The Teahouse is frequentlysemi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited byunregistered users, as well as accounts that are notconfirmed orautoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).
However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page.Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
I really couldn’t find anything else for my draft to be more longer, and I’ve only get 2 references and someone rejected it. I need help. Anyone get any ideas?OHHITHERRRE (talk)02:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:NSONG (I don't believe we have any specific notability guidance for national anthems) and see if you've got proof that it meets that guideline. If you've only got 2 references, then it sounds like you don't - and if you don't have enough material to prove that a subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then giving up is exactly what you should do.
It's important to note that the length of your draft is basically entirely irrelevant. We don't need your draft to be longer, we need it to demonstrate that the subject you're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.Athanelar (talk)02:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I’ll try that, but really giving up is like, removing an actual fucking anthem that can’t be found here but on anencyclopedia that has it but who does go there more than Wikipedia? That’s right. Almost fucking nobody. That’s exactly my point. You know that 2% of history is found, and the rest was burned and basically removing that just seems horrible, not to mention no thing of the anthem is said on the English Wikipedia, but theFRENCH ONE.
The thing is,Wikipedia is not a publisher of information. By definition, if something is not written about anywhere else, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article; because all Wikipedia does is summarise information which is available in reliable secondary sources.
As for it being present on the French wiki but not here, every Wikipedia is a separate project with its own rules and guidelines, and it's well known that the English wiki has the strictest requirements for inclusion out of any wiki.Athanelar (talk)13:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been "declined", meaning that you're welcome to continue working on it. It's pretty obvious that the words are in the public domain [in the legal sense of this term], but in matters of law, even the blazingly obvious isn't necessarily correct. You'd better check if the words really are in the public domain. That matter aside, the major problem with the draft is that you've found very little to say; but while you're looking for more, do see and act onHelp:Wikitext#Retaining_newlines_and_spaces andWikipedia:Bare URLs. --Hoary (talk)03:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced at your submission and the article on the current Togolese national anthem,Salut à toi, pays de nos aïeux. I don't like the Articles for Creation process and to meYOUR STUB should have been created into mainspace where it would either grow or die. I believe this is clearly a Keep in an articles for deletion situation, which means to me that somebody at articles for creation made a bad call. My advice would be to find a couple more sources (they certainly exist, albeit probably in French) and to create the article straight onto Wikipedia without messing with the arbitrary decision of any one AfC volunteer. It might be better for you to spend some time editing other things first to learn the ropes. Dig up at least one more source and drop me a line if you need help,OHHITHERRRE and I'll spend a few minutes with you getting things going. best regards, —tim ////Carrite (talk)16:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it might be a better way to handle this to make the article on the 1979 anthem a section on the page of theSalut à toi, pays de nos aïeux piece, since that anthem came both before and after it and the regime didn't really change, only the name of the ruling party, over this interval. I would recommend that you do that instead.Carrite (talk)17:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite, @OHHITHERRRE Articles that are created "directly" into Wikipedia's mainspace are still reviewed, although it is a different behind-the-scenes process than Articles For Creation.
Carrite, I know you personally don't like AfC, but it is "the recommended way" for editors who are new to Wikipedia to create Articles.
The Teahouse is intended for new editors to ask questions and get help. @Carrite, I don't think that you should suggest to new editors that they bypass AfC as soon as they are technically able to. For most new editors, it will take several months of reading articles, doing small tasks like fixing typos, becoming familiar with all of the complex policies atWP:N,WP:V, etc. That article probably should NOT have been created directly in mainspace due to its thin sourcing.David10244 (talk)00:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afc should be recommended to all new users in order to preserve the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Encouraging new users to publish direct to mainspace gradually degrades quality, and gives support to critics of Wikipedia that claim it is inaccurate, unsupported, biased, a soapbox, and so on. Encouraging new users to publish direct to main appeals to their ego and gives them bragging rights (which is sometimes what they were after in the first place) at the expense of the project as a whole. So please don't do that.Mathglot (talk)01:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no page for Ashish Chanchlani, and is he considered notable?
I am asking about the prominent Indian YouTuber and content creator,Ashish Chanchlani (Ashish Chanchlani Vines, over 30M subscribers). I am surprised there is currentlyno English Wikipedia page for him.
I'm trying to determine if he meetsWikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), as I have found evidence of significant, independent media coverage he has. Why there is no page for him?RatulH21 (talk)14:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has been profiled by Forbes India as part of its Digital Stars list (including a 2021 feature) and has been covered by the Times of India.RatulH21 (talk)14:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His awards include the Best Comedy Influencer award at the World Bloggers Awards in Cannes (2019). He had an appearance in the 2019 film Men in Black: International. He has collaborated with actors in Bollywood and created the web series 'Ekaki'.RatulH21 (talk)14:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is not a reliable source on wikipedia;WP:FORBES
Times of India is also considered often unreliable for their 'paid advertorials':WP:TIMESOFINDIA
The 'World Bloggers Award' does not evidence notability because we only consider an award to evidence notability if the award itself is notable (usually meaning it has ita own Wiki page)
Thank you for clarifying the policies (WP:FORBES, WP:TIMESOFINDIA). I accept that those sources and the non-notable award must be removed. But he has been featured multiple, independent, in-depth articles from reliable national news publications, such as: Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Indian Express / India Today. Isn't he is among the popular people in India?RatulH21 (talk)15:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one appears to be reliable and independent; but it only has a couple of paragraphs about him, so it is borderlinesignificant coverage. Furthermore, the information about him is just about that one event, not anything else about him.
The other two, as far as I can tell, are largely based on interviews with him, and so are notindependent sources . There is perhaps some independent material in the opening paragraphs, but it is not clear whether it actually comes from him.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (seeGolden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. So, while the first one and perhaps the others could contribute to that, they are not enough on their own.
I'm not sure if your last question is aboutyou creating the article, or somebody else creating it. If you are asking about somebody else creating it, the place to ask is atrequested articles; but in all honesty, most requests there sit there for ever. Wikipedia editors are volunteers who work on what they want to work on: you would need to provoke somebody to be interested in working on an article about Chanchlani.
If you are talking about yourself: if you can find several sources that meet thegolden rule, you are welcome to readWP:YFA and try.
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)21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very detailed and clear welcome and feedback! I really appreciate you breaking down the issues with the sources.
I see your point completely regarding the independence of the second and third sources, as they are largely based on interviews. I hadn't fully considered the interview aspect rendering them non-independent.
I also understand the concern that the first source, while independent and reliable, is only borderline significant coverage and focuses only on one event. I will definitely search much harder for more sources that wholly unconnected parties have chosen to publish about him to meet thenotability standard and theGolden Rule.
I will take your earnest advice and first focus on improvingexisting articles (only sports) for a few weeks to learn the ropes of policies likeWP:NPOV and theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle before even thinking about creating a draft, whether throughWP:YFA or by requesting it.RatulH21 (talk)21:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair distinction. Aside from his subscriber milestones, what specific type of 'significant coverage' do you feel is currently missing from the draft? Would more focus on hisITA Award or his work in traditional television (likeClass of 2017, Ekaki) help satisfy the requirement forWP:BIO?RatulH21 (talk)19:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of significant coverage only: An ITA award is worth a little. Subscriber milestones are worth zero. Lists of work are worth zero.
Significant coverage means a reporter - all by himself, with no interview and no press release to look at - writes a featured article on the subject'spast.TooManyFingers (talk)05:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself genuinely stuck, in this regard. When I see chatbot messages or other AI use, I personally consider it not just grounds for assuming bad faith, but a signed and dated certificate of bad faith. But I'm not supposed to look at it that way.TooManyFingers (talk)01:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would greatly appreciate help in understanding what more I can do to pass then number of reliable sources needed. Link to draft page here:Draft:Albert Rozin
I also got a "no soapbox" comment. I came to this project by chance and am not related to Albert Rozin. Played one of his pieces at a piano recital and was curious about him, only to find there was very little publicly available. Which set me off on a research venture that led to meeting his family and discovering hundreds of lost compositions. It is a story, I think, of a Jewish immigrant being written out of history, and I'd like to write him back in. Much of what we have discovered is captured in a website: albertrozin.com but getting a Wiki page feels so important.
You've run into a very common pitfall for newcomers. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to tell someone's story if it hasn't already been told. We are an encyclopedia,not a publisher of new information, nor a place toright great wrongs. What we do is summatise infotmation that is already available in reliable, independent, secondary sources; if Rozin has been 'written out of history' and there is 'very little' information published about him; then he is, by definition, not fit for a Wikipedia article. The information you have gleaned from your searching and interviews (which I presume is the information on albertrozin.com) explicitly cannot be included here as perWP:No original research andWP:Self-published sources
I'm sorry, you won't be the first person who came here to publish the story of an obscure historical figure who you feel has been wronged by history, nor will you be the last, but that's just not how we work here.Athanelar (talk)15:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was declined because the vast majority of the information is referenced to the non-independent albertrozin.com source (it's cited 15 times)Athanelar (talk)15:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so if I remove some of the references from the website, and have four independent sources, do you think it will still get rejected? Worth a try?Pianorozin (talk)15:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the content that is cited only to the albertrozin.com website then it might, but at that point it's a very small and incomplete article.Chorchapu (talk |edits)15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to trim the article down to what we call astub based strictly on the information from the reliable, independent sources, and that might get accepted. There issome information you can pull from primary sources like that website, but that's mostly basic, uncontroversial biographical facts like date and place of birth; seeWP:ABOUTSELF Any information about his deeds, accomplishments, accolades, career etc (i.e., stuff which is relevant to his notability) should be sourced to in-depth coverage in secondary sources.Athanelar (talk)17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The person telling about themselves (on their website) is the problem, for Wikipedia. The fact that it's youreporting what they said turns out not to matter, because the article has still ended up relying on their material. See what's left to work with, after you take away everything that came from there.TooManyFingers (talk)17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you did. Cutting out ABOUTSELF material, to see what kind of article you really have, is still a good idea. I'm not against keeping some of it in the end, but if the article fails without that material, then it also failswith that material - and it can be hard for an author to see that.TooManyFingers (talk)01:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which circumstances? An article that relies on ABOUTSELF for its integrity is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. Temporarily eliminating ABOUTSELF from an article to check that there is enough independent material in it is a perfectly good idea.TooManyFingers (talk)05:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the sections "Early life", "Career", "Later years and death", and "Family" would ALL becompletely empty without the personal website material.
I could understand relying mainly on the website for "Family", but - according to this draft in its current state - everything under "Career" went entirely unnoticed by any reliable sources.
In addition, the cited article by René Johnson ends with an acknowledgement that she got all her information about Rozin from his family, and she confidently states that until they came along, no information was available about Rozin except a census record from 1940. Besides that indication that Ms. Johnson is not a strictly independent source, her article is primarily about her own teaching methods, using pieces by Rozin as the musical examples but without referring to how Rozin taught; she emphasizes the fact that he gave his pieces creative and interesting titles, but the main substance of the article is her own opinions on piano teaching.
