Wikipedia:Teahouse

Michael D. Turnbull, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (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. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

Im not new

why are you guys thinking im new? im not. sorry, i just wanted to clarify im not new. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Wikiguythatlikesbiology Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rule #63,282: Anyone who needs to say "I'm not new!" is very new. :)

But you're very welcome! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I started in may 2025, so im more of a intermediate. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Remind me not to tell you Rule #63,283. ;) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok :) just wanted to clarify things Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikiguythatlikesbiology, you have less than 200 edits. So, you are either relatively new or relatively inexperienced. Either is fine. Hang around and edit more, and both perceptions will evaporate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok! thank you! Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You have, at the time of writing, 191 edits since 18 May 2025.

I, for example, have 299,155 edits since 16 October 2003.

While that does not make me a better person than you, it does make you much newer here than me. And than most people who edit here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

wwwooooaaahhh that's genuinely awesome! i joined yesterday so i'm still figuring things out here :) starspark (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Even though i LOOK like im new, i just barely edit. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

What i mean is like i only edit occasionaly Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That explains nothing. I have 5000+ edits over years and I consider myself still a relative newbie. Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

ok. i understand. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

i have,like,73 edits or so,think it was that last time last time I checked,that is very impressive!!! Privatelater33 (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What should I do when a topic area has bad "local customs"?

I've been frustrated a few times on discovering that there are topic areas on Wikipedia where - not officially, but in fact - entrenched "local custom" is to ignore WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:NOT or some other basic principle. "This is how we've always done it" sometimes leads to situations where consensus is against any editor who suggests a move towards whichever one of those basic principles seems to be lacking.

So far, my reaction has been to complain once and give up lest angry tumult ensue, but this "COAGULATE" method, while fairly safe, leaves the situation unchanged.

My question was inspired by another recent question from an editor who had waded into an area I might call "modern manufacture of spurious genealogical 'tradition' as it relates to clans", in which there seem to be enough like-minded editors to maintain a united front of non-adherence to WP:RS, and perhaps WP:NOT and WP:NOR as well. But there are other areas where ignoring some basic principle seems to be condoned and widespread, such as certain types of sports articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:DR or WP:NPOVN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is an explicit policy which forbids exactly this sort of thing. The rules are very clear that local consensus cannot decide that sitewide consensus does not apply to specific topic areas. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That seems to tie into a broader issue I've noticed across all of Wikipedia, where experienced editors will default to "that's how we've always done things" even when it's clearly established that there's a problem. Getting consensus for any solutions is an uphill battle. And when it comes to live articles, if the only people who care about that subject are a POV-pushing group with majority "consensus", who's going to bother enforcing policy? Someone has to not only notice but take action, up to and including handling the cleanup even if they manage to acquire external consensus. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Or get ArbCom involved. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you know they don't just accept cases based on lack of action elsewhere. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We do accept cases if action elsewhere has been unsuccessful. So your first move has to be to honestly and AGFfully try to solve the issue yourself and find consensus. If that totally doesn't work at all, depending on what's not working, you'd want to try WP:ANI, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, or the relevant Wikiproject, switching methods if any of those fail utterly. I usually recommend WP:3O first, but it doesn't work if there are multiple editors, so I would next try the Wikiproject. Sometimes "this is the way we've always done it" actually has very good reason behind it that's just not legible to a topic-area outsider, so you want to turn your AGF up to maximum to try to work things out first. But if, eventually, you run through all the other options, arbcom is the court of last resort. I cannot stress enough how important it is to work collaboratively and with AGF in this kind of situation. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking in a very general sense. It's an ongoing trend across all aspects of the site. 2001 build with a 2001 mindset (and then you wonder why editors who weren't even born yet are discouraged). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat, when you write It's an ongoing trend across all aspects of the site, then it is both useful and should be easy for you to provide three or four salient examples of this type of problem. It would also be helpful to explain how a "2001 mindset" differs substantively from a 2026 mindset, and how this complicates adherence to Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there are no guidelines indicating that the site should be user-friendly and up to modern standards, which is a problem in and of itself. As I said - by all means, keep defending the status quo while complaining about the editor failure rate (both old and new). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat, what precisely did I say that constituted defending the status quo? For many years, I have consistentky supported changes to facilitate improved communication and collaboration among editors. But this is not a social media platform for the purpose of having fun. It is a serious worldwide volunteer project that has succeeded in creating the greatest encyclopedia by far in human history, and offering it for free to all of humanity. Editor retention has always been and always will be an issue, because most people lack the seriousness of purpose and the specific motivation to do the work of a volunteer encyclopedist. There are plenty of other hobbies and avocations available. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about social media type engagement. I'm talking about the overall usability of the site for the purpose of editing, collaboration between editors to improve content, and the ability to find relevant guidelines etc before making mistakes, instead of waiting for new editors to screw up and then coming along to tell them how they screwed up, which is very discouraging for a lot of people. Site navigation is a dumpster fire and there's a massive learning curve, and people are largely left to muddle through on their own. They can't even ask questions about things that they don't know they don't know. There are lots of people who could be competent productive editors if they had a little more support to help find their sea legs.

And in attempting to type this out everything on the site broke so badly I'm about ready to sign off for good, because the underlying infrastructure is just that bad. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with usability and discoverability is not as strong, but it's probably for pretty much the same reasons. The lower strength is probably because I'm less focused on actually getting things done than you are, more willing to engage in "enforced puttering" to find things out. It has, on the bright side, helped me to find greater empathy for the paramecium, never expecting to crash into things, but always crashing into things anyway because he's never been very good at expecting. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Aside from occasional work on live articles (which I'm gradually gaining confidence with) and randomly dropping by here, a lot of what I've been doing is what I think of as "sweeping" - tidying up and filing reports to help out ahead of the mops. A lot of the technical issues I run into are because I mainly edit from my phone, and Wikipedia is just flat out not designed to be compatible with mobile editing. Minerva skin lacks major functions and is still borky in places; Vector is miserable to navigate because it doesn't adapt to screen size, and Timeless (which I've landed on) compromises by being semi-adaptable and semi-borky. Other things are resolved through moderately borky scripts, gadgets, and beta features. I won't argue that desktops are inherently better for large scale editing, but in this day and age a lot of people spend most of their time on a mobile device, and indeed plenty don't have a desktop at all. If we want to be compatible with modern editors, we need to be compatible with their devices. Errors and broken features should be occasional incidents, not business as usual. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Color question

I am colorblind and am trying to fix my signature to comply with policy. This my newest attempt. Can someone tell me if the first color is blue or purple? In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 19:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I see "In solidarity" in dark blue, "Dafootballguy" in mid-blue. This may be influenced by my browser setting, but I don't think it is. Maproom (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

In solidarity is default ("visited" purple for me), but their username looks pale lavender to me. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The username is hardcoded as hex-color #0000FF, which is 100% blue. The talk-link is hard-coded as #1A1A1A, which is a charcoal-like gray. It's hard to go wrong with using defaults for links...automatic compliance with policies and guidelines (accessibility for color, recognizeability/consistency of behavior for readers) and ease of maintenance for you:) For example, although 100% blue looks similar to a regular link, regular links are I think #3366cc on at least one of the standard skins, and hardcoding it means it doesn't change color when visited. And charcoal is visually indistinguishable from regular text, so it's not recognizeable as even being a link at all. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Curious - my dark mode must be overriding the coding then, because that's absolutely not what I see. The username is the same color as SillG in the section below this. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

In light mode now I see default visited, FF bright blue, and black (in their first comment above, not the new sig below this). The "charcoal" isn't distinguishable from #000000 on my screen. (And SillG is FF blue now too.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

In dark mode on my screen, "Want to talk" is very close to invisible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this better? In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 21:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend against using red for your talk page link, since that makes it seem like a redlink. Your username is forest green now in light mode and a paler green in my dark mode, both of which are readily visible. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, both endlinks look black. I found this looking around and it seemed to be permitted. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 21:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It was before, but now it's defined as #970302 - "a deep, dark shade of red or maroon". I don't think it's specifically disallowed, but I find it mildly confusing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat what should I change it to? In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 21:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I tried testing it in my sandbox, and using #CC9933 for the talk link looks good to me. It's a deep yellow that has good contrast against the green userlink and displays well in both modes(and it's web safe). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: You could remove all colouring and let Wikipedia's stylesheets and readers' devices do the work for you. (You might also consider moving the political message after your username and talk-page links so it's clear what's what.) Bazza 7 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Most editors append that template before their userlinks. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It works either way. Dafootballguy Want to talk? In solidarity 22:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal either way. Some editors use it as a sort of sign-off, as in example. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7@ChompyTheGogoat@Maproom@TooManyFingers thank you for your help, it has been extremely helpful. Dafootballguy Want to talk? In solidarity 23:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Avoid having links in your signature (or anywhere) that are not separated by non-linking characters. You can use parentheses, dashes, periods, commas, etc.

This is an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this better? In solidarity, Dafootballguy [Want to talk?] 19:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Almost - your link text is "[Want to talk?]"; it needs to be "Want to talk?", with the square brackets outside the link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

? I don't understand. In solidarity, Dafootballguy [Want to talk?] 20:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You have:

[[User talk:Dafootballguy|'''<span style="color:#CC9933">[Want to talk?]</span>''']]

It should be:

&lsqb;[[User talk:Dafootballguy|'''<span style="color:#CC9933">Want to talk?</span>''']]&rsqb;

which gives:

[Want to talk?]

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

My mentor signature has the brackets as part of the signature and he is an admin. Is this required? In solidarity, Dafootballguy [Want to talk?] 21:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's best practice. Are you sure you will never loose your sight?

Please ask your mentor to look at this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike (he is busy and hasn't edited in 5 days) please look at this discussion. In solidarity, Dafootballguy [Want to talk?] 21:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Andy, thanks for telling me about this. Is the issue is that a screenreader would read [Talk] as "bracket talk bracket"? In that case, would using aria-label to have [Talk] be read as only "talk" be an acceptable fix? Toadspike [Talk] 15:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No (although having the brackets read aloud as part of the link text is indeed suboptimal), it's that there is nothing between the two links, that is not non-linked text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Yes, I get that, but I still don't understand the specific issue this causes. There are two separate links and as far as I can tell screen readers should recognize them as such. Can you please explain what detrimental effect this would have on screen readers and how they would read this? (And, once you do so, maybe add it to MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Links.) Toadspike [Talk] 14:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

While I didn't mention screen readers, this may still be an issues for anyone running an older version (see , for example). The main issue, AIUI, is the proximity of adjacent targets for anyone—but especially anyone with a mobility impairment—using a pointing device such as a mouse; or, on a touch screen, a finger.

There's the compounding matter of our inability to use a full range of accessibility metadata in wikitext.

I've already pointed out the issue of a voice reader pronouncing the link as "link: left square bracket Want to talk? right square bracket", instead of just "link: Want to talk?".

What do you see as the practical advantages of including the brackets in the link text, that would outweigh the problems caused to some of our readers by doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not want the brackets as part of the link text, but as the link style overrides styles I set outside the link, back when I created this signature including the brackets seemed to be the only way to make all the text the same style (mainly color) within a reasonable number of characters. I'll try to find a way to redo it so the brackets aren't part of the link. Toadspike [Talk] 05:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. It is about fifty characters longer now; I'll see if I can improve on that. @Dafootballguy, I think you can copy what I did (a third span around the whole signature), if you want to. Toadspike [Talk] 05:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that solves the sea of green issue, but I'm also not convinced a single character in any other color is a significant improvement for people with visual impairments either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any information about the concept of "non-linking characters" beyond a few mentions on old Mediawiki and Wikipedia talk pages. Toadspike [Talk] 14:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: Think of it as a special case of MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It's hard to tell where one link ends and the other starts. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I would assume it has something to do with how screen readers parse the text. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Help to get page published

Hi!

I’ve been working on a Wikipedia biography for the musician Peter Lodwick, and I’m wondering what the best next step would be to get it published.

Would anyone here be willing to take a look at the draft and give me some feedback on what needs to be changed or improved before I submit it for review?

I have already published a Norwegian wiki page on Peter Lodwick but find it more difficult with the English page.

I’d especially appreciate advice on anything that should be changed or improved to meet the English Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks in advance!

Best, May MaySundAnd (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MaySundAnd. You last edited your sandbox, where the Peter Lodwick draft is, back in January - but you have not actually submitted this for review so no reviewer has seen it.

I've moved it now to Draft:Peter Lodwick and submitted it for review for you. qcne (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :-D

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

We actually have a deleted draft lying under there. Lectonar (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@MaySundAnd en:WP has very strict policy regarding citations in biographies of living people. It didn't take me long to find problems in your draft. For example, the section on Brobyggere (Bridgebuilders) has the evaluative statement The intention was to build bridges between different art forms, such as music, song, movement and text, and create untraditional performances, hence the company's chosen name. Gunnar Brunvoll, the manager of the Norwegian Opera and Ballet intended Brobyggere to be a touring company under the umbrella of the opera. but the only citation is to a primary source that seems to be a contract. It says nothing whatsoever about intention. For this sort of reason, your submission is likely to be an immediate "decline" unless you fix these issues before the review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi again! I found this video interview in a public Norwegian archive, where Peter Lodwick talks about what seems to support the statements in the draft about his motivation and artistic inspiration:

https://danseinfo.no/videointervju/peter-john-lodwick/

Would this be considered a reliable and sufficient source for those claims in the wiki page about him?

