Wikipedia:Teahouse

Theroadislong, 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.]

Is it okay to create a page on the Chicken Jockey trend?

Moved to Talk:A Minecraft Movie § February 2026 split proposal

Help with my draft submission (Draft:ExcludedUK)

Hi, I’m a new editor and I’ve rewritten and resubmitted Draft:ExcludedUK. It has been declined before, but I’ve made substantial changes and want to check that it is correctly in the AfC review queue. Could someone please confirm that everything is in order, and let me know if there’s anything further I should do while waiting for review? Thank you PurpleDiva2902 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I checked, and it looks like you have not submitted your draft to be reviewed, yet. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

oh gosh! What an idiot I am...my first draft was rejected so I re-wrote. Thank you for letting me know... I will try and work out how to re-submit again. Thank you PurpleDiva2902 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I've submitted it under your name. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help PurpleDiva2902 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 13:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed (and declined) your draft. Please see the feedback I posted there. Take time to click on and thoroughly read all of the links before you try to revise and resubmit again. Athanelar (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I am not responsible for the quality of the draft. All I did was help this editor submit their draft because of this request. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I definitely have to agree with Athanelar, that this is not suitable for publication at this time. Far, far too much of the article is about what the group and people affiliated with the group report about the organization. What independent commentary there is largely geared towards describing things the organization said. There's also a lot of language that is textbook LLM output, from the random bolding, some punctuation choices uncommon in human editors, and a lot of the buzzwordy writing style. There's also the notorious LLM tendency to write weird meta articles that write about there being coverage, not about what the coverage says.

Honestly, this article has a poor enough foundational source, and is so littered with problems in nearly every sentence, that I think this is a WP:TNT candidate. I think this is a possibly notable subject, but the article itself is what's holding it back at this point. Someone wanting to write an article about this subject should start from the beginning, and collect sources that are independent, providing significant coverage of the organization far beyond things the organization or its affiliates say. Then write an article based off of that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever considered being kinder in your comments? I explained after the first submission was rejected that I am not very IT savvy and I am also disabled, and I have had very few helpful responses and this is a very confusing platform if you are not proficient in IT.

Had someone initially explained what I needed to do, then of course I would have done it. #BeKind ~2026-98979-1 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I have said nothing unkind. I have detailed the reasons why this article is likely not be considered suitable for Wikipedia, and outlined what would need to happen for it to become an appropriate article, in response to you (ostensibly, since this was a TA) asking for confirmation that everything was in order. As my grandfather used to say, never ask a question if you're not prepared to hear the answer.

What would have been unkind would have been not telling you the truth about the poor state of this article. What would have been unkind would have been to encourage you to continue editing the article without outlining an approach that has any chance of success.

Few of the problems of this article have anything to do with IT proficiency or being disabled. Using independent sources that talk about the subjects is not something that requires technological prowess, and is, in fact, something people were able to do in writing long before computers even existed. And I utterly reject the premise that word transcription for the disabled requires the generation of AI-based hokum as I have direct knowledge of how this type of software works from a colleague of mine who still does excellent journalism with advanced ALS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think maybe you need a few lessons in how to communicate with people who do not know how this work and as for refuting about disability…you do not know what disability I have to make that comment. ~2026-98979-1 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The AI usage in that article clearly goes far beyond the technical aspects of formatting, which are far from the biggest problems with the article. It appears to me you're not actually interested in hearing things you do not wish to hear that would make this article suitable for Wikipedia, so there's no further useful advice I can provide in this discussion. I wish you all the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your useful advice PurpleDiva2902 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-98979-1 or @PurpleDiva2902: I don't want you to ever accept being personally attacked, but in this situation you absolutely were not attacked. Arguably, your own response here might have been a mild personal attack, but it was understandable in the context and no big deal.

Saying that certain things about an article are not good, in a situation where that is clearly true, is not the smallest bit unkind. It doesn't involve blaming anyone. If someone blames themselves after reading a blame-free statement, they are free to do that, but it isn't right (or even honest) for them to claim that the person who stated some facts was unkind. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback PurpleDiva2902 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Assistance editing page

Hello, I am working on a draft article for Wikipedia that has been rejected twice. I've worked to edit the language to not include "peacock language," but I would appreciate a second set of eyes to take a look and see if I've succeeded. I've also added more citations, but would appreciate any feedback on if I should cite others (or what to do if there is no way to cite the info!).