The Northern Virginia Music Teachers Association article is somewhat of a piggyback article taking notice of René Johnson's one, it again emphasizes the fact that Rozin was a complete unknown, says unequivocally that the information all comes directly from his family, and again has mere snippets of information about Rozin without discussing the man himself in any detail. It ends by directing readers to the Rozin website.
Those two articles are the sole sources for the lead section and the "Rediscovery" section.
In addition (nitpicky but somehow emblematic in my view), the source cited for the information in the lead part of the article clearly says he lived and worked in the Bronx, not Brooklyn.
And the piggybacking effect I noticed comes from the fact that the NVMTA blog post - the second article - was written by René Johnson, the same person as the first article.TooManyFingers (talk)10:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m working on adraft article that was declined for notability and tone. I’ve added multiple independent sources (SFGate, QSR Magazine, FastCasual, Review-Journal). Could someone advise if the coverage now meets GNG before I resubmit?Hvn85 (talk)01:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please readWP:CORPTRIV. It appears that people have been trying to tell you for a month now that the kinds of sources you're providing aren't suitable to evidence notability. I would suggest youdrop the stick and move on to writing something else.Athanelar (talk)11:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you for you comment. I actually ask for guidance on how to use available resources to rewrite this article more effectively, but I still truly appreciate your support and assistance.Hvn85 (talk)19:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hvn85#Disclosure: "Hvn85, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Panini Kabob Grill for their contributions to Wikipedia."
Is food atPanini Kabob Grill interesting or notable ? Has anyone, independent of the company, said that they found the food delicious?
Hello, but there is nothing about "delicious" or "interesting" about food or restaurant in the article, it is just general information based on references like Forbes or SFGATE. Thank you for your respond.Hvn85 (talk)20:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hvn85#Disclosure: "Hvn85, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Panini Kabob Grill for their contributions to Wikipedia."
you got the job: Hvn85 is paid by Panini Kabob Grill
Actually I didn't pay, some other users said you should put this on your page because you are part of this business. As per that advice, I wrote it on my page. Please guide me to keep it on my page or delete it? I am a restaurant employee, but I didn't get paid for this article, this is just my idea. Thank you for your assistance in advance.Hvn85 (talk)20:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hvn85 Since you are an employee, you definitely fall under the Conflict of Interest guidelinesWP:COI. I do not believe you fall underWP:PAID. (I could be wrong about this.) You could ask for guidance atWP:TEAHOUSE, although it might not matter if the restaurant has not been written about by an independent source, not based on a press release. Many excellent restaurants are not notablein the Wikipedia sense.David10244 (talk)05:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York - Marek Szczeniowski, 16, of New York, who was left a $56,000 trust by the late Aly Khan, holds a self portrait of his mother, fashion designer Sybilla Szczeniowska Sorondo, who was left $14,000 by the prince. Aly Khan's will was made public yesterday in London. He died May 12 in an auto accident. Marek said the prince had been "like a godfather to me."
are the images okay for en.wikipedia or commons or only archive.org If an image is OK for Commons then it is automatically OK for any Wikipedia. Maybe you're also thinking of "fair use", but an image is never "OK as 'fair use' in en:Wikipedia"; instead, some specific uses in en:Wikipedia may be "fair use". You seem to be asking about images that were newly published in the US in 1960. The articleCopyright law of the United States tells us that what's derisively termed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act "increased the copyright term length to 95 years after publication (120 years after creation for unpublished works), or the life of the author plus 70 years, whichever ends earlier". The photos were published. They would have been taken in 1960 or possibly one or two years earlier; this is less than 70 years ago, let alone 95 years ago. So, barring unlikely kinds of exception, all of these photos remain conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved"). --Hoary (talk)04:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
publicity photo, copyright notice on picture, these are the kind of issues I was trying to determine
The purpose for which a photograph was taken or published doesn't affect its copyright status, and the wording or lack of a copyright notice on a photograph (or in a caption attached to it) doesn't either. --Hoary (talk)04:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piñanana "I have seen pics on commons that are PD because they are a publicity photo without copyright notice." As Hoary said, the lack of a copyright notice on a publicity photo, or on any other photo, does NOT mean the photo is in the public domain. Public Domain is not the same as "publicly available". Photos on Commons can be mis-tagged. Your use of "because" there is not right.
"Special to the New York Times" means, I believe, that the photo was taken by someone for the express purpose of being run in the NYT; the NYT almost certainly paid for the picture, probably asked or assigned the photographer to take it, and almost certainly holds the copyright.
Archive.org has a lot of copyrighted photos, and the rest of the Internet also has a lot of copyrighted photos. Many of them do not have a copyright notice, but that doesn't matter.David10244 (talk)05:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently tried to make a wikipedia article with a temporary log in and my cookies must have been cleaned out because i can not access it anymore. I tried making it under a created account and it wouldn't let me and is threatenign it with deletion! Please help! This is very important to me because a college grade is involved!Ajsarbak (talk)02:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "a college grade involved"? Are you saying your professor set you an assignment to successfully publish a Wikipedia article?Athanelar (talk)11:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajsarbak, your teacher has set you a very unfair and potentially impossible assignment. I suggest you ask them to readWP:ASSIGN#GUIDANCE. If you're in the US or Canada, you could also post on theWikiEd noticeboard so that a WikiEd staff member can reach out to your teacher and help them adjust their assignments. Even if you're elsewhere in the world, the WikiEd staff may be able to connect your teacher with a volunteer who can help. It is extremely difficult to create a new Wikipedia article - it's the hardest task on Wikipedia - and unless you have spent time and effort to become familiar with how Wikipedia works, you will most likely not succeed. As a student you almost certainly don't have that time to spare, since I imagine you're trying to study hard to complete your course. Your teacher is welcome to reach out to me on my talk page if they're not sure how to navigate the WikiEd noticeboard. I hope this helps you.Meadowlark (talk)06:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it is:WP:DEL-REASON #14 says "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" can be deleted. Which makes sense. I know you mean an article can't be deleted if the content is encyclopedic but the tone isn't, but it's worth being specific.Athanelar (talk)18:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... Yet another example of the difficulty of coming up with terminology for Wikipedia concepts that's both usable (memorable, easy to type) and unambiguous. "Encyclopedic" really IS a word that fits for both of those ideas. Too bad it happens to be the same as itself. :)TooManyFingers (talk)17:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes it not encyclopedic? It's a topic covered at length in several reliable sources, and while the subject matter could be seen as crude or silly that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an articlemgjertson (talk) (contribs)20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I am a new editor. Before starting, I spent time reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS) and Notability guidelines because I want to contribute correctly. I reached out to my mentor, Lajmmoore, for feedback a while ago, but I haven't received a reply yet. Since I am eager to learn and want to make sure I am following the rules properly, I am asking here. Could someone please check my contributions and let me know if I am on the right track? Edit by Sona (talk)21:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - welcome! I'm afraid you're not following the rules very well at all, and I would say you need to slow down and understand what you're about to do before you do it.
@TooManyFingers I have reverted your edit because the undo was done without presenting any policy-based or source-based justification. Your explanation does not identify specific violations of Wikipedia policies (such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR), nor does it point to unreliable sources or factual inaccuracies. The reverted content was expanded using reliable, published sources and structured according to MOS and NPOV guidelines. A revert without valid policy reasoning is not sufficient. I am restoring my edit. last time i tell you do not revert again unless you can clearly demonstrate, with policy references and reliable sources, why the content should be removed or changed. I am not seeking suggestions at this stage. Further unsourced or unexplained reverts will be considered disruptive editing. i dont need any extended user suggation.. i think you need to knows about Wiki guidelince...Edit by Sona (talk)06:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TooManyFingers I do not have a personal relationship with Anil Kumar Gupta. My edits are based solely on information available in reliable, published sources such as academic books, institutional profiles, and scholarly references, in line with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. I am contributing only as an editor by improving sourcing, structure, and clarity of the article, and not based on any personal knowledge or association. now please you do not replay my discussion. i need admin ya pending page reviewer suggation. you replay like a admin.. but its not valid for meEdit by Sona (talk)09:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a year of birth for him, unsourced. You provided other specific information about him, also unsourced. You are at the same time picky about pointing out where other editors have written something without a source.
I think this editor may be combining output from some sort of LLM with their own words, given the changes in style and grammar within a single message. I am therefore not convinced the arguments provided are well grounded.~2025-40392-17 (talk)16:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes find invisible comments which appear to be useless such as onTalk:We Can't Have Everything where I see an invisible comment, "<! -- if possible, if not, please leave note here to that effect - thanks :) -->".
It's clear that they wanted [something] done if possible, and to leave them a note if we couldn't do it - but I can't figure out what the [something] was. Maybe someone else will understand, but I'm leaning toward "if it's become completely meaningless, delete it".
Just make sure, if you ever do delete one of these comments, that you delete the entire thing including both the beginning tag and the ending tag. It can mysteriously mess up the page if you leave half of it. :)TooManyFingers (talk)01:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I work on adding film poster images to pages (as well as book covers), I have seen this EXACT invisible comment on dozens of such pages. I have no idea what was once desired to be added, but as you noted, any such indication of what that was has long since been lost to history now.Iljhgtn (talk)01:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBlame confirms, in the specific case of Talk:We_Can't_Have_Everything, the page was created 18 years ago with{{filmimage}}<!-- if possible, if not, please leave note here to that effect - thanks :) --> in the second line. It seems, then, the original intention that any who removed{{filmimage}} should note that on the talk page—perhaps to avoid restoration of the template or of something like it like{{reqphoto}}. Cheers,Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)04:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, it was really poorly worded. I still don't entirely understand, but I will remove it when I see it then unless anyone objects.Iljhgtn (talk)05:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn:{{filmimage}} was deleted in 2009. It made a box which started: "This article needs animage (preferablyfree) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster." The comment should have been removed when an image was added but it's hard to detect invisible comments. The editor who added it apparently wanted somebody to leave a note if they had looked for an image with an allowed license but found it impossible. A search[1] currently finds 627 comments with this exact wording. All those I examined were added by the same editor Lugnuts in 2007 when they created the article. Lugnuts was blocked in 2022.PrimeHunter (talk)12:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think every instance of the comment should be removed then. It is confusing, useless, and outlived and purpose that it might have once had many years ago.Iljhgtn (talk)16:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never figured out how to use AWB or JWB to make these kinds of mass edits, but thank you for doing that. Teach me your ways.Iljhgtn (talk)04:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse isn't a good venue for that. I'm not very good at teaching, but we can try on one of our user talk pages, if you really want to get into semi-automatic mass editing. —andrybak (talk)23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, comments are helpful for coordinating between editors, adding reminders, and sometimes blowing off steam when you're angry something isn't working. You can also use them to quickly and recoverably remove bits of markup for whatever reason, like testingmgjertson (talk) (contribs)20:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not questioning the value of invisible comments generally, I was only referring to this one specific set of invisible comments which seem to have now been deleted. Thanks to @Andrybak.Iljhgtn (talk)21:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m an editor with a declared conflict of interest. I created a draft article about my employer which has been declined at AfC for notability and AI-authorship concerns. I’ve now stopped editing the draft and added a ""Help me"" request on the draft talk page. I’d appreciate advice from an uninvolved editor on whether the current independent sources are sufficient, or whether this article realistically needs more in-depth coverage before it can succeed.Roycruse (talk)00:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Roycruse. I reviewed your draft yesterday. I am going to be completely honest: from the sources provided there is no evidence this company meets our criteria for inclusion at this time. Iwould recommend you read this and leave the draft for now. Drafts are deleted after six months of no activity, you can make dummy edits to reset this counter. Deleted drafts can be recovered viaWP:REFUND.
