Wikipedia:Teahouse

I would like to kindly inquire about the status of my draft, which has been under review since 19 January. I would appreciate your guidance on whether the submission was completed correctly and if this review duration is within the normal timeframe. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Draft:Kevin Chesters; it has been submitted and is awating review. As noted, this could take "6 weeks or more", please be patient with this entirely volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Noted with thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Kevin Chesters is declined, Can anyone suggest, How i can improve it for re-submission? Sophiabennett (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It looks like it was declined due to lack of significant coverage and notability. To improve the article and resubmit you will need to find and add additional sources that show he has significant coverage within reliable and secondary sources, they cannot be primary sources or sources that simply mention his name. If you want more information on what constitutes notability/significant coverage a good place to start would be here: Wikipedia:Notability. You could also check out this [1] to see a list of reliable sources. I hope this helps! FiddleheadLady (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you Sophiabennett (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Having a quick scan of the sources, I don't see notability or SIG COV in reliable sources, refer WP:42. His own publications are not sources - you should delete them as references. Also delete all the goodreads "references". You might want to have a read of What Wikipedia is not as a person doesn't qualify for an article just because they're a writer. This is an encyclopedia - they've got to be notable and you've got to establish that. MmeMaigret (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Very helpful, Thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear concerns,

Regarding the Draft:Scott Woodward (marketer), Mr. Scott has contacted me requesting that this draft be deleted. Kindly let me know if it is possible to have this page taken down. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted in six months if no-one improves it; or you could try nominating it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Drafts are also noindexed, so every reputable search engine that honours robots.txt shouldn't be showing it in search results anyhow. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Can anyone help him out by nominating it for deletion? as he has sent me certain reminders. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @DoubleGrazing Pinging you as you restored the previous blanking. MmeMaigret (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the ping, @Mmemaigret. @Sophiabennett: can you tell me what your role is in this, given that you have made no contribution to that draft? Also, please note that whether the draft subject wants this deleted isn't particularly relevant. I suspect what is happening is that the subject was paying the author to get this draft created, and when that stalled, they now want it deleted (possibly so that they can try again with yet another new draft, although I'm no clairvoyant, of course). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] For clarity, I did not create or edit this draft; I was contacted after it had already been written by a third-party editorial service. I noticed multiple drafts about the same subject, including two recently moved to the deletion log, and I am not aware who submitted them. I advised the subject to raise this directly at the Teahouse, but he asked me to clarify on his behalf. Sophiabennett (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Sophiabennett: yes, I know you didn't create or edit this draft, that's precisely my point. I already declined (rightly or wrongly) a deletion request by the author on the basis that although they are the original and main author they are not the sole one. So I'm obviously not going to accept one from someone who hasn't edited the draft at all. (Other admins are of course free to take a different view and act as they see fit.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the explanation. I understand your position and appreciate the clarification. I only wanted to provide context regarding my limited involvement and have nothing further to add. Sophiabennett (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, simple question, if a city has been renamed subsequently (under the same people/civilization, often this is the result of a dictator naming something after himself) should the name of the city at the time of the publication be used or should the modern name for the city be used? Pietrus1 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the location of publication of a source you're citing, use the name as given in the source. Otherwise, please clarify your question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That was my question :). Pietrus1 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Saint Petersburg is a good example to look at as it has had 3 names at different times. ~2026-84942-3 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the example I noticed was a more fleeting renaming in a more obscure country (Santo Domingo to Ciudad Trujillo/Trujillo City). Many nowadays do not even know of this former name. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Are you referring to the article name or just a sentence in an article? (Because my answer would differ depending.) MmeMaigret (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Just an entry in the source. |location = Pietrus1 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If the name of the place is in the publication, then I'd use that name. If the publication still exists, I might use the current name of the place. However, if the publication no longer exists, I think I'd almost certainly use the name at the time. The key for me is that the location field is to help people identify the publication. Also, the location field doesn't have any restrictions that I know of. I also tend to put enough for the average person, eg. Madrid / Scranton, Pennsylvania / Shepparton, Victoria, Australia. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Roger Pilon/Roger Pilon revision draft

How do I eliminate erroneous material in endnotes? Roger Pilon (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You meant the notes section commonly found at the end of articles? Toarin (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Please give an example, with a link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Toarin & Pigsonthewing, I want to delete endnotes 2 and 3 (I don’t know how they got there) because they’re irrelevant where they are (they appear elsewhere, where they belong), but I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DELETE THEM. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] From which article—do you refer to User:Roger Pilon/Roger Pilon revision draft? Are you using Visual Editor or Source Editor? Also, note that you cannot cite Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm using visual editor. These rules are so complicated that I hardly know where to begin. In Word, for example, deleting a mistake is simple. Here, it seems to require a multi-stage process, which I'm far from having mastered. I simply want to delete endnotes 2 and 3 because, as I said, they don't belong there. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Edit the page
2. Highlight (select) the endnotes you wish to delete
3. Press the "delete" key
4. Publish the page.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Andy, I've followed your instructions, every which way, and even when I get to the "Publish" stage, they simply don't work. The textual numbers and errant endnotes are still there. I need help. Thanks. Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Andy, I even get "Your edit was published." But it wasn't, even after I reload, the textual number and endnote are still there. Why can't I simply delete a mistaken endnote? Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I recommend removing them in Source Editor, as it doesn't seem to work in Visual Editor in your case, can you perhaps link the page where you are trying to remove the endnotes? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Campssitie, OK, I've just hit "Source" here, and here is the link I'm trying to edit: [2] I'm trying to delete endnotes 2 and 3, since they're misplaced here, while their content is properly included elsewhere in the post. Roger Pilon (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Have you tried removing endnotes 2 and 3 at the start and then trying to remove them in Source Editor or Visual Editor? I have noticed at the start they are mentioned, which is why they may not be able to be removed. Even in my case, I can't seem to remove them at their source. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] An hour ago I WAS able to delete notes 1 and 2! Thanks. Through source editor. I'm going to bed now. ~2026-12208-61 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Your welcome! hope you get a nice dream and a great sleep. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I misstated my "accomplishment" just above. It was endnotes 2 and 3, not 1, that I was able to delete through Edit source. Now I'm going to try to clean up a few endnotes that need it. Roger Pilon (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I forgive you for your mistake, everyone does them after all. Hope you succeed! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 03:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best way (or, in other words, the least problematic way) to reopen an WP:AfD that was once closed as delete? In the particular AfD I was talking about, I found new sources that might be able to overturn the AfD after it was closed. As the closure itself was not problematic I think that WP:Deletion review might be too strong. Toarin (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One option is WP:REFUND, asking for the article to be recreated as a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You could could also rewrite the article as a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. When you submit the draft, the reviewer will check if it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no way to "reopen" an AFD; the decision the people make is final. You can get the article refunded as a draft or start from scratch, but you can't "overturn" an AFD. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi Toarin. Generally, the advice given above only really applies to situations where an article has been WP:SOFTDELETEed. Since most AfDs resulting in deletion are based upon community consensus, REFUND is typically not an option; moreover, recreation only tends to work for articles deleted years ago in which the situation has radically changed. Perhaps if you provided a link to the AfD discussion for the article, someone might be able to give you a more specific answer. The best thing to do, however, would be to probably follow the guidance in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss your concerns with the closer of the AFD first. Since articles can only be deleted by a Wikiepedia administrator, it's best to discuss things with the administrator who actually deleted the article. If you do this but are unable to convince the closer to reopen the AfD (it is possible to do so despite what was posted above) or restore the page to the draft namespace, you're probably going to need to start a WP:DRV to get that to happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Marchjuly This is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber). As for sources, they're in this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/KyleHill/s/OJ9qQEd4ej Toarin (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There are no reliable sources in that link, Facebook, IMDb and Linkedin and fandango!!! Theroadislong (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much for your answer. Toarin (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi again Toarin. Thank you for the links. I don't think that AfD would be something that would be eligible either for recreation or WP:REFUND, given that it's only about a month old and seems to have had quite a number of participants making !votes based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The source assessment table also seems to be fairly thorough. I think you're going to need to come up with much stronger sources providing significant coverage of this person for it to even be considered for recreation/undeletion. Most of the sites you linked to on Reddit is pretty much WP:UGC content that's doesn't help at all in establishing Wikipedia notability, and the rest seem to be trivial mentions at best. It could simply be a case of it being WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written about this person. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube about this, but it seems establishing this person's Wikipedia notability is going to be a near impossible issue to WP:OVERCOME at this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Marchjuly I figured that such article on this particular YouTuber would definitely be WP:TOOSOON. Thank you very much for your long answer. I really appreciate it.Toarin (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although Not Just Bikes is less popular than Kyle Hill (Not Just Bikes channel has just 1.43 million subscribers, 136 videos and 195817414 views whereas Kyle Hill channel has 2.74 million subscribers, 446 videos and 472040904 views.) The article on Not Just Bikes has never been nominated for WP:AfD.

That's pretty crazy if you ask me Toarin (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base articles' existence based on their popularity, but rather if they are notable by being in reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. If Not Just Bikes isn't notable, then you are free to nominate it for deletion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much for your answer. I did think about nominating Not Just Bikes to AfD but decided against it as the subject appeared notable to me. Toarin (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can someone check my draft

Draft:Hala Al-Qadi. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking here (or anywhere else) will not move you up in the review queue. It takes as long as it takes. However, I'm fairly confident that a few minor changes in phrasing will not suffice to fix the issues given as the original reason it was declined. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I rewrote the article and added more citations. Secondly, I wrote the article myself and I rewrote the infobox, which as a bit of AI in it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Still, just wait your turn. The reviewers will get to the article when they get to the article. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 19:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, It has been days. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,754 pending submissions waiting for review.

ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I know, Its okay, I completed my 3 articles per month goal. Now I am free. You can take your time TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the past months, since Wikipedia:temporary accounts were introduced, I am unable to save any edits. Each time, I get the message: To prevent spam, we limit editing without an account. Creating an account is quick, free and lets you edit any time. Is this an attempt to stop anon editing by stealth?? I edited for years as an IP and never had any trouble. Obviously, I am able to save my edits right now, but I can guarantee that I'll be "blocked" again tomorrow. What is going on here? ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Which article(s) were you trying to edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Unlikely, but depending on how you access the internet, your IP could be going into a blocked range? There's not really any other reason aside from editing a protected article. Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed (message me!) 14:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Pigsonthewing and Emi-Is-Annoyed: I don't remember what articles I tried to edit; I tend to do gnomish edits to whatever page I find myself reading. They weren't controversial topics and they certainly weren't protected articles. At any rate, it makes no difference, since I wasn't even able to post here! And to reiterate, I edited successfully as an IP for years without ever "going into a blocked range". Can somebody at least tell me what exactly we limit editing without an account means, who implements it or what the mechanism is? ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've never heard of this message. Were you trying to add a url to an article? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've tried to edit as a TA for strange reasons involving my school blocking most (but not all) WMF domains. I got that same message, and my school's range is blocked.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It probably means that the range you were editing from is autoblocked, this is just a guess.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In that case, you can always try powering your router off for a while to get a new IP, which might be unblocked. If you automatically connect between two networks (i.e. a school wifi and your personal), that might be another cause. Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed (message me!) 16:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @331dot: I probably tried to add a url with some edits, but mostly it was just correcting spelling errors and such. @MetalBreaksAndBends and Emi-Is-Annoyed: I very much doubt it is a rangeblock, since I'm able to post here now (and since my IP was never blocked before we went to TAs). ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Bear in mind that users who are encountering this issue are unable to post on any help page, which is why you've never heard of this before. There is no way of knowing how widespread it is. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] A way of checking could be to go to Wikipedia:Get my IP address, then go to special:blocklist and searching your ip.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Nope, not there. Anyway, why would someone from a blocked IP not just get the "You are blocked from editing" message they've always got, rather than To prevent spam, we limit editing without an account? "To prevent spam" is very specific, isn't it?. An edit to correct a typo couldn't possibly be spam! There's something else going on. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You hit the temporary account creation throttle, most likely. We limit the number of TAs that can be created within a certain period of time per IP. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] 45dogs shared where the text is set and the limits are (see Wikipedia:Temporary accounts):

A single IP address (or /64 range in the case of IPv6) can create a maximum of:

• One temporary account within a period of 10 minutes,
• Two temporary accounts within a period of 24 hours,
• Four temporary accounts within a period of 7 days, and
• Six temporary accounts within a period of 30 days

Skynxnex (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I hit the temporary account creation throttle? Every day for three months? And what I'm saying is that I couldn't create an account at all, so accounts created in 10 minutes, 24 hrs, and 7 days was still zero. ~2026-11993-64 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @45dogs: Can you explain to me what the temporary account creation throttle is, please? I read this discussion but it didn't help. Specifically, I couldn't see how the throttle (whatever it is) can be triggered with zero edits from an IP or range. If I'm going to be locked out again I'd like to know why. (Disclosure: I am the same person as ~2026-11993-64.) ~2026-12360-69 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] My understanding is that a TA is created for any logged action, such as an edit. This also includes things like edit filter logs. I believe connecting a TA to a wiki (for named accounts, this would be when you visit the wiki) also counts as a TA on that IP, which may explain it. My guess is that you are hitting the six TAs per 30 days maximum though, rather than the lower limit ones. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the explanation, 45dogs. I confess I still don't understand it, but I'm going to let it go. ~2026-12360-69 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Basically, you're making a lot of edits that create a new temporary account, and unfortunately that's blocking you from editing once you've made too many in a short period of time.
If you don't absolutely need a temporary account, you can always make a regular account that isn't linked to any personal emails.  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  (message me!) 06:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Honestly, Emily, I wasn't making a lot of edits that created a new temporary account, I was making a lot of attempts at editing that all failed, because I always got that message. I don't know why people keep telling me I'm doing things instead of reading what I said. ~2026-12360-69 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] As I had said, I'd never heard of this message before; I suspect others haven't, either. It may help to know what articles you were editing and what you were attempting to do specifically(add a link, add text, add a source); you said you didn't remember, could you keep track in case this happens again, we can then possibly provide you with better assistance. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I hope you don't think my remark above was directed at you; you were genuinely helpful only asked a question. You can get some idea of what kind of edits I make if you look at my contributions here and here, though many, probably most, edits I make would not involve adding a ref. ~2026-12360-69 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this related to editing, as such. You appear to be creating at least one temporary account every day, whatever you do. That's going to hit the limit that 45dogs mentions. Here's the thing - you hang on to a temporary account through the use of a cookie. If you edit (or try to edit) without that cookie then you'll get a new temporary account. I suspect you're either changing browsers, using incognito mode, or your cookies are being cleared some other way. Hang on to the cookie, hang on to the account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You mean that at the beginning I created one TA every day, and that caused me to be "blocked" from then until three days ago? Yes, that makes sense! Thank you so much. And apologies to Emi for getting annoyed. ~2026-12360-69 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know the easiest way to move a long draft article in my userspace to the mainspace for the subject of a stub article since I cannot simply use the "move" button and cutting and pasting appears to be very time consuming. When I tried pasting, only the headings and subheadings appeared, with no text, references, or images. Thanks Emanresu0 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note for anybody looking at this question: the draft is User:Emanresu0/C.W. Kim Expansion, which started as a copy of the essentially unreferenced stub C.W. Kim. Emanresu0, since there is nothing in the stub worth saving, my suggestion would be that you Request that it be moved over the stub. But I've a feeling that that would lose the history of the stub, so wait a little to see if somebody comes along and says there's a better way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks. I don't want to make a mistake. Emanresu0 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Given the last edit in the history of C.W. Kim is February 10 and that User:Emanresu0/C.W. Kim Expansion was created on February 12, a WP:HISTMERGE could be used to retain the history of the stub. Given the userspace draft was created by copying or moving content from the mainspace article, it's actually required that the history not be deleted. Otherwise we lose the attribution of that content that is part ofthe userspace draft. Histmerge requires admin. Someone please confirm that I am reading the histories correctly and that the draft actually is ready for mainspace--better and not worse than the current article--and I can do it later today. DMacks (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Emanresu0, while you're waiting, please read, digest, and implement Using a source more than once and Bare URLs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I am from the era of typewriters, a novice on wiki, technologically challenged, and reading all the instructions on wiki has my mind feeling like scrambled eggs. I just finished reading both of the instructions you mentioned, but I am not sure if one of my references is actually a problem. I recall from my poor short term memory that I have 3 references to urls only because they are where the government licensing board information is to support the statements about Kim's architect's licenses. Can you tell me what else I should do with these urls, like figure out what the citation format is for them to avoid using the urls alone? As for using a source more than once, are you saying I need to shorten the subsequent references when they are repeated? Can someone else do that after it is moved to the mainspace to improve the article or must I do it before? In case I sound like I am beat from my effort to expand this article, I am. Emanresu0 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Emanresu0 Do you have a connection to C.W. Kim (family member, friend, employee, etc.)? If so, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and disclose this connection. Your references include a private letter and defunct magazines. For the purposes of verifiability, defunct offline magazines are acceptable sources, but unpublished private letters are not. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much for your input. Let me address your comments one at a time. Regarding conflicts, I do not have any relationship with C.W. Kim. When I saw the stub article and considered expanding it because I am familiar with his work and believe it is noteworthy, along with many long-time San Diegans who see his work daily, I contacted him to ask if he would mind if I expanded the article for Wikipedia, and provide documents he might have that I could use for references in the article. He was not aware that there was any mention of him on Wikipedia and he agreed to my request. I could not have written the expansion without the hardcopies of the original source material that I got from him because I do not have access to most of the sources unless I pay for a subscription fee, which I cannot, and I doubt I could have ever gotten anything from a now defunct source. I don't think this scenario creates a conflict of interest, but please let me know if I am mistaken. As for the letter from the Mayor's Office, I thought any letter from a government official written on their official government letterhead on behalf of the government is a public document, not a private document, and therefore is appropriate to reference. Please let me know if this is not the case. My primary reason for citing it is to simply have more rather than fewer independent sources to support the statement in the text. I look forward to your thoughts and appreciate your effort. Emanresu0 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also, if you have the time and haven't done so already, I would very much appreciate your thoughts about the expansion to make it a good article for Wikipedia. Since you raised the COI issue, I thought you might feel the tone was not neutral enough. I respect Wikipedia and use it often as an encyclopedia. I did make the mistake of not knowing that using similar language to the laudatory language in independent publications to which I cited would make the expansion seem non-neutral. I thought I needed to say what the source material said basically. I have since attempted to clean up any language that seems non-neutral. But, another set of eyes is better, especially more experienced. Many thanks. Emanresu0 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Interesting, an official government letter is likely public record, although it is a WP:primary source so it has limited use. As for the draft, I notice that most of it is unsourced (e.g. the descriptions of the buildings), and it still contains a lot of non-neutral language. One of many examples: The developer of this project was instrumental in Kim establishing his own firm because the developer committed to support Kim financially in Kim's transition is unsourced opinion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the example. I will correct that type of problem as soon as I can. Emanresu0 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I want to thank you for your reply. It made me wonder how anyone who hasn't satisfied the wiki library requirements could access verifiable and good sources to support statements in the article. After much researching, I found 100's of newspaper articles from the major San Diego newspaper alone on C.W. Kim architect at the San Diego Public Library. It will take me some time to look at at least some of them to not only locate the ones I have already used, but also include more to address your concerns. Emanresu0 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Emanresu0, not addressing this specific article, but for the benefit of other readers here: thank you for raising the question about finding sources. You've answered your question yourself: in the old days before The Wikipedia Library existed, we would have to go to our local public library (or state, national, or university libraries if accessible) to find sources – and that's why libraries exist, so please use them! If you are looking for a specific source that you can't access, you can also ask the volunteer librarians (fellow editors) at the Resource Exchange, or try the advice at Find your source. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to use a paid subscription website as reference if it's the only available source for lets say an episode title of the 1st episode or other episodes? Like Amazon Prime Video or other streaming service? Miamiwin (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know as if you need a source for the title at all- it would be like needing a source for the title of a book. You wouldn't cite the book cover, it's just assumed. There's no way to view a streamed episode without accessing it via the title. The plot of a book/film/TV show does not need a citation as the plot can be confirmed by viewing the book/film/TV show. I think this is similar. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I was adding a an episode title for a series but was removed because I need a third party reference for the episode title on that episode table. Is it ok to not put a reference on an episode title? Miamiwin (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Paid sources are allowed, and generally you can see the title without even having a subscription. If you're citing a streaming service I assume this is something that's already out, right? Accurate episode info can be harder to pin down before release, but if there's an official streaming source that should suffice. Or if there are secondary sources reviewing it those should include the title in them also. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Cc @ViperSnake151, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @Fandi89, @Pratama26 ~2026-12954-60 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to use a streaming service as reference for an Episode table with reference like to know where the title of let's say the first episode came from? Or is it ok to add an episode title without a reference? Miamiwin (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably use a site which aggregates this data. I've seen a few articles which link back to IMDb as an example.  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  (message me!) 07:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Can you use IMDb as a source for the episode titles? Miamiwin (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] As others said, it's probably overkill, but I don't see any reason it's not allowed?  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  (message me!) 07:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Emi-Is-Annoyed:@Miamiwin: Per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, only writing credits from WPA and MPA ratings reasoning are acceptable. Also see Wikipedia:IMDb, the website is clearly not advised to use a reference. Hotwiki (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:PAYWALL, I don't see why you couldn't link to the streaming service. I've done that for Amazon shows when the release dates & episode titles are listed before the broadcast. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Cc @ViperSnake151, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @Fandi89, @Pratama26 ~2026-12954-60 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

