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 need to find the Worcester-born female artist whose brother was a sculptor of wild felines and whose work was admired by Whistler. Can someone help?I want to create a description of myself in real wikipedia. Not in the sandbox . How do I do it? Can somebody help meMykeljackson (talk)02:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a user page follow what the user above commented, if you want to make an article about yourself then I’m afraid that isn’t possible, Wikipedia doesn’t allow (most of the time) articles about oneself, especially if they have no sources.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tempted to ask the same thing. If I one day become notable enough for a wikipedia article, perhaps I could be that mythical wikipedian that got an autobiography in mainspacemgjertson (talk) (contribs)19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if an individual is famous enough they should be able to edit their page (but not start it, someone else has to deem it notable), because if I had a Wikipedia page I would want to edit it with my own personal info which I have lived through, which might not be out in public knowledge.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)19:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater On the contrary, you provide an excellent example of why Wikipedia does NOT want people editing their own article. Everything in an article must be based on published references, so anything "not out in public knowledge" would be inappropriate content and should be removed.Madam Fatal (talk)20:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a tricky question, especially as people in history have some such, I think if there is evidence you can prove (birth certificate, family testimonies and overall timeline correlation) then I think it’s ok. For example if my Wikipedia article said “Born on dd/mm/yy “ and it was incorrect or missing information and I added “Born on dd/mm/yyin London” and if I could prove it then I think that should be allowed, but is it a tricky subject I will give you that.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
birth certificate for most famous people their birth date is already known.
family testimonies they could also make stuff up to make you look better.
overall timeline correlation not sure what that means...
Either way, if there is enough evidence to add it onto that article throughreliable sources, then you wouldn't need the subject to write it themselves.
Usually the birth date is known but usually not the birthplace (unless they’ve mentioned it in a biography, interview etc.)
Overall timeline correlation meant that if I edited my page as a famous person and out my birthplace as Cambridge for example, and there is evidence to say I went to nursery in Cambridge then that’s timeline correlation (which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in).
(which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in) that's calledWP:OR. You probably need a longer answer for why the rule exists, perhaps you can take a look at theWP:ORSOURCE essay.
However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) I wish you the best of luck! I hope you will make it someday.Wikieditor662 (talk)16:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the draft related stuff, but is there any things that could be improved for this draft? Does it look like it’s article worthy or no?rave (talk)16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens, people give you a lot of quite long pages to read. Even though they're long and boring, read all of them carefully. It's not fun, but it's way less bad than getting things rejected all the time.TooManyFingers (talk)19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is aboutWP:ADOPT, it says"So, it is up to you, as someone who wants to be adopted, not only to find and approach an adopter ... They might accept you, or they may turn you down for various reasons. Please don't approach more than one potential adopter at a time. Wait a few days before asking someone else." So it would depend on you and the people you decide to ask.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)06:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo The "adopt-a-user" has now been largely replaced by a mentoring scheme (seeWP:MENTOR). New accounts are automatically assigned a mentor and you can find who has been allocated to you atSpecial:Homepage. Your mentor will be very happy to answer your questions via their talk page, or you can ask everybody here at the Teahouse if you prefer. That may give you a fast response but is less personal. Threads here are also archived much more quickly.Mike Turnbull (talk)17:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’ve started editing on the platform quite recently, and I have been enjoying it immensely.
However, when I viewed the amount of views on articles I have edited earlier today, the number was above 13k. But later in the day, it somehow decreased to only around 10k. Is there any reason why?
This is not really that big of a deal, but I am just curious on why this has happened.
Hi again, so my view count suddenly dropped down to 142 this morning, and it only seems to be tracking down a single one of the articles I edited. Is this intended, or is it a glitch?Gileselig (talk)02:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it went out of the “last sixty days” part as it says “views on articles you’ve edited in the last sixty days” therefore meaning that if an edit was made 60 days ago at 1:00pm and it’s 12;59 then the views would be displayed but after it hits 1:00 pm it gets wiped, that’s just my theory however.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)15:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a bug. Its working as intended, per my reading ofT216217. I have never found the impact section to make much sense, but the purpose of it (perthis) is to showan impact, rather than a precise impact.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)11:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean most of the sources are not independent but primary for example official site link none of the sources providing mention above any context of Bible translation into that language Discription.獅眠洞 (talk)12:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say open a merge discussion at that article's talk page and do it.
Also, please be noteWP:LATINPLEASE regarding your username, it would be very helpful if your signature included a latin transliteration of your username so that we have something to refer to you by.Athanelar (talk)12:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For "Mr.Lazy Guy" to be concealing 「獅眠洞」 strikes me as unnecessarily and undesirably confusing. Ashanzi are written left to right, they're pretty easy to copy 'n' paste for people who are accustomed to English but utterly unfamiliar with Chinese. --Hoary (talk)23:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But remember,獅眠洞, that a book can be an acceptable source for certain kinds of statement about itself. For example, an editionα of the bible translated byA into languageX would be an acceptable reference for a statement that editionα included (or didn't include) the apocrypha. (However, it wouldn't be an acceptable reference for a statement thatα was a superior translation to that made byB into languageX.) --Hoary (talk)23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I mean News or any secondary source (Translation of Bible is a book so we should deal it with that criteria). But some pages like Buryat have only one citation, turkmen have two links both are of from primary download link not any source providing context of its history.
Hello and welcome. I would first advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right in without first learning about how things work here is likely to end in frustration and anger as things happen to work you spend hours on that you don't understand. We don't want you to feel bad here. We recommend that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for what is being looked for and how things work. Using thenew user tutorial is also a good idea.
That said, you may write and submit a draft via theArticle Wizard. Regarding companies, you should review thenotability guidelines for companies to see if this company meets it; the vast majority of companiesdo not. The company must receive significant coverage in independentreliable sources; coverage that is more than just telling of the activities of the company or its offerings. Sources like press releases, interviews, and basic coverage do not establish notability. You should first gather any sources there are and have them in hand before you begin writing.331dot (talk)09:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this all works out well. In general though, computer hardware companies tend to get very little coverage from independent sources, unless they're huge and world-famous like Intel, or unless they've been involved in a high-profile public scandal. (And note that if therehas been a major scandal, the Wikipedia article is going to have to cover the scandal too.)TooManyFingers (talk)18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing (on Wikipedia) that images of someone who is deceased are allowed onto pages, is this true and therefore what license would it be, as the Wikimiedia commons image uploader doesn’t have a specific button to tick or “deceased persons”.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted.
