Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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

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

The Lobster

I am curious why this article was ambushed and deleted? It went through AFC and is the definition of notable since it is at the biggest tourist attraction in LA, is 100 years old and has been in several movies. Plenty of press as well.

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

Can someone tell me how this article was ambushed and then deleted within 3 days in WP:AfC? The comments made in the discussion to justify the deletion, just are not true at all. Seems like this group has a problem with the restaurant that sits at the front of the Santa Monica Pier for 100 years.. Also, the one participant Mer-C was already suspended for being a sock, suspicious deletions and editing...

Does this look odd to you? Most deletion discussion must go at least a week and most go 2-3 weeks.. I hate to accuse people but this seems to be some sort of paid attack on an article that was submitted through afc. Just because someone who was accused of paid editing 3-4 years ago made a version which you have no idea if he was paid to do?

The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not say that the article was 'ambushed'. I think it was rightfully deleted after either a self-promotion to article status or a false approval by the AfC reviewer. Do you have any proof at all that this was a "paid attack"?

I will also say that, if you are trying to clean up the city's Wikipedia pages for the Olympics, creating new articles would not be a good idea. It would be wiser to clean up any tagged articles relating to the city. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

Here is an article stating its one of the top 10 most instagrammed places in the world

https://smmirror.com/2012/12/santa-monica-pier-makes-top-10-most-instagrammed-places-in-world-in-2012/

~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind telling us what the article is? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant). ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/most-instagrammed-places_n_5679aee6e4b014efe0d720d3 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@MER-C @Star Mississippi Might want to take a look at this temp account. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Aesurias

They also came to my Talk. GIven the concerns here and at my Talk about using this article for promotion and the multiple deletions and paid promotion and sock puppetry as well as bad faith assumptions that we have an issue with the restaurant itself, I decline to restore this article @~2026-66804-1. You're welcome to file a Deletion Review if you believe my close was incorrect, but I would not recommend that based on the case you've made here. WP:NOTTHEM is also helpful reading. Star Mississippi 02:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will discuss it with a few others in the office and consider the options. I feel the press the restaurant has over 75 years in more than enough to be included. The article went through AFC and independent review, it has plenty of coverage. The photos were already on Wikipedia from different users over quite a long period.

We've submitted a request to Grokopedia for an article as well. Hopefully that will go better! ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We have been going through a tough time in the downtown area and working to improve the areas image has been a goal for the current city administration.

https://www.smdp.com/city-manager-outlines-brazen-plan-to-reshape-santa-monicas-culture-economy-government-and-landscape-as-he-says-the-city-stands-at-a-crossroads-between-ruin-and-revitalization/ ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There are outlets for this @~2026-66804-1, but neither Wikipedia nor Grokipedia are the best options. I tink you have a misunderstanding of AfC which does not guarantee retention, just that it has a chance of being kept if someone files for deletion. If you're going to pursue this, which I don't recommend as a new editor as it's one of the hardest things to do, please gain an understanding of how the policies apply. WP:SIRS WP:CORP are helpful. Star Mississippi 13:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that?" Several problems, actually. You say "we", is this account used by anyone other than yourself? Or are you saying that there are multiple people editing in coordination? Also, you seem to be saying that you are editing articles here to drive up business for this restaurant. That is at least an admission that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. It also makes me think that you are somehow connected to this restaurant, creating a conflict of interest. You say it is at a large tourist attraction, but there are many things at or near tourist attractions that are completely unknown to the world. There was a local restaurant in my own home town that was open for 75 years, but I would not expect it to have an article here. What makes your 100 year old restaurant any different? "It has been in several movies". Really? To what extent? Lots of things can be seen in the background of movies. That doesn't make them notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean the employees of the city of Santa Monica... nothing specific to this restaurant except this is one of the properties deemed to be worthy because of the reasons stated..There was plenty of press from the LA Times to the NY Times and many more. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are a city employee? And that you are doing this to increase business to things in your city? That still sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

PS -- that "most instagrammed places" list is 14 years old. Instagram itself was only a couple years old at the time. Is this really as impressive as you think it is?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It is in the top 10 every year.. according to this and the other articles it was top 10 in the world for 2012, 2015, and 2016 so far.. I've heard its there every year but, with a quick search thats what I came up with. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/blog/2016s-most-instagrammed-places-in-l-a-120716 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That link you just posted is for most Instagrammed places in LA. That is not the same thing as most Instagrammed places in the world. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The Santa Monica Pier was ranked in the top 10 most Instagrammed places in the world in 2012 (#10), 2015 (#8), and 2016 (#8). Ask the AI's, like Grok or ChatGPT. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That's the pier. Not the restaurant. And why would I ask the AIs? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the point of arguing the validity of the instrgram lists as opposed to something like notability? There is plenty of press, you can use the AI's to ask them for a detailed history on The Lobster restaurant in Santa Monica and to cite each source after each sentence. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, why would we ask AI? Also, is that press all from the local media? There were articles about the local restaurant I mentioned, too. Doesn't mean it was notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The LA Times is a reputable internationally recognized press source with editorial oversight. The restaurant is in Santa Monica, CA. Claiming the LA Times is local is like claiming the NY Times is local coverage to NY. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

When the location is that close by, it is local coverage no matter what paper it is in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No place in any of the notability requirements that i have reviewed is local coverage not acceptable. WP:SIRS. Virtually every article about subjects in Los Angeles use the LA Times. I am not sure why you are trying to bring the articles validation to an inconsequential article? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Does any source outside the LA region say anything sbout this restaurant? No. I'm surecthere are hundreds of restsurants in Paris, London, Tokyo, NY, etc that get lots of reviews from local media. To the world at large those restaurants are of no more notability than the lost dog coveres on the local 6 o'clock news.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone be using AI to prove that a topic is notable ? AI hallucination existsToarin (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

People use AI for the weirdest things. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That is why you ask them to cite each source.. It can source relevant articles faster than going through google. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It can also source relevant articles much less reliably than going through google, or any search engine for that matter. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I know the person requesting help is also under scrutiny but i was under the impression that the business only needed 2 in depth articles to meet the notability requirements. This place has articles I could find going back to the 50's if i remember.. https://latimes.newspapers.com/search/results/?_gl=1*qr48o9*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gbraid=0AAAAADtl_1DhEExDb3cEDxRIDCnpOeeYN&gclid=CjwKCAiAh5XNBhAAEiwA_Bu8FbNGK9X_cNsiTYHKFayBDxtMm5N6uyV0JDQQ3I3T2EyW_jFrD-Xf0RoCuKAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&keyword=1602+lobster ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The notability requirements for corporations and organisations can be found at WP:NCORP if you wish to read it. Athanelar (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempts to create an article about this restaurant have been highly disruptive for years. Advertising is contrary to policy. Undisclosed paid editing is contrary to policy. Sockpuppetry is contrary to policy. Those who have attempted to create an article about this restaurant have resorted to all of those dishonest tactics. I am certainly not opposed to articles about tourist oriented seafood restaurants. I am, after all, the #1 contributor to both Joe's Stone Crab and Nick's Cove, California. I have no connection to either restaurant other than eating at each one once. It is all about the quality of the in-depth significant coverage of the restaurant (not the pier) in reliable independent sources, and neutrally summarizing those sources. The same is true of this Santa Monica restaurant. I express no opinion about its notability but I can say that coming in hot and heavy with promotional language and dark accusations of some sort of conspiracy against this restaurant is exactly the wrong way to go about it. "Ambushed"? "Some sort of paid attack"? Give me a break. Calm, competent editing in compliance with policies and guidelines is the correct course of action. That is what gets results. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Barely any of this is true.. Looks like someone tried to create a page 3 years ago and then it was created again 5 days later.. There is no ongoing conspiracy to create a page for this restaurant that i can see but closing a deletion discussion within 3 days is out of policy unless it was listed as speedy deletion. The article also went through AFC and was approved.. Isn't that the policy for submitting articles that had issues previously? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Draftified on 4 September 2023 for being 'covert advertising'
• Deleted on 9 September 2023 under WP:CSD#G5 (created in violation of a ban/block)
• Deleted on 23 February 2026 after an AfD

Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Deleted on 5 September 2023 under CSD G5
• This means that it was deleted a day after it was draftified per above, and then seemingly recreated directly in mainspace to be deleted again on September 9.

Draft:The Lobster (Santa Monica) was:

• Moved to mainspace on 8 September 2025; the different name was almost certainly a (successful) attempt to evade scrutiny over the previous history of the draft.

So the chronology seems to be;

1. First created as The Lobster (restaurant) some time prior to 4 Sep 23, whereafter it was draftified.
2. First deleted at Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) a day later.
3. Created for the second time as TL (r) in mainspace some time between 5 and 9 September 2023
4. Deleted for the second time at TL (r)
5. Created for the third time at Draft:TL (SM) some time before 8 September 2025
6. Deleted for the third time at TL (r) on the 23 Feb 26

I wouldn't say it's a 'conspiracy,' but the page is certainly a target of persistent recreation. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why haven't we just salted it already? mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-66804-1 I'm not sure why you keep repeating three days, the discussion was opened on 16 February and closed on 23 February. The community has decided The Lobster is not notable. You're welcome to pursue a draft and AfC, but I think promotion of your city manager's goals is probably best achieved elsewhere. Star Mississippi 01:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-66804-1 Do you have a conflict of interest with the topic of this article?Toarin (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the accusation "Mer-C was already suspended for being a sock, suspicious deletions and editing..." is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't notice that they accused an Admin of English Wikipedia. Toarin (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Me neither, there goes the last shred of good faith. Star Mississippi 17:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Noting there is a block impacting 2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per their Talk. For that and myriad reasons, we're likely done here. Star Mississippi 17:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "No matching items in log"; talk page link is red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  apologies, it's ~2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Star Mississippi 18:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Aside from the talk page of this temp account, I couldn't actually see whether or not the account is blocked. Is it meant to be hidden from public view? Toarin (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Using technical data, the underlying IP has been blocked, so it's unnecessary to block the TA as well. IP addresses are never usually connected publicly to TAs. nil ^nz 05:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Adrian Rocca

Hello! I am working on a draft article and would appreciate feedback before submitting it for Articles for Creation review.