even with the option being enabled, not even a single trace of the baby globe exists. Was this all just a lie or do I not know something? ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait, the what? Isn't that the exclusive mascot only available on the 25th birthday on Wikipedia? Pretty sure it existed. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I don't even see it at all, and as I said before I have the option enabled ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] ditto ~2026-13153-94 (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's only enabled on a pre-defined set of articles, and I've also discovered that it's not available in all skins, though it's available in the default Vector skin. Have a look at Music for an example. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] now i see it, from my time reading the article about that globe, they never specified that it wasn't in every article ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I suppose there is a script somewhere in select pages to show Baby Globe, but I'm not sure. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] YOU SAVED MY LIFE ~2026-13153-94 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I checked with VPT and found that the baby globe appears on only a few pages. See Animal for example. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] strange, I can’t see it on either of those articles The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Pretty sure it only appears on desktop, near the right where the tools are.. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ah that would be why then as I’m currently not using a computer The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. Anyways, have a great day! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 10:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You too The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello @KeyolTranslater :) Baby Globe should show up on mobile / Minerva skin, right at the top of the article. Were you maybe reading on the Wikipedia app? Unfortunately Baby Globe is not visiting the app at the moment. If this still shows up when you use a mobile browser it might be a bug, so please leave me a message on my talk page so we can troubleshoot it. CDekock-WMF (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I’m using the standard web browser version, and yeah I haven’t actually seen it at all (except for the actual image on Wikimiedia commons). Sure I’ll leave a message. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been editing my article Draft:Eliot K-8 Innovation School for a while, but for THREE times it has been rejected, all because of notability issues. I read the guideline section WP:ORGIN, as it says a school does not need a wikipedia article just because it "exists". I also read a few other articles like Boston Latin School, but they also just talk about the history, academics et cetera. What is different from my article to other articles about schools, that makes it not notable? WP:ORGIN states that fame does not mean notable, and the reviewers told me to use more secondary sources, so is it true that I can only use news reports as the reliable sources(for example a newspaper posting the founding of the school)? Does the school I am writing about need to have secondary sources to prove that it is suitable and useful for Wikipedia? If so, how many news articles would I need? Welovecontributorss [talk] 13:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Eliot School rebellion is related to the school of my article. Would including that information(it could fill in a gap in my history section which cuts between the 17th century to the 20th century) and citing it using web sources that write about the rebellion more make my article more notable? Or is it that just one change would not make the article useful for Wikipedia? Welovecontributorss [talk] 13:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I also included news rankings of the school(the school photo is literally the thumbnail) from the boston globe. I assume that is reliable and secondary? Welovecontributorss [talk] 13:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] okay i resubmitted it anyways Welovecontributorss [talk] 14:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] i did delete all of the advertisement tone sentences especially the one describing the courses. Welovecontributorss [talk] 14:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There is still an enormous amount of promotion including bus service and meal times etc. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Reliable sources are usually from newspapers, books or academic papers which are published by a source independent of the subject of the article. For notability, you usually need more one reliable source which covers the subject in detail, i.e. talks about it for more than a paragraph or two. You also need to back up all claims in an article with reliable sources. You can generally only use primary sources for a small subset of claims. Other sources which contain user-generated content, such as LinkedIn, also fall under the latter category. You may also want to look at other articles on schools to see what kind of information is generally included, and how it is presented. } 14:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is not part of a policy or guideline but is generally used as a rough guide to notability, says: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." In general, we have articles about secondary schools, not those below that level. Your article, being about a K–8 school, is unlikely to survive here in the medium to long term, even if it is accepted for publication. And the sections about the school in modern times ave too much run-of-the-mill coverage. Graham87 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've created Draft:Sukhdev Toor this article. I would like to understand if my submission is fine as it was declined multiple times, and I have made several updates based on the given reasons. In terms of the AI generated languages, I can confirm that these are all written in my own language, with some verbiage cited directly from the article, which were listed in the reference section. I ran my article through GPTZero and it says "We are highly confident this text is entirely human"

Please advise if my submission is fine. Thank you MariaY-MHG (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review says that your draft does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. When you collect citations for a Wikipedia article, collect sources that provides significant coverage, not just mentions. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Read Wikipedia:Notability. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thank you for this. However, majority of the articles being cited do have significant coverage about his company, his work or himself. I am confident that none of them were simply mentions. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Have you considered if only those sources which are not promotional (e.g. not interviews with him that seem to be paid) meet the notability requirement? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for this note. I understand there were some interview articles. However, if it's a paid article it should normally say in the coverage. And the places that I cited were factual information instead of promotional content. I have audited my submission and there were no promotional verbiage on there. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you feel that is the case, perhaps bring it up over there if someone who is experienced with AfC can chime in on how effective that would be. I think it is naturally the case that an obviously paid source is going to color all information presented therein, so I think it is probably just going to be less of a headache for you to get away from such sources even in the best of cases. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Some citations don't even mention him such as your 26th citation.https://stories.hilton.com/releases/winners-of-hiltons-2024-americas-development-awards-announced TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thank you for this note. The link from Hilton includes an attachment that is right below the article. And the person's name was mentioned on this attachment. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ahh , Okay.Now it makes sense. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so much. Please let me know if you would like to flag any other issues. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if the LLM argument was correct or not, but you should seek to improve citations in the draft establishing notability based on the links there right now. You can use the "ask us a question" link in the review to ask for specifics, but what would do a lot for me would be to add a source that is neither promotional nor mentions the subject in passing. An academic source would be great. Also, have your addressed the reference errors that were brought up earlier today? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I did address the reference errors and have fixed those. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You should add hyperlinks to your article. Read WP:Manual of Style/Linking. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for this comment too. I have added several hyperlinks to the article. MariaY-MHG (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, I will add more hyperlinks as I think It needs more TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Can complete the infobox( I'll do some) TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I mean and* TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] (I'm really tired of all the edit conflicts, TheGreat Editor. Please proofread before you post.) MariaY-MHG, a sentence needs to end with a full stop. If there's a note at the end, that does not mean that you can skip the full stop, as you have done a number of times (it goes before the note number). Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC).[reply] Well, I did read. I checked Toor's LinkedIn Profile to know his alma matter. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so so much. I really appreciate the help from this community. I'm now patiently waiting for another round of approval. Thank you. MariaY-MHG (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] MariaY-MHG, I had a quick look at the draft. It cites 30 sources, which seems a lot. But none of the six I looked at did anything to establish notability, as they were not from independent sources. If there are some good sources in there somewhere, you shouldn't hide them among a load of worthless garbage. (Also - section headers should be in sentence case: "Early life and education".)   Maproom (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I edit from a shared educational IP address which was blocked by User:Graham87, who is known for overzealous blocking. The nearby cell towers have also been blocked from editing Wikipedia by a separate user. Can somebody please check to see if any edits have been made to Wikipedia from these addresses (before my account existed) that necessitated a block? Thanks! IP is 204.137.xxx.xx, cellular IP is 2600:1014:b100::/40. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 16:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DollarStoreBaal44 It's unlikely that the school block or the mobile range block will be lifted. Instead, if you're facing issues request WP:IPBE through WP:UTRS or an unblock request on your talk page. HurricaneZetaC 17:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneZeta I may have not been clear earlier. I do not want the block to be overturned, I simply wanted to know what happened to have this IP blocked. Having checked myself, I can see that some student decided to vandalize Christiano Ronaldo and Leonei Messi. However, I definitely see where you're coming from. Thank you for letting me know! Honestly, this discussion could probably just stop now. My question has been answered.--DollarStoreBa'alConverse 19:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Highly populated ranges (like cellular ones) and school IPs have a lot of vandalism coming on them and in the case of the former there might be multiple LTAs on them. It shouldn't be an issue for you if it's not a hard block then, yes. HurricaneZetaC 19:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you have evidence of an admin making inappropriate blocks, present that evidence at WP:ANI. On the other hand, if you again make personal attacks, alleging misfeasance, without evidence, you may find yourself facing more stringent blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I am not intending to make attacks in any way. I base my argument that he was known to block overzealously based on this page, in which HJ Mitchell states "Concerns raised mainly focused on Graham's approach to new users and over-zealous or heavy-handed blocking." --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 18:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Um, Graham87 hasn't had the ability to block anything for well over a year. So why is this a problem now? Educational institutions are routinely blocked for 3 years at a time. Regarding the IPV6 range, the block log says it's the outcome of two sockpuppet investigations. It's a 6-month block expiring at the end of April, and if the sockpuppet remains true to form, the block evasion will resume as it did last time the block lifted and the range will be re-blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Aight! Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 19:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've heard a lot worse and I prominently mention my Wikipedia history on my user page. At the risk of incriminating myself further, the school IP range at issue is 204.137.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which has been assigned to schools for an incredibly long time (see its earliest contribs) and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future (hence my highly unusual step of a 10-year block shortly after a recently expired block of five years, which itself is unusually long). Since that block was implemented, temporary accounts have been introduced which I believe make school blocks even more urgent, because IP information of edits is now deleted after three months (see my comment here). I made many mistakes as an admin but in general I don't regret my school blocks. Luckily I don't find as many of those editors now after my watchlist purge (see my timeline of how I lost my adminship). Graham87 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Every once in a (long) while I run across a school administrator who complains about Wikipedia's school block. Actually in my nearly 20 years here I recall only two. My response is, prove to us that you can get the miscreants on your network under control, and we can lift the block. Schools have the ability to examine their own network server logs to find out who did what on Wikipedia and take disciplinary action, but so far exactly zero schools have shown any inclination to be proactive, as far as I can tell. I have no problem with a 10-year schoolblock, or even an indef schoolblock, but there's an aversion to indeffing IP address ranges. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] On the other hand, I've heard of school administrators who've asked that editing be blocked from their institutions. The best concrete example I can find is this old revision of Wikipedia:Consented blocks, which is especially remarkable because in those days all IP blocks were hardblocks and affected everyone on them, even administrators. When I was a new editor I was affected by just such a block, as described in my personal Wikipedia timeline entry from 21 June 2005. More recently, there was also a discussion about school blocks during my admin recall (see especially the last comment in that thread). Graham87 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, it appears I royally f***** up the source code for the Culpeper, Virginia page in an effort to place two excerpts back to back, one in the direction of Culpeper County, Virginia from Culpeper, and one in the other direction from the other page. This came after a determination on the talk page that certain bits of information should be removed, which in turn removed the divider paragraph that prevented a template error. Unfortunately, there's little way for an additional paragraph to be created without breaking the flow of the prose.

@Mojo Hand, you may want to take a look at this as well, as you may be able to assist with potential stylistic alternatives. Apologies, as I'd hoped to take care of this myself, but had several personal matters to attend to over the last week or so that kept me away. I tried to fix it as best I could but figure I should leave it as an error for the time being, as it displays the format (excepting the error) of the text as it stood originally prior to the consensus change. My thanks in advance to anyone that can assist.

Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've identified the template error, but from the edit history I'm not clear on what exactly you're trying to accomplish. What text was originally created on which article? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @ChompyTheGogoat, sorry for not responding sooner. Here's a link with the most recent correct version on Culpeper, and a link to the most recent correct version on Culpeper County. The section on the Northern Neck proprietary originally came from Culpeper, and the piece discussing Robert Tureman from Culpeper County. Unfortunately given the overlap there was a lot of information that could reasonably / should reasonably be shared between them. Realizing now it might have created more issues than it was worth. Ultimately if all else fails it may make the most sense to simply transfer the Robert Tureman section over to Culpeper, given that its more immediately relevant there. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Do note that it can't simply be rolled back given the aforementioned discussion on talk. CSGinger14 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that the Robert Tureman bit isn't defined as a separate section. It's just dropped in at the end of the excerpt on the county page, so linking to that excerpt section just loops it back to the town article.
This is all quite messy and I don't think it's really how excerpts are meant to be used. My recommendation would be to put the expanded sections on whichever page they're most relevant to and just do a brief summary on the other one with a "main article" link to the first. Someone else might have another idea of how to handle it - I'm sure there are other articles with overlapping history, so it must have come up before.
Also, this is the second time you've chosen to leave broken code on a live article and come here to ask someone else to fix it. It would be more appropriate to remove the part that's broken and work on it on your sandbox until you figure it out, as I did with the template. There's rarely a good reason to leave broken code live - especially on Wikipedia, where even outright deleting it usually doesn't mean it's gone forever, unless the page history is purged for some reason. As someone who's lost entire completed papers to tech glitches I LOVE that feature! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ChompyTheGogoat I suspect you're right that the best path forward is to simply split it up into shorter sections rather than attempt to loop excerpts. Please note that I didn't, in fact, leave up broken code on the article, as these two diffs show. I came to the Teahouse looking for assistance with a problem I wasn't certain how to solve, which wasn't the immediate result of experimentation, given that I'd managed to make it run cleanly before outside action caused an issue to arise. Ultimately, it was broken code before I did anything to attempt to fix it, and my removal of it solved the immediate issue inherent. Thanks, CSGinger14 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "leave it as an error" in your initial question. Given how much the page has been edited recently I couldn't tell where in the history it had been functioning the way you wanted it to. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I was curious how to get my wikipedia page in autoconfirmed/confirmed status so not just anyone can edit it? I'm an employee of the company who is auditing and editing for accuracy sake (Fervo_Energy#External_links).

Thanks! Stefan.chamorro (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is open to everyone. We do not protect pages preemptively. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Please see your user talk page for an important inquiry requiring a response. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @Stefan.chamorro, and welcome to the Teahouse. On the contrary, you are among the few people on earth who should not edit that article, along with your colleagues, as you have a conflict of interest. A Wikipedia article about your company does not belong to your company, is not controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what your company wants it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with your company have decided, off their own bat, to publish about your company in reliable publications, not on what your company says or wants to say. You are welcome to make edit requests for it, but they will be actioned by uninvolved editors, who will consider the policies of Wikipedia before your company's wishes. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If there haven't been problems with vandalism or there hasn't been controversy, it will most likely not be pre-emptively protected like that. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Preemptive protection Pietrus1 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I am considering EC-protecting it to prevent further COI disruption. That isn't pre-emptive. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Stefan.chamorro In addition to the notes already given, here is a note on terminology: That is not your page; it is Wikipedia's article that is about the company. David10244 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering why there are not any 'Personal Life' paragraphs in Marilyn Monroe's wiki? Like how Marilyn was friends with Ella Fitzgerald and helped her get booked into clubs during segregated times. Where can I write these?

