The issues identified with the page appear to have been fixed by another editor inSpecial:Diff/1335982125 about a week ago, so this thread has more than served its purpose. Having reviewed the talk page of the article in question, I do agree with the TA here that the initial editor that added the plot summary toMother of Flies did not respond adequately to good faith criticism of their output and method. That having been said, as the Teahouse is notWP:ANI, I don't think there is a reason to keep this thread open.signed,Rosguilltalk18:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hey, so this is maybe weird or maybe how Wikipedia always runs, I don't know. The page for the movieMother of Flies contains a bafflingly inaccurate plot summary. It's so detailed yet so wrong I had to look into why and on thetalk page someone else had already brought it up. Cool! But then the editor who posted the original plot summary got extremely defensive in suggesting people point out exactly why the summary is wrong. And listen, I know this is an indie horror flick of low importance, but it's a much shorter trip to explain what the summary has right - a girl has cancer, her dad goes with her to visit a healer. The entire rest of the summary, and it's a detailed one, is totally wrong. All you need to do is watch the movie to see that. Instead of changing anything, this editor is just being belligerent, deflecting, or insisting others make the changes. And dude, OK, but they made the page. Why would someone make a page on a topic they literally know nothing about? Even if they didn't use ChatGPT to generate the summary, and it looks like they did because of how wrong they are, what's the point? This editor, Sundayclose, has edited thousands of pages here, and they are both hostile and factually incorrect. They are literally making more work for someone else, it would have been more helpful to say nothing. So how can I, or anyone, trust that any of the things this person is editing? I looked them up and there have been anumber of incidents in the past with people having issue with this editor. They do not take criticism, they're openly hostile and it is clearly beyond doubt to anyone who knows the subject matter that they are entirely wrong in this case. Maybe someone else can look into it and stop this person from having a baseless power trip on a random movie page.~2026-69402-5 (talk)23:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never actually said it was AI generated, that was another user. I said it was blatantly wrong and later suggested it looked like it could be AI generated after asking for how they came up with such an incorrect plot summary if they had seen the film and receiving no reply other than to suggest I fix it myself. Short of giving you a link to the movie to watch it yourself I am not sure how you'd like me to prove the plot summary incorrect otherwise. To be clear, my specific issue at this point is that this editor is posting clearly incorrect information and expecting others to fix it.~2026-69402-5 (talk)00:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to sound sarcastic, but I swear it isn't. We're talking about a film I saw and that literally anyone can watch. What would you suggest I source for the plot of a film? How many film pages have actual citations for a sources here? Looking around there are few because the info comes from literally watching the movie.~2026-69402-5 (talk)00:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess my issue here is it seems like the consensus, even from my friend Sunday over there, is that if I want this fixed I should do it myself. And while I appreciate that can-do attitude that Wikipedia is based on, community and all that jazz, I think my bigger issue is the forest for the trees thing of the fact that I shouldn't have to fix it. Like, why was a totally incorrect summary posted in the first place? And why is it being defended by the person who posted it? This is weird, isn't it? If your kid's teacher told them Hamlet was about a pig and you told them it wasn't and the teacher kept saying it was unless you can prove otherwise, isn't that odd to you? Of course you could read Hamlet to your kid, but why is it your job now? Why did the teacher make up such an easily disproved lie? Keep in mind, I was the 4th person to go to the page for this movie to address this issue. It seems like this is just being dismissed as "ah well, feel free to change it at your leisure" and that seems like a poor way to run things. Clearly I'm no editor around here, I'm just a dude who showed up but man, this can't be an easy way to steer a ship.~2026-69402-5 (talk)00:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia editor is just somebody who showed up here. You edited here to ask these questions. You can use the same techniques to remove the inaccurate plot and post the correct lne. As for why the wrong summary was posted, you would have to ask the original editor. Very little posted here goes through any review beforehand. We count on all users to catch and fix errors.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)15:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AdmiralCarl - As far as I'm aware, the source for plot summaries IS (and ought to remain)only "watch the movie", "read the book", etc as the case may be. You seem to be doing the equivalent of demanding a source for the solution to 2 + 2.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)00:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @~2026-69402-5. Wikipedia always has and always will have factual inaccuracies. That's a foundational and completely natural problem a project like Wikipedia has; it can be edited by anyone. The only quality control available is random people who happen to care about something.You seem to care, soyou have the power to fix it. Or you can just leave it incorrect, if what you say is true. Whether you want totrust that any of the things you see on this website is up to you and you alone.toby(t)(c)(rw)(omo)00:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. I appreciate how much this is making me laugh, but you guys have to see how absurd this is, right? Like if someone posts that Andre the Giant was 6'9" and you know he was 6'10" and can prove it, awesome! Inaccuracy averted. This person made up a whole detailed movie! Just a whole movie from start to finish. That's weird! That's so weird! I can't stop laughing at this so thank you again for that but man, there is a line between factual inaccuracy and this guy writing some kind of detailed fan fic and it's up to intrepid film viewers like me to set it right. I feel like I'm being recruited into some sort of half drunken army against my will.~2026-69402-5 (talk)00:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're killing me, man. This is like walking into a house and watching a guy kick a hole in the wall and then having you come and ask me why I'm not fixing the hole in the wall. I mean...yeah, I see the problem. I for sure see the problem. I just feel a bit put upon here. I regret watching this movie now, I regret the actual, truthful knowledge I have in my head. It's like a curse all of a sudden. How dare I know this thing!~2026-69402-5 (talk)01:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this analogy, I wasn't the one who kicked a hole in the wall and I also don't know how to fix walls (because I've never heard of this movie in my life). You're the one who can fix the wall, so it's a benefit for all of us if you fix it. Not like we can force you though.toby(t)(c)(rw)(omo)01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I am clear as day on how this work but, for my own sanity, admit it. This is weird, right? Assume I am 100% correct in my position. If this was something you stumbled on, you'd scratch your head over this for a second or two.~2026-69402-5 (talk)01:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is how allwikis work. Anyone can edit it, break it, and fix it. I don't know how else you thought wikis like Wikipedia worked because that's how it has always been.toby(t)(c)(rw)(omo)01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not that part, just someone purposely starting a page that never even existed before and then filling it with inaccurate info. Then defending the inaccurate info. That's weird to me.~2026-69402-5 (talk)01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the forceful tone of my previous comment but I'm saying that continuing to discuss about the inaccurate plot will not make it accurate.AdmiralCarl (talk) | :)01:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe one thing that's missing here is that there'sso many inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Some are genuine mistakes, some are deliberate, some are AI hallucinations. We're not surprised to hear that you found one! When one is found, if it's an easy fix, another editor stumbling upon the thread might come to fix it. A plot being wrong isn't really easy - we'd need to have watched the movie and feel up to the task of summarizing it. Or we could just remove the plot section, and hope that our claim of 'this is wrong' is believed over the previous editor's claim of 'this is the plot', but that also means we have to trust thatyou are in fact right (because we have no idea, and you and the other people on the talkpage could be trolls or sockpuppets, and you would be amazed at how tiny and dumb things can be and still turn into a massive edit war).
So everyone's suggesting that you - who have seen the movie, and noticed the problem, and felt it's important enough to mention - can fix it. You don't have to! No onehas to. But you're currently the one in the best position to do so. If you don't, someone will eventually. Today, tomorrow, five years from now...it's always a work in progress.Meadowlark (talk)04:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is that a user is consistently writing incorrect information and even when someone brings it up nothing happens about the user who is spreading misinformation. You'd think the user would receive some kind of discipline (such as an account ban) to prevent blatant misinformation. Instead, the person who tries to call attention to the problem is criticized and told "if you don't like the article edit it," which is like putting out spot fires but ignoring the actual body of the fire. It's just inefficient.FlamingMrshmallow (talk)17:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I missed it, but where was it said that anyone was consistently writing incorrect information? Isn't this just about one article? If the user in question is doing this in multiple places, that needs to be brought up. If the spot fire is all that you know about, of course you're going to focus on it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"This editor, Sundayclose, has edited thousands of pages here, and they are both hostile and factually incorrect. They are literally making more work for someone else, it would have been more helpful to say nothing. So how can I, or anyone, trust that any of the things this person is editing? I looked them up and there have been a number of incidents in the past with people having issue with this editor." -OP. Although I'm realizing now that I may have misunderstood.FlamingMrshmallow (talk)18:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is something I’ve noticed on many user profiles—some editors have awards, thanks, or trophy-style achievement icons. I’ve been editing Wikipedia for more than seven months now, but I haven’t received any awards yet.
