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 definitely have to agree with Athanelar, that this is not suitable for publication at this time. Far,far too much of the article is about what the group and people affiliated with the group report about the organization. What independent commentary there is largely geared towards describing things the organization said. There's also a lot of language that is textbook LLM output, from the random bolding, some punctuation choices uncommon in human editors, and a lot of the buzzwordy writing style. There's also the notorious LLM tendency to write weird meta articles that writeabout there being coverage, not about what the coverage says.
Honestly, this article has a poor enough foundational source, and is so littered with problems in nearly every sentence, that I think this is aWP:TNT candidate. I think this is a possibly notable subject, but the article itself is what's holding it back at this point. Someone wanting to write an article about this subject should start from the beginning, and collect sources that are independent, providingsignificant coverage of the organization far beyond things the organization or its affiliates say. Then write an article based off of that.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered being kinder in your comments? I explained after the first submission was rejected that I am not very IT savvy and I am also disabled, and I have had very few helpful responses and this is a very confusing platform if you are not proficient in IT.
I have said nothing unkind. I have detailed the reasons why this article is likely not be considered suitable for Wikipedia, and outlined what would need to happen for it to become an appropriate article, in response to you (ostensibly, since this was a TA)asking for confirmation that everything was in order. As my grandfather used to say, never ask a question if you're not prepared to hear the answer.
What would have been unkind would have been not telling you the truth about the poor state of this article. What would have been unkind would have been to encourage you to continue editing the article without outlining an approach that has any chance of success.
Few of the problems of this article have anything to do with IT proficiency or being disabled. Using independent sources that talk about the subjects is not something that requires technological prowess, and is, in fact, something people were able to do in writing long before computers even existed. And I utterly reject the premise that word transcription for the disabled requires the generation of AI-based hokum as I havedirect knowledge of how this type of software works from a colleague of mine who still does excellent journalism with advanced ALS.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe you need a few lessons in how to communicate with people who do not know how this work and as for refuting about disability…you do not know what disability I have to make that comment.~2026-98979-1 (talk)12:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AI usage in that article clearly goesfar beyond the technical aspects of formatting, which are far from the biggest problems with the article. It appears to me you're not actually interested in hearing things you do not wish to hear that would make this article suitable for Wikipedia, so there's no further useful advice I can provide in this discussion. I wish you all the best.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-98979-1 or @PurpleDiva2902: I don't want you to ever accept being personally attacked, but in this situation you absolutely were not attacked. Arguably, your own response here might have been a mild personal attack, but it was understandable in the context and no big deal.
Saying that certain things about an article are not good, in a situation where that is clearly true, is not the smallest bit unkind. It doesn't involve blaming anyone. If someone blames themselves after reading a blame-free statement, they are free to do that, but it isn't right (or even honest) for them to claim that the person who stated some facts was unkind.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"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]
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]
you are under the misapprehension that the articles in question are somehow yours (as in your comment about the Dutch version, that "we do not need the Dutch version"). These are encyclopedic articles maintained by the Wikipedia community and offered free to the world. While your opinions about the article are always welcome (there is a special place for that, called the "Talk page"—seeTalk:BTV Vier Länder Bank) you do not own the article and your needs with respect to the article content are irrelevant. Not trying to be harsh here, just accurate and realistic; see Wikipedia'sWP:Conflict of interest guideline. That said, your input on the Talk page about mistakes in the article, or new facts that you think are worth adding to the article, are very welcome.
An editor here has looked at the article and is of the opinion that the topic of your bank is notWP:Notable, and has proposed that it be deleted. You can see the big banner at the top of the page. Any editor can stop this process by removing the banner from the article. The next step may then well be that it will be "nominated for deletion", which is a formal process where editors gather together to discuss whether the topic isWP:Notable and therefore should be kept, or not notable, and should be deleted. If there is a nomination for deletion, you are welcome to participate in the discussion. (If you do, please disclose your connection in your first comment.) I hope this helps!Mathglot (talk)07:54, 15 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]
But im scared to mess something up, if i do i'll probably get banned from editing for another 2 years. I got banned for both vandalism(dont know how) and inappropriate content(agreed). And how do i find pages that i can edit?~2026-94681-5 (talk)07:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But do i really need 3 rock solid sources?? I don't know why fandoms don't count, for example the unstable wiki, the unstable fandom onfandom.com and on youtube, there's a lot of information on his channel. But fine, ill put this away, and start something else😮💨~2026-94681-5 (talk)08:15, 17 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]
Partly by my almost complete lack of experience with Wikipedia articles about YouTubers, and partly by neglecting the obvious fact that not all game-related publications are "just a blog" etc. Sorry to all here for giving out false information.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:12, 13 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]
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]
KeyolTranslater, you cannot generalize about the notability of schools. While most are not notable, many of them are, and Wikipedia has thousands of acceptable articles about schools. It is all about the quality and depth of coverage of the school in reliable, independent sources.SabrinaSwift, being "mentioned" is not enough. The coverage must be significant and in depth.Cullen328 (talk)10:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, @SabrinaSwift, at least two of those are not good sources. The first one is about an incident with a bus, not about the school; the second is paywalled but sounds like the information probably came from the school; the third is speculation about the school possibly acquiring the site, which is basicallyWP:TRIVIA.
While you edit, keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't care what the school wants everyone to know about it - we only care what independent, reliable sources have chosen to write of their own accord. At the moment a lot of the school's article ispromotional, trivia, androutine business activities, so it needs a good trim. I'd actually suggest you start by doing that, before trying to add anything new. Happy editing!Meadowlark (talk)05:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An article which was repeatedly created and got salted in the past.
There's nothing stopping you from creating the draft and submitting it for review, you'd just have to make sure it's avery strong draft because it clearly has a habit of being created in a low effort fashion by paid editors.Athanelar (talk)09:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Use the name that appears most in stories by English reporters. The other writer of a draft might have been trying to be sneaky by using a different name.
What sources do you already have for it? The #1 main thing you're going to need is three sources where every single one of them covers every detail ofWP:42 - three sources where every one of them is perfect. Without those, it's probably just going to get thrown out again, so you might as well start there.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
did a surface level search and found these[1][2] and this article[3] claims that he won Best Indian Act at MTV Europe Music Awards which i think is a notable award. There were more i didn't attach here...and looking at them, i think he should pass gng if the article is properly made. Some of the sources might already be there but failed to come out of the prose as commented by the last reviewer.Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡talk? ๋࣭⭑19:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Out of these three, the last is very short and the first is full of interview answers, automatically disqualifying both of those fromWP:42 consideration. (I can't see the second one without a subscription.) But so far, it's not even close.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)21:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was filling the wikipedia pages of some UK artists-- one hadn't been updated since 2015 and an editor reverted my update due to it being too "CV-like". I'm not very good at wikipedia and I wasn't sure how to contact this AntiDionysus fellow, so I wished to ask here if there existed templates one could use to just add information to an artist's page without it sounding like a promotional campaign.Thanks in advance!~2026-90791-1 (talk)14:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ah, forgot to mention said artist:Katerina Jebb.(btw, I think the edit log shows the edits being made by a different account because I made the initial edits from my laptop. I probably should make my own wikipedia account lol)~2026-90791-1 (talk)14:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that second one makes sense yes. I think I wrote the exact same thing as the Bob Dylan exemple: "xyz is a great [...]" rather than "this magazine called xyz a great [...]". I assume it'll pass once I change/remove all of these. Thanks!~2026-90791-1 (talk)15:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Italso depends on who said these things. If someone is called "great" on the cover of a major trusted publication, it means a lot. If I call someone "great" on my blog, I'm just some guy, so it barely means anything. So if any of these compliments come from lower-quality sources, it might be better to just cut them out.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Each article has an associated talk page where you can explain your edit when it is reverted (WP:BRD is good practice). In case you have a personal or professional relationship in relation to the subject of a biography,WP:COI may be useful.~2026-64883-8 (talk)19:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What philosophical basis does Wikipedia use to determine what is presents as true? What is the logic behind which information is recorded and how it is published? Is there a dogma that Wikipedia stands by or is it subject to the feelings of the author writing the article at any given time?~2026-98759-8 (talk)15:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your other questionWhat is the logic behind which information is recorded and how it is published? the criteria for a subject to receive an article isnotability, which is here defined as the subject having been written about in-depth in reliable sources; a requirement which is summarised bythe golden rule.