Thanks. Worzorw (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Worzorw, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia is verifiability. If you can find a reliable published source that discusses such matters, you can add a summary of what that source says about it. If you have any doubts about what to say or how to edit, you can start a discussion on the talk page Talk:Marilyn Monroe. The information has actually been in the article before. It was added in this edit in January 2006, cited to a source called http://www.findadeath.com/ , which doesn't sound very reliable. A different form of the claim was removed in this edit in August 2007, in order to move it to the separate article Marilyn Monroe in popular culture. It is still there (section "Radio"), but it cites a BBC programme which is no longer available. (I lost interest in searching for how the first claim turned into the second, or was removed and reinserted. Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1#Possible vandalism? is surely relevant) Given that it was removed (along with other "trivia") to the popular culture article, you should probably discuss this on the Talk page before adding it back in. ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] A friend of mine was James Haspiel. He was a close friend of Monroe. He published several books about her and was interviewed many times on television. Since Wikipedia requires actual documentation of facts, you can refer to or cite his books. (Many of the candid photographs of her in her NYC years were taken by Haspiel.) ~2026-12480-64 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do i find citations easily? This question is very important to me because I’m so lazy. Please answer. How do I even find citations at all, if there isn’t an easy way, which there probably is. ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar and Google Books are great help in finding citations. Athanelar (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How do I use them? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You can just type of Google scholar or Google books in your search bar, click onto them and type a topic or phrase and it should come up in various different books or articles, The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @~2026-57078-1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Finding sources that mention the subject is usually easy - that's what search engines are for. Finding high quality sources (ideally, those that match all the criteria in WP:42) is not easy, and I don't think there is a way to make it easy. (LLMs are particularly bad at it). If finding good sources were easy, I don't think we would have quite so many tens of thousands of worthless unreferenced articles. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How do I find high quality sources? Tell me, even if finding high quality sources is difficult. I want to learn to find good sources, and become a good editor. ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi, @~2026-57078-1. A good set of criteria to verify sources against is the golden rule. So for each source you're considering, the first thing is to check that it is a reliable source - Does it sound as if it comes from a reputable publisher, or a trusted journal, or not? Does it sound like somebody's blog or personal website (probably not reliable). You can check specific sources for reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard - some sources that are often asked about, you can look for at the perennial sources| table; otherwise you can search the archivces of the noticeboard to see if this source has been discussed before; and if not, you can post a question there asking if the source is reliable. (Do say what the information is that you want it to verify: reliability depends on that sometimes. A book from a noted scientific publisher is probably reliable on a scientific subject, but if the writer started talking about music, maybe not so much). (Saving this incomplete answer - I may return to it tomorrow) ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Once you get to 500 edits, you will have access to the Wikipedia library, with many resources like JSTOR included. Until then, you can use google scholar to search or if you ARE going to us LLMs, maybe try asking only for sources and going from keywords into google scholar. I haven't ever had chatgpt look for novel sources, but it hasn't produced anything of note when prompting it with good sources that I have already been using. I am not sure what exists out there in the LLM space that might be better. If you are trying to expand on something that also exists in other languages, use the sources in those wikis both in themselves and to find other sources. There are many ways to get at the content of e-book and journal publications even if you think you might not have access to them at first without spending an arm and a leg. Look into this. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Why is it only after having 500 edits? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I thought the same thing, I suppose it may be expensive and they want to make sure actual editors who will actually contribute can use it The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would recommend making an account so that your edits accrue on that account and you will eventually have access to the library. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I need some way to add a "This article is part of a series on (insert topic) notice similar to ones like Trump. How? The Chronicler of Chroniclers (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the markup looked like this } So, replace Donald Trump with series of choice. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think this is a bit misleading. @The Chronicler of Chroniclers, the template you want to use (such as }) must exist before you can use it. If it already exists, fine, you just call it like that, by putting its name between double curly brackets. But if it doesn't already exist, you'll need to create Template:xxx series (whatever xxx is). It's probably easiest to copy and paste an existing series template, such as the DT one (but make sure you say in your edit summary where you copied it from). Then you'll have to edit it to replace it with the required links, pictures etc. There's no way to automate this. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Any time you are curious about something like this, try clicking "view source" or "edit" and taking a look at the markup yourself. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That's how I learned a couple things. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 00:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's definitely a lot more useful than trying to read documentation. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org's Waybackmachine has been down for some time for me, so I had been unable to archive sources. Has anyone been able to archive using this? The only alternative I know is archive.is and similar domains, but I was under the impression that the site has been banned from wikipedia as of a few days ago. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried megalodon.jp and it worked for me. Apparently it's well-established. The Internet Archive is a bit finicky for me right now as well, I did manage to get a snapshot in the queue though so you might just have to be persistent. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of when a song shares the same artwork as the album it's featured on, would it be appropriate to add a caption under the image in the song infobox to specify this? —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 01:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per Manual of Style for captions, captions should identify and provide useful context for the image. Maybe check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images regarding purpose and context. I think its appropriate to add a caption to specify LionmerterTHE (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Newbie here, I have a disclosed COI and submited a draft at Draft:Mike Sacks (Journalist) that got some helpful feedback via libera. The main issues were too many sources that the subject controls (campaign site, employer bios, etc.) and I Needed more independent sources overall

I've gone back and attempted to fix all of that. Stripped out every subject-controlled source, fixed the Emmy language, and dug up a bunch of independent sourcing, NYT, Politico, WSJ, The Nation, etc, in the process finding even more interesting discoveries than I imagined like the Posner voter ID interview in particular turned out to have way more independent coverage than I originally realized.

Just want to make sure I've actually addressed the concerns before it sits in the queue again. This is quite a fun process! Happy to keep fixing things if there's more to do. Thanks!

Also I could use some guidance on premium/paywall sources, is it best to put the link or to an archive link? I just put the regular ones, please advise

Abtorpie (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Abtorpie: It is fine to cite paywalled sources, although if you suspect the link may suffer from link rot, it would be best to link to an archived version of the page. Your sources look good for the most part. We don't do pre-review reviews. If you want it reviewed, you have to submit it. You have done that, so the next step is to wait for a reviewer to look at it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I recommend having a look at WP:Interviews. Generally speaking, anything said during an interview is usually considering primary sourcing, vs standard news articles talking ABOUT the subject. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wiki admin but I must say I have come across something rather inappropriate. Pendle Hill Quaker Center for Study and Contemplation has been edited by PendleHillUSA (talk · contribs) quite a bit over the years, but in a very promotional tone. I note Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention says only to report "blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block." While I do consider the violation serious I don't know if it warrants a block? Can a wiki admin weigh in here? Thank you for your time. 781h (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One already has - PendleHillUSA shows as indef-blocked to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I just blocked the user for promotional edits and violating the username policy. I also nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendle Hill Quaker Center for Study and Contemplation. In the future, you can report WP:Username policy violations at WP:UAA. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the username itself as the problem here, but rather than undisclosed (at least not officially) COI and presumably inappropriate edits, which would still be true under any username (but harder to prove). Theoretically they could make unrelated edits under that name and it would be acceptable. Username violations mean PII, derogatory, etc. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Organizations aren't allowed to have accounts. The licensing Wikipedia uses requires all contributions to be traceable to an individual person, not a group or a role. PendleHillUSA is an organization name; there is no way to know whether the account is being controlled by one individual. Likewise a username like "Marketing at PendleHill" is a role, not a person, it could be anyone. "John Smith at PendleHill" would be acceptable, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions:

Firstly, a lot of articles use Quran while others use Qur'an. Which one should I use?

Secondly, is there a tool for finding a certain word in a page? Like if you do insource:"it's is", then it just shows you that the misspelling is on the page and you have to spend 10 years finding it. SomnambulantFish talk ∫ contribs 04:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the subject, Quran, spells it without the apostrophe and lists alternate spellings. For consistency, it is preferred to spell it the same way elsewhere, mostly, but I don't see any prohibition from using Qu'ran or Koran. When I want to find a word in a page, I just press CTRL-F in my browser to search for the word. If I do that while the source editor is open, it brings me to the instance I am looking for. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks @Anachronist, but sadly, I'm not using a keyboard. SomnambulantFish talk ∫ contribs 04:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @SomnambulantFish: Then what are you using? In-page search is a feature in every browser I have seen. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Mobile/Tablet view. SomnambulantFish talk ∫ contribs 04:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Wait nvm I found the button. =3 SomnambulantFish talk ∫ contribs 04:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ugh. I find mobile devices useful only for reading Wikipedia, not working on it. Give me a keyboard and I'm happy. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I agree, I’ve been forced to use an iPad for the time being as my PC is broken and it just doesn’t have the same functionality as a proper computer The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] At least with an iPad you can get an external keyboard for it, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If I wanted to but I haven’t actually added an external keyboard, never got round to it and the typing functionality isn’t the worst, at least the screen is large unlike a phone. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I finally tried downloading the app the other day after using mobile browser for a while and I'm severely disappointed. It's barely usable for reading and even worse when it comes to editing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know what awards I've got? CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 07:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Barnstars? Awards like that are given by someone adding the template to your page.  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  (message me!) 07:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that, ok thanks. CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 07:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] They should be in your archives (if you set one up) and you can add them to your userpage if you want to keep track The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] No, I don't. How do I set them up (archives)? CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 01:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] WP:ARCHIVING has some instructions on how to set it up, including manual and automatic options. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to merge a recently created page with pages on the same subject in different languages. The page is Lydia Spivak. I am trying to merge it with the Armenian and Russian variations. I have tried to do this via wikidata but am prompted with the following error: "The link hywiki:Լիդիա Օվչարենկո is already used by Item Q131356264. You may remove it from Q131356264 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic."

Can you please help? Benzekre (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two Wikidata items (as d:Q131356264). See d:Help:Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Pow Chavez

Pow Chavez's Birthday Is February 25, 1983 According To The Official Website Of Philippine Idol Which Is Now A Archive And Idol Fandom Website Gabby121995 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabby121995 you can use it if verified archive of the official site but if its just fan page or something like Fandom wiki things with no original source that's red flag for birthday verifications, do not use it. see WP:USERGENERATED CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 13:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Editing Fictitious Subjects for Subjective and Tonally Imbalanced Language

Hello all,

This might be a dumb question, but how does one edit a page (usually regarding characters in a story, movie, show, etc.) in reference to subjective or advertising-like language. Many of the topics I have come across are generally fantastical in nature (for example, the Stephanie from Lazytown page) and reducing a page to just the barren facts almost seems counterintuitive in regards to accurately describing the subject at hand. Please help! I promise I am not dumb I would just like to do things correctly.

Kind regards,

ElectricityBiller ElectricityBiller (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. Wikipedia does not allow promotional language, especially if its advertising something. When writing an article, sticking to just facts and neutrality is kind of the point of Wikipedia. Subjective views are okay, provided that they don't show editorial bias, be explained neutrally, fairly, and that they have due weight. Cheers! --- n✓h✓8 14:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @ElectricityBiller, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that serves as guidance for writing about all sorts of things on Wikipedia. There is a subpage of the Manual of Style concerning the topic of writing about fiction. See: MOS:FICTION. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 20:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is Christian. I created this draft article called Draft:Pardon Integrity Act. I need help expanding it. Christianhatley527 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The best place to ask about co-editing is a relevant WikiProject, perhaps the United States project. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why is some text in AN/I green? Does it mean anything? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-57078-1 You're either seeing } (this), } (this), or } (this). They are usually used to quote things, so it means that the text in them is quoted from somewhere else and is relevant to the current discussion. HurricaneZetaC 16:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh, that makes sense! Thanks! ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My name is Nagendra Babu, i've posted one article - Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vadapalle. it is rejected by GGOTCC, can you please help with this, this is very famous temple in India, People must know about this temple every saturday more than one lakh people are visiting this temple, i'll devlope more this page, how to reach this temple and everthing.

Draft:Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vadapalle. Babu9993 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Babu9993 Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. Your draft was declined(not rejected) because you have no sources. We need to know where you are getting your information from. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also note that how to reach this temple is not info that should be in a Wikipedia article. We are not a travel guide. Athanelar (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, that was....weird. I was browsing the teahouse, saw this, decided to help out by fixing the references, and then got edit-conflicted with the reviewer and then the author. Strange. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 21:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Annoying aspects of Wikipedia is when you look up a movie and read the plot. I do this to see if I would be interested in a movie. But some of these plots go on and on and on over the minute details of the story. It’s painstakingly endless. Isn’t there a way to limit these plots so they can be read and understood quickly ? ~2026-12480-64 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plot descriptions are not supposed to be lengthy, except in some very rare cases. Can you give an example of an article with an excessive summary? 331dot (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-12480-64 You could remove the excessive plot yourself. If you don't want to, however, you can tag the article or the section with Template:Long plot to draw the attention of editors. Do know, however, that maintenance tags may not always be the most effective, as backlogs can grow large. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Be aware of what "overlong" means. MOS:FILMPLOT suggests that 400–700 words is not excessive. You're not obliged to read them. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] AI-generated label applied to draft due to copying-and-pasting from a sandbox location -- how to move past this?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Elizabeth R. Macaulay

I need to move past a hurdle: my draft is flagged as AI-generated. I created the environment for such a conclusion by drafting in a sandbox and pasting the finished content into another location, giving the impression that the entire content had been generated at once. You can see the progression of the content at User:GrantBremer/Projects/Elizabeth_Macaulay over the course of week or so. I apologize for creating this situation, know better now, and will not do it again. With this label, the draft is seen as unusable. What is the best way forward here to address the AI-generated conclusion? GrantBremer (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general you shouldn't move pages by copy-pasting. Instead, you should perform a page move. That said, it seems your draft has several more pressing issues at the moment, which I would suggest you focus on first. Even if not AI generated, your article will not be accepted in its current form. } 18:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] GrantBremer, the main problem with your draft is the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @GrantBremer, As other editors pointed out, moving a page via copy-paste is not the proper way to do it. However, cut-and-paste page moves are not a factor in determining if text was written by an LLM. To put it bluntly, the reason editors flagged your draft as being LLM-generated is because it appears to be LLM-generated. LLMs should not be used to write articles from scratch. See WP:NEWLLM. The best way to address this issue and move forwards is to not use LLM generated text at all, although there are still the other issues pointed out by other editors that you will still need to address. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There are a few things that I see off the bat if you want to rework this article, whether or not it really was AI-generated. Bring it up to the standards of a wikipedia article manually now. 1. Make sure that your sources (and the particular page reference) say something close to what they are used for. Check every single one again, manually. If you partially generated this article, know that this is perhaps the thing that LLMs are worst at. Having tried to play around with LLMs for sources a little bit, I have found that the references they generate are not inline with CLOP 100% of the time (no caveats, 100%, not 99.9% in my experience), let alone whether the sources are correct generally. The more general issue is "the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay" as Cullen328 brought up, but baby-steps and all that. Good will come from good and if there is still an issue, seek comment on that. 2. The review also point out that there may be an undisclosed COI there. Will you please state on your profile what your relationship to the subject is? You should follow the COI-editor process rigidly. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. By going through AfC rather than creating an article in mainspace, you are already doing something right, so thank you for that. 3. There is a fair bit of uncited synthesis language throughout the article. I would delete "; and the intersections between archaeology and diplomacy" in the lead and similar from the draft entirely unless well-supported by sources tbh. The entire "Intersection of Antiquity and Modernity" is basically this, with only one subpar citation at the end of the section. 4. I would trim the "Selected works" section heavily. Take a look at other pages that have such a section for guidance. Specifically cite her work in-line when you feel it is appropriate. Hope that helps. Pietrus1 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently updated the Plovdiv University page to add a more up-to-date logo, but I noticed it looks bad against a dark background.

Since this logo is slightly more complex, I can't use skin-invert here to fix the issue...

How do I add a white background to the image? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix the image using skin-invert-class by making it so that the infobox image parameter is fulfilled with the File link with skin invert and size specifications. This isn't recommended by the template's documentation, but I hope it should work for now! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skin invert seems to work with the image when not in an infobox, interesting. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me at some point that the standards for schools to create a Wiki page changed at some point and became stricter. Maybe 2017? Does anyone have that information? NR12141988 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the information you're looking for is located at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The RfC that preceded the change is linked there. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] YES! That was it. Thank you! NR12141988 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on revising and expanding Femtanyl's page (since I'm pretty knowledgeable on her music, and I want to start making bigger edits) but much of the information about her is from interviews on podcasts and the like. How would I cite those? (if it helps, the podcast episodes I'll be using are likely going to mainly be from Youtube) Olliewally (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Olliewally! You can use Template:Cite podcast, or you can use manually add references in a citation style like MLA that has guidelines for how to cite podcasts if the article already uses that style. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] thankyou!!!! Olliewally (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi, @Olliewally, and welcome to the Teahouse. Omega has told you how to cite a podcast, but you must make sure that the source meets the criteria or reliability and independence. Many podcasts are self-published sources and there are restrictions on the kinds of informataion which may be cited to them (see that link for details). The exception is if the podcast is by somebody who is a recognised authority on the subject of the podcast. Also, you mention interviews: it matters very much who is being interviewed. In print, an interview is usually with the subject or their associates, so again, the information which can be cited is very limited. I guess on a podcast it's not so rare to interview an independent commentator who then talks about the subject - so (again assuming the podcast counts as a reliable source, that would be fine as an independent reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would be using interviews with the artist herself, would that be fine? Olliewally (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Most material from an interview will be from the artist and would then be a self published source. The guideline on the matter (WP:BLPSELFPUB) says that using such sources is fine if the material: is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; does not involve claims about third parties; does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 22:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] alright, thank you :) Olliewally (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian. I want to ask for help to be a better user on Wikipedia, I used to edit Wikipedia but I constantly faced challenge and I got banned frequently and I am not proud of it. I am diagnosed with autism and it makes some things more difficult for me but I am willing to do better. Sometimes I have hard time understanding how Wikipedia works and what is suitable for Wikipedia but I am willing to try to understand things better if you can help me. Unfortunately some administrators in my homeland thinks I am an intentional vandal but the truth is that I am simply autistic person who sometimes dont understand everything. ~2026-12721-15 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are currently blocked on the English Wikipedia, your first step needs to be getting unblocked; which you can try by following the instructions at WP:Unblock. If you are blocked on another language's Wikipedia, but not the English Wikipedia, then you are free to edit here, and you might like to read through Help:Introduction for some tips on getting started. Athanelar (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for my sometimes lacking English. This is a very interesting article that somewhat echoes the criticism (and ultimately useless, but constructive, propositions) I posted on the Teahouse and other pages, without much success (most likely lack of interested editors, in my opinion, and not of an active agenda, but the case of the article might be very interesting for those more familiar with Wikipedia's internal squabbles).