Draft:Adrian Rocca

I would especially appreciate feedback on neutrality, sourcing, and structure. Thank you! Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Wikieditor2020abc, I think your draft is good but i think it needs improvement before submission. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Any suggestions on improvement? Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor2020abc You don't seem to have two or more pieces of SIG COV. Refer WP:42. The Toronto Star article might be one but I can't access it. The draft needs more about his career and his early life and education. (Also, unless he has a national honour, don't put the award(s) back in the lead.) MmeMaigret (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not think your draft currently demonstrates your subject is notable. I also suspect the draft is at least partially AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This page is of a similar subject and has been published - tried following the same structure: Moez Kassam Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a great many articles on Wikipedia that would not meet our standards if they were placed under scrutiny; but for various reasons they simply haven't been as of yet. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for why your stuff should exist; it needs to meet our standards in itself. Athanelar (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for taking the time to review the draft. I understand that other existing articles are not a justification on their own. I will review the draft to ensure it clearly demonstrates notability and make adjustments as needed. If there are any specific areas where the notability appears insufficient I would appreciate any guidance on what could be strengthened. Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Service Ribbons within Signature?

I realized that I have achieved Burba Level 2, and it came across my mind that it would be nice if I could append the ribbon to the end of my signature. Is there a way that I can do this? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

. {{flagicon image|Editorrib02-2.svg}} is the first thing I can think of. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DollarStoreBaal44, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please don't do this. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P says Do not use images, transcluded templates, Lua modules, parser functions, TemplateStyles or external links in your signature. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not an image: It's a template using that image. I'm not sure though: I only have ever added colors and fonts to my signature. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess this would still be a transcluded template, though. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44:, per signature guidelines, you can't use an image. You could put an emoji or unicode symbol wikilinked to a section of your userpage, though. Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 17:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have enough characters left to do that. Currently, I only have ~40 left before I hit the character limit. It's alright though. Thanks everybody for the advice! Also, anybody know what happened with the read-only thing earlier? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my. Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 17:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my indeed. This is a perfect example of the phrase 'loose lips sink ships'. That script should never have been archived. That being said, I don't blame the person who archived it. Clearly, they didn't expect anybody to deliberately use it agian. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically, some Russian-Wikipedia vandals hacked into a sysop's account and released malicious code, prompting another admin to frantically shut down the wiki. I don't know what the script did but it was bad enough to shut down editing for an hour. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me from the thread that it was a simple vandalbot, but it worked by compromising thousands of accounts to do so. Probably most of the read-only time was finding and removing all instances of the script. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

And, from what I remember from another thread, the script nuked people’s contribs with the edit summary of something in Russian that translates to “closing the project” Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 14:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Using the Kokuyo Website as a source

Hello! I wanted to see if the Japanese stationery company Kokuyo had the notability for an article. I found lots of reviews on its products, from Yahoo, WIRED, and Forbes. I also found a book on the Japanese Economy, and it mentioned Kokuyo once about how it was the leading producer of stationery in Japan. Would these be good sources? But for the history of the company, all I could find was Kokuyo's website. The other stationery articles (Pentel and Zebra) both use the company's website as a source, so would it be fine to use a primary source for the article? Bulbatian (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bulbatian, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid the answer is No.

Unless there are multiple sources which meet all of the requirements of WP:golden rule (independent, secondary, reliably published, and significant coverage) then no article is possible. See WP:CORPDEPTH.

As for the other articles: Wikipedia unfortunately has tens of thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not be accepted; but not many editors are willing to do the substantial work of finding suitable sources for them or else deleting them. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Bulbatian (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Question about my own Wiki page

My wikipedia entry needs both edits and additions. I am wondering if this is something I do or someone else and

who that someone would be. Thanks so much, Alice Aliceattie (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, Alice.

I assume that you are referring to a Wikipedia article about you rather than an article you have made; perhaps Alice Attie?

First, you should know that now that you have expressed an interest in the article about yourself, you may be contacted by scammers offering you various 'editing services.' You should report these offers if they come; see the details at WP:SCAM.

Secondly, it is generally improper to edit articles about yourself. If you have changes that you wish to be made, you can request them with the Edit request wizard and a volunteer will review and perform them eventually.

Third, now that you have brought this article to attention it is likely that it will be freshly scrutinised to determine whether you, as the subject, meet Wikipedia's special definition of a 'notable person' and therefore qualify for a Wikipedia article. If that scrutiny leads to a discussion about deleting your article, do not be alarmed; this is a normal part of Wikipedia's process, and the vast majority of people do not qualify for a Wikipedia article about themselves, even those people who have had successful creative careers. There are a great many old articles such as yours that may have been created when Wikipedia's standards were more lax, or are simply low-profile enough to have heretofore evaded detailed scrutiny. Athanelar (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We have some advice for article subjects at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing advice

My own Wikipedia page needs updating.

How shall I go about it?

Thank you,

Alice Aliceattie (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aliceattie, you asked this twice on Saturday (once here, and once at the Help desk), and you were answered above at #Question about my own Wiki page. Please read the answers there, and come back if you have further questions. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay - yes, I just wanted to be sure I went through Teahouse. Sorry. Will read through and only ask if I need further clarification. ~2026-15063-37 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Strings (rapper) deletion

Hi all, I noticed that Strings (rapper) was nominated for deletion and reached consensus to delete in 2018. Is there a reason why it still hasn't been deleted? The source that's been added since then doesn't appear notable. Mikankiwis (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that Strings (rapper) was in fact deleted on 2 January 2018. The current Strings (rapper) article was then created directly into mainspace on 20 April 2018 by now-blocked sockpuppet User:Bann123, likely in circumvention of the deletion. Most of the edits since have been stuff like category modifications and copyedits, so I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article, but it may be declined due to the time passed and edits performed since the recreation. If need be we might have to rehash the AfD. Athanelar (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow that was unexpected but makes sense! Thank you! Mikankiwis (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: Speedy deletion declined, as notability may have changed since 2018. Thx56 | Talk to me! 20:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes and ambugation of the title.

Why is my page getting declined again and again? After fixing the previous issues, there is a new issue regarding hatnotes or ambiguation of the title? Any help with this? ~2026-14609-13 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

We can't help you unless you tell us exactly which page you consider to be your page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-14609-13,

It depends on what was the issue, and if there are more issues, if you could be more specific with which draft your talking about, we can help you Gfroi (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see the draft that you are referring to. Please post a link. Pietrus1 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Would The Central be a ambiguous article title?

There is a shopping mall under construction in Bangkok, Thailand named The Central, although The Central is the only official name, many news outlet refer to it as The Central Phaholyothin, a less ambiguous name. I took the photo of the place and uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons under category commons:category:The Central Phaholyothin and none there opposed the naming scheme. Problem is that I raised a requested move on Thai Wikipedia to have the article moved from Thai transliteration of The Central to that of The Central Phaholyothin and their consensus is not to move. My question is if I translate said article from Thai Wikipedia to English, would The Central be a ambiguous article title?

Link to Thai Wikipedia article: th:เดอะ เซ็นทรัล

Link to Wikidata entry: d:Q137706875 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 11:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

With a quick search, I don't see other notable things called "The Central". So I think you can use that title. Don't disambiguate the title if it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon: "The Central" must be a name used for many things although often unofficially. The Central has previously redirected to Central (shopping mall) in Slovakia. Central#Other uses has a red link on The Central for "a commercial and residential building on Eu Tong Sen Street, Singapore". The linked article calls it "The Central". I don't think it would be good to reserve this title for a shopping mall under construction. Maybe if it becomes famous outside Thailand but I doubt that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett @PrimeHunter Thank you for your answers. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 18:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: article created as The Central Phaholyothin 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 06:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Article request

Hello! I'm officially going on an indefinite wikibreak but I would really appreciate if someone could finish creating this article that I've been working which is List of songs recorded by Keyshia Cole (the unfinished version is in my sandbox). The article lists all of the songs that were recorded and released by American singer Keyshia Cole and I really don't want it to go unfinished as it's taken me a long time to work on it so I would really love if one of the other wiki editors can step in and finish it for me. All of Keyshia Cole's songs are listed here: Genius (change the sort from Popularity to A-Z) so use that as the main way to complete the list along with her discography page. You can find the information to add for the rest of them on their respective articles, album articles and other sources. Again, I would greatly appreciate it. Indigault (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Indigault! There are two related WikiProjects listed on Talk:Keyshia Cole discography. Posting to the talk pages of those projects might help you find editors interested in the topic area who might want to help. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Error

Attempted to submit a userbox to WikiProject Userboxes/New Userboxes, got me this error.

(Lua error: expandTemplate: invalid title "<div class="wikipediauserbox" style="border-color:#000000;border-width:1px;border-style:solid"><table role="presentation" style="background:#863030;color:inherit"><tr><td class="userbox-id" style="background:#e4ccb6;font-size:14pt;color:#000000"></td><td class="userbox-info" style="font-size:8pt;color:#ffffff">This user is a WikiVulture</td></tr></table></div>".)

Someone help? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Starlet147 I don't know what you did but this should work if it's about User:Starlet147/Userboxes/WikiVulture:

{{yytop}}
{{yy|User:Starlet147/Userboxes/WikiVulture}}
{{yyend}}
—~~~~

PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunterTHANKS. That was bugging me for a while Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 03:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

CDI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

about cdi, how would it be spread, assuming that doctors wear gloves? ~2026-14824-22 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a question about the use of Wikipedia; out of scope. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse (this page) is for asking about how to edit Wikipedia.

For more general questions, on topics that might be in Wikipedia articles, you can ask at our reference desk, but please note that we do not give medical advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI question

I'm planning to make an article of an elementary and middle school I used to go to. Is it a conflict of interest to write about it? Rager7 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

First things first, Rager7. WP:Schools points out: In addition to the general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG) and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (WP:NGEO) also apply to school articles. Is this school demonstrably notable? -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Somewhat, there is enough sources to write about it. Rager7 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Rager7, is this school of great historic or architectural significance? What distinguishes it from hundreds of thousands of other schools worldwide? Is the coverage in reliable, independent sources truly in depth, or just commonplace, run of the mill coverage similar to that received by many thousands of other schools? Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rager7,

You would do well to make sure the school is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as Cullen and Hoary have pointed out. If you believe that it is, you should check out WP:AFC.

A conflict of interest is when you have an interest that might conflict with your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. As long as you don't have any strong feelings about the school one way or the other, I don't think there would be a conflict of interest. If you want to be extra sure, though, you can disclose that you were a former student at the school when you create the article's draft by mentioning it on the draft's talk page. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 08:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Issues with another editor

Hello all! I sometimes edit the Alan Becker page because I enjoy his content. However, there is someone who has taken to editing his page who is rather difficult to work with, and I'm not really sure what to do about it because I'm still fairly unversed in how Wikipedia editors interact.