Since the interview is in Norwegian, would the relevant parts need to be transcribed and/or translated into English in order to use it as a citation?

Also, if the same interview supports several statements in different parts of the article, is it acceptable to cite the same source multiple times where those claims appear, or would it be better to consolidate the information into one section?

Thanks!

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that interviews are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MaySundAnd. Just to expand on what @Theroadislong said: interviews can be used to cite uncontroversial biographic information about the person, and can be cited multiple times, and do not have to be translated into English.

Your draft has many sections without any sources and we do need citations for all the information which currently is unsourced.

I've not checked if Peter meets our criteria for inclusion: that's where you can't use interviews as evidence to show if the person meets that criteria, because it's just the person talking about themselves. What we generally need is three really strong secondary sources, not based off interviews, that go into critical commentary about his work. qcne (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Getting stalled COI edit requests reviewed

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest — I work for Wilhelmsen — and I've submitted three edit requests at Talk:Wilh._Wilhelmsen. All three were declined as needing discussion rather than on their content, because no uninvolved editor had commented.

Following the reviewer's advice I've contacted editors on their talk pages (English and Norwegian Wikipedias) and asked at WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Transport, and the Maritime Transport Task Force. Several months on, none of the requests has attracted comment.

My question is procedural: what else can I legitimately do to attract review without straying into canvassing? Are there better venues than the ones I've tried, or should I simply restructure the requests into something smaller and easier to check? I'm not asking anyone here to endorse the content — just for advice on process, or for anyone willing to look at the requests on their merits. Marius at Wilhelmsen (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The first thing would be to reopen your requests so they're actually sitting in the request queue. After that, you've done all you can. The unfortunate (for you) reality is that helping COI editors isn't high on most volunteers' priority lists. Athanelar (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I have reopened the three requests in question. But true, I can understand how helping this one is a low priority. Neither I nor any colleagues created the initial (and heavily outdated) entries, the content we are covering has or at least has had historical interest. Anyway, thank you for getting back to me. Marius at Wilhelmsen (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but as the notice on the edit requests says; There are currently 672 requests waiting for review. Every one of those 672 requests no doubt believes they have very good reason to be done quicker than the rest; and there's nowhere near 672 editors handling those requests. Maybe more like 6.72 Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

True, you are absolutely right. Not sure what to do here to be honest. As you said earlier, reopening the requests is what we can do at this point. Marius at Wilhelmsen (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Marius at Wilhelmsen You can try to ask for assistance at the talkpages of related Wikiprojects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway and Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force. None may bite but the hooks are cheap, and there is a chance that editors who watch those pages has some interest in the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I have written to those projects too, but back in May/June. Should I do that again or let the original requests be answered first? Marius at Wilhelmsen (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't think to check. I don't really know, use your best judgement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelarand @Gråbergs Gråa Sång - I am getting very valuable help by Fiske and the sections are correctly coming along. Thank you both for answering and getting me one step further. Marius at Wilhelmsen (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sources

I have a question for the sources here is an example: The release date of this single was 1994 and three different sources that aren't reliable sources say that the single released in that year... does this count as reliable sources? Unhingen (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this for the single's very own article? Or is it for putting it into a discography?

If it's for the single's own article, do you already have very good proof that this single is notable? (For example, reviewed in major publications) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Unhingen. When it comes to reliable sources, the total isn't greater than the sum of its parts; in other words, combining three unreliable sources together doesn't make one big reliable source. The only real options (at least in my opinion) for something like this would be to find better a source yourself, tag the content with a template like {{citation needed}} or {{better source needed}} to make others aware of the issue, or remove the content altogether. If you've got a specific single in mind, you could ask at WT:SONGS for help; someone there might be able to find the source you need.

Finally, you didn't ask about this, but I will mention it anyway. I suggest you take a real close look at c:COM:Own work because File:The original case for the Queen Latifah's debut single Wrath of my madness.png isn't your "own work" per se unless you're Queen Latifah or someone represening the company that produced the record. Photographing something created by someone else doesn't make you the copyright holder of whatever you photograph; your photo may in some cases be considered a c:COM:Derivative work or in other cases a c:COM:2D copying, but any claim of copyright ownership/authorship you might be able to make only covers the photo you took. If you continue to upload files like File:11d04ea3c1e75553327825b74b5b8eb8.600x596x1.jpg and the one mentioned above to Commons as your "own work", a Commons administrator at some point my decide to block your account from uploading any files at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

New superman edit

I looked at the talk page for the Superman article and found someone wants to add text to the section occasional equipment, but when I tried to copy and paste the text, I got a warning asking if I wrote this. What should I do? Worldwide4506 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see it now.It wasn't the Superman article - which article was it actually? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

And what did the message really say? Can you remember more of it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe a copyvio filter. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This is what I found:Please avoid copying text from other sources, even if rephrased or cited. This is often plagiarism. Your edit might be removed and you may be blocked. Content written by AI is not allowed on Wikipedia. Worldwide4506 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like Paste Check, warning you not to copy and paste text from other sources or LLMs. If it doesn't apply you can just ignore it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's definitely a correct hit. The request is blatantly LLM output. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If. In this case that request shouldn't be fulfilled because, as TooManyFingers already has pointed out, it's already been tagged as AI slop. If it were a good edit request they'd still get that pop-up, it's not a smart AI detector or anything. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I assumed it triggered because the LLM scraped the text, or left in something else the filter recognizes. Why else would they get that particular error? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on the MediaWiki page I linked, I think it literally just detects if you use the "paste" function to paste text. I don't think it analyzes the text itself. There do seem to be some exclusions based on metadata, but not for copying from talk pages. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Content copied on-Wiki would normally be covered under the default CC BY-SA 4.0 - only external copypasta is a (potential) issue. Imagine if it tripped every time we paste a quote in discussions. They'd have 99% false positives. I do so all the time (as well as copying my own writing from text editors) and I didn't even know it existed before this post. It also specifically refers to AI content, so there must be something in the content itself that triggered it.

If anything I'd say it isn't nearly sensitive enough, given the amount of slop that DOES get through. People copy and paste entire articles. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Well it might apply because this is probably paraphrased: On occasion, Superman has made use of specialized equipment, typically derived from Kryptonian technology or advanced Earth or alien science. Unlike some other superheroes, Superman does not regularly rely on tools or weapons, and such equipment is generally depicted as situational rather than integral to his crime-fighting activities. Worldwide4506 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Look just under the request on the talk page - it's already flagged as AI. AI is garbage and can't be put in, so you have a choice of what to do: find real-world reliable non-AI proof for it and put that in, or forget the whole thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Italics on foreign-language proper nouns

I recently came across Weiße Flotte (Stralsund). It was translated from de:Weiße Flotte (Stralsund) in 2012 and has received little attention since then. The article used italics for all German terms, which I replaced with {{Lang}} per MOS:OTHERLANG. But I'm not sure which of those actually should be italic. It sounds like per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC they should generally be italic, but also they're all proper names of companies or ships, so should be upright.

Also, should I use {{Lang}} in infoboxes? The current infobox sets |name= and not |native_name=, but I don't think this company has an official English name, and wouldn't using {{Lang}} in |name= pollute the metadata? I would appreciate some input, thanks. ClockwiseOxymoron (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I have an opinion on your last question, which is don't give an English name for a company unless that English name is well-established in the sources. (I'm not against explaining in the article what the words mean if that helps - just against calling it "the English name" or putting it in an infobox.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it doesn't need an English name, but there is no way to mark the German name with the correct language metadata. Testing in the preview, it appears that setting |native_name= (which allows tagging language) but not setting |name= makes the name at the top of the infobox default to the page title, while the native name displays below, unfortunately. ClockwiseOxymoron (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just put "name=" with the real name, and completely omit "native_name=". Do the language stuff elsewhere. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to vanish my account but cant

Hey everyone,

I liked the experience of being an IP editor better as I don’t have to worry about passwords. When I went to go vanish my account, the page is not working. Is there any other method I could take? PoliticalPhilosopher1996 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just stop using your account. You can have your userpage deleted under WP:G1 if you wish, or you can put up a notice that you've gone back to editing logged out. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Mimi O'Donnell

I found a photograph of Mimi O’Donnell on Pinterest that I would like to use in this draft. Would it be permissible to upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons, or would I need to locate the original source and verify its copyright and licensing status BellyKelly (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

For photos, if the status is not perfectly clear, then you can't do anything until that's settled. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! How would I go about finding out the copyright or licensing status of the photo? I found it on Pinterest, but I’m not sure how to determine the original source or whether it can be used BellyKelly (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyright can get very complicated (have fun reading Wikipedia:Copyrights), but a rule of thumb on Wikipedia is: if a photo isn't explicitly described in the source in which you found it as being "public domain", or provably made so by certain conditions varying by country, or released under a suitable Creative Commons license, and isn't so old that it must be out of copyright (which won't be the case for most living subjects, as it usually expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, who is ordinarily the copyright holder), then assume that you can't upload it to Commons. Everything now, and for a few decades, is automatically copyright when created, it doesn't need to have a copyright assertion accompanying it.

(As you probably realise, since your subject is living, the "Fair Use" provision cannot apply.)

Hopefully someone else will know more about Pinterest, of which I have only heard the name. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi BellyKelly. Unless the Pinterest site is the official Pinterest site of the subject of the photo (i.e., Mimi O'Donnell) and the provenance of the photo is quite clear, I wouldn't suggest downloading any photos from it. Lots of websites don't really assess the copyright status of the images being uploaded to them; so, lots of people basically upload whatever they want and claim whatever they want. At least with official sites (like perhaps an actor's official website), you can kind of assume that either the copyright holder or someone representing the copyright holder was involved with the upload, adding a bit more credibility to any claim of copyright ownership. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you really want to use that particular image you could try running a reverse image search to see if you can find the original source and track down copyright info from there. Using a different image from a known source is likely to be less work, however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Source code for User Page

Hi Wikipedians. I'm wondering if someone can help me clean up the layout of my User Page, which you will see is a mess layout-wise. I don't have any source code skills, and whenever I try to change the code via source editing to rearrange things either nothing happens, or I make it worse. I've got the various tags and barnstars I want on the page, but they're all over the place. I'd appreciate any advice as to how to get them laid out more elegantly. Thanks. Dropbear2 (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dropbear2. Try finding a user page that's laid out the way you want yours to be laid out and then either play around with the code in your user sandbox or simply ask the other user for help. I'd image lots of user pages are created that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Marchjuly. I'll give it a go. Fingers crossed. Dropbear2 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dropbear2 One very simple thing that usually helps a lot is to wrap all your user boxes with the templates {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I'll try it out. Dropbear2 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Article draft declined

Hello guys, my article draft has been declined because it doesnt meet the criteria for inclusion of events. I‘m not sure why that is?

It has significant coverage with a Namus, NCMEC, Charley Project pages and an NBC article.

It has lasting significance because of the NBC article published 37 years after the disappearance.

All of my sources are reliable and independant.

This is all from my own perspective of course.

I‘m assuming I‘m misinterpreting one of these requirements, can somebody tell me what im missing? Walter (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, five out of the six sources are what I would consider "primary sources" under these circumstances - and maybe the sixth one as well. I would suggest focusing away from those and looking for mainstream coverage - not missing person reports or cold-case specials, but actual news reports and magazine articles about them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Non-constructive bickering on talk page

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I reverted some vandalism on Krav Maga the other day and got the page extended-confirmed protected. Since then, numerous users have been bickering about the vandalism on the talk page, filing edit requests to bring it back and engaging in back-and-forth as to why it's correct or incorrect. There was also some message refactoring in there, which I reverted.

Does anything need to be done about this, or should it just be ignored and left alone?

Thank you, Wikipedia Teahouse. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Was the vandalism purely destructive? Or was someone trying to make a point (though a bad one)? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to classify it. I assume this comes under trying to make a point? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

another example crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

and here's an example of what i'm calling non-constructive bickering on the talk page crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's vandalism. I would let people bicker unless it escalates or becomes semi-permanent, but the bickering itself is also borderline vandalism or just vandalism. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just leave them alone. Thanks for your advice! crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crtbob. This kind of thing sometimes occurs on article talk pages, but it's not WP:NOTVANDALISM per se; it's WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS. It also seems to in danger of further moving into WP:NPA territory and already has violated WP:TPO. If you want to ignore, you may; however, a better approach might be just to WP:DENY and report the other party to WP:ANI: most likely it will result in a quick block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Slightly more complicated as it appears to be numerous parties on both sides of the issue. I'm not sure whether protecting the TP would be appropriate since it could block valid requests, but I'll leave that call up to admins. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Not just vandalism but blatant racism and almost certainly some socking involved. Since the article itself is protected I've dropped a report at AN for a low priority review. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Handled per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#c-The_Bushranger-20260820060700-ChompyTheGogoat-20260820042800. Revisit if they return after the protection expires. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Potentially automated erroneous comma addition

Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse,

I might be exceeding my question-asking quota here,^[Humor] but I've just noticed a 9-year old account with no prior edits pop up and rapidly start adding commas to articles. The thing is, they just seem to be inserting commas before any instance of "and" or "or", often in a grammatically incorrect way.

What is going on here, and should any action be taken?