Disclaimer: I have not read the entire article, instead giving it a quick overview. If the author is really accusing longtime Wikipedia editors in bad faith, feel free to inform me, and I'll be happy to even remove this from the Teahouse. Still, the point stands, and I would like to add that, especially for pages on pre-Columbian history that overuse sources pre-dating the 1970s, there is basically misinformation being done in favour of traditional interpretations (especially if those traditional interpretations are contradicted by archaeological research, and not just by ethnohistorians' conjectures). In any case, if wikipedia pages more often than not contradict the average 21st century study, that isn't something to be ignored and this calls for widely planned actions by the Wikipedia community. WikipedianN.48 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this correctly, some on both sides of this argument brought well-founded sources and entered into an edit conflict? This looks like a messy situation where multiple editors chose to leave the website as a result rather than some vague systemic failure. The relevant case is here it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1175798655#CorbieVreccan,_Mark_Ironie,_and_Tamzin The article also seems to make some claims about various editors without sourcing. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Tamzin also wrote an opinion piece about the article for the Signpost. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It was more a way to illustrate that there are very frequent problems related to indigenous American history. The "vague systematic failure" is something I have talked about multiple times on the Teahouse (concerning Pre-Columbian history, and not the use of indigenous website as sources), but visibly Wikipedia is not ready for a wide internal project on this to see the day. It's a shame because there is a vast amount of research done on Pre-Columbian history, which often contradicts traditional interpretations from the 19th century. Especially if archaeological data contradicts often biased/nationalist pieces from the 19th century (wether glorifying or minimising the indigenous past of a country), the over-use of pre-1970s sources is a problem. Research on the central Andes has somewhat been left behind occasionally on Wikipedia, but especially research on the Isthmo-Colombian area (southern Central America and Colombia), as well as Amazonia, has very often been ignored on Wikipedia because of a lack of big-public works. And there is some bias in this, as the pages on the Mississippian cultures and Cahokia are much more complete. English is used in Isthmo-Colombian research (though less than Spanish. That doesn't excuse anything, though: Wikipedia in Spanish is often in a worse state than the English-language Wikipedia) just as it is in research on pre-columbian cultures in the USA. The Isthmo-Columbian area (and, as we now see it, parts of Amazonia) was filled with complex chiefdoms, similarly to Mississippian culture. I am done arguing, I will move on to other things, but it is frustrating to see blogs/news articles/museum pages used more than the real research. The conclusion: Wikipedia currently isn't reliable in any way for Pre-Columbian history, mostly because of a lack of interested editors and the over-use of non-academic or outdated sources. This isn't supposed to be an attack, but at the end, this is what it is. I have already provided multiple examples the other times I complained. WikipedianN.48 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm curious what your suggestion to improve this would be to the broader question? The article's suggestion of WMF foundation action does not seem easily workable to me. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there my article was recently declined Draft:Spacial AI

I am trying to seek more clarity on what is an example of a reference that I used that was not up-to-par and were there any references that are fine to leave in the article? Thank you so much. Determinedtobe (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello amd welcome. You have just summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company? . "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what makes the company important/significant/influential as viewed by others. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] As a rule of thumb, any article which begins by describing the product of its subject as an artificial intelligence platform for automating parts of… workflows or similar marketing non-speak is going in the wrong direction. WP:SOLUTIONS is a great essay on the topic. Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends,

Is there a way to display automatically updating live statistics on a user page (e.g., articles created, drafts submitted or AfC activity) without manually updating the numbers? LionmerterTHE (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a page's source after-the-fact requires something like JavaScript, which Wikipedia doesn't allow in pages. (and for a good reason!)
However, you are allowed to write a user script to automatically update your page every time you do something, just make sure the kinds of edits you make comply with the bot policy. (i.e. don't spam edits)  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  (message me!) 06:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am writing a book - soon to be published - about my daughter Laura Vanessa Nunes - and would like to include entries about her death on the Burj Khalifa page under Controversies/Incidents.

26 February 2026

On 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist named Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior 16 November, claiming that she fell from the Jumeirah Lake Towers. Nine News obtained emails from Portugal's embassy in the UAE under freedom of information laws, which indicated that the female tourist jumped from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.

As at 6 July 2020

The Daily Mail reported that on 16 November 2014, a Portuguese national who was in Dubai on a tourist visa, fell to her death from Burj Khalifa's "At the Top" observation deck on the 148th floor. However, on 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed the report made by the Daily Mail on this incident and said that this incident took place in Jumeirah Lakes Towers. A Dubai coroner's report stated her body was found on the third floor of the Burj Khalifa. Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information act from Portugal's embassy in the UAE also confirmed that she had committed suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.

And entries as of 17 April 2018

The Daily Mail reported that on 16 November 2014, a Portuguese national who was in Dubai on a tourist visa, fell to her death from Burj Khalifa's "At the Top" observation deck on the 148th floor. However, on 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed the report made by the Daily Mail on this incident and said that this incident took place in Jumeirah Lakes Towers. A Dubai coroner's report stated her body was found on the third floor of the Burj Khalifa. Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information act from Portugal's embassy in the UAE also confirmed that she had committed suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.

And the entry as of 22 May 2023, which I have tried to upload but wasn't successful:

On 18 May 2015,Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior November 16, saying she fell from Jumeirah Lakes Towers. Emails obtained by Nine News from Portugal's embassy in the UAE indicated she jumped from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.

Thank you.

Leona Sykes

LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Copyright says that Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms. This doesn't distinguish between (A) what is currently on Wikipedia and (B) what was previously on Wikipedia but no longer is. It is of course easy to link to an older version of an article (unless the older version has been deleted, and deletion is exceptional). Material previously on Wikipedia can be cut simply because it now seems verbose; but other reasons for cutting it include the realization that it was mistaken in some way. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you Hoary. Where can I find the older versions? ~2026-12609-77 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The 500 most recent versions. (Click on a date/time combination to view the version.) Note the links at the foot of that page: "(newer 500 | older 500)". If 500 is unwieldy, then choose among "20 | 50 | 100 | 250", also at the foot of that page. Note the option to compare versions, and, at the top of the page, "Find addition/removal". -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'll assume that you're using "desktop view", the default view for computers (though not for phones or tablets). For any article or talk page, you should see the option "View history". Clicking this is what opens up the possibilities I mention immediately above. ¶ (You don't need to be in in "desktop view". "Mobile view" will do the job as well. In "mobile view" you'll see not "View history" but instead an icon that's supposed to look like a clock.) ¶ Help:Page history explains much more. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I understood that they want to use their book as a source to add stuff to the Wikipedia page for Burj Khalifa. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] LeonaLeeSykes, JustARandomSquid interprets what you write as a desire to use material from your own book as a source for augmenting the Wikipedia article Burj Khalifa. That would be something to ask about at Talk:Burj Khalifa, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Not at all. My book is a record of evidence supporting the location of my daughter's death and the location of her death, and the subsequent cover-up by the Government of Dubai, not as a source for augmenting the Wikipedia article Burj Khalifa. In fact I am fast losing faith in Wikipedia as I don't see fairness and neutrality. I do have a chapter in my book titled: Wikipedia When I first added to the article I didn't know that because of my conflict of interest as her mother, it was not permissable. Subsequently when I requested that changes be made they were rejected. Who keeps adjusting the narrative of my daughter's death on the Burj Khalifa page? How can this person change the chronological record of what happened? My daughter's death came first on 16 November 2014, and the dispute on 18 May 2015, six months after her death, the date of her death referred to as 'the prior November 16'. Her death should come first. Reference to emails obtained under the FOI Act Portugal, also known as LADA, was in one insert 'flippantly' referred to as emails from the Portuguese embassy UAE, adding, 'indicated she jumped from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. These are the official Government emails obtained by Nine News in term of the FOI act of Portugal (LADA in Portuguese), which confirmed that my daughter committed suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. This is another edit: "Emails obtained by Nine News from Portugal’s embassy in the UAE 'indicated' she jumped from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.” The emails didn't 'indicate', they confirmed her suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. The term 'Controversies' came about when the cover-up was exposed. There is no controversy. My daughter died from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, and I have all the official evidence to confirm it. I found this after the deletion on Talk: Burj Khalifa – Wikipedia, where members objected to the deletion. “When you followed the advice of the BRD essay, you overlooked, or didn’t check, to see whether other papers, like The News (au) largely confirmed the Daily Mail version, AND DISCOUNTED THE VERSIONS OF LOCAL PAPERS AS BEING INFLUENCED BY POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM LOCAL READERS. Even if, for the sake of argument, a reliable blue ribbon panel were to confirm the Gulf News version, I still think it was a mistake to excise the paragraph. If our readers read that Laura jumped from the Burj, but can’t find any coverage of it in our article, they would be correct to be let down. Balanced coverage would say international papers reported that she jumped, and that her mother reportedly being shown the security camera video, and the gap in the observation deck windows that allowed her to squeeze through, but that local papers denied the report. Verifiability, not truth. You made up your own mind what happened. I made up my own mind what happened. Our readers are entitled to make up their own minds what happened – not have you excise a perfectly good paragraph because you want to make up their minds for them. If you now think you were overly hasty to cut the paragraph, can we count on you to restore it?” It wasn't restored. At the time I didn't know that the Daily is not considered a reliable source, or that a rebuttal of the article could remain. I am tired of fighting for the truth to be told about my daughter and that is why I am writing the book. So please tell me who keeps deleting and adjusting the details of my daughter's death. They don't sound neutral. Is it the Emir of Wikipedia? LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Please know I'm sorry for what has happened to you, and I do not intend to be uncaring with my comments. This isn't the place for you try the case of your daughter's death and to attempt to persuade the public about it. That's what the Portugese or UAE legal systems are for- and certainly Wikipedia could report on legal cases related to the Burj Khalifa. This is the last place I would want to be if I were you. I'm sure that your grief is unimaginable and I have no way to know what you are going through, but please try to avoid making personal attacks(the "Emir of Wikipedia"). 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Emir of Wikipedia please tell me how many times you've added, deleted, or edited the information about my daughter's death on the Burj Khalifa page? I'm not trying any case, or attempting to persuade the public about it, and I would suggest that you don't threaten me, as in Wikipedia could report on legal cases related to the Burj Khalifa. Truth is what it is all about, not disinformation, and the rules of Wikipedia, that stands for the truth! LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what I said that was threatning. I simply said that if you had a legal case related to your daughter's death and its location- like taking the UAE government to court- that would be valid to include in an article if independent sources reported on that. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not interested in taking anyone to court, or anything legal for that matter. I don't have to. I have all the documented proof in a very secure place. I value the truth above everything, and the truth about my daughter's death. That is all. But thank you for taking such an interest in my daughter's death. Nice to meet you. Have a beautiful day. LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{u|LeonaLeeSykes}}. I am very sorry that your daughter took her own life. I lost a grandson about the same time your daughter died so I know heartbreak. The correct place to discuss improvements to Burj Khalifa is Talk:Burj Khalifa, where you last commented in November, 2025. Every past edit to the article is available for you to review with the very rare exception of completely inappropriate content that may have been revision deleted. Similarly, the edit history of User: Emir of Wikipedia is public and available for you to review. I looked and did not see any edits in recent years by that editor to that article. That editor was highly active in 2017 but over the last nine years, their editing has tapered off to almost nothing. Currently. the article includes two sentences about your daughter's death cited to three references. The prose makes it clear that the original government statement was false. I encourage you to focus on the accuracy of the current wording and not versions long past and gone. Because of your obvious conflict of interest, please do not edit the article yourself and instead comment on the talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen for you kindness, to me and to my daughter. I value your advice and will follow it. I have sent in an edit request but I need to adjust it as I have referred to the FOI act as LADA which is the Portuguese term for FOIA. Thank you once again. LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] And condolences to you and your family on the loss of your grandson. LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, I updated the Narendra Modi Stadium capacity to reflect what is provided by the arhcitect (110,000) (https://populous.com/showcases/narendra-modi-stadium) and what has been announced by the stadium during games (see the talk page). However, someone keep changing it to 132,000 (which has never been official) and reference an article by the Indian Cricket Board, which is clearly not reliable. What is the next step to get this corrected and perhaps locked? Thanks. John arneVN (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John arneVN. It's unlikely that a request to "lock" the page (Wikipedia refers to this as Wikipedia:Page protection) would be granted for something like this because Wikipedia administrators tend to only do such thing in cases of serious disruption. Your best course of action is probably going to be to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page. What you absolutely don't want to do is revert back to what you think to be the correct version because that could lead to Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is a situation in which nobody will win. Try to civilly discuss this at Talk:Narendra Modi Stadium and see if a Wikipedia:Consensus can be established either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks John arneVN (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i recall there was some resource for us to ask other editors to find us some paywall content. Looking to verify some sources in bloomberg, I dont have a subscription to that (I dont have a subscription to any newspaper anymore). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tikamoon

Need help with neutral tone and COI as a non-native speaker

Hello! I am a non-native English speaker and an intern at Tikamoon. I have properly declared my Conflict of Interest (COI) on my user page. I am trying to create a neutral article for the company (Draft:Tikamoon), but it was declined for 'promotional tone' and 'AI-generated' suspicion.

I have provided international sources (Bloomberg, Hamburger Abendblatt, Möbelmarkt), but as I am not a native speaker, I used some assistance to ensure correct grammar, which might have triggered the AI warning.

Could someone please help me understand which specific parts still sound promotional? I want to comply with all policies but I'm struggling with the language nuances. Thank you! TikamoonFR (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best ways to see if something is promotional is whether it sounds like (or has elements from) the company’s website. Act like you’ve never heard of the company and are simply stating the facts in a word document, by only using those secondary sources (tell the reader what the sources say not what your boss would like to say). This is merely general, someone will come along and direct you even further about your draft. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @TikamoonFR You also need to change your username. Usernames that represent entire companies are not allowed under the username policy; I have placed some guidance on your talk page. Furthermore, you should read WP:BOSS and relay its contents to the people at your company who have set you on this fool's errand. Athanelar (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Fitim12/Fattoria La Vialla

Hello

I wrote a piece on a farm in Italy which got speedily deleted for sounding like an advert. I've completely rewritten it to remove any promotional or narrative language.

What's the next step? Try to upload the new version? It will have the same title – is that ok?

Thanks Fitim12 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first step is to determine if it is notable, I don’t know the criteria for farms however if it is just a run-of-the-mill farm with no notability then it likely won’t be accepted. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) <— this might help if it is a commercial farm, or alternatively Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) this might help even more so. In terms of the new draft you can submit it for AFC review (but makes sure it has the necessary secondary sources and a claim to notability) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It looks notable with plenty of independent sources. It's very difficult to accidentally make your title promotional so it can be the same title. Just make sure to write neutrally; reporting everything about the company that has been said in reliable secondary sources. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Shyamoli Paribahan Private Limited

I have submitted a draft for Shyamoli Paribahan Private Limited. Could someone please review it and provide feedback? I am waiting for my first article to get published. Jaiswal Mannu (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft will be reviewed by a volunteer. Please be patient. Toarin (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I’m afraid to say @Jaiswal Mannu but it won’t be accepted, there are no inline citations and only two sources, Wikipedia requires multiple in-depth sources to demonstrate notability, also parts read more like an advert so you may have a WP:COI with the company (are you paid by the company, is writing a Wikipedia article part of your role?) Also the article has some formatting issues (it doesn’t look like a proper article) however that can be fixed. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @Jaiswal Mannu, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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. Almost nothing that the company says or wants to say belongs in a Wikipedia article about it. 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. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to cite the Bundesarchiv, but have no idea how to, and the page thats meant to explain it doesn't seem to answer my questions. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"cite the Bundesarchiv" in which sense? Their website? Social media? A paper publication? "the page that's meant to explain it"—Which page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I want to cite document BArch RH 10/177 from the archive. Template:Cite archive is the page that's meant to explain how to cite an archive43MZrinyiII (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @43MZrinyiII When I use the German Federal Archives and enter your search term, I get numerous hits. You'll need to specify the exact URL of the hit you want to cite and fill out the other details that are mandatory for }. We can help further if you provide that exact URL needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] that's searching the archive's website, not the archive itself. When you open the archives it gets rid of the url.
No matter where in the archive you are; the url is still this
Within the archive you need to go Bestande > Nordeustcherbund und Deutsches Reich (1867-1945) > Militar > Reichswehr und Wehrmacht 1919-1946 > Reichsheer und Heer > Generalinspektionen und Inspektionen > RH10 OKH Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen > 4.4.3.3.2. Panzer-Divisionen
Then you need to select Digitalisat anzeigen which opens the archived document.
the url for the opened document is then about:blank
the document is a Secret Report presented to the head of the Nazi German Panzertroops on the strength of the 2nd Hungarian Armoured Division.
it was written 24-1-1945, 26-1-1945, and 7-2-1945
there is no author stated, but its an offical nazi army document 43MZrinyiII (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @43MZrinyiII, and welcome to the Teahouse. Mike Turnbull has given you a good answer. I want to emphasise that the important parts of a citation are things like the author, publisher, date, publication. They are what allow a reader to evaluate how important and helpful the source is likely to be in researching and verifying the article. A link to an online copy is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Looking at articles like Weimar Republic which quotes the archive extensively, most use }, and |website=Bundesarchiv which might be easier. As Colin said, it is most important to give the title and authorship of the underlying document. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Digital Nostalgia

My article on Digital Nostalgia has been submitted for around 4 weeks but has no reply. Previous replies took less than 2 days. GreenPianoMan (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the review wait time is about 6 weeks. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @GreenPianoMan I created a WP:NAMED reference. You should do the same for other duplicated references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] WP:ReFill automates that process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Easier way: Go to visual editor, click the inline citation, copy, paste to where you want it. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 20:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Pasting extra citations won't resolve the existing duplicates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ah. Thought the convo was on how to properly duplicate citaitons, not remove them. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 20:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse, I remember seeing a page where people request for certain articles to be made. I want to help making these "requested articles" but I no longer remember where to find them. Please help me out. Thank you! signed, Kvinnen (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requested articles? GGOTCC 19:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes! Thank you very much! signed, Kvinnen (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My draft for an article on Japanese comedy duo Waraimeshi (Draft:Waraimeshi) was rejected for lack of references (I originally only had primary sources). To fix this I added multiple secondary sources but it was rejected again for the same reason. I think the references meet all the criteria listed but obviously they don't. Could someone please explain to me what criteria they don't meat and how I can fix it? Thanks in advance MopBanana (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MopBanana. Three out of five of your citations are to profile.yoshimoto.co.jp. These are clearly not independent. The other two might be independent, but don't contain significant coverage of the pair. You need to make sure that most of your citations meet all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've made an article about a local railway station. The article is currently called "Draft:Trelewis Platform railway station". i know it is not a draft and is public, but for some reason it is stuck as that title. Can someone please edit the title/heading to just "Trelewis Platform railway station" as written. Thank you. HaydnMillerUK (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we would ask you to follow the process at WP:AFC, but in this case I have reviewed and published your draft. I have also added something to it :) Thank you for your contribution! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Nice one, Andy. Just the ticket! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been a Wiktionary editor for over half a year and have over 1,000 edits there. I've been wanting to be a Wikipedia editor for longer than that, but Wiktionary felt like it had a shallower learning curve and I like that place a lot so I went there. I'd consider myself very well-acquainted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines due to lurking in non-article pages for a long time.