That said, I'm not aware of special rules surrounding images of not-recently deceased persons; you may be referring toWP:BLPIMAGE regarding images of recently deceased or living people.331dot (talk)13:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well if it is possible to add an image I do think that would be nice, so are there any specific rules on deceased images or is it the same with most other images (EG. Requires permission, or is free from copyright).Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater: If a person is dead, a freely licensed photo of him or her can obviously not be taken, so a copyrighted image may be uploaded (to this Wikipedia, not to Commons) if it meets theNon-free content criteria. A non-free image cannot be used in a draft, however; it can be added only after the draft is moved to article space.Deor (talk)14:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the NFCC and the image checks the boxes, in fact it may be copyright free judging but it’s use on the TrinidadExpress website (news site) however I wasn’t able to see any Copyright or who exactly took said image (considering it was most likely taken in the 50s-early 60s), sure when it is published to the main space then I’d add the image, but like I just tick the box “my own work” as when uploading an image to a Wikipedia page that is the only way to add said image? Thanks for your help Deor and 331Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)14:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see, so then how would I upload it if not via commons, wasn’t planning to tick the “own work” section, just a little confused, I’ve uploaded images before which were my own work/free from copyright but usually that was Via commons and according to Deor I couldn’t put this specific image of Lord Blakie via Commons, therefore I’m a bit lost on how I would put the image onto Wikipedia without using commons, and even then using commons I’m unaware of what copyright it is (if it has a copyright at all). Thanks for any help.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)15:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater Since you're unaware of the copyright, you can't upload the image to Wikimedia Commons - sorry. Commons can only accept images under special copyright-free licenses, or where you are the copyright holder and are releasing the image to Commons under a compatible license. And as @331dot said, images are a "nice to have" feature but not a requirement for drafts, and have no bearing on acceptance.qcne(talk)15:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wasn’t thinking it was a requirement, I just thought as I remember hearing that deceased persons can have their image on Wikipedia, I think it was even in the Teahouse I saw that, hence why I thought it could be appropriate but perhaps I’m mistaken.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)15:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater: Definitely donot claim that a photo that you did not take yourself is your own work. Go to theFile upload wizard, click on "Upload a non-free file", then "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" and "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive", and the wizard will guide you through the upload process. If you can't determine who took the photo, just say that the author is "unknown".Deor (talk)15:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks a lot, all this technical stuff can be quite confusing. I’ll add it when the article is accepted (as I do believe it has enough info to be accepted), thanks for taking your time today to help me 👍 have a great rest of your day, same goes to qcne and 331.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)15:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KeyolTranslater. You're not entirely wrong, but you're misremembering.
As Deor explained, if a person is living it is almost never acceptable to upload a non-free image, because there is nearly always a possibility (even aremoveremote one) that a free image could be obtained.
I get that. But there is pretty widespread misuse and abuse of "own work" as a sort of magic ticket saying "Post my copyright violation now, because I said so".TooManyFingers (talk)22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can definitely see that, especially if people don’t think it’s has a copyright and just put “own work” I did that once but then I had to change it to say the artist was “unknown” but don’t worry, I won’t be getting any copyright violations for Wikipedia. :)Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)10:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking advice on article of prominent journalist, that has been marked for deletion.
This journalist is also the programming head of a large music festival Radio Primavera Sound. He is cited 100s of times in Wikipedia and regularly sought out by leading music media outlets to write about and interview leading artists. Yes I understand that notability is established when others publish articles on the actual person, but it is what he does and not who he is that is of interest to popular culture, even though that is all tied together. So the issue is that obviously the journalist is a private person and avoids the spotlight, because that is not the point, and maybe does not have an agent who would arrange for paid coverage. (I am speculating! I have no idea if they have an agent or not.)
How can someone be cited many times and yet not have their own article? It does not make sense to me.
I understand and yet am wondering how to establish a more contemporary understanding of notability.
Hi @I&I22. Do any of the sources in your draft meet the criterion set out inWikipedia:GOLDENRULE? From the deletion nominator, it doesn't look like it.
If not, that means this journalist does not pass our threshold for criteria for inclusion, which is atWikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). Criteria for inclusion is tested by evidence of multiple secondary sources that are independent from the person the article is about.
Note that we specifically exclude sources that are primary or written by the person the article is about, which looks like what most of your sources are.
There are also many non-him articles cited and many that I chose the auto formatting option did not include the authors.
I follow his work as am an electronic music enthusiast and am working to protect the legacy of genx creators - their webpages and archives are disappearing and so trying to secure some of this important history in wikipedia as well as encourage other edm enthusiasts to participate here.
I follow the work of all the people that I have written about in Wikipedia.
If you are insinuating that I am getting paid to do this labour you are very wrong. I am not a capitalist and so don't follow capitalist rationale for my efforts.I&I22 (talk)15:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will get them and here will be my guidelines taken fromReferencing
"Citations
Citations are the mostimportant element of any Wikipedia page. No page should be on Wikipedia if it cannot be backed up from a high quality published secondary source.
You should aim to have a citation at the end of every sentence, or at least every paragraph.
Your golden rule for sources used is that they should bepublished, and they should have a reputation forfact-checking andaccuracy. Scholarly material is normally fine, broadsheet newspapers, university-level textbooks and books from respected publishing houses. Blogs from universities or any organisations with an editorial oversight might be acceptable. Tabloids and clickbait journalism tend to be less reliable and should be avoided."I&I22 (talk)15:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source is reliable, independent, but does not provide the significant coverage we require: it just states he writes the Podcast and does no analysis or discussion of Ben otherwise.qcne(talk)15:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with establishing notability is the Wikipedia editor aka me, not really the subject. Cardew writes a lot and is everywhere. It is a deep dive to get past his publications insearches. If the BBC is citing and interviewing Cardew in music articles, it cannot be that he is unnotable. In any case i can remove the lesser quality citations and do more work to find more solid ones.I&I22 (talk)16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @I&I22. I sometimes think that the choice of the word "notable" is unfortunate. If somebody is not Wikinotable, this does not mean that he is unimportant, or insignificant: it means that there is not enough independent material about him to base an article on - that's all.ColinFine (talk)17:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reynolds, Matthew (2008). "Why Music Should Be Socialized".The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.10 (3): 5.I&I22 (talk)16:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for these notes. Yes, it is an interesting challenge and normally journalists are not my subject. Just this one as writes about all the artists that I am making articles for. He is genx and with that much of what is written on him is not necessarily easy to find as not digitised. But also, he is a journalist and I don’t think that they focus on promoting their own stories as much. The other thing that is interesting is that Wikipedia’s ideas on notability might be out of date. Now, I think that notable journalists just get the gigs and are paid by media outlets. I think that also is an important point to recognise. Maybe I am not expressing my thoughts accurately enough. I am a volunteer and have a busy life like everyone and find these Wikipedia tangles exhausting and a bit demoralising lol. Then when you are passionate ppl accuse you of making money. I care about time and protecting legacies and want to put my energy towards other articles that need to be written. Anyways I guess it’s par for the course. Am learning but it’s so unfun ha!I&I22 (talk)19:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, @I&I22,none of these sources provide significant critical coverage of Ben himself, as a person. I, unfortunately, concur that it seems this person does not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time.qcne(talk)19:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLOSE runs it all down. Generally speaking, any uninvolved, registered editor in good standing may close a thread, but there are times that it's considered inappropriate for a non-admin to do so: when it's a contentious topic, the non-admin has little experience, or the result requires an administrator action. It's generally a community judgment call.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not an admin, don't close anything at AfD unless it's a keep or no-consensus (all other outcomes require actions that are hard or impossible for non-admins); even then, use extreme caution, because almost everything at AfD is contentious, and requires a very fine judgement and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. But please contribute to AfD, it desperately needs good input!Elemimele (talk)18:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just started on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if there was some sort of beginner's guide to WikiText. So far, I've just been using the Visual Editor, but I want to know how to use the Source Editor as well. Can someone help?