Thank you again, Wikipedia Teahouse. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Possibly gaming their edit count. Have they made any edits elsewhere, particularly on contentious topics or articles with a history of abuse? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

From what I can see, they are just adding commas. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

All 89 edits? Very sus. I believe the correct procedure would be to drop a warning, start reverting, and take it to AIV if they continue. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I go about reverting what is now over 100 edits? I did issue a warning about the MOS for one edit that broke some wikilinks by inserting commas in them. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately for us plebes it can only be done manually, although it doesn't take too long when done through the edit history. Rollbackers should have an easier time of it though, and since they're still running amok despite the warning I pushed the report through. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for your help again! crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they edited 88 times within 9 minutes, which is around one edit per 6 seconds. Often one or two commas at a time, usually stub articles. Likely farming edits and unlikely a bot. A bot as per WP:BOTPERF would edit 20 edits per minute, which is around one edit per 3 seconds. Inconclusive evidence if it is a bot, but it is pretty difficult to do manually. This is suspicious behavior and I recommend uw-test1 (which is not the best fit, maybe there is a better template that I am unaware of) and uw-mos1.

P.S. They are rapidly doing the same thing at real time while I was typing. Now 120+ edits with the same issues, but it appears that the speed has slowed down dramatically, but is still rapid.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance.

Would going through and reverting them all count as edit warring? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Edit warring:

• Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.
• An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert.
• A series of consecutively saved edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. If there are intervening edits, then the series of edits can continue to count as a single revert if the intervening edits are to sections of the article that are unrelated to the sections edited in the consecutive edits. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions for exemptions.

Likely, you should revert all of them first, then if they begin to revert your revert, then escalate the warnings. If that does not work, read the boomerange essay before escalating to WP:ANI.

P.S. It appears that User:ChompyTheGogoat has filed a report. Escalate the warnings and put the report to the watchlist. Capture their revision history has evidence.

Sincerely,16dvnk (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC) 16dvnk (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Simple issues like this are usually better off at AIV for unilateral admin intervention - especially considering the speed they're moving at. ANI is generally for more long term behavior that requires discussion and potentially community consensus for sanctions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on what has been said here and by Marchjuly below, would it be best to just leave it to whoever responds to the AIV report/a rollbacker? I think i'm getting a little overwhelmed here. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 05:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring typically only refers to going back and forth repeatedly over the same changes on the same page, especially within 24 hours. See WP:3RR. Reverting obvious vandalism usually isn't considered edit warring even if they do keep trying to push it through. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crtbob: I personally wouldn't classify this as gaming, but it could be considered WP:POINTY or WP:TE. At the same time these could be just good faith edits made by someone who strongly believes in MOS:OXFORD comma use; even in this WP:AGF case, though, the edits might run afoul of MOS:ENGVAR depending on the article, regardless of whether they're grammatically correct. Another potential problem could be the speed in which the edits are being made and the random nature of the types of articles being edited; this could be an indication of someone using a script to make edits for the first time (sort of like a taking a test run): using a script in and of itself isn't bad, but the person doing the editing is still responsible for their edits. Perhaps a friendly message would be the best approach to try first, just to see how they respond. If they don't respond and just continue plowing ahead as before, the seeking administrator assistance would be a good idea. Once again, this isn't vandalism per se; so, going to WP:AIV (as suggested above) will probably only result in some admininstrator saying "this isn't vandalism". If you're going to report this user, I think you should do so either at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Finally and FWIW, I wouldn't revert anything that's not an outright error that needs to be fixing (e.g. a link syntax error) until you've got a better grasp of what's actually going on. It will be much easier for an administrator to revert anything that needs to be reverted if it comes to that. Reverting once won't be considered edit warring, but it might lead to just a reverting ofyour revert which could lead to edit warring if you continue to do the same; moreover, reverting someone over comma use is almost certainly not going to be considered WP:NOT3RR; so, no need to start doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

They've already plowed ahead despite warnings. You don't think hundreds of single character edits as fast as humanly possible smells of gaming? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really since there's really nothing for them to gain (at least nothing I can see worth all this). It's also not vandalism in my opinion; misguided and not in accordance with the MOS perhaps, but not vandalism. It may, on the other hand, now be seen as disruptive due to the amount of cleanup that will be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that they're trying to rack up 500 to target something under ECP. The fact that it's a sleeper account with no previous edits adds an extra layer of suspicion. I'd rather see a block dropped preventatively at this point; if they can explain their behavior as good faith it can always be reversed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

They have plowed to 178 edits. Is there a possibility that their account is compromised? And is there a possibility that multiple accounts are compromised at once? I am not suggesting that this is the most likely scenario, but this is a concern worth listing given the scale. Note that there is no evidence for the multiple account case.

The more likely case is that they are using a script thinking that using more Oxford commas are better but is unusual given all the warnings and reports (also weird how they are suddenly doing this only after 9 years). They may not have even seen the warnings.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I did mark that as a possibility on the report. We've seen such behavior from LTAs recently. Not all of the insertions are consistent with Oxford style either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

They are now at 248 edits and at almost exactly one edit per 20 seconds. They are almost halfway to 500/30 perms. I am concerned that they start breaking extended confirmed articles. Is this an issue?

Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't extended-confirmed changed to 30 days since first edit, or was it the other way around? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 05:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It certainly could be if they hit the threshold. Hoping the report gets actioned before that point. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy Note: The user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details at their user page. 16dvnk (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone that helped!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the account was not blocked from editing Wikipedia; they were blocked from editing articles in mainspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That was what I meant; sorry for the imprecise wording! 16dvnk (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

(These are the dreaded "Wheatley comma", when the writer gets within 5 miles of Oxford and thinks it's good enough.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Closing note: On reflection, what stops some actual determined LTAs like Nipponese Dog Calvero from compromising multiple old accounts and gaining ECP access? I fear that a lucky vandal would be able to get ECP and deface important articles. Is there something we can do about this?

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Nothing. That's why we end up with behavioral cases at SPI. A certain someone appears to have found an effective CU workaround recently that's causing a lot of trouble. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's sad to hear. I am concerned that behavioral analysis is often inconclusive and anyone with effort may try to get an AI to play a persona... which will fly under the radar. We seriously need some security reforms. Is there something we can do for that? Anyways, I hope they do not come back. 16dvnk (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, we sometimes have the opposite problem of people seemingly imitating LTAs. For what reason I can't imagine. Vandalizing Wikipedia is such a bizarre hobby. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy note to all: This case has spiraled to SPI. It has been mostly clear that this may have been bad faith, planned months in advance. However, we still need to wait for the results to concretely point fingers at anyone. I also have an essay here for reference. Thank you.

Sincerely,16dvnk (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

What is considered human ?

Im working on a couple pages having to do with legedary creatures and the grammar around wheather or not creatures are humans objects or animals is super inconsistant. (using who instead of that or what, for instance,)

Are there guidelines or prescedent for what wikipedia considers human gramaticaly? Aberrant construction (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have any precedent - it's going to be highly subjective. I wouldn't worry too much about changing it in existing content; if you're adding something new, use your best judgement for whether it's "human-like" in terms of interactions. Would other people hold conversations with it and treat it as an equal? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think once you're "inside that world" in one of the articles on these topics, you should not treat this grammar thing as if it matters. Let people write whatever they feel like and mostly leave it alone, unless one person is constantly changing their mind in between sentences. Inside the fantasy land, if it seems OK to whoever wrote it then it probably is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree that it doesn’t matter much between separate articles, it just a little hard to read when the pronouns change from paragraph to paragraph.

It is a good idea to look at recent sources and see what they do ,I can try that . Aberrant construction (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If the people who constantly edit this sort of thing have come up with guidelines, then do your best to understand and follow those. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"Grammatically human" is also sort of like "grammatically feminine" in that they don't mean real femininity or real humanity, but are just ways of representing concepts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Use the convention established by the reliable sources cited in each article. Some may call R2D2 him, others may call the The Jolly Green Giant it. Inconsistency among reliable sources may be worth noting in the article --Lexiconaut (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel a bit stupid for not realizing that "look in the sources" is correct and works fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of Artsakh history

Could someone take a look at the table in Timeline of Artsakh history. It's clearly bollixed and I can't figure out why. Thanks Lexiconaut (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you say a bit more about what it should look like? Hard to fix without knowing that.

As a piece of advice, if you copy the table code to your sandbox you can tinker to your heart's content. (I've just done that, looked at it, and realized I don't know what it's supposed to be doing.) M kuhner (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's broken so much as a messy and confusing table in the first place. There's a lot of merged and empty cells that look odd but appear intentional. I don't think a table is a good choice for a complex timeline like this. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Tables work best when every item must fit the same predetermined number of categories; that makes tables not a good choice for most timelines. Complex ones are worse, that's all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone point at an article with a complex timeline that handles it really well, to use as a model?

And a suggestion if Lexiconaut wants to work with the existing table: Make a version where every row has all entries, duplicating text as needed. Take a look at that--is it acceptable? Then consider whether consolidating boxes actually improves it enough to be worth the trouble.

Finally a warning: That table trips an edit filter due to use of a deprecated archive site. Can someone with more archive experience than me please fix? M kuhner (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the WP:ATODAY link with a Wayback Machine one. Sadly that one doesn't bypass the paywall like the problematic site does, but what's visible is enough to confirm Turkish involvement, I think... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Need Help Getting a Draft Published

Hello,

I'm new to the process and am trying to get a page published for a non-profit organization I volunteer for in my local Western New York community. The page is Draft:Connolly Cup and it's been declined ~6 times and im not sure why. I have a ton of references within the page, photos, and the organiztion gave me the material but it's being flagged as "copyright". I'm genuinly not sure what to do at this point...

Any help or assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks Mikeg254 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting - this iorganization awards high school atheletes annually, so Im not trying to sell anything, just explain it's an award. One draft got rejected because it got flagged for using Puffery Words such as "award" Mikeg254 (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mikeg254. The reasons why the draft was declined each time are given in the decline notifications added to the top of the page by each reviewer. If you don't understand the comments that were left, you can always post a message on the reviewer's user talk page and ask for clarification. You can also ask for feedback at WP:AFCHELP. For reference, though, the most common reason a draft is declined is because the reviewer felt the subject matter didn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability ( and in this case Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals)); so, I suggest you take a look at those two pages for more details. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause since you might also find that helpful because being a non-profit doesn't exempt a subject from any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; even though you've described yourself as a volunteer, if someone is asking you to create a Wikipedia article about the award (even as a favor), that person might not fully understand what Wikipedia is about and what it takes to get an article added to it. This is just my opinion perhaps, but a local award for high school football players seems like it might not generate the kind of significant coverage required for a stand-alone Wikipedia article to be written about it. Ycould try try asking about this at WT:New York (state) to see if any of the members of that WikiProject can provide any ideas on how to proceed; some member of that WikiProject may be a HS football fan who has heard about the award and can better assess its Wikipedia notability. You could also try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and Wikipedia talk: American football.

As for material being flagged as "copyright", I'm assuming that means the photos you've added to the draft. Regarding the files you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, unless you took all of those photos yourself they're not really your c:COM:Own work in a copyright sense, and you will need to resolve things on Commons if you want to avoid the files being deleted. In general, the person who takes a photo is considered its copyright holder as explained in c:COM:THIRD; so, if you received those photos from whoever asked you to create the article, then you should try to find out more about their provenance. The Connolly Cup's logo is probably also not your "own work", but the logo is fairly simple when it come the type of creativity needed for something to be copyright eligibility and most likely can be relicensed as c:Template:PD-logo. Commons, though, is a separate project from English Wikipedia and any questions about files uploaded to Commons should really be asked at c:COM:HD. FWIW, whether your draft is ultimately approved has nothing to do with how many images it contains, but if you upload files wit questionable or incorrect licensing to Commons too many time a Commons administrator might decide to block your account. So, I wouldn't try to upload any more files until you've sorted out what you've alrady uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeg254 I know you aren't "paid" per se, but my advice for paid editors would still be worth reading, because you and your organisation are both probably operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how we work. Athanelar (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Mimi O'Donnell - the second

Hi, confessing I have never heard of Mimi O'Donnell before this thread above. So I clicked on the wikilink someone provided and noticed that it is a redirect to Philip Seymour Hoffman#Personal life, because she was for some time his partner. Now "his" infobox has a wikilink to Mimi, which of course leads to the redirect. You can go in circles if you want. Now I wonder, wouldn't it be better to delete the redirect, and just "hop" from "his" infobox to the section, where she is mentioned? Maresa63 ^Talk 09:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

PS: Yul Vazquez is the only other page linking to Mimi's redirect. Maresa63 ^Talk 10:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the link from the infobox (leaving the text in situ). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thank you! Maresa63 ^Talk 10:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Help Changing Company Name

Hi all, I hope you are well. I am just posting on here as I work for JTC and we recently had a new acquisition by Permira and now we are no longer JTC PLC JTC plc therefore I was wondering if someone would be able to edit it for us, we are not bothered in doing it ourselves. We would like for it to just say JTC. We have been able to change the dialogue but not the title. If someone would be able to I would be extremely grateful. ~2026-45535-63 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Article title changes are requested at requested moves, but see WP:COMMONNAME, we don't necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, but what the most commonly used term is for a topic. Please also read the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The article will not be renamed JTC, because that name is already in use for a "disambiguation" page listing other entities named JTC.

"JTC (company)" and "JTC (business)" are not options, due to potential conflation with some of those other topics.

"JTC (fund administration)" might work, or "JTC (Permira subsidiary)".