As the other link indicates, Wikipedia cares very little about what is or is not true; because we do not record 'true things,' we record what has been written about notable things.Athanelar (talk)19:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians do care about what is/isn't true; it is the basis for determining whether a source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In some cases we know what's true (2+2=4), and in other cases we don't.FactOrOpinion (talk)01:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes see that triggering 'edit filters' is a blockable offense in the wiki world. But I am unsure what that means and how one can do that. I would appreciate an explanation, thank you very much!signed,Kvinnen (talk)18:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many editors will accidentally trigger some and it may be harmless and without consequence, but it's also useful for patrollers, as it can point out unusual activity. The last time I've triggered one designed to block edits, was when I attempted to blank the talk page of a previous Temporary Account, from a new TA. The filter's code could not detect that both TAs were really the same person using the same IP address and in some cases users assigned a new TA may still have the talk page of their former one open. A common user error that worried nobody, but blocked and logged the edit.~2026-64883-8 (talk)20:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to what others have said, triggering edit filters on their own isn't a blockable offense. Being blocked for triggering filters depends on what filters you have triggered, for instance counter-disruption related filters. We have a fair amount of edit filters that just exist for logging, such as filters1339 and602.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I used have modern skin enabled within preferences, but after I changed to another skin within appearance I no longer have the option to select Modern. I cannot remember how I originally set it up. Can anyone offer advice?BletheringScot19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for a while now, but another editor has recently indicated that some of the list articles I've worked on (population lists for various animal taxa) are in violation ofWP:ONESOURCE because all population estimates come from the IUCN Red List. For an example of one of these lists, seeList of Pterocliformes by population or any of the child articles ofList of birds by population andList of mammals by population.
My understanding of the single source guideline has been that articles with a single citation are generally not good; in the case of these lists, almost all information comes from one organization (IUCN/BirdLife International), but are species-specific and normally have different authors for each species, especially in the case of mammals. What this looks like in the reflist is that every species has its own, species-specific citation, but most/all will be citations to its Red List profile.
I'm hoping to get some clarification on whether the citation structure of these lists violates the one source guideline, and if so, how the articles could be improved -- IUCN is the standard, normally, because they perform semi-regular updates and collate several different studies for the species; if one were to cite all the individual studies, it would likely end up beingoriginal research.
WP:SIGCOV is a guideline however. 'Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'11WB (talk)01:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I just don't think the articles would be improved by citing outdated guesses for single species from individual papers. IUCN is the standard. It would be like citing a paper from 1993 to report the population of Texas when information from the federal census exists.DuckWrangler97 (talk)21:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ndombrowski, your only edit to any article was tospeed square. It deleted useful content without explanation - that was clearly not constructive. It also added an ® symbol, which against Wikipedia policy, though that is easily forgiven.Maproom (talk)23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"; [e.g.,] use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile, avoid TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile andDo not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.Athanelar (talk)23:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am anew editor how do I edit things I tried to edit articles before but it's such a tedious task btw I am doing this on my shitty school chromebook. ~2026-92530-1 (talk)22:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to change the definition of a page from a stub to a start class article? I've been working on this article and i dont think its a stub anymore, is there a tool to check if i'm right? If the article is no longer a stub, and if so, how do i change the definitions inside the article?Thanks for being here 😊🐧🐧Happypenguins82 (talk)00:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypenguins82 Anyone can change the assessment of an article between Start to B class, though there areexpected standards for these. To do this,WP:RATER is the easiest way (it's a user script). Otherwise, you can manually go into the talk page in the source editor, find something that says |class=, and change "Stub" there to "Start".HurricaneZetaC00:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But I'm new, snd somebody who can examine the article and sources to see if they meet wiki standards would be cool. So how do I mark the article for an experienced editor to see if its cool or no?~2026-10026-82 (talk)04:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but note the guidance in the template documentation:"if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-10026-82 That particular article was created in 2006, when it lookedlike this. The standards for biographies in those days were low compared to today but I doubt that it was autobiographical even then. It has been edited by many other editors over the 20 years it has existed. I agree that it could still do with more citationsof the best type.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dommer simpson,this makes me wonder if you'd be of help to such groups (or even if you're at the right website). Anyway, these numerous groups (many of which are more or less moribund) typically explain how interested people may join. --Hoary (talk)06:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing You have a pattern - at least recently - of attacking the competence of people who have answered questions here, in situations where their answers have in fact been true, useful, and likely to lead to a good outcome, though those answers have been either not pedantically complete or not stated in your preferred terms. The situations (including this one) werevery clearly ones where you would have been right to add or correct something, or to rephrase to suit your preferences -but just as clearly situations where there was no justification for treating someone as if they were incompetent.
In each such case, you have had to very severely stretch the truth to make it appear as if the person's answer was utterly wrong, when in fact their answer was not wrong and was arguably sufficient under the circumstances - though of course they could have used some improvement, which you could have just provided instead of attacking the people who gave them.
I can't guess whether this has happened because you own the Teahouse, or for some other reason, but despite your protestations to the contrary, your behaviour in these little situations has been unacceptable. Please don't do that.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)00:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer to the OP was"the proper way to join most of them is to start doing whatever work they aim to do". Not only was that unhelpful to the enquirer, potentially leading to them missing out on the benefits of joining the projects which interest them, and was thus utterly unuseful, but it was 100% wrong, as my examples show.
Someone who happens to do the same work as that done by a project does not by any measure become a member of that project.
If you -or anyone- continue to post wrong answers, I will continue to point that out.
Change the header in col. 1 toACTRA{{br}}Award, and change all the data values in column 1 to piped links; for example, row 1 col. 1 becomes[[1st ACTRA Awards|1st]], and so on
Rivergnawdelete, the Vancouver table cells seem to already be at minimum width or close to it, so I would look elsewhere for savings. The widest table has three rows and ten columns. For that one, you might have one interesting possibility by inverting the table—that is, swapping rows and columns, so that you end up with three columns for the years and ten rows for the award categories. (A downside of this approach is that it might be a bit confusing for readers used to having the categories as columns.) Inverting a table is very cumbersome to do by hand, but there is auser script somewhere here I've used before that can manage it, so we should try to find that. Alternatively, you might try asking your faveLLM to invert the table for you; it might be able to manage it. As for the other tables that have 7 rows and 10 columns, you just have to try it out and see how it looks. And please don't use the article itself for your experiments; instead, copy the table code to your sandbox (or toSpecial:ExpandTemplates) and do your trials there, until it looks good, then copy back. Lmk how it goes!Mathglot (talk)07:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am asking the community's opinion on the article of a deity known asAfrica (goddess), she is mentioned as a berber deity and her origins are traced to north africa and was worshiped by berbers, she has a cult center in north africa and temples of worship there, after Rome took over north africa they adopted some north african deities, among them is Africa, despite this she had no temples in italy and has no cult centre in italy only still in North africa.
The disagreement in the article occured over classifying her, in my opinion she must be classified as a berber deity who was adopted in the roman pantheon.
Another user disagrees and thinks she must be classified as a Roman deity.
On Wikipedia, your opinion is never part of the answer, even if you're legitimately an expert. And the same goes for community opinion, which can be important in how Wikipedia is run, but has zero authority over ancient goddesses.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)06:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented atTalk: Africa (goddess). Of course, the opinions of Wikipedia editors are part of the answer, if those opinions are based on what high quality reliable sources say, and on Wikipedia's core content policies, and its guidelines.Cullen328 (talk)07:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,I noticed that the article “ബാഡ് ബണ്ണി” (Malayalam Article) has been tagged with {{SD|യാന്ത്രിക വിവർത്തനം}} (machine translation). I would like to understand whether the article should be improved and cleaned up instead of deleted.If possible, could someone guide me on what specific corrections are needed to meet the required standards? I am willing to improve the article accordingly.Thank you.Jaisonll799 (talk)12:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better off requesting advice on the Malayalam wiki, because anyone here who isn't fluent would have to rely on a translated version of the article and may not be able to fully grasp the issues. They should be mentioned in the AfD linked in the deletion template. However, given Bad Bunny's international prominence, I would imagine it should be improved rather than deleted - he certainly passesWP:NOTABILITY for en wiki, and I would guess that's true for most other languages.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)12:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help me flag the deadlink in ref #19 onBrahmapur, Odisha? I found the deadlink template, but the article source only contains the reference template which isn't editable, and the citation editor has no option to flag deadlinks or add markup.
My connection isn't cooperating at the moment to check for archives, but even if someone else is able to find one I'd like to know how to handle this in the future.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)12:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found the place where the reference is defined, and changedurl-status = live tourl-status = dead. Since there was already anarchive-url specified, it fails over to that.ColinFine (talk)13:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and weclcome. If you are just interested in reading Wikipedia, there's nothing special that you need to do- use the search bar to find topics you might be interested in reading. We cannot help you with advice on life in general or where you should go to school. If you're interested in learning more about Wikipedia, you may use thenew user tutorial.331dot (talk)13:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about this actually... I kind of want to make a category for the Nova Scotia asteroids but I'm not sure if it's really necessary. According to your article there's fifteen of them, I'm rather fond of516560 Annapolisroyal. You could throw it in the science and technology category until we find something better, no big deal.MediaKyle (talk)14:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @StNiVe and welcome to the Teahouse. The "cite" templates have a field, "display-authors" that lets you specify how many of the authors listed should be displayed. If there are 10 authors ans you use "display-authors=3), the "et al." will appear after 3 names.StarryGrandma (talk)16:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better form to include them all in the template call, rather than just a several-author subset, even if you only want to control the display to even fewer. For example, the first ref you have inDraft:SeqCode:
{{cite journal|last1= Hedlund|first1= B.P|last2= Chuvochina|first2= M.|date= 2022|title= SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data.|journal= Nature Microbiology|volume= 7|issue= 11|pages= 1702 - 1708|doi= 10.1038/s41564-022-01214-9| display-authors= 1}}
Hedlund, B.P; et al. (2022). "SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data".Nature Microbiology.7 (11):1702–1708.doi:10.1038/s41564-022-01214-9.
suggests that there are actually two authors, even though there 14 listed in the article itself. That could be confusing (at best) for using this ref as given in a context where house style is to list more than just the first two.DMacks (talk)17:50, 14 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.