I never use source editing, it’s too coding-wired for me, a bit too nerdy in that subject matter, I know there probably are many advantages (having more control, etc.) but I personally like Visual more, I mainly here to add and find info and make pages on subjects which don’t have pages yet. It is good that you are looking at learning the source code.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)19:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the main advantage of source editing is that you have a better view of how it works. Visual editing covers up how some things work, which IS easier - but only easier until something goes wrong.
I would suggest finding an article that is not full of complicated stuff, and jump right into using source editing. It's easier to just pick it up than to explain it.TooManyFingers (talk)19:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also: When you want to do something in the source editor but don't know how, it really helps to find where someone else has done it, click "edit" to see the source, and copy their technique.TooManyFingers (talk)19:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally mucked up one of my userboxes, tried to add an image and now it’s massive and taking up the whole page, how can I make the image fit in the userbox like all the other userboxes on my page (which have predetermined templates, this one I tried to make I tried to make on my own). Any help will be really appreciated. (I’m not that good at source editing, so if there is a way to fix it without it being in source then that would be good), I’ll continue to edit and see and troubleshoot, so if I fix it then I will come back and alert you all that this question is no longer needed. ThanksMwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)19:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you don't have ANY good sources. There's a huge list but none of them are the right kind. The problem: interviews don't count (even when the reporter also has something to say), and announcements of shows don't count (even when they also give an information blurb about the artist). All these things ultimately come from Mr. Mohammed himself.TooManyFingers (talk)21:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section "art as a weapon", building onto it... the same sources later on end up in peer reviewed academic papers over time in art history among the academia. It's an interesting piece so will save it as something to work on.~2025-35735-58 (talk)22:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you can save the article by finding several reliable sources where there is no announcement being made and the reporter all by himself makes a long explanation of Mr. Mohammed's history as an artist.TooManyFingers (talk)21:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-35735-58 One of the difficulties I think people often run into is that media writers intentionally try to hide the fact that their article is really an interview, or that it's really a show announcement (which in the artist world serves the same purpose as a press release does in the corporate world).TooManyFingers (talk)22:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article got declined then I am concerned for many other drivers and riders who were in the lower rungs of motorsport. Even the people who started one Formula One race are really not notable outside of their one F1 appearance.GarethBaloney (talk)23:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a motor racing fan, I have to say that someone who only ever managed to finish one race (in 16th) in three seasons in the lower echelons of the World Championship in the 1970s is difficult to see asNotable, at least on those grounds. (And he cannot 'inherit' any Notability from his much more successful brother). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)00:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right. But for example if I take another famous rider's brother, Felice Agostini, he was not really more successfull. Unfortunately, Jose Cecotto got his bests results in non championship races or local championships where he get some podiums.Vlad Blackburn (talk)10:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably whyFelice Agostini (7 points in the 4th tier of the 1978 Championship) also does not have his own article. If Jose Cecotto does not pass the criteria ofWikipedia:Notability (sports) by his own racing achievements, nor the criteria of the more generalWikipedia:Notability (people), then he simply does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, like the vast majority of people on Earth.
(Note that I myself am not a draft reviewer and have not personally checked your draft sources; I have assumed that the actual reviewerEndrabcwizart (talk·contribs) who declined the submission has competently done so.)
Of course, it's always possible that more Reliable source material will be written about him in the future, and/or that such material does exist but that you haven't found it yet. The draft has only beenDeclined, which means it may be resubmitted after improvement; it hasnot beenRejected, which means basically "No hope, give up." Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)20:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll resubmit it. The problem stemmed from the source, Facebook, which I was almost certain wouldn't be accepted. So I deleted it, and now if it's rejected, it's because of its popularity.Vlad Blackburn (talk)23:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each language's Wikipedia is an independent project, and each one has its own criteria for inclusion, or not. This English-language Wikipedia is generally considered to have the strictest criteria for judging a subject "Notable": i.e. for whether a subject has had enoughindependent material published about it (in any language) in what are consideredReliable sources, which an article can be summarised from. "Popularity" is irrelevant; "publicly documented in Reliable sources" is the key (and no source with user-generated content is 'Reliable', including any Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Wikipedia: Get my IP address" page says it needs to be updated
Thank you for all of you who are interested on helping me out! I have gotten the following message and it's shown below:{{Update|reason=FAQ needs to be updated to address temporary accounts|date=November 2025}}<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Get my IP address/style.css" /><div>How can I do this?LoveBug71 (talk)00:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the alert about the pageWikipedia:Get my IP address,LoveBug71. (I've used NOWIKI on your message so thatthis page -- the "teahouse" -- isn't also marked as in need of updating.) The page needs to be updated; your IP address doesn't need to be. Don't worry about this alert. Somebody who understands these matters and has a little free time will get around to updating the page. --Hoary (talk)01:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently returned to Wikipedia after along absence. Before editing any specific articles, i went to the Teahouse and asked some generalquestions about the topic in which I was interested. I received some excellent input, and thenbegan TALK page discussions. You will notice that for every edit I attempted, I first discussed my proposed additionat great length, ensured there was consensus, and only then made the edit itself. Additionally, every one of my edits was extensively supported by reliable sources. Recently I was surprised to findevery single one of mty edits had been reverted, with edit summaries that did not support said reversions in any way. When I attempted to discuss this on the TALK page, I was tagged as a “single purpose account” and had my comments collapsed as being “LLM generated”.