I wanted to ask if there are any specific tasks or types of contributions that lead to receiving these appreciation awards or trophies. If so, I would kindly appreciate your guidance on what kind of work I should focus on to earn them.Jameskida (talk)20:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are official, so it's "oh, Jameskida did something cool! I think I'll give him one of those award icons!"DS (talk)20:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly had no bad intention or beieng greedy. I was just curious because I saw tasks on some pages where the page creator or other people ask for help to fix things. I thought that by completing those tasks, people earn those award things. Thanks for clearing me out that these awards has no official status.
Don't worry about it. I was on Wikipedia for 3 years before anyone put an award icon or banner on my talk page. They don't mean anything except that someone noticed you and appreciated something you did. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)01:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was looking for. I was searching for places on Wikipedia where I could work on those achievements. Thank you for your help, and I have registered for WikiProject Unreferenced Articles.Jameskida (talk)20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia in a language that is dead as in no native speakers, but a select few people who choose to study it can speak it fluently? Latin, for example? Ancient Greek, Old Norse, et cetera?Shadestar474 (they/he)(talk)10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Latin-language Wikipedia, but that's the only one I'd call "dead". We have plenty of endangered languages, like Judeo-Spanish, and constructed languages, like Toki Pona, though.VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions)20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Ignore these folks above. It's really not decorum to accuse someone immediately of lying. To the original poster, I would check out theWikipedia:Task_Center. You can immediately begin editing pages to fact check / proof and grammar / add citations. I recommend first reviewing theWP:WELCOME article, to understand the general goals of wikipedia and requirements when making edits.WP:NPOV andWP:Reliability are key! Good luck.Abs145 (talk)19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded an image related to ai generated art in the Mlp fandom.
I had the same image deleted a month ago because I thought it was unnecessary. I uploaded 3 or 4 selfies of myself there which is of course against policy on here, Wikipedia is not a personal blog post or instagram. I deleted them because I was legally still a minor ( I was 16) when I took them, I won’t go against the system again with photographs.
I hope you will consider not deleting them because Foggy Glen image, itdoes have educational value and can be used in the Artwork of the Brony fandom article as an example of the use of ai. I believe that is missing from the article and will bring it up to date with the mid ‘20s. Please consider all of this before deleting
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I posted an extended-confirmed–protected edit request on theTalk:Dadvan Yousuf page (07 February 2026) proposing a sourced, outcome-focused addition to the Career section. As the article is protected, I would appreciate it if an extended-confirmed editor could review the request and, if it meets policy, help implement it. Thank you very much for your time!Vienerrko (talk)09:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi, I am Lutitium and I was wondering if I should make a list article about list of coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs. There are at least half a dozen or so places that have coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs like Louppy-le-Château but the idea seams a bit silly.
Hello, @Lutitium, and welcome to the Teahouse. List articles, like any other articles, are only acceptable if the subject isnotable - which mostly means that there are multiple reliable independent sourcesabout the subject specifically - so in this case it would mean articles or books about the subject of "dinosaurs in arms", not just about particular instances.
Hello, would you be able to let me know if this kind of page would be okay to be published? It is very neutral and has reliable and independent sources. I still need to cite the sources.
In 2021, Honest to Goodness acquired 2die4 Live Foods, a producer of activated nuts and snacks.[3] In 2023, the company acquired Absolute Organic and Eco Organics.[4] In 2024, it acquired the Pimp My Salad and Pimp My Snack brands from Komarov Foods.[5]
Products
The company stocks over 1,000 products including grains, flours, legumes, canned foods, spices, oils, nuts, dried fruits, nut butters, and household cleaning products.[6]
Awards and recognition
Honest to Goodness has received awards from the Australian Organic Industry Awards and Clean + Conscious Awards.[7] In 2024, Karen Ward received the Organic Woman of the Year award from the Australian Organic Industry Awards.[8]
Hi :)I noticed that when i'm adding archived information, the cite menu doesn't have a specific option to imbed a pre defined archive page, is there a "propper" way to do 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.
InMargaret Murnane editorHarold Foppele recently added a link to her husbandHenry Kapteijn. Please note that the link to Henry is to a page on Wikiversity ([[Wikiversity:Quantum/Henry C. Kapteyn|Henry Kapteijn]]) that Harold created yesterday. (For reference, Harold Foppele is infinitely blocked from creating pages of uploading files,[9]. He previously createdDraft:Henry Kapteyn.) There are at least three issues here:
I assume Wikiversity is not an appropriate link to use as it is not curated.
At least as important, this appears to be a work around to avoid the appearance of an external link. I am not sure how this gets repaired so these do not show as if they are Wikipedia links, perhaps I have to post a request somewhere?
Does anyone have a good tool to search for Wikiversity links such as this one to see if there are others from any editor? I tried a quick search myself but I don't think it worked right.
Courtesy ping ofTheroadislong who just removed the Wikiversity link. I agree with the removal, my post here is about the wider issue of such links not appearing to be to external sites, and not curated.Ldm1954 (talk)14:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can search for Wikiversity links using "insource" as part of your search; e.g.[10]. Note that there are legitimate sister-project links to that site from some artciles.
Thanks for the "insource" link. I did a quick search and I did not find any other uses like this one, most of the pages I found were using Wikiversity as a repository for pdf's that were linked via URLs. I did not search further.
Gentle of you. I fail to see why Wiki links v.v. are not allowed. You state that pages at WV are not curated. You should know that WV has Curators, Administrstors an Bureaucrats. Also ofcourse there is Oversight for all wiki's. At your recommendation I got blocked from creatinmg pages, not from editing pages. As you can see, since you follow me closely, I made some edits at Wikipedia. Although very few. If you can show me a policy at WP that forbids crosslinks to WV I shall follow that policy. Meanwhile my edit was reverted without disussion, as was pointed out by youreself. So please explain what the problem is.Harold Foppele (talk)16:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello. Im drafting a company page and already made a lot of adjustments according to editor instructions. One of those was that the text reads too much like an advertisement, so I rewrote the text and it went through, which means that text was ok. Then I had to change some other things that had nothing to do with text, but now after the latest edit, it came back to "it reads too much like an advertisement" which makes no sense since I already fixed that issue and it went through. So now I dont know what else I can do because I already did everything that was asked and the page should be ready to publish. Thank you for your help in advance. Here is the page -Draft:Dateio.Mendelejev86 (talk)17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The style is part of it, but advertising is also a kind of content. When you write the kinds of things that customers will want to know, that's already advertising. Most of the time, writing the things the boss requires is also advertising. When you write for only a history book, you get a different article - and a Wikipedia article is for a history book.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! Is there anything specific I can focus on? Because as for now, all the text is a very simple and straightforward information about what the company does, with now "marketing" fluff. If I go see lets say Apple page, it will be the same. Thanks!Mendelejev86 (talk)17:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Athanelar that you should ask the reviewer, but here's an example: Do the independent sources really list every single service the company currently offers? Or is that list coming from the company? If the reliable sources fail to mention a product or a service, it can't be filled in by using company information; Wikipedia must also fail to mention it.
The article is not here to inform people about what the company does; it's here to gather what the reliable independent sources have written. Missing information needs to stay missing.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendelejev86 The fact that your edits to the text "went through" does not mean anything. When you edit the draft there is no check to see whether the draft is now acceptable before your edits are published. The only time a human reviews it is when you submit it for review.