However, I see that the article has been nominated for deletion, due to lack of notability, so we may as well wait for that decision to be made, before considering a rename.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If the article stays JTC Group would be okay as well but thank you for letting me know where to request. ~2026-45535-63 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't dark purple in Wikimedia

I want to know in detail dark purple ~2026-45399-48 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean a shade of the colour purple, or the band Deep Purple? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

When I think of going into detail on dark purple, I think of CIE 1931 color space and the related articles about how human eyes see colour (use the links in the article, and the "See also" near the bottom of the page). You can learn a lot about dark purple. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

my ip is public...?

ok so go to the tskhramukha page check its history and scroll all the way down... yea that ip is me, i forgot to login when making edits...

is there a way for that to be deleted, hidden or be merged with me?

tbh i did look the ip up on whois and its nothing that serious, it only gets generic info about me (country, cable etc.) nothing too specific.. but still is there a way...? Vysot (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vysot: You can contact Wikipedia:Oversight by e-mail and ask them to suppress the IP addresses. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks!! just to clarify i should send an email to current arbitrators listed there right? Vysot (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Use this: Special:EmailUser/Oversight -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

oh right that... i thought emailing meant... like... yk... email... like tuta and gmail and whatnot, well double thanks then! Vysot (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This is just a way to have Wikipedia send an e-mail on your behalf. The response will be to your e-mail address. (You can do this with any user who has the feature enabled in their preferences, if you wish to contact them privately.) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear: that is what Special:EmailUser does. It sends an email on your behalf, from the email address you attached to your account, to the target person. In this case, User:Oversight is a special account that is basically a shell for a mailing list for all oversighters, but if you were to, say, email me via Special:EmailUser/Writ Keeper, I would get an email in my email inbox, from your email account. The difference is important because, while the sender (you) don't find out the email address of the recipient (me, in this hypothetical), the recipient does find out the sender's real email address. This isn't an issue for such a highly-trusted group as the oversighters, but is worth keeping in mind more generally. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

hrm, I sure hope Oversight has email notifications disabled... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You scan send email to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Independent review requested for Draft:James Richards (art dealer)

I am the subject of Draft:James Richards (art dealer) and have disclosed my conflict of interest.

The draft has been through Articles for Creation and I am currently trying to understand whether the revised sourcing is sufficient under WP. I do not want to bypass the AfC process or ask anyone to publish the article on my behalf.

If an experienced editor with no connection to me is willing to look at the draft independently, I would be grateful for their view on the sourcing and notability. If they consider the subject notable and wish independently to improve, rewrite or otherwise work on the draft, I would of course leave those editorial decisions entirely to them.

The principal independent sources include the Financial Times, Antiques Trade Gazette, Apollo, Art Media Agency, TEFAF and Cabana. ~2026-45616-82 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting.

You say you're not asking to bypass the AFC process, but that is what you are doing. You've already asked for a review at the AFC Help Desk; you need to resubmit the draft to obtain a new review. That's the process. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Trade papers (and similar things) are often considered not independent, because they must cover what happens in the industry if they don't want to appear irresponsible. Announcements are never significant. If you go through the references removing every trade publication and every announcement, you'll have a clearer sense of how the reviewers see it.

Proof of working is never proof of notability. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@JMKRichards Please note that I'm not saying you must actually remove those, only to momentarily treat them as if they don't count. And also treat the Cabana interview as if it doesn't count, because it really really doesn't count; it's not about you at all, it's about what was on display at a gallery where you worked. You're the co-narrator, not the subject.

But also notice that the remaining references are all on other topics - they aren't about James Richards, but about where you work or other things. That's not a fatal flaw, but each of them would need to have a many-paragraph section devoted to in-depth study of your whole career, or at least large parts of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I hadn’t appreciated that specialist or trade coverage may be discounted in assessing notability. I am still slightly unclear where that line is drawn, though, as publications such as The Art Newspaper, Apollo and Antiques Trade Gazette are established editorial publications in the art world, while the Financial Times is of course general financial press.

I also take the point about the Cabana piece. My assumption had been that, although I was interviewed for it, it was still independently commissioned and edited rather than material produced by me or Charles Ede. I understand, though, that the more important issue is that I am a contributor to the article rather than its principal subject.

And I think I now understand the broader point. I had assumed that a reasonably large body of independent articles containing substantive discussion or quotations could cumulatively establish notability. I hadn’t appreciated that Wikipedia places considerably more weight on sources giving sustained coverage of the individual as their subject, rather than numerous mentions or quotations across articles on related subjects. ~2026-45732-41 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: There is perhaps a wider issue here, quite apart from my own draft. The art world is culturally significant but comparatively small, and quite prominent figures within it are often covered extensively in specialist and mainstream media without ever being the subject of a single conventional biographical profile. Daniel Katz, for example, is a major London art dealer and has appeared on BBC Radio 3’s Private Passions, yet does not have a Wikipedia article. I appreciate that this is not in itself an argument for the notability of any particular individual, but it does make me wonder whether the usual test can sometimes underrepresent fields where serious coverage is dispersed across specialist publications, interviews and reporting rather than concentrated in one or two long profiles. ~2026-45732-41 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes a section Additional criteria that addresses exactly this problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay that’s interesting thanks.

Looking at established Wikipedia articles in the same field, for example Hauser & Wirth gallery, a substantial proportion of the sourcing comes from specialist publications such as The Art Newspaper, ARTnews, Artnet, Frieze and Apollo, alongside national newspapers. That seems to suggest that specialist or trade coverage is not inherently weaker simply because it is directed at the art market.

I appreciate that Hauser & Wirth is a very different subject and has vastly more coverage. My point is that in a specialist field such as the art trade, publications such as Antiques Trade Gazette should presumably be assessed on their independence, reliability and depth of coverage, rather than discounted because they are trade publications.

Anyway thanks I’m learning. Jmkrichards88 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

One piece of advice: Look for rated Good Articles and Featured Articles in your area of interest, rather than comparing to random articles. The quality of Wikipedia articles varies a lot: GAs and FAs show what the community considers excellent work. They are not perfect, but they have been reviewed by the community and tend to showcase best practices. M kuhner (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional information getting deleted

Hi, I noticed that my addition to the Personal life section was reverted. I had cited El País for the statement that Cooper Hoffman and Nico Parker reportedly fell in love while filming Poetic License, and People reports details about when they began their relationship. Would these sources be sufficient to include a brief sentence about how they met and began dating? Thank BellyKelly (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't this message intended for the talk page of some article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's about Cooper Hoffman, they were right to revert it. The biggest chunk of what you wrote was your own idea, with no source. The source has to be reliable, but the source also has to say exactly the same idea that you're putting in. Making two sources "cooperate" so they'll add up to saying a new thing, is not allowed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I put a the rightcite after the article. It has the article about Nico and Cooper. BellyKelly (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked again, looking closer this time. The source you gave did not even mention the stuff you wrote, and you also made weird garbage edits to other parts of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What other garbage edits. Don't call them garbage please. BellyKelly (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: I think that's uncalled-for. Labeling a new user's bone fide edits with loaded, not to mention completely subjective, terms is incontrovertibly biting them and utterly degenerates their will to contribute here. I'm just passing by this thread, so forgive me for the terse and slightly off-topic reply, but you may want to consider withdrawing that statement by striking through your comment. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I’m new to editing Wikipedia and I’m trying to understand what I did incorrectly. Could you point out which specific statement wasn’t supported by the source I cited, and which other edits you considered problematic? I’d like to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Please don't call my work garbage. BellyKelly (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't see any source for the sentence that begins with "Several weeks ..." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The People article states that Hoffman and Parker met on the set of Poetic License in 2024. It also quotes Hoffman saying that they did not officially start dating until a few weeks after filming, when Parker came to New York and he asked her to be his girlfriend. Here is the source: [paste the People URL BellyKelly (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you say "[paste the People URL"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

https://people.com/cooper-hoffman-confirms-relationship-with-nico-parker-i-asked-her-to-be-my-girlfriend-11805047 BellyKelly (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Why - why would you type that instruction to me?

I have a feeling that the negative reaction to your edits so far might be because you're sometimes using AI tools to help you. That's not working. Please quit all AI and write for yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I am writing it myself. BellyKelly (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You typed out, as a message to me, "[paste the People URL"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops I didn't mean to do that. I suggest reading the article. It specifically implies that cooper said him and Nico are dating. BellyKelly (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't read, but if it implies, then that can't go into Wikipedia. Only if it comes right out and says it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Read the people article. BellyKelly (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@BellyKelly: Though I'm uninvolved, I gave your edits a cursory review on my own and agree with the fact that they required some revision before being reinstated. At the outset, no, your edits were not garbage; no bone fide edit is. It simply violated some of our content policies regarding verifiability, biographies of living persons, and perhaps original research, as TooManyFingers suggested. I'm going to provide a brief summary of each and try to connect them specifically to your edits.

Per our policy on verifiability, all contentious claims in an article must be supported by inline citations to independent, published, and reliable sources. This is so that readers can verify the claims your making to ensure they aren't simply made-up and applies even if you believe what you add is true (remember the pithy line, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth). Per our policy on original research, if a claim you want to add to an article cannot possibly be supported by a reliable source—as is common with claims derived from personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation, synthesis (which is what TooManyFingers was referencing, i.e., the idea of combining information from multiple sources to come to a conclusion not expressly stated in any of them), or a combination thereof—it shouldn't be added at all. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, those two policies (as well as most of our other content policies) are made even stricter than they already are to warrant the summary removal of any added material that violates them to any extent.

Coming back to you, your edits to Cooper Hoffman appeared to have violated at least the policy on verifiability and thereby the one on biographies of living persons, and it may have violated the policy on original research too (although I haven't scrutinized them enough to make a statement on that). It didn't cite any sources, which is required for the claims you added to be verifiable, so we don't actually know whether they can be trusted as true. The fact that you added it to a biography of a living persons exacerbates the effects of this uncertainty by potentially introducing incorrect or even damaging information about a real person. Some next steps you may want to consider are finding some sources to support your edits, reading through all of content policies, and coming back here if you need any more help. Best of luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. That helps me understand the policies better. I did include inline citations to People and El País in the Personal life material, although I understand now that having a citation isn’t enough—the source needs to directly support the specific claim. I’ll be more careful about that and about BLP and synthesis going forward BellyKelly (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see the sources you cited now. I'm sorry about the misleading reply; I guess I was a bit too cursory with reviewing your edits. I'm glad it still helped you out to some extent, though. For what it's worth, after reading the page on original research, you should have no further problems with this sort of thing in the future. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you taking another look and explaining everything. I’m still learning, and this helped me understand the difference between having a reliable source and making sure the source directly supports what I’m writing. BellyKelly (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course! I'm glad we covered that. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought I cited the right People article about them. What can I do to fix it? What wording would better fit? BellyKelly (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@BellyKelly: I'm looking at the three relevant edits of yours in which you added material about Hoffman's relationship with Parker. The first one, made at 02:02, 11 August 2026, seemed to have reproduced content from another section. It was reverted by ~2026-44368-36 not because it violated policies, but because it was simply redundant, as they referenced in the edit summary of the subsequent edit of theirs. I believe that's the only edit in which you cited the People article as a source; please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Regarding your other two edits, the one made at 16:02, 19 August 2026, had cited no sources and was promptly reverted by WikipediholicRat for that reason. The one made at 16:18, 19 August 2026, had indeed included a source to support parts of it, one published by El País, but was reverted by Augmented Seventh because some other parts of it weren't supported by the source. I don't think you'd consider the first two reversions to be particularly controversial, so I'm going to focus on the third reversion, why it was made, and how you can restore your edits.

To abide by our policy on verifiability, you must cite a reliable source after every contentious claim you make. To abide by our reliable sources guideline, you must only use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," among sundry other criteria and qualifications. Looking at the third edit, you had cited no source for the following sentence you added, violating the verifiability policy.

Several weeks after production ended, Parker visited Hoffman in New York, where she met his mother, Mimi O’Donell, and Hoffman asked her to be his girlfriend.

However, this information indeed appears to be supported by the People article, so the only error was in omitting the source. Looking at the other material you added, you made two claims with it: (1) that Hoffman and Parker met during the filming of Poetic License and (2) that the two fell in love with each other. Reading through the two sources by People and El País, I see both of them supporting the first claim but only the latter source supporting the second claim. Normally, this would be acceptable, as you wouldn't need several sources to support a single claim, but I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the El País article given how sensational it is; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources. This may affect whether you can actually take away claims from the source, although I wouldn't take the risk.

I would suggest only partially restoring your edits to include the details of them having met during the filming of Poetic License and what happened between them after its production. Personally, I wouldn't restore anything about what they actually feel about each other if all you have on that is the El País article. If you decide to restore your edits, you may wish to reference this thread in either your edit summary or the article's talk page so no confusion about what you're doing arises. If at that point you still have your edits reverted, take a look at our dispute resolution processes and consider going along one of the routes described therein. Best of luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Edited 02:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I checked the El País source again, and the caption about Cooper Hoffman and Nico Parker expressly says that they “fell in love while filming Poetic License.” Does that change your view about whether the source directly supports that particular statement, assuming the source itself is considered reliable enough for a BLP? BellyKelly (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! Indeed, it does say that. I was actually in the process of editing my reply before I saw your message about it. Yes, that fact would change how I view it, but only slightly; you can see my clarification regarding the matter in the reply as it exists now. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What I called "garbage" was that while you were changing links (which I wasn't at all sure was necessary but maybe it was), and changing italics so that only the comma was italic, you also removed some required punctuation and typed some stray letters. The whole combination was probably you trying to correct some things and some slipped fingers, but it looked quite odd. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops, where did you find those so I can correct them. BellyKelly (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

They got reverted, it's OK TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

When to submit draft and when to make a new page directly?