Normally I would simply understand this as part of the BRD process, however it seems there may be something else going on. I am not sure why. What is my best course of action? Should I just edit a different article? I am less inclined to continue editing if my efforts are going to be wholesale reverted without any sort of policy basis. Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you!!Slyfamlystone (talk)01:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I suppose I currently *am* a “single purpose account” since I have only edited one topic since my return. This is simply because I tend to take an academic approach and focus on one topic at a time.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySlyfamlystone (talk •contribs)01:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So...just tell people "yes, I've only edited one subject, buf I prefer to focus on one at a time. I intend to edit about other subjects". If you didn't use a LLM, just say so. I haven't examined your posts, but formally written posts with perfect grammar can generate false positives by AI checkers.331dot (talk)01:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My larger question is more about editing in general. I have no problem moving on from the PC article, however I did spend some time and effort on my contributions. If I endeavor to edit a different article, is there anything I can do to prevent another wholesale reversion of properly sourced edits, followed by a shutdown of any TALK page discussion?Slyfamlystone (talk)01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to preemptively prevent your edits from being removed. If they were removed due to vandalism, that can be reversed and action taken against the vandal, or in persistent cases,page protection can be requested. If they were removed due to disagreement with them, you must justify the inclusion of your edit, seeWP:ONUS.
You've already posted on the talk page that you didn't use an LLM. I kind of see why someone might have thought so due to the writing style(which may be due to your background as a professor).331dot (talk)01:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your input. I will not attempt to restore the reversions until there is sufficient TALK page discussion. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding.Slyfamlystone (talk)01:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ddellas: they were not accepted at AfC, but instead moved into the main article space by a user who isn't an AfC reviewer, AFAICT. New page patrol will come along at some point to assess them. --DoubleGrazing (talk)10:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have recently made a contribution to the article “List of Mountains in Bavaria”, by adding the mountain “Ospis” in the section “Lower Franconia”. Since Ospis is from the Miltenberg district, I wanted to link the text “Miltenberg District” to the article “Miltenberg (District) using the linking feature. However, I am unable to as the text and the article I’m trying to link the text to is slightly different, and I’m editing by source, rather than visual. Is there any way for me to fix this issue? Thanks!Gileselig (talk)03:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find guidelines for when it's acceptable to use what kind of quotes/apostrophes (e.g. U+0027 vs. U+2018 vs. U+2019)?Moiré (talk)08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I should have said "even when making a direct quotation that has quotation marks inside it, we go in and change the original author's curly quotes to straight ones".)TooManyFingers (talk)21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got your idea - now look for sources to support it. If you want help looking for sources, you can ask at theWP:Reference desk. Once you've got your sources,then you can consider writing an article that summarises the information in those sources. But don't bother writing an article if you don't have sources, even if you think the topic might be notable.Athanelar (talk)00:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lightnightx3x, articles often start out as just sections in an article on a related topic. I would suggest you start by going that route; for one thing,1997 Albanian monarchy referendum is alreadyWP:Notable, and will not get deleted, so the topic you want to write about has someplace it can live for a while, as long as you can addcitations toreliable sources for your new section. Once your section grows so large that it no longer really fits well in that article, only then should you consider spinning off the section into a new article. SeeWP:Summary style for how to do that.Mathglot (talk)05:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(This might not be the place for this query but I’ll ask anyway).
I was recently researching about a Jamaican musician called Lord Tickler and the first 30 or so seconds of his song “Green Guava” (produced in the 1950s) has a striking resemblance to the start of theDesmond Dekker song “It Mek” is it possible that Desmond Dekker took inspiration and if so then should the page forIt Mek says that the start is remarkably similar to an earlier Jamaican song, I did find evidence to say that Lord Tickler’s music was the inspiration for various later Jamaican genres (such as Reggae and Ska), below I have linked both songs and if you listen you can hear that even some of the lyrics (if not all- I cannot really tell are the same) as well as the melody.
Of course I assume more evidence (written) would be needed to truly confirm whether Dekker took inspiration from Tickler but perhaps it’s worth a mention how similar the starts are.
Yeah I thought that would be the case, perhaps it’s just a coincidence or a common melody in Jamaica. That’s the unfortunate reality of small-unknown musicians (referring to Lord Tickler). Thanks for the clarification .Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)14:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had a question about formatting for titles as I am in the process of having an article reviewed for creation (my first). I named my article COHERENT Collaboration because that is how they refer to themselves (never seen it lowercase on any paper or article), but my draft was recently renamedDraft:Coherent Collaboration. It is true that it is not an acronym, but if that is the only way they ever present their name then it feels a little weird to change it, anyone familiar with it would be confused. Using all non-standard capitalization in the title is not uncommon for other experiment pages I have seen as well (for exampleCONUS experiment andMicroBooNE). I was wondering if anyone here had any insight into what the official standard for this would be. Thanks!Ajheindel (talk)14:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the person who changed it doesn’t know it’s meant to capitalised, personally I don’t like seeing long words with capitalisation, but if that is t the official name then I assume it should be capitalised, but I’m not experienced in name changes so I can’t really say.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)14:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajheindel The policy on titles is atWP:TITLEFORMAT. My take on that is that we would not use COHERENT within the title unless it were an acronym. Note that Wikipedia only uses initial capitalisation fortrademarks, even when they are stylised in other ways. Your draft can mention the stylisation in its first sentence.Mike Turnbull (talk)16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "CONUS experiment" and "MicroBooNE"are both acronyms (albeit somewhat tortured ones). Per our articles, "CONUS" stands for "COherent Neutrino nUcleus Scattering" and "BooNE" for "Booster Neutrino Experiment". Meanwhile the "coherent" in "Coherent Collaboration" is the standard English word "coherent", not an acronym.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)16:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(There's alsoMOS:ALLCAPS, which saysAvoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function, I think further supporting that "Coherent Collaboration" should not be in allcaps)Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)16:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, if I understand that correctly then, does that mean I should change all references in my article and others to remove all caps? In general most physics experiments nowadays are acronyms of some sort, so it has become somewhat of a standard/expectation that they are represented in all caps, presumably that is why this group has made it COHERENT instead of Coherent, to be more consistent with other groups in the field.Ajheindel (talk)17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ajheindel, no; references should be cited exactly as published. Consistency plays no role here; we do not standardize Brit and American citations to all say 'defence programme' or 'defense program', we just cite as they do. Article titles are a different story. You can mention stylized naming in the body, as Athanelar mentioned; see the lead sentence ofGulf and Western Industries.Mathglot (talk)05:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I've seen this done with e.g., band names who stylise themselves in a nonstandard way is for the article to be in standard formatting, but for the lead to note the stylised usage. I.e., your lead could say something like
TheCoherent Collaboration (stylised asCOHERENT Collaboration) is [...]