@Mendelejev86: The article is mostly about Dateio's products and uses, and seems more like an advertisement than like a normal encyclopedia article. If you can work on fixing those types of things before resubmitting, it will really help.TheObsidianGriffon (talk)18:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have recently submitted an article that in the end was rejected because 'it should refer to a range ofindependent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.' The article included numerous references and citations from reputable sources such as the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent, as well as appearances on BBC One and Channel 4 in the UK, among others. These are independent outlets that adhere to your guidelines. None of the material was created by me, the page’s author; they are all from independent media. Could you kindly clarify how to proceed with these sources? I thought these were exactly what you wanted. Thank you. ElectraElectra188 (talk)20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Electra188! The problem with your sources is not, in this case, what publisher they are from, but when they are used and what they contain. The bulk of the article, especially the personal life and early life and education, has no sources -- and in a BLP (Biography of a living person) article like this,all statements must be sourced. And when you used the sources, you only used them to show that the subject of the article has written for them. Just because someone has done stufffor news media doesn't make them notable -- what makes them notable is when news media (or other RSs)independently (usually not in the case of an interview, which is dependent on the interviewee talking) cover them. Try readingWP:42 (not a policy, but a very useful essay) and see if it meets those requirements.✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him)❦blather |☞spy on me21:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, OmegaMantis. I believed I did the right thing, but I now understand the points raised in WP:42. The sources I used were mainly journalist interviews with Irina G, not paid contributions—something they typically do not do—covering her work as the only Romanian-British writer promoting her country’s food culture, which is more complex than it appears. I referenced other Wikipedia pages to match the tone you approved and reviewed relevant guidelines. Therefore, I included awards like the James Beard Award, believing it was appropriate. The Washington Post featured Irina as a writer involved in a personal story, similar to the pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Hercules. Not everything here is ‘someone else talking about Olia’; it also highlights her activities. Like Irina, Olia appeared on BBC One and Sunday Brunch, which I thought Wikipedia would accept. There are other sources, such as National Geographic’s coverage (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/mountains-flavour-irina-georgescu-romanian-cuisine), which discusses Irina’s work, not paid recipes. Does this Nat Geo link align with your policy? If so, then The Independent and the Daily Mail also covered Irina’s work, portraying Eastern European cuisine as mainly vegetarian, contrary to expectations. These were journalist-covered interviews, not press releases, even though they were not written by Irina herself. Is this viewpoint acceptable? Thank you for your time, Irina.Electra188 (talk)21:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Her work is who she is. No piece in the media can be written without her work. Her work is why the media writes about her. One of the examples I followed, already approved by you (I put the link in the reply above) describe the other author's work too, even include a link to her own website (citation 24). If I write about an actor, I need to put their movies and work in and so on. How can I make my contribution good enough for you to approve, please? Thank you. EElectra188 (talk)21:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Electra188, part of the problem is not just the person's notability, but the fact that most of the article is not sourced -- please fix that first. But regarding your sources, the Nat Geo one seems to be mostly free-reign answering of questions, so I wouldn't call information gleaned from it "independent" and enough to establish notability. I would say a lot of the other interviews are more about her book, which perhaps could be an article. I am not very skilled in the Articles for Creation process, however, so I may not be the best judge of this.✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him)❦blather |☞spy on me22:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" is what's missing from all of this. As soon as she's involved in creating the coverage of her, whether as an interview guest or in some other way, it's suddenly not independent anymore.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)01:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can use sources thatwrite about her work to establish notability; but not sources thatreply< rely on her words to do so.
Thank you for your words of encouragement. Frankly, I’ve been considering giving up, having put a lot of effort into writing it and collecting all this information, only to be rejected. I should have written about a Romanian composer, dead but famous, and have an easier way to publish on WP. As you say, she has potential to be notable, but at the moment it is hard to find those particular articles that don’t involve her at all. Journalists like to include a quote or a recipe. Her appearances on TV, despite being on the most famous channels in the UK, disqualify her under the WP criteria because she is in them. But how else can someone become famous without being involved? To be invited on such programmes or to write for famous media outlets are proof of notability. I will try to dig deeper to find those links, because she is fighting the preconceptions that surround a nation with no good reputation in the UK or the US. That’s not easy, and change needs to start with someone or somewhere. Many thanks again, Electra.Electra188 (talk)12:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediare-publishes information that independent reliable sources have already published. Whatever the news is, whatever the reputation is, Wikipedia always intentionally lags behind the other sources in writing about it. We can truly say "We never accept second place" - because when second place crosses the finish line, we start putting our boots on. "Getting the word out" is not our job; I guess we "gather up the word that was already out".TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)15:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said! And this is how and why I use WP as a reader. To me, independent means not the content that sits on the subject’s website or social media or was produced by the subject. Independent is a reputable third-party source. But usually, these sources include quotes for the personal touch, which automatically disqualifies the article from being independent in Wikipedia's eyes. However, I think I found something that fits this rule. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, this link about Irina is considered to be independent?https://www.ft.com/content/8a127cf6-68b4-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 Thank you. ElectraElectra188 (talk)15:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And ... above, I was trying to explain about this:
... she is fighting the preconceptions that surround a nation with no good reputation in the UK or the US. That’s not easy, and change needs to start with someone or somewhere
Yes, I know. It was a comment to justify to you why I decided to write about her on Wikipedia. Judging by how many media outlets have already talked about her (unfortunately with direct contributions from her) she has succeeded, even if she doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. I'm really very grateful for your advice and explanations, TooManyFingers. Thank you. Electra.Electra188 (talk)16:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common misconception or mistake. Someone succeeding in catching the public's attention by their own efforts is not the same as having their story told at length by independent others. If I went outside right now with no clothes on, it would certainly catch the public's attention, but it wouldn't make reporters tell the story of my career. NOT saying Georgescu is doing stunts for attention; just that her career hasn't been written up by independent sources.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what she’s doing, and I don’t want to trivialise a career that spans more than ten years — one in which she has consistently attracted media attention despite challenging circumstances. The story of her career is often told with her in the “picture,” which is why WP doesn’t consider her notable. Yet her achievements clearly demonstrate that she is. I have clearly wasted my time in writing this post, not taking into consideration this rule. At the same time, I can send you many examples of approved pages that don't follow it. So, I guess 'it's subjective'. As always.Electra188 (talk)17:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not accept articles by achievement, but by notability. Her achievements demonstrate her achievements. They don't demonstrateWikipedia:Notability in the slightest. I apologize for the fact that Wikipedia's definition of notability is non-standard ... but it is.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)05:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When someone's story remains unwritten (other than through their own effort or influence), Wikipedia is firmly committed to also not writing it. Wikipedia pays no attention to what a person (or their supporters) wants written about them; we wait until after the independent reliable reporters have writtentheir independent version of the person's story. Sometimes, perhaps often, that doesn't happen until the person's career has ended. There's nothing wrong or even mildly unfortunate about that; Wikipedia biographies are history, not a directory or a publicity platform.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)05:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a wikipedia article which is a biography. but its getting rejected. it says:
Submission declined on 1 December 2025 by Smallangryplanet (talk).This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
When writing a biography for the first time, many people assume that facts directly given by the person who they're writing about will be accepted. Unfortunately, people giving facts about themselves are naturally biased, so those things are not going to be accepted.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious why this template would be particularly helpful … I can’t quite see why not simply make the change oneself. Now, if it could also look for all occurrences of numbers in an article and turn them into ordinals—which would sure be useful in some articles I’ve seen but likely a bit beyond the scope of what that template can do—I’d add it to my bookmarked templates right away!Augnablik (talk)07:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku the edits I added are important plot points regarding the movie and I explained to you on why they are important and must be added. I do not know how else to explain it to you on why they should not be removed.SlayerRoyce (talk)21:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SlayerRoyce, Revirvlkodlaku was not rude to you. It is perfectly reasonable for two people to disagree about what is important in a movie summary and what is not. If you can't reach consensus, you should work your way throughdispute resolution.