I have a few articles in mind I would like to improve, but I know that original reasearch is prohibited, unlike at Wiktionary. One thing I am not familiar with is how reliable sources are found in the first place. Is there a specific method Wikipedians use for this? Where does one go to search? Another problem is the articles I have in mind likely don't have much quality research done about them. I know that if there aren't any quality sources to reference there's nothing that can be done about that, but still. Thanks to anyone who sees and replies to this. Wreaderick (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the article. Sometimes, just Googling, or searching Google Books works. See WP:LIBRARY for other places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thanks for reminding me about the Wikipedia Library, I'd gotten access to there a few months back thanks to my edits at Wiktionary. And yes I am a student, but I don't really know how to do research, though I can just try. The articles I want to improve are about Turkey mostly (you might have been able to tell from my Wiktionary edits or my user page there), and so many articles about Turkish topics are full of blatant NPOV violations, original research, missing references, bad grammar, etc. and need expanding. I find it very sad. I also find that Turkish sources are in general unreliable, especially very editorialized. I plan on writing an essay over at my user page about why editors should be skeptical of (the typical sort of) Turkish sources. Wreaderick (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In that case you might want to take a look at WP:WikiProject Turkey. You can use its talk page to ask for more topical advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am the husband of Sarah Hall, the subject of this article: Sarah Hall (glass artist). Sarah would like to formally request the deletion of this article, and has asked for my help, as she is not able to navigate the necessary Wikipedia processes. This article was created by one of Sarah's assistants (on their own initiative) many years ago, and has had the "multiple issues" flag on it for at least the past ten years. Another user, Acocad, made some edits at Sarah's request in 2016, but apparently this did not resolve all issues. Part of the problem is that there are very few independent online references to connect to this article, and we don't have the knowledge or resources to edit it. Sarah's concern is that the article will remain in a perpetual state of non-compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. She would much prefer that it be deleted. Many thanks for your help with this. Jeffrey Kraegel Apropos72 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The correct location for such a request is WP:Articles for Deletion. Please note that an article will not be deleted purely because the subject requests it, but it may be granted if it's determined that it does not meet the necessary standards to be on Wikipedia. If the subject does merit an article it's often left up in the hopes of it being improved, but that depends on the extent of the issues. Inadequate sourcing is one of the top reasons for deletion. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've removed some of the tagging, which was excessive and duplicative. She does seem to be a notable artist, about whom we should have an article, so we would prefer to improve it. Hopefully more people will chip in once they see this. Please see WP:About you for tips on how you or she can assist in that, should you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so much for the changes! It's a relief to have most of the tagging gone. Regarding the citations and the removal of photos (as originally suggested), I took a crack at developing edits a couple of years back, but didn't take them online because 1) I wasn't always sure of syntax; and 2) I didn't want to contravene rules for COI. I have a Word file with the suggested changes, but I'm not comfortable working directly in the editing interface. Is there a way I can make that available to an editor so they can update the article and add citations? I would appreciate any advice. Many thanks, Jeffrey Apropos72 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi Apropos72. One thing that's not going to happen is to ask for the article to be deleted so that you can recreate it in the future with User:Apropos72/sandbox. I'm not trying to be mean or a jerk by posting that, but that's simply not going to happen. Although courtesy deletions occasionally due happen, they're not the norm, and they're certainly not a way to try and completely rewrite an article. So, if you and your wife have concerns about the content of the article, the best thing for you to do is to seek assistance from others as explained above by following the guidance given in WP:BIOSELF. Wikipedia has procedures in place to help the subjects of articles resolve any concerns they might have about article content and ensuring said content is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My suggestion to you would to first read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the guidance given on that page about declaring a COI. Once you do that, it will be easier for you to seek help from others. I will add some information about this to your user talk page. For the most part, you'll be expected to refrain from directly editing the article about your wife, except in some specific cases. You can, though, makes suggestions for improvements or changes by posting WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] When someone (especially the subject) requests deletion of an article, the intention is "I want it permanently gone", not "I have something to replace it". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pure Fishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Am not asking for links to GNG or the notability guideline. I have read it carefully. And struggling to see how Pure Fishing is not notable. 1. It is arguably the world's largest dedicated fishing tackle company raking in over half a billion dollars revenue, and every single time it changes owners - you have Reuters reporting how much it got sold for and to whom - the last time was well over a billion dollars.[3][4] 2. you have Bloomberg News repeatedly covering the company's financial health and explaining its COVID earnings and how it over leveraged itself to achieve an acquisition of a major Swedish fishing conglomerate (that also owns major global brands) and later how it resolves its debt.[5] 3. You also have Financial Times and The Guardian all covering in-depth when this multinational company acquires a renowned fishing company in the UK for hundreds of millions of dollars.[6][7] 4. Industry reports[8] and independent financial analysis from firms such as Goldman Sachs and Moody's[9] both recognise its strong international brand recognition among fishing enthusiasts and its significant impact on the global fishing-tackle market. 5. Beyond commerce, Pure Fishing has operated fishing-line recycling programs in the United States for decades and is the largest such recycler. US state governments such as Florida state gov, partners exclusively with the company alone for recreational fishing-line recycling, which shows institutional recognition of its scale and capability rather than a minor or promotional role. My question is given the scale, sustained independent coverage, industry leadership, and documented public-sector partnerships - what is your view on the company's notability? Am I missing something? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking why the company doesn't have its own article? Currently Pure Fishing is a redirect to the holding company Sycamore Partners. Unless Pure Fishing had its own article deleted or declined from AfC (please link if that's the case) it may be simply that no one has taken it upon themselves to write one. You can always file a request here, but unfortunately most of those go unfulfilled - which articles get written largely depend on whether someone feels like dedicating their time to it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ChompyTheGogoat I wrote a draft - Draft:Pure Fishing. But I am getting mixed messages. One claim that the company is probably notable.[10] Another saying it's probably notable but rejecting it today but their reasoning is odd. They make it seem like there's no notability and my Bloomberg sources are to be ignored completely on this if I used other sources that aren't as strong. Yes, I indeed used other lesser sources like Des Moines Register article but only to support specific info like the founder's birthdate and his life story on making the company. That's it. I believe that's reliable and independent enough to support such relevant info. But for ORG notability, it shouldn't matter at all that a majority of sources aren't Bloomberg. I only need to add 4+ dedicated articles from Bloomberg to establish WP:ORGCRIT. I believe Significant corporate events like a 750 million dollars finance deal, that are independently reported by financial media like Bloomberg - should meet this WP:ORGCRIT criteria. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think the confusion here is that something may be notable in a general sense, but still not have sufficient coverage to actually pass WP:NOTABILITY. You have high quality sources that only mention passing trivia, and low quality sources that are in depth - but not high quality in depth sources. There are 61 references for a fairly short article, almost all of which are only supporting a single minor statement. The Bloomberg profile looks like it's probably your best source, and it's only cited once - in the very first sentence. And traditionally ledes are NOT cited, as they're meant to only summarize the rest of the body, although that's a style issue that probably wouldn't get a submission declined. A single high quality source is not adequate to support an article in any case. While there is no official policy requiring a specific number, WP:ORGCRITE says "several", and the general rule of thumb is at least three for even a stub article. @MightyRanger made a good suggestion in that talk discussion: Instead of trying to demonstrate how many hits and mentions the company has in searches, try to remove most of the bad sources from the draft and focus on the best ones. Quality over quantity.
Parent companies like this also suffer from a unique problem, as mentioned by @Very Polite Person, where most of their work is done in the background and doesn't get very much coverage outside of financial publications. As you've noted, many of the brands they own have their own articles already. If all the coverage and accomplishments related to any of their subsidiaries was ALL done under the single brand name of Pure Fishing you would have no shortage of information and sourcing - but that isn't the case. I myself have fished with plenty of those products and never heard of this company until now. It's mostly notable to employees, investors, etc. but not so much the general public.
And aside from that there are still WP:NPOV issues. Unfortunately I don't think you're going to have any luck getting it through AfC until/unless better coverage can be found. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Anyone who reads a fishing magazine and is a real fishing enthusiast, will be guaranteed to know pure fishing as it's among the largest companies in that global industry.[11] You are clearly not that. Regardless when a parent company controls, acquires, and manages multiple notable entities, the parent itself is notable. Do you think Reuters, Financial Times, Bloomberg report on things if it was not important? I added them to demonstrate that this company is a giant and Goldman Sachs was only needed to show it has significant international impact on the industry. The Bloomberg reported on it's financial struggles and also when it completed a 750 million dollar refinancing deal. [12][13] For a company in the fishing tackle industry, that alone shows weight of its impact on the industry. Those two Bloomberg articles are not passing mentions btw but significantly focuses on it as their main topic. For people interested in what the Largest fishing tackle company is in the world and how it acquired other major Fishing companies, I think that's notable even if only real fishing enthusiasts are aware of them as well as investors in the global fishing industry. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh good, starting out with a True Scotsman fallacy. Always a great sign. If the Bloomberg articles are so in depth, why are they only cited once? Surely they contain more useful information. The reviewers are far more experienced than I am, and they've declined it twice. Note that being declined is a stronger response than rejection. Unless you're able to dig up better sources (not just more of the same), I recommend you accept their decision. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ChompyTheGogoat:. I think you've been mixing up how the terms "declined" and "rejected" are used by AFC per WP:AFCR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oops, you're right - I must have gotten my wires crossed between this and something else. My bad! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also when is it even a rule that it needs to be of interest to the general public? Alot of companies are in niche industries like robotics and semiconductors etc yet are only renowned by tech enthusiasts and tech magazines. Wikipedia doesn't require that everyone to know a company like a household name - just that it is well-documented and significant in its field. All I needed to establish is industry prominence. I proved its the world's largest dedicated fishing-tackle company, and recognized by fishing magazines (with editorial oversight) and investors alike, which demonstrates real-world impact and relevance. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Read my reply. BLOOMBERG reported it in-depth twice. Neither papers are routine announcements but the first was on when it struggled. The second article was on a 750 million refinancing deal. Bloomberg, Financial Times, Reuters, and Goldman Sach show this is a huge company in its field and all fishing magazines cover it extensively because it's among the biggest players in that industry. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The second article was on a 750 million refinancing deal. This is in fact a routine announcement. Acquisitions, mergers, funding and those sorts of structural issues are explicitly excluded from assessments of notability under WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If anyone bothered to read the article, a routine report shouldn't go in-depth about the history as it be too much for routine reporting. It will just merely says today this private company is ranked troubled and keep it brief. Yet because they went more in-depth into the past, cited the key people and give their interpretation that the issues were likely due to them over leveraging themselves to buying Svensson despite sales increased during covid and then cite an expert that gives a full explanation as well as quote the CEO of Pure Fishing and then explains what the company sells etc. And title of the report isn't something that looks like it is a routine report. I am unsure as article does not seem a regular story but a special for an unusual material circumstance that marks a critical corporate milestone. Tho it's possible that it's a routine report that also looks like an in-depth story to me. Regardless I don't rely on them for SIGCOV. I also use plenty of fishing trade publications which more than makes up the majority of sources for notability. Are they not acceptable or look down at fishing mags editorials? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @JaredMcKenzie, if that's the case, I might try to cite some of those fishing magazines. I suspect that major fishing magazines would qualify as adequate for establishing notability, so long as they themselves could be considered sources of note / record, especially given that they likely go into far greater depth on the topic than any professional newspaper likely would. If you're unsure as to whether or not they'd qualify, you might try checking out the reliable sources noticeboard to see if someone else has come up against a similar problem. Let me know if you'd like any help. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Additionally, as @ChompyTheGogoat has noted, there seems to be some other issues with the submission that have given reviewers pause. They're right that the prose does read a bit like an advertisement, so there may need to be some structural/content changes as well before this could pass muster. CSGinger14 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yeah tho the article was more modest originally. But one reviewer claimed it's not notable for a corporation. I just find that absurd as alot of top fishing magazines correctly refer to it as the world's largest fishing tackle company. Because when you only calculate revenue from fishing tackle sales alone, it undoubtedly deserves that title with half a billion dollars annually. That amount of revenue is enough to show weight and impact on its industry. It may seem promotional to cite Goldman Sachs and Industry reports saying it's a dominant actor in its industry but I later added this info lede only to make it clear why it meets WP:ORGCRIT standards. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I have industry groups [14] and actually a large number of fishing magazines[15][16][17][18] saying it's the world's largest fishing tackle company in the world. I am assuming they mean only fishing tackle sales tho and nothing else. All they talk about and report on is fishing tackle for fishing enthusiasts, so they are experts in this Field. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JaredMcKenzie: You've been given good advice here. I still think that you should focus on rewriting the draft so that you remove all of the worst sources and promotional content. This will make it easier for reviewers to assess the best sources. It isn't fair to expect reviewers to comb through 61([19]) low-quality sources in search of a couple that might be good enough. Don't continue to talk about the company's "brand recognition" or "market impact", these aren't things that mean a page is notable on Wikipedia. MightyRanger (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "rewrite", you insinuate there's a chance it will be accepted. Note this company is being described by fishing magazines as the world’s largest dedicated fishing-tackle company. And it owns and manages multiple well-known fishing brands, and its corporate activities, including acquisitions and 750 million dollars financial deals, have been reported in mainstream business media such as Bloomberg, Financial Times, and Reuters. Yet even with all that - if the company can't even meet the minimal WP ORGCRIT then what is the point of rewriting? To be clear, is the company notable enough to even be in Wikipedia. Sorry if I sound a little peeved but it's also not fair to ask me to rewrite if you already believe it doesn't meet the minimum WP:ORGCRIT threshold, in which rewriting won't make any real difference. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I understand, and I'll be short so that I don't waste your time. I wouldn't approve the current draft. We're not supposed to say that a page will never be notable, because you might really be able to add better sources. If the company is shown to be notable, it will absolutely need to be rewritten before being accepted. Good luck and thanks for your time. MightyRanger (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @MightyRanger Nobody can say never. To be clear, is the company notable enough NOW to even be in Wikipedia?: If even Bloomberg coverages, Reuters and fishing magazines covering it and that it has HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in fishing tackle sales and it's the industry leader - is still not enough to establish WP ORGCRIT. Then what good is rewriting? I don't have anything more than that info and those sources. So if you already believe it doesn't meet the minimum WP:ORGCRIT threshold even with all that info, then rewriting wouldn't make any real difference. I already put the time in to write it. So far I only have mixed messages - probably notable or not notable. I feel reviewers are maybe too fast to dismiss. However I am sure other reviewers will have different opinions esp if they spent more time on reviewing. I will keep submitting the same for now as I believe the world's largest fishing tackle company widely reported by fishing magazines is undeniably notable for Wikipedia.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Asking other editors whether a company qualifies for WP:NOTABILITY is asking them to do the work for you, as they would have to search to see whether or not there are adequate sources available to justify the creation of an article. This is something that may be done during the deletion process, to ensure topics that ARE notable don't get removed, but when you submit a new article through AfC it is your responsibility to prove notability through the sources that you provide. Reviewers may do a quick search out of courtesy, but when the body of the article doesn't qualify for approval anyway it wouldn't make much difference - possibly just in terms of rejection vs denial. The denial template specifically advises against continuing to submit drafts without making changes, and doing so repeatedly in hopes of getting a different answer may result in restrictions on your account due to wasting reviewer time. It appears you have some experience with these processes, but you've made good contributions elsewhere, so I think you should chalk this one up as a learning experience and not waste any more of your own time on it either. There's plenty of other work to be done around here!
(FWIW, my comment about the general public's awareness was meant to help explain why there might not be significant coverage available, not as a standard for notability in and of itself. The subsidiary companies get more coverage because people know about the products under those brand names.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Except I did the work and read the policies and convinced I have enough to easily pass the criteria. So understand it is completely odd to me when I am told the world's largest fishing tackle company is not allowed because it's not of general public interest. Those were your words and I cannot find a policy that says this. Your account seems newer than even mine and I am a relative noob so I hope you don't mind if I am not certain you are giving the right interpretation. After reading the policy, I am asking how did It not meet notability? The company is in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, including Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs analysis, which reported on its corporate refinancing, dominant market position, and financial challenges. It's featured extensively in industry publications that all described as a top-tier global fishing tackle company. This should be enough to meet notability for companies easily. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't make any decisions here. All I've done is tried to explain the reasons that you were already given by the reviewers, who have far more experience than either of us. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] But the last reviewer said my article is "probably notable" but claims my sources are connected to the company. I don't think any of my sources work for that company. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] "Connected" means "ANY kind of connection, including a suspected possibility of a connection" - it doesn't only mean an employee or close friend. There are many publications that exist to serve and support certain kinds of businesses; being suspected of being one of those publications is already a connection. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @CSGinger14@ChompyTheGogoat@MightyRanger Btw if there a policy that says this - then I Will like to know. I haven't seen any policy based reasoning why such a prominent company isn't notable. So far only one editor ChompyTheGogoat, explicitly stated a company is not notable for Wikipedia if it's only of interest to fishing enthusiasts (who are guys that attend fishing trade shows and reads global fishing magazines) and industry professionals /investors interested in the global fishing tackle industry. But where is the Wikipedia rule that says a company needs to be of interest to the general public or a household name? As far as I know - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), as long as PURE FISHING is world's Top tier fishing company with plenty of interest from good independent sources such as fishing industry magazines, trade journals, and business media, like Bloomberg, and it has major or unrivaled impact on its industry, then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] JaredMcKenzie, in my view, you are advancing your argument in the wrong way. You claim that you have read the "notability guideline". Have you read it carefully all the way through? The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You keep insisting that the company must be notable because it has a half a billion dollars in sales or was involved in a major acquisition or is the biggest fishing tackle company in the world. You repeat these points over and over assuming that repetition makes a poor argument more persuasive. But there is nothing in the notability guideline that says half billion dollar companies are notable, or that companies involved in big acquisitions are notable or that market leaders are notable. Nothing. Instead, the standard is crystal clear: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. An editor (such as you) demonstrates that notability by finding that coverage, creating references to that coverage, placing those references in the article or draft, and neutrally summarizing what those sources say. I have personally written acceptable articles about organizations that are much smaller than Pure Fishing. The size of the company does not matter. All that matters is the quality of the coverage in the cited sources. I will be frank. Your sources are overwhelmingly poor. You have 48 of them but quality is vastly more important than quantity. Five excellent sources are vastly better than 100 poor sources. Excellent sources are like gold nuggets and poor sources are like sand and gravel in the gears. How does an editor or a reviewer ascertain which sources are poor? Well, the guideline itself gives us some great tools. Please read WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. I skim down your list of references and my brain says, "trivial coverage, trivial coverage, trivial coverage." All I see is sand and gravel in the form of acquisitions, hiring, valuations and even a showroom opening and pulling out of a trade show. The Bloomberg coverage is three sentences. That is far from the type of significant, in depth coverage that is required. You've got some good references about company founder Berkley Bedell, but we already have a well-referenced Good Article about him, and that coverage of Bedell is of no value in establishing the notability of the company. So, to use a fishing metaphor, it is time for you to fish or cut bait. Time for you to clear out the seaweed. Ruthlessly eliminate all references to the sort of trivial coverage clearly listed in the guideline, and any content that those references support. Keep only references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources with full understanding that the words "significant" and "independent" are taken very seriously. The question should not be "Is this company notable?" Rather, it must be "Does my draft show that this company is notable?" At this time. your draft fails to make that case and so the answer is no. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It wouldn't matter at all if I had 200 bad sources. AlI need is 5 strong sources to establish WP ORGCRIT. That's it. Am I wrong on that? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Bad sources support bad content that does not comply with the core content policies, especially the neutral point of view. Get rid of the bad sources and the bad content. Find better sources that will enable you to write acceptable content. Five is not a magic number. It is an example. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How can I get rid of them? All those so-called bad sources are not bad but merely to avoid WP: SYNTH. For example, it's impossible to talk about its history without saying when the founder first started and how without using a US newspaper focusing on the founder's life. Or that the company recycle fishing lines for the Florida public or it changed its name on a particular year. But I don't rely on those lesser sources for WP ORGCRIT. I only use them to support certain essential background info. What I do rely for WP ORGCRIT is largely Bloomberg. They DO NOT GIVE A PASSING MENTION but give deep analysis about the company's finances and capital structure.[20] I also mostly relying on trade publications, market analysts and fishing magazines that give significant coverage to only this company as their primary focus and nothing else[21] and are not connected to this company. People do have strong interest in fishing and people like me do read articles like these that talk about the company.[22] You may not care about fishing but that's irrelevant. Interest from a specific audience (like fishing enthusiasts) does not make something non-notable - what matters is whether there is significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. And this company definitely has that in spades. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] JaredMcKenzie, to get rid of sources offering trivial coverage, you simply erase them and the content they support. I see you praising your sources in the abstract but I am not seeing it in concrete when I look at your reference list. I see many sources that are about acquisitions when the guideline makes it clear that coverage of acquisitions is trivial. You keep mentioning Bloomberg but all I see is a three sentence directory listing. Then I see Bloomberg Law reporting on a loan which is trivial coverage. The notability guideline makes it clear thst routine coverage of company loans and refinancing is trivial and does not establish notability. That Bloomberg Law piece is full of language like said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing a private transaction. Sycamore announced the deal in a statement Wednesday, without disclosing terms. That is not independent coverage. It is regurgitation of statements made by various parties to the deal. So, where is this excellent Bloomberg coverage? I do not want to read all 48 of your sources when it is crystal clear that almost all of them are trivial or not relevant. What are your three very best sources? I will read every word and give you my assessment of them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That Tom Ricks interview is clearly not an independent source. He works for the company! Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well note that I never used that interview in my sources. Just telling you in terms of global cultural impact, this company is a giant. Alot of fishermen interested in what the company gives. Btw the coverage of acquisitions is not trivial, if it's treated with depth by independent, reliable sources. They are not briefly mentioning it but deeply explaining context of how this problem first emerged. And significant corporate events like a 750 million dollars refinance deal, that are independently reported by financial media like Bloomberg should meet WP:ORGCRIT criteria. As they are not puff pieces: they are quite literally real-world measurable corporate milestones. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The consensus of the very large group of editors who developed WP:NCORP through lengthy debates and discussions is crystal clear: That type of coverage is considered trivial and does not establish the notability of a company. We expect a different type of coverage. You are free to disagree with the guideline but you cannot ask AFC reviewers to disregard it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes. Bloomberg is reliable. Both of their articles gives significant coverage, not a routine mention. Moody's analysis after an acquisition is especially strong evidence. They are written about the company, not for the company.[23]They are not employees. MarketWatch gives significant coverage to the company and also mentions renowned Goldman Sachs (reliable experts) who like other sources- are independent financial and industry analysts thar have examined the company’s performance, debt structure, acquisitions, and market position in detail.I So have demonstrated enough significant reliable sources that covers this article per WP:NCORP. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] A three sentence directory listing? How is this a directory listing? [24] It talks about its sales improving during COVID and that Moody's analysis shows that it's facing difficulties after it acquired a Swedish fishing conglomerate. MarketWatch also talks about the company with dedication citing how Goldman Sachs analyst explaining it has strong international exposure and presence on retail speciality distribution chains.[25] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Your first reference links here. If you consider that significant I suspect there's a problem with definitions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Try this: eliminate all sources that are almost or entirely about finances, and see what's left. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Then I will still have fishing industry publications still giving it SIGCOV. Also this is shifting goal posts. You said I needed independent reliable sources reporting. I do have Bloomberg, Moody's, MarketWatch that gives detailed analysis of the company's performance, debt structure, acquisitions, and market position in detail. Not surprising as it's a giant company. They are also not mere passing mentions or routine stat releases but actual real articles that dive into the history and the future the company. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You remember I'm not a reviewer, right? Arguing with me will not change their minds. It wouldn't matter even if I DID agree with you. I've tried to help you out by explaining the issues they identified but you clearly aren't willing to hear it. Good luck with the repeat submissions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is increasingly clear that you disagree with the guideline, which explicitly defines this type of coverage as routine and therefore trivial. And it is routine. It is precisely the sort of coverage that the financial press cranks out in large volumes every day. Consensus is that routine financial coverage does not establish that a company is notable. A big problem with this type of coverage is that it is almost never independent. It is based on statements by the company. its executives, its spokespeople, its lenders and its investors. Fully independent coverage is essential for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is that routine financial reporting? That would be like the predictable report on a regular basis like how a company has earned this much revenue and it's barely a story. But what they are mentioning here is UNPRECEDENTED in the industry. How often do you see a 750 million dollars refinance deal? Nobody does that. Amd they are not reporting routinely but giving readers in-depth context on how it first started and that it's possible the giant company may collapse soon etc. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also this is a private company. There are no routine earnings releases. There are no quarterly filings. There is no mandatory disclosure cycle. Private companies rarely receive this level of coverage so if Bloomberg reports, it got to be exceptional. Bloomberg's reporting on Pure Fishing focuses on material financial events, including a large-scale debt refinancing and post-acquisition financial stress. Such reporting is independent financial analysis that is triggered by events with literally potential implications for the wider fishing-tackle industry, rather than some routine corporate announcements.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This is close to about the hardest I have ever seen anyone fight for their work on the Teahouse(intended a place for new users to ask questions yet you have over 2300 edits). Is there a particular reason for your strong personal investment in this topic? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Is that an allegation of coi? No I have no professional connections. Just put in a lot of time researching and making that article. I do however know heaps of people who are interested in this company esp in the last few years as there is a lot of rumours or specifically Bloomberg articles (not routine) reporting that this company may collapse and the future of the global sportfishing industry could be heavily impacted if that occured. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also majority of my 2300+ edits was actually for making new articles. I averaged a new article every month since I started this account; (5 articles in 5 months). JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] As perverse as it may sound, the collapse of the company affecting the sport fishing industry might actually merit the company an article much more than the mere reporting of its routine business activities. WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hypothesizing about the possibility would fall under WP:Crystal ball, however. Reporting would be done after the fact. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It didn't collapse tho. It was just concerns being reported of its potential impact. It over extended itself but it got saved because of a 750 million dollar refinancing deal. This is a renown memorable story for people interested in fishing tackle giants. I don't think this may appeal to others but saying this is just routine financial reporting. I cannot agree. A 750 million dollars refinance deal that ultimately saves a company from bankruptcy and spares the fishing industry a major shock, is anything but trivial. It's an event with real industry-wide impact, which is unsurprising Bloomberg and other trade publications covered it. This is very different from press releases about showrooms or minor acquisitions, which fall under trivial coverage. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's clear the fundamental disagreement you're having with us and others is the nature of this refinance deal- it is a very common thing for companies in financial trouble to take action to prevent their collapse. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you truly disagree with what reviewers and we are telling you, you are free to disregard us and place the draft in the encyclopedia yourself, though you would be rolling the dice that it would not be nominated for deletion(the usual criteria reviewers use is, would this survive a deletion discussion?). Is it possible that everyone else is wrong and you are correct? It's not impossible, but is it likely? 331dot (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How do I roll the dice? I didn't realise that was an option. The odds of deletion is proportional to how many wiki editors are genuine fishing enthusiasts. I don't like those odds but given there's so many articles already about the brands like Ugly Stik, it feels like Wikipedia isn't complete unless there's a minimal article about Pure Fishing which doesn't redirect to a private equity firm. I feel like it will be of minimal interest to general public but it will be of immense interest to fishing enthusiasts. So for them, I may go and roll that dice. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The draft process is usually voluntary(unless you are a new user, under editing restrictions, or have a COI). I would strongly consider if you feel that the odds that you are right and everyone else is wrong are actually in your favor- and that if you move the article to mainspace and it is eventually deleted per a deletion discussion that it will be harder to recreate later, before you do that. But ultimately, the decision is yours. I wish you the best. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You should be aware that the process (like many on Wikipedia) is based on !votes (nonvotes) specifically because it is the weight of the arguments that counts and NOT the simple math of users who are for or against something. Nor should their personal interest in the subject be a factor - quite the opposite, in fact. WP:NPOV applies to more than just COIs, and fans are often discouraged from writing about subjects due to their difficulty in remaining unbiased on something they're passionate about. I suspect if you continue to pursue this you might risk the topic getting salted. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @331dot @ChompyTheGogoat In that case, I will refrain and try to do it the proper way. I do not agree the Bloomberg article of a bankruptcy of a private company being saved by a 750 million dollar deal, is nothing more than routine reporting. But I do admit I am passionate and maybe this puts me out of touch with rest of editors. Originally, I wanted to know what company or country produces Savage Gear. Wikipedia was useless and is what motivated me to create this article. I know it's useful to certain readers but I do not wish to go against consensus. If my draft is rejected once more by another editor for not being notable, I will not be resubmitting it. Tho it's just a shame. In my draft here - [26] I took the time to build a full article showing its brand portfolio, history and its community involvement of helping the environment. I would have loved to read this article 4 months ago. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There are people who (whether they make it explicit or not) treat situations like this as "I'm not fighting, I'm just explaining why I'm right". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to point out that the article currently describes Kim Elgie as the "oldest living South African Test cricketer". However, multiple reliable sources have confirmed that he passed away on September 16, 2025, at the age of 92.