Also, you implied above that you're a physicist who works in this sort of field; if you're affiliated with the COHERENT collaboration at all, please make sure you properly disclose your conflict of interest according tothe relevant guideline.Athanelar (talk)00:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is my plan, it should be fairly easy to fix in my article, but a bit more annoying to fix all the articles that reference my article. Also I am not affiliated with this experiment at all, just trying to expand the coverage of other experiments in my field.Ajheindel (talk)00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is my first time creating a Wikipedia page; seeDraft:Michel Goguikian. I have added references wherever I thought them necessary but the article was declined for some missing ones.
I've got the following section:
Michel Goguikian was born in Lebanon into a diplomatic family. His father, Ambassador Jean Goguikian, Lebanon’s first ambassador of Armenian origin[2], held several diplomatic posts, including at the United Nations where he participated, among others, in the first International Symposium on Industrial Development held in Athena in 1967[3][4]. Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs and later earned degrees in economics and finance in the United States. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of Venezuela and Spain.
I've added reference links for the "first ambassador or Armenian origin" and the United Nations sentence.
Do I also need to add reference links for the degrees in economics this person obtained? These are proving quite hard to find.
How do you know he has a degree, if not from a source? Do you know this person, or work for them?
SeeWP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.Help:Find sources also has some good tips.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! 👋😊 I’m looking to contribute to physics-related articles, especially for school students in Grades 7–9. I can help simplify concepts like light, sound, electricity, force, motion, and basic astronomy with clear examples. Could you suggest active physics pages or sections that currently need improvements, reliable sources, or better explanations? I’d love to learn and contribute with accuracy and clarity. Thanks a lot for your guidance! 🚀📘Night-Vector (talk)15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently an IP address in the pageFriends season 8changed Courtney Cox's name to Courtney Cox Arquette and claims that that was her name for the "credits" of that season. I had undone the edit andleft a talk page message for them. In response, the IP addressmessaged me on the TP repeating the reason for their change.
Usually the most common name is used for example most monarchs’ pages only have the most commonly known name, and usually middle names and other surnames are included on the person’s page as their full name/title.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)16:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.
It looks like you could use either option, but since the guide is also suggesting using just surnames, that creates a problem for cases like this of a woman with changing last names. You might want to weigh whether she has been more well known as "Cox" than "Arquette", or known equally. In my opinion, I would probably use "Cox" because it was, and now is, "Cox". ▶ I am Grorp ◀17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a new editor and not autoconfirmed yet. I have submitted a sandbox for review, however, I could not work out how to make my title. Currently, my sandbox is User:Jcrudgington/sandbox Jcrudgington (talk)17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been working on improving the draftDraft:Giacomo Billi over the past days. I’ve rewritten several sections, adjusted the style to keep it neutral, and added more independent sources to strengthen the article.
Could someone please take a careful look at it and let me know if it now meets the requirements for notability and reliable sourcing? Any feedback or guidance would be very helpful.
Hello,Mihai Catalin 11. According toWP:SURNAME, this person should not be referred to by their first name after the initial mention of their full name. Their claim to notability seems to be as a senior executive of a company that is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. That seems strange to me. This sentence is also strange:Giacomo is mentioned in Romanian economic media in connection with the development of renewable energy projects, the listing of Alive Capital’s corporate bonds on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, and the company’s integration into Premier Energy Group. Being "mentioned in media" is not something worth writing in an encyclopedia. We want significant, in depth coverage which we summarize rather than stating that coverage exists.Cullen328 (talk)20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close says: "The result wasredirect toReligious violence in Nigeria. While a fraught topic, there is not consensus that sourcing establishes this as a distinct issue. History is preserved should that change."
I went through the comments and tallied up the comments. I know it's not a vote but the resulting close doesn't make sense.
First of all, the last commenter who "oppose[d] deletion" did not have a position on whether to keep the article vs redirect. 12 !voters opposed a standalone article while only 4 supported a standalone article. On the basis of headcount alone, even without getting into the actual arguments, this strongly suggests a consensus to not keep the article. On the other hand, the delete commenters did not argue strongly against a redirect, so it makes perfect sense for the discussion to be closed as redirect even though more commenters !voted "delete" (choosing to redirect vs delete is very common in closing AfD discussions perWP:PRESERVE). In general, questions about a closure should be asked directly to the closer, in this case @Star Mississippi.Helpful Raccoon (talk)23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and that means wewant good, well-sourced information here; it's just that that information might not always warrant an article of its own. If the content from an article can be redirected or merged into another article resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia, that's always better than outright deletion.Athanelar (talk)00:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I remember a while ago seeing a userbox that said something along the lines of "this user uses :3 a lot :3" but now I can't for the life of me find it again :c can anyone help me find it please? :3 (sorry if this is the wrong place)TheSillyGal (talk)22:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title (and several disambiguation) have been deleted numerous times. It does not meetWP:NFF as determined in a deletion discussion. Why did you create it under a different name than what had already been used? --CNMall41 (talk)02:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Thanks for the clarification. I created the draft under a different title because recent reliable sources such asIndia Today,NDTV, andPinkvilla have consistently referred to the project with the 2026 release year, and I believed this fell underWP:NFF as the production is already underway with confirmed cast, director, and studio. If the previous deletions apply to this version as well, I am happy to follow the correct process. Please guide me on whether the article should remain in draft space until stronger production-confirmation sources appear.Republic of Hindustan (talk)02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it not apply to the same film but different title? Notability does not come from the title. You were aware of the previous deletion discussions and drafts correct? --CNMall41 (talk)02:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41When I tried to move the draft to mainspace, the system did not allow the title “Ramayana: Part 1” due to prior deletions and protection. I changed it to “Ramayana (2026)” only to bypass the technical block. The title change was not intended to bypass previous discussions; I am happy to keep the draft in draft space and improve sources as needed.Republic of Hindustan (talk)02:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should answer your questions then. If the title is protected from creation, it doesn't mean you should create it under a different title. It means it cannot be created. --CNMall41 (talk)02:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based onyour edits I don't know what you're trying to achieve but it doesn't look like you're trying to contribute to building an encyclopedia. What do you think you need an admin for? --D'n'B-📞 --07:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just skimmed the references and three references are YouTube which is not a reliable sources as perWP:Perennial (which shows all the sources that have been discussed) so I suggest you look through there to see if any of the other sources (The Bloomberg one appears to be behind a paywall, so I can’t confirm whether that is a good source, but the last reviewer said that the references were only passing references and not in-depth reliable sources on a living person). Online Khabar is a glitched link (only shows code, perhaps therefore unreliable), the image is also a bit broken (so that will need to be tended to or removed).Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)13:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Republica and the Kathmandu post seem to not be passing references (which is good for a new article), the Guardian article didn’t appear to mention the subject of the article (I may be mistaken), references 1 and 5 are the same, and therefore shouldn’t be split into two references (you can use the references “re-use” feature to use the same reference without creating a new reference). The ujwal reference links to an article from 2023, before the protests and doesn’t contain anything about the protests (perhaps you accidentally linked the homepage instead of the particular article on that site).