I heard an editor started replacing the phrase "pregnant person" with "pregnant woman" in almost every instance, while repeatedly saying "standing for the truth" in edit summaries. They were then given a 31 hour block:Special:Contributions/Oifwejiofwje
Wikipedia should follow reliable sources and context, not personal beliefs. Use “pregnant woman” when sources refer specifically to women, “pregnant person” when sources use gender-neutral language (often in legal or policy contexts), and “pregnant man” only when referring to a transgender man and supported by reliable sources. Mass changing terms without consensus is disruptive discussion should come first.Seni öldürürüm, piç (talk)20:32, 14 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 recently had the chance (for the first time), to merge three articles about fantasy books that were a part of the same trilogy.
Is it expected that the editor who performs the merge will take “responsibility” for the content? Even in a copy paste situation?
and in the same context, I found myself editing the merged article in order to improve it, a challenging task on its own because it’s a book I haven’t read, and I’m relying on reviews I found online about the books.
One of the many questions that came up are: how do I provide a source that functions as a “proof” for the book’s plot? To understand this, I tried to look at a similar article as an example. And I discovered that even there, there wasn’t a single source provided to describe and “prove” what happens in the plot of the story.
Is this accidental? Or is it because there is no way to actually produce a source to prove a made up plot?Sorry if this comes out a bit confused, but I’m trying to learn and understand what to do in these situations and how to proceed. Thanks a million for being here for support 🙏 :)Happypenguins82 (talk)21:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no compulsion to perform any task on Wikipedia; but if you make such a merge without "tidying up" afterwards, someone may revert you.
New editor here. I noticed that theCrust (baking) as an article covers two separate things: the dry exterior of a loaf of bread as well as the shell in which a pie filling is placed. While these obviously have relationships to one another, they feel like disjoint (in the same way that a pizza crust is its own thing). In fact,Wiktionary lists them as distinct definitions.
Can I just...make a new page and split them up (with proper citations for new material of course)? I know aboutWP:BOLD, but I'm not sure yet of where the line is. I'd ask onthe article's talk page, but it's currently blank so I'm worried it may not be seen.
There's alsoPastry whichgenerally covers pie crust, but I feel like there's enough material to separate out pie crust into it's own article.
Eggboss2.0, what is required are references to published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the SCDOT, and that devote significant, in-depth coverage to the stretch of road that is slightly over two miles long. What is so notable about this short stretch of highway that it ought to have its own Wikipedia article? Your second paragraph is unreferenced and confusingly makes some point about stretches of roads in Texas, roughly 1200 miles away. It is difficult for me to understand why you think that this content belongs in an encyclopedia. Please clarify.Cullen328 (talk)05:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, magazines, newspapers, or reliable online sources, where "I-20 business" (or its business districtas a whole and going by that name) is a real topic - proving that it's become "a thing" (I'm sure you know what I mean by that).TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Starting RFC - Hoping to transclude previous discussion
Hi everyone. There's been a rather heated debate over atCulpeper, Virginia where there seems to be agreement that an RFC is needed to work out remaining disagreements, given that those disagreements have more to do with policies atUSCITIES andMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE than the specific topic under discussion. Though any additional commentary from users here is appreciated, I'd like some assistance with setting up an RFC. I'm aware of the basic idea, but would like guidance on whether transcluding the original discussion would be useful or superfluous, what steps need to be taken beyond the basic instructions outlined at theRFC page, and whether the discussion is best served happening at the talk page listed above, or at the relevant locations noted below it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and hope that everyone has enjoyed theirValentine's Day.All the best,CSGinger14 (talk)00:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back; in your shoes, I would not start an Rfc at all. There are numerous editors who are opposed to your central wish, and Rfcs are very expensive in terms of user time. I think it would be a bad idea to start one now. This comment of yours seems to sum it up:
The only reason I'm continuing this for as long as I am is because all of you refuse to actually respond to the points that I'm making.
Hi @Mathglot, I appreciate your responding, but the fact that that statement sits about a third of the way through a massive discussion means you shouldn't be using it tosum it up. It feels cherry-picked and non-representative of the actual summation of the discussion. Though I acknowledge it was a fairly aggressive statement, it resulted from the fact that no one was actually responding to the points I'd made, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it was an instance of the editors (among many others) who were in direct opposition to my position doing exactly the thing that they were accusing me of. The statement is being taken out of context to suggest that it was representative of more of the debate than it actually was.
'
Had you analyzed the entirety of the discussion, you'd see that both I and the editor who were originally in disagreement both agreed that there was need for an RFC. There's been compromise on a number of the points under consideration, but others appear to be sticking points (that aren't nearly as clear cut or wholly against my point of view as you seem to be suggesting (i.e editors have brought in opposition to the position negating my own which differs meaningfully from mine, but which nonetheless refutes the position they're taking).
'
If you disagree with this, you're welcome to present your view based on the broader context of the discussion, but it's not nearly as simple as me against the world, as you seem to be insinuating.
I'm not Mathglot, but I just read the entire discussion. That discussionis, in essence, simply you against the world, and I agree with Mathglot that the quoted comment pretty much sums it up.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)02:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Poland - Parliamentary or Semi-Presidential Republic
I would like some input from other people. currently most articles about Poland state that it's a semi-presidential republic, however that is simply not what most sources say. Whoever added the original claim overcited it (in some cases references contradicted them) and while it occasionally someone questioned it, the discussion never gained much traction to my knowledge. I believe most sources you can find clearly state Poland is a parliamentary republic (which is also consistent with what the constitution itself says) I made a section on the talk page going in more detail:Talk:Poland#Poland_-_system_of_government.
It appears to me that the designation "semi-presidential republic" might only be cited to some relatively recent publications in the theoretical study of political science, which - just to me as a non-expert in politics - does seem like an unusual move that might be hard for them to justify. I haven't heard of other cases where that was done, but I know very little about any of it.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)04:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wojtekpolska1013, please refer to the section of theNeutral point of view policy found at the shortcutWP:DUE, which saysNeutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. If you are correct that most reliable sources describe Poland as a "parliamentary republic" and only a few reliable sources use the "semi-presidential republic" formulation, then that is how the relevant Wikipedia articles ought to present the matter. The first description should dominate and be given the most emphasis and detail, and the second description should be noted briefly as a minority view.Cullen328 (talk)06:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot. This has been very helpful and gave me a confidence to make the change. (as it indeed is pretty hard to find sources calling it "semi-presidential republic") --wojtekpolska1013[talk page]16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I´m asking how to add additional information to ANDANADA WIKIPEDIA page for more accurate infomation about the history, as one of the former owners of this business. I´ve trying to edit the page but accused of vandalism by wikipedia. I´ve been the owner of this restaurant (named before Gastroarte) from 2010 until 2017 and now wikipedia accuse me of vandalism!. I can provide and you could verify our ownership by sending you our legally establised US company GRAFFIT USA LLC with the list of owners of Andanada, including myself of course. Thanks for any hint to go over this situation.Lopezjosei (talk)01:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to answer how but I need to know:
Which page, as you created your account 20 minutes ago and your onlycontribution is to theTeahouse.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not a contributor of wikipedia, but I've created the account few minutes ago to let wikipedia who I am. The page I'm refering to is ANDANADA. I don´t wnat to delete anything. Just want to add the three owners of that restaurant that are not mentioned in WIkipedia. Just that. If I have to prove our ownerships the years that are mentioned in the wikipedia article I can provide the legal status thorugh these years. Thanks in advance for your answer.Lopezjosei (talk)02:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anywhere where you have been accused on vandalism; but I can see some edits (made by someone who was not signed in) which were reverted for not beingsourced and for being malformed ("Jose PEDRO GOmezzzz", really?). We requirereliable sources, especially for statements about living people.
Where to find sources for old video games that likely have had many sources decay?
I'm working on a draft for a list of Wii U games that had network connectivity. I'm unsure how to properly find sources though, as I assume that most would be gone due to time (especially sources that were directly from Nintendo). What would my options be?
