@Wikieditor662: as you can see from its history, the article has been created and then edited several times within just ten minutes, and by one user only - its creator. I guess nobody simply noticed it, neither at the time of creation or later, and so it slipped in and stayed here. But now, when you brought it into public attention, it will likely get deleted. --CiaPan (talk)15:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CiaPan. I think there's a better way of going about this without being needlessly critical, and which allows @Wikieditor662 to help the user correct their mistakes. I can imagine that an event like this would be covered by a number of publications, the majority of which would be in Pakistan but a number of which I suspect could be found abroad. They need to provide sourcing to support the information you've written here, that's the principal issue. There's otherwise nothing to support the notion that this event is extraneously relevant and deserving of a separate article; as to the draft space requirement, it's not yet credibly sourced and thus doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the public space. To Cia, I think it would be best to explain this to the user (@BritPak4709) in question, but if it nonetheless fails to meet the criteria for a separate article, that it be merged to theFatima Jinnah page. Additionally, though the tag was added by another user, this doesn't look AI generated to me, it's just not perfect standard English. I think a number of editors are too quickly conflating vague wording or sentences that lack an argument with AI, which is frankly a bit rude to those who have put in the time to contribute, even if they didn't do so entirely properly. I'll add my piece to the deletion discussion, but wish you all the best otherwise.
@Wikieditor662. My thinking is that it be noted as having no sources withTemplate:Unreferenced until they have a chance to defend their claims. If another editor has even a half-decent argument for moving it to draft space I'd be inclined to agree with them.
Actually, I've just had a conversation with an administrator about it, it went like this:
The article is brand new; give the author some time to work on it. If the article is clearly not ready for the mainspace but likely notable, then if it remains unsourced and is no longer actively being edited it can bedraftified. If the article isn't notable after a thourough search for sources thenAfD is the venue to go to.CoconutOctopus talk16:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Shouldn't the author first have it sourced before putting it into the mainspace? Should I draftify it now or only after it's been a few days where the author hasn't edited anything?Wikieditor662 (talk)16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I am creating a very large table in a small wiki. However, I am unable to get the table in a small enough area, and I don't understand what to do in order to regulate the size of tables. How do I fix this? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices20:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
page Manchester Airport Announces New PIA route from Manchester to Islamabad from the 25th of October 2025. Ive updates references to official announcements on the new flight route by PIA. I just want to update the page as cleanly as possible.Rashadali100 (talk)20:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I got one of my off-wiki friends (who is a minor) to join Wikipedia, and I end up editing the same articles as them because I'm helping them learn to use Wikipedia, but we avoid involving each other off-wiki in disputes/controversial areas, do I need to disclose knowing them in real life? I'm concerned that then by extension I would need to followWP:GFYE to preserve their privacy.lp0 on fire()22:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have had adraft about a Brandon Flowers song pending in the AfC submissions category for over two weeks now. I am able to create my own articles, and I would create this article if I could, as it is a single and meetsWP:NSONG, but due to the fact thata redirect to the album already exists. My question is, who is allowed to nominate articles for speedy deletion, specificallyWP:G6. Would I be able to add the tag and then have an admin delete the page so I can move the article?
Anyone is allowed to tag pages for speedy deletion, and in general I would encourage you to add{{db-move}}. However, since this redirect used to be an article and you are the only contributor to the draft (ignoring the bots), I think the simplest approach would be for you to copy it over: copy everything from the draft below<!-- Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created. -->,edit the redirect, and paste it there (replacing the redirect). This is one of the few situations where acopy-and-paste move is appropriate, sincethere's no other editors that need to be attributed.jlwoodwa (talk)23:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a scholar and international professional soccer player, I am now working on a draft of an Articles for Creation (AfC) submission about myself, Josie Valeri. I am conscious of my conflict of interest as the subject, but I need and want to make sure the page satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, neutrality, and sourcing.
I currently have asandbox draft that summarizes my background, expertise, and professional career. Although some of my references are from social media or team websites (which I acknowledge cannot demonstrate notability), the majority of my sources are independent news coverage, league announcements, and scholarly publications.
I would like advice regarding:
Whether the draft satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability at this time.
Ideas for content rewording or reorganization that adheres to an encyclopedic tone.
You linked to your sandbox, but there's nothing there. If you thought you created a draft, you didn't. You need to click "publish changes"(which should be understood to mean "save"). It's actually best to use theArticle Wizard to create and submit a draft.
Hello, @Josie.Valeri, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Remember that, once you have found adequate independent sources you will need to effectively forget absolutely everything you know about yourself, and write basedonly on what those sources say. They don't mention something important? Tough. They get it wrong? Tough - depending on how important the matter is in an article about you (which is an editorial decision, which should ideally be made by somebody other than you), it should either say what the sources say, or leave it out altogether. This might seem unreasonable to you; but an article should ideally contain nothing at all that cannot be verified from reliable published sources; and with a few exceptions (seeWP:PRIMARY) from sources wholly independent from you. SeeWP:Verifiability.ColinFine (talk)09:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely didn't use an LLM, but I also definitely kinda justSound Like That and after looking at the criteria that flagged it, I get why the article may have come off that way. I'm doing a pass forwords to watch now and trying to look for any areas I may have editorialized - would anyone here be willing to help point me in the right direction on what else I should fix here?Mayamar Edits (talk)00:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is both a general question (to gain knowledge for future use) and a request to rollback a specific image to its original upload size.