I joined the chat today to try to get live assistance, but no one responded after 30 minutes and I need to move on to another task. I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Thank you! @JadeCanary87 ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You signed with a username, but that account doesn't exist. I assume we are talking about Draft:Financial Counseling Association of America.

If you cannot cite info, the info cannot be in the article.

You are telling us what you want the world to know about your organization, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the organization, not what it views as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we are discussing the Financial Counseling Association of America. Thank you for this feedback. I'm running into the same issue that Electra/Irina Georgescu had above. While there are many articles discussing the FCAA, most have quotes from organizational leaders included, with the exception of a few.

I'll have to dig in to see if we can come up with other information. It's a challenge! ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-91327-0.

Yes, it is a challenge

Most organizations (most people, most companies, most schools, most neighbourhoods, most artists, most bands etc etc) in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an acceptable article about them is not possible.

Editors who spend some time improving existing articles come to understand this, and don't waste their time trying to create impossible articles.

Many new editors come here with the specific purpose of creating an article about something in particular, and have no understanding of this, or of Wikipedia's strictures on promotion, and consequently have a miserable and frustrating experience.

(I have not looked at your draft or your sources, so I've no idea whether FCAA does or does not meet the criteria for notability: but clearly, even if it does, you have already spent considerable time and effort on an ineffective approach). ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

While that makes sense, I could also see the benefit in relinquishing some of the high standards to allow for more articles. However, I'm sure that comes along with it's own quandaries that I'm not aware of!

It is quite interesting that there are already articles about other organizations, schools, bands, etc. that do not meet the current criteria. Do you have any idea when the criteria changed to become more stringent about notability? (i.e. the page I'm writing about has a competitor, who has an article. Their article is flagged with notes from 2010, but it's still up!)

This is the frustrating aspect -- an existing article flagged as not meeting standards from 15 years ago remains life and active on WP. But a new article that has more, quality citations is repeatedly denied.

The approach now is to look for more secondary, independent articles that speak to the validity of the organization. It's a learning process! ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• remains LIVE and active ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

We even have a page about that: WP:OTHERSTUFF TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Helpful read and logically makes sense. Thank you!

One other question -- If I originally included citations that quote leaders from the organization the page is about, should I delete those citations from the page before resubmitting? Is it helpful for editors to review them or just a pain in the rear/waste of time? ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You are free to locate inappropriate articles and nominate them for deletion(WP:AFD). This is a volunteer project, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I could, but the competitor offers services that help the general public (as does my client), so I do not feel it is appropriate for me to request their deletion just because my client's page is struggling to be approved.

Yes, good point. Sigh. It just took awhile to pull the sources and they're good sources, but they have quotes. It's the sadness of wasted time... ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly what you wish to do (or not do) on Wikipedia is up to you. I'm just saying that inappropriate articles can and do exist, and are only dealt with if someone wants to take action- which is why we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What purpose are those quotations now serving in the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Having some issues with supporting evidence for a new article

I'm a bit lost on what to do with the feedback:

"Being AO qualifies as WP:N, however, we can't approve an article through AfC on the basis of WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 if there is no WP:RS that provides WP:V"

The article I'm writing is some bigraphical background on someone who made a donation of a significant artistic collection. The collection itself has a wikipedia article. Is that not supporting enough? The two books written about the collection and the donor both have ISBN numbers quoted, and there are websites that reference the person's received honours and also newspaper articles. Paulie24Aus (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It's very easily possible, and quite often happens, that - by Wikipedia's definitions - notable work has been done by a non-notable person. If you don't carefully study Wikipedia's special definition of "notable", it's easy to misunderstand how it works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The collection itself has a wikipedia article. Is that not supporting enough? No, for two reasons. We don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, and creators don't inherit notability from their works. Athanelar (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Brown,_Australian_art_collector,_artist,_and_philanthropist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulie24Aus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Paulie24Aus: not a draft-specific issue, but large swaths of the text have no inline citation. How is the reader supposed to verify the information within and know what source supports which part of the text? (Courtesy links: Draft:Joseph Brown, Australian art collector, artist, and philanthropist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Paulie24Aus, if the two books listed in "Selected publications" devote significant biographical coverage to Brown and not just to his impressive art collection, then those books should be formatted as and used as references. That should help establish Brown's notability. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

One is the art collection, one is biographical Paulie24Aus (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The two obituaries you cite contain good material. Maybe you could make more use of them? Maproom (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Change our site name from Bank für Tirol und Vorarlberg to BTV Vier Länder Bank

Hi dear Wikipedia community,

how can I change our site name of the English version and of the Dutch version from Bank für Tirol und Vorarlberg to BTV Vier Länder Bank? Our German version is already correct. Could you please change the English and Dutch versions? The name BTV Vier Länder Bank is our official name now.