HiKamiraMV, have you considered old newspaper or magazine articles or reviews? I remember Nintendo had their own magazine for a while (or longer?), maybe you can find release information or otherwise there? If you can find the old issues somewhere... Where did you come up with the list that is there now? -Adolphus79 (talk)03:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly went off the box art for games with the Nintendo Network logo in the top right corner. I did also use a list of games with NEX servers (backend for Nintendo Network), though I definitely can't use that as a source.KamiraMV (talk)05:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@KamiraMV I also question whether that article should exist to begin with. Please be aware ofWP:NLIST; for a list article to exist, you need to demonstrate that secondary sources have discussed that list as a concept in itself, and not merely discussed the individual items of the list separately."One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". We can't merely create lists based on categories that take our fancy, that'sWP:CROSSCAT.
I was waiting to see if the articlecould be sourced first before discussing notability, would've been moot if there was no way to source it. lol -Adolphus79 (talk)13:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one should have sources before they even start writing the draft. Finding sources that establish the topic is notable is step 1 of writing an article.Athanelar (talk)13:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I usually publish drafts for released films that have reviews, but I am new to drafts of films yet to be released. I am aware of there are specific guidelines atWP:NFF but I am not sure if I should be publishing unreleased film drafts or going toWP:AFC. For example, I published an upcoming filmAttack of the Killer Tomatoes: Organic Intelligence without controversy 8 months ago, butDraft:Street Smart (upcoming film) keeps getting declined. I think they both have enough proper sourcing to be ready for mainspace, but I am not sure AFC reviewers considerWP:NFF. I would like to hear more thoughts on this as I am confused if I should even bother submitting upcoming film drafts or if I should just continuebeing bold and publishing to mainspace when I think a draft is ready. –Filmforme (talk)06:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. It seems that your article does satisfy NFF, particularly the clause on that upcoming films should've started principal photography (which has started since last year already). I agree onUser:Nighfidelity regarding their reason of decline, though. The film needs more significant coverage, particularly perWP:NFO, which would happen once the film is released. Cheers ! ---n✓h✓8(he/him)12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NFF was edited about a month ago to remove "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" but I'm not seeing where that was agreed to, so I restored it pending finding out.331dot (talk)12:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have done a horrible mistake. As a nuance to a nuance (without revealing the page in question), I have added a reputable source published by an academic at Cambridge. Weirdly, this academic was putting forward their German roots. I didn't see the rest coming. The problem: once I looked up the name on google, I found a twitter account with a map of imperial Germany. Next, I looked at some of the tweets, and they were sexist (openly, talking about how "the man" must take control over "the woman"), calling Nazism and fascism leftist ideogies, criticising COVID-19 measures as communist and "globalist", claiming that Poland was massacring Germans, and was at fault for the German invasion, and genuinely asking an AfD-politician why Jews were German and not Muslims (this was not a rhetorical question, but a way of "understanding logic" as the person vaguely put it). The article concerns an indigenous people often essentialised as ecologically conscious "tribes", and this people themselves use this as a way to gain money and buy land through NGOs (this has been described by various anthropologists). Anthropologists usually criticise this for being essentialist and removing this people from History and political agency. The academic with the questionable tweets (a natural anthropologist, if I remember right) was trying to put more value to indigenous claims on ecology. So far so good. But the field sadly has a history with objectifying and "Othering", and the founding father of the research on this indigenous people was a guard at Dachau and member of the SS, who lied about his past and was expulsed from the SS only because of a nervous break. This founding father is still very respected as an academic (but his now known past is important), but his theories are outdated by now, and are either considered a remnant of his SS-past (by finding "purity" in indigenous populations) or a result of the conservative logic of the country in question at the time of his living. I won't go into details (names, etc.). Now, back to our living natural anthropologist, I don't know what to do with him… There is no academic source calling him out to my knowledge (but there are sources contradicting his research, which doesn't mean much honestly, considering I added him as a nuance for said sources). He is part of the ontological turn trying to emphasise the validity of indigenous worldviews, and is close to the makers of popular documentaries on this people (which use the same rhetoric of "saviours of the world" that supposedly have come from their holes to "help us in the modern world"). I can't just remove a reliable source on the basis of tweets, can I? It's a small page, and the guy is directly mentioned now, among all the people that could have been mentioned. His paper is obviously pretty solid too…~2026-10204-61 (talk)07:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a wall of text, with few clues at to what article it's about (though some Teahouse hosts do appear to have psychic powers). You'll be more likely to get help here if you post a much shorter much clearer request.Maproom (talk)08:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
I don't want to call someone with a name out on something publicly accessible to anyone through Twitter but very niche and therefore unknown to most people. Naming the article would be the equivalent of giving a full name. Maybe I'll just remove the mention with some excuse, but that might get reverted. Or not. I'll see for myself if no one is able to provide any advice here. Still, thanks for taking the time to read the text, it should have been more concise. Regards,~2026-10200-43 (talk)09:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, TLDR, you added a source (possibly a sentence or two) and now have second thoughts about it. You can could try to remove/revert it yourself, and use "some excuse" as you say. This will work better if you can identify which specific edits you're reverting (using 'Undo' or some other edit summary) along with the some excuse. Even better would be to identify the edits as your own (editors can usually judge if that's likely, and would be perfectly normal). Making other useful edits, there or elsewhere, around the same time, will probably help. If that fails, and possibly/preferably as a precaution, you could write something on the talk page, even if it's just 'some excuse'. If it still fails you can talk to either the person doing the reverting, or identify established users who may be able able to help. SeeWP:BRD, WikiProject links on the talk page, page histories, and any related pages. --zzuuzz(talk)09:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Shitty people, even outright evil people, can still provide us with useful information about certain topics. A Wikipedia article using a person as a source is not an indication that Wikipedia or its editors agree ideologically with that person on all matters; it is merely an indication that we consider them a reliable source on that specific piece of information pertaining to that specific topic. I'm sure some moron will take it as example of Wikipedia's editorial bias in one direction or another, but that's an endless source of debate anyway; there's no reason to remove the reference unless you believe this person's awful ideological positions make them an unreliable source for the information you're citing from them.
Thanks very much for providing various possibilities. The researcher might be using this people as a way to describe a 'natural hierarchy', but this is purely speculative and based on correlating the tweets and the paper (though it is pretty transparent once you look at everything). I cited the author in a context where he claims that we shouldn't move to the "extreme" of dismissing the esoteric ecological knowledge of this people completely as "actual possibilities", and that the beliefs of this people supposedly aren't compatible with the post-modern Anthropology dominating since the 1990s. If this putting forward of the knowledge of this people (contradicting most modern anthropologists' analyses, but not unheard of) might be linked to this person's beliefs is the central question. At the end, I just stumbled upon the imperial Germany map and searched his twitter, and the author wrote his PhD in social anthropology but works as an ecological anthropologist today, so not focused on this people for long. It is a fairly interesting point of view, and a technically reliable source.~2026-10118-19 (talk)11:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to remove the referenceunless you believe this person's awful ideological positions make them an unreliable source for the information is the issue at hand. Per your initial comment,there are sources contradicting his research. Is this legitimate academic disagreement with reputable support on both sides, or professional consensus calling him out as a quack (regardless of whether they mention his other personal leanings)? If he's the only one making these claims and anyone reputable in the field thinks he's full of it, they should probably be removed - or at minimum include a qualifying statement to show that his position is an outlier. If there are others who are in agreement and would also support the claim, his "extracurriculars" aren't relevant.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)10:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With very rare exception (like declaring paid editor status) there is nothing that you must do as a Wikipedia editor.
If you find a problem with an article, you can ignore it; or tag it; or attempt to fix it. No blame attaches to any of these options.
Fixing a problem often involves a lot of work, so many people tag problems and leave them ("Drive-by tagging" - I do so myself). That at least gives readers notice that there may be a problem.ColinFine (talk)12:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. If there is aprimary topic for a title, then the article on that topic will have the simply name, and there will be a separate disambiguation page for all the meanings of the title (including that primary one).
If there is not a primary topic, then the title will be given to a disambiguation page. This doesn't need the "(disambiguation)" qualifier, as we only use qualifiers when necessary for clarity or disambiguation. SeweWP:DAB for more details.
2. I don't think that article isciting Wikipedia (which would not be acceptable). It has some citations to offline sources (which is perfectly acceptable), whose author or journal names link to the corresponding Wikipedia articles.ColinFine (talk)13:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, Wikipedia is not reliable and should not be cited.