Hey there.

I want to author a new article on Wikipedia. I have read the notability guidelines and I think that it is notable enough to warrant its own article, even if it may be short.

When trying to do so, I was confused by this wording:

The page "Synopsys vcs" does not exist. You can click on "Synopsys vcs" to create the page directly, or you may create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

My question is under what circumstances should I create a draft and submit it for review, and under what circumstances I should create the page directly. ..... WinnerWind. (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Always use the draft method, until you've had many drafts get accepted on the first try. Getting lots of drafts accepted on the first try reassures you that you know how. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it. One last thing, is it possible for the wikipedia editor to save a draft 'locally'? I'm not ready to share it to the world, nor do I want to delete it, but I do want to close my computer and leave for a bit. ..... WinnerWind. (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

When in a draft, the Publish button means "save locally". They only used the word "publish" to warn you "this is not private, other editors can see what you're working on". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "local". Typically that refers to saving something on one's own device rather than external servers. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

(But because it's a draft, they won't see it unless they intentionally go looking for it.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@WinnerWind: Welcome to The Teahouse. The only way to save a draft locally to your device is to not use Wikipedia and use a text-editing application that you already have on your device instead. As TooManyFingers said, it's highly unlikely anyone is going to poke at the draft unless it meets speedy deletion criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

one more thing why it's a bad idea to "draft locally" - reviewers (not by default but still) can think you just WP:COPYPASTE it from somewhere. It's much better to write it as is - including mistakes you make while creating it. Anyway - if you mean to just copypaste from "local source" to new article when you probably will be ok/allowed with direct (w/o draft) article's creation - that will still look sus for... At least me.

So... Don't be scared to make mistakes. Also that way (editing draft) you still can be corrected some way by some experienced editor that can you teach editing wikipedia right way even faster. ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the welcome!

I'll be sure to publish my draft as I keep going. Thanks for the advice everyone! <3 ..... WinnerWind. (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also the option to create a draft within your personal userspace (User:WinnerWind/Example) instead of the general draftspace (Draft:Example). Both are technically visible to the public, but there's even less chance of someone running across it at random in your userspace. It's largely a personal choice; some people prefer their userspace for more dabbling or to take their time on something without interference. Usually even if someone else does stumble across it they won't make any changes unless it violates policy in some way. They mostly get left alone in draftspace as well, but occasionally someone else might contribute if they're interested in the same topic, especially if the current version is stale.

If you go that route you'll want to add Template:AfC submission at the very top to make it easy to submit for review when you're ready. IIRC the Article Wizard creates them in draftspace by default and will add the template automatically. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Mind to improve the article

Hello there! In fact subj is about 1919 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system.

Problem is there's no any sources except primary, forums or solid tables.

So... Have I improve it based on ones or there's no sense because it'll still be rejected to be high-quality even if ever be promoted? ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

First look for better sources, because if it can be saved by improving it, then it should be saved. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you already finished looking for better sources, and you're sure there aren't any, then just rewriting words in the article won't help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers yeah... I know.. So no any chance?

Someone says The American fighter by Angelucci, Enzo or U.S. military aircraft designations and serials since 1909 by John M. Andrade have something about inside but I have no chance to check it ever. ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

At this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

you may be able to get help finding those sources you couldn't get yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

For The American Fighter you've already linked the Internet Archive's page for that book. If you just create an account there, you can read it for free. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste hmm... so.. as one as that one: Aviation in the U.S. Army, 1919-1939?

Are you sure? ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if you create an account, there should be a blue button saying "borrow" at the top of each of those pages. If you click it you will "borrow" the book for some hours, and then you can read it on the website for that duration. If nobody else reserves it, you can just "borrow" it again afterwards. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean it writes "Login and borrow" (not "read for free"), so I doubt. ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It operates like a library (that's why they can operate legally like that), so you need to "borrow" it, and then only you can read it for some amount of time. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks odd, but it really works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste @TooManyFingers

Ok, I'll try ;) Found 2 more possible sources Splendid Vision, Unswerving Purpose Developing Air Power for the United States Air Force During the First Century of Powered Flight & From Huffman Prairie to the Moon The History of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Thanks a lot! ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"like a library", borrow... ;) yep... it really looks like is. Hope there's no return overtime fee exists ;) ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste @TooManyFingers looks like registration at archive for me just doesn't work. But what if I found 3 reliable sources (2 similar, but with a couple of decades diff) about starting definition and a list of 1919 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system. Is it ok for notability and will it be enough to fill the article further with mostly primary ones (i.e. detailed type specs and/or development history of each of)? ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How does it just not work? What went wrong? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Like that indefinitely ~2026-46112-35 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

...after clicking "Sign In". ~2026-46112-35 (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"Sign Up" I mean. ~2026-46112-35 (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

What licence tag should I use...?

I've been using CC-BY YouTube but realised it says this is for videos posted before August 2025. What licence can/should be used for media derived from videos posted on YouTube under a CC licence after August 2025? Thanks. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You might get better answers at the Commons help desk. (Commons, where free media files are uploaded, is its own project with its own community and norms.) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying there now, thank you. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

editing and contributing to wikipedia

hi, i sometimes help on wikipedia by adding links, editing text, etc etc. i'm kinda scared that if i make like a mistake a bunch of times i could get banned and that's ofc bad Therizzler660 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If the mistakes are clearly in good faith, and you try to correct them yourself, and you listen to advice... you'll be fine. DS (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Therizzler660, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Good-faith editing, even if it's wrong, should never get you blocked or banned unless you keep on ignoring what people are saying to you and making the same mistakes. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't try to make mistakes of course, that's obvious. But please allow yourself to make mistakes; if you're not free to make a mistake, then you're also not free to succeed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I was rather bold my first couple months here. I got corrected, I got rebuked, some of my edits were reverted. I broke some infoboxes and got two visits from the Infobox Gnome. I turned an entire messageboard purple by mistake. I sent messages to the wrong editor. But I tried to learn from my mistakes, and it was all okay.

When I applied for a restricted user right, the person evaluating my application looked at my Talk page and said, "shows accountability." So I actually got credit for being chewed out and responding appropriately. If you can handle your mistakes without getting nasty or defensive, and learn from them, you should do just fine here. You're going to make mistakes; everyone does. (Today I was reading the Talk page of a very experienced admin. Someone wrote, "You broke this page, what was that about?" and the admin said, "It was a mistake, sorry, I've fixed it.") M kuhner (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The article "Communist society"

LTA block evasion

The article "Communist society" must mention the Marx designation being "lower phase of communist society" and "higher phase of communist society", and the fact that "socialism" and "communism" are interchangable in Marx's works, it woundl't be until Lenin that used "socialism" and "communism" to refer to these two stages ~2026-45496-73 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You're free to edit the article with the support of your claim.

If you don't know how, you can check WP:HEP. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

== Warning about LLM texts about Communism ==

There is a discussion titled "Communism in both PRACTICE and theory should be part of it's "locked" wiki description" on the article "Communism" and the user uses LLM to justify their reasoning, and the LLM text is biased. A evident thing is how biased LLMs are towards communism. LLMs tend to use Marxism-Leninism as a example of how horrible communism is, even though Marxism-Leninism is very much deviated from Marxism. To quote from the Wikipedia article "Socialist mode of production": "Lenin's interpretation departed from Marx's text in ways that shaped the course of Marxism–Leninism.[1] According to some analyses, Lenin misconstrued the lower phase of communism by arguing that wage labour would continue, with all citizens becoming hired employees of the state, rather than adopting Marx's concept of remuneration based on actual labour time through vouchers.[2] Lenin is also credited with establishing the distinction between "socialism" (the lower phase) and "communism" (the higher phase) as two separate historical stages, a reading that some scholars argue is not found in Marx's own writings, where the terms are used interchangeably.[3] This interpretation, which became a staple of Stalinism, pushed the ultimate goal of communism to a distant future while justifying statist policies in the name of "socialism".[4][5] This conceptual framework shaped the 1936 Stalinist constitution, which defined the Soviet Union as a "socialist" society based on the principle of distribution "to each according to his work".[6]". Also, asurrounding the "to each according to his work" in the 1936 Stalinist constituion, it came from a common misinterpretation of Marx's discussion of "duration or intensity", which as a measure of labour refers to the actual hours worked, not to productive output, thus refuting the common interpretation of this principle as "to each according to his work".[7] ~2026-45496-73 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like that was handled on the talk page. Did you have a further question? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How to go about improving this article?

The article Got Dropped Into A Ghost Story, Still Gotta Work feels like it's written strangely but I'm not sure what exactly is wrong. Particularly the whole 'worldview' section feels like it came off a fanwiki or something (especially since the word 'worldview' is used to describe the setting in the novel). I'm interested in improving it but I'm not sure how to go about it, if that makes sense? And I'm not sure how to identify what the problem is. I suppose it's one part excessive detail and one part non-encyclopedic tone.

My Wikipedia experience is mostly copyediting on temporary accounts in the past and so I don't have much experience making big structural edits like this would be. If anyone could give me advice on where to start, that'd be appreciated!! 49dhelmise [talk] 21:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked, and I agree with all of your analysis, including that the section called "Worldview" is titled wrong for Wikipedia, even if that's a good title inside the book. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What I see is (1-st) there's no any WP:RS in the article. Only sources in the article are blogs, socials, direct (root level) urls.

Second I see it mostly looks like a WP:Advertising of series itself as noone writes about it out of announces.

3rd I see (close to 2nd) is non-notability - as, again, only socials and blogs writing about it.

AS of "worldview" it mostly loos like WP:OR, so you'd better delete it all, then find the RS, and only later write it's description from the scratch.

phrase "by Baek Deok-su is a South Korean webnovel first published on October 4, 2024 on the platform Kakaopage under the publisher KW Books[3] and is currently ongoing serialization." looks also weird... Like... wrote by not live person, but like copoed from some series credits.

I'd say it have less positive features then negative ones. So it'll be hard to make it better from what you have there now. ~2026-45407-10 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I won't argue with that. You're probably right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a non-native English speaker here. Fairly proficient overall (possibly using translation help on individual words), but grammar just a little "off" due to that.
There might also be some OR along with the primary sourced info. Definitely reads as fan content. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia Library"

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.

---

Does anyone else find it absolutely dumb that it is gatekept to extended-confirmed users? Like, what is the point of limiting it to extended confirmed users when Wikipedia was literally built off reliable sources and collaboration and all of that? There should be no reason to gatekeep it at all.TA's and other lower ranked levels should be able to access it as well. Geninuely, what a stupid rule 😂

If you somehow disagree with it, please reply. I'd really like to see what your reasoning is that it should be gatekept instead UselessAccount21 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably because it's for Wikipedia and not meant to just be free stuff for everyone in the world. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Omg!! I didn't know The Wikipedia Library was for Wikipedia!! What a mind-blowing discovery!1!!!

But in all seriousness though, it's already free (somewhat). We should not gatekeep it to those who grind edits. We must give the TA's and the other users who aren't EX-C or above access to the Wikipedia Library. Gatekeeping it will make new, civil users feel like Wikipedia is not their home. I also feel that if the library were open, we would literally have better articles as it opens up opportunities to a wide variety of users to participate in the project itself. UselessAccount21 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi UselessAccount21. The Wikipedia Library is a program administered by the Wikimedia Foundation. Per their terms, Access to resources via The Wikipedia Library is reserved for community members who have demonstrated their commitment to the Wikimedia projects, and who will use their access to these resources to improve project content. That is why they limit it in the manner they do. Regular editors do not have the ability to change their terms. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The Temp Accounts and other users who make constructive edits are committed to the project itself. I still don't see why it would be only for Extended Confirmed Users. Or I was just reading it wrong, who knows 🤷‍♂️

Isn't there like a way to ask them if they could lower the restrictions? UselessAccount21 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I may be absolutely completely wrong on this, but my guess is the limit is to keep out people who make a very small number of low-quality edits, just to get free access to a site that would normally cost them. It's likely that almost no one just trying to do that would make the number of edits required to get Extended Confirmed. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This, and also to note that the access to extended confirmed editors is not automatic. There is an additional requirement that one needs to have at least 10 edits in the last 30 days. – robertsky (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Those who make bad edits do not represent the entire user base. I still don't see why can't we have access to the Library. UselessAccount21 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

True. But they represent some of the user base, and that’s enough. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 03:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What kind of response is this?? This better be satire bro because omg, you are literally generalizing a whole user base 😂😂😂😂

You must also know that Extended-Confirmed users can vandalize too, so I don't see your point here... UselessAccount21 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21: I didn't read Shadestar474's reply as generalizing the entire user base, but rather pointing out the fact that despite disruptive users comprising only a small portion of the user base, that minority is still significant enough to warrant presumptive restriction. There's no arbitrary limit that requires, say, half of a user base to be disruptive in order for such a restriction to be imposed. To illustrate this, fireworks (a privilege to have, equivalent to accessing the library) are cool to play with, but because of the significant risk of giving children unrestricted access to them, most bodies prohibit selling children fireworks, the fact that most of the children probably won't blow their hands off with them notwithstanding.