I'm going to be blunt, but stop. The problems that arise when creating an article for a relatively unknown business are simply too much for a newcomer to overcome in most cases, especially if (and I apologise if I'm wrong) you're herespecifically to write an article about a place you work at without any previous enwiki experiencemgjertson (talk) (contribs)20:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool to count notvotes that closers use? I have wanted to get rough counts of discussions before, as that can sometimes be useful even if not the basis of consensus. ← Metallurgist (talk)01:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, because the whole point is that a closer is supposed to carefully read the whole discussion and close it based on the strengths of the arguments presented, and being able to quickly tally votes would encourage them to rush and close based on headcount.Athanelar (talk)01:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244 I was just wondering if such existed. This isnt really for closing I want to do, sometimes I like to get a rough feel for how a discussion is going when reading it. But I can see how that could cause laziness in closing. ← Metallurgist (talk)19:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I studied for ages on a topic which I wrote on here about a Grenadian businessman, who worked with the English to quell the French hold on the island, and on Grokipedia it says he worked with both the French and English regional council (which never happened, I couldn’t even find evidence to say he ever was in the council). The source Grok gave for this didn’t contain anything which it said. It is not reliable, and that was one page, imagine how many more mistakes there are, especially about more forgotten or less well known figures, places and states.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)09:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Matheson’s valid & true credits keep getting excised, because apparently the only credit that can be offered is IMDB. I am at a loss to know how to add the many credits that someone in their wisdom has chosen to excise.What references can be used?Please advise.~2025-40345-05 (talk)13:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If she is named in the film credits they can be cited; but we don't list every credit for every actor, even if so.
If she's properly credited, then they don'tneed to be cited (as that's considered uncontroversial; viewing the credits would immediately verify). My understanding is a cite is only needed for credits if they went uncredited or took anAlan Smithee credit. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Judy Matheson is in the credits of the work quoted; it seems this superMario editor is obsessed with getting her true & valid credits deleted.~2025-40345-05 (talk)16:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when a person's true credit should not appear in an article. For example, an article about a film shouldn't necessarily credit every person in it.
This case is not quite like that, because this article is about an actor, but it's still possible that the other editor has a point. IF they have a point, it's probably something like "This role was not an important one in the course of her career, and adding every single role clutters up the article with things that are embarrassingly unnecessary". As I said, that's IF they have a point, which I don't know.TooManyFingers (talk)16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do we know if that is his reason? And also who actually gives him/her the right to decide what is important in an actor’s ( or anybody’s) career. It seems to me this editor has been harassing this actor constantly & actually how has he/ she got that power?Mr Mouat (talk)17:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to him, his reason is Wikipedia's explicit policy, stated in multiple places as mentioned above (actually below, on my screen), that IMDB is not a valid source for acting credits.TooManyFingers (talk)19:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know next to nothing about the movie world. Intelligent responsible editors in this thread have implied that they disagree with the policy, or at least they think reasonable exceptions should apply. I can't argue one way or the other because I simply don't know.TooManyFingers (talk)19:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's formal policies arevery clear that IMDB cannot be a source for acting credits. There is an essayWikipedia:Citing IMDb with a more lenient attitude, but even it calls acting credits a disputed use.
Hi, I woke up with morning and checked Wikipedia and saw a message for my article that said:"The pageSouth Kitsap Regional Park was connected to the Wikidata item Q137380006, where data relevant to the topic can be collected." What does this mean? Thanks!BluePixelLOLLL (talk •Signaturebook)17:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you use the word settler or colonizer in one sentence. You either get a settler which hace a complete different meaning tna a colo9nizer. I quote "a settler is a pioneer amongs te first setling of a place that is new to the settlemnt community." YOu dont get something like aa Settler ColonizerThe Voortrekkers were Pioneers settlers- they had noCountry or Imperial who gave them money to build SA, they did it themselfs and they did not colonize any black land, should there be any land they possesses, it was paid in full and this was documented. I agree with you regarding Colonizers because that is exactly what happen today in South Africa
We report what is stated in reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that refer to the voortrekkers in a particular way, then you can include that term and cite those sources.Athanelar (talk)20:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a fair use cropped picture of the historically significant "april 26 editorial" to the wikipedia article dedicated to that specific matter
Hello, i am wondering if a cropped version of a picture of the headline from a chinese newspaper dated from april 26 1989 could be uploaded to the english wikipedia only under the "fair use" terms?
Here's my rationale: This non-free image would be used in the article "April 26 Editorial" to illustrate the historically significant front-page headline of the People’s Daily editorial published on 26 April 1989. The editorial itself is the subject of extensive scholarly and historical analysis, and the image would be used for critical commentary and identification purposes. Only the headline and masthead are shown, representing the minimum portion necessary to convey the subject of discussion. No free equivalent exists, as the original newspaper front page is a copyrighted work. The image would be used at low resolution and only in this article, and its inclusion would not replace the original work or harm the market for it.
Frankly, an illustration of the headline of a newspaper would greatly improve the article, and it is available at library archives around the world, it was sold publicly in 1989 and largely diffused and since the Tiananmen square incidents are so significant to world history it seems to me that Wikipedia should freely make it available instead of "hiding" it to the public, we wouldn't want to be associated with censorship or bend our ethics to comply to chinese ethos now would we?
Since the article is about the news story itself, yes, that should be fine under fair use. But all that is with the understanding that you are providing an image of the editorial and not a reproduction of the exact text. So a low resolution version should probably not allow for reading of a full copyrighted text.GMGtalk21:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was what I was proposing but since it is not "my own work" and cannot be uploaded on wikimedia commons I cannot put it even here. How can it be done?Meister007 (talk)22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, my Ipad and Iphone have two different Wikipedia accounts but I'm the same person.
Thanks, it actually occurred because I could'nt log in when I long ago switched devices Android to Apple and I wasn't able to complete the identification verification process from Wikipedia and ended up creating a new account completely. I will find time to unify this and sort it out, but now I have 350 high school kids to tend to...Meister007 (talk)03:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meister007 =Maxcote007, you may not upload it to Wikimedia Commons: not because it is not your own work but because it neither is in the public domain nor is copyleft. Instead, if you believe that its resolution, etc, satisfy the restrictions that GreenMeansGo has referred to above and that its use in the articleApril 26 Editorial would be "fair use", then you upload it to English-language Wikipedia ("Upload file | Upload a non-free file | ..."). --Hoary (talk)23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost. I had Chat GPT rework it to suit english wikipedia guidelines. So the one I have is a publishable version. But yes that is the picture.Meister007 (talk)02:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I need some guidance regarding redirects. I recently tried to create an article for an upcoming film titledPushpa 3: The Rampage but I later realised that the title already exists as a redirect. I was not aware of this at the time. I am now working on the article in draft space, but I am unsure about the correct next steps. Should I continue improving the draft and submit it through AfC, or is there a proper way to request changes to the redirect once the draft is ready? Any guidance would be appreciated..Draft:Pushpa 3: The Rampage.Edit by Sona (talk)22:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I'm not a redirect expert, but to fill you in, in case you weren't aware of it: Wikipedia generally refuses articles for upcoming films unless main shooting has already begun.TooManyFingers (talk)22:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Edit by Sona, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The answer to your question is that you should either submit it through AFC, in which case the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirect; or, if you are very sure that it would survive anWP:AFD, you can make amove request direct to mainspace.
How do i add a wikidata entry to this project. There are a couple of women who need coverage but i don't know how to automatically populate the article from wikidata. The project info says red links are automatically generated from Wikidata. Is there a snippet i need to add? Any help?Heatrave (talk)02:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really want automatically generated content. Instead write a prose article using reliable references. Then go to the Wikidata entry and add the link to the English language article you wrote. Just because there is an entry on Wikidata, it doesn't mean it should have an article, so please check the topic is notable before writing.Graeme Bartlett (talk)06:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is tagged "CS", you can edit it yourself.
If it is tagged "WD", it is compiled automatically, from the data in Wikidata. Make sure the subject's gender and occupation are included on their Wikidata item.
I had searched upGrokipedia on thePerennial Sources List but I wasn't able to clearly understand why it was listed as 'unreliable' on the site. (I'm kinda dumb)
Hello @Z-Astro3. Grokipedia is unreliable because it relies completely on AI with contributions from user-generated content (WP:UGC). AI scrapes off information from plenty of unreliable sources and is prone to faking information (hallucinations).Toby(t)(c)(rw)05:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Grokipedia was as accurate and useful as Wikipedia (which it isn't), it would still not be a reliable source for the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source - user generated content. SeeWP:CIRCULAR for the reasoning.Cullen328 (talk)07:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Wikipedia is a good source, well a good summary of s topic with extensive sources. Grok on the other hand takes from everywhere with no boundaries, control measures and hallucinations.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)09:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater Wikipedia is a good sourcefor learning, and gathering information, in my opinion. But Wikipedia is not an allowable source to use as a reference in a Wikipedia article; it is "unreliable" as a source, in Wikipedia's own terms, because it is user-editable.... just like IMDB and most blogs.David10244 (talk)06:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea but users have to actually use evidence unlike blogs or social media, especially on pages where they are much more in-depth (like something in biology or a very big country), oh I see what you mean about it’s not a good source for a Wikipedia article, I just thought you meant it isn’t good as a source for learning in general. My mistake.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)09:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grokipedia articles are often a copy of the Wikipedia article, but it isn't always clear when it is or isn't a copy of Wikipedia. So much of Grokipedia is as reliable as Wikipedia, but as with any mirror of Wikipedia we can't cite information to it as if it was a reliable source, because a reliable source for our purposes in citing our content has to be independent of us. Otherwise an error here would turn into an error here that is cited to a usually reliable source, that copied that error from here. Oh and when it isn't a copy of Wikipedia, then it isn't clear where they source things from, but it includes self published assertions by individuals. On Wikipedia those sources are fine for statements such as "individual a follows religion b" where individual a is the author, but not for much else.ϢereSpielChequers11:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what you are trying to get out of trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to try and convince people Grokipedia is a reliable source despite it not being (multiple errors I’ve seen with my own eyes).Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)14:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grokipedia (my offer of $5 American to Elon if he changes the name toCrockipedia for a year still stands) is an AI webscraper that fabricates raw link pseudosources in the footnotes + tendentious human-inputted right wing content, I believe. Find the original web sources if you wanna add information you see on Elon's Encyclopedia Lite™ — but, fair warning, the footnotes there are not apt to help.Carrite (talk)19:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you describe what help you are seeking? You have already submitted it for a review, you may wait for the review to occur and see the feedback of the reviewer.331dot (talk)10:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatEditor024 Images are not considered when drafts are reviewed; they are generally added after an article is accepted. And I think that non-free images are not allowed at all in a draft; those mustcwait until the draft is published as an article.David10244 (talk)06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was about something that is quite difficult to understand without an image - perhaps some function that can be clarified by a graph, or an unusual machine - then I might really hope for an image. But when the image is not essential to explaining, then no.TooManyFingers (talk)08:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we warn other Wikipedians that we are very likely training LLMs to game the system?