The specific image isDESQview_2.8_screenshot.png, which has a) been rendered rather illegible by the ""helpful"" automated downsizing "courtesy" ofDatBot, and b) probably does not need to be downsized anyways, as it consists ofDOS box-drawing characters (not copyrightable), and text, most of which doesn't look copyrightable, except for ~maybe~ the "Sample Document". I.e. the original image might actually very well be in the Public Domain. But PD or not, the current (re)size is absolutely god-awful and makes wikipedia look ridiculous and unprofessional, and the image is not as helpful as it would otherwise be to readers of theDESQview article.
I'm also curious where I should bring up objections/concerns like this in the future, since although I could've left a comment onthe image's talk page, such comments (any comments, really) seem unlikely to gather any attention there (and indeed someone raised the same concern/objection that I did on that talk page 4½ years ago to no effect!)
continually and perpetually frustrated by copyright-"concerned" image-resizing bots that resize badly and with reckless abandon, yet yours truly, ~99.146.242.37 (talk)07:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theimage resolution guideline is linked in the template, which then saysYou also may wish to add the{{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning
In the future, if one of the factors in the resizing process was made by an administrator, contact them. Obviously this is not the case with Ron, sadly. If not and the revision has already been deleted, ask onWP:AN.DatGuyTalkContribs02:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make a page on a middle school I live by because it isn’t already on Wikipedia but idk how much info to put and what to make it aboutMookscade (talk)17:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Please read Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guidelines. If this middle school has received significant coverage that is not routine, feel free to create the page! Please note that primary sources, such as from the school's website or someone associated with it, do not establish notability. What you should put in it depends on the subject, but you can check out some other school articles to get an idea of the general information and structure schools have. A good place to start isthis category of good school articles. Thanks for contributing!jolielover♥talk17:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mookscade Books, news websites, magazines - anything which has editorial independence, is reliable (not social media), and is not from the school itself. I will note that schools rarely meet our criteria for inclusion unless they have been written about in independent sources.qcne(talk)19:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that doesn't usually happen unless the school is a historic structure, or architecturally significant, or maybe extensive independent coverage of its academics(like a high ranking by a government agency or high test scores).331dot (talk)19:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The middle school is called Marcus Whitman middle school and is located in port orchard and it’s been built since like the 80s or somethingMookscade (talk)20:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everytime I tried to add the IMDb page (*{{IMDb name|16276851}} for the deceased above but it keeps getting removed. Bare in mind, im not here to give out but just im just wondering if it can be added to the page at all as it is his exact page?Vlove1 (talk)19:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have the Dutch Wikipedia page for Nick Hemmers translated in English. I'm not able top publish it so I was hoping somebody would be able to do that for me.
Hi @Mandyvt. Before the Draft can be approved, you'll need to provide citations for the information I flagged on your draft. I or another editor would be happy to publish it for you if you can find the appropriate sourcing to back up your claims, and to prove that the article falls withinWP:NOTE guidelines.
This question is brought to you byKarl Ernst von Baer's statue. There is a citation needed for his statue at the Leningrad Museum. Looking around I spotted an image of the statue on theCommons. Now I'm wondering if I can use that as source, or if that would be too self referential.
Hello,My article was flagged as chatgpt although I didn't use it. I wrote the article based on other articles. But before coming here I asked Copilot to format it to Wikipedia... is that why? It didn't change it that much. I don't know why the reviewer says it is vague as it has a lot of facts and info. Maybe the subject is not relevant to wikipedia... need some more precise advice.Kind regardsWilliamWathelstane (talk)22:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wathelstane. To add on to @331dot's reply, I'd suggest that you take a look at these pages to get some context on how best to go about writing for this website in the future: (WP:MOS, Manual of Style;WP:CITE, Citation Guidelines;WP:AI, Artificial Intelligence General Infoguide;WP:NOT, What Wikipedia is Not;WP:NOTE, Wikipedia Notability Policy,WP:TWA, a program designed to help you learn how to write for Wikipedia). I suspect these will answer most of your questions, but please let us know at any point if you run into any further difficulties. Please avoid using artificial intelligence to write anything for this website moving forward unless you have thoroughly vetted and amended the material yourself to check for errors and compliance with the above stated guidelines. There are a number of tools you can use to familiarize yourself with website protocols and editor style preferences. There are also a number of people who (like it or not :D) will correct and seek to advise you along the way. Many of them will be happy to assist you; some, not so much. In the event of the latter, I suggest you reach out to other editors here at the Teahouse for assistance, where I'm certain someone will help you along your way.
This is aboutDraft:Vacminel. This has quite a lot of text, followed by quite a lot of references.Wathelstane, why not use what we, here, commonly call references, in order to indicate which part of the text derives from which source? --Hoary (talk)00:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi howdy! I originally put this question on my mentor's talk page but I realized belatedly it might be better to put here. I've been updatingPost Animal (a currently active indie rock band)'s page and I'm having trouble finding a free image that'll show all or most of the members (six in total, though one member is more famous and has his own page so it's okay if he can't be in it). I've found press-released images (such asthis one) and ones taken by the band that would be great, but I understand that since they're a living and active band that we shouldn't use non-free images, so I'm a little stuck figuring out how to get good images for their page. Is there a way to know if an image is free other than a "this image is free/cc" statement on the page it's used? I have read through a good few of Wikipedia's instructional pages for it, but it's still very possible that I just don't know where to look. Any insight would be very appreciated, thank you!!Devonias (talk)00:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take one yourself
find a fan or someone else who has taken one and ask them to release it under a compatible license as described atc:COM:THIRD
Ask the band or their management to arrange for one to be released as described atWP:A picture of you.
For transparency, the edit in question ishere where I stripped out the unsourced routes (of which there were a lot) and removed three sources (aside from Aeroroutes) which didn’t verify the content.Danners430tweaks made08:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:World Camel Day