It's the fact that the risk is so great that the benefits just wouldn't be worth it. On your quip about extended-confirmed users being able to vandalize, I'm going to quickly say the implications of that statement would only support Shadestar474's reply; in fact, why shouldn't we increase the bar required to access the library if that fact were substantiated? But again, it's the risk-to-reward ratio that's being considered here. There's simply so much less extended-confirmed users vandalizing that it's just not a concern, aided by the fact that blocking such a user would mean they'd have a much higher bar to reach if they want to keep vandalizing.

On another note, I'm noticing things are getting a bit more agitated in this thread. Wikipedia can be a very welcoming place with members both civil and willing to make concessions, but it's not a battleground to have prolonged and acerbic arguments, nor is it a place where you can let loose all of your feelings on the keyboard. I want to gently nudge you toward our conduct policies, namely those on civility, assuming good faith, and harassment, so that your time here doesn't get cut short by a trip to ANI, as I've seen happen to even very prolific, well-respected, and long-standing editors. Wishing you the best. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Their email is wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org. I doubt they will lower the requirement, but you can email them if you wish. You could also post on the meta discussion page for the library. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello UselessAccount21, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've thought about that question a lot myself and too am annoyed when I want to access the library but can't. I have no actual answer for the express reason why it's set up that way, but to spitball some, the very first thought I had when I heard about the service was that it was tacitly a shadow library brimming with pirated material and copyright violations, and restricting access to only "the most dedicated Wikipedia volunteers" was a way for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid having publishers readily know the extent to which it provides free access to their publications. This was based solely on speculation and intuition, and because the theory doesn't align with what the WMF has said about the service, as well as how extraordinary it is on its own, I'm comfortable tossing it out.

The answer that makes the most sense to me is something along the lines of what Commandant Quacks-a-lot suggested. To me, their answer suffices as an explanation for why the requirements to use the library are so high but not as an explanation for why it actually needs to be high, which seems like the more pertinent question with respect to your post. The only explanation I can think of is that it's a natural restriction from the arrangement made to facilitate the service between the WMF and the various publishers whose publications it hosts in the library. According to this page, the WMF partnered with various publishers to allow their editors access to content hidden behind paywalls with the aim of improving the quality of its encyclopedias. In exchange for this, the WMF states that the publishers would receive more traction from all of the Wikipedia readers going to their sites to verify the claims made in its articles. The tradeoff for the publishers is having a few people completely bypass their paywalls in the hopes that it will ultimately lead to more people arriving at it, which can only be ensured by limiting the number of people in the former group as much as possible.

I'd need to dig deeper into this to substantiate it with sources and directly confirm it (insofar as that's even possible), and it's still very much speculation and intuition, but my intuition says this is a much stronger theory than my earliest one, so make of it what you will. If your making this post because you want access to certain sources, however, note that there are a variety of ways to get help with that, such as through the resource request program, whereby others with access to the library can help you get what you need, and the reference desk, whereby other editors can help you conduct research with the sources they have access to. All the best! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I would assume it's similar to why most college libraries don't grant alumni access to their databases; the cost of a database or similar resource (such as the Wikipedia Library) is determined by the number of users, and the WMF does not have infinite money to spend on this resource. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's it because colleges have a set number of students. There no editor quota, EC or otherwise. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21

Hello, I didn't read all the answers below, just chiming in that technically you don't have to be ExtendedConfirmed to use the Library. While the 500 edits correspond to EC here on enwiki, that's true, but your contributions on all WM-Projects will be added up. So, if you have only have 400 edits here, and 100 elsewhere, you are good to go. Of course only if you reached 10 edits in the last 30 days (but this will be added up, too)! Maresa63 ^Talk 06:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

UselessAccount21, you say if the library were open, we would literally have better articles as it opens up opportunities to a wide variety of users to participate in the project itself. A wide variety of people participated in Wikipedia constructively even before the Wikipedia Library existed. In view of this, I'm surprised that your contributions don't include a single edit to an article. Is it prohibitively difficult to make improvements, even nontrivial improvements, to articles despite lacking access to what's available via the Wikipedia Library? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You took the time to find my contributions but not my old account link that was literally on my userpage, for the world to see? I literally did make contributions in the past, at least in my older account that I now lost due to me losing the password to it. I will do some category work soon with this account, so I don't know what you are trying to prove with my contribution history for this account, but it isn't working 😂 UselessAccount21 (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Rather than trying to prove anything, I was asking you a question. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Relevant: and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1295#is_it_possible_to_block_anyone ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

Falling Funds Wikipedia

First up I am a contributer. Facebook, Instagram numerous AI iiterations use Wikipedia. Can Wikipedia commercialise this us by, say, creating a comeccialised chat group with regular postings from Wikipedia. Your quality would leave AI slop dead and increase your presence/authority as a source to a wider cohort?

Cheers Piers.Allbrook Dragonfly (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

People wanting chat groups, Piers.Allbrook, already have plenty to choose among. I can't imagine how a commercialized, Wikipedia-affiliated chat group would increase the "presence" of Wikipedia, whereas I can imagine how it would shift Wikipedia from a very dubious "authority" to something worse. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of social media accounts and chat groups around managed by Wikimedia Foundation, affiliates, and individual contributors which push out material based on content from the various Wikimedia projects already. One more such chat would simply add to the noise. – robertsky (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Dragonfly! Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I'm personally having a bit of trouble parsing your question. I understand you're trying to make a suggestion for Wikipedia, perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation, to pursue, but I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what that suggestion is. You're mentioning the fact that various platforms and AI companies rely on the content in Wikipedia, but I'm not able to connect that with a "commercialized (if that's interpreted to mean official, exclusive, or profitable endeavor) chat group with regular postings (if that's interpreted to mean updates by the WMF or perhaps exemplary featured articles) from Wikipedia."

In any case, I'm not sure you're at quite the right place for these sorts of suggestions. This is the Teahouse, a place for new editors to seek interactive help with using or editing Wikipedia. It's not a communication means between people and the WMF, so feature suggestions or other matters more official than that which can be dealt with by the volunteer corps watching this page won't receive much reception. Instead, I'd like to direct you to some more proper communication means: you may wish to visit some of our village pumps, such as the one for proposals, inchoate ideas, the WMF, or miscellany, for feature proposals and suggestions. For questions, info@wikimedia.org is the email address reserved for receiving questions about Wikipedia or its sister projects; you may wish to send a query there. All the best! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The closest thing you can get is Wikipedia Mobile which has a "for you page"(fyp) for Doomscrolling on mobile, but as wiki articles. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox residence parameter?

Hey! Asking for a mentee: is there an infobox parameter for a person’s current residence? Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 03:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

A good approach is to search for "Template:Infobox person" which lists every possible parameter for that template. I don't see current residence in that list. It may be discouraged for privacy reasons. M kuhner (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It was removed, but privacy was not the reason given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hand on the shoulder meme

Should I add a sub-topic about the hand on the shoulder meme (comes from Episode 43 of that anime) in the article for Akakichi no Eleven?

Here is the link to the article about the anime that the meme comes from: Akakichi no Eleven. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably a question better asked on the Talk page of that article, or at WikiProject Anime. But as a general question, do you have an independent source talking about this meme in a reliable publication? Without such a source, the answer is no. (Reddit, Fandom, most YouTube, or Facebook won't work here.) If you have a source, and it fits well into the article, boldly put it in (and start a discussion if others disagree). M kuhner (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero for Wikipedia

Hello everyone.

I think I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that there was a version of GPTZero specifically designed to review Wikipedia articles. If I'm correct, could someone please tell me where to find it? I haven't been able to find it on the GPTZero website.

Thank you very much in advance for your attention and input!

Best regards.

Lecrion (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Here you go: https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot! Lecrion (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

list a company

Can i list a page for a company or is it too early, i want to contribute to the listing in my District NorthEcho (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question reflects a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia; we are not a mere database of things that exist where companies can "list" themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where the topics are typically written about by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. In the case of a company, you would need to show that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet that definition, because most reporting about a company is about its routine business activities, and not the critical analysis and commentary we are looking for.

If you work for the company, that must be disclosed per the Wikipedia Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. Reading WP:PAIDADVICE is a good idea, too. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Any advice on expanding more niche articles?

Recently, I've been trying to get out of my comfort zone of tweaking parameters and adding citations to expand out articles more. The problem for me is a lot of the articles in question don't seem to have a whole lot of coverage on it. I've even encountered articles where I couldn't find more than one reliable source relating to it. I feel like I'm doing something wrong when it comes to finding information about what I'm trying to work on. Any advice on seeking that out? ɯoꓷ▲^talk 14:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That depends a lot on what kinds of topics you edit about, i. e. what kind of sources are likely to be available. For academic sources, use academic indexers like EBSCO, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, etc. For news, there's probably one or more services that index news articles in your country; ProQuest also has some newspapers, etc. You should have a look at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which can give you access to a lot of these things. You can also search the catalogues of any libraries you have access to.

If you do a reasonably thorough search and only find one reliable source, and the article doesn't have more, it might just be that the topic isn't notable, and you could consider nominating it for deletion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Wikipedia Library until now, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the pointers, Madeline from Celeste! ɯoꓷ▲^talk 15:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You might find it fun to try this experimental tool that a friend and I made: https://projo.toolforge.org/. If you type in a topic area, it'll recommend related articles that are short or need cleanup but have a lot of pageviews from readers, which suggests that they may be interesting topics worthy of expanding.

I just put in "hip-hop" (inspired by your user page), filtered the results to below 30% quality, selected "needs cleanup", and got this list. For example, I see Lench Mob Records, which is interesting but quite short and could be expanded; Delicious Vinyl, which could use a few more citations for the paragraphs that don't have any citations yet; and Electric boogaloo (dance), which would benefit from a bit of rewriting to get it into a more encyclopedic style.

I also tried putting in "snacks" and got this list. Did you know that every day about 260 people visit the Cheez-It article, but it needs more citations?! And about 180 people read Famous Amos every day, but the lead needs to be expanded! It also needs more citations. Could be fun. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

inappropriate use of text highlighting

 Courtesy link: Agreement in the English language

I'd like to improve this article, but I'm not completely sure what "inappropriate use of text highlighting such as bold and underline" exactly means. Should I remove bold and underline altogether? Can you provide an example of what appropriate use of text highlighting would look like? ~2026-45838-92 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45838-92: Inappropriate text highlighting for emphasis is summarised at MOS:BADEMPHASIS, which is part of the larger style guideline MOS:FORMATTING. Removing all deliberate bold and underlining might be a good way to start. If you're not sure, you can always ask here.

Whilst you're improving that article, you might also take note of MOS:SLASH. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 The bold and underline in that article don't seem to me like emphasis in the usual sense; they're being used to indicate the grammatical items being discussed. I may be missing an important point, but it seems as if you're just saying "Stop wanting to indicate things". I don't know how to indicate these things for a screen reader, or even whether there's a way, but I would certainly do it if I knew.

I think simply stripping out all the bold and underline in this article would be akin to taking an ordinary article and stripping out all the spaces. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the real issue is one level up from this one, namely WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers it is more likely yet one level up from that one: nearly all of the edits to the page are from a globally locked LTA who has used at least 3 socks to work on it. The recent string of <5 edit TAs from the last month or so are probably also them, and perhaps the one that started this thread too. It is a bit of a difficult situation as nothing they have done in this particular case is egregious whatsoever and appears to be entirely in good faith, but apparently their cross-wiki behavior is/has been otherwise. The page may be eligible for WP:G5. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 17:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever said this before, but ... you've inspired me to give up. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

My behavior on other wikis was good too. My bans were caused mostly by Surjection, an admin on Wiktionary who misuses their power. They also mistook some random unrelated users for me and caused them to be baned as well.

BTW, don't you think the article is useful? If so, why do you mention removing it? ~2026-45605-40 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the template was first added by User:Mathglot and later changed into an accessibility dispute by User:Oklopfer. Maybe they can help you with more specific advice. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Oklopfer's changing the template from just "cleanup" to "accessibility dispute" was exactly right. I think this article would be very difficult to rewrite so that it had no bold and no underline yet still showed what it was supposed to show. But maybe that's just because I've never seen the better way to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Because those things are being wrongly used but serving a purpose, it will be necessary to find proper accessible ways to accomplish the same purpose. If someone just randomly uses bold or underline because they felt like it, you delete the formatting and that's that - but not the same this time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

just delete all ''' and '' from the page code, and You'll be fine with it. ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is certainly false. I don't think you looked at the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Depends what kind of accessibility we are talking about, but if we are considering screen reader accessibility, that could be done with role and aria-label, but to avoid making the wikicode completely inscrutable, they should be hidden inside some (new) template or templates that would generate them correctly. You could have something like

{{agreement example|New regulations are the only solution|controller=regulations|target=are|type=...}}

where the template would generate whatever style is ultimately decided to be the right style, as well as the proper roles and aria-labels for screen readers. Note that it could/should generate span class attributes, which would mean that users that didn't like the consensus style for grammatical examples could choose their own style in their common.css. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Now created at {{grammar example}}. It is only a prototype, and the actual styles to use should be decided by consensus, either at the languages wikiproject, or more likely at MOS. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I proposed on the article's talk page that the textbook-like parts of the article just be cut out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I just fixed all that stylish problem. ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but it's worse than before, and didn't address the issues being discussed here. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

placement for multiple pictures in an article

Hello, recently I published the article Mischoderus and most of the article is about the differences between its larvae and regular cranefly larvae, so I thought maybe two pictures to compare them would be fitting. The problem is I have no clue how to format this or where to put it and my head is already hurting from figuring out automatic taxoboxes. Could someone help me figure out where to put this and how, or if it is even necessary? Sylv302 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.