I'm wondering if on somewhere likeWP:LLM we should warneditors that when we help people suspected of using LLMs, then, we, the human editors, may be effectively providing training data to LLMs.
Whether we like it or not, those of us whopatiently and perseveringly explain Wikipedia policy to people who add LLM content to Wikipedia articles are very likely helping to train LLMs, since some editorssubmit prompts to LLMs forstatistical advice strings about how to edit a Wikipedia article, e.g.The uploaded snapshot [proposed for a Wikipedia article] is comprehensive but not publication‑grade ... certainty drift and uneven citations weaken neutrality apparently according to_Author:Copilot_. Our situation is not as bad as that of paid LLM trainers (humans)who end up highly traumatised (archive;full report;archive;Fediverse thread), since we don't have to pretend that we are the male/female/non-binary romantic companion in [insert intimate relationship type] with the LLM-using editor, typing 40 words a minute and faking our identities, nor do we have to do theother traumatic types of LLM moderation work. Moreover, here at Wikipedia we effectively have social support via radical transparency (there are noNDAs for Wikipedia editing), and we use deliberative, participatory, transparent decision-making, so our situation is different. But we should still not hide the likelihood that our patience with other editors is considered an input resource by people managing LLM data centres.
This also points to some articles that need to be made: I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on these traumatised LLM trainers. I don't see anything obvious inTemplate:Artificial intelligence navbox nor inTemplate:Machine learning. Do we have any encyclopedic coverage at all? If not, feel free to start the article(s), provided there is sufficient notability and there aregood sources.
In principle, it's not necessarily acompletely bad thing if the LLM data centres develop their own secret Wikipedia-editing-advice models. Though the centralisation of power in LLM corporations implies that those at the core of the corporate power system will be best placed to use these to refine theirWP:COI editing techniques, better hiding their COIs.
In any case, I have the feeling that we should have a warning somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where. Either atWP:LLM or somewhere atWikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup, although "Cleanup" seems to be mainly for how to do the cleanup, not warnings about the implications of doing the cleanup. On the other hand, a poorly written warning may discourage Wikipedians from cleaning upAI slop at all. Any thoughts?Disclaimer: more-or-less similar comments by me were consideredoff-topicWP:NOTFORUM violationshere(edit: fix ID) andhere.Boud (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)(minor fixesBoud (talk)23:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]
That's happening regardless of whether or not we directly explain those things to the LLM users. Wikipedia is entirely publicly accessible, meaning every discussion about Wikipedia policy is constantly being scraped; that's why LLMs already have a tendency to wikilawyer (often to humorous effect when they confidently cite a policy or guideline to support something that that guideline absolutely doesn't say)Athanelar (talk)14:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. So my prediction is really a postdiction. That's consistent with my concern. I guess I wrongly assumed that the WP fraction of LLM input content was too tiny to be significant in the input corpuses.Maybe this is starting to evolve towards a possible proposal. Should we add a warning (somewhere) that when we ask someone to read WP guidelines and policies, this means that s/he should actuallyread them using his/her human brain and think about what they mean, and not ask an LLM to summarise them? A counterargument is that this feels like being patronising, treating the person as an idiot , but in some sense that person already appears unwilling to read and understand. Maybe that should only be on a case-by-case basis, with individual Wikipedians who appear persistently unwilling or unable to read and understand guidelines.Boud (talk)00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not removed as "off topic", but perWP:NOTFORUM, and you should read that. If you disagree with that assessment, you should first take that up with the editor who removed it perWP:DR.
It is, however, off-topic here (The Teahouse cant make policy decisions, just offer you advice about what to do as an individual contributor); and should, if anywhere, probably be discussed atWP:Village pump (proposals).
Thanks for the corrections; fixed. I don't see anything so far concrete enough for a Village pump proposal; I'm fine with suggestions for me as an individual contributor.Boud (talk)23:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case of any misunderstanding: that isn't something youneed to do, nor is it expected. But for recognizing someone's long-term excellent work, it's a very nice option.TooManyFingers (talk)00:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does your screen have, by any chance, a dim background, small green letters in a monospaced font, 80 characters per line, and a little badge on the front that says "VT220"? ;)
Can a Wikipedia page exist ? Which has only one reference? That too not an online website ? I found a page... Probably it was made years back...when en Wiki wasn't that strict about notability guidelines...TrikityTikki (talk)16:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in some cases - a single source (that provides significant, reliable, independent coverage) may suffice. Species and settlements come to mind as two subjects that often only have one source but still manage to meet inclusion criteria. It would always be better to have more though. It is ofno concern whether the source isWP:OFFLINE or not. --D'n'B-📞 --17:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very possible that this article (and many others with few sources) have sources available that are just not in the article; seeTemplate:Sources exist, a template for this issue. I can findthis online with some text on this palace. It's possible there may be more sources available in the native language or other transliterations.jolielover♥talk18:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some types of subjects which are 'presumed notable' for reasons other than availability of sources; for instance as perWP:GEOLAND we can see that populated, legally-recognised places are "presumed notable" regardless of whether sources exist; which is why there are so many scarcely-sourced stub articles about populated places.Athanelar (talk)18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can (in some cases). It mainly depends on what you mean by "can it exist". It certainlycan but it really shouldn't. Anything with very very few sources are either presumed notable and somebody should really get on adding a source, or ancient enough that the rules were less strict and boring enough for nobody to fix itmgjertson (talk) (contribs)20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of an AfC biography draft and have disclosed a conflict of interest. The draft was declined due to concerns about LLM-style writing. All statements are based on independent, reliable sources. I am seeking guidance from an uninvolved editor on how to rewrite or trim the draft directly from sources so it can meet AfC standards.
As a rule of thumb, you need to find three sources meeting the criteria outlined in our'golden rule.' Then, you need to includeonly information which is discussed in those sources. This is obviously difficult when writing about yourself; you need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and only write things that have already been written.
You should be mindful ofpassing mentions, i.e., sources that briefly mention your name but don't cover you in any depth.
It's also abundantly clear that you're using some kind of AI chatbot like ChatGPT to help you write this article (and, indeed, to talk to me); and you need to stop that. First of all,writing new articles from scratch using AI is not allowed, nor isusing AI to communicate in discussions like this. Secondly, even if it were, they tend to 'hallucinate' information and sources; for example, your draft contains the statement[Joe Pennino] has also served in a senior administrative role in Roswell city government. which is linked tothis article which doesn't mention your name at all.
In summary: find three sources which are not affiliated with you in any way, which cover you specifically and in depth, and aren't merely passing mentions of your name. Find these sources yourself, using google/other resources, andnot using an AI to search for sources for you; because as you can see, it's turning up sources that don't even mention you at all. Then, summarise the information available in those sources (and ONLY that information) in the article; and again, do so in your own words, donot have an AI do this for you.Athanelar (talk)18:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, to edit semi-protected articles specifically, you must have at least 10 edits and your account must be 4 days old. Then, you will automatically get added to the autoconfirmed user group, which lets you edit semi-protected pages.jolielover♥talk18:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of others watching this, every page on Wikipedia has a talkpage or a redlink for one. If you want to make a change on a protected page the talkpage is usually unprotected and you can just detail your change there. It isn't always the quickest way to get things done, but if you click subscribe on that section there is a reasonable chance of getting your fix made.ϢereSpielChequers11:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting you regarding the Algerian artist known in Algeria as "Max Marginal". Internationally, he is not a mainstream global artist, but he has received numerous articles and media coverage for his work. He was the founder of the technical death metal band "Silent Obsession" and the creator of “ Café Le Boulevard,” a cultural café concept aimed at bringing together local artists for live interviews. He is also active as an artist in the "folk-rock" genre.
Silent Obsession has been featured in several outlets, including Metal Hammer Italia and many others. Le Café Le Boulevard was covered by the local Algerian newspaper L’Expression DZ . His folk-rock music has also received multiple articles worldwide and very positive reviews for his singles.
Do you think it would be possible for him to have a Wikipedia page? If not, could you please advise on the steps to follow?
Hi, thank you very much for your reply and for your guidance.
Here are some examples of independent media coverage related to Max Marginal and his projects:
– Articles and reviews about the band "Silent Obsession" published by international metal media (including Metal Hammer Italy and other specialized outlets)
I can provide direct links to these articles if needed, and I am currently compiling them in one place to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements.
Please let me know if this type of coverage would be considered sufficient, or if more specific sources are required.
Does each of those meetall the criteria ingolden rule?
Interviews with the subject or their associates are usually not independent, though sometimes there may be some introductory material which does not appear to come from the subject.
I use the Timeless appearance mode, and its a little different from the mobile version. On the mobile version, when I type something into the search bar, it has a little pop up below of recommendations/what you are searching for. But on Timeless, when I type something into the search bar, it doesn't come up with the pop up below it.
Hi. I want to make a page of PVZ Fusion, which is a Chinese fangame inspired by PVZ that skyrocketed in popularity. I'm not asking permission to make the page, but i have a question:Are fangame-related articles accepted by Wikipedia?? Let me know.~2025-40831-92 (talk)22:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Wikipedia ignored", what you are saying is that, for whatever reason, you are not currently logged into your account.
The answer to this question, whatever the subject, is always "Yes, if you can show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability - which is mostly about whether people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publishabout the subject in reliable soures.
However, I have a more general recommendation: 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.
Just saw the latest breaking news event on the Bondi Beach shooting and I came to Wikipedia as I usually do when these stories happen, and almost every time on the top of the page there is a move request banner with a link to the discussion.
At first, I thought it was really interesting reading about it. My first memory of this was with the Thailand Cave Rescue in 2018Tham Luang cave rescue. But as the years went on and I see this happening with every single breaking news event, I'm starting to feel weary and I feel like time and resources are being diverted discussing something as trivial as whether to put the year in the article title or not. Especially when it's a tragedy like a big shooting. It detracts from the tragedy in a way. Imagine you lost a loved one because of a shooting and the first thing you see are people devoting their time discussing whether to use the article title 2025 Salt Lake City shooting or just Salt Lake City shooting, as if that was the only thing that mattered in the whole ordeal.