1. They constantly perform large edits one at a time, such that if you go through the history there are dozens upon dozens of edits by them, most in clusters of days. This is mostly a nitpick but it makes going through revision history extremely difficult.
2. They seem intent on using the "extra notes" section in the filmography as a video summary even though it seems to have been created to showcase awards, history, and the like. When I first started editing Alan's page, he had already started doing this but several boxes were left blank and it looked bad. Due to this I went through and wrote short summaries for each video, even though it feels like these should be their own section. But this leads into a third problem:
3. They lack basic fundamental grammar skills, but are intent on pushing what hey have written anyway. They went through and unnecessarily edited several summaries I had written, and their only change seemed to be making the grammar worse. I did not revert the edit because 1) I don't know how, 2) based on their previous actions it would most likely start an edit war, so I just left it. (This was about a month ago, and the filmography has continued to deteriorate in grammar and content quality since then, which is the main reason I'm only talking about this now.)

When I tried to talk to them about one of their edits they said "maybe, maybe not, only time will tell", though they did wind up reversing that particular edit (and then changing it back in a couple weeks lol).

To add further confusion I'm almost certain they are a child based on their name (which is literally "Alan Becker watcher 69"), the aforementioned lack of grammar skills, and their somewhat childish response when I talked to them.

Any help with this situation would be much appreciated because I really feel like I have no idea what I'm doing and as such would like the input of someone more experienced.

Thanks! Randomtheguy (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Randomtheguy,

Big thanks for your contributions to the Alan Becker page,

I think that there isn't much you can do rather than ask to make the page possibly autoconfirmed or manually undo edits, ask someone else to undo them (I will take it in my hands to undo some of his edits).

in regard to how to undo his edits, when entering "View History" when in the article you can see undo| thanks next to his edit, the undo button resets it, but I will look into the edits and undo the ones who are grammatically false.

Have a good day Gfroi (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have already started to follow our dispute resolution procedure by talking to the other editor; that page has advice on the next steps to take if the problem persists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Demoralized due to edits being reverted

Ok so like i am not an expert editor and i have been on haitus for while but a few of my edits have been reverted what should i do i feel a bit demoralized like there is not point to edit and contribute here any advise ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Friendlyhistorian, it looks like you had a bunch of edits reverted in June and July last year. Do you understand why they were reverted? And are you interested in coming back to work on similar topics (lists of national leaders)? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe part me want to actually learn to do more complex edits to be honest i can not for the life of me link sources what do you think should i try to learn on my spare time Friendlyhistorian (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Having sources is pretty much required for every single thing that needs verification (which is like, 99.99% of Wikipedia), in line of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policies. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, you can try WP:TUTORIAL, and if you want to learn how to cite sources, you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners (if you're on Source Editor) or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 (if you're on Visual Editor). Finding and citing sources doesn't really take that long once you get used to it, frankly, and it gets easier over time. --- n.h.huit 11:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Any advice and sorry if i am bothering btw Friendlyhistorian (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

" i can not for the life of me link sources" If you want to make substantive edits around here, you have to learn how to do that, there is no alternative. You can try WP:TUTORIAL and Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify i have never made large edits just minor stuff but you are right thanks for the info Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you to for the info Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Want to know how to get more engeged in the wiki community

as i edit on a electronic device that is a kindle, i find it really hard to make substantial edits. I was wondering how i could get more engaged, Thanks , Also for my contributions i contributed to adding steal a brainrot to this. TheWarriorsfan (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheWarriorsfan If you scroll to the bottom of a WP-page, you should see a link for "desktop view". Have you tried that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of relatively minor (in terms of time, or volume) changes that are still important - adding images to articles (or even taking images, if you have a camera or camera-phone), for example.

Or you can find and add citations, to articles where they are missing.

Wikipedia:Task Center has other suggestions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

How can I properly add reliable sources?

Hi everyone! I’ve been willing to start improving an article related to a topic I’m interested in. I want to add a few sources to support some statements, but I’m not completely sure what counts as a reliable source or how to format the citations correctly.

Could someone explain:

1. What kinds of sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia?
2. Is it okay to use news websites or blogs?
3. What’s the easiest way to add citations while editing (especially using the visual editor)?

Thanks in advance for any guidance! TableFighter22 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The answer to 1 and 2 is "it depends." Certain types of sources are reliable for confirming certain types of information and others are reliable for others. The full guidance is at WP:Reliable sources.

As for 3, the visual editor has a button (it looks like a quotation mark) which will let you either paste a web URL to get an automatically formatted citation, or guides you through filling out a citation form manually. I strongly advise, though, that you learn the source editor sooner rather than later, as it's far more robust. Help:Referencing for beginners has guidance about making citations. Athanelar (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TableFighter22, and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:reliable sources for the first. Blogs are not regarded as reliable except when the writer is recognised as an authority in the relevant field (so if for example somebody who had published several well-thought-of books about the Second World War wrote a blog about WWII, you could cite it, but if they said something about architecture or animal husbandry in the blog, you could not cite those bits).

As for "news websites", it is the origin (publisher etc) that matters, not the medium. Many news sources are reliable, but local newspapers and websites tend to be less so, and a few high-profile organs are not regarded as reliable (see eg WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:TIMESOFINDIA). But if you have a reliable pubisher, it doesn't make any difference whether the material in question was published as a physical newspaper, a website, or even social media, as long as it was the publisher's official page or channel. Indeed, it is the source which is being cited (so your citation should include information such as title, author, publisher (or title of magazine or website), date: a URL is usually a convenience for the reader, and not an essential part of the citations. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Making test edits as a temporary account

Hi! If I’m editing with a temporary account, where is the best place to make test edits without affecting actual articles? Thanks! ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You can use the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Other places? ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For what reason do you want to experiment somewhere else? There isn't really another option with a TA. A permanent account has a personal sandbox(though it is not private). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14806-50: What's wrong with that sandbox? You can open it, copy some existing part of an article into it, make a test edit, WP:PREVIEW the result, change your test, preview again, and continue doing that until your happy with the preview. After that, copy your test into an actual article. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Information about science

Where can I find more information about science through articles? ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14806-50 The best place to start is Portal:Science, from there you can browse science articles by category and explore related topics. Happy hunting :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Factual error on Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The use of tariff is incorrect. A tariff is a list of duties, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tariff, that are imposed according to the processes defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution. No income is derived from the list, it all comes from the individual duties contained in that list. I am pointing out a factual error, but have no intention to edit the article itself. ~2026-14735-06 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-14735-06, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, the best place to raise it is the talk page of that article, where people knowledgeable and interested in the subject of the article are more likely to see it. + ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have misused the reference that you have linked. In full it reads:

Synonyms of tariff

1 a: a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported or in some countries exported goods

.. b: a duty or rate of duty imposed in such a schedule

2  : a schedule of rates or charges of a business or a public utility

3  : [links to] price, charge.

You have quoted meaning 1 a: the article uses meaning 1 b, which is very commonly used in political and economic discourse. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

copying from other wikimedia sources

hi! am i allowed to copy-paste text from other sources. in my case, "Text was copied from LGBTQIA+ Wiki, which is released under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA 4.0) license." was added in my reference list automatically by wikipedia. still my draft is declined for copyright. can someone help me explain why? or in another way, tell me what i should do instead. someone added a comment "inform author" on my draft but i am not sure how to prove that if i did that.

any help? BluBeare (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@BluBeare The issue here may be that other Wikis are USERGENERATED sources which shouldn't be used at all here for the reasons explained at that link. I haven't looked at your draft but ideally you need to put things n your own words as a summary, even if the source is freely available, as many academic papers now are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your 'references' section is currently empty, because you haven't actually formatted your references as footnotes but rather as external links directly in the text, which is not proper. Please read through Help:Referencing for beginners and try again. Athanelar (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes; if the other venue has a compatible licence, and you correctly give attribution, you can copy from it, but you must still meet Wikipedia's usual standards for article content, not least for verifiability though citing reliable sources.

Also, note that most other wikis, such as the one you mention, are not Wikimedia projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Ok to add this entry Christopher S. Wren to Christopher Wren (disambiguation)? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That should be fine. There's no need, in general, to ask permission before making a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Be bold, and if someone disagrees with you they can always revert and discuss. Athanelar (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had some...interesting experiences. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Help publishing a translated article (new editor)

Hi, I'm a new editor and I've translated an article about Water Park Čabárna from Czech Wikipedia to English. I've saved it as a draft but I don't have enough experience to publish it myself. Could someone please review it and help me publish it? Here is the link: User:Didinga Omodi/Water park Čabárna

Thank you! Didinga Omodi (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Didinga Omodi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, translating articles from other Wikipedias is often much harder than it looks - in fact, it is often really the same task as writing a new article from scratch.

The problem is that English Wikipedia is one of the strictest about citing sources.

Your translation cites no sources at all - therefore it is absolutely not acceptable as a new article in English Wikipedia.

Somebody has already tagged your draft for its lack of sources. But if you now were to find sources and add them, you would find that the draft has effectively been written backwards - because it ought to be based almost entirely on reliable published sources, completely unconnected with the managers, developers, funders, and staff of the park. (see golden rule). What people associated with the park say or want to say is almost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Hello. I am learning how to edit Wikipedia and I would like to understand more about reliable sources. How do editors decide whether a source is reliable enough to use in an article, especially when writing about cultural or social topics? Thank you. The Ghost Orchid (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @The Ghost Orchid, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are usually different standards for reliability. I would reccomend you look at WP:RS which can provide more accurate guidance than I ever could in a Teahouse reply. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance @VidanaliK The Ghost Orchid (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Come back to the Teahouse any time if you have more questions. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone explain why some people are pushing an article with zero sources that’s been edited by 10 red-link accounts with no other edits?

The article has no merit. I know the person from university, and I can say that what’s written there is nonsense. Since when is a “best student paper” enough to claim notability for Wikipedia? Or maybe her own website or her self-published book? Someone even claimed that an interview on a blog counts as notability. For real, I’m honestly stunned seeing something like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyy Patel (2nd nomination)

I have a best student paper award too. Should I put that on my personal website and use as a source to make myself a Wikipedia article now? ~2026-14771-00 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Just adding the context that the Alyy Patel page has been the subject of a coordinated deletion drive by sockpuppets and temporary accounts. I would potentially imagine temporary accounts like this one to be involved. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For the context, I am the only person that commented with a temporary account. I said that my account disappeared, and made a comment again. I do not see anyone else. Many people commented on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alyy_Patel#Notability

The nomination was made by @Bearcat a long time ago. I was surprised the page existed. The person asked on her Instagram story a few days ago for people to go and edit her Wikipedia page, because it is getting deleted. There are most likely 10 accounts that belong to Alyy Patel herself, all with zero edits, that added nonsense to this article, from her own website as a source to the article and claiming notability @Furbyfanatic ,@Readwritehistory, @Maadhavsaini,@MosquitoBytes, @Hph09. ~2026-14771-00 (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You're wrong about those accounts. They all have other edits, and most of them pretty substantive edits on other pages. That said, your indication that you went to school with the subject of the article, as well as your level of engagement here, seems to indicate COI violation? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

No. I am not wrong. MosquitoBytes, A user with 2 edits. Account created on 24 February 2026.