I also think it would be a very good idea for you to readWP:BLUDGEON. By the end of the thread on the talk page, you had left six comments in a row in under half an hour and then another four in a row in the next eight minutes - ten comments in less than an hour compared to Revirvlkodlaku's two comments. You gave Revirvlkodlaku no time to respond, and left no time for anyone else to join the conversation. Discussions on Wikipedia can take weeks or even months, and when there is a content disputeWP:ONUS tells us the content should be removed until there is a consensus for it to be included. You knew Revirvlkodlaku disagreed with your additions, so you should not have added them again until there was agreement that it should be there. Slow down,there's no rush.Meadowlark (talk)04:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately above, I have usedTemplate:Od, an underappreciated, underused template. By "the editor's talk page", it's clear that you mean thearticle's talk page, i.e.Talk:Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. I am not proposing to read that: attempting to do so would be too painful. If only at least one editor had usedTemplate:Od! --Hoary (talk)23:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I concur, I for one hate that talk page system where it keeps moving, it should automatically stop at a point where it isn’t one letter per line. Utterly grotesque as you stated. Thanks for being the Od template to light, as I’ve never heard of it but I’ll be certainly using it to avoid large ugly texts like that.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)09:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :)if i come across an article with one citation and no tags am i allowed to add the Maintenance tag? or is that action saved for a certain role in wikipedia?Happypenguins82 (talk)22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what i meant, i came across of an article that seriously lacked sources (with only 1 source,) i added a few, but i think it can use some more, so i'll add a "More citations needed" template.
What, there are people who look atWP:RA? That aside, do you hope to write about the soft money scandal in particular, or more broadly about Kojima's financial arrangements? (A "snippet" withinCrotty,America's Choice suggests that Kojima raised the cash by stiffing his ex-wives.) --Hoary (talk)23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through many pages on if this (see subject) can be done and if it works as a valid source. I haven't really found anything, which is kinda an issue. For some background, I've been meaning to update pages on the city ofMaple Valley's history and similar. The city has plenty of resources on its history, but many are unavailable online and can only be found at the physical location as informational plaques. Would it be possible to photograph these plaques and use them as sources (or something similar)?Elm (talk)00:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found this out the other day -- we do have a template for citing plaques and signs atTemplate:Cite sign, so I take this to mean it's permissible, so long as the sign or plaque is accessible to be viewed by the public. I imagine it would be preferable if there's a photograph of it somewhere, or better yet, if you uploaded a photograph of it to the commons. All that being said, if you want to write about local history, you may have better luck simply checking the library. Cheers,MediaKyle (talk)00:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MediaKyle Thank you for sharing this template, it is exactly what I've been looking for!
(Quick note: All signs and plaques I'd photograph and cite are of course available to the public and would count as reliable, published sources.)Elm (talk)00:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability means that all of the information must be verifiable by anyone who wishes to do so. If I have the means to travel to Maple Valley, and can access the plaque and verify that what you are saying in the article is correct, it can be included in Wikipedia. I'm not sure though, if plaques can be used to prove notability on their own. However, in this matter it does not matter since the article already exists.VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions)00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I submitted a draft for AfC review, it's almost a month now, but haven't received a feedback yet. Then today, I stumbled upon a page where articles for review can be found. Curious, I searched for my submitted draft, but I didn't see it there. Is it possible?
@Jane1289 Your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed. Please see the text at the top of the draft that saysThis may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,028 pending submissions waiting for review.Helpful Raccoon (talk)00:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a specified revision of a page is deleted or suppressed, there's usually a good reason for this, and "I want to read it" isn't an adequate argument for having the revision undeleted. Which revision of what do you want to view, and for what reason? --Hoary (talk)05:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's revision? I mean, I don't understand what 'I want to read it' was and, I just want to create a page just so people can have more information about this person without researching in various pagesYiotro1 (talk)05:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't possible to 'just create an article'. You need to learn how to do it properly, and not make half-hearted attempts to do something-or-other, and then repeatedly ask incomprehensible questions when you get stuck. Frankly, given your poor spelling, grammar etc I doubt you have the necessarily skills to create an article, but if you insist, readHelp:Your first article, 'after' readingWikipedia:Notability - there is no point in creating anything that isn't going to meet our notability requirements.AndyTheGrump (talk)06:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have checked the criteria for academic notability and I believe the person that I wish to create an academic wikipedia page for meets the criteria. How do I confirm this BEFORE I start writing content for their page? Is there a process to confirm the person meets the criteria first, then I can draft the page content and get it approved before staging it and publishing. I'd like to have the content vetted before publishing rather than risk a page content getting deleted. Please advise. Thanks!~2026-90335-3 (talk)09:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m an editor from Malayalam Wikipedia. I created the articleബാഡ് ബണ്ണി as a translation of the English articleBad Bunny, but I’m unable to interlink them because the Wikidata item is protected.Could someone with access please add the Malayalam sitelink to the existing Wikidata item, or advise how I can request this properly?
Hi, I’m a new editor and I’ve rewritten and resubmittedDraft:ExcludedUK. It has been declined before, but I’ve made substantial changes and want to check that it is correctly in the AfC review queue. Could someone please confirm that everything is in order, and let me know if there’s anything further I should do while waiting for review? Thank youPurpleDiva2902 (talk)13:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oh gosh! What an idiot I am...my first draft was rejected so I re-wrote. Thank you for letting me know... I will try and work out how to re-submit again. Thank youPurpleDiva2902 (talk)13:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed (and declined) your draft. Please see the feedback I posted there. Take time to click on and thoroughly read all of the links before you try to revise and resubmit again.Athanelar (talk)15:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to formally appeal the current status of the "Lean Back" article. I have implemented all technical corrections, standardized the citations, and provided a comprehensive set of verifiable sources. I request a detailed evaluation of the specific evidence provided rather than generic feedback.
Printed and Archival Sources: I have provided details for the Encyclopedia of Popular Music: Blues in Poland (ISBN: 83-85414-92-4) and the journal Wiadomości Rudzkie (ISSN: 1232-0560). While these documents are not fully digitized, they are legitimate, indexed publications. Do these identifiers not qualify as credible sources for a historical Polish band?
Academic and Professional Verification: I have added a new high-quality reference (Position 7) from an American scientific journal, the Journal of Dentistry (https://www.jdentistry.com/editorial-board/tomasz-tomi-kupka), which verifies the professional background of member Tomasz "Tomi" Kupka. I have inserted this reference in the "Band History" section and the "Line up" section. Does this peer-reviewed source not establish the credibility of the individuals involved?
Artistic and Event Verification:
I have provided links to actual music festivals (e.g., Student Song Festival at Jagiellonian University, Rawa Blues) where the band performed. Are these event archives not considered credible?
I have provided a link to the band’s YouTube channel. Given that YouTube links are standard practice for musicians on Wikipedia, why is this source being dismissed here?
I have archival recordings (including a world-standard cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever") to confirm the band's artistic profile.
Context and Translation: This is an English translation of a historical article about a Polish band. Other translations of this very article have been accepted on various language versions of Wikipedia.
Verification via Audiovisual Archive (YouTube): I have provided the link to the official YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/@LeanBackBand), which serves as a primary audiovisual archive for the band. It contains professional television recordings from national broadcasters (TVP Polonia, TVP2, TVP3) and live footage from major festivals mentioned in the article (e.g., Rawa Blues at the Spodek Arena, FAMA Festival).
These recordings provide direct visual and auditory evidence that corroborates the printed sources (Wiadomości Rudzkie, Encyclopedia of Popular Music). In the context of a band active in the 1980s and 1990s, such an archive is a crucial tool for verifying historical activities that were documented before the era of digital-only media. Why is this cross-referenced evidence being ignored?
Specific Questions:
What exactly is still missing? Please provide detailed comments on each individual source rather than general rules.
If this article continues to be blocked despite the presence of these verifiable, high-quality sources, what is the formal procedure for filing a complaint regarding the obstruction of a correctly prepared and sourced historical entry?