The official Scottish Rugby website published an obituary on December 1, 2025, confirming his death. Additionally, ESPNcricinfo has also updated his profile to reflect his passing in 2025.

Could someone please update the article to reflect this information and change the status from "living" to "deceased"?

Thank you. ابوالحسن راجپوت (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guys can I have original researches and that WP:SYNTH in my sandbox? I know you can't do that in the real Wikipedia article pages because they are the rules but can I do that in my sandbox? My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The better question is why would you want it in your userspace? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I wanna share my original researches about the Trans Neptunian objects and I've made some estimates myself for them, I just wanna share my original researches, I know I can't put it in a Wikipedia article so Im planning to put it in my sandbox My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but when you write an article in it, no. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 01:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I know I can't write it in an article but I'm not going to do that, I'm just writing them in my sandbox My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If that's all you do however, you may be blocked for WP:NOT HERE so exercise caution. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 01:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] then I can't share my original researches? That's against the rules? My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. Social media sites such as reddit are more appropriate venues. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I know but I'm scared of people saying "THIS IS WRONG" or "THIS IS SUPER INACCURATE" or things like that even though I said that those are my estimates, and I don't expect people to use my estimates as reliable sources My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I feel like it's very likely that they'd do that My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you're only doing it for yourself you can just save it on your computer and not post online, or make a post that's private. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thats why I asked here before I do that My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] But this is just a little part of my edits My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi My planet is Homlos. Your user sandbox is subject to Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the same way that your main user page, your user talk page, and any other subpage in your user namespace would be. You can use your sandbox to work on drafts, experiment with different types of Wikipedia formatting/syntax, make test edits, etc. as long as whatever you're doing is seen as being somehow relevant to helping you become a better Wikipedia editor or making Wikipedia better. If you just want to use your sandbox as a free webhost to post your own original research, personal musings, fan fiction, or other stuff like that, your sandbox is likely going to be tagged for speedy deletion by someone and then deleted by a Wikipedia administrator per WP:UPNO. If you keep trying to use your sandbox in such after that, an administrator may formally warn you to stop or might decide to block your account. Users don't own the pages they create in the namespace; they're given a little bit of leeway when it comes to using the user namespace, but they're expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This is the same thing that happened to my user page having my whole Combrig System in the past that I decided to self delete all of them, this is so sad My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Fine MarchJuly, I'm deleting my sandbox, I'll follow the guidelines and won't let history repeats itself My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Wait can I put a link in my sandbox that links to my estimates that is not on Wikipedia My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] maybe I should ask in another place My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If that other place is within Wikipedia you're unlikely to get a different answer. Why would you want to link to your work if you're afraid of other people criticizing it? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The editors in Wikipedia are more unlikely to criticize it My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I heard some rumours that wikiproject astronomy encourages original researches, don't quote me on that I could be wrong My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @My planet is Homlos: If you try to use your user sandbox in a way that's not in accordance with Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, you run the risk of having it blanked or tagged for speedy deletion. So, unless you're prepared to argue that adding such links to your user sandbox is somehow making Wikipedia better, I wouldn't suggest doing so. Some parts of your current user page are, in my opinion, already pushing the envelope of what tends to be allowed per WP:UPYES, and almost 50% of the edits you've made so far have been to the user namespace. So, perhaps you should focus more on improving articles for a little while so that it's clear to others that you're WP:HERE instead of worrying about your user sandbox or other other pages in the user namespace. You seem to be genuinely interested in Astronomy. Maybe check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy because WikiProjects are always looking for new members wanting to help improve articles that fall within the project's scope. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I know so many edits are on my user page but that were my edits in 2025 in 2026 I'm trying to improve Wikipedia more and push the user edits to like 30~40% Im sorry MarchJuly Ill follow guidelines My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I believe the user page was like 60% before My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] As I said Im just really sorry the second reducing bytes arc might about to happen to my user page again, and I'll follow your suggestions and go to wiki project astronomy My planet is Homlos (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I want to write an essay here about taking a break when an editor is angered to the point of doing something rude, is there any similar essays to that, if so should I still write it, is this even the right place to ask questions like this? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 01:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Starlet147, have a look at WP:Wikibreak! -- Maresa63 Talk 03:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I've read WP:wikibreak, but should I still write the essay? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 12:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There is WP:Editing under the influence, but it's a humorous essay and doesn't really tackle the subject in any serious depth. Athanelar (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I want to write a serious essay. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 16:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the following question. Blendingintheshadows (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your homepage here should have suggested edits you can work on. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I see this one recommended a lot: Wikipedia:Community portal/Open tasks Pietrus1 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the writer Daniyal Muenuddin's Wiki page and it appears that the link to his official website is corrupted. I don't know how to fix it: https://wearebristle.com/pages/dental-floss Louisetarp (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louisetarp. Try taking a look at WP:ELDEAD for some suggestions. If the url address has been usurped by someone/something that's no longer related to Muenuddin in anyway, there's not much Wikipedia can do fix things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Link removed. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] thank you! Louisetarp (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what's the difference between WP:Featured pictures and commons:Commons:Featured pictures? From what I could gather from their criteria, it seems like the WP one only allows images that are specifically useful for illustrating an article, while the WMC one also allows images that are of high merit on their own. Is that the only difference? Then why are there images that are featured on WP, but not on WMC? 🍅 fx (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Featured pictures focus on encyclopedic value for articles on en-wiki, while commons:Commons:Featured pictures overall technical and aesthetic quality across all projects - so an image can pass one set of criteria but not the other. LionmerterTHE (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have 4around 3 drafts I plan to finish this year. There drafts are on topics that are not household terms. But from what I understand from wiki guidelines, notability does not require general public familiarity. As long as it has significant coverage in reliable sources like Bloomberg etc and is important. That should be enough.