Hello to everybody!I feel I am an emigrant….Until last fall I had an uneasy contribution to Wikipedia Italian pages. It took me weeks before undertstanding the layout and where and how to write. After several (written) arguments with other contributors and - mainly - tutors I was firstly blocked for 7 days and later for one full month. Then I have been banned indefinitely.I am wandering if I may just contribute to the English pages as a lot of written contribution and many images are still in my hands.~2026-10241-83 (talk)13:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been on Wiki for a while and readWikipedia:Dispute resolution, but recently I've gotten myself involved in a few disputes that I'm not sure how to handle, most recently onEverybody Scream Tour, all regarding additions of content not supported by any type of source, or user-generated sources. The policy page seems to address only cases where there is room for interpretation, not clear violations of core guidelines likeWikipedia:Reliable sources. Should this be considered vandalism then? I'd like to get Everybody Scream Tour to GA status, but it won't be possible with unsourced content in the article.Poirot09 (talk)15:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in a previous dispute I've been warned for violatingWP:3RR because I reverted additions of unsourced content to one article, saying I should pursue dispute resolution. In this case, I would also violate 3RR if I went ahead and removed the content. Would it be okay?Poirot09 (talk)15:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be against the guideline at WP:3RR that says"Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."? Also, I've been in situations when editors keep on adding the content for days on end despite warnings and discussions, so it would not exactly be a definitive solution. I'd like to find a permanent resolution that is compliant with Wiki policies.Poirot09 (talk)16:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that part of the rule. As for a permanent resolution, I'm not sure what to do in that regard. Consider asking other users for assistance.ArthurPlummer (talk |:)16:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the issue through edit summaries and warned the editor on their talk page, following the usual procedure when performing multiple reverts. However, after they violated 3RR, I wasn't sure how to proceed since Dispute resolution deals with content disputes with room for interpretation and does not mention clear violations ofWikipedia:Reliable sources. Now that I've readWikipedia:Disruptive editing, I'll try to engage again in a discussion with the editor and, if that doesn't work, I'll follow the procedure listed there.Poirot09 (talk)17:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor is persistently breaking policies and guidelines after being warned, it is no longer a content dispute but a conduct dispute, and an escalation to admin attention might be necessary.
Namely, in the case of inserting unsourced content, theWP:ONUS is on them to seek consensus to include the content if it is disputed (and the fact you reverted it once means it's disputed by default.) If they're continuing to reinsert that content even after you've warned them and reverted them multiple times, the appropriate course of action would be to report them for edit warring atWP:ANEW.Athanelar (talk)19:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create an article for the EP as my first article on Wikipedia. I've gotten good practice from this and other wikis, and it would be a good contribution toWP:EDM. I will be followingH:YFA. I've managed to collect 5 notable links about the article, but I don't believe the EP received any critical reviews. What should I do?Octostomp (talk)15:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "notable links", that's not a term used on Wikipedia so it's hard to know what you mean.
To write an article about an EP, or about pretty much anything, first you need to find whereWikipedia:Reliable sources have basically already written the article for you. On Wikipedia, the only thing we get to write is to repeat what those sources already said - so if they didn't have anything to say, we have nothing to write.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you took only the top three of those sources, and just cut & pasted them into one window without adding a word, would that be good enough to stand as your complete article?TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)21:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the infobox and credits that can be adapted from streaming services, I think it would cover a good span of information about the EP. I am open to other opinions, however.Octostomp (talk)21:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at these, and was quite surprised to find that almost all of them say barely anything except personnel lists and track names. The only exception is the one about the cover art - it looks from here like that cover photo has turned out quite a bit more notable than the EP. Unless there are some big sources you just haven't found yet ...TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)23:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In theSeptember article, there’s a section that shows “Big Event that Happened in September”.
Compared to all the other months, it normally has Observances and Symbols. If someone could check that section and how it should most likely be deleted, that would be great. I’m not on computer so phone editing is very weird. Thanks -RoyalSilver16:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO that should be a separate "List of events that occurred during September" - if it merits inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Possibly the content in the preceding Events subsection also, as none of the other months appear to include anything other than recognized observations. More likely it just needs to be summarily deleted. Trying to list everything significant within 1/12th of recorded history is a rather daunting proposition.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)09:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are no links pointing to it, but the term isused in a few articles. Obviously we don't link within reference-titles, but for example inState socialism, there is:
These forms of socialism are opposed to hierarchical [[Technocracy|technocratic socialism]],
Hello. I'm currently writing an article on aHonduran food. I want to ensure that it's notable and the sources I have chosen are reliable. If they aren't, please give me examples on what would be a reliable source, since so far all I've really got are recipes. Thanks!Everestnc (talk)18:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not notable enough for an article then. It's possible for something to be popular without having enough cultural significance to justify an encyclopedic entry. In general, look for sources with in depthdiscussion of the subject rather than just a description/instructions. SeeWP:NOTGUIDE.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)09:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing a draft article for the American contemporary artist Dana Montlack. I have a disclosed COI which is declared on my user page, so I want to be extra careful about adhering to neutrality and notability policies.
I have focused on meeting WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST by prioritizing independent secondary sources such as The San Diego Union-Tribune, ArtsATL, and museum exhibition catalogs to establish notability.
I have also worked to ensure the tone remains encyclopedic and objective.
Could an experienced editor please take a quick look at my Sandbox draft and let me know if there are any obvious issues before I submit it to Articles for Creation?
This is expecially hard for editors with a COI, as they need to ignore essentially everything they know about the subject and (especially) everything the subject has told them about themselves.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)20:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(born Sereen Badiei, 1973) is an Iranian-New Zealander social media personality who gained notoriety for his controversial online presence and self-proclaimed royal titles. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Iran following his arrest in early 2024.
Key Background and ArrestOnline Identity: Known as "Shahzadeh Sereen" (Prince Sereen), he claimed to be a descendant of ancient Persian royalty and a "head immortal" of Zoroastrian blood. He frequently posted videos critical of the Iranian government and religious establishment.Return to Iran: Despite his vocal opposition to the regime, he returned to Iran in March 2024. Shortly after posting videos of himself in the streets of Karaj, he was arrested by security forces on 25 March 2024.Sentencing: In August 2024, he was sentenced to over 9 years (109 months) in prison on multiple charges, including:Provoking impurity and indecency (66 months).Insulting religious sanctities (36 months).Propaganda against the regime (7 months).Current Status: He is detained in the Central Prison of Karaj.Daruishsabri (talk)20:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether there has been enough coverage of the subject from multiple English language sources to justify inclusion on the English Wiki. I don't speak Persian, but will accept for the sake of argument that he's notable in places that speak Persian and amongst people who understand it, but whether he's notable to English speaking places and people is a different question. That's why we have different content on Wikis in different languages, instead of just translating all of the same articles. Does that make sense?
There are other places on here where you can request that an article be written or to have things translated, but asking doesn't mean it will happen, and if the subject doesn't meet requirements for notability in English it's not likely to be approved.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)09:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rhlewis, you were the creator of this article in 2006, and the principal developer of the system was Robert H. Lewis of Fordham U. Are you he? If so, this raises additional concerns about Wikipedia'sWP:Conflict of interest guideline, which will have to be dealt with as well. For the moment, involved or not as the developer, you can search for and provide additional sources as requested. If you don't know what to do with your sources once you find them, as a first cut, add a newFurther reading section to the article above the External links section, and add your sources there for the time being.Mathglot (talk)23:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On February 6, 2026, I was sent to the pageVelidhoo (Noonu Atoll) by[11]. I found a sentence about when Velidhoo was initially populated and by whom, that failed verification.
I first deleted the reference, and then replaced the sentence with a different, less specific sentence, along with a citation to a reliable source. I found some more specific information (closer to the sentence I replaced) in a PhD thesis. However, I wasn't sure the PhD thesis would be a reliable source in itself. The passage in the PhD thesis cites a couple of books, to which I don't have access, that might be reliable sources.
I wasn't sure what to do, so I asked a question on the Talk page with all the details. I haven't gotten a response yet (though the page is being actively edited in the meantime). @Mathglot suggested that I ask here.
I also don't know whether anything else is to be done regarding the failed verification (besides fixing it). Here is a bit of the history of the sentence, with my last version at the bottom:
November 5, 2005 The Administrator of[12] wrote on itsHistory page, "The historians date early settlers back to 5 th century BC with the Aryan immigrants coming from neighboring countries India and Srilanka."[13]
January 7, 2007211.24.241.2 added the sentence toVelidhoo (Noonu Atoll): "The historians date early settlers back to 5 th century BC with the Aryan immigrants coming from neighboring countries India and Srilanka."[14]
December 21, 2020209.212.207.232 changed the sentence to "Historians date the earliest settlements to the 3rd century BC with Arabian immigrants coming fromOman andsaudia rabia."[15]
May 20, 2022 @Jung-En-Wang changed the sentence to "It is believed that indians immigrants were living in the island in the 5th century"[16]
August 5, 2025 @Dhoru 21 added "Citation Needed": "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Indian travelers believed to be among the earliest inhabitants.[citation needed]"[17]
September 18, 2025 @Ayamhoitin added the citation that failed verification: "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Indian travelers believed to be among the earliest inhabitants.[1]"[18]
October 11, 2025 Leaving the citation untouched, @Wittyfox23 changed the sentence to: "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Aryan immigrants believed have arrived from neighboring regions such as India and Sri Lanka.[2]"
February 6, 2026 I deleted the old citation and changed the sentence to: "Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, which have been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka.[3]"
Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. It seems like references [1] and [2] are just a full export of the entirety of Spanish Wikipedia, which isnot a reliable source to begin with.