Thank you and kind regards

Mark Huter Hutma (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

done that. it is now located at BTV Vier Länder Bank and i left a redirect on the old page name N51 DELTA TALK 09:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi N51 DELTA,

Thank you. I can see the change on the English version. However, on the Dutch version I cannot see the change. One question: Since we do not need the Dutch version, can you delete it, please? We did not create the page, somebody else did.

Kind regards

Mark Huter Hutma (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia is run separately from the English Wikipedia, so you would have to take your issue up there (and I’m not sure whether an article can be deleted unless specific requirements are in place. However asking for a company article to be deleted probably won’t happen as Wikipedia isn’t censored and so anyone can make an article and have it stay in the respective Wikipedia as long as it fulfils notability and sourcing guidelines) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater thank you for the info. Kind regards Hutma (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hutma, a couple of things of note:

• you are under the misapprehension that the articles in question are somehow yours (as in your comment about the Dutch version, that "we do not need the Dutch version"). These are encyclopedic articles maintained by the Wikipedia community and offered free to the world. While your opinions about the article are always welcome (there is a special place for that, called the "Talk page"—see Talk:BTV Vier Länder Bank) you do not own the article and your needs with respect to the article content are irrelevant. Not trying to be harsh here, just accurate and realistic; see Wikipedia's WP:Conflict of interest guideline. That said, your input on the Talk page about mistakes in the article, or new facts that you think are worth adding to the article, are very welcome.
• An editor here has looked at the article and is of the opinion that the topic of your bank is not WP:Notable, and has proposed that it be deleted. You can see the big banner at the top of the page. Any editor can stop this process by removing the banner from the article. The next step may then well be that it will be "nominated for deletion", which is a formal process where editors gather together to discuss whether the topic is WP:Notable and therefore should be kept, or not notable, and should be deleted. If there is a nomination for deletion, you are welcome to participate in the discussion. (If you do, please disclose your connection in your first comment.) I hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

How do i get reliable sources?

Hey, i made a draft about a minecraft youtuber called "Wemmbu" and it got declined for having non-solid sources. I was wondering how i can get them if my school PC is in exam mode(Yes, the whole school is in it, it's a private school where they blocked everything except school stuff). Because i don't have any way to get them at all, so how do i? ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! The main issue usually isn’t access from a specific computer, but whether reliable, independent sources actually exist. For a YouTuber, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable third-party publications (for example, established news outlets, magazines, or independent interviews). Social media pages, YouTube videos, Discord servers, or fan sites don’t count...If your school device blocks websites, you may need to search later from a personal device or a public library. However, if independent coverage simply doesn’t exist, the article may not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. A good first step is to search the person’s name in Google News or other news databases and see if there are in-depth articles about them from reputable publications. If you can’t find those, it may be better to wait until more coverage exists before resubmitting the draft. ButterflyCat (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help. I'll try to find a way, i have more about the SMP soon also, i'll try and get sources for them too. Plus, i can't log in either but that's alrightas long as i can contribute. ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

To be honest I don’t want to be a kill-joy but I doubt there is significant coverage of Wembbu, considering the article on Mumbo Jumbo (who you would think would be notable enough) was deleted for not being notable. If Mumbo Jumbo can’t have an article (as of yet) Wembbu might not qualify also The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Uhmm... you know who wemmbu is right?

He's the best elytra mace/normal mace PvP-er, as also the most wanted person on the biggest minecraft SMP ever(SMP is not an open-to-all server).