Wow and that's it? What about the page "Lean Back" which is being blocked from publishing? I am not looking for a court, but for specific guidance. I have added high-quality academic sources (like the Journal of Dentistry) and provided archival IDs (ISBN/ISSN) for offline sources. Could someone please review if these specific references meet the notability criteria?JonekX (talk)14:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it.
Your draft was declined on 18 January, when you were told:
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
There are ample links to explanatory pages in the original copy of that text.
You have made a number of changes to your draft since then, but you have not resubmitted it for review, so no-one has looked at it again, and no one has declined, nor "blocked" it. It ls just sitting there, waiting for you to resubmit itas that text advises you to do.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and the technical tip. I have updated the draft with verified academic sources and archival IDs for the historical records. I have also officially clicked the "Resubmit" button as you suggested. I appreciate the guidance.
I am writing to inform you that your requests for help will be more successful if you write them concisely and in your own words instead of expecting people to use their time reading whatever ChatGPT spat out.Athanelar (talk)14:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No article is "blocked," your draft was declined. From what I see of the draft, it uses promotional language ("they playedclassics by artists," "manyinteresting line-up combinations," "aunique acid jazz sound" just to name a few) and reads like an LLM, just like your "formal complaint." Please use your own words when contributing here.jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡)15:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still learning working on wikipedia and english is not my first language. I've used some tools to help with translation, but I see now that it sounds too promotional. I'll go through the draft again and remove these words to make it neutral. Thanks for pointing that out.JonekX (talk)16:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I'm happy to help edit but need help with starting the pages and formatting
I'm not advertising. This is a topic that should be on wikipedia. I have no association to it whatsoever. It's mentioned in the jubilee page.Kivi36 (talk)18:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working on a draft article for Wikipedia that has been rejected twice. I've worked to edit the language to not include "peacock language," but I would appreciate a second set of eyes to take a look and see if I've succeeded. I've also added more citations, but would appreciate any feedback on if I should cite others (or what to do if there is no way to cite the info!).
I joined the chat today to try to get live assistance, but no one responded after 30 minutes and I need to move on to another task. I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer.
If you cannot cite info, the info cannot be in the article.
You are telling us what you want the world to know about your organization, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independentreliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition ofa notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the organization, not what it views as important about itself.331dot (talk)17:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are discussing the Financial Counseling Association of America. Thank you for this feedback. I'm running into the same issue that Electra/Irina Georgescu had above. While there are many articles discussing the FCAA, most have quotes from organizational leaders included, with the exception of a few.
Most organizations (most people, most companies, most schools, most neighbourhoods, most artists, most bands etc etc) in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria fornotability, and an acceptable article about them is not possible.
Editors who spend some time improving existing articles come to understand this, and don't waste their time trying to create impossible articles.
Many new editors come here with the specific purpose of creating an article about something in particular, and have no understanding of this, or of Wikipedia's strictures onpromotion, and consequently have a miserable and frustrating experience.
(I have not looked at your draft or your sources, so I've no idea whether FCAA does or does not meet the criteria for notability: but clearly, even if it does, you have already spent considerable time and effort on an ineffective approach).ColinFine (talk)18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While that makes sense, I could also see the benefit in relinquishing some of the high standards to allow for more articles. However, I'm sure that comes along with it's own quandaries that I'm not aware of!
It is quite interesting that there are already articles about other organizations, schools, bands, etc. that do not meet the current criteria. Do you have any idea when the criteria changed to become more stringent about notability? (i.e. the page I'm writing about has a competitor, who has an article. Their article is flagged with notes from 2010, but it's still up!)
This is the frustrating aspect -- an existing article flagged as not meeting standards from 15 years ago remains life and active on WP. But a new article that has more, quality citations is repeatedly denied.
Helpful read and logically makes sense. Thank you!
One other question -- If I originally included citations that quote leaders from the organization the page is about, should I delete those citations from the page before resubmitting? Is it helpful for editors to review them or just a pain in the rear/waste of time?~2026-91327-0 (talk)21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to locate inappropriate articles and nominate them for deletion(WP:AFD). This is a volunteer project, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more.331dot (talk)01:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could, but the competitor offers services that help the general public (as does my client), so I do not feel it is appropriate for me to request their deletion just because my client's page is struggling to be approved.
is their a way for me to let more people know if a article is in great disrepare/bad if I dont have time to fix it. maybe like putting it on my user page, or should I just do this on the talk page. a recent example is i put up a banner onOut of the Dust but I would like more to get done and sadly right now i dont have the time. :(Ducklan (Quack Back)19:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! There are several maintenance templates to help with this, seeWikipedia:Template index/Cleanup for a list of them. As a matter of fact, seeWP:CLEANUP, a WikiProject for this, if you want wider coordination. However, there are many articles tagged with maintenance templates and not enough people who want to help remove them, so even with tagging, the article may not be picked up for ages. If you can, it'd be nice to leave a note on the talk page highlighting some issues the article has, which provides a nice foundation to work on, and thus, more people may feel inclined to help out. You can use specific templates for this like {{To do}} for this. Beyond this you may also want to leave messages about the article's poor shape in relevant WikiProjects (including the Cleanup one mentioned above).jolielover♥talk19:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Tagging the article was the right thing to do,Ducklan. You can, if you have more specific comments, add it to the article talk. Putting something on your userpage,personal sandbox, or other user subpage is less for communicating with others and more a note to yourself. If you think something absolutely needs attention, you can try asking at a relevant WikiProject likeWikiProject Novels. Otherwise, you can just come back and fix the article yourself when you have more free time—usually, improving the 'pedia hasno deadline.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)19:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I use Twinkle—a tool used by many Wikipedians. To get Twinkle, follow the instructions atWP:Twinkle#Getting Started. Once you have it, click the TW button next to the tools button. After you click the button, click XFD button. The XFD button will pull up an interface where you can input the reason for deletion—the relevant policies and/or guidelines that the article violates. After you have written your reason, hit submit. Twinkle will then create a page atArticles for Deletion.Mikeycdiamond (talk)00:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to create a wiki page for a rapper/ hip-hop artist from my local town. When it comes to pointing or referencing out notable sources, what does this entail?USgayon25 (talk)00:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,I'm not an editor for wikipedia or anything. But I clicked on the campaign website link that was attach to Mike Petersen's wikipedia page and it definitely isn't a political website.So I don't really know what to do with that.~2026-92414-6 (talk)01:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: It was in the infobox "Website" field and I see you placed the archive there. That place is only for an official website and displays the url as part of the information about the subject. I don't think an archived website of a living active person should be there when it's no longer his website. There might be badly outdated information like former political positions. It could be in an external links section (without using{{official website}}) if it looks useful.PrimeHunter (talk)00:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone!
I would like to move a conversation here:The editor only has 5 edits and seems to have made the ID just to contact me to delete the image.I just feel that it is strange (is this an example ofsock puppetry?) and therefore suspicious and don't feel to engage alone.
Has anyone else encountered this kind of situation before?
< Commons:Deletion requests"File:Robert Sutherland, first known Black graduate of a Canadian university, Queen’s University, in 1852, North America’s first Black man to study law.png[edit]This is the same photograph that is used for Robert Morrshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(lawyer) and has been mistakenly attributed as Roberth Sutherland in the past but we do not believe it is Sutherland. I would be interested in knowing where an original copy of this image exists in order to verify the subject. I believe this is a problem that has been created by faulty metadat on the internet. HxH2 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
O I see, sorry I didn't see this note. Great, let me see what is going on. On my end, it was a screenshot stand in as ancient photo. That is terrible if it is Robert Morris because this photo has been used EVERYWHERE! I will be back... I&I22 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look and it looks as if you right. What a shame!! A deep dive research is required, but will take me time to do. Thank you for your follow-up! Warm regards, I&I22 (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, did you create a Wiki ID just to engage in this discussion....? What is your user name now please? I&I22 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]I can move all to the Teahouse and perhaps we could figure it out there. Thank you, I&I22 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)"I&I22 (talk)04:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HxH2 created their account in 2017, so the claim that theyhave made the ID just to contact [you] is false
Even if that weren't the case, just because a user is new doesn't mean they're up to no good
Their deletion rationale makes perfect sense; there's no evidence that the picture is ofRobert Sutherland, since the exact same picture is also found atRobert Morris (lawyer)
Anyone can contact you on your user talk page, including unregistered editors. HxH2 contacted you in order to notify you that they have nominated one of your images for deletion.