It's fine if the move request banner is hidden in the article Talk page or something, but to have it be at the very top of the article every single time a shooting or other tragedy happens is getting quite wearisome. Anyone else feel this way?Airgum (talk)00:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read a lot of breaking-news articles, but I've noticed the thing you're talking about. I wonder what the disadvantages would be, if there was a policy that breaking-news articles cannot be the subject of a move proposal for their first two weeks - with an exception in case the original name is grossly false.TooManyFingers (talk)00:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what we're saying. What we're tryna say is to find sources from a search engine which verify and support the content you're tryna add into the article. Simply linking to other Wikipedia articles is not gonna help you.Hacked (Talk|Contribs)02:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, youredit needs to provide a cited reference, which will appear in the article so that ANY reader can verify the info. Telling us here doesn't meet that requirement.David10244 (talk)06:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve submitted this draft a few times through AfC, but it’s been rejected for:
Not addressing notability clearly
Tone/style possibly AI-generated
Citation inconsistencies
I fixed all the issue - completely rewrite it, read the docs carefully, re-edit again and again and I can't understand why it's beeing rejected. Can you please let me know what needs to be fixed for the article to be published?
That page on the National Arts Centre website was entirely written by Mr. Mori, or by a representative of his. It is thereforenot independent at all. Anyone who interviewed him, or got input from him or his representative about what to write, is automatically not independent.
If you do find independent reliable sources, you will need to delete ALL your work, start from a blank page, and write all by yourself with no help from AI.TooManyFingers (talk)02:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on my previous submissions! I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, basing it solely on independent, reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, DownBeat, JazzTimes, London Jazz News, Arts Fuse, Stereophile, BBC Music, and NPR-affiliated outlets. I have avoided using any self-published or institutional sources for notability and have focused on verifiable coverage and critical reviews.
The new draft is available atUser:Eransharv/Barak Mori. Please feel free to review it and let me know if you have any further suggestions. I would appreciate it if you could delete the previous rejected draft, as this is a completely new version.
Anyone who interviewed him, or got input from him or his representative about what to write, is automatically not independent. That is not so. Please be more careful to avoid mis-stating policy.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits09:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that my article uses a mix of independent, third-party reports and reviews, which is excellent (as far as I understood) for Wikipedia. In the new draft I focused on the independent sources for notability and factual information.
List of my independent Sources (Third-Party Reports or Reviews)
The New York Times (2003): A professional review of a jazz performance, not an interview or promotional piece. Independent and suitable for use.
All About Jazz (Reviews): Album reviews by Glenn Astarita and others. These are independent, third-party reviews, not interviews. Suitable for use.
DownBeat Magazine: Professional jazz magazine reviews. Independent and suitable.
JazzTimes: Professional jazz magazine reviews. Independent and suitable.
London Jazz News: Professional jazz review. Independent and suitable.
Arts Fuse: Independent arts publication review. Suitable for use.
Stereophile: Independent audio publication review. Suitable for use.
BBC Music: Professional music review. Independent and suitable.
WBUR/NPR: Professional radio coverage and review. Independent and suitable.
Midnight East: Arts and culture coverage. Independent and suitable.
Haaretz: Professional newspaper review. Independent and suitable.
Ynet: Professional newspaper review. Independent and suitable.
Jazz Messengers: Music database and review. Independent and suitable
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by not considering the vast use of these third-party sources as independent?
Hey there, @~2025-40671-25. I reverted your edits; nothing to worry about. To address your poster issue, we cannot use it here, because Wikipedia only accepts "free" images, with a certain license. Some "fair use" content is allowed, usually at the start of the article. In short, we cannot upload it, no.
Your second edit was also reverted simply because it didn't seem to be making good changes, like changingBejeweled (song) toBejewelled (song). Again, nothing to worry about, but you have to be careful.
Hello, Joseph. First of all, please refrain from referring to yourself in the third person; it is evident from your talk page that you are indeed Joseph Borg.
Secondly, your article was deleted based on consensus back in 2018 atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borg (scientist). If you believe this new award provides enough notability to now justify the existence of your article, you can request undeletion atWP:RESTORE to have the deleted article restored as a draft which you could add your new source to and then submit for review to see if it will be accepted as an article again.
hi Athanelar, thanks for the reply. noted. Indeed, I was not looking for a way on how to restore older content. I was looking at how other third parties, and unrelated to the topic contributors get wind or notified on creating entries. But then again.. perhaps if something is notable, it should happen on its own accord and naturally without the need to ask about it. Best wishes, and Merry XMAS !Jbor14 (talk)12:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! im completely green to all this. Would you be able to fwd/suggest/ or perhaps even take a look at it yourself ? However no obligations. Thanks for ur timeJbor14 (talk)20:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for ur effort.. argh.. I really really don't know. It;'s been a while, and all I could see is that page was marked for deletion, and in fact subsequently deleted. I can see this trail "
16:09, 18 December 2018Scope creeptalkcontribs markedJoseph Borg (scientist) as reviewed" not sure whether it's easy / fine to pursue by pinging the relevant people who did the review in the first place. Other than this, don't know what else to do. If it's too much work, please do not worry. my very best wishes.
@Jbor14 Editors work on what they want to work on; all editors are volunteers. No one is ever "assigned" to create, or recreate, an article. Someone who reads this page might decide they want to tackle this task. Or, someone who hears about you, or about the award, might decide to create a draft and submit it for consideration. It's hard to predict.David10244 (talk)06:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbor14: A National Order of Merit would likely make the man notable. I think you can ask for the old article to be undeleted as aWP:DRAFT and you can work on it there until its ready for mainspace. Ping me when its finished and i'll review it for you.scope_creepTalk06:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very very kind of you. but im a bit at a loss. I had originally written the first early draft of the article way back in time and was severely scolded for that. However the actual article was then looked into, edited, and formatted by some other kind souls/editors on wiki. Bottom line, it was not deemed notable then, and deleted. how to bring it back from the abyss beats me.. it shows that article has been deleted and in no way I can find traces of it. unless the
Michig is the person deleted ? And hence he can bring it back as Draft ? I can ask politely but I don't know how to make a formal request.Jbor14 (talk)07:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph_Borg_(scientist) · (talk |logs | links |watch |afd ) They also state it needs a LOT OF WORK. indeed... there are many many updates that are required, but most are publicly available and cited. I guess the most notable of all are the first ever Maltese biomedical Science missions to the ISS called Project Maleth, I in 2021, II in 2022 and III in 2023. Also worked on inspiration4 and Polaris dawn spacex mission science, and led parts of the blood science for the spacex fram2 mission as well. etc.
I was looking for people calledFrisch, but Frisch exists as a manually-compiled list, which of course is incomplete (it has no link toElizabeth H. Frisch (up for deletion at the moment, so I haven't added it). I'm sure someone once told me that list pages do have an option to carry out a search instead of relying on the list. But for the life of me I can't find it.Elemimele (talk)10:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you type 'Frisch' in the searchbar, then at the bottom of the suggested results you'll see a button to "Search for pages containing 'Frisch'"Athanelar (talk)11:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: "Search for pages containing" includes hits outside the title.Special:PrefixIndex only finds titles which start with a given string.intitle:Frisch finds titles with Frisch or very similar words in the title. Some disambiguation pages have a search link but it has to be added manually, often with{{In title}}. Surname pages likeFrisch are articles and rarely have search links.PrimeHunter (talk)12:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks loads! I forgot that the essential thing is not to press the enter key on typing something in the search bar; first check the options!Elemimele (talk)12:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belirli spor branşlarında çeşitli başarılar yapmış bulunmaktayım. Sosyal medya hesaplarım aktiftir ve sahibi olduğum bir spor kulübünü işletiyorum kendi biyografimi yayınlamak istiyorum.~2025-40833-40 (talk)10:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I’ve been reading the page about PersianParadise garden. The History section says a citation is needed. I’ve found one that’s related but it doesn’t fully support the claim in the text. Hoping for guidance. - Ben~2025-40815-81 (talk)11:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the source you've found is reliable, see if you can revise the text that needs referencing so that it's in two (probably very unequal) halves: what the source does confirm, and what it doesn't. (Either way around is OK.) Add a reference immediately after what your source confirms; add{{Citation needed}} immediately after what it doesn't. (I'm also assuming that you're editing "source"; if instead you're using the "visual editor", please say so.) --Hoary (talk)12:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was recently surfing and saw a violation of the talk page policy (WP:TPNO). I would like to give the user a warning on their talk page. Is there a specific template for that or do I just use the regular user warning template? And, am I allowed to delete the comment if it clearly doesn’t follow guidelines?FloblinTheGoblin (talk)12:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia, please direct your issue to Albanian wikipedia (I assume you are Albanian as Google translate detected this message as being in Albanian).
I am asking for some support. I was recently threatenedUser talk:Docmoates/Archive 2#December 2025 with a block by a non-administrator user for "blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials" despite the fact that I made a good faith copy edit onBelgian ship A4 and the user also tagged it asWP:Vandalism which I don't agree with because it states ""any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Can someone help me understand what if anything I have done wrong? I am simply trying to edit based on Wikipedia polices and there are many but this user is an essay which is not a guideline or policy to threaten me and accuse me of vandilism acting in bad faith. None of my other edits yesterday were reverted and many of them remain the current article.Docmoates (talk)14:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Docmoates. I agree with you in that you did not vandalize, however you did remove a lot of content and I see why Brigade Piron suspected it was vandalism.However, the template left on your talk page was not a threat. I see why you interpreted as such (it does look somewhat hostile) but I think they thought they were genuinely trying to warn you as they assumed you were a vandal. I would not be concerned about this but would suggest talking to the user.PhoenixCaelestis ‣Talk //Contributions16:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The message you received was a semi-automated warning given throughWP:TWINKLE.
I don't quite understand Wiki's policy regarding sources and references. I see wiki articles that have little to no verifiable sources or references. These have been approved somehow. In my article, I use references, sources (primary and secondary), bibliographical references, according to methods I learned at university, but it still doesn't seem to be working for approval for now. I'm currently editing the article again, aiming at improving the reference part and then resubmit it. I understand the importance of verification of references, secondary sources etc. This is not critizing the support I get which is very helpful. I just want to understand.Dirkadrianus (talk)15:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, there are many, many articles on Wikipedia that are not 'up to standard', but slip through the cracks for various reasons; either because they are old and therefore from a time before our standards were so strict and haven't been looked at since, or because they were published directly to mainspace and flew under the radar (the new pages patrol backlog is very large). For this reason, trying to compare to other articles to figure out what you should be doing is a bad idea. You can see atWP:Articles for deletion that existing articles are constantly being identified as unfit for various reasons and nominated for deletion.