Alongside FlameFrags, ParrotX2, Eggchan and SpokeIsHere. Sorry if i make a lot of drama btw ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Being the “best PvP-er” or popular on an SMP is not a notability criterion on Wikipedia. Articles require significant coverage in reliable. Fan reputation, in-game achievements, or community popularity do not establish encyclopedic notability. If such coverage does not exist, the subject does not yet qualify for an article. ButterflyCat (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Beat me to it 😅 I was going to say the exact same thing The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies — I was stay and wait for user replay. and replied a bit quickly. Didn’t mean to jump in ahead of you 🥹 ButterflyCat (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all, two answers can be ether than one ✌️ The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, should i delete the page then or? And yes, almost all his old videos are scripted, for the past 6 months he hasnt had a single scripted video ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You can keep the draft, maybe copy it and keep it as a word document if you don’t want to lose your information you spent time on, you can look for more sources, books etc. But I feel like that probably won’t turn up many sources. YouTubers are some of the hardest subjects to write an article on (most YouTubers you would think are notable don’t qualify for articles), I don’t even think big YouTubers like Grian or others have articles The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok😔 I will write something thats actually notable now ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

What about the app/site "Pixilart"? ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that writing a new article is not the only or even best way one can contribute to Wikipedia. We have millions of articles, most of which need help in one way or another. Many people are very successful editors without ever creating a single new article. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

But im scared to mess something up, if i do i'll probably get banned from editing for another 2 years. I got banned for both vandalism(dont know how) and inappropriate content(agreed). And how do i find pages that i can edit? ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I have one i really want to edit and that is List of Roblox games I want to put in a page about Roblox Rivals. Its number 7 in the most popular Roblox games of 2025 and 2026 ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can find a source or two stating that it’s popular than feel free to add it with the necessary stats The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, i will try, but do fandoms count? For example the fandoms on fandom.com? If not there's only one solid source ~2026-94681-5 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly for Lists, I suppose lists have less solid rules than articles, so one solid source might work in a list, but do not quote me on that The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can find reliable and secondary articles on Pixilart then go for it. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am aware, I’ve watched him before (not anymore), but just because he is a good player and most wanted on the server (although aren’t some of the videos scripted, correct me if I’m wrong) that doesn’t qualify for a Wikipedia article, reliable and in-depth sources are required. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In other words, to get a Wikipedia article, a person's entire story has to already be written several times in mainstream non-gaming media, and that story had to be told without their help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, where did you find the policy or guideline that only mainstream non-gaming media can be used to establish the notabiility of a YouTuber? Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

He probably means gaming Fandoms or like Reddit posts in the gaming sphere (although it is a bit confusing as some gaming media can certainly be used) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Partly by my almost complete lack of experience with Wikipedia articles about YouTubers, and partly by neglecting the obvious fact that not all game-related publications are "just a blog" etc. Sorry to all here for giving out false information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say it was false, just not the whole picture The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Inserting images

I have a few images I want to insert into a recent re-writing of a topic in WikIpedia. When i attempted to do so, up popped standard questions about copyright, etc. None of what I want to insert is copyrighted. One is a naval message, sent to me by my boss when I was at sea in command of a submarine. The message is way, way, past its retention deadline and exists only in my personal file. Can I just post it as if it is a personal snapshot? SoonerCO (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Before getting into copyright I'm wondering what the purpose of putting an image of this communication would be. Wikipedia requires that information be publicly available in published reliable sources; documents in private hands aren't acceptable as sources. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The message tells the second half of the story I'm telling. SoonerCO (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You can upload it to Wikimedia commons, if you are going to use it as more of a visual image as opposed to a source (which is fine if it’s meant to show for example what a naval message looks like, or documentation of a notable event etc.) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Almost everything has copyright automatically attached to it, even if its creator wished it didn't. I don't know the copyright status of official Navy messages - maybe it's normal, maybe they fall under some rule about government publications (if your boss was [technically] a government employee), or something else.

In the normal case, the person who wrote something holds the copyright, and they can't escape being the copyright holder without jumping through legal hoops. (But this might not be the normal case.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Aren’t official navy and army documents Propety of the army, which (at least for the Uk) I don’t think they have copyright, but they can be classified or kept for at least 60 years if my knowledge is correct (please correct me if I am wrong) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the messages WERE the property of the U. S. Navy when being maintained by them. This one is more than 30 years old - well past its 8 year disposition / destruction date. This one will soon be in the hands of the U. S. Navy History and Heritage Command (alongside much other similar material) and will be part of the Navy's official history.