As for the article you referenced, when it's peer-reviewed and comes from a reputable journal already (the American Journal of Physical Anthropology), you don't really need to worry that its citations are closed-access, which are those that require some sort of fee or library card to obtain. ---n✓h✓8(he/him)04:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, whichhave been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka.Have does not take a 3rd-person singular subject. This rules out "Velidhoo"; the sentence is therefore about the history of the population of "the Maldives" (plural).
Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, whichhas been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka.Has does not take a subject that isn't both 3rd-person and singular. This rules out "the Maldives"; the sentence is therefore about the history of the population of "Velidhoo" (singular).
Yes, I meant that the group of islands in the Maldives have been populated since the 1st century. The source I cited only discusses the group in general, not the individual islands.
I had not been able to find any reliable source discussing how the individual island, Velidhoo, was populated.
I had mentioned at the end of my question on the Talk page, that for this reason, perhaps a sentence on this topic does not belong in the Velidhoo article at all.Aurodea108 (talk)01:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not go withVelidhoo is an island in the Maldives, an archipelago that has been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka. if you want to preserve the context of the Maldives? Or a chain of islands instead of an archipelago? Seems there are other possibilities to deal with the ambiguity.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)03:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're not discussing the populating of either Velidhoo at the one extreme or that of the Maldives archipelago at the other; you are instead discussing the populating of an intermediate level: Noonu Atoll (because this is the closest you can get to discussing that of Velidhoo, for which the numbers aren't available). If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to correct me. --Hoary (talk)06:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, when following the Suggested Edits on my userpage, I open up an article, and the Quick Tips box scrolls very quickly from tip to tip. I would argue it would be a tad more user friendly if even 1 second was added to the timer. I know it's possible to manually go back to a previous tip but not every new user might be able to figure it out. I don't know if Wikipedia has a technical team who handles this; is there a place where I can make this suggestion? As always, thank you very much, I've found the Teahouse amazingly helpful.Itsaclarinet (talk)02:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When it was reviewed, they gave you advice, including links to pages telling the details of what is needed. Has their advice been difficult for you to use? I can try to show you how to use it.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)06:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mehak manwani ka filmography in wiki shows bhooth bangla but going into bhooth bangla page Mehak is not there. Either you put her in the bhooth bangla cast or you don't put movie name on mehak's filmography. Put her
It is some collected works of Allen Turing, with notes and background information by B. Jack Copeland, who is listed as the editor. However, the thing I want to cite is part of the notes, not the original essays. Should I list the author as Copeland or Turing? Or else how to do that?/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk)07:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page saysAlan M. Turing. It says the book was published in 2004, though Turing dying 1954; the editor is allegedlyJack Copeland.
If Turing didn't write what's being cited then attributing it to him would be a misrepresentation. I'm curious what's being used that merits article inclusion, since editor notes are usually just brief explanations of the material's original sourcing in posthumous collections.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)09:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it's actually pretty extensive in this one, and he writes about the historical context of the esssays as well as how specific essays influenced computer science later, which can't be sourced to the essays themselves. I'll put them both down as the authors, and cite specific page numbers//chapters for clarity. thanks!/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk)10:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably the best option, unless someone else has dealt with this specific situation before. I'm sure it's come upsomewhere on Wikipedia, but whether that editor will see this question is quite a different story. You can also add a footnote to help clarify.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)10:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See the part about individually authored chapters. That's notquite what you're dealing with here, but it's the closest example I see - editors don't usually include sections of their own writing, so he's acting as a secondary author in a sense.ChompyTheGogoat (talk)09:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was adding some details on Rajesh Khanna ...Rajesh Khanna. I think I made some error and things have gone awry. My apologies. Kindly help me to restore the wiki back.
Hello! I'm editing theKarin Musier-Forsyth page and I was wondering what the "Representative Publications" section means. Musier-Forsyth has published quite a few research papers since this section was last updated. Should more papers be added into this list? What qualifies a research paper to be put there?TheStrovik (talk)09:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TheStrovik, that is an atypical name for a list of works (seeMOS:BIB for better ones) although there is some latitude in section heading choice. As far as what to include, that is trickier. Wikipedia is anonline encyclopedia, not anindiscriminate collection of information, so it should probably include important works, or works that a reader of an encyclopedic article about her would want to be informed about. I don't know that there is a single, easy answer to your question, but I am interested to see what other editors here may have to say about it.Mathglot (talk)12:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's one small easy part that's sort of obvious anyway, which is to make sure that every paper that's individually discussed in the body of the article has made it onto the list. Beyond that, I don't know.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)15:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few small tweaks in the past to theA.E. Coppard entry, but I note that the main illustration could be improved - it's of Coppard's wife and children. Surely it should be of Coppard himself? There seem to be pix of him readily available online - e.g. athttps://covers.openlibrary.org/a/id/7430771-L.jpg I've never, so far, replaced one image with another on Wikipedia: how do I go about it? And are there any copyright problems?Jrsd (talk)11:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since Coppard died some time ago, you will be able to upload one copyright image underfair use criteria.
Download the image to your device, then upload it to Wikipedia, following the guidance on that page,
Done Moved to transliteration you provided. You can do this yourself in the future by clicking on Page > Move. ---n✓h✓8(he/him)14:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's your user page, as long as you're continuing to follow all the rules for what's acceptable on user pages you can translate it to whatever language you want. If there's a Wikipedia tool requiring extended confirmed to use it, you may use some other tool away from Wikipedia to help you translate instead. (This advice only counts for your user page, not for articles.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)19:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those things would certainly make sense. But is it a requirement, to keep one's normal user page English only? I haven't seen such a requirement, but "things I haven't seen" is a big category. :)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)19:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like subpages are disabled in namespace articles, i meant more the button which allows you to change the language of the current page. I suppose making a Spanish wikipedia page will suffice then, thank you!Aprocryphan (talk)19:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, @TooManyFingers. A user page is optional, and if you choose to have user pages on several Wikipedias, you can translate then, or create them entirely independently of each other if you wish.
There has been minor friction between myself and another editor regarding presentation format within article lede formats of a particular nature/topic in recent weeks (and certainly insofar with regards to "consistency" in their collective presentation format). Let me first state both my own and the other editor's intentions are for the best and this is NOT in any way a criticism of the other user. However, as far as edit summarieshere, for example show, apparently theBloody_Sunday_(1972) article is a "proper name" for the article, and as such, can and should have both the title and the "also known as" reference in bold text in the lede, but the likes of theM62 coach bombing cannot have the title (or "also known as the 'M62 massacre'" despite Google searches) in the introductory sentence as it, by comparison, is apparently "not" a proper name for the event and is "tautology" by usage?
Although I can understand the logic behind the user's rationale, I fail to see the consistency in said logic. (A previous edit summary on the M62 coach bombing article read "These are not proper names. Various sources call it various things.") Surely both these examples alone should have a consistent introductory format? If I am missing something here, I want to know what it is. ThanksKieronoldham (talk)18:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kieronoldham, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Consistency between different articles is obviously desirable; however it is not an overriding policy (I'm not sure if it is even stated as a policy) and there is nobody who is "in charge" of maintaining consistency.
It is a common courtesy to ping the editor you are discussing. The community consensus is that boldface should not be prioritized over decent wording. Saying that the M62 coach bombing was a coach bombing on M62 is not decent wording. You have already been directed toMOS:REDUNDANCY andMOS:AVOIDBOLD.Surtsicna (talk)19:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given your recent edit selectivity upon articles in the last 24 hours or so, I thought you were following me anyhow (not wp:hounding, btw). Regardless, I was trying (given my benign and sincere descriptions of you and your edit summaries here) to see if there "was" a flaw in my mindset given your summaries as I (as already stated above) "respect them" but was trying to see if I needed to be "shot myself down" (if you'd like to use that summary) as I just "can't" fully congeal with your logic, consistency-wise. I gave and give you here again your "respect" - I just wanted to prevent a 3RR situation being avoided. If anything you should admire my mindset as I ADMIRE YOUR intentions and your mindset, @User:Surtsicna. There is nothing surreptitious.--Kieronoldham (talk)19:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Kieronoldham, and sorry for overreacting. You are indeed being sincere and respectful, and I appreciate that a lot. The thing is, we should not be striving for consistency between significantly different situations. I think a good litmus test for the inclusion of the article title in the lead sentence is to ask yourself whether the title defines the subject. Can an unfamiliar reader tell what "Bloody Sunday" is just from the name "Bloody Sunday"? Hardly. Can they tell from "M62 coach bombing"? Yes, they can tell it was a bombing of a coach on M62. That is the gist ofMOS:REDUNDANCY.Surtsicna (talk)20:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)20:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate some guidance.