There is also the case of certain subjects which have special notability criteria and are 'presumed notable' for reasons other than the quality of their sourcing. PerWP:GEOLAND for example, populated, legally-recognised settlements are presumed notable and therefore can have articles even if the quality of sourcing is very poor.Athanelar (talk)15:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, @Dirkadrianus, to paraphrase Athanelar, some of Wikipedia's old articles were never "approved". Since there are now 7 million articles, there is no feasible way to re-review them all against our current guidelines.David10244 (talk)06:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's main differences is that, unlike in school, primary sources are used very little here.
If you look at it from a, umm, "very school-ish point of view", you might even say something like "Wikipedia isn't interested in discovering any research; Wikipedia is a compilation of the best of the published textbooks". That's not true of course, but it does kind of show how Wikipedia's focus is different.TooManyFingers (talk)01:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT has been working through the list of Uncategorised Templates. In the past few days, they have been adding<noinclude>[[Category:Attached KML templates]]</noinclude> to KML files. Unfortunately, this appears to interfere with the display of route maps on the articles on the KML files are transcluded. For example:
If you look atOxted line (the relevant KML file isTemplate:Attached_KML/Oxted line) you will see that there is a globe icon and a drop down arrow next to the GA symbol in the top right hand corner of the article page.User:SID 'Gingerfool' RAT has not edited this KML file.
I'm afraid that whilst this has sorted the problem of the globe and the icon disappearing onNorth Downs Line, the map is not displaying properly. You appear to have deleted a whole load of coordinates - was this intentional? Can these just be added back?
So just to be clear, categories should not be added to an attached KML file.
You wrote in one of your edit summaries "moved categories to /doc per WP conventions", but unfortunately I can't see from your edit contributions where you moved them to. Can your explain what you did please? Also, are you able to provide a link to the "WP conventions" that you referred to please - this would be helpful for future reference.
Unfortunately there are about 9500 kml files inCategory:Attached KML templates that also have this issue, so any assistance you can provide with rolling back these edits would be most helpful.
Mertbiol Thanks...Clean-up KML page for Kartographer moved categories to /doc per WP conventions. supposed to be removed categories to docx perWP Conventions just in hurry tho, the <noinclude>[[Category:Attached KML templates]]</noinclude> was inside an attached KML template I think that was causing the problem also I've added XML namespace declaration xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2" because without this declaration software like Kartographer and Google Earth might not interpret the KML elements correctly. I hope THESE are helpful. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk17:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you've really got to make this idiot-proof for me. Where is the /doc or /docx page that you moved the categories to? Can you provide a link please? I cannot see it in your edit contributions.
There are a lot of files that are affected (9500+) and it's important to get the corrections right, otherwise we will be wasting a lot more time trying to untangle the issues.
I think the best thing to do is to get@SID 'Gingerfool' RAT: to request a mass rollback of their edits to remove the categories. They can then set up a /doc page for each one.
Hello, I have a keen interest in studying and writing about notable places in my area, and I have previously created articles on Wikipedia. I currently have the right to move drafts to the mainspace, but I would greatly value your suggestions and feedback before doing so. I have a new draft readyDraft:Nokrek Biosphere Reserve and would appreciate it if an experienced reviewer could look at it or move it as appropriate. Previously, I created an article onOldham Fault, and I would be happy to receive your review or suggestions on that as well. Thank you...(:Edit by Sona (talk)16:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than ask for review here with the aim of moving the article to mainspace yourself, just wait for the AfC reviewers to get to your draft. As it says on the template, estimated wait time is 4 weeks; but there's no rush. Just forget about it and edit something else in the meantime.Athanelar (talk)16:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Athanelar I would like to clarify that I did not intend to seek extended user personal advice. My request was limited to feedback on the draft from new page reviewer. I did not mean any offence. @Qcne thank you for your response I found it helpful. To clarify, the draftNokrek Biosphere Reserve is not meant to duplicateNokrek National Park. The national park article focuses on the park itself, while the biosphere reserve covers the larger UNESCO-designated area and its broader conservation context.Edit by Sona (talk)22:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Athanelar did not give you any extended user personal advice. That advice was firmly on-topic with what you requested, informing you that your question itself was a mistake. Asking them to simply answer, even when the question is wrong, would only compound mistake upon mistake. They were not being rude or presumptuous by answering as they did.TooManyFingers (talk)01:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have done the same thing more than once on this very Teahouse page: asked for advice, then when advice was given that you didn't like, you'll ask that editor to stop replying. Or you say that you are not looking for input all of a sudden ("at this stage", or whatever you said in an earlier thread).
The whole purpose of the Teahouse is to get input from more experienced editors. You would do well to listen to their advice, and refrain from criticizing their attempts to help. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, providing answers out of the goodness of their hearts.David10244 (talk)06:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sona. It looks like you've got 161 edits showing on the counter. I'd make the friendly suggestion that you spend a few months making improvements to existing articles that interest you rather than starting new pages until you really get comfortable with notability policy. It seems quite a few newcomers charge straight into starting new articles and then run afoul of the deletion process and become discouraged. By all means, start new articles straight into mainspace when you feel you have a grasp of things, but please do take a little time to "learn the ropes" before you get too aggressive with new starts. (Your additions toAbir Ranjan Biswas are a good example of what I have in mind. Good work on that!) —tim ///Carrite (talk)19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite Thank you very much for your kind and constructive guidance....(: I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this so clearly.... I understand your suggestion and I will focus on improving existing articles and gaining a better understanding of notability and other relevant policies before starting new articles.... Your feedback has been very helpful and encouraging if it is okay, may I occasionally seek advice from you on talk pages when I am unsure about something? Guidance from experienced editors is very valuable for me to learning and improving.Edit by Sona (talk)19:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm a new editor and looking to get a page I recently cleaned up re-assessed. When I look at the instructions to request a re-assessment on WP:TV/A, it says to "Pleaseadd new entries to the bottom of the2022 list and sign with four tildes (~~~~)." This seems to be out of date and I'm wondering if there's a different place (a 2025 list perhaps) where we should make these requests.Tyler17B (talk)18:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyler17B, seems like they just never updated it. You could add a new heading (====2025====) under the 2024 section, and then put your request under it. Note that you are allowed to change yourself the rating of the article to B or lower without asking anyone else to do so. If you really aren't sure, make a request.win8x (talk)19:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TV itself might be active, and it has 515 watchers, but the assessment page only has 40 watchers. It might also just be a sign of no one requesting any assessments, because they usually are for higher levels than B (namely A, GA, and FA). People just rate their own articles otherwise.win8x (talk)20:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on setting up a Wikipedia page for The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, and it has been denied 3 times despite my best efforts to align the content and sources with Wikipedia's guidelines. Could someone help share exactly why the most recent version was denied, as all the sources are completely independent from the Foundation. I appreciate any guidance.
The reviewer stated that you need to have in-depth,reliable,secondary andindependent of the subject. The second source is a passing mention (they are allowed but a page with only passing mentions would show it isn’tnotable. The third source is pretty in-depth, burn the fourth is just tax accounts, and although the numbers do sound impressive, statistics can’t be he only source, if you can find more sources that show it is notable and in-depth like the third source then that would give you a better chance of having a page.
Also you will have to mention whether you have been paid by PJM Foundation or whether you have any connection to them as this is a COI, and therefore you wouldn’t be independent of the subject, and biased.
Hello, @~2025-40588-84, and welcome to the Teahouse. (I'm guessing you are @Ncollison457? Please remember to log in)
I suggest you give up the idea of "setting up a page for" and substitute "writing an encyclopaedia article about". While we can loosely talk about an article about X as being "an article for X", it is notfor in any beneficial sense.
Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article wishes to say about itself - and certainly not what it says its "mission" is.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (seeGolden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
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. This is even more so for an editor with a conflict of interest.ColinFine (talk)20:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm not a confirmed editor so I can't edit the goldfish (cracker) wiki, but I noticed a typo in this sentence: "In 1988, astronauts bought Goldfish Crackers with them on the STS-26, Discovery." It should say brought instead of bought.Lovelyman718 (talk)19:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to find citations for an article that has had a "does not represent a worldwide view" tag for years:De Grote Donorshow. I have found several news articles that are reporting on the exact event I want to cover from the time the event occured. The articles all seem to be based on the same news wire post or press release, since they quote the same Dutch sources and don't add new information. Would citing these articles count as a worldwide view? What other types of sources should I try to find?SenshiSun (talk)20:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SenshiSun. An article about a TV programme that as far as I can see was only ever shown in one country is an extremely odd place to put that tag. I see that @Mahjongg posted on the talk page severnteen years ago explaining why they added the tag, and you have replied to the comment on the talk page, showing how there isn't really any "worldwide view" (Mahjongg has edited this year, but not since April).
Thank you! I figured that might be the case, but I'm new here and Mahjongg has clearly been a primary contributor to that article. I didn't want to step on toes.SenshiSun (talk)21:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know not to welcome users who commit vandalism, but Idid not know not to welcome users without any edits. My poor welcome...gone to waste because they have no edits.Light&Salvation (talk)21:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. There's nothing wrong with people who haven't edited, it's just that we don't want to get in people's faces if they might not even be interested.TooManyFingers (talk)05:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number of reasons someone could create an account but not edit. They could be active on a different Wiki (eg. active on French wiki, but looked at an En-wiki for something, which creates a local account). They could also just be here to use a different skin, for instance vector legacy instead of vector 2022.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)06:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @LightandSalvation. To add to what @45dogs said: some Wikipedias in other languages do have a bot to automatically welcome new accounts. We often get messages here saying "Why did I get a message in a language I don't understand?", and the answer is usually "Because you looked at something on that Wikipedia - perhaps not even realising you had done so - and it sent you a welcome message".ColinFine (talk)13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not highly knowledgeable about categories and thought I'd ask for some feedback here. I was thinking of creating a new category called something like "Category: Multisport Professional Athletes" or similar. It would initially be populated by people likeBo Jackson,Deion Sanders andJim Thorpe. Thoughts, suggestions or opinions? -The literary leader of the age✉21:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea for a category. There were actually quite a few pioneer pro football players that played pro baseball in the summer. Enough to populate a meaningful category, in all likelihood.Carrite (talk)19:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a category that has a clear enough definition that people hopefully won't be tempted to add it indiscriminately, AND it's one that seems likely to be interesting in itself. (Some other categories, while true and probably useful, are - in themselves - boring.)
Can some native speakers comment on the following excerpt fromAdvocacy of suicide:
Advocacy of suicide, also known as pro-suicide
I see that the "also known as" part of the sentence has been added by someone who is not a native speaker. I myself am not a native speaker, and find that phrasing strange. I guess the reason for this is that "advocacy" is a noun, whereas "pro-suicide" is an adjective — so equating the two with "also known as" feels weird to me... I would have expected something like "also known as pro-suicidestance", or something like that, and when I read the sentence it feels like it misses a word.
The reason why I'm asking for input from native speakers is that (1) a bunch of native speakers seem to have read/edited that article since this "also known as" has been introduced, and no-one had an issue with the phrasing and (2) I asked an LLM and it said the sentence was perfectly fine.