Readwritehistory, A user with 19 edits. Account created on 28 February 2026.

Should I continue? What substantial edits are we talking about? You do seem to just ignore the obvious facts that there is no notability whatsoever in the article? My level of engagement, really? I made a comment about you pushing an article with no merits with a best school paper as an award. It says you have 6,290 edits, and yet it seems you are not acting like someone competent at all. ~2026-14771-00 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am the newer editor you mentioned. This article seems like a clear case of self-promotion/lacking in notability. I did not know the person/subject (though am interested in history, biography, and academics, as my edit history likely reflects), and was brought here as a recommendation by Wikipedia as this specific page being one in need of editing to get started on. Readwritehistory (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!! I'm one of the newer editors that you mentioned. I'm in the same boat as Readwritehistory, and I completely agree with them. I work more with grammatical errors, so I don't have much to say when it comes to sourcing. MosquitoBytes (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:Canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question

So I started a RfD nomination 11 days ago and there are disagreements with my rationale. Can i close that one and create a new discussion, considering that it has not yet been opposed or supported by anyone? zglph^•talk• 19:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Zglph

I would advise against closing a discussion you're involved with. If you want to withdraw from the discussion, then maybe that's okay. But if you only want to withdraw so you can re-nominate with a stronger rationale, then the new RfD is likely to be closed as procedural keep.

Instead, if you want to provide a stronger argument, you should do it as a new comment on the discussion. The closer can relist the discussion to get further input. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Zglph: I agree with the response above. If you do close the current discussion and start a new one, you should expect contributors to the new discussion to mention and link to the closed one. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Seasons (American Authors album)

I created a draft for Seasons (American Authors album) but the title already exists as a redirect. Could someone help move my draft into the article namespace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kale79306 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kale79306, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have added a header to your sandbox, which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready (it is not at present - see below). Don't worry about the name clash: when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort that out.

The reason I say it is not ready is that the majority of the sources you cite are either not reliable or not independent of American Authors.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

On a quick look, it appears to me that the only sources which even might be useful in this regard are the reviews - and whether they are or not will depend on the depth of the review, and where they were published. (I haven't looked at them).

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) 20:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

on login attempts

okay, this one's gonna be really funny, and i could probably out someone as especially gullible with it

does wikipedia (or would it be meta wiki?) actually log any specifics of failed login attempts aside from that they were made? if so, where would that be? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It's local, as opposed to meta, and logged about as much as any other private data. Checkusers can sometimes[*] see what's going on (it's complicated). Sysadmins (and similar) can investigate more fully. I don't recommend putting any password on your userpage unless you enjoy the notifications and something somewhere being eventually hacked. I also don't recommend trying a found password, as it's a bad look which has gotten people in trouble in the past. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

d*ng

it's moderately funny, then, that someone seems to have tried logging in with the password in my userpage, since it is correct... it's just for a folder that comes with wadanohara and the great blue sea. a game i'm surprised i found any sources for for this joke (lackluster as they may be), and not my account consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle

Where is the best place to discuss Twinkle? Would it be at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle? I would like to discuss whether or not it is possible to expand twinkle to RMs. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin Twinkle already works on RMs, it's under the XfD module (misleading, I know). HurricaneZeta^C 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! If I were going to talk about moving that... where would I discuss that? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle is fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Citations for plot?

Do plot summaries have to have citations? The only citations would just be the book itself, and it's already verifialble by reading the book; so are refs needed or no? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly as you said, yes. See MOS:PLOT. In a Wikipedia article on a work of fiction, the work itself serves as a primary source for a written description of the plot. Thus, a basic plot summary, without interpretation or explanation, does not normally require a reference to any outside source. Athanelar (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

translating from Hebrew wiki to english wiki

All reference is hebrew

how can i deal with this issue Danoola2002 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

references in other languages are allowed, though english is preferred if its available. But you can use the hebrew refs no problem /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Danoola2002, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Tioseafj is right. However, you need to be aware that most other Wikipedias have less strict rules about sourcing articles than English Wikipedia does, so you need to make sure that enough of the Hebrew sources meet WP:42 to establish that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

They may meet these criteria - some articles in other Wikipedias do - but if they don't you will need at best to find more and better sources, and at worst to give up, as the subject of the article may not be notable by English Wikipedia's criteria.

Please see Translation for more, and for important information about licensing. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at User:Danoola2002/sandbox and he:חנה אבנור, I see that the Hebrew article has plenty of references; but I notice that quite a lot of them seem to written by Evenor: these will not contribute in any way to establishing notability. I also see that one is a blog - blogs are rarely regarded as reliable sources. Your newspaper citations may be fine - as long as they are independent (not based on interviews or press releases) and contain significant coverage of Evenor (not just passing mentions).

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. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thank u

i may need a more experienced editor, most of her verdicts are from law system in Israel Danoola2002 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Addressing/Resolving Cultural Bias

I've used Wikipedia for at least 20 years now. The admin and editor community here seems very tight knit. I, along with millions, maybe billions, of users appreciate your efforts over the decades. I've made minor edits to articles over the years concerning my alma mater Howard University and other Black American pioneers and icons to maintain accuracy and journalistic integrity. Today I created an account to get serious about helping the Wikipedia community ensure/ maintain accuracy and journalistic integrity. However, I've always noticed inaccurate and biased information on Black American people, Black American history and wider Black American issues/affairs. What does this administrative body plan to do to correct this longstanding issue? Are the editors or admin of Black American articles actual American people (Ethnic Americans)? This is important to accurately represent nuances in U.S. history and affairs. Do you see inaccurate depictions of the Black American community and their history and sociopolitical dynamics as a problem? Have you considered implementing a team of Black Americans to provide accurate information about the community, their history, and their affairs? For clarity, Black American refers specifically to ADOS/FBA also known as Ethnic Black Americans. Not to be confused with melanated immigrant populations of the U.S. also known as recent arrivals post the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Having arbitrary people depict a community they aren't part of, would be like having Australian Aboriginal people explain the Boston Tea Party. It will lack important nuance and context. Sunshine7887 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sunshine7887: We very pointedly do not ask about a person's nationality or race for several reasons, so the issue would be trying to figure out who is and isn't a Black American just from the information we can use on-wiki, and that information generally isn't going to be anything resembling conclusive evidence. After all, no nationality edits as a bloc (despite what the ethno-political hellholes suggest) and assuming they do is inherently problematic from a systemic bias standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Not always but you sometimes have people of a specific culture editing regarding that culture, more out of interest than simply because they come from that race, I usually edit or make articles regarding the history of Grenada where I have family from, but I also have made an article on an ancient Nubian state I have no connection to, I think most edit what interests them whether or not it is their culture (or the few who like to edit war over contentions cultural topics) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The point remains that one can and should not try and determine someone's nationality and race from how they edit, because each person edits primarily about what interests them. They do not by default edit about their own culture if they aren't already inclined to. Assuming they do is in itself a form of systemic bias. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Having Australian Aboriginal people who have digested reliable sources on the Boston Tea Party describe and explain the Boston Tea Party by summarizing those sources -- what an excellent idea, Sunshine7887. Ditto for having Howard U alumni who have digested reliable sources on the Australian frontier wars describe and explain the frontier wars by summarizing those sources. Though, as Jéské Couriano suggests, we normally wouldn't know which authors were which. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the best thing you can do to address this issue is edit the pages yourself and correct them. Remove the inaccurate and biased information. Be bold! --Sentimental Dork (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sunshine7887. I see the point you're making, and agree with you that not only for this topic, but for many others, there needs to be a means by which experts can play a far greater role in maintaining the factual accuracy of pages, especially when they pertain to sensitive issues. This, however, is a longstanding issue that is not easily solved. If you'll bear with me, I'll try to provide a somewhat thorough explanation. I do apologize, as its going to be quite long. If other editors think I've improperly explained something, or have pertinent pages or resources that aren't pointed to in this explanation, they're welcome to add them below, or link them in the relevant part of the source code of this reply.

'

To start with, it should be noted that there are no particular page admins or managing editors. This is in line with WP:OWN, which seeks to prevent any one person from taking a position of ownership over what's intended to be freely editable, freely available, and unconditionally gifted informational transfer. Placing a person in charge of any one article would challenge the operability of that guideline, relying on them to supervise a much larger number of articles (which is done far more loosely in many cases by a broader body of editors (see WP:Watchlist)) would become an impossible task, given the fact that the number of main-space articles up on the website is 7,000,000 and rising. Beyond the points raised by other editors on making identity a scrutinized aspect of editing in particular domains, there's the broader policy that anyone can edit any article, so long as they do so in good faith.

'

I think a good example from my own experience of the issue you're describing is the article on the Fur people (though its obviously of a separate subject matter), which I feel is severely lacking in many regards, but which I myself have not had the time nor resources to properly overhaul on my own. Though the page received a great deal of attention on account of the horrors witnessed across Darfur and amid the El Fasher last year, there was very little in the way of substantial improvement made to the article in spite of my best efforts to raise concerns on the page for potential editors that came across it. In any event, the number of page views doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on the number of editors supporting the page. Ultimately, it was less a question of whether or not experts were available to assist, but whether or not those experts, or anyone else for that matter, had the time, energy, or breadth of sourcing available to them necessary to edit in line with Wikipedia's core policies.

'

Not only do experts need to know the truth of the situation, but they must be able to explain it in a manner that's consistent with this project's expectations of limiting bias, undue weight, and neutrality. This limits their capacity to provide summarization of key facts in articles without spending significant time finding a particular source for every statement they make. Though it may be true, information can't remain standing on an article unless there's a relevant source (typically, but not necessarily always secondary sources). What unfortunately results, much of the time, is that experts become dissuaded from engaging with the project, meaning that information added by editors who don't have access to a broad swath of relevant sourcing (as an expert presumably would), which should be granted far more weight, is limited or overshadowed on account of other editors misunderstanding that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. You might check out WP:EXPERT to see more commentary on this.