You are not required to engage in deletion discussions. A Commons admin will show up eventually and decide whether the file should be kept.
(edit conflict) Lurking is a time-honored tradition that is fading away. I would avoid accusations of sock- or meat-puppetry absent strong behavioral similarities because they can be uncivil. To avoid decentralized discussion, I think you should focus on the deletion discussion on Commons instead of starting new discussions on the topic elsewhere.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)04:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi! I need some help or instructions for how to nominate an article currently listed as a good article for GA Reassessment, specificallySam Kerr. What are instructions with tools for opening one of these? Where do I need to be to do it from? What page? Could someone help me on this? Thank you to anyone willing to ask questions, help would be appreciated.Servite et contribuere (talk)07:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the plot summary thing confuses people just because a little blue number isn't needed for them.
If I create a normal little blue number, it's because I've just given a summary of what a certain publication says. The blue number is to tell the reader which publication I summarized. The reason that plot summaries don't get a blue number is only the fact that "What publication are you summarizing here?" is a silly question in this case.
In other words, the only "exception" being given to people writing plot summaries is that if I summarize the plot ofIn Search of Lost Time by Proust, I'm not required to put a little blue number saying "I'll give you three guesses where these ideas come from". The process of summarizing a source is the exact same process done all the time by anyone writing an article about anything (though of course the plot of a book or film or whatever is normally a lot longer than other sources, and you're summarizing the whole thing). "What if someone fakes their summary?" is equally a concern in every article ever, not limited to plot summaries.
I guess if there was going to be a problem, it would be if Idid use a separate source to help with my plot summary, and I didn't citethat; an uncited quote of theAll-England Summarize Proust Competition would be trouble on several levels.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an article in which an editor changed all mentions of 'African American' to 'Black American' while I was patrolling Recent Changes. I did not know if there was any preferred Manual of Style to describe people falling under that category. Please point me to a policy (if there is any) and thank you!signed,Kvinnen (talk)13:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
African American is a real, if outdated, ethnic term. Black American is a synonym and probably a better descriptor. Given that neither is really ideal, I would probably say get rid of it entirely unless it's strictly necessary; but that of course depends on context.Athanelar (talk)15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Athanelar that unless it's absolutely needed to make sense of what's being said, the right thing is to use no term at all (and it's often worth rewriting the sentence to get rid of it, if necessary).TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I haven't been too active on Wikipedia recently, so I lost some of the links I used for assisting on articles. I recall there being a link—I believe via toolforge—that would show the top contributors to an article, as well as the percentage they contributed. Does anyone know where I can find this? Thank you!
Wondering if this is the place to start--there is a link to here from John Cleese's wiki page, which has a "semi-protected" tag on it. In the section on his political views there is no mention of his public statements on transgender issues. He has been quite vocal about his views on transgender issues, defending Rowling, etc., a tweet about wanting to be a "Cambodian police woman." I don't see any mention of them; I get they are/can be controversial, but he has been vocal and restated them publicly, so I would think it would be appropriate to mention as a political view. What is the guidance on what political views are referenced and how to edit "semi-protected" pages?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese#Activism_and_politicshttps://www.imdb.com/news/ni63103387/Nyingpo (talk)14:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this seems kinda light to include. For Rowling, there'ssubstantial coverage of her views, and she's clearly put herself forward as an advocate for those views. For Cleese, it's mostly churnalism about a social media incident in 2020 when he made those comments.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)23:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user name is clearly inappropriate, as it is unreadable and from a desktop, unclickable. I'd advise you to change it to something sensible. If you don't you will certainly find yourself blocked.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to enable usernames that can't be read, require pixel-perfect clicking (if that is even possible at all - I couldn't do it), or otherwise hinder normal communication. This is an online encyclopaedia, not an exercise in seeing how difficult we can make things for each other.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a specific person in Wikipedia The name is Dwight Lowaine McGee born in Tulsa Oklahoma November 7th 1977 can you help me find this person and information on this person thank youDwight L McGee (talk)16:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a B-class article that I have reviewed and decided it doesn't adequately meet the B-class requirements, can I just replace "B" with "C" on the shell banner? Is there anything else I need to do?VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions)18:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that isn't a tightly regulated process. If your reasoning comes directly from the requirements (i.e. if challenged, you could defend your decision using only the text of the requirements themselves), then I think it's right to just leave it like that.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, the rating doesn't really matter unless the article is a GA, FA, or FL. If you believe the article doesn't meet thecriteria of B-class, I would change it. Either way, ratings are only used for WikiProjects' internal quality assessments.Mikeycdiamond (talk)19:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that theRecord label article has been subject to persistent anonymous vandalism for the last few weeks, e.g. changing "Big Three" to "Big Four", changing "Big Four" to "Big Five", etc. I just happened on the article yesterday and don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to competently review or edit the details, but could there be some temporary protection until this disruption dies down? I'm hoping someone knowledgeable might also give it a quick review to see if any misinformation has been introduced and is still in the article. (I also don't know the best way to ask for page protection, so if this is not it, advice would be appreciated.)CAVincent (talk)18:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can also installTwinkle, and then under TW you will find RPP. It makes it much easier to go through several WP. Twinkle is also useful for warning people, welcoming users, nominating a page for deletion or speedy deletion, starting a deletion discussion, telling someone their question was answered at the teahouse, inviting them to the teahouse, etc.VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions)22:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :)I ran into an article in need of merging, just making sure with you guys before attempting this, for good advice on what needs to be considered in this case? thanks a milion 😊🐧🐧Happypenguins82 (talk)19:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking atTalk:Godspeaker#Merge proposal, ifyou feel up to it, you can just go ahead and do the merge according to the instructions atWP:PROMERGE. If someone else reverts, you all can return to the discussion and continue from there.
I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly. I thought this individual was very well-known or notable, but her page was moved into adraftspace soon after I published it. Can someone take a look to let me know what should be changed to improve it? Also, the draft has already been submitted, and I wasn't the one to submit it, but the most recent comment states feedback in a way that assumes it hasn't been submitted yet. Any guidance on what to do next would be helpful.Myrasdrabble (talk)23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) Please provide the Draft
2) Presuming that you made the draft from "afterI ("I" bolded for emphasis)published it", how comesyou didn't submit it?
I am looking for an independent editor to present an application for a standalone page..the candidate is Jeffrey House Beverage Pioneer.. references can be supplied..~2026-95490-8 (talk)00:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Help...I'm almost at the end of a merging proses for a book trilogy, when i realized i misswrote the name of the article in some (i think 2) cases, how can i edit the "edit summery"? worriedHappypenguins82 (talk)00:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that this would be a good summary for the dummy edit discription? "dummy edit:correcting 2 previous summary edits, in both cases i spesified the name of the second book of this trilogy instead of the third. Here is the proper syntax: Merged content fromHammer of God (Miller novel). SeeTalk:Godspeaker#Merge proposal.