No, you're right, it's weird. For exactly the reason you said; "advocacy for suicide" might be also known as "pro-suicide advocacy" but certainly not just "pro-suicide"Athanelar (talk)23:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Malparti, this presents "pro-suicide" as an alternative not to "advocacy" but to "advocacy of suicide". The latter is a noun phrase (NP). As for "pro-suicide", a good test is to see whether it's modifiable by an adjective or an adverb. "He is fanatical pro-suicide" and "He is fanatically pro-suicide" are for me ungrammatical and grammatical respectively. So "pro-suicide" is indeed an adjective. Although NPs and adjective phrases (AdjPs) can be straightforwardly coordinated ("He is both a miser and vindictive"), the construction "[NP], also known as [AdjP]" doesn't seem to work. (Incidentally, please don't depend on an LLM for anything other than the production of slick, worthless prose.) --Hoary (talk)23:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection,Malparti, my argument above is seriously incomplete. "Pro-suicide" mightalso be a noun. Well, is it? I looked in theNews on the Web corpus (seeCorpus of Contemporary American English). Slightly over a hundred hits for "pro-suicide", mostly as an attributive within an NP ("pro-suicide forum/website/material" etc). But not a single hit for "pro-suicide is/was" (regardless of whether the "p" of "pro-" is capitalized). So I think it's safe to say that no, it's not additionally an NP. --Hoary (talk)00:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the New on the Web corpus link — I wasn't aware of its existence and had been using the number of hits of a Google query and/or Google Books Ngram Viewer to see how frequent some some phrases were. Good to have a third alternative.Malparti (talk)00:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of whether the language is correct is far less important than making sure that the termsreally are the ones used in most reliable sources. We don't want to end up highlighting some editor's personally-preferred but poorly supported term.TooManyFingers (talk)01:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier in regards to KML templates, would someone be able to revert all my edits to KML templates adding the Attached KML template category, as this has been shown to negatively affect the code.SID'Gingerfool' RAT☎23:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I also think admins can tag their rollbacks as Bot rollbacks, which is a must here. I'd really make a post at AN if I was you.win8x (talk)23:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks, I came across a page for a game calledGhost of a Tale that has many issues with it. I want to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia's standards, but I'm a pretty new editor and I'm not entirely sure where to start. I've added the "this article has multiple issues" template thingy at the start of the page (plus a few weeks ago I improved some of the wording in the gameplay section of the article), but I'm not sure where I should go from here. Could some more experienced Wikipedians give me some tips?Pasta Crab (talk)23:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BluePixelLOLLL, it is notindexed. When a new page patroller reviews it, it will be indexed, and will show up on search results. It looks like it has just been moved to draftspace; I would highly recommend going through the AFC process, since it does not appear to benotable from a glance at the sources.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)04:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, why has wikipedia changed the IPs to Temporary accounts? Is there a reason for this change? And is it only like this on the english Wikipedia?~2025-41128-58 (talk)05:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's featured article on French Wikipedia has this near the bottom:
"Dernière modification il y a 4 heures par ~2025-27941-37"
Hi ~2025-41128-58.Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 12#Temporary accounts rollout has most of the story behind the rollout of temporary accounts, but basically the Wikimedia foundation decided it would be better for temporary accounts to replace IPs for privacy reasons. A fair number of Wikis have TAs; the ones that were stated to not have TAs from that thread are the Spanish, Russian, Commons, and Meta wikis. There could be others, but I believe most Wikis have TAs.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)06:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what @45dogs said, and also to the temp account: I believe the decision was made in order to comply with the GDPR... It wasn't just a random decision on the Foundation’s part.
The temp account scheme has its supporters and detractors, but the Wikis are not going to go back to displaying IP addresses, as some have suggested.David10244 (talk)07:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than providing anonymity to IP addresses by requiring sign-in to edit, which is the way all rational internet entities would handle the issue, WMF decided to spend buckets of donor dollars coming up with a new anonymizing scheme that will help make vandalism more difficult to fight and which will not ultimately solve the problem they are trying to solve.Rube Goldberg lives. —tim ////Carrite (talk)19:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am just here to ask if I can input "possible birthplaces" in infoboxes. For example,Mark Rober currently doesn't have a birthplace, and in hisEarly life section, it mentions that he was raises in Brea, California, and attended Brea Olinda High School, as well as having graduated from USC (University of Southern California). So while there is a chance he could've been born somewhere else, he was possibly born in California. So can I include in his infobox "birthplace: possibly California, U.S."?SpiritEdit (talk)06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SpiritEdit - I tried to dig for you. It looks like theOrange County Register, published in Santa Ana, CA, is the local newspaper for Brea (and that might be an alternate place of birth, which is why you should not guess Brea). Unfortunately, Newspapers.com only has back issues of that newspaper up to 1977 on file, so that's not gonna help. Birth dates and places are hard to find sometimes. I will note that as a BYU grad there is a good chance he's Mormon, so there might be some church source or another that could get you to the information, but that's outside of my lane. Good luck with it, —tim ////Carrite (talk)19:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I don't know about any source-reliability issues that might or might not come up, but Mormon emphasis on maintaining genealogy records is quite well known.TooManyFingers (talk)20:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cant for the life of me figure out how to fix the cite error.
I'm currently working on the Rand Rebellion wiki page, but i keep getting a cite error whenever i try to cite a different page of the same source. Any help would be appreciated, cheersFugawiVasbyt (talk)08:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello respected editors! I'm looking for a GA reviewer forISRO. Is there anyone here who can take responsibility for this task? It's been 3 and a half months since I have nominated the article. I would be really grateful if I find a reviewer here. Best regards!–𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿09:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the list of GA noms waiting for review, you'll see the list is huge, and yours is nowhere near the oldest.
The best way to get eyes on yours faster would be to help that backlog along by doing some reviews yourself, or at least contact a couple of other editors waiting for reviews to make a reviewing group (where you get a bunch of editors together and review each others; articles; i.e., A reviews B, B reviews C, C reviews D, and D reviews A kind of thing)Athanelar (talk)10:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but the problem is that I have no experience with GA reviews, and I don't think I'll ever be able to learn how to do them. I think waiting is the only option. Thanks for the response, happy editing!–𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿11:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be afraid to try. The set of criteria is really fairly simple to assess; and if nothing else, you could look for some articles in the backlog which meet the speedy fail criteria to at least get rid of those.Athanelar (talk)11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your efforts, but I really don't think I can be a GA reviewer. Waiting for one is the only option for me. Thanks for your precious time. :)–𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿11:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few barnstars which I wish to remove from my talk page and add to my User Page. Does anyone have any good template recommendations that I could use?Kingsacrificer (talk)12:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article keeps getting declined. I'm not sure why? Thomas Petrovski has all the significant coverage on Sports Apps like Soccerway, Flashscore, Sofascore, Transfermarkt. Has articles created about him by 90.1 NBC FM. It just doesn't make sense.~2025-39931-23 (talk)14:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to keep the article as concise as possible and added the necessary information with sources only but it was rejected saying the sources were not reliable {This submission is not adequately supported byreliable sources.}
The company's name is listed in so many productions (movies) see list below
Hello and welcome. If the company is "unknown", that almost certainly means that- like the vast majority of companies on Earth- it does not merit a Wikipedia article and you're- frankly- probably just wasting your time. You need to show that the company isa notable company.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, especially with a conflict of interest. Please readWP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues.331dot (talk)14:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The submission was declined because in addition to a good portion of the content being unsourced (breaking the principle ofverifiability), the draft's references onlybriefly mention the subject, and one of the sources isprimary. Sources need to bereliable,secondary, andindependent, and none of the sources meet that. Also, considering how you yourself say the subject isfairly unknown, it probably is notnotable enough to warrant an article.mwwvconverse∫edits14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The good answers you already received have already said this, but I'll say it differently: Wikipedia will only write about companies that are already known. If the press and other sources seem "behind" because they have not yet recognized a person or a company, Wikipedia must also remain "behind" in the same way, because Wikipedia relies on those sources. Wikipedia does not accept an article if the main information comes from a company itself.TooManyFingers (talk)21:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have conducted in person interviews with a few people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them. Can I use the information from these interviews to update their biographical information?David Smith (talk)17:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand the reasons, at the same time it is a pity that a lot of information which is not readily available can't be added to wikipedia...David Smith (talk)17:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a pity" - yes. Granted. There's a lot of information that simply doesn't get into the historical record.
Smithx57 - The answer above is technically correct, but I would add the following proviso: if in the course of your interview you learned that something isfactually wrong with the Wikipedia page the way it sits, go ahead and make that correction with something like "correcting error of fact" in the edit summary. Someone may complain or revert or not, depending to some extent on how high profile the page is, but the main thing at Wikipedia isto make sure information is correct. —tim,Carrite (talk)18:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira - That's an essay, it is not a guideline and it is not policy, it is an opinion. I will see your bluffing bid and raise you a Jimmy Wales quote: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012) ... Happy editing and I hope you come to see the error of your ways. —tim ///Carrite (talk)19:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point in what you're saying, but on Wikipedia, private evidence is worthless. You can write it, but you have "no leg to stand on" if someone reverts it.TooManyFingers (talk)21:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working on edits on nociceptin and they have been rejected. The editors are not experts on this topic. I work on a variety of updates for my boss. I do not work for Tris and now these editors are saying there is a conflict. Agnes. Help.Agnes R Waite (talk)17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. If you are editing at the request of your boss, you are a paid editor under our rules and are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal disclosure, seeWP:PAID.
Wikipedia is (usually) written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independentreliable sources say about a topic. It's not required to be an expert in the area one chooses to edit in, as long as one can read and summarize sources. Please seeWP:EXPERT for some guidance for expert editors.
Hello, @Agnes R Waite, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked in detail at what you have ben doing, but judging from the discussion on your user talk page, you have been trying to introduce information which has not yet been published in areliable source. That is an absolute no-no for Wikipedia, as it counts asoriginal research.
The problem is that since Wikipedia can be edited by (almost) anyone in the world, you can never be sure that somebody has not altered an article (Wikipedia does not allow citations ot Wikipedia itself, as it is not a reliable source). What saves it, and makes it valuable, is the citations - if it is important to a reader to know that the content of an article is accurate, they can follow the citations, and see where the information comes from.
If you, as an expert, add information because you have done the work and know that it is correct, that might seem fine - until somebody comes along and changes it, whether by mistake, or because they misunderstood something, or because they were misinformed, or because they were intentionally presenting misinformation. A reader might easily take what they said; or if they were concerned with accuracy, they might go back and see that it was changed from something else. But if there is no citation to a reliable published source, they have no way to judge between competing presentations. (And the person who made the change may have represented themselves as an expert as much as you: we have no way of telling).ColinFine (talk)17:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theSerpent Mound page, there are two large sections about the Adena and Fort Ancient cultures. These are relevant as both cultures have artifacts and mounds at the site, but the amount of information given for each seems excessive to me given that pages exist for both cultures that give plenty of information if needed. I couldn't find anything concrete in the MOS on amount of content needed for context, so some advice is appreciated.Scooglers (talk)17:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeWP:BOLD. Remove what you think doesn't belong, and give an edit summary that explains why this is a good idea. If somebody disagrees, they will revert your edit, and you can have a discussion.