I've created a draft article aboutLockIn, a Swiss student mini-enterprise from theYES Company Programme. The company was founded by six students atStiftsschule Einsiedeln and has received coverage from regional media includingTele 1 (Central Swiss TV), theEinsiedler Anzeiger,Höfner Volksblatt, andMarch Anzeiger.
Full disclosure: I am a co-founder of LockIn and have disclosed this on mytalk page perWP:COI. I've done my best to write the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone without any promotional language, but I completely understand if improvements are needed — that's exactly why I'm here!
I'd be very grateful if an experienced editor could take a look at the draft and let me know:
User8840 You can press the "Submit the draft for review!" button on the draft to submit the draft for review. All of your questions will be answered in the draft review process.
Hi! Thank you so much for taking the time and reading through the article. I made some improvements, and submitted it. Is it better now? Kind Regards, MatthewUser8840 (talk)22:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where have people wholly unconnected with you or your company chosen to write about your companyfrom their own independent research, not by interviewing you and your colleagues? That is theonly kind of source that you should be using.
Essentially nothing that you and your colleagues say or want to sy about the project belongs in the article. It is very likely to beWP:TOOSOON.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without a COI.ColinFine (talk)20:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you so much for taking your time to reply. I fixed everything, and submitted it. I have been reading through all of the wikipedia rules, and my friend showed and helped me when writing it. He has made several articles already. Are the improvements good?
I think the improvements are real, but I agree with Sungodtemple that this draft is unlikely to be accepted because the topic doesn't appear to be notable. The references don't show that reporters "from outside" (outside the company, outside the school, outside their influence) became interested enough to write about it. If you can find stories by independent publishers, please add them - it might help.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)23:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
is that not tele 1? one of the biggest Swiss news channels? Am I not understanding this correctly, sorry if my question is stupid. Kind Regards.User8840 (talk)23:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is fine! The tele 1 video is showing that a student project happened, and interviewing the students about this one-time event. But no independent publishers are talking about LockIn itself, the product that is supposed to be the topic of the article. Every product has a launch party, every product has interviews - even the ones that don't succeed.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)23:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my new submission was rejected for references criteria, and I'm looking for some expert help. :)
I checked the sources and the criteria, and while the initial draftseems to meet these, I went ahead and located some additional reliable, external, independent sources. That should put us at what I believe is 10+ of this nature:
Bloomberg (international business press)
Globe and Mail (3 articles from Canada's newspaper of record)
TechCrunch (3 tech journalism articles)
BetaKit, Forrester, Deloitte, UWaterloo (1/ea)
Before I edit and resubmit, do you think:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the reference criteria, or
I should be good to resubmit after updating with the sources listed above?
Submission declined on 19 December 2025 by Bonadea (talk).
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)reliablesecondarystrictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Ukichiko if you believe the draft meets the standards fornotability you can always resubmit it.
I looked through the references in the draft, and there are no articles from Globe and Mail. However, there are a lot of press releases and othernon-independent sources, which, as you wrote yourself, is a requirement to meetWP:GNG.
@Sungodtemple, Thanks for taking the time to look at the draft and to reply. I'm not sure why the ai comment, I'm not using Ai to post here. I imagine that happens a lot though, and you're probably sick of it.
To clarify, the additional sources I referenced have been located but not added to the draft yet. (I wanted to ask for feedback on the sources first so I could address any issues before resubmitting, rather than creating multiple edit/review cycles and more work.) It sounds like it would be helpful for me to put those in the draft now. Is that right?Ukichiko (talk)00:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please read throughWP:NCORP, particularly the section onroutine corporate coverage. Every single business of any substance inevitably produces a trail of press release-based churnalism reporting on day-to-day activities like their product releases, acquisitions & mergers, funding drives etc. To establish notability, we need not just quantity of sources but quality of coverage, and this type of corporate trivia does nothing to tell us why we should consider this company more notable than any other.Athanelar (talk)21:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with the articleFegge. It cites two sources, the first one doesn't appear to exist, the second source doesn't reflect the content of the article's geography section. The history section is also completely unsourced. I can't find any reliable sources about the town, but I'm not sure if I should take it to AfD because ofWP:GEOLAND.Cicada1010 (talk)20:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cicada1010 if there are no available reliable sources to support the existence of the town then it wouldn't meetWP:GEOLAND. The second source does mention Fegge but it's unclear whether this is a legally recognized place. In any case, it's worth doing relevantWP:BEFORE and taking it toAfD, if you can't find anything else mentioning Fegge.Sungodtemple (talk •contribs)20:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1, the threshold for GEOLAND is very low. All you need to do is find a single source which demonstrates that the place is both populated and legally recognised, and notability is presumed. If a cursory BEFORE can't turn up that much, then AfD is probably warranted.Athanelar (talk)21:09, 16 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, I’m seeking assistance regarding a dispute atJeffrey Epstein because I have gaps in my knowledge regarding wiki policy on arb enforcement. I opened a talk page discussion relating to this dispute with details here:Talk:Jeffrey Epstein#Revert
Another editor, Snokalok, reverted several dozen of my edits in a single action, but has not identified specific problems with any individual change. All of my edits were supported by reliable sources, and I explained the rationale for each in the corresponding diffs. I also invited discussion on the talk page. My edits updated outdated sections of the article using recent RS information, rearranging the article and fixing things that didn't align with sources.
Snokalok has behaved aggressively, writing that I “carpet bombed” the article in a diff with “hundreds upon hundreds of edits in a single night”[21]. This is false, it was several dozen, and I did them individually precisely so that users could see the justification within the diff (see the articlerevision history). I do not see how volume of edits is a problem, so long as the editor reflects the RS.
Because so many edits were reverted at once, it is difficult for other editors to evaluate the substance of any particular issue. I have asked Snokalok to identify particular edits within this revert that were of concern, but Snokalok has declined to do so and made vague statements of disagreement.
On the talk page, Snokalok has characterized my edits as overturning “longstanding consensus,” but I have not been able to locate discussion in the talk page about consensus of specific or disputed content. Nor do I understand how updating an article with new, reliably sourced information would be a problem.
So, I am wondering about how the 1RR and arbitration remedies apply here. As I understand it, content that has been reverted by another user cannot be restored without gaining consensus. Since numerous distinct edits were reverted at once by Snokalok, does that mean consensus is required for every single piece of content beforeany of it could possible be reinstated, by any user? This seems very impractical, and would essentially keep the article in an out of date state for an extended period of time. This is a challenge when the reverting editor has not identified which edits are disputed or why. Do I have to ping editors and wait to get consensus from other users just to add single sentences back into the article, even if they are matter of fact fromWP:RS?
Snokalok reverted your edits without proper reason or justification, and still refuses (seems like a case ofWP:ICANTHEARYOU)
Concluding, Snokalok is the one who broke an Arbitration remedy, reverted verifiable edits supported by sources without proper reason and/or justification, and is being disruptive.ArthurPlummer (talk |:)01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the double reverting, I don't think my revert was actually allowed, so their second revert was justified (according to an admin on 3RR). I am just wondering how to handle the content dispute, and how the arb remedies apply. Thank you.Zenomonoz (talk)01:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zenomonoz: This seems to have already been brought up and resolved atWP:AN3#User:Snokalok 1RR reported by User:Zenomonoz (Result: Resolved without admin action). The one administrator who responded to that discussion (EvergreenFir) posted that both sides were at fault (despiteArthurPlummer's above conclusion) and advised you both to continue discussing things on the article's talk page; so, that's what you should continue to do. Since the AN3 took placeafterbefore you posted here at the Teahouse,there's was no real need to try to bring things up again here.I'm assuming you just forgot to come back and post an update regarding the situation. For future reference, updating things like this can help avoid confusion, redundancy, and unnecessarily keeping discussions going after they've either been resolved somewhere else or have simply petered out on their own.If you're faced with a similar situation in the future, the best course of action would probably be avoid reverting multiple times, regardless of how right you think you are (seeWP:WRONGVERSION for more on that), and instead seek resolution perWP:DR through discussion on the article's talk page. Go through all the DR steps. You only really need to seek administrator assistance when editor behavior starts to become a problem. --Marchjuly (talk)02:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC);post edited by Marchjuly. -- 02:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify as I think you misunderstand why I posted here. I am not seeking to relitigate the noticeboard issue. Even after the admin said to resolve it on the talk page, Snokalok will not provide any explanation for the revert and specify the problem.