@Happypenguins82: It's called edit summaries and not "summary edits". Make it more clear which edits copied content fromHammer of God (Miller novel), e.g. by time (use UTC), revision number, or just "my two most recent edits" if that's true. Identifying the edits and source is the only important thing. You don't need explanations beyond that.PrimeHunter (talk)01:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having some issues with supporting evidence for a new article
"Being AO qualifies asWP:N, however, we can't approve an article through AfC on the basis ofWP:ANYBIO criterion 1 if there is noWP:RS that providesWP:V"
The article I'm writing is some bigraphical background on someone who made a donation of a significant artistic collection. The collection itself has a wikipedia article. Is that not supporting enough? The two books written about the collection and the donor both have ISBN numbers quoted, and there are websites that reference the person's received honours and also newspaper articles.Paulie24Aus (talk)01:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easily possible, and quite often happens, that - by Wikipedia's definitions - notable work has been done by a non-notable person. If you don't carefully study Wikipedia's special definition of "notable", it's easy to misunderstand how it works.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Paulie24Aus, if the two books listed in "Selected publications" devote significant biographical coverage to Brown and not just to his impressive art collection, then those books should be formatted as and used as references. That should help establish Brown's notability.Cullen328 (talk)03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've come across Plot sections in articles for books or games or films, etc. Is there a policy guiding how they're supposed to be written? One of the newcomer suggestions I've had is for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Wall_of_Lucy_Wu). The plot looks like it's been copy-pasted from a publisher's blurb or something. How would I even begin to fix something like that? It's clearly unencyclopaedic but I'm not familiar with the story at all.Itsaclarinet (talk)02:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Itsaclarinet. You can find guidance about writing plot summaries atMOS:PLOT. In this specific case, feel free to rewrite the summary to eliminate the gushing promotional tone and bring it into compliance with theNeutral point of view. There are several reviews cited that contain plot related information.Cullen328 (talk)03:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to nominate Gigamachilis for Did you know as it is the largest apterygota (Did you know Gigamachilis is the largest apterygota with a wingspan of ~80mm). But as I am using a mobile phone, I am unable to do it. It would be really nice if I receive some help.TrueMoriartyTalk |Contribs07:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to make a request for Did you know, so I am also unable to do it. When you are editing from mobile, if you go down to the very bottom of the page (with the Privacy policy, About Wikipedia etc. links), there is a link for desktop view, which should allow you to access pages not available on mobile.Mitchsavl (talk)08:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TrueMoriarty The article was created on 10 February, so you will have until 17 February to nominate it. If you have previously nominated fewer than five articles for DYK then you won't have to do aWP:DYKQPQ. If you get really stuck with the nomination, let me know via my talk page as I can nominate it on your behalf. As far as I can tell, other criteria like length are fine and I assume you haven'tinfringed anyone's copyright. I've done nominations previously for newcomers to the process.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I successfully nominated it, using a laptop instead of a mobile (from which I was unable to). Thank you again!
how can I change our site name of theEnglish version and of theDutch version from Bank für Tirol und Vorarlberg to BTV Vier Länder Bank? OurGerman version is already correct. Could you please change the English and Dutch versions? The name BTV Vier Länder Bank is our official name now.
Thank you. I can see the change on the English version. However, on the Dutch version I cannot see the change. One question: Since we do not need theDutch version, can you delete it, please? We did not create the page, somebody else did.
The Dutch Wikipedia is run separately from the English Wikipedia, so you would have to take your issue up there (and I’m not sure whether an article can be deleted unless specific requirements are in place. However asking for a company article to be deleted probably won’t happen as Wikipedia isn’t censored and so anyone can make an article and have it stay in the respective Wikipedia as long as it fulfils notability and sourcing guidelines)The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)11:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m an employee at the menswear site MR PORTER. There is a mention of the site in the YOOX Net-a-Porter Group page, but no page for MR PORTER itself. But I think it warrants its own page.
As an employee, I can’t set up a page, so I wanted to know how to suggest a page.
JIMMMRP Hello and welcome. The means to propose the creation of an article,Requested Articles, is so backlogged that it is essentially useless. As an employee, you would be apaid editor and have aconflict of interest. You would be permitted to create and submit a draft for an independent review via theArticle Wizard- but diving right in to article creation is not recommended for new users. Furthermore, the vast majority of companies on Earth do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article(described atWP:ORG). Please seeWP:BOSS, which explains this. My advice is to go on about the work of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a topic and chooses on their own to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability.331dot (talk)10:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i made a draft about a minecraft youtuber called "Wemmbu" and it got declined for having non-solid sources. I was wondering how i can get them if my school PC is in exam mode(Yes, the whole school is in it, it's a private school where they blocked everything except school stuff). Because i don't have any way to get them at all, so how do i?~2026-94681-5 (talk)11:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The main issue usually isn’t access from a specific computer, but whether reliable, independent sources actually exist. For a YouTuber, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable third-party publications (for example, established news outlets, magazines, or independent interviews). Social media pages, YouTube videos, Discord servers, or fan sites don’t count...If your school device blocks websites, you may need to search later from a personal device or a public library. However, if independent coverage simply doesn’t exist, the article may not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. A good first step is to search the person’s name in Google News or other news databases and see if there are in-depth articles about them from reputable publications. If you can’t find those, it may be better to wait until more coverage exists before resubmitting the draft.ButterflyCat (talk)11:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the help. I'll try to find a way, i have more about the SMP soon also, i'll try and get sources for them too. Plus, i can't log in either but that's alrightas long as i can contribute.~2026-94681-5 (talk)11:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don’t want to be a kill-joy but I doubt there is significant coverage of Wembbu, considering the article on Mumbo Jumbo (who you would think would be notable enough) was deleted for not being notable. If Mumbo Jumbo can’t have an article (as of yet) Wembbu might not qualify alsoThe Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)11:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm... you know who wemmbu is right?
He's the best elytra mace/normal mace PvP-er, as also the most wanted person on the biggest minecraft SMP ever(SMP is not an open-to-all server).
Being the “best PvP-er” or popular on an SMP is not a notability criterion on Wikipedia. Articles require significant coverage in reliable. Fan reputation, in-game achievements, or community popularity do not establish encyclopedic notability. If such coverage does not exist, the subject does not yet qualify for an article.ButterflyCat (talk)11:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the draft, maybe copy it and keep it as a word document if you don’t want to lose your information you spent time on, you can look for more sources, books etc. But I feel like that probably won’t turn up many sources. YouTubers are some of the hardest subjects to write an article on (most YouTubers you would think are notable don’t qualify for articles), I don’t even think big YouTubers like Grian or others have articlesThe Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)11:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note that writing a new article is not the only or even best way one can contribute to Wikipedia. We have millions of articles, most of which need help in one way or another. Many people are very successful editors without ever creating a single new article.331dot (talk)12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, to get a Wikipedia article, a person's entire story has to already be written several times in mainstream non-gaming media, and that story had to be told without their help.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few images I want to insert into a recent re-writing of a topic in WikIpedia. When i attempted to do so, up popped standard questions about copyright, etc. None of what I want to insert is copyrighted. One is a naval message, sent to me by my boss when I was at sea in command of a submarine. The message is way, way, past its retention deadline and exists only in my personal file. Can I just post it as if it is a personal snapshot?SoonerCO (talk)15:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Before getting into copyright I'm wondering what the purpose of putting an image of this communication would be. Wikipedia requires that information be publicly available in publishedreliable sources; documents in private hands aren't acceptable as sources.331dot (talk)16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has copyright automatically attached to it, even if its creator wished it didn't. I don't know the copyright status of official Navy messages - maybe it's normal, maybe they fall under some rule about government publications (if your boss was [technically] a government employee), or something else.
In the normal case, the person who wrote something holds the copyright, and they can't escape being the copyright holder without jumping through legal hoops. (But this might not be the normal case.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the messages WERE the property of the U. S. Navy when being maintained by them. This one is more than 30 years old - well past its 8 year disposition / destruction date. This one will soon be in the hands of the U. S. Navy History and Heritage Command (alongside much other similar material) and will be part of the Navy's official history.
As for classified material, some can remain classified indefinitely.
I'm sure that the copyright status of old documents from the Navy is properly settled and defined, because there have been so many of them for so long. I just don't have a clue what it really is.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)22:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that because they’re the product of a public entity they’re considered to have been, from creation, in the public forum.
which would then be why, if sensitive, they are protected by classification, distribution controls, etc., each and all established either by executive direction or law.~2026-98357-9 (talk)23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone here offering "answers" here, please verify accuracy before commenting. All written material and images produced by employees of the US Federal government when carring out their job duties is in the public domain and unrestricted by copyright in any way. Whether or not this particular document is appropriate for use on Wikipedia is another matter butthere is no copyright issue. Trying to apply UK copyright law to US documents is not useful. Please do not speculate when answering questions at the Teahouse. If you do not know, let someone better informed answer the question. Thank you.Cullen328 (talk)03:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded an image related to ai generated art in the Mlp fandom.