'

Part of this relates back to the fact that the community of active Wikipedians is relatively small. You can see on the main page, if you track it closely, that it vacillates between about 200,000 and 300,000 people over the course of the year (we've only recently gotten a clearly picture of that on account of the switch to temporary accounts, as prior to that point one could only see the number of registered editors who were active in the past 30 days; in that regard, making a single edit qualifies you as an active editor, meaning that the number making substantial revisions is significantly smaller, and smaller still if you consider the number of editors that make substantive edits to pages. This Signpost article does a good job of explaining that issue (alongside many others discussed above). Many editors have defined interests that they stick to, and the community of editors engaged with WP:WikiProject African Diaspora is relatively small in comparison to say WP:WikiProject Military History, which is one of the most established and systematized projects on the website.

'

Ultimately, I'd say that it's more valuable to encourage more users to engage with the project than to solely ask that experts be present on account of the points I've raised above, though I agree with you that there should absolutely be a far greater expert presence on the site. Skill in deliberating any topic necessarily builds over time and with experience working with the relevant subject matter, though one's judgement can certainly be clouded by experience as well, which speaks to the need to maximize the democratic character of the editing process, a result of broadening the overall body of editors, or increasing their engagement, and diversifying the interests and backgrounds of the editors engaged in such conversations. I think this collaborative page was recently edited to further deliberate on that exact issue of experts and educators, or the lack thereof, on the site.

'

Considering the question of the need for a greater presence of black editors, I think you're absolutely right. The same is true for women, as well as transgender/non-binary persons, and numerous other historically disenfranchised groups. These pages provide a broader discussion of that, and WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias seeks to find a solution to that exact issue. Ultimately, the only way that any of this improves is if we all work to realize the improvements we wish to see.

'

I hope you find this information helpful, and I'd love to assist you with any larger efforts to realize the goals you've deliberated, or others these resources might inspire you to take on. I hope you're well, and greatly look forward to seeing what you can do. Don't hesitate to reach out to me on my talk page if you think there's something I might be able to help you with.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Experts may understand a topic better but they're still subject to bias, and there can be make infighting and POV pushing within academia. It could even constitute a COI on the subject in some cases, so I think granting additional authority would be a mistake. Adding better sources should support their position, and could even include their own material if it's reputably published - I assume things like peer reviewed studies aren't considered OR in the Wikipedia sense as long as they stick to the source material. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking to join conversation on replacement mechanism in light of archive.today

Hi all. Having helped translate a few pages earlier on various topics from French Wikipedia, I'm wondering where to go to join the discussion on how archiving will proceed on Wikipedia in light of recent events. Wikipedia.fr appears to make use of wikiwix, a method that I'm not entirely familiar with, but I'd like to know if there is already a specific discussion taking place on the possibility of establishing an automatic archival process (through the Web Archive, or otherwise) when introducing new references, or for existing references that don't already have them. If not, I'm planning to set up a discussion at the Village Pump soon, but would appreciate any thoughts or assistance in advance of that. Hope everyone is well, and will look forward to a response. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CSGinger14, Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance is where I've seen most of the discussion and planning taking place. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Page is gone and I cannot find a working archive

when removing links to archive.today, i have come across several where none of the archive links, including the current archive.today link, actually work (usually, the archive.today page has just saved a paywall or redirect). So there is no proof of this existing at all. Do I leave it, or remove and say [Citation needed], or what? /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

With archive.org, often an earlier archived version works (eg. 10 Oct 2005) even if the linked one (eg. 15 Nov 2012) doesn't. But assuming that you have an original url, I would mark that, or leave that marked, dead and delete the archived link. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

[Sections merged] Note the advice above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A cleanup request - where should I post it?

I've found and fixed an incorrect description of data publisher in a citation template: Special:Diff/1342494025. Then I found much more cases of it:

• |first=US Census|last=Bureau
• |last=Bureau|first=US Census
• |first=US Census Bureau

The search query:

• Special:Search/insource:"first=US Census"
• Special:Search/insource:/first\=US Census/

What's the best way to deal with this? I have not checked how many of them there are, so can't tell if fixing them should be done manually or rather by some bot. --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Added the regex search link. --CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Much of those are come from the automatic citation create feature, and this happens when the bot accessing the site mistakes the name of the publisher or owner of the site as the citation's author. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

the feature comes from Citoid on mediawiki. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If those aren't already causing a citation error message, report them at Help talk:Citation Style 1 so that they can be included in the error-trapping code.

Once that's done they will be added to relevant tracking categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

How do I propose a change on Wikipedia?

Hello, everyone. As you know from the title, if I were to propose a change to everything on Wikipedia, where do I go? I can't seem to find if it fits the seven criteria listed here: [1], so I'm planning to email them. Any ideas? Bruhmoemnr (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bruhmoemnr, what exactly is it that you're attempting to propose a change to? Everything is rather broad, so it might help if you narrowed down what exactly it is that you wish to change, if you're comfortable doing so.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I'm trying to propose that to lock a page, you must have some experience on the page to lock the page, and also that if "vandalism" happens, you must need at least 3 vandalism edits to lock the page. So, where do I submit this?

Thanks. Bruhmoemnr (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You can propose ideas at the Village Pump proposals area. However, only administrators can protect("lock") a page, and usually pages/articles are only protected after repeated vandalism or disruption anyway- so I'm not sure what your proposal is attempting to remedy. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While your good intention is appreciated, there is a snowball's chance in hell of that being adopted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Van Halen 3

I would like it to be given a once over by somebody more qualified than I. I just want to make sure there is information on how big of a bomb that record was for Van Halen in 1998 I believe. They hired ex Extreme vocalist Gary Cherone, a very peculiar pick by the brothers Halen for a lead singer. Probably it was due to how much he sounded by ousted vocalist/guitarist Sammy Hagar. That's all I have to say for now. This is my first time trying anything other than reading articles on Wikipedia. So, I thought I might interject a comment instead of trying to actually edit anything by myself. I'm going to need some serious help in the editing department of things as I don't have a ton of knowledge about things like showing where I got information from and stuff like that. I excel in rock n roll history and overall trivial knowledge about a great many rock and grunge bands. The 70s and 80s are my forte for sure. That's all. I hope this accomplished something for me. If anything I would love some form of a critique on what I've tried to convey here tonight. Thank you and have a great night or day wherever you may be. I'm in Wisconsin, USA. North American Central time zone. It is currently 4:11 in the morning as I am writing this little experiment in possible futility. Sorry ahead of time if I am totally off base with how this works. Again the Album is Van Halen 3 and I would like to know if it needs more information on how much of a flop the album was for Van Halen and what direction it led them afterwards. The End or Fin. Mulder1013cgb (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You may propose edits on the relevant article talk page(such as Talk:Van Halen) but perhaps the one for whichever album you are referencing). If you have a source that says an album was a "bomb", you can offer it there, don't worry about how to write a reference yet. I might suggest you use the new user tutorial if you are interested in contributing. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to Van_Halen_III. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A small question

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1342487636

In the legend for "American spelling" in the image situated in the upper right of the introduction, the example word is crystalize. There is only one "l" in the word. However, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, this spelling is a "less common" usage; the entry word is still "crystallize".

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the question "which one should be used"? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias: I mean, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the spelling of the word crystalize contains two 'l's. But I'm not sure whether Americans are actually using this form at present. (It's obvious that I am not a native speaker :D) That's why I asked this question.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

We have 65 uses of crystalize, against 947 of crystallize, by insource search. There are 192 of the English crystallise but only 3 of crystalise. On that basis, I'd say that the double l is best. My trusty Chambers Dictionary agrees. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you so much, I have fixed the typo on the top of American and British English spelling differences.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Are user pages pre-emptively protected by request?

As above. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @.nhals8 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer is No. We don't do pre-emptive protection. See WP:Protection policy. ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But base-user pages are indeed automagically semi-protected...see WP:UPROT. Lectonar (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Lectonar: I didn't know that. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Violation disclaimer

Hello, can someone please explain why this undisclosed disclaimer was added (eg which edits triggered it?) and if there's a way to lift it? Thank you

Helix Sleep. Guitemilechie29 (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Guitemilechie29. It was added in this edit by Jay8g, who thought that some editors of the page were undisclosed paid editors. I see you have disclosed your paid editing, which means you're good, but if someone else was the person making edits in Special:History/Helix Sleep, they will also have to disclose paid editing if they were doing it. HurricaneZeta^C 15:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it work to "undo" those changes and flag to Jay8g? Or do I need to somehow find that editor and get them to disclose?

I had another question - it looks like someone removed a bunch of information as "promotional cruft" but I see other similar pages with similar information that was removed (eg Casper Sleep's awards and recognition). What's the difference? Guitemilechie29 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a crownsourced wiki with over 7 million articles, articles inevitably vary in quality, many are subject to repeated, and disputable, editing by parties with conflicts of interest, many editors sincerely disagree over content (which is fine, see WP:BRD) and/or make different judgement calls, and no article is ever considered "finished". Maybe the article you cite should be further edited (and maybe your mentioning it here will prompt somebody to do that). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

Hello! Would it be justifiable to upload a non-free image of Donald Sterling for his page? The current image is so blurry that I would say it doesn't fulfill its encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what he looks like. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @OrdinaryOtter. Unfortunately, we generally can't upload fair use images of living people, as that would violate WP:FREER (a free image could be created, and the WP:NFCCP covers all works that have and could exist). So, we have to use the free alternative whenever possible. HurricaneZeta^C 15:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes displaying no image at all is better than displaying the only image that we have available... This may be one of those cases. I occasionally reach out to article subjects with a link to WP:PICYOU but writers tend to be easier to get ahold of than businesspeople. MediaKyle (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I've removed the image; it's hilariously bad, looking at it feels like I'm a hitman being given a dossier of my target. Athanelar (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Question I originally asked my mentor (User:A09)

I have just learned that my mentor was last active two days ago. The question that I asked him was:

"Where is the best place to explain edits that you have already published? I assume it is the talk page for that article, but do any better spots exist that serve this purpose? I would like to clarify an accidental damaging change I made to Chi Limited in revision 1342537273. Given the mundane and frankly shameful reason this occurred (hastily clicking the first article that appeared in search in Visual Editor), I want to make it clear that I have acknowledged this mistake."

I hope to be more transparent concerning both prior and future edits. 3x3x9377x63527 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, answered on my talk page. 3x3x9377x63527 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Closing a discussion/RfC?