As for classified material, some can remain classified indefinitely.

Nothing of interest to me in telling the history of USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723) is or ever was classified. SoonerCO (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

"Property of ..." is a completely different issue. Copyright is its own can of worms. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that the copyright status of old documents from the Navy is properly settled and defined, because there have been so many of them for so long. I just don't have a clue what it really is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that because they’re the product of a public entity they’re considered to have been, from creation, in the public forum.

which would then be why, if sensitive, they are protected by classification, distribution controls, etc., each and all established either by executive direction or law. ~2026-98357-9 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

About property: it's the same reason that if I buy a novel, I don't get to act as if I wrote it. It's my property, but their copyright. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

To everyone here offering "answers" here, please verify accuracy before commenting. All written material and images produced by employees of the US Federal government when carring out their job duties is in the public domain and unrestricted by copyright in any way. Whether or not this particular document is appropriate for use on Wikipedia is another matter but there is no copyright issue. Trying to apply UK copyright law to US documents is not useful. Please do not speculate when answering questions at the Teahouse. If you do not know, let someone better informed answer the question. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate the discussion, however. It was prompt and came to a logical conclusion. Asking this of the Navy would be fruitless. It has bigger fish to fry. The way it has maintained historical records - hit-and-miss or not at ball - is adequate testimony. ~2026-98258-4 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Outdated Page

It seems that WikiWarMonitor has largely been inactive for at least a decade now, I can't seem to find any recent papers regarding it's purpose. Is there a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information? Willing to move this to the talk page. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've added it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't aware it may or may not fall into speedy deletion criteria. Many thanks. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of "a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information". Studebaker describes a car manufacturer/brand that has been defunct for over half a century, but carries no such warning. (Rather, this is done via categories, e.g. Category:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States.)

"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion." I'm not at all sure that this would be uncontroversial.

Among the "Top 100 controversial articles on English Wikipedia" was, we're told, List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos -- but WikiWarMonitor is of course not to blame for Wikipedia editor silliness.

I note the claim that "WikiWarMonitor is operated by a group of researchers from Oxford Internet Institute, Rutgers University, and Central European University" -- a short list that doesn't include Wikimedia. Yet the article's sole category is Category:Wikimedia community projects. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem I find with the article is that it was written as if the site was meant to be up to date with yearly findings, but it is clearly no longer the case. I wasn't originally advocating for it's deletion, alas, it may be so. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

how to actually become a exprience editor

So today i was doing a translation on a wikipedia page and found out that i aint a experience editor so i cant actually publish it, SO i want to ask how to become a "experience editor" Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You can use the Article Wizard to submit your draft for a review. Please know that translations are treated no differently than any other submission; the subject must meet our notability criteria- which may be different from the language Wikipedia you translated from. The English Wikipedia is usually stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You should meet the criteria to directly create an article, you only have to have 10 edits and be four days old. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

oh then im fine then thank you Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe @Nerd-in-history is referring to the automatic translation, which requires being extended confirmed; you need to have been on the site for 30 days and made 500 edits to use the translation tool. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If this is your first article, I recommend going through the Articles for Creation process. I did as well for my first article, and it's a great way to improve your writing and get feedback. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

New article

Hello, I been trying to make an article about a motorbike that's missing one, I alredy found the brochure and technical specifications to post but I'm still refining it and getting more sources, but what do you think? (I still gotta submit an original photo of the bike which I still need to take but yeah, that's not a problem)

Draft:Kawasaki Kazer 110 (AN110) Madethistohelp (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The main thing you need for an article is not the brochure and specifications, but to show how much was independently written about it. Magazine articles and that type of thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If it was a less recognized model that didn't get much written about it, your information might be able to go into a bigger article about the company's whole bike production history, or something like that. I don't know much about it; hopefully someone sees this who knows a lot more than I do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I been upgrading the info and getting more reliable sources for Draft:Kawasaki Kazer 110 (AN110)

(I'm still missing the original image but it's not a problem, just need to take a photo)

What do you think now? I still want to get more info but I think I'm doing good Madethistohelp (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft needs some changes to make it fit the way Wikipedia works.

First, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and if you have any sources that don't count as reliable, cut them out.