I had the same image deleted a month ago because I thought it was unnecessary. I uploaded 3 or 4 selfies of myself there which is of course against policy on here, Wikipedia is not a personal blog post or instagram. I deleted them because I was legally still a minor ( I was 16) when I took them, I won’t go against the system again with photographs.
I hope you will consider not deleting them because Foggy Glen image, itdoes have educational value and can be used in the Artwork of the Brony fandom article as an example of the use of ai. I believe that is missing from the article and will bring it up to date with the mid ‘20s. Please consider all of this before deleting
Wouldn’t that be original research if you made it using an AI, as no other outlets or news sites or any website has used that’s exact same image. Shouldn’t only AI images which have been previously published be allowed per the rules of Original Research (personally I don’t think any AI images should be allowed in 99% of cases but that’s just my opinion)The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)17:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems thatWikiWarMonitor has largely been inactive for at least a decade now, I can't seem to find any recent papers regarding it's purpose. Is there a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information? Willing to move this to the talk page.~2026-80637-8 (talk)17:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of "a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information".Studebaker describes a car manufacturer/brand that has been defunct for over half a century, but carries no such warning. (Rather, this is done via categories, e.g.Category:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States.)
"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion." I'm not at all sure that this would be uncontroversial.
Among the "Top 100 controversial articles on English Wikipedia" was, we're told,List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos -- but WikiWarMonitor is of course not to blame for Wikipedia editor silliness.
I note the claim that "WikiWarMonitor is operated by a group of researchers from Oxford Internet Institute, Rutgers University, and Central European University" -- a short list that doesn't include Wikimedia. Yet the article's sole category isCategory:Wikimedia community projects. --Hoary (talk)01:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So today i was doing a translation on a wikipedia page and found out that i aint a experience editor so i cant actually publish it, SO i want to ask how to become a "experience editor"Nerd-in-history (talk)18:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You can use theArticle Wizard to submit your draft for a review. Please know that translations are treated no differently than any other submission; the subject must meet ournotability criteria- which may be different from the language Wikipedia you translated from. The English Wikipedia is usually stricter than others.331dot (talk)18:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I been trying to make an article about a motorbike that's missing one, I alredy found the brochure and technical specifications to post but I'm still refining it and getting more sources, but what do you think? (I still gotta submit an original photo of the bike which I still need to take but yeah, that's not a problem)
The main thing you need for an article is not the brochure and specifications, but to show how much was independently written about it. Magazine articles and that type of thing.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)21:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a less recognized model that didn't get much written about it, your information might be able to go into a bigger article about the company's whole bike production history, or something like that. I don't know much about it; hopefully someone sees this who knows a lot more than I do.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions about interlanguage links are for the old skin, and there may be other changes too. I tried asking the talk page, wikiproject, and #wikidata but they aren't very active. Can anyone here check or is there a better place to ask?Wimwamble (talk)21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You made a decent attempt atWikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed,Wimwamble.How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its foreign-language counterpart? I'd say "How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its other-language counterpart(s)?"Go to the foreign-language article. On the right side pane, look for a link to the Wikidata item for that topic. How about "Go to any one of the other-language articles. Somewhere at the top or to one side, you should see a link corresponding to either '4 languages' or 'Add a language' -- but with the actual number rather than the '4' arbitrarily chosen here, and in the language of the page." But we shouldn't be discussing this here: instead, atWikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed. And not "we" but instead "you", plural; because I'm not good at this kind of work. --Hoary (talk)01:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I work in a field of science/engineering that does not exist on Wikipedia, it's relatively new, but old enough there's a decent amount of literature around now. But everything I'm reading is suggesting that I shouldn't try and write an article because of conflict of interest. What's the best way to 'suggest an article' and potentially give any future writer/editor a leg up by providing relevant references?~2026-98456-9 (talk)00:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've published a lot in the area yes, and I've written a review article on the topic which I suspect would be a good basis for a wiki article. I wouldn't of course be suggesting adding in technical details, more describing the general field of work.
@Unlikely metal: Please take a look atWP:EXPERT because it might also apply to your situation in addition toWP:COI? FWIW, you're only going to be considered to have a COI if you start trying to add or create content about yourself or your work to Wikipedia or if you try to do the same for someone or something else who you're closely connected to too. If you just are planning to edit as a "content expert" about subject you're familiar with, then that does mean you've got a COI. You can, in principle,WP:CITESELF for content in articles if your work has been published in reliable sources (e.g., reputable peer-reviewed academic publications with an established history of editorial control), but you can't cite anything that might be consideredoriginal research by Wikipedia. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article about something you do have a COI with, I strongly suggest you do so viaWikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC). You should be OK working on a draft for an article as long as you don't stray too far outside the lines ofwhat's considered to be OK for Wikipedia and the subject matter has at least a reasonable claim ofWikipedia:Notability; then, you can submit the draft for review once you think it's ready. You shouldn't expect, though, for the typical AfC reviewer or typical Wikipedia reader to be an expert on what you're trying to create an article about; so, please keepWP:JARGON in mind. You might also want to ask for pointers on the talk page of a relevantWikiProject on writing articles about techinical matters. --Marchjuly (talk)02:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a question that has popped in my mind dozens of times before but I've never actually taken the initiative to ask it. Is there a search bar or function that can be used for searching Wikipedia space instead of the default of searching article space? For instance, if I wanted to find to find the wiki policy on synthesis and I typed it into the main search bar I'd be taken toSynthesis when what I'm really looking for isWP:SYNTH. Same question goes for searching templates.PositivelyUncertain (talk)01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Synthesis" (no quotes necessary) | Take the lowermost option: "Search for pages containingSynthesis" | Search in: | deselect "Default" | Add namespaces... --Hoary (talk)01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed the "Search for pages containing" at the bottom! Thank you for pointing that out.
As a bonus geeky side-note, I changed my default settings to include all spaces and tried typing in "WP:SY..." and the search bar autopopulated the policy page! This is exactly what I was looking for.PositivelyUncertain (talk)01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks, a user recently removed my addition onthis page. In the early Life section, I had added that this man was married to Kailashkamini who was a descendant ofManik Ram Basu and even cited he. The user after removing my edit, gave the reason- Article is not about spouse. Seriously? Adding a single line about marriage makes the article about her?BubbleRaechel (talk)01:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am working on the Brisbane christian college article. I noticed the namesake of the Wesley house was missing but there is an online school hub page about it. however, the page is only readable by members of the school community. can I still use it as a source?SabrinaSwift (talk)05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiSabrinaSwift. Your description of the source makes it seem likeuser-generated content, and such sources aren't typically considered to bereliable for Wikipedia's purposes. The limited access of the source itself is also problematic because it sounds like it would make verification by anyone not a member of the school community near impossible. Ideally, the same information would be best verified by a citation to aWP:SECONDARY reliable source, but even a citation to aWP:PRIMARY source could work if it was more accessible. Such a source doesn't necessarily need to be available online (though that makes things easier), but it needs to bepublished and reasonably accessible. --Marchjuly (talk)05:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm currently working ona film article that mentionsWētā FX multiple times. However, when the film was in production, the company was called Weta Digital. As of now, it is referred to as Wētā FX in every instance, but after the first instance (in the lead) it is followed by "then known as Weta Digital." Is this correct procedure, or should the old name be used more? Thanks in advance.OrdinaryOtter (talk)05:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiOrdinaryOtter. I think it should be fine to refer to the company by its old name for encyclopedic accuracy without clarifying each and every time it's mentioned beyond the first mention. There might not even need to be any need for such clarification anyway becauseWeta Digital is aWP:REDIRECT to the current name of the company; so, even if you create a Wikilink for the old name it will automatically send readers to the correct article about the company. --Marchjuly (talk)05:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Irina Georgescu
Done.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