Hi, I need someone to close an RfC on the talk page for Albert Cashier and I don't know how to go about finding someone to do that or if I'm even the one who's supposed to be asking since I didn't open the discussion. I think we've reached a consensus though. I'm fairly new to editing and I'm still a bit confused but I'm trying to be as helpful as possible. Thank you! Sentimental Dork (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sentimental Dork You can list it WP:CR for an uninvolved closure (make sure that what you write is neutrally worded there though). And welcome to Wikipedia! HurricaneZeta^C 17:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Sentimental Dork (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I just checked there and it says not to post something in that area if there is already a clear consensus. On this topic, 8 out of 9 people (or 7 out of 8, I can't remember exactly) are in agreement. Is this a clear consensus? If so, should I just close it myself? How would I do that? Sorry for all the questions. Sentimental Dork (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this one would need an uninvolved closer e.g. someone who hasn't voted or participated in the discussion, so it should be fine to list it. HurricaneZeta^C 17:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

All right, I listed it. Thanks again. Sentimental Dork (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion was closed and the article was updated! Thanks to everyone who helped me! ♥ Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Hello

I recently nominated two of my articles for Good Article review, but they have not received a reviewer yet. ? Is there any reiewer here who could take a look at them?

Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area

India at the Deaflympics

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 GA reviews take time and effort, and there are over 700 nominations awaiting review, so it will take some time. If you'd like a quicker review WP:GARC is helpful. Youcan also review other nominations in the same topic area, making sure that review is detailed and thorough. HurricaneZeta^C 16:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

How can I review. I am not a reviewer. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can review, there's no special role for it. Make sure to read WP:RGA and the other guides linked from there. HurricaneZeta^C 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Which leads to the obvious reply, how many of the people doing reviews are reviewers? Do you have to pass a test? - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You nominated India at the Deaflympics previously, it was declined on 27th February you would be well advised to make more substantial improvements before submitting again so soon. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I did a lot of edits after it was declined, so much that another editor rated it B-class. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 Your focus on article ratings and GA noms raises a couple of alarm bells for me -- not to accuse you of anything, of course, but I would encourage you to be mindful of WP:HATCOLLECTING/WP:NOREWARD. The point of things like the Good Article system is to recognise articles that are... well, good. It's not always productive to set out with the goal of making something into a Good Article™. Focus on making articles the best that they can be - then before you submit them for GA review, first check them against the criteria yourself. If you think they meet the criteria, then sure, submit them for review -- and then forget about them. As others have said, the good article review process is heavily backlogged and it's difficult and thankless work, so don't expect anybody to get to it quickly. Instead of sitting around chewing your nails waiting for someone to review it, just move on and edit something else in the meantime. Becoming a 'good article' offers no benefit to you or to the article except that it gets a little badge in the corner and on the talk page. The only purpose of that is to recognise articles that are of exceptional encyclopedic value. It's not a goal in and of itself, it's just recognition of a job well done. Athanelar (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I nominated the articles because when I checked them, I felt that they deserve to be GA-rated. Then I searched if I can find more sources to add more info.but I couldnt find any more. So, I concluded as I added all the known information related to the topic.

Secondly, I mainly edit Wikipedia because it helps me to learn new things. It also help me in state-level quiz competitions.

Thirdly, I don't chew my nails. It's gross

I appreciate the remainder about focusing on creating articles and improving existing ones. I am currently working on other topics while waiting for the review such as Draft:Frankfurt Fairy Tale Fountain, etc. Thanks again for the guidance. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Review draft

Could someone please review my draft and check if it complies with the publication guidelines?

Draft:Behring Foundation. Bruna JV (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bruna JV.

We don't do reviews on demand. Please pick the button labelled "Resubmit".

I see that you have removed some of the text, but haven't attended to the citations. Please make sure that the majority of the sources you cite each meets all of the requirments in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Why my article keeps getting rejected?

Hi Teahouse,

My article has been rejected for the second time and I don't understand why. The advice that keeps being given is that I have insufficient references when I don't agree and meet 5 of the WP:PROF criteria.

Please can you hep?

My article is: Draft:Radhakanta Rana

Many thanks Researcher Science Communications (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources only give him a passing mention. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

hello and welcome to teahouse. i'd rather you look at the decline reason(s). also your article lowkey built like a resume or CV, which is not accepted on Wikipedia, and your draft should also abide to our policies on significant coverage (which is linked to WP: Notability) if you want to increase the chances of it being accepted. n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, you have too many references, refer WP:REFBOMB but the entire Early life and education and Career sections are unreferenced. Note: every statement in a biography must be referenced. But before you go finding more references, the page (particularly the existing references) needs cleaning up. (I haven't even begun to determine if you have SIG COV.) Refer WP:42 MmeMaigret (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Researcher Science Communications Also, reads like a resume. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on draft: Aaron Moore (basketball player)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article for review and was hoping someone could take a look and let me know if it meets notability guidelines.

Draft: Aaron Moore (basketball player)

The subject played Division I basketball at Portland State and later played professionally overseas. The article also cites the book "Play Their Hearts Out" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Dohrmann.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Wikiexpert89 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Declined for lack of demonstrated notability, please see the links in the decline notice for more information. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiexpert89 I've had a quick glance at your sources. Only one seems to be about him in particular and it's not long enough but also would be considered routine or transfer coverage. @ColinFine has suggested you have a read at WP:42. You need to find sources where he's the focus of the article or chapter, eg a feature article. Your early life section is also filled with too much extraneous info. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Additional Sources to review

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing this draft.

I wanted to note that the subject has coverage in several independent reliable sources, including:

• The investigative book "Play Their Hearts Out" by Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist George Dohrmann, where Aaron Moore is one of the players followed in the narrative.
• Los Angeles Times coverage of the Dominguez High School basketball program and related recruiting stories.
• Coverage from 247Sports, CalHiSports, HoopScoop, and other recruiting outlets referencing Moore as a nationally ranked prospect.
• Portland State University athletics records and media coverage during his NCAA Division I career.
• Professional career information from Eurobasket and related international basketball databases.

If additional citations or formatting improvements would help the review process, I would appreciate any guidance.

Thank you for your time. Wikiexpert89 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Wikiexpert89. I have merged your new post into the preceding section.

Please don't start a new section, but rather add any new comments to the existing section. --ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To reply to your additional post:

I haven't looked closely at these further sources, but I will note that:

• The book may well be a good source, provided it contains a significant amount of material about Moore (which your comment suggests it does), and it contains the writier's commentary about him, not just quotations from him and his associates.
• The LA Times piece just mentions him in passing: not significant coverage.
• Sources "referencing" him probably do not contain significant coverage
• University records and any databases are primary sources and do not contribute to establishing notability.
• "Media coverage" might do the job - provided, again, that each individual source is independent, secondary, reliably published, and contains significant coverage of him.

I recommend that you check that each of your sources meets all the criteria in WP:42. If a source meets only some of them it may possibly be usable, but does not help establish that he meets the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What is a stub?

Hi,

I've been around for a bit, but I took a long break and this is a bit of a newbie question so I wanted to ask here if that's okay.

I've been expanding Stewie (cat) and I think I got it to a point where it's not a stub. However, I'm not exactly sure what makes a stub, and if I have done enough to un-stub it and remove the template.

Thank you! PolarClimates (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit subjective -- see WP:STUBLENGTH. Personally, I usually say an article isn't a stub somewhere around 300-500 words. Your article is over 300 words, and I would say it's no longer a stub. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! PolarClimates (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

PolarClimates, very short articles are certainly more likely to be stubs than longer articles. But the most relevant criterion is that a stub is too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject. Not all topics need lengthy articles. In my opinion, this article about an individual domestic cat who was notable for being the largest gives the reader most if not all of the encyclopedic information. Therefore, I upgraded the article from "stub" to "start". Good work. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am pinging my friend DrewieStewie, just for the fun of it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

😃 DrewieStewie (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! PolarClimates (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

On a related note, when would it be considered beneficial to add a stub vs waiting until you can flesh out the article a bit more? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat, that is a philosophical question. I have never set out to write a stub but many editors create large numbers of them. I would rather write one informative article than ten uninformative articles. If a topic is notable, then there should be enough coverage to write a more informative article. But stubs are not contrary to policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolarClimates The next rating up from stub is start. You can find descriptions at WP:Content assessment. (You can change the rating on the article's talk page.) MmeMaigret (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking for collaborators

I attended a fascinating talk by centenarian Joe Peterburs who was a fighter pilot in WWII. I started to capture a BLP and am looking for editors who share an interest User:SageGreenRider/Joe Peterburs; https://joepeterburs.com/bio ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

SageGreenRider, a biographee needs to be notable, as defined by and for Wikipedia. Will you be able to demonstrate that this man is notable? -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@SageGreenRider You are presently writing this article WP:BACKWARDS. You're going to run into the issue, as Hoary has mentioned, of demonstrating that there is reliable, independent secondary coverage of the man. There is no point in writing an article before you have found sources that show that. Athanelar (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Billmckern Are you able to advise Sage? Maybe a suitable Wikiproject where it can be added as a requested article? It looks like sig cov could be found:

• BBC article
• Mobile Register
• Google Search/News

MmeMaigret (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You could ask at WT:MILHIST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@SageGreenRider: My quick search indicated that there are enough sources for you to establish Peterburs' notability and prepare a complete biographical article. Service in three wars, multiple awards, and so on should be sufficient. In addition to several Internet articles, I found references to him on Google Books in works going back several years, so you should have plenty to work with.Billmckern (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

idk how to edit

Please do not feed

yo wsp I want ta kno how I is supposed to edit on dis ~2026-15148-53 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Press the pencil button. Best to do this on an article. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Your earlier edit. You're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15148-53 Urban Dictionary is thataway. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15148-53 I see your earlier edit was likely an act of vandalism. As long as you don't do that again, you're more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia! What kinds of topics are you most interested in contributing to? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 00:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

who yu ~2026-15148-53 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Haha, I'm just someone who likes to help folks out at the Teahouse once in a while. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 00:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Same with me. I don't qualify to be a Teahouse host, but I enjoy helping out here. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps also make sure you edit in correct English if you would like to edit articles, slang and informal-abbreviations aren’t allowed. Also please have references If adding new information. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Socks

Found 3 editors that are obviously socks. Problem is they are all blocked. Should I still bring them to SPI? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Starlet147, if the accounts are blocked indefinitely, especially for sockpuppetry, then there is no need. If the blocks are for a limited time and for something else, then an SPI report with solid evidence may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

One isn't actually blocked, one is temp blocked for 31 hours, I don't remember the 3rd one. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Temp blocked guy is unblocked Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I open an RfC when nobody is discussing it on the talk page?