That aside, what I amactually seeking explanation is how the arb remedy applies going forward. I.e. do I have to get consensus to reincludeany of the sentences Snokalok reverted, one at a time, even after the 24 hour period passes... despite them being in RS and being more up to date? Thank you for the links, and sorry I should've made my original question brief and much clearer.Zenomonoz (talk)02:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You posted here after the AN3 discussion had already been closed for several hours; moreover, your post here seems to essentially be a restating of what you posted at AN3. You were advised to continue discussing things on the article's talk page. Starting a new discussion about this here not only runs the risk of fragmenting the discussion but also further exacerbating the situation (because now the other side may feel the need to defend themselves here as well). In general, theWP:ONUS falls upon the person wanting to add content to an article to justify it in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and establish a consensus in favor of doing so. In addition,WP:NOTEVERYTHING covered by reliable sources about a subject automatically warrants mentioning on Wikipedia. So, when others disagree about the addition and revert, things are expected to be resolved through article talk page discussion perWP:DR. There are multiple steps to the DR process: you can move to the next one if you feel things have gotten bogged down where you're at now. FWIW, contentious content disputes often take time (sometimes a lot of time) to resolve and often require multiple users to do so; so, just be patient and let things play out. Most likely the "Jeffrey Epstein" is a highly monitored one; so, other people should eventually join the discussion on the article's talk page. Consensus can't be ignored by either side of a dispute, but a consensus first needs time to develop. --Marchjuly (talk)02:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia reflects the RS when it is notable enough, surely it isn't up to individual editors to be excluding relevant facts from the article. For example, I includedthis article on FBI investigation, which is a new development. Snokalak reverted to remove it. Requiring an editor to jump through hoops to explain every single edit, and wait for every single thing to be approved on the talk page (which Snokalak has implied I must do) is something I have never encountered before. If it's notable enough and in the RS, it very often warrants inclusion. Surely the reverting editor would need provide specific diffs that are problematic and explain their issue?Zenomonoz (talk)02:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all those edits and getting those approved on the talk page would be incredibly time-consuming; similar to how, beforeGlobal renamers were introduced, renaming a global account took forever, as the account had to be manually renamed onevery wiki and it had to be coordinated.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How to write an application letter for a kitchen assistant job
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, and welcome to Teahouse. While this is definitely the wrong place (this is for helping new editors like you in editing and using Wikipedia), you can write one by having a CV beforehand (which lists your skills, experiences, preferably those that would strengthen your job and prove that you're suitable for it), and then write the application letter. Generally speaking, the letter should have a header (your contact info), some 2-3 paragraphs introducing yourself, your skills, and why you're suitable for the job, and end with a closing paragraph and complimentary signature. Cheers ! ---n✓h✓8(he/him)03:07, 17 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.
Requesting assistance with looking at a couple sources for an draft.
I've been working on a draft for an article based on the fictional characterSCP-173, and as such I've been trying to look at every possible source for potential information on the statue to add to the article. Whilst this has been a rather fruitful venture, as it already has 29 sources to its name, there are still some sources I cannot access due to a lack of funds, having no access to a library card, nor meeting the requirements to access the Wikipedia Library.
I've asked my Wikipedia mentor and one of the suggestions they gave for how to get them checked was to ask here.
The following sources I've been unable to access are as follows:
I was wondering if someone could look at these sources for me, and presuming they add any new information, or strengthen information already present in the article, add them to the article as citations?
Btw; if I have multiple questions I'd like to have answered, would it be best to ask them all in a single post, or make individual posts for each? There's a few other things I'd like clarified, but I'm not sure how I do about doing multiple questions at once.ThyCheshireCat (talk)04:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) Where does Wikipedia draw the line between a Conflict of Interest and a Subject Matter Expert when it comes to users involved with non-profit creative websites/fandoms? I'm technically an author for the SCP wikidot, but I've only got a single tale with 7 upvotes currently. I'm not sure which one of the two, if either, I would count as, nor where the line is drawn.
2) There's a draft currently on the verge of being deleted that I'm interested in trying to 'adopt' in a sense, since it seems to have stopped being edited about six months ago. Would I be able to completely rewrite said draft while it still exists, or would I need to wait for it to get deleted if I wanted to make edits that drastic?
@Ruhshod09 You have, in line with the T&C, declared that you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your draft is a long way from establishing that this pizza company isnotable in the way that en:Wikipedia requires. The one citation I looked at which was in English was clearly corporate PR based on a press release/interview. This is simply not enough coverage. We need sources that are reliable, independent and have significant coverage. SeeWP:42.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate some guidance.
I've created a draft article aboutLockIn, a Swiss student mini-enterprise from theYES Company Programme. The company was founded by six students atStiftsschule Einsiedeln and has received coverage from regional media includingTele 1 (Central Swiss TV), theEinsiedler Anzeiger,Höfner Volksblatt, andMarch Anzeiger. Since I got recommendations, to remove the product part of the article, I have made it purely about Lockin, the company.
Full disclosure: I am a co-founder of LockIn and have disclosed this on mytalk page perWP:COI. I've done my best to write the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone without any promotional language, but I completely understand if improvements are needed — that's exactly why I'm here!
I'd be very grateful if an experienced editor could take a look at the draft and let me know:
Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I haven't seen the disclosure at your talk page yet (?) the only edit there is the Welcome notice, you should check again. Another thing, your references [3] and [5] should include a link to that source, instead of just 'document'.
Otherwise, I unfortunately can't assess notability right now, but there are definitely others that can at the moment. Cheers! ---n✓h✓8(he/him)12:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you are ready, please submit your draft article for review (according to theWP:AFC process), using the big button I have just put at the top of the page.
Hi @User8840, a useful resource for you isWP:42. You need to find at least three sources which meetall three criteria, noting that interviews with yourself, your co-founders, friends, family, etc are not independent and so aren't much use to you. Once you have found those, you should summarise the information in them in your draft. If those sources don't exist, unfortunately it may betoo soon for your company to have a Wikipedia article. Don't be discouraged if this is the case - very few companies worldwide qualify for an article, it's not a reflection on you.Meadowlark (talk)15:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to change an exiting WIKI. I wouldd like to replace the existing photo which is B&W with a similar color photo. I have uploaded the photo to Commons. I would also like to add one new paragraph. Need some help please. Thanks in advanceNestadog (talk)15:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nestadog, we could be much more helpful if you could link the article and the photo you want to put in it! There are some considerations we would need to look at before deciding to replace the image, but obviously we can't help you make that assessment without knowing what you're looking at.Meadowlark (talk)15:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a little digging, your only upload on Commons has been deleted as a copyright violation - you'll need to sort that out as your top priority! You may want to look atWP:NFCCP for more information on when we can legally use images you have found online.Meadowlark (talk)15:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This maybe a duplicate reply but here goes. The page is John Langloth Loeb Jr. not sure how to find link. The photo I uploaded is property of Amb Loeb and not copyrighted. The file I uploaded was not sourced from interenet. It was supplied by Amb Loeb to me.Nestadog (talk)16:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The default assumption is that the copyright holder is the photographer or their inheritor,unless it's so old it's in the public domain. The copyright holder also has the option to add a "free license" to their work, and if that happens, Commons can accept it. The guidance atWikipedia:A picture of you andCOM:THIRD can be of help to you.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)17:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!This talk page has a bunch of (rather old) merge notices, and I thought it might be nice to save a little space and put them all in one collapsible "box" which would be collapsed by default. I have two questions:
Does that sound like an appropriate and reasonable thing to do?
Thanks! My understanding is that, for most individual images, we are supposed to keep them the default size in the vast majority of cases. Is it the same with a multi-image box? Is there a default size we are supposed to adhere to most of the time?OrdinaryOtter(talk)16:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently drafting an article about American evangelist Bryce Crawford (not the chemist.) For the section on early life, Crawford has a well-detailed video explaining his early life and how he became a street preacher. Would it be acceptable to use the YouTube video as a source?
Then I would strongly reccomend against using it. Primary sources should almostnever be used as proof of notability or even as a source for a significant portion of his biography. It should only be used to source his specific statements about himself in quotes.VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions)17:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for asking, but wouldn't a primary source be the most reliable information about someone, especially if they themselves are dictating it? I do not mean to sound hostile or aggressive. Thanks!KneeHallHawk (talk)18:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Andy: Thanks in advance for replying so quickly. No worries-- I was just hoping that someone might take a quick look at the draft to ascertain whether the modifications mentioned above seem adequate to comply with the rationale for the initial rejection of the draft. Several weeks have passed since the initial submission and additional objections have not yet emerged, so I just wondered whether I am making any progress. If you could provide any additional feedback about the suitability of the draft at this stage, I would be grateful. If the modifications seem OK, perhaps you could assist with the move to the main space? In any case, thanks for taking the time to take a look and thanks in advance for you kind assistance! With best regards~2026-10682-26 (talk)17:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
References
^"Billboard". Nielsen Business Media, Inc. June 27, 1960. p. 33. RetrievedJanuary 28, 2025 – via Google Books.
Courtesy link: Andanada
Done. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! ---n✓h✓8(he/him)07:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