• Finding pictures that clearly show what you need to show, and that also don't cause copyright problems, would be the first step.
• Once you have pictures, you could create a new section called "Description", and put the pictures in there along with what needs to be said.
• Find any species article that already uses this type of comparison pictures in a good way, and copy their method.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

alright thank you! I'll try to get this to work Sylv302 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Once you have the two pictures in hand, you can make a not-very-pretty version of the article, and then ask for help: I bet you'll get prompt and successful help making it prettier. It sounds like a great addition to the article. M kuhner (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Images; and possibly use a Gallery tag or {{Multiple images}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Where to file a report if TAs with a very wide range vandalizes a wikipage?

Hi, so In Keu Bole Biplobi Keu Bole Dakat there was a brief edit war between me and some TAs that were repeatedly POV pushing the name "GMbulbul" which I assume is a Social media handle of some dude, I've filed an SPI report here , now the main question is, is SPI the right place to report this kind of thing? BengalMC ^talk 15:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you first have to note what exactly and how he vandalize the article before moving there. As for now I see you wish article to stay in your ownership - that violates WP:NEUTRAL. Also first step of such conflists is 3rd opinion - and not "I'll go ban another editor". So... what's a point there? ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Another way (if his activity is really looks like vandal) - if problem persists with only article - is to just request to semi-protect it. No need to "ban the range" because of some person who don't like some exact article and really make it worse - to avoid others from that range to edit a wikipedia. ~2026-45604-98 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing help with previously removed disambiguation page

I've stumbled over this previously existing disambiguation page for Teatime -- see also my comment at Talk:Teatime#Removal_of_May_2011

What I think should actually exist, is a redirect of Teatime to a proper Tea time (disambiguation) page with a listing of tea time related articles in its various permutations (there are even two more in the header on Tea time). But this seems a large operation for an inactive/newbie like me, and the user who made the change seems to be inactive since 2015 - Any help/input from a more senior editor? Peargrain (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What's actually incorrect about the way it is now? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

title

I am being more and more interested on making an article on something. However sometimes I feel like that I might not make a good enough article... What should I do? UselessAccount21 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you think you might not be ready? Or do you mean maybe it's not a great subject? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21: Look at WP:YFA for some guidance on creating your first article, and there is even a wizard there to help guide you. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, appreciate for you adding the link. UselessAccount21 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21 Unless you have edited here previously under other accounts (or anonymously), you don't yet have much experience. Hence my advice would be to learn your way around by editing existing articles on topics that interest you before tackling the much harder task of writing something from scratch. Even if you are convinced your topic is notable and you have very good sources, there are a still pitfalls (see especially WP:BACKWARDS). When you feel ready, use the WP:articles for creation process and you'll get help and advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Are people purposely ignoring my user page, I have experience. I know what I am doing. But I will take the AfC for consideration. UselessAccount21 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I use navigation popups, which said you had only 28 edits since 2 Aug 2026. I didn't check whether you had had an earlier account but you will note I did allow for that possibility. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount21 Not to put too fine a point on it, but considering your two accounts have a combined total of less than 150 edits you most certainly do not "have experience." I don't say that to be insulting; humility is a good thing! Wikipedia's a very big place and there's always more to learn. I have some 6,600 edits under my belt and I still consider myself barely an intermediate editor. Athanelar (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

People answering here are free to do so without first reading your user page. If something is relevant, you should mention it in your opening post.

Your previous account only has about 20 edits in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

To capitalise or not capitalise?

Hello, I'm gonna make an article for FlipMusic, a really prolific production house in the Philippines. But how should I spell it in the title and article: with the M capitalised or not capitalised? Thank you. Not sure about the guidelines regarding spellings like this. FWIW they always capitalise the M in media articles. Handsome Ellis (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How is it spelled in the reliable sources you've found so far? (Company media doesn't count for this, only by others.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Most, if not all, reliable articles I've seen spell it as FlipMusic with the capitalised M, e.g. https://billboardphilippines.com/market/bottom-line/bojam-jumbo-de-belen-p-pop-hit-songwriting-interview/

With Mike's response below too, I think I'll go with capitalising the M. Thank you both! Handsome Ellis (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Handsome Ellis Full details at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (capitalization). The fact we have Blackberry and BlackBerry suggests there is no inherent problem in using FlipMusic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Including 'www' in external links

I'm somewhat surprised that I can't find a relevant manual of style for this. I have been seeing edits like which changes a link from "example.com" to "www.example.com". I have seen the style without "www" being used more frequently on Wikipedia, but is there a guideline to this? LkL-70547 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi LkL-70547. Your diff is for the website parameter in {{Infobox company}}. Template:Infobox company#Parameters says at website: "Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it." The website is closed and neither URL works now. I don't know what worked before. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, according to the Wayback Machine, the website resolved both with and without www; at least until January 2025. After that the website briefly advertised a hotel in Amsterdam before going offline. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Good find. If both worked, it should be displayed without the leading 'www.'. I would make it also CamelCase to improve readability, per the guidance I linked below, as in:

     ScreenMediaFilms.net (defunct)

I can't think of any reason why the CamelCase guidance for External links sections would not apply to infoboxes. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. We could also add an archiving tag (see Wikipedia:Archiving a source). Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the right approach. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547, there is also some guidance at MOS:URL for External links sections (not necessarily infoboxes). It says that when displaying the URL or domain name, to make it as simple as possible. It then goes on to say: Many but not all sites can be trimmed of a leading "www."; test it to be sure. That is consistent with the {{Infobox company}} instructions. Without knowing which version(s) worked when the site was live, I'm not sure how to resolve this. If you're seeing this in other articles, you might check to see if "example.com" works and then ask the editor who made the change about their reasoning or start a discussion on the talk page, referencing the relevant guidelines or template documentation. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae, I found the original link format. See above. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Common vs official names

How do we resolve WP:COMMONNAME when most of the sources on an article are relatively formal and use the official name, when that's not actually the common name most people use in everyday conversation (nor what they're likely to search for)? In this case there's currently a redirect from the common name, and I could easily drum up additional sources to support it, but I'm looking for general advice on how such things are handled that could be applied in other situations too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, this is a longer reply than I would usually leave at Teahouse but I see from your history that you have a lot of experience and interest in WP policies and practices. The situation you describe sounds like it aligns with the policy and general practice—matching the article title to the name used in the majority of appropriate sources and using redirects from other names that are in use, and perhaps even more familiar to some readers. COMMONNAME is a bedrock principle that relies on usage in independent, reliable sources and informal or "common" (as in, everyday) usage sometimes doesn't match encyclopedic usage. COMMONNAME/recognizability arguments are often persuasive in requested move (RM) discussions but there can be many factors to consider such as optimization of all five naming criteria, disambiguation, and alignment with subject-specific naming conventions. Sometimes different types of sources use different terminology and a determination is made as to which sources are most authoritative for usage.

The specifics of the article and sources will sway the outcome but here are some general things you could do:

• Start by looking at the talk page to see if there has been a prior RM discussion or informal discussion about the title. You can also check the move log at Special:Log. A prior discussion might persuade you whether this is a good idea and will help craft your arguments if you want to propose a change that has already been discussed.
• Look at sources, which it sounds like you have already done, to see if there is enough support in the best sources for the title you think is best.
• Take a look the subject-specific naming conventions to see if the article falls into any one of these topic areas. But note that COMMONNAME often trumps these naming conventions.
• Check to see if there is another article or redirect at the title you want to use, as there may be a primary topic issue.
• Take a look at the current requested move discussions at WP:RMCD, if you are not already familiar with the process. Jump in! This is the best way to learn about the policies, guidelines, arguments, tools, etc. that editors use to resolve article title questions.
• Google Ngram is a great tool to compare usage of different terms in books. Note that Google Books includes many sources that are not "wiki-reliable" but it can show you if there is a big difference in how often related terms or potential synonyms are used. The user essay WP:NGRAM catalogues some pitfalls and limitations of Ngrams. The essay might give the impression that editors have an overall negative impression of Ngram. I don't think that's accurate, and there are ways to resolve some of the issues presented there that aren't discussed, but I think it's worth being aware of some of the issues and objections that occasionally arise.

Ultimately, these determinations are usually resolved via RMs. You can follow the instructions at WP:PCM (potentially controversial move) to start one. The proposal should be supported by policies, guidelines, sources, widely accepted practices, and other solid arguments. I would consider any change that you think another editor would see as a move away from the "COMMONNAME" as "potentially controversial". You can also start an informal discussion on the article's talk page. I sometimes do this when I'm on the fence about a title change ("page move"). You can also start an RM without a firm proposal or with multiple alternative proposals to generate discussion. Success varies when there are too many options. I'm happy to help if you have additional questions or need help navigating the RM process. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already covered several of those. The article is one of a number I'm working on improving because they've received little attention and are not currently up to par. In this particular situation the official name (the full breed name of Anglo-Nubian) is only ever used in more formal contexts (such as DAD-IS), and many reliable sources - including the people who author said formal works - would simply refer to them as Nubians in general conversation, as well as most articles that are less formal. Part of the problem is that we currently have both limited sourcing and over-emphasis on British content, and even then both the sources and article content do refer to the more common usage. The US simply uses Nubian even in formal contexts, and I believe some other countries do as well. I could probably make an argument even from the existing sources, but it'll be stronger once I expand the article. Swapping out the redirect at Nubian goat would bring it in line with both common usage and most of our articles for other breeds, with no disambiguation issues. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Ngram suggests that Nubian goat(s) is more common but it's a slim margin and it includes some usgage of Anglo Nubian goat(s) without the hyphen. Sometimes we have to settle for a longer, more formal name for the title that is more precise or helps to disambiguate but can use a shorter name throughout most of the article if it is reasonably well attested. MOS:LIFE has guidance on using the published name in breed standards. I don't know if that applies here. A WP:CONSISTENCY argument is usually less persuasive when there is a clear common name, but sometimes succeeds especially when other factors are at play. So far I'm not seeing a strong case for a title change but this isn't my area of expertise and I haven't attempted to do my own source usage assessment beyond the quick Ngrams. Your plan is a good one. Finding sources to improve the article will expose you to the range of usage. Make note of regional differences, if there are any. There could be MOS:ENGVAR considerations, and this could go a number of ways. If there is an international common name then MOS:COMMONALITY would favor using that for the title. I doubt that a MOS:TIES argument would be persuasive since the breed is now widely distributed, regardless of its place of origin. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the MOS:LIFE link - I'd already checked WP:FAUNA, but that's mainly for the organism and has even less info on breed names.
My overall logic is that anyone who's ever heard of them (at least in English) will recognize Nubian goat and I'd expect the vast majority to search for that or similar (is there a way to check how incoming traffic reached the page to compare redirect usage?), but I want to have my ducks in a row before I propose a move. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

WikiNav is a nifty tool that shows you two months' worth of incoming and outgoing traffic. It's often used with questions of disambiguation and primary topic. For example the WikiNav for "Nubian" shows that zero readers clicked through to Anglo-Nubian. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for redirects. You can look at Pageviews for the redirects. Nubian goatNubian goat averages 60 views/month, which is pretty high, but Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat is much higher. The article was previously at the title Anglo-Nubian goat, so that explains the pre–December 2025 traffic but views remain very high.

The next thing I look at is incoming links from articles. Nubian goatNubian goat is used 10 articles and Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat appears in 17. Neither link appears in any templates (like navboxes), which sometimes accounts for a lot of links in articles. The traffic to both redirects probably reflects some combination of searches and clicked links. I saw a stat once that a very low percentage of wikilinks in articles ever get clicked and the usual assumption is that most redirect traffic comes from people searching the term, unless there's a very prominent link on a popular page or some other reason to think a link is driving the views. I'm a little surprised if hundreds of people are typing out "Anglo-Nubian goat" and clicking enter since Anglo-Nubian populates the search bar before they finish. I wonder if there is a link on some high traffic external website(s) that is driving some of the traffic to Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat. ≈ 1,000 hits/month is very high for a redirect.

You may be familiar with Google Trends. That does show that many more people Google Nubian goat(s). In my experience, Google Trends data is not very persuasive at RM unless it's backed up by sources or other policy-based arguments and data. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I suspect myself and another editor racked up quite a few views recently as we've been making and discussing improvements, and at least in my case I'm usually clicking through from either a notification or my watchlist. Probably not 2000+ though. There are 7 incoming redirects accounting for a total of 67 internal links, although most of those are indeed under the previous page name. I wasn't sure whether clickthroughs actually counted as a "view" for redirect pages (as opposed to viewing the redirect itself), but with that 1000 count I'm assuming they do. 45 internal links to that redirect likely account for a fair few of them.

The Nubian dab page only has 269 views itself, and goats definitely aren't the primary usage for the term, so I'm not terribly surprised there aren't any clickthroughs from that registering. WikiNav says it doesn't show sources with fewer than 10 hits. It broke when I attempted to drill down further on the main article.

re: Navboxes, I changed the link at Template:Goat breeds of Canada and the United States when I cleaned that one up. It previously used the redlinked Nubian (American goat breed) for some reason. That template's title links to List of North American goat breeds, which contains the Nubian (goat) redirect. So only the British navbox used Anglo-Nubian (presumably) from the start.