It's notprimary sources that we chiefly need, butsecondary sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.ColinFine (talk)14:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using sources which are not mentioned in the WP:RS/PS thread or contain purchase/affiliate links
Hello beloved editors,
I come today with a small query that I hope you will be able to help me with. I was going through some of Wiki pages recently and noticed that a minor detail in UK journalistReeta Chakrabarti's wiki page needs updating; her book,Finding Belle, was launched in May 2025, but it still shows asto be launched. The publications covering the updated information (The Herald Scotland,Eastern Eye, etc.) are not mentioned in the perennial sources list, and primary sources with purchase links (HarperCollins,Amazon,Google Books, etc.) should probably be avoided according to theWP:RS thread.
My questions, therefore, revolve around a few things:
Can these publications be used as references, despite there being no mention of them on theWP:RS/PS thread, if the edit is to simply establish a minor fact (in this case, the confirmation of the printing of the book)?
When andhow do we decide if we can use the e-commerce link if no notable journalistic references are available? Are there established SOPs for this, or does it boil down to a judgement call?
Can review aggregators such asGoodreads be used to avoid the conflict in point 2 above, despite it being owned by Amazon, to establish that a book is published? I know that it isn't supposed to be taken as a reference for opinions about a published work, but establishing that itis published boils down to facts, not opinions.
Hello, @Srambled089. My answer to your questions (which others might disagree with) is that wenever use an e-commerce site as a source, and if you cannot find an independent source for some imformation (eg that a particular book has been published), why does it belong in the article at all?ColinFine (talk)14:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ColinFine, and thank you for your response.
Responding in the reverse order, because the question is fair - and one I am curious about myself, now that you point it out. The information is already therein the article, but the information it references is outdated (the book about to be published as opposed to already having been published). To my understanding, it is advisable to update Wiki information to reflect the most up-to-date information available in the public sphere. Is this assumption inaccurate?
As to finding independent sources, I did find mention of the updated information in independent sources, which I have linked in the original comment. My issue is the validity of using them as reference. The Herald, for instance, appears to be a legit news publisher for all intents and purposes, but I am not from Scotland, nor familiar with its news publishing ecosystem. It is also not mentioned in theWP:RS/PS list. The same holds true for the Eastern Eye.
Also, while theWP:RS page mentions to avoid e-commerce links, there is this section in it:
"...inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order toverify such things as titles and running times."
I am averse to directly linking to e-commerce pages, but this does establish the fact of the book actually being published instead of, say, being delayed or cancelled before print.
To be honest, it is a relatively minor edit (changing from "about to be published" to "was published") and likely did not merit a lengthy discussion. But I am trying to expand my own understanding of such referencing for better judgement in future edits.Srambled089 (talk)16:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srambled089The Herald (Glasgow) is, apparently, the longest running national newspaper in the world, so I would consider it an excellent source. Not all sources are on the list atWP:RSPS and some are only in its archive discussions (see search box on that page). Others are not present because their use has never been controversial.Mike Turnbull (talk)16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify some confusion,WP:RSPS is for what it says on the tin; perennial sources, i.e., sources whose reliability is often questioned. A source which is generally considered to be reliable is therefore not likely to be there as there's no reason for its reliability to be discussed often; so don't take something not being listed as green on the PS list as evidence that you can't use it.Athanelar (talk)16:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Perennial Sources page is an excellent one, but in my opinion the fact that it's so easy to miss the thing you missed is a flaw of the page, not you.TooManyFingers (talk)18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that the way a lot of people (myself included) usually end up at PS is because someone links it with a shortcut likeWP:NEWYORKTIMES which jumps straight to the analysis of a single source. It's easy to make the mistake that it's a general source analysis page, especially if you're not someone who uses the word 'perennial' regularly.Athanelar (talk)18:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If youdo use that word regularly, you know that it doesn't mean what Wikipedia is using it for. A perennial source is a source that doesn't have a fixed end to its life cycle, implying that other sources will die off and become unusable at particular times. What Wikipedia means is "perennially-discussed sources".TooManyFingers (talk)19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This, yes, lol. Both of these things. I usually click on a saved bookmark which redirects to TOI, and the wording 'perennial sources' did seem to imply that these are the sources which are perennially used, not perennially discussed. I'll be more mindful browsing through WP resource pages from now on.
That said, I still am curious about questions 2 and 3. While I'm fairly certain that e-commerce and Goodreads linkswill not likely be acceptable for most thinks, in case of the lack of reputable publications, can they be used to establish basic facts such as, say, date/status of publication/launch?Srambled089 (talk)10:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sites that are open for anyone to sign up and edit, like Goodreads, are likely to contain false information even about basic things - not because they're malicious, but because nobody is fact-checking anything on there.TooManyFingers (talk)18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I use any wikipedia text as a source for my tanslation studies in any CAT AI translation system (in this case MateCat), would it be considered as a copyright infringement?NehirÇabuk (talk)21:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So in the ongoing struggle as a small publisher, it's been recommended to us that having Wikipedia pages for each of our properties is a good way to increase our Google traffic and hence revenue/survival/ongoing employment for my 40 odd staff members. As I've thus far found Wikipedia article creation to be extremely time consuming and more than a little bewildering, I turned to an LLM to help. However my pages have been subsequently rejected.
I'd really love to have them made, but am really struggling with the motivation to persevere.