But I guess it's possible I don't understand and would be a waste of time to go finish them if others do not find them notable to begin with. So can you tell me if these articles are likely notable or not so I can save time before investing in hours making them. I have done the work and listed some of the sources bellow that should be enough to establish notability for each draft.

1. Draft:Pure Fishing - a top-tier billion dollar plus global fishing tackle company with significant independent coverage from Bloomberg, industry trade publications, and fishing magazines, discussing its history, acquisitions, refinancing, and market impact. Notability is supported under WP:COMPANY, which shouldn't require general public interest; specialized, well-sourced coverage is sufficient to both establish it's a company and it has industry wide significance/major impact. Sources; [27][28][29]

2. Draft:Rare-earth industry in Greenland - is frequently a topic of political policy and also widely reported in mainstream media due to its strategic potential to end China's dominance over rare earths. Finding political think-tank and media sources going in-depth is not difficult to find. Some sources; [30][31]

3. Draft: Electrostate - is basically the potential replacement of Petrostate. There are similarly heaps of SIGCOV sources on this topic and a bit weird Wikipedia hasn't created one. This will likely become a household term in the future. Some sources; [32][33]

4. Draft:Ecovoltaics - It's a legitimate field frequently cited in science journals like Nature. Basically it's the field on using solar panels to boost biodiversity and restore habitats, like turning wasteland or dryland into a resource for max social benefits. Some sources; [34] [35][36]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick google search I'd say yes 2, 3 and 4 are definitely notable and worthy of articles. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would say 2 for sure; maybe 1; 3 or 4 maybe, but beware of WP:NOTDICT. Try these links:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Pure Fishing
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Rare-earths; Greenland
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Electrostate
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Ecovoltaics

Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @JaredMcKenzie Draft #1 has very extensive coverage at WP:Teahouse#Request for independent assessment of corporate notability, so I'm unclear why you want to bring it up again in this thread. That will just waste volunteers' time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well if you want clarity; I made this thread so I can broaden my understanding of real world notability. If you go to the other thread, it wasn't like everyone agreed. Two seems to suggest not notable while another say it's probably notable if I rely on fishing magazines provided they know their stuff and deemed reliable. There was somewhat conflicting advice. Nonetheless I now struck out number 1 as it's been discussed enough. Still wouldn't mind less conflicting advice on number 3 and 4. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Just a side note: it's rare you'll ever find something 100% of editors will agree on. Everyone interprets things differently and there's no authoritative decision makers on here saying what is and isn't correct. It's a pointless exercise expecting a simple yes or no answer, particularly on something as subjective as notability where there are infinite places to draw the line regarding sources, coverage etc. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pavel Kizhuk

Hello everyone! How glad I am to be at the tea house! Sorry, I received a comment about the article, and it mentions spelling errors. I checked everything and it seems correct. How can I be sure the spelling matches the encyclopedia? I'm sure this is a stupid question, but I would be glad to receive any help.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser probably lets you choose among languages, Jamescopperfieldd. Tell it that you're writing in English and it will probably avoid what aren't words in English. (There are minor complications, such as whether you want to write according to US, according to UK, or according to other convention.) But there are larger problems than spelling. Here's a photo caption: Pavel Kizhuk shoot in western this Alex Carlin.2023. I cannot parse this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh, thank you! Yes, he's filming in western. Okay, I get it, I'll try to correct that. "Shoot" is film slang for "to act in." With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] While not necessarily spelling, I do see many grammatical and punctuation errors. To me it reads like it was translated poorly from a language that has difference syntax. I recommend running it through a basic spelling and grammar checker in a program such as Word. Please note that some of these programs have added AI elements, and AI content is not allowed in articles - you should not let it replace chunks of words for you; review each suggestion and only approve simple minor corrections. (There may be ways to disable the AI tools, but I don't have any experience with them.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks so much for watching! I read that articles don't work when translated through AI. Well, I'll think about what to do. I doubt anyone can help me with this! Thanks again! With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hey!) Sorry to bother you, but after researching this issue and reviewing numerous well-known articles that are written with errors and are publicly available, I understand that Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other database,like IMDB.The main factor.A user with extensive editing experience, and that's it? Well... With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] More or less. The biggest difference is that Wikipedia is collaborative, so anyone can fix errors (or outright misinformation) posted by someone else. Popular articles are closely monitored, so they're less likely to have issues than niche subjects. There's a general preference for fixing things when possible rather than outright deletion - but it requires someone interested enough to do the fixing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't quite agree. I can cite numerous articles with a single source, lack of significance, etc. Interest in the individual in the capitalist world, you yourself understand only why...Okay, this is all philosophy, but at least we are in a tea house))I'll be working on the article's grammar. Is there any other way I can offer some advice regarding the article? With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry "You can offer some advice regarding the article?" With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Do you know anyone who's more fluent in English that might be able to help proofread? That will probably give you better results than direct translations. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm confident in Your theory. Perhaps You could skim through it? It's a short article. I just don't know how I can thank You for it. With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] User:DP-Author

What is happening? Why is no one responding? When i Unblock? ~2026-12918-81 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Evading your block to ask about your block is a very unwise thing to do. You need to be patient with the entirely volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-12918-81 there is a backlog and admins are volunteers, so getting an unblock request reviewed can take a while. be patient. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 10:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I added a small line-break in Special:Diff/1340740662 Barak-MX, but in my edit history, it's showing itself as a humongous (+702) edit. This is the second time I'm witnessing this glitch, the first time being Special:Diff/1319678090 UFC 321.

I didn't observe any visual distortions, when I switched between the mobile or desktop version of the page.

Isn't there any way to solve this ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is that large because you added over 700 spaces in an infobox, trying to make the "=" symbols line up. This isn't necessary. If it's automatic, then turn that feature off in whatever tool you're using, it just bloats the article size needlessly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm using no such tool. Maybe there's something wrong with Mobile Wikipedia ?Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cdr. Erwin Smith: See the Diff you linked. (I have replaced the plain URL with a wikilink, but it's the same diff page.) There is about 60 blocks of spaces added, approx. +10 spaces on average. Plus several addded or deleted or moved lines. So six-hundred-something would be quite a reasonable estimate of the net growth, hence 702 looks pretty correct. --CiaPan (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cdr. Erwin Smith Your edit is tagged "Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit. It's likely that being in "mobile mode" has automatically aligned the infobox. I have seen this in others' edits, but have never worked out which particular component is doing the unnecessary reformatting. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've seen this before too, and I just assumed the editor was satisfying an OCD issue. I have never used the visual editor, and never attempted to edit Wikipedia on a mobile device. Give me a keyboard and a real monitor, or I wouldn't participate here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm on mobile, and even switching to desktop mode it's not showing me any of what's being described - just the very minor change OP intended to make. I suspect this has something to do with display size and doesn't show up on smaller screens. I'm sure it's over my head in the underlying code. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Bazza 7 Okay, so we've figured out the Barak-MX. Was it the same issue with UFC ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cdr. Erwin Smith: That one was minus 70 bytes mostly due to collapsing 13 instances of } from 10 lines into two lines each, which removed 13 × 9 = 117 newline characters. Plus, you apparently added 'He retained his championship belt.' into the first modified template instance, which added 34 bytes. As a result we get –117 + 34 = –83 bytes change. The actual value reported in history is –70, so probably I made some mistake in calculations. CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think it must be the visual editor, as I edit nearly exclusively on mobile and I've never seen this come up. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In my experience, the visual editor seems to work very poorly on input that it wasn't programmed to expect. Or, to put it another way, if you try to be smarter than it is, or try to do anything "behind its back", then it's likely to mess everything up. If you want the visual editor, then it seems to me that you have to stick to using only the features that it displays to you, and even with those, using them only as they appear to have been intended. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote and published this article, India at the Deaflympics. I didn't know what to rate it.so I asked ChatGPT to rate it. it said that my article deserved a B class so I rated it a b class. but I think it deserves more. Can someone check.

Note: I didn't use AI for the article nor infobox. I only used ChatGPT to rate it. You can test it in any AI detectors if you don't believe me. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatEditor024 ChatGPT has no role here. The criteria are described at WP:ASSESS and we have a tool called WP:RATER which can help. You are not allowed to rate the article any higher without going through a formal review for WP:GA or WP:FA status. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I am really sorry. I didn't know.I'll remove it now. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I removed it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Just use WP:RATER install the script and look for it in the "more" drop down. Alternatively, if you want someone else to rate it, try Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests. It appears that there is a backlog there at the moment, unfortunately, so I would expect a turn-around time of a few weeks. This is probably not GA as it stands, but I will quickly rate this article. I do think it is better than start currently, maybe C class, and rater seems to agree. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I would agree that it looks like a C class article at this point. It's still missing a lot of content that a reader interested in the subject would likely be interested in, as it's not a whole review of India at the Deaflympics, but a medal table and mostly just selections of some of the highlights. Would need some cleanup, too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] okay, ill add the medal table and the whole history after my exams. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

do you know a topic that is not on Wikipedia? I want to make new articles Julie Crowell (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julie Crowell - Wikipedia:Requested articles has a very long list divided into subject areas so you can work on a subject you are interested in. Please note, however, that the list is not filtered to exclude non-notable subjects, so the first thing you need to do is check your topic is WP:Notable as Wikipedia defines it, or you will be wasting your time. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. now I know where to look! Julie Crowell (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There are many, many topics that aren't on Wikipedia yet. What sort of thing interests you - books that won awards? People who held office in Massachusetts in the 19th century? Beetles? DS (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been helping with cleanup on the Hersilie Rouy page, and there’s a section that several editors feel would probably be better removed and potentially developed into a standalone article. I’m just a bit unsure whether it might be too niche to support its own page.

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article?

For context, the subtopic is: Historical psychiatric research and French women in the 19th century. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article? By leaving them inside the article that they're in. I don't know because I haven't read the article in question, but from what you said here it sounds like this sub-topic might not be major enough to have its own article, but then again it might be, and doing a good analysis of that subtopic to decide "spin off or keep it here?" might be the way to go. It's also possible that "This doesn't belong, so we're cutting it even if it won't make an article" could be an option. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My recent submission for creating an article was declined just a few hours ago. The idea was to establish this article (Draft:2014_Superfinal) as to provide further information about the 2014 edition of the Copa Campeonato, a one-off competition created by the Argentine Football Association for its 2013–14 season. I knew the topic was mildly covered in the 2013–14 article (with line-ups and some other details), but the draft I created was meant to go into full detail about the match, and I believe the coverage planned for it doesn't belong in the page for the 2013–14 season, as it is too extense. I wanted to get a second opinion on the matter because I was surprised it was rejected.

Regards, WikiRPedico (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your background section should probably be in Copa Campeonato, which COULD use some expansion, and once you remove that there isn't a lot more than already exists at 2013–14 Argentine Primera División season#Superfinal. Splitting your info to improve both of the existing articles seems reasonable IMHO. A short article is fine for a new topic, but it needs to be pretty extensive to justify adding a new one for a subject already covered elsewhere. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ok. I actually agree with the idea of splitting its content. What I don't agree on it's why it should be a part of the season article, instead of being a new page, which one could access through a {{main}} template just below the Superfinal heading. The game itself I believe has grounds to be on a separate page, just like the one on the 1990–91 Argentine Primera División, which was a similar match to decide the 1990–91 season champion. Regards, WikiRPedico (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] An even better example is the 1936 Argentine Primera División, which links to a page (1936 Copa de Oro) detailing the decisive match of the competition which, without going into detail as to why, serves exactly the same purpose of the draft I'm trying to submit. WikiRPedico (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Both of those were created without going through the AfC process (by the same editor). It's plausible they might get nominated for deletion if someone was so inclined. Given that there don't appear to be any issues with quality or sourcing it's also likely that the decision is subjective based on whether or not the reviewer thinks there's enough substance to justify a separate article, and it's possible that AfD consensus might reach a different conclusion. Maybe someone who's familiar with similar cases can chime in. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the reply. If it's not much trouble, I'm not exactly sure what to do next. WikiRPedico (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I've looked, and I know there's a way to do this with a template on the draft, but I can't find it. I've been picking my way through removing archive.today links (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5) and came across these identical drafts. Two of them were created by an account now blocked, so I'm thinking those should just be removed.

Submitted by User:Alex132219georgia

• Draft:Sir Shaun Jackson
• Draft:Shaun Jackson (Doctor)

Submitted by User:Sg15072025

• Draft:Shaun Phillip Jackson

Can someone please link me to the info on the template I need to use to put at the top of the drafts from Alex132219georgia to request their deletion?

Thanks in advance! Tampering Ides (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a criterion for speedy deletion for duplicate drafts, only duplicate articles. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Drat. I thought for certain I was simply overlooking it. Thanks for your help! Tampering Ides (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I was going to say something about abandoned drafts, and realized I'm not clear on the process. I know that after 6 months being abandoned they could be deleted - but in practice, do they get deleted? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that the Men’s Issues WikiProject is defunct. Could anyone tell me why? Also since there’s a Women WikiProject there should be one for Men. What should I do? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there DarknessGoth777. The Men's Issues WikiProject is not defunct, it's inactive -- these have different meanings. To tell you the truth, most WikiProjects are ghost towns. WikiProject Women in Red, which I assume you are referring to, is active because we have a substantial amount of editors who are interested in creating biographies about women. Apparently there are not as many editors who were engaged with collaborating on articles regarding men's issues. If you would like to attempt to revive the Men's Issues WikiProject, you can tidy it up a bit and start posting on the talk page there, and see if anyone else wants to join you and collaborate. I think it is unlikely you would see much engagement, but you can try. MediaKyle (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The Women in Red group was (as far as I know) created not for just "women's issues" in general, but to write articles about notable individual women - and probably also to increase the number of women who edit Wikipedia, which I think is still drastically lower than the number of men. As far as men's issues, I think it might be fair to say that with the very large number of men who edit on a regular basis, men's issues are naturally getting extremely well covered without having to make a special effort. If you think some notable topic is missing, I think you should make a direct effort to get it included, rather than trying to re-form a group that fizzled out. We certainly have no use for a group effort to include a greater number of men, since writing by and about men has been in full swing for many years and isn't about to stop. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in understanding that while no user has ownership of an article, those created in userspace indicate said user is building it from scratch and others generally avoid modifying them out of courtesy (aside from potential removal of policy violations), whereas drafts are open to public modification - and potentially AfC submission/moves to mainspace - by anyone the same way live articles are? Hence the draftification of articles that aren't ready for mainspace but have potential if another user improves them. Is that usually only done after AfC denial or AfD outcome, or are articles sometimes created as drafts in the first place to invite collaboration? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChompyTheGogoat: I think you're pretty much correct. I would not interfere with anything in user space without a very good reason, and I freely make improvements to drafts. When I've created articles, I've started them in user space, and moved them to draft space as soon as they're presentable enough that I feel collaborators will be welcome. But I would hesitate to submit a draft for approval, or to move a draft to mainspace, without the approval of its creator, unless I found that they were no longer active. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That makes sense. I was mainly thinking of situations where they've effectively abandoned it, whether or not they're still an active editor in general - if they're actively collaborating on it I assume it would be a shared decision. But it's easy enough to ping and check with them as long as they're still around.
Do you have any particular rules/suggestions for when you move to draft for additional input vs finishing them yourself? The topic I have in mind for my first article is very simple and has been unofficially condoned as likely to pass AfC as long as it's well written, but I can imagine situations where I think something merits an article but am not sure I can get it over the line due to lack of time, knowledge, etc. If it's a contentious topic I'd probably draftify first even if it's complete to ensure consensus on WP:NPOV. (I'm more interested in scientific subjects so hopefully there won't be too much of that, but you never know.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] ChompyTheGogoat, sorta kinda, but not really. *All* pages at Wikipedia are released to WP:CC BY-SA when you hit 'Publish' (read the fine print right above the button). I don't often edit userspace drafts, but I sometimes do (like two days ago) and when I need to I neither hesitate nor apologize, and neither should you; you have every right to. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hence "courtesy" - I understand there are exceptions, but assume it's generally avoided in terms of just making standard improvements that might be done if it was in draftspace. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I normally expect that article-type writing in userspace got put there because the person writing it was not at all satisfied with it - either because it was grossly incomplete or because they had serious doubts about it. But that isn't always the case. And even if it was the case originally, they might have improved it a lot in the meantime. If I saw something in userspace that really was grossly incomplete or of doubtful value (but still a semi-legitimate stab at writing something for Wikipedia rather than promotion or other obvious garbage), I'd tend to leave it alone, though if I knew exactly where they could find great sources, I might put a note on their talk page with a link. But if it walks and quacks like a 99% finished draft, it might make sense to start treating it that way, and perhaps suggest to them that they could move it to draftspace. Some things are in userspace because the person doesn't want it shown yet, and they might be expecting that no one will look. But some things are only in userspace because they didn't know where else to put it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the use of the honorific "Sir" which comes with a British knighthood, acceptable in naming articles? I'm thinking of Sir Charles Todd, whose dab key has been the source of some dispute (see Talk:Charles Todd (engineer)), for whom no descriptor (astronomer/pioneer/geometer/engineer) is a good fit. It wasn't brought up at the time of the last debate, and I'm wondering if it's deprecated. Doug butler (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know where the relevant policy on this is, but I will mention that Isaac Newton was given the title of Sir, as shown in the infobox, but the article itself is called Isaac Newton. So I believe not, no, but I could be wrong. Shadestar474 (they/he) (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] There is, however, no competition for "Isaac Newton" as the name of an article. While "Charles Todd" might be well-known in Australia, it does not trump a pair of US crime writers for the status of primary subject.Doug butler (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:TITLESINTITLES:

Honorifics and other titles such as "Queen", "Blessed", "Father", "Doctor" are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known.