Google trends certainly isn't strong enough evidence by itself, but in this case I suspect it might help tip the scales along with RS usage.

Tangentially, could I get your input here? I'm going to drop an RfC at WP:ANIMALS to attempt to reconcile the category, navbox, and list. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, clickthroughs do count as a redirect "view", which is handy. Looking at recent daily views, Anglo-Nubian goatAnglo-Nubian goat consistently gets 20–40 views/day. Something is driving this steady flow of traffic. There's got to be some component of genuine search interest. I'm not seeing any real change after the 11th which is consistent with the notion that navboxes and other internal links are responsible for a small amount of traffic. At the end of the day, despite all the tools available, there's rarely a definitive answer as to how readers end up "viewing" a particular redirect.

I did take a look at the CFD listing but I'll hold off on responding there, at least for now. My 2¢ is that the plain language meaning of "originating" could encompass breeds developed in a particular country. To my uninformed eye, there's not an obvious problem but if the usage of "originating" and "developed" is more restricted or if the category is intended to be limited in this way, a change may be sensible. I would look at other categories, which I'm sure you've done. Category:Goat breeds by country of origin and Category:Animal breeds originating in the United States both use "origin(ating)". My instinct is to stick with the consistent terminology. There would need to be a good reason to treat the US differently (and maybe there is). {{Infobox goat breed}} has the |country= parameter which displays as "Country of origin", though it allows for free-texting to provide nuance and detail, e.g., the usage at Oberhasli goat.

Trying to reconcile the list, categories, infobox, navbox, etc. is a good idea. There may be a good reason to distinguish between breeds present in North America vs. those developed ("originating"?) there but it's worth discussing. WP:AG and WP:MAMMAL may be good places to discuss, or to post a link to a discussion at ANIMALS. I'm basing that off the WikiProjects that are tagged on the talk pages of the various articles and templates I've looked at. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Common name qualms

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I'm very close to submitting my draft article to WP:AfC for review. However, I've one (hopefully final) question, about MOS:COMMONNAME. The draft article is about a sculpture, officially named Cast in Blue. While that is the official name, a count of all the sources I found determined that eight of fifteen sources instead use the nickname "Blue Blob" in their titles when referring to the sculpture. Does this mean that the name of the article should actually be "Blue Blob", or does MOS:COMMONNAME not apply here?

If it does and the article should in fact be called "Blue Blob", then it should be noted that there's already an article called "Blue blob". I'm not totally sure how disambiguation would work there. Would it be disambiguation page-worthy, or only worth a hatnote.

Thank you, Wikipedia Teahouse. Sorry if I worded this poorly. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 07:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In a case like this where you have a common "proper name" as well as a frequently-used nickname, I would say the best approach is that the article title should use the common "proper name" and the lead paragraph should open with something like "Cast in Blue (also known as the Blue Blob) is..." Athanelar (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 8/15 is enough to tip the scales in either direction, since it's essentially half. The quality of the sources as well as the artist's intent are likely to factor in. You can also see my question above for some additional details on checking common usage aside from the included sources. Unless those indicate otherwise I think for this sticking with the official title and dropping a hatnote on the other article is probably fine. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Crtbob, I see it's been published as Cast in Blue. I agree with the others that this was a good choice. Nice work on the article! I've created the redirect Blue Blob to point to the article. I will place hatnotes at Cast in Blue and Blue blob. This looks like an acceptable case of WP:DIFFCAPS but if another editor disagrees they can retarget the redirect or take it to WP:RFD for a wider discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, and for setting up the redirect! I don't really know a ton about those, so I appreciate your help :) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 17:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirects are awesome! They have become a major focus of my editing 😊 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Would this meet notability guidelines?

Hello everyone. I recently joined Wikipedia with the backpocket intention of creating an article on a police operation about car insurance fraud called Operation Sideswipe. While staged crashes already have their own Wikipedia article, this particular operation seems like it may merit one because of its unusually high-profile aspects (an FBI informant was killed and two attorneys were indicted for conspiring with the main defendants). The operation has also been covered in The New Yorker, The Guardian, and a Justice Department bulletin.

I know Wikipedia generally cautions against new editors immediately writing new articles, but I would just like to know if this subject matter seems prima facie sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia or not. (If there is a better place to ask this, also please let me know!) Thank you. Antecerebellum (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

It may be notable, but the best approach would likely be to add a section by that title to the existing article and grow it until it is agreed that there is sufficient content to split off into a separate article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you! Should it be a direct subsection for it, or should there be a subsection like "Notable incidents" and then elaborate on it as a sub-subsection? Antecerebellum (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You'd only need the former if there was more than one incident, each with it's own subsection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:UPNOT

What is the proper way to proprose adding additional items to What may I not have in my user pages so that they can be reported and removed? Specifically, unearned service or longevity awards, WikiProject membership, and administrator status. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Celjski Grad, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would start at WT:User pages. If you don't get any response there, try one of the departments of the Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

New plant genus Hellwigia

Hello. So there is a new genus of plants called Hellwigia in the Zingiberaceae familiy. It used to be a synonym of Alpinia but it was just accepted on August 2025 and I would like a make a page of it but I can't since it still classifies the genus as a synonym of Alpinia and shows the bug genus instead. If you guys could change it thank you. Emmanbotan (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emmanbotan I assume that Hellwigia is still the wasp genus, so your new article should be called something like Hellwigia (plant). with WP:hatnotes on each article to point out the alternatives. I don't think that any change to the current article's name is needed if my interpretation is correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emmanbotan, I would create the article at Hellwigia (plant), as suggested. If there is a question about which genus is the primary topic for Hellwigia, or if there is a primary topic, a requested move discussion would be the proper way to resolve this. You can edit Alpinia to remove Hellwigia from the list of synonyms although I'm not sure how we handle historical synonyms. It may be appropriate to leave it as a reference for readers who may encounter older literature. Either way, both articles should discuss the change. WP:FLORA has general guidance on naming plant articles although it doesn't necessarily address this situation. WP:TOL (Tree of Life) is an active taxonomy WikiProject and a great place to ask about this. You might check with TOL about how to handle all of this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to get omaroverpro as an article

Is single developer/proggramer and made AIoverpro Omaroverpro (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Omaroverpro Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself. You do not meet our definition of a notable person. Consider making yourself a profile on a site like Github instead. Athanelar (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

How to cite a source properly?

Sorry, I’m very, very new to editing Wikipedia. I tried to edit the page List of Marshals of the First French Empire, in specific André Masséna. There the page claimed that André Masséna was born in 1756 but that does not line up with his personal page here, and is a known error. How do you cite Encyclopædia Brittanica’s page on him to correctly identify his date of birth as May 6th 1758 rather than the erroneous May 6th 1756? Right now his date of birth awkwardly doesn’t have a citation. So sorry, but can you please help? ~2026-40075-15 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-40075-15, welcome to the Teahouse!

Courtesy link to articles: List of Marshals of the First French Empire, André Masséna

You should use the Cite encyclopedia template in this case, enclosed in <ref> tags. I've filled it in, if it helps.

<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=André Masséna, duc de Rivoli, prince d'Essling |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andre-Massena-duc-de-Rivoli-prince-dEssling |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=22 August 2026}}</ref>

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you guys so, so much! I’m really new, sorry, but the information is true. Great help, I’ll write it down! ~2026-40075-15 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

English Mkhize

MkhizeVillage show how Geography influences statements development The river and land shape farming and daily life Mginqizana (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

This is some information about Mkhize village and it watering im must earn my money for nice topic Mginqizana (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mginqizana, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid it's not very clear to me what you are asking. If you are asking about the possibility of creating an article about a village called Mkhize (perhaps in South Africa?) then the answer is that it is possible if there are suitable sources that allow it to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but that successfully creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks in editing Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think 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 as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your 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.

I am guessing from your last sentence that you think that you can earn money from writing Wikipedia articles. This is not the case. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where editors give their time freely. A small number of people successfully function as paid editors, but most people who try to do this fail - and most people who claim to do this are scammers.

I wonder if there might be a Wikipedia in another language which you have a better command of than English? Perhaps Zulu (zu:Ikhasi_Elikhulu) or Xhosa (xh:Iphepha Elingundoqo)? ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Josh Liljenquist

Hi, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, so I’m still learning how some of this works. I’m Josh Liljenquist, the subject of the article Josh Liljenquist, so I also want to be transparent about my conflict of interest.

I noticed the article is still listed as unreviewed by New Page Patrol. I posted a short request on the New Page Patrol reviewers talk page as well, but I wasn’t sure if that was the correct place to ask or if there’s anything else I’m supposed to do.

Is it normal for a new article to remain unreviewed for a while, and is there anything appropriate I can do on my end other than simply wait? I don’t want to interfere with the article or do anything against Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines. Just trying to better understand the process.

Thanks for any guidance! NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NorthStarJoshL26. There's a backlog of over 30,000 unpatrolled new articles. There's no particular rush is there? qcne (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Totally fair, and I understand there’s a huge backlog. I definitely don’t mean urgent in the sense that it should take priority over more important pages.

The reason I was asking is that I only recently learned that an unreviewed article isn’t indexed by external search engines. There has also been continuing independent media coverage about me since the article was created, so I was wondering whether there was any value in having it independently reviewed while that coverage is current and people may be searching for the subject.

Since I’m the subject of the article, I’m intentionally trying not to edit or influence it myself. If the appropriate answer is simply to wait for the normal queue, that’s completely fine. I mainly wanted to make sure I understood the process correctly. NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NorthStarJoshL26.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. There is no deadline.

Whether there is currently media coverage of a subject is of very little concern to Wikipedia.

I understand that you have an interest in an article about you being findable by search engines, but Wikipedia, broadly speaking, does not share that interest.

An article about you is not in any way for your benefit. (Of course in many cases the subject of an article does get some benefit from it - and sometimes they get the reverse. Wikipedia is not concerned either way, as long as the article meets its policies). ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense, and I understand the distinction. I definitely wasn’t trying to create any conflict or suggest that the article should be prioritized for my benefit. I was mainly trying to understand how the review and indexing process works since I’m fairly new to Wikipedia. I’ll leave it in the normal queue and let the process run its course. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. NorthStarJoshL26 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

article revision not to standard?

i'd like to know what i generally got right and wrong in my Granado Espada revision draft (User talk:QuestioningEspecialy/Sandbox) to make future revisions go smoothly. from what i've read in the Help:Editing#Content style and policies article, i probably(?) shouldn't be using forum posts at all unless it's an official post by the admins/company. so a ton is getting gutted in that case. 🤷🏿‍♂️
(note that all of Granado Espada#T3Fun Transfer was included here because i made it and therefore might need to fix things)

additionally, i might make a (good enough) T3Fun article for the sole purpose of having more than the (very outdated) Redbana Corporation#Redbana Divisions section, so some portion of that draft is likely to be transferred/copied over.

the purpose of this question post is to avoid wasting a horde of time on sections that may end up needing to just be a blog post for site standards reasons. already collected quite alot of reliable sources, btw, but frankly, whether or not i follow through is dependent on how i'm treated here. getting close to a coin toss. 🤷🏿‍♂️ QuestioningEspecialy (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, most of the time, blogs and forum posts are not better than "My uncle Bill told me this two weeks ago". Not only that; even if the article is about Uncle Bill, and even if a blog is certified to be his, Uncle Bill isn't allowed to say much of anything about himself on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @QuestioningEspecialy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I actually find your draft pretty impenetrable, but I'm pretty sure it is nothing like a Wikipedia article. It looks more like an essay to me.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden 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.

Very quick guide to writing an article:

1. Find several sources each of which meet all the conditions in WP:42. Nothing in which the subject or the subject's associates were in any way involved; nothing that is not published by an organisation with a robust editorial policy; nothing that does not talk at some length specifically about the subject of the draft
2. If you can't find at least three such sources, the subject is not notable, and there is no point in spending any more time in trying.
3. If you can find three or more such sources, set aside everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
4. At this point, if you have a plausible article, you can add in a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data from primary and self-published sources.

Having looked at Redbana Corporation, I have tagged that for its utterly inadequate sourcing. It cites three sources, none of which are independent. The section you refer to has no sources at all. ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Need Advice

Looking for feedback on my draft article for Epic Flight Academy (Draft:Epic Flight Academy). I’ve since found and added some additional sources, although I’m leaving that article in draft status for the time being.

Before working on the Epic article, I drafted an article about the new Pipistrel Voyager aircraft (Draft:Pipistrel Voyager). Since the Voyager was announced at the annual event in Oshkosh this year and is a significant development in aviation, I thought it was a worthwhile topic to cover. In fact, the connection I found while researching the Voyager is what led me to draft the Epic article.

I don’t currently see an option to submit my Pipistrel Voyager draft for review. Could someone advise me on how I should submit it? I appreciate any guidance offered on either article. PitotTubePilot (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PitotTubePilot. I've added the template to allow you to submit Draft:Pipistrel Voyager for review. Your best bet for the Epic Flight Academy draft is to just re-submit it for review if you wanted to see what the reviewers think of the new sources. qcne (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

PitotTubePilot I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed to link to another page on Wikipedia, just the title in double brackets([[Draft:Pipistrel Voyager]]. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi, I have this suggestion for an edit Talk:Ancient Rome and wine#c-Kaspar-trout-20260820095900-Possible expansion on provinces' wine exports, perhaps someone is willing to review and appy it for me. Thank you Kaspar-trout (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)