LLM use isn't the only problem,DaveHov.Draft:The Misfits Media Company tells the reader thatThe Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd (The Misfits) [...] owns and operates the industry publicationsB&T andTravel Weekly... The draft has six references. One is to the Misfits. Four are toB&T. The sixth is presented as if it's a link to"The Misfits founders on transforming Australia's trade media".Mumbrella. However, it isn't. Instead, it's a link to the top page ofMumbrella, which currently has no mention of "Misfits". --Hoary (talk)05:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're exclusively here to try to create pages to increase traffic to your properties in order to boost your company's performance, you are not here to build an encyclopedia and you are engaging in promotion. The result, as you've already experienced, will only be frustration and wasted time for you.Athanelar (talk)23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Review of Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass
I have just submitted a draftDraft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass for the first ever article draft I have made for a Chinese film co-produced by Warner Bros called Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass. It was a difficult one to find sources for but I tried my very best. I added the cast list and producers based on IMDB and The Movie Database since I could not find them anywhere else. I tried my best to find it but could not find it anywhere else.
Please may you let me know if it meets requirements and what I should add or do to improve it? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like your sources are mostly not good ones. Sometimes it's because they are from sites that allow public editing, like IMDB; other times it's because they're only announcements and not real stories covering what the reporter really thinks about the film.TooManyFingers (talk)03:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other people started editing on the article, I never added IMDB it was other editors and i'm under an 1RR restriction so I don't know what to doKala7992 (talk)03:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it again, people edited on my draft article. I am very confused by all this, and didn't know other editors could just edit on my draftKala7992 (talk)04:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only editor who has ever editedDraft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025). (It is not customary to edit drafts that other people are working on, but it is permitted.)
You have submitted it for review, and at some point a reviewer (who will probably not be an admin - they are different groups) will pick it up and review it.ColinFine (talk)12:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing an article right now that relies heavily on one source as it is about an accident and most of the information can only be sourced from the official accident report. Is this okay?AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk)00:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not great, no. If the only source for the article is the official accident report, it is likely not notable. If you give me some more info, I can try find other sources? Best,aesurias (talk)02:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only source for the article, there are several other sources that discuss that the accident occured. All the technical information and breakdown of it is sourced from the accident report.AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk)02:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I would need to see the article. It's not ideal but it's also not unexpected -- newspapers don't typically publish things like that. Perhaps submit it as a draft so you can get proper feedback on whether or not it is sufficient?aesurias (talk)02:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, this means the article isn't going to work. The reason is that accident reports are only good for showing a few supporting details, not for writing an article. If the other available sources are just confirming that the accident happened - if they're not fully telling the story - then Wikipedia is unlikely to take it.TooManyFingers (talk)03:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took "other sources that discussthat the accident occurred" as a pretty strong implication that those other sources are little more than mentions. If they are full articles, then I agree with you.TooManyFingers (talk)16:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A small amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from primary sources, such as accident reports; but if there is little or no information in secondary sources, then no article is possible.ColinFine (talk)12:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the accidentmight be notable, the current article is not long and has little other content. I think it would be best to add your new material to it. They can always be split later, if need be.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits17:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not making myself clear enough, but I wish to merge several lists into the articles that they should be in (eg. the discussion I already made forList of mayors of Boroondara, which what I outlined there I wish to happen to all other Victorian Mayor list pages (barringMelbourne itself). Thesecouncil articles all have their own talk pages, and I don't want to repeat these merge discussion for each and every one. I have searched theWP:MERGEPROP article many times, but it does not outline how to go about this.The Kora Person (come say hi!)02:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding a mayor to the notable people list of a city a good addition?
In general, "notable people" lists are reserved for people who already have Wikipedia articles. You have added the mayor to the article's infobox, which is more acceptable.Helpful Raccoon (talk)05:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In adiscussion on an article, anothereditor had mentioned utilizing LLM’s when editing. The discussion prompted some deeper observations. I currently have very limited experience with ChatGTP. I have used it in my personal life on rare occasion, primarily as a search engine substitute (not for WP, but for tasks like finding the best pizza in Detroit). Ihave read the relevant WP LLM guidelines and policies and noticed they are focused on the limitations and restrictions of LLM use. I’ve also noticed multiple contemporary WP discussions regarding the applicability of LLMs. It never occurred to me until very recently (actually until the above editor mentioned it) that it could be a useful tool for editing. My biggest concerns would be misinformation and errors. Personally, I am a voracious reader and prefer to perform my own research.
My question is this, does WP plan to offer some kind of LLM training modules? I could see thelimited utility of such a tool, especially in areas like grammar-checking, spell-checking or for ESL users. I also could see LLM’s utility in perhaps parsing or summarizing a technical paper for a layman. I’ve come to the conclusion that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle regarding AI. The bottom line is I find the technology to be fascinating, but I am too intimidated to utilize it effectively. It occurred to me that WP could be an ideal platform for users like me who are unfamiliar with the technology but interested in its potential applications on an academic project Just curious if anyone else had thought about positive applications of AI on WP.Slyfamlystone (talk)06:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Slyfamlystone. Please readWikipedia:Large language models. Frankly, a large majority of LLM usage on Wikipedia in 2025 is highly problematic, and that is especially true of newer and less experienced editors. LLM usage cannot turn an incompetent editor into a competent one. Instead, it usually causes more widespread damage. I am aware of one highly experienced editor who holds a PhD in a very specialized area who uses an LLM extensively, checking its output carefully. This is a rare exception to the general rule.Cullen328 (talk)08:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of a very positive use: an AI-driven bot that trawls Wikipedia and summarily deletes every AI-infected edit that it finds. Nothing of value would be lost; the risk of false positives is a red herring.TooManyFingers (talk)09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are the same thing. The page can not be edited because it is locked. The problem may be offensive or misleading to some~2025-36951-57 (talk)06:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articlePansexuality saysPansexuality and omnisexuality are sometimes considered synonymous, but when a distinction is made between them, the former term emphasizes gender blindness, while the latter emphasizes the role of gender in attraction. And it provides a source for this (though I haven't looked at the source). You are free to post a suggestion for improvement toTalk:Pansexuality. Be sure to back it up with a reliable source. --Hoary (talk)07:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One main reason that editing is blocked on pages like that is so that people will have to prove that neutral reporters have already written the things they want to put in.TooManyFingers (talk)09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikipedia, that is really not a useful way to begin an article.
To take a house-building analogy, it is as if you had gone "I want to build a house, but I am unable or unwilling to do the boring preparatory work like surveying the site, checking what building regulations are in force, or digging the foundations: I'll just throw up a frame, and invite other people to come and improve it".