I tried to start a discussion about a topic that has been disagreed upon in the past. I didn't do the bold thing and edit it, because it had previously reached consensus, but based on some new RfCs and decisions about similar things, I think the consensus will probably be different this time. However, nobody has responded to my proposal on the talk page. Should I start an RfC to get some opinions from the community? Sentimental Dork (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. RfCs are time-consuming, but you can go bold, get it reverted (maybe yes, maybe not), and discuss about it if it apparently goes against consensus. Also, per WP:RFCBEFORE, If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC. n.h.huit, 化けの花 02:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I decided to be bold and edit the article. Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Archive bots

Is there any bot that can be used to archive specific talk page discussions based on a filter rather than just date? Specifically, I'm hoping to automate archival of KiranBOT notifications regarding threads here being archived. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I think you can ask about this at WP:Village pump (technical). n.h.huit, 化けの花 10:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

14th amendment full text section omission

After looking over a number of the other articles on Amendments of the Constitution they all seem to have a section providing the full text of the Amendment. This article is protected, which is very reasonable but I think the addition of the full text of the 14th Amendment would make the article provide more clarity and increase traffic. I think it omission detracts from the value of the article, as splitting the sections apart into subtopics means that the typical user will only come away with the understanding from the introduction instead of engaging directly with the source material. I've posted this on the talk page as well, but idk if that will be helpful, given the fact it's a protected article. and has seen only small engagement on the talk page. I think some oversight from folks with the correct privileges makes sense. I appreciate any time and attention to this matter and I apologize if this the incorrect avenue to express this concern. Spicygarbage (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Spicygarbage, you have, as you say, already requested this at Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's probably the one best place to discuss the matter. Anyway, as simultaneous discussions sow confusion, please avoid discussing it on more than one page at any one time. Incidentally, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is only semi-protected: it may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). That's a very large group of accounts; no search or appeal for "folks with the correct privileges" should be necessary. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry for double posting both here and on the talk page. I just saw how little traction was on that talk page so I figured this would be the correct venue for understanding the requirements necessary for the change. Given your explanation of the semi-protection status I probably qualify and assumed I didn't. I apologize for taking up your time and attention, I just was nervous about adding a topic to something as significant as the 14th amendment article. Spicygarbage (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The text of the amendment is there just split up under the headings for sections 1-5. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is the legibility of the plain text of the amendment, while it's important to have sections covering each section, not providing the full text reduces the legibility of the article. I don't think the specific text for each section should be removed but if someone is trying to read the 14th amendment in its entirety, they should not have to browse over the majority of the article. also I apologize, I have sidetracked the Teahouse conversation and I think if we want to continue this conversation we should move to the talk page in question for further discussion. I don't want to clog the works Spicygarbage (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Spicygarbage, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is the longest and most complex of any of the amendments to the US Constitution. The framers of the amendment structured it into five sections. I understand that you think that the text ought to be presented in full for readability. But I think that a logical case can be made that presenting it in five chunks, with commentary and analysis following each section, actually enhances readability rather than detracting from it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I did go ahead and make the edit, I understand if it doesn't stand. I did not remove the quote blocks from the additional commentary on each section. I think both a full text block and a specific quote block for each section are reasonable given the complexity of the 14th amendment. I understand that is repetitive, but I think the improved legibility for general use case is worth the change. for context I looked through all of the other amendments, and the only other one to split it's full text apart from it's analysis and explanation is the 25th, and in that article the majority of the text is visible on one page given the size of the explanations. Spicygarbage (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Language sections unknown to me

Hello, colleagues! Perhaps this question is not entirely appropriate for this place, but I’ll ask it here anyway because I don’t know where else to turn.

I recently received a “Welcome” message from a language section that I am not familiar with. When I checked my global account information page, I discovered 12 new language sections that I do not recognize, which appeared between March 6 and March 9.

As far as I know, these usually appear when a user visits those sections, but I have only visited the Russian, Ukrainian, and English Wikipedias.

I would simply like to understand whether this is normal behavior or if there is a possibility that my account has been compromised.

(Special:CentralAuth/RiiffTower) RiiffTower (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RiiffTower, and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, it is normal: some Wikipedias send out welcome messages to anybody who visits them (and we can visit them without realising it in various ways). ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Watchlist

Most times I open wikipedia I log in and go to my watchlist to see what changes have been made to the watched pages. I will then look at those changes. If there have been a lot of changes to a page I might look at a few and leave the rest til later. Until recently the watchlist would still show that page with a black dot to show there were changes I hadn't seen. Recently the list has shown a white (unfilled) dot and I haven't found a way to alter it. Is there anything I can do? Is this a universal change, or have I made a change to "preferences" or something inadvertantly? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have inadvertently clicked the "mark all pages as read" button. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That button has gone grey. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Help With Article Nominated for Deletion

Sock

Good day everyone! I would like some input please on my article Denodo, which has been nominated for deletion due to lack of notability of the company. I have argued its notability on the deletion discussion, and added in some further sources to verify its notability. I feel that it is a strong article with good sources, and a notable company. But would appreciate some further insight here if possible please. Van1985 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 - my point in coming to the teahouse was to try receive help on improving my article, to avoid it being deleted. I thought that was the point of the Teahouse - help!? Not for editors to then go and vote for it to be deleted, which of course you are entitled to do - but Wikipedia stipulates that there should always try to be a resolution rather than deletion, thus my reasoning for asking for help here. I have not been an editor on Wikipedia for that long, so it is quite disheartening when I ask for help, and get no response, but instead a vote against my article, which is the opposite of what I am trying to achieve. Van1985 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

do Teahouse hosts reserve the right to disagree with the person asking?

and yes, teahouse is a place to give guidance, but it's not a place to rile up or get Teahouse hosts to agree with you. You wanted insights, I gave you my insights on the AfD.

Also you duplicated your vote. n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Van1985 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Van1985 The Teahouse is a forum for beginners to ask questions about Wikipedia, the volunteers here are not necessarily under any obligation to help you achieve your aims. Like anyone else, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and it is often the case that the best way to do so is to remove unsuitable material. No amount of editing or 'improvement' can overcome a lack of notability, so if people cannot find suitable sources to demonstrate notability, then 'improving the article' is pointless. Athanelar (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted! Van1985 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Van1985, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If in the opinion of an editor, the subject of an article is not notable, then they will regard "improving the article" as a waste of time.

You moved Denodo to mainspace yourself, which always carries the risk that somebody will subsequently look at it and say it should be deleted. Thena your appeal here (which is awfully close to canvassing, by the way) has had an unintended consequence that somebody has done just that (or rather, added a Delete !Vote to an existing discussion). ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Press releases, blogs, interviews, Amazon and primary sources do not contribute to notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome @ColinFine! Is it possible for me to move the article to draft, to avoid deletion, I have seen it done before? And request that the editor who placed the nomination, remove the deletion tag? Because as I mentioned, I am looking for the best solution here to get the article approved, be it now, or in the future - so if that means moving it back to draft, then so be it. Van1985 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point, @Van1985.

"Draftify" is an option from a Deletion discussion. But not one person (other than you) has recommended that. This strongly suggests that their opinion is not "this might be notable" but "this is not notable, nobody should waste any more time on it". ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't have a good look because honestly the History section was totally off-putting with 11 equal sized paragraphs. It also seemed to be mainly WP:CORPTRIV. The entire funding section is unnecessary and more CORPTRIV. I didn't really see any SIG COV. But not combining duplicate sources also makes it harder for people to assess. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the type of feedback that I was looking for originally, and would have appreciated much more, so I could actually improve the article to avoid deletion, and possibly take it back to draft stage and rework. Instead of being ganged up on here with mass delete votes. Van1985 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is not your layout, it's notability. You need to prove that this company meets the notability guideline for organisations and companies, the issue with CORPTRIV has already been pointed out to you before now. Athanelar (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The thing is delete votes are usually based on policy discrepancies, which can be used to improve articles by the way. n.h.huit, 化けの花 14:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't checked through all of your sources but they look a bit specialised and I note @Theroadislong's comments. I think ypou should look for some . I think you need to find some sources in the general press rather than computer company journals- try looking in the California newspapers or the National or foreign press- an article in the New York Times or the Wall street Journal or even the London Times or Daily Telegraph or Guardian would help your cause no end and improve the article.. Computer magazines for enthusiasts rather than the trade would also be useful and if they are mentioned in a printed book that might also provide some useful material to improve your article.So would anything that criticizes the company. If there isn't anything of that kind that might be an indication that the company is not notable. Aside from the sources I think you need to make the content more intelligable to the intelligent but non-specialist reader. Spinney Hill (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Sagi Sree Hari Varma

Hi! I am a new editor from India and I have just submitted my first draft for filmmaker Sagi Sree Hari Varma (located in my sandbox at User:Hv2567/sandbox). I have included multiple independent sources from The Hindu(renowned indian Daily), Yahoo News, and FilmInk. Could an experienced editor please take a look to see if it meets the notability and formatting requirements? Any advice to help it through the review process would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

User:Hv2567/sandbox

Thankyou SO much! So happy to be here in this community of contributors! Wikipedia means so much to be and its nice being here! Hv2567 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hv2567, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have submitted your draft, and in time it will be reviewed. Please be patient.

(Note that you don't need to use an external link - and certainly not a shortened one - you can just put the whole name of the page between double square brackets, as User:Hv2567/sandbox. (You did that above, but put it within <nowiki>....</nowiki> tags, so that it didn't link. I don't know why you did that). --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Help To Edit "Save Me Tonigh" (Jennifer Lopez Song)

Calling all pop music fans!

I need help to edit this draft: Draft:Save Me Tonight (Jennifer Lopez Song)

Thanks, Juan ~2026-15351-42 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am currently attempting to help this user on IRC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They left the channel. The issue is mostly a language barrier (en vs. es); I couldn't get a straight answer out of them as to which music publications they were referring to in the Critical Response section partly because they couldn't grok what I was saying. When I used automated translation to rephrase my question, they left the channel. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Review the submission: Hemani

Hello, I recently submitted Draft Hemani for Articles for Creation review and was wondering if a reviewer might be able to take a look when convenient. Thank you very much for supporting new editors. ~2026-15235-96 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15235-96 Please link the draft. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15235-96, did you mean Draft:Shumaila Hemani? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-15235-96, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you @Shumailahemani2026? Please remember to log in.

You submitted Draft:Shumaila Hemani for review on 4th February, and it will get reviewed in time: please be patient. Asking for a review achieves nothing except possibly irritating reviewers.

Are you aware that writing about yourself in Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged? This is because hardly anybody has ever been able to do so successfully.

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.

This means that in order to do so successfully, you would first have to find the reliable secondary sources, where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write about you, without any input from you or your associates; and then you would have to put aside everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources said. Do you see why that is extremely difficult?