If you don't feel confident, open a discussion onTalk:Serpent Mound, suggesting what you think should change. If some editors join the discussion you can work towards a consensus; and if nobody does (give it at least a week), then go ahead and make your changes.
My own personal-opinion ideal for how much context to keep in an article: A reader who is unfamiliar with the subject should be able to follow what's being said in your article, without clicking any links. Any context that is much more than that, replace it with links to the other articles.TooManyFingers (talk)20:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sports in requested articles is seemingly lacking a lot of sports?
It looks like under the sports section there are several sports that are not mentioned at all. I went to request a certain article in relation to the sport of skeet shooting, and there is no section for requests on shooting sports. Is there a reason for this lack of niche sports? Shooting sports are not particularly niche anyway. I don't know where to request this article be made. I am very confused. Also this is my first time using the teahouse and I hope I am doing this correctly. Fingers crossed!Louis1951 (talk)19:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely understand your point in doing it that way, and it's a good point, but I think your idea starts to make less sense if they added it a long time ago. But if they're still around, and especially if they still edit that article sometimes, then yes, great.TooManyFingers (talk)21:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it out "by hand" and then tell them "by hand", if you think it's a special thing that's important to inform them about. But you don't normally owe it to anyone to tell them, unless it's very recent or very important.TooManyFingers (talk)00:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a user that created there account a year ago, and already has ~100 edits. Most edits are just link adding, but some are questionable. I need some help looking throughhis edits, and I know this probably isn't the right place to post something like this, so where is? If you guys could tell me, that would be great! Thanks,
Yes, sorry, I meant a week, not a year! I guess they do fit that description, just one or two of the edits of there's I saw were off, and it kind of struck me wrong. I'll be less critical next time.Oak lod ← That's me! (talk)00:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think someone well-intentioned has made a mistake, you could just leave them a message on their user talk page. That's what it's for.DS (talk)03:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New to editing, hoping for feedback and to have an edit looked at. Talk page entry made.
I've recently added to a page on electricians, specifically the auto electrician section (Electrician#Diagnostics, 13th December 2025). And I may have strayed a bit out of the intended scope by describing some technical diagnosis situations and approaches. With the intention to help people to enter the trade with awareness of useful techniques. This is at risk of going outside of the purpose of the page, which is simply about the trade and subtypes, though I went into detail about diagnostics procedures. I'm hoping it's ok to edit like this, knowing that it may be reviewed, and hoping it will be. I posted on the 'talk' page.
I have not gone to the length of adding sources, since the information is from industry experience. Later I saw it said 'no original research', though I am confident the information I provided is well understood, even if unorthodox but plausible, by experts in the field. There are other topics i'd like to add to, and hopefully this editing style, adding things somewhat relevant to the topic, is helpful, provided it is accurate and doesn't stray too much. There are many areas where i've generalized, and everything including the phrasing and paragraph structure can be improved. So I'm hoping to draw attention to it so that any errors (such as page intention and scope) i've put in can be quickly corrected. This was quite enjoyable to have some input into a topic I enjoy and understand. Because i'm very new to this whole process, it's a chance to get some feedback if improvement is neededVan0014 (talk)22:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Van0014, I don't question your intentions. However:I have not gone to the length of adding sources, since the information is from industry experience. Later I saw it said 'no original research', though I am confident the information I provided is well understood, even if unorthodox but plausible, by experts in the field. "Original research" may suggest, well,research; however, "no original research" instead means "no material depending on anything other than published, reliable, independent sources". And therefore you have to add references, if you want your additions (however accurate and helpful) to stick. --Hoary (talk)22:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiVan0014. While we appreciate your edits, I'm afraid sources are required. No original research and verifiability are some of ourcore policies. Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability, not truth. Think about it; while your intentions are good, what would happen if everyone was allowed to freely publish unverified information? We would be flooded with misinformation, and we would be unable to do anything about it. Wikipedia is designed to be behind the trend of information, as a way to ensure verifiability.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)22:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Van0014, I un-did your edits for now, as it is all un-cited, and is mostly information about the procedures that an auto-electrician might do, and not about auto-electricians themselves, which that section is about. The information seems correct, but as people above have said, there are no sources, and, as I have already said, one of the bigger reasons, the content added does not fit the page topic. If you can find sources, and the information is not added already, then an article about the procedures that auto-electricians might do would be great to put that info.
Hello! I'm far from new to Wikipedia (I've edited under 3 IPs in the past, which you can find on my userpage) but I've only had this account for a month and a half, and I'm still new to uploading images. Is what @AndreJustAndre saidhere about it being discouraged to upgrade the resolution of non-free images true? If so, I'll refrain from upgrading the resolutions of any more of such images in the future.JHD0919 (talk)22:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's 100% certain that there are non-free images that must be kept at low resolution or we can't have them at all.
As Andre and I discussed on the linked talk page, I upgraded the resolutions of two Super Monkey Ball images, because 1) I felt the existing images were too low-res, and 2) I knew that DatBot would downsize them. BecauseWikipedia:Non-free content,Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, andWikipedia:Non-free content criteria do not mention upgrading image resolutions of non-free images is discouraged, I assumed I was free to do so. What I'm asking is if it is indeed discouraged, because if so, then I made a big mistake without even knowing I was making a mistake.JHD0919 (talk)22:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a big deal so I wouldn't fret about it... just probably not a great thing to spend time on in the scheme of things. Nobody is going to penalize youAndre🚐05:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than depending on DatBot (or whatever) to downsize a file that you know is too large when you (however benevolently) upload it, why not simply downsize it yourself before uploading it? This is very simple withGIMP (which runs under Windows, macOS or Linux), no doubt easy with alternative computer software, and while I don't know about phones (I never use mine for anything I could instead do with a computer) I imagine that these days it's easy on a phone as well. --Hoary (talk)00:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,I’m seeking guidance on Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies of industry professionals.I’ve been working on a draft biography based on multiple independent sources, including feature-length newspaper profiles, trade press coverage, broadcast interviews, and an academic co-authored article. The draft has been declined at AfC on the basis that the sources do not demonstrate “significant coverage,” and I’d appreciate advice on how editors typically assess notability in cases like this.The 19 sources include:a full-page feature profile in a major Australian newspaper (Herald Sun, weekend section)a double-page feature profile in a metropolitan newspapertrade publication features naming and interviewing the subjectbroadcast television and online video interviewsan academic article co-authored with a policy instituteI understand that AfC applies a cautious approach, particularly for biographies of living people, and I’m not seeking to argue with prior reviews. Rather, I’d value guidance on:whether this type of coverage generally meets WP:BIO/WP:SIGCOV when evaluated by editors, andhow best to structure or present such sources so their significance is clear.I’m happy to step back from editing if a neutral editor is better placed to advise or take over.Thank you for any guidance you’re able to offer.—SusanMCastle (talk)05:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanMCastle: Based on your username it seems like you're writing about yourself, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia; seeWP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Quotes and interviews of the subject are not independent sources and do not count towardsnotability. Also, please don't use AI to communicate or write anything on Wikipedia (it looks like this question is AI-generated), seeWP:LLM.Helpful Raccoon (talk)06:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a Wikipedia article for my organization – questions about edit requirements and next steps
Hello everyone,I’m seeking guidance on the proper steps to eventually create a Wikipedia article for an organization where I currently work.I understand that new editors are usually encouraged to make constructive edits before creating an article, and I’ve heard that making around 10 edits to existing articles may be recommended. I would appreciate clarification on the following points:Do these edits need to be made to existing Wikipedia articles, or can edits to newly created articles also count?If I create one article and later improve or edit it multiple times, does that count as multiple edits, or is it considered a single contribution?What is the best way to find suitable articles that need improvements (e.g., copy-editing, adding references, expanding sections)?What would you recommend as the next steps for someone who plans to create an article about an organization, while avoiding conflict-of-interest issues?The organization’s article would eventually need to exist in both English and Kazakh. Is it acceptable to first create the English article (once eligible) and later translate it into Kazakh, following Wikipedia’s translation and sourcing guidelines?I previously asked my mentor these questions but haven’t yet received a response, so I would be very grateful for advice from the community.Thank you in advance for your time and guidance.ResearcherForISSAI (talk)06:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ResearcherForISSAI, the best way to create a Wikipedia article for the organization where you work is to do nothing. The organization is or isn't what we call "notable". If it is, then eventually one or more people unrelated to it will create an article about it. (If it isn't, then nobody should create an article about it.)Please read and digestWP:PAID andWP:BOSS. ¶ You say:I understand that new editors are usually encouraged to make constructive edits before creating an article, and I’ve heard that making around 10 edits to existing articles may be recommended. It may be, by somebody who's uninformed, or perhaps by a LLM. Start by multiplying that by ten: make around a hundred. Then consider making a hundred more. Repeat. ¶ You ask:What is the best way to find suitable articles that need improvements (e.g., copy-editing, adding references, expanding sections)? Most do. (What's a lot harder is to find articles that don't need improvements.) But tryCategory:Articles needing additional references. NB any reference that you add (or that anyone adds) must be carefully checked. Is it independent of the subject? Is the referenced source reliable? Is it secondary? (For most purposes, the answer must be "yes, yes, yes".) Does it really say what it's presented as saying. (Of course the answer must be "yes".) Do not think of using an LLM ("artificial intelligence") for this. ¶ If somebody wishes to translate an article that's in the Wikipedia of one language in order to create an article in the Wikipedia of another language, then they have to satisfy the requirements of the target Wikipedia (which are likely to differ). So in order to see what's necessary for an article (e.g. a translated article) in Kazakh Wikipedia, please consult Kazakh Wikipedia. --Hoary (talk)07:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about notability of an academic journal (AClasMed (Acta Classica Mediterranea)
Hello everyone,I’m a new editor trying to understand Wikipedia’s notability standards for academic journals. I recently created a page about AClasMed, a peer-reviewed journal in classical studies (philology, epigraphy, ancient history). It has been publishing since 2018 and is used and cited within its field.The article was marked as “non-notable,” but I’m struggling to understand why an active academic journal with a clear scholarly purpose and a defined place within its discipline would be considered not notable. I fully respect Wikipedia’s guidelines, but it feels surprising that something academically meaningful in a specialized field could be dismissed so quickly.Could someone clarify what type of evidence is considered sufficient to demonstrate notability for a journal?
And, more importantly, how editors should proceed when a topic is academically relevant, yet an administrator still deems it non-notable?
I’m asking sincerely and hoping for guidance so I can contribute correctly and fairly.
Courtesy link: Judy Matheson
Versions111(talk •contribs)15:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk16:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]