By far the most important (and sometimes challenging) part of writing an article is in finding the sources, especially to determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria fornotability (in my analogy, surveying the site and examining building regulations, to see whether it is even possible to build a house there). If not, then there is no point in writing so much as a single word of a draft.
So you've thrown up your frame (which you have writtenbackwards). What is likely to happen to it? Just possibly, somebody will be interested enough to do the foundational work you haven't done, and find the sources, cite them, and create a useful article.
If somebody does that research and can't find suitable sources, they'll probablypropose it for deletion.
Possibly, somebody will have a mild interest and add a bit more text, but without addressing the fundamental problem.
Most likely, the stub will just sit there forever, adding almost nothing to Wikipedia. I really don't understand why antybody would create a stub in 2025.
Hey, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia. There’s an influencer/actress I like Grace Reiter and I wanted to write an article about her. But when I saw the requirements, I wasn’t sure whether I’m allowed to or not. Can someone help me?Sealourebery (talk)10:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are certainly allowed to create and submit a draft via theArticle Wizard. Writing a new article is challenging, it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge of Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using thenew user tutorial. Just as you wouldn't start building a house or a car without learning how to do so, it's not recommended to dive right in to article creation.331dot (talk)10:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sealourebery, and welcome to the Teahouse. I strongly echo 331dot's comments.
Even though I don't recommend trying to create an article yet, I suggest you have a look atyour first article, and especially the parts aboutnotability: unless you can find the necessary sources to establsh that Reiter meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability, then any attempt to create an article about her will be effort wasted.ColinFine (talk)12:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While looking at2025_Washington,_D.C.,_National_Guard_shooting, I noticed that the surname of the suspect had been added and then missed by a few subsequent editors, so I removed it. I then noticed that one of the sources added in the edit that added the surname also includes the suspect's full name, and I must admit that I'm unsure if I should also remove it perWP:BLPCRIME or if it is fine to remain. Kaotac (talk)11:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "is it necessary to reject a reliable published secondary source because it gives away the identity of a suspect"?
I mean that the title of the source article is "What we know about (first and last name of suspect)" so that mousing over the link to the source will pop the name up. It just seems that circumvents the policy of not including the names of suspect (which I'm not suggesting was the intention of the editor who added it)
If I'm thinking too deeply into it: All good, no worries. I just wanted to make sure of the correct way it should be dealt with, if at all.Kaotac (talk)17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What this needs is proof that all by themselves, without interviewing him, reliable publications have done long stories about him. Is that something you can do?TooManyFingers (talk)16:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very new to Wikipedia, I discovered how to make a User Page around a month ago. Can someone please tell me how to customize my signature in preferences?6luewaffle (talk)13:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently changed my signature, and I want to display it on my talk page, specifically in the userbox. The thing is, I don't know how to input it, so I need some help. Thanks.BluePixelLOLLL (talk)16:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template that you're using on your userpage has a field for signatures, so you can simply include| signature=~~~~ in the userbox template (you'll have to use the source editor rather than the visual editor). —Rtrb (talk) (contribs)16:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm making an article and would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it. I've gotten lots of feedback so far, and would like to hear from you guys at the teahouse. Thanks!BluePixelLOLLL (talk)21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always go for picky little things ... "Public use and events" should have only one capital letter, like I just did it. ("Kitsap Live Steamers" is OK because that's the name of an organization.)TooManyFingers (talk)21:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should perhaps check that it isn't based on a map in the original (or another) edition of the book (it's not in my 1983 paperback): and if nothing else it should be made smaller. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing higher biological taxonomic ranks in italics
"Thines, M., Aoki, T., Crous, P. W., Hyde, K. D., Lücking, R., Malosso, E., May, T. W., Miller, A. N., Redhead, S. A., Yurkov, A. M., & Hawksworth, D. L. (2020). Setting scientific names at all taxonomic ranks in italics facilitates their quick recognition in scientific papers. IMA Fungus, 11(1), 25–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-020-00048-6 "
That states that all higher taxonomic ranks should be italicized. Should someone add this? I would love to go through some pages and add italics to higher rankings, and add the reason to this. But I would love to hear more opinions on this before I go and italicize all taxonomic ranks…MagnusVandbakk (talk)22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LIFE sayscapitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below [...] Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae).Athanelar (talk)22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know well how you write taxonomic names. Historically all higher ranks have been written normally and capitalized, and genera and epithets written italicized.
this article however proposes writing all names italicized for easier recognition in texts. I think it really makes sense. There is no reason not to write names in italics. I just want more opinions on this from the Wikipedia community.MagnusVandbakk (talk)22:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently had my first draft declined (Draft:Short-Baseline Near Detector) and I struggling a bit to understand how to move forward. The notability comments I am working on, and I am reaching out to other people in the physics wikiproject to see if they have advice. The comments that I am struggling with more are the claims of that my article is "obvious AI output", which is a bit disheartening because there was no AI involvement at all in the writing of this article. I have been reading the various links shown in the LLM template, but I am struggling to understand what I can do to not sound like AI. This experiment is in the same program asMicroBooNE andICARUS experiment, so I took inspiration but also tried to improve to make it more readable. This is my first draft, so any advice would be appreciated! Thanks -Ajheindel (talk)01:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope reviewers are not starting to assume that any competently written draft must be AI generated. I used to be a professional non-fiction book and periodicals desk editor, and although I have not so far (in 20 years of editing on Wikipedia) wanted to create a new article, if I did I would be able to ensure it was structured, written and presented (as well as properly referenced) in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and house style. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)03:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do we indicate in the reference template that an article contains multiple languages? I run into this a lot with articles in the Philippines, as many of them contain, for instance, prose in English but a lot of untranslated statements in Tagalog and/or Cebuano. English, Tagalog, and Cebuano all have language codes in Wikipedia, but how exactly do we mark stuff like that? Thanks.Bloomagiliw (talk)07:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Though this isn't exceptionally important, I thought it should be noted that there appears to be an issue where edits over 10,240 bytes don't appear in the edit statistics breakdown under 'Number of edits in that size change interval, in bytes*'. I'm not certain if a specific threshold needs to be reached before they appear (given how small it would presumably be relative to smaller-sized edits). If someone could give me some direction on where to note this bug, it would be appreciated. My best to all regardless, and well wishes as we approach the new year. Best,CSGinger14 (talk)07:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoneMr.Lazy (talk)14:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Ahmed Osman Shatila