Maybe when a reviewer gets to the draft, they will accept it. But I'm doubtful. Many of your sources look to be primary or not independent. And a section listing organs which have published interviews or profiles is useless in an encyclopaedia article (and is something that LLMs love to do - did you use one)?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it looks to me as if you have come here for the sole purpose of promoting yourself, and not spent any time learning how Wikipedia works. (And if User:Shumailahemani was you as well, this is the second time you have done so). ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

References

How and where do you all find your references, especially for discreet and obscure topics? ACDC2326 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We use google news ,google scholar, JSTOR, Google books, Internet Archive and sometimes The Wikipedia Library. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Another trick you can use is reference mining. For example, suppose you are writing an article about an Olympic athlete. Sometimes it is hard to find sources directly about that person. However, the athlete may be mentioned in an article about their country's participation in that Olympic Games.

Example, if you are trying to find sources about Neeraj Chopra, you can use the references in the India at the Olympics article that gives a significant coverage on him. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com and https://books.google.com are your friends to begin with. When you're eligible for it, The Wikipedia Library is a fantastic resource. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempt to removed closed AfD failing?

After a WP:HEY effort invalidated my AfD nomination for Meadows, North Carolina, I withdrew the nomination and put a notice on the talk page. It still won't let me remove the AfD notice from the Meadows, North Carolina page. Did I miss a step in the non-admin closure process? SenshiSun (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun I removed it for you, it's an edit filter blocking "new users" (users who are not extended confirmed) from removing AfD templates. Once you reach 500 edits it shouldn't be a problem, but if you hit any more false positives before then report at WP:EFFPR. HurricaneZeta^C 17:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! SenshiSun (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Advice on revising Draft: Replika Software

 Courtesy link: Draft: Replika Software

Hello, I’m a new editor and I would appreciate some guidance. I created Draft Software and disclosed that I am the founder of the company. The draft was declined due to concerns about promotional tone and possible AI-generated text. I would appreciate advice on how to revise the article to comply with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, or whether a neutral editor could review the draft and suggest improvements. The draft relies on independent coverage including Business of Fashion, Vogue, and reporting about L’Oréal’s investment. Thank you very much for your help. Kareen Mallet (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kareen Mallet, 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 a draft is - or looks like - what the subject wants people to know about it, then it is promotional.

The steps to a successful articles are easy to describe, though not necessarily easy to carry out.

1. Find several sources which are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. "Wholly independent" means that the subject and the subject's associates had no input whatever into the source, whether directly, or in an interview or press release. Note that reporting of routine corporate activities like capitalisation, acquisitions, and notable customers, is almost always from press releases, and so not independent. Almost every source used should meet all the requirements of WP:42.
2. If you can't find at least three sources which meet all those requirements, give up and do something else.
3. If you have found several sources, effectively put aside everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.

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) 18:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Kareen Mallet (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Double-barrelled names

I recently ran across an article with content which heavily involves a person with a hyphenated double-barrelled name. After the first mention, this person is always referred to solely by the second half of their surname. Is this method correct? I would have thought that with double-barrelled names, you are supposed to mention the full surname each time. If you are supposed to drop part of the surname, what is the rule determining which part of the surname should be repeated? Martin IIIa (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Martin IIIa. I don't know if there is any general guidance. Mostly we should be guided by how the reliable independent sources (on which almost all of the article should be based) refer to the person. It may also make a difference what culture or country the person comes from.

As usual on these pages, it would be much easier to answer if you told us the specific article. General questions are much less answerable and less useful. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Annoying video

An annoying video has appeared in the right margin of the Cocos Island page. I think it is inappropriate and would like to edit it out. How would I go about removing it or having it removed? Kudie924 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You can disable birthday mode on the sidebar of the article - this will remove the Baby Globe gif. CoconutOctopus talk 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kudie924. The mentioned sidebar may be hidden on a glasses icon at top of the page. It's a user setting and you cannot prevent users with the setting from seeing the animation. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering also has the setting. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you much.  Kudie924 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for review and improvement suggestions

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article for review but it is still pending. Could someone please review my draft and suggest? here the draft link Draft:Mukesh Mishra. Thank you. Yogiin (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As the review box at the top says, you just have to be patient. There's a long backlog of drafts for review, so it can take a while. 🍅 fx (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk page cleaning

I'm sure this has been asked before, but:

Am I allowed to remove other users' topics on my talk page if they get too old? I am worried that with time it will become cluttered and menacing for anyone who would want to post something there. I figured it was allowed, since it is my page, but can't hurt to ask. Emholt1 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely - the only thing someone cannot remove on their own talk page is a declined unblock request. You may want to look into WP:ARCHIVING your talk page - this isn't required, but it is recommended. CoconutOctopus talk 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to set up automated archiving for you, if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be nice. Although, where do I go to change the settings? I’d like to know where I can turn it off if I need to. :) (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

See this diff. The parameter names and values should be self-explanatory.

A bot will do the archiving.

Nothing will be archived until there are 5 discussions; at least 4 will always remain (unless you change the settings). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks good to me, thanks for the help! Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a doubt

Please don't think I am dumb. The thing is, is it safe to write an article on a underground nuclear or missile-related facility in North Korea. Well, I do have sources, i mean secondary sources that provide a significant coverage on the topic TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"Safe" how? Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I meant “safe” in the sense of whether writing about such a topic could cause issues like the incident involving the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station article. I know that article became controversial after authorities asked for it to be removed, so I was wondering if writing about a nuclear missile facility in North Korea could lead to similar problems.

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not foresee the government of North Korea getting involved in a legal battle with the Wikimedia Foundation. Athanelar (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. I guess it's okay. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would note that the Pierre-sur-Haute incident was based on publicly available sources in the first place, but if it comes from classified military intelligence or if said intelligence was not made public in the first place, I sort of(?) think that would increase legal risks, but again, I'm agreeing with Athanelar here. n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/07/french-secret-service-wikipedia-page TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So long as you are not in North Korea... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh Okay TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Odd pokemon dispute

This is a really odd one, but basically there is an IP editor who keeps changing the page Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Rescue Team DX under the Gameplay topic, to change the number of pokemon stated to be available to play as from 16 to 37, as can be seen in these two edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Rescue_Team_DX&diff=prev&oldid=1342703751 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Rescue_Team_DX&diff=next&oldid=1342703751

This is not right, there are only 16. I have reverted it multiple times and even added sources which list the pokemon available. I have posted a welcome message on their page and so on.

What is weird about it is there is a Talk entry under Player Pokémon from 5 years ago which says the exact same thing; that there was a user changing the number of pokemon to 37 asking for advice. The user that posted that talk page message was banned for some reason I guess: Special:Contributions/108.6.20.61

I feel like I've walked into a years long pokemon dispute XD

Any advice or intervention would be very much appreciated. Chattenoir (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Stupid AfD: How do I delete it and what do I need to read

I recently opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Simner which was quickly and obviously shut down. It's pretty obvious to me 1) I need to read up on my stuff and 2) close it ASAP. Where/how do I do these things? Not that I'll be going back to AfD anytime soon because I'm dumb but just for future reference. Realtent (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

See Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). 🍅 fx (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Realtent I notice nobody directed you towards what you should read up on before future deletions; check out Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process for a primer on how the deletion process works and when it's appropriate. Once you've read that, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has a bit more detail, as does WP:Deletion process. Athanelar (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, I'll read it and keep it in the back of my head! Though after that absolute blunder, I think I will keep away from AfD for the forseeable future informed or no Realtent (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a blunder, and it doesn't need to scare you off from getting involved. We encourage editors to be bold and do what they think is the right thing here; and they're not always correct, but that's fine. Your AfD had all of two comments before you withdrew your nom and it was closed; what harm was done? You wasted a couple of editor-minutes of work that could've been spent elsewhere, big whoop. There are editors out there right now shamelessly performing vandalism or inserting AI slop into articles that will take dozens or hundreds of editor-hours to clean up. Nobody cares that you got overeager and bungled an AfD, I promise.

Read up on the process, maybe read through some already-closed AfD discussions to get an idea for how the process works and what kind of arguments are made and policies/guidelines get quoted, maybe vote in a few open AfDs once you think you've got an idea for how it works, and jump right back in to make a nomination when you see an article that you think needs it.

Editors who are willing to boldly try, learn from their mistakes, and boldly try again are exactly the kind of people we want on Wikipedia. So long as you learn from your mistakes nobody cares about you making them; we've all done it, and we'll all do it again. Athanelar (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

policy on sources in different languages

I was wondering where I can find the information on WP policy for sources that are non-English. I've noticed some stubs that have a decent chunk of content in other language wikis. Ecoutez moi (talk | contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ecoutez moi. This is explained in WP:NONENG. Basically, the same policy/guideline (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) applies to sources cited in English Wikipedia articles regardless of their source language. If, however, you're going to cite a non-English source, you should be competent in the source language so that you can properly do so. You probably should also not assume that any sources you might find cited in articles on any of the non-English Wikipedias are automatically OK for English Wikipedia. Not all of the other language Wikipedias are as vigorous when it comes to assessing the reliability of sources being cited; so, you'll find lots of citations to sources that would, at best, be considered questionable for English Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What Marchjuly says, Ecoutez moi. Also, you're likely to find plenty of citations of "sources" that merely talk about this or that -- or, worse, that merely mention it -- and that fail to provide the propositional content that backs up what the article says. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's not mandatory, but it is useful to use the |quote= parameter in your chosen citation template to provide a relevant quote from the non-English source which English-speaking readers can run through a machine translator if they want to quickly verify the information. It can be understandably tough for an English-speaking reader to try to parse an entire foreign-language source in search of the part which verifies the information which is referenced to it. Athanelar (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Excessively technical language

I am not a scientist, however I'm intelligent and have a good command of the English language. In spite of this, SO many Wikipedia articles are unintelligible to any but a tiny percentage of experts. I had thought that Wikipedia was for the general public. Why can't articles be written in a way that is scientifically accurate, but also comprehensible? ~2026-15360-73 (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

We actually do aim for exactly that; there's guidelines like WP:Make technical articles understandable and MOS:JARGON for exactly this reason.

If you've found a particular article which you find to be overly technical or full of jargon, please tell us so that somebody can improve it, or you can simply tag it with the template {{technical}} at the top of the page yourself. Athanelar (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Subst template in signatures

Hey! I have seen that it says transcluded templates are not allowed in signatures, but are substituted templates allowed?

eg subst:User:Jacksonvil/Signature

producing Jacksonvil (talk|contribs)

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I don't think you should,, as users who choose to substitute their signature are required to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much use in substituting a template as part of your signature instead of just modifying the signature itself, considering it is inserted in its entirety every time you type ~~~~ anyway. Athanelar (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I meant to put a subst inside of preferences>signature Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The limit for signatures, even when substituted, is 255 characters though... but again you still gotta monitor the subst signature template a lot n.h.huit, 化けの花 06:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)