From the subsequent disambiguation section:

The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in their own right.
If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term.

Additionally, there is WP:NCBT:

Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title...However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted.

Based on searching that appears to be very rarely used in practice. I only found one case where that was clearly the only reason for it.
I believe the underlying question would be whether he's referred to using the honorific often enough that users would clearly recognize him as their intended target if they see that on the dab page - and based on previous discussion of the sources that doesn't appear to be the case. The last discussion and subsequent renaming appears to have settled on engineer as the best description of what he's most known for. Plenty of people are known for multiple things, and the most prominent is used when disambiguation is required.
There is also For historical figures for whom there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death, but that seems to be a last resort when there's no other valid option, since most people will not be aware of the relevant date and may need to check multiple links from the dab to figure out which one they're looking for. Definitely not an ideal situation.
Without knowing anything about the subject other than what I read there, it sounds like engineer is probably the most suitable in terms of being recognizable to users. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply. I can't pretend to agree, as "engineer" for me conjures up George Stephenson and Richard Trevithick, but I'll add that info to the talk page and wait for feedback. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] FYI one of my quotes got borked. Fixed now. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what they are. Can someone explain? Are they like people who try to evade bans by making new accounts? I'm confused. -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 03:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC) Why is this in a different section. -Weez3rforever — Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet is a person who maliciously uses multiple accounts on Wikipedia. For example, [evading] bans by making new accounts is a good example of sockpuppetry. For more information on them, see the page I previously linked. dot.py 03:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Weez3rforever, attempting to evade blocks or bans is a very common objective of people who create sockpuppet accounts. But there are other reasons. Some people may try to use sockpuppets to create the illusion that several other editors agree with the puppet master's position in a dispute. Dishonest deception is the tactic. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Weez3rforever, whenever you have questions about some of the jargon you encounter at Wikipedia, check out the Wikipedia:Glossary. For example, you can find sockpuppets explained (briefly) here: Wikipedia:Glossary#Sockpuppet. Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been seeing this user, Richardgrayson3451, and I think he's using AI. His contributions comments are paragraphs long and seems like it's AI. In the El Mencho move discussion, his message was collapsed for LLM. Not fully sure how AI policies are here, but I am very sure that you at least have to disclose it, I've seen that template before.

His talkpage contained a comment from Sarsenet about his usage of AI, and he just cleared it without saying anything too? It's just suspicious is all. If someone could be of help, that would be great. I don't really know how to do all of this, thanks :) RoyalSilver 04:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this editor appears to have started communicating, mostly or entirely using LLMs, a while back. So every talk comment now is slopfarm-to-table [44]. Misusing the minor edit flag, too, though that's a relatively minor issue. Frankly, given this user's poor understanding of policies in the past, and past conduct, I am highly skeptical they're carefully reviewing these giant blocks of text, frequently quoting Wikipedia policy extensively. They've claimed they're just using AI to "condense wording" which I do not believe. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Condense wording? Seriously? (benderbendingrodriguez_ohyoureserious.gif) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Thank you for bringing such issues to my notice, being a new editor, I am happy to take counsel and advice from experienced editors such as yourselves. It seems there's a quite an issue over here and what better to do than to address it. Firstly, all the content that I have added or modified is supported & cited by proper and reliable sources. I have made sure not to add a single false information and even am encouraging it whenever possible. If there are any specific concerns regarding to verifiability or neutrality or even policy compliance, please indicate the exact text or sections so I may address and edit to follow Wikipedia Policies. [44] And for clarity the Rfc you have shown @CoffeeCrumbs reflected my own position and summary of the issue. Any formatting or policy inclusions were purely structural. All substantive content was written by me in good faith and a positive spirit. If it seems wrong or too much, I am more than happy to remove it (considering the duration of the Rfc has lapsed and the commenters under the Rfc have given valuable feedback). Thank you! ^_^ ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝕲𝖗𝖆𝖞𝖘𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 08:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You're not a new editor. I also didn't respond to any RFC that you're involved in, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I would urge you to voluntarily agree to stop using LLMs completely. People do not like communicating with an impersonal chatbot, pasted by someone who doesn't understand the underlying concepts the chatbot talks about. It's a form of gaslighting. You were unblocked a little over a year ago in the good faith belief you'd do your best to improve how you communicate with others, and this isn't it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If there are any issues or concerns about how I have structured or summarized content in specific edits, I am more than happy to edit and review whilst improving them. I am new (relatively) learning how to edit since pre that block I was too enthusiastic and unfamiliar with the rules. My intention (always) is to contribute constructively and to align with the article and Wikipedia standards. Once again thank you for advising me. Looking forward for a positive collaboration in the future! ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝕲𝖗𝖆𝖞𝖘𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ 09:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] So, is this a "no" to the question, meaning that you will not agree to voluntarily refrain from using LLMs on Wikipedia in your communications and articles? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I snortlaughed at "slopfarm-to-table". Thanks for that. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guys, ~2026-13166-69 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-13166-69 Welcome to Teahouse! Do you have questions for Teahouse? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you have a question about the article Victor of Braga, or some other article, then which article, and what's the question? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to submit an article about an actor and singer, i used sources from IMDB and spotify but it was rejected for improper references. how do i fix this? S0urL3m0n76 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Spotify are not acceptable sources:

• IMDb is a wiki. While they have claimed to have editors vetting its content, said vetting is laughably bad.
• Spotify is a music streaming service, and thus would have a connexion to them if any of their content is on it. We don't generally cite music streams anyhow.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

would https://genius.com/artists/Lola-band/songs and Https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Clara-Alexandrova/amzn1.dv.gti.e4c8fff9-1980-44bb-922c-92b5f444f358/ and Https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/bet-release-date-news be viable reference sources or no? S0urL3m0n76 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Amazon" looked familiar, so I clicked on the second link. It told me: Clara Alexandrova is known for Alert: Missing Persons Unit (2023), Bet (2025) and Danger in the Dorm (2024). And that was it. Why not cite reliable, independent, in-depth sources? (If "Because I can't find any", then perhaps wait a couple of years.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i am kindly asking for help on how to get him while i read. ;( ~2026-13153-94 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and yes, i DO have birthday mode on! ~2026-13153-94 (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @~2026-13153-94. Please see this discussion above, from four days ago. ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] See Wikipedia, Music, London for example Versions111 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m interested in improving Wikipedia articles related to organic foods (such as organic farming, certification, sustainability, and food labeling). How can I find active WikiProjects that focus on this topic?

If there isn’t a dedicated WikiProject for organic foods, what’s the proper way to start one? Are there specific requirements or minimum participation guidelines I should know about?

Thanks for your help! OrganicFoods504 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, for such a niche subject interest, maintaining an active WikiProject is nigh impossible. You're better off just getting started on editing in that topic and then if others are also interested you could discuss starting a WikiProject, but doing that before you have any other interested participants is likely to go nowhere. Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You could join WP:WikiProject Food and drink, WP:WikiProject Agriculture, and WP:WikiProject Environment; and use their talk pages to see who else is interested in the narrower topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are bookstores considered to be a reliable source, compared to libraries? How come? ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is a reliable source is a matter that always has to be determined in context; namely in this case, what information do you want to use the bookstore to verify? Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Athanelar The books itself. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-13084-13 A bookstore is reliable insofar it shows that it, itself, exists. It is also a primary source for that information. A library is not, in and if itself a reliable source. The content may be. What is your underlying question, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] My underlining question is: Could books from these bookstores be cited as a reliable source, compared to how books can be cited as a reliable source from libraries? It is similar to citing articles as a source from the Internet as a digital library. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Timtrent There you have it. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The 'source' in that case is the book. It doesn't matter where you get the book from. Athanelar (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-13084-13 This is the correct answer. Your question led to it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Timtrent Thanks in advance. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rodgers Oloo Magutha

hello, I am looking for help or a volunteer to write an article about Rodgers Oloo Magutha, popularly known as the Nairobi Birdman. He is a Kenyan environmentalist and bird rehabilitator who has gain significant international attention for rescuing raptors while living on the streets of Nairobi. he has been featured in major outlets like Al Jazeera, DW, and TRT Africa among others which we believe meet the General Notability Guidelines. Would anyone be interested in helping me draft this or providing advice, Thank you. Nakuruyouths (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakuruyouths Pease read all the guidance available. Vital: WP:BIO. Does the subject pass. Have fun doing the research and only start once you have done sufficient. This essay should prove beneficial. Under no circumstances use an AI chatbot to write or edit the prose. You may use one to assist in gathering research. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] See also WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I’m working from a temporary account at the moment. There’s a borderline case of notability here with multiple sources, but the majority are just coverage rather than in-depth reporting.

What’s the usual approach in cases like this in terms of the distinction between “significant coverage” and the cumulative effect of routine coverage? Are there any precedents or discussions which help clarify where the line is usually drawn?

Many thanks in advance. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'cumulative effect of routine coverage', unfortunately. No sigcov, no notability. 100 passing mentions don't add up to create notability. Athanelar (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Athanelar Why no sigcov, instead of 100 passing mentions? ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @~2026-13084-13 and welcome to the Teahouse. 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. If nobody (or almost nobody) independent has said anything substantial about a subject, there is nothing which can go into an article about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] "No sigcov, no notability" means "If there's no sigcov, then there's no notability". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn’t the Teahouse serve actual tea? ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the Teahouse ever served actual tea, someone would tag it with [citation needed] and nominate it for deletion for not being notable enough. Secondly, the Teahouse is intended to help new contributors in editing and creating Wikipedia articles. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Here is some tea if you really want it however Tea Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 15:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on explaining the difference between an named account, a temporary account, and a IP address on Wikipedia. ~2026-13084-13 (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A named account is a user who signed up on Wikipedia and chose a username for themselves. For example, my Wikipedia username is Flexagoon, so I have a named account. Registering has a bunch of benefits, but you can also edit Wikipedia without that (like you're doing right now). However, there still has to be some indication of who did the edit, and a way to check if two edits were made by the same person. For most of Wikipedia's history, anonymous edits were signed with the user's IP address. This meant that every single Wikipedia user could see your IP, which was a privacy issue. So last year, IP addresses were replaced with temporary accounts instead. They're still partially based on your IP, but they don't directly reveal it to everyone. Your temporary account name is ~2026-13084-13, for example. 🍅 fx (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oronno Sohel Aungkon help me to fix my draft.

~2026-13143-28 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adequate advice has been left at the top of the draft page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You don't even have a single sources that gives significant coverage on the subject. You literally used Wikipedia as a source, along with Spotify links. There are no references that are related to his early life nor about his musical career(on which you wrote about). Thirdly, You don't put references to link a word to it's own Wikipedia article. You hyperlink it. Like this--- Bangladesh, Bandarban, etc. Find sources from websites like BBC, CNN, Arirang.com, NDTV, or any national news outlet. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry, I searched in the web to find atleast one source on him, but it seems like not even Bangladeshi news outlets have a coverage on him. Sorry, your draft will not be accepted. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Deaflympics is a major international event with its own history, athletes, and editions. It is similar to the Olympics and Paralympics.However, there doesn’t seem to be a dedicated WikiProject focused on Deaflympics topics. The Deaflympics (1924) is even older than the Paralympics (1960).

So, I request that a new WikiProject named WikiProject Deaflympics should be created.

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheGreatEditor024, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the response to a similar request above, just a couple of hours ago. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I am really sorry for asking.I found out that there is a task-force on the Deaflympics even though it's dead. Can i revive it. It was last edited on February 2021 Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Deaflympics TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'll attract more editors to the page somehow. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How can I connect my article to the task force?? i tried but It's not working. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @TheGreatEditor024. You don't say just what "it's not working" means in this case, but I'm guessing that you're trying to follow the instructions in WP:WikiProject Olympics/Deaflympics to add a parameter to the template {{|WikiProject Olympics}}. But as far as I can tell, that template does not have and has never had a parameter Deaflympics. So it appears that @Abishe, who created that project page back in 2019, never succeeded in getting the WikiProject Olympics template altered to accept the parameter. A few days later, at Template talk:WikiProject Olympics, they requested that parameter be added to the template, but the request was not carried out: Request disabled. Please demonstrate consensus for this new task force by, at the minimum, posting at WT:OLY and as far as I can tell, Abishe did not follow up this request. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] But frankly, the reply I referred to above, and the reply Abishe got to the request, both point in the direction: First get your team of people interested. Until you have done that, nobody wants to spend time setting up projects and task forces. You say I'll attract more editors to the page somehow. How, exactly? (No, I'm not wanting an answer. I'm wanting you to think about an answer). ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for explaining that. I can see that it makes sense that the Deaflympics parameter was not included because there was no consensus. I have begun working on improving articles related to the Deaflympics and reviving the task force page. My plan is to continue improving articles, as well as inviting editors that have contributed to articles related to the Deaflympics. I hope that once there is more participation, consensus can be achieved regarding support for the task force. Thank you again for explaining. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] But, Can I re-edit the whole article to a default version. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I've attempted an "overhaul" of the List of Irish mammals page. It's on my sandbox. Here's what I've done:

1. Made the whole page be mostly reliant on 2 primary sources (for consistency, and to clean up the ref list)
2. Made the IUCN ratings be specifically the global ratings, instead of a mish-mash between global and local (the Irish ratings are all just LC, so they're kind of pointless to include)
3. Updated pictures to be either from Ireland, the UK, or to just be higher-quality in general
4. General polish and formatting changes that IMO make it a little easier to read

Note that I'm not looking for technical feedback about Wiki formatting etc, I've edited Wikipedia a little before (I only registered an account now), so I'm familiar with how it all works. I'm more so looking for general feedback to make sure everyone likes what I've done, before I go ahead and change the actual page. Thanks in advance! Let Me Edit It (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently published an article named "Ubayd Ullah ibn Abbas" one of my ancestors. I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading. But unfortunately i dont have any reference or source which i can add on my article. Because of that my article got rejected. Can somebody help me about this? Moeed072 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without reliable sources, the article can't be made. Everyone has ancestors, and people's ancestors don't belong on Wikipedia - unless there are reliable sources showing that each individual was the subject of major public reporting about their lives or careers. For more information, please look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You say "I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading." Those books are (potentially) your (Reliable) sources, but you need to cite each fact you put in the article to the specific passage in the specific book from which you learned that fact. This would require you to have the books in front of you (physically or online) since you will (I am sure) not be able to remember the page, title, author, publishing date and book publisher relating to each fact. There is no way of creating an acceptable Wikipedia article without Reliable sources, and without properly citing those sources. Writing "what you know" first and then looking for sources to support it is what we call "writing backwards" and is far more difficult and time consuming than finding the published sources first and basing the article on what they say (and nothing else). The fact that you did find material about your subject in published books is very good news, because it means that, almost certainly, he does qualify as "Notable" in the sense Wikipedia uses the term, and which is an absolute requirement for an article about any subject. Good luck! [edited to add] Incidentally, we already have an article Ubayd Allah ibn Abbas – I presume this is not the same person? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello just trying update the enrollment Unioncity 1990 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot insert figures for 2026 into something cited to a source dated 2024 – you have to correctly cite the new source instead. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Can you show me ? Unioncity 1990 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Unioncity 1990 You can use the current reference #1 (which is this link) to update the infobox. It would be best to include a full } template, which would look something like }</ref> It is important to state the date you accessed that URL as its contents can change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you Unioncity 1990 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why? Rot-sys (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rot-sys Some articles are protected from editing by some newer users owing to vandalism or because they are about contentious topics. See WP:Protection policy. You can usually make suggestions for edits to such articles via their talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. When writing the section for adaptations in other media (e.g. films/tv/radio adaptations of a novel), should the section title be Adaptations, Adaptations in other media, or In other media? Asking because I've seen all three - in Narnia, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy respectively.

2. Also, is it Reception, or Critical Reception?

Apologies if this is detailed in an editing help article somewhere - I tried googling the questions above but search engines are now not that useful to put it mildly. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For 2, Reception is normally better, because even if public reception and reception by critics were very different, that fact can be mentioned (along with all its details) in one section. For 1, I think you use what fits best, but I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i go in to have one of my last fingers amputated so i was hoping someone can delete what i posted. i was told i should not have posted it anyway. my further discussions will be with on the phone with the folks at the museum. thank you for this help and have a good day. The-stik-man (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to Roman dodecahedron was already reverted. Athanelar (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update post from my account by own internet research analysis specifically on Siliguri (Northbengal) . But I could not find way to do it. Saikat.gslg (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Saikat.gslg, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure quite what you mean, but it is rarely appropriate to copy information from elsewhere into Wikipedia, and "uploading" information from a different system rarely works. Are you trying to add information to the article Siliguri? You may do this, provided you have a reliable independent source for the information you want to add - but you should summarise the source in your own words, not copy from it. Does that answer your question? If not, please clarify what you are trying to do. ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I had started the account before few hours to deliberate by prior permission and suddenly I thought of how from those got uploaded! Hence, asked. Saikat.gslg (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you want to add your own analysis, Wikipedia does not allow that. We only use analysis that comes from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That's nice. Thank you. Saikat.gslg (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]