Then please read Help:Referencing for beginners and do your references the way they say to do it. You've made it sort of look right, but it isn't right yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The way you started this article is not really how it's done; it's not just you, this is a very common mistake. There's an essay that explains a much better way of starting, so you won't have to write articles that are Wikipedia:BACKWARD. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikidata seems outdated

Wikipedia:Wikidata

The instructions about interlanguage links are for the old skin, and there may be other changes too. I tried asking the talk page, wikiproject, and #wikidata but they aren't very active. Can anyone here check or is there a better place to ask? Wimwamble (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You made a decent attempt at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed, Wimwamble. How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its foreign-language counterpart? I'd say "How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its other-language counterpart(s)?" Go to the foreign-language article. On the right side pane, look for a link to the Wikidata item for that topic. How about "Go to any one of the other-language articles. Somewhere at the top or to one side, you should see a link corresponding to either '4 languages' or 'Add a language' -- but with the actual number rather than the '4' arbitrarily chosen here, and in the language of the page." But we shouldn't be discussing this here: instead, at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed. And not "we" but instead "you", plural; because I'm not good at this kind of work. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

COI for new articles, best way forward?

I work in a field of science/engineering that does not exist on Wikipedia, it's relatively new, but old enough there's a decent amount of literature around now. But everything I'm reading is suggesting that I shouldn't try and write an article because of conflict of interest. What's the best way to 'suggest an article' and potentially give any future writer/editor a leg up by providing relevant references? ~2026-98456-9 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

When you say conflict of interest, are you referring to presenting your own research? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've published a lot in the area yes, and I've written a review article on the topic which I suspect would be a good basis for a wiki article. I wouldn't of course be suggesting adding in technical details, more describing the general field of work.

It's called 'astrometallurgy' the closest I can find is an article on In_situ_resource_utilization, which is a very broad category. Unlikely metal (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Unlikely metal: Please take a look at WP:EXPERT because it might also apply to your situation in addition to WP:COI? FWIW, you're only going to be considered to have a COI if you start trying to add or create content about yourself or your work to Wikipedia or if you try to do the same for someone or something else who you're closely connected to too. If you just are planning to edit as a "content expert" about subject you're familiar with, then that does mean you've got a COI. You can, in principle, WP:CITESELF for content in articles if your work has been published in reliable sources (e.g., reputable peer-reviewed academic publications with an established history of editorial control), but you can't cite anything that might be considered original research by Wikipedia. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article about something you do have a COI with, I strongly suggest you do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC). You should be OK working on a draft for an article as long as you don't stray too far outside the lines of what's considered to be OK for Wikipedia and the subject matter has at least a reasonable claim of Wikipedia:Notability; then, you can submit the draft for review once you think it's ready. You shouldn't expect, though, for the typical AfC reviewer or typical Wikipedia reader to be an expert on what you're trying to create an article about; so, please keep WP:JARGON in mind. You might also want to ask for pointers on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject on writing articles about techinical matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'll take that route then! Unlikely metal (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia space

Hello! This is a question that has popped in my mind dozens of times before but I've never actually taken the initiative to ask it. Is there a search bar or function that can be used for searching Wikipedia space instead of the default of searching article space? For instance, if I wanted to find to find the wiki policy on synthesis and I typed it into the main search bar I'd be taken to Synthesis when what I'm really looking for is WP:SYNTH. Same question goes for searching templates. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Search for "Synthesis" (no quotes necessary) | Take the lowermost option: "Search for pages containing Synthesis" | Search in: | deselect "Default" | Add namespaces... -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I never noticed the "Search for pages containing" at the bottom! Thank you for pointing that out.

As a bonus geeky side-note, I changed my default settings to include all spaces and tried typing in "WP:SY..." and the search bar autopopulated the policy page! This is exactly what I was looking for. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You can also just put "WP:" or "Wikipedia:" at the start of your search. Searching "WP:SYNTH" will show the expected results. Athanelar (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Information

Hey folks, a user recently removed my addition on this page. In the early Life section, I had added that this man was married to Kailashkamini who was a descendant of Manik Ram Basu and even cited he. The user after removing my edit, gave the reason- Article is not about spouse. Seriously? Adding a single line about marriage makes the article about her? BubbleRaechel (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that that person might have been trying to follow a rule that they misread or misunderstood. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Bring up the matter at Talk:Peary Charan Sarkar, BubbleRaechel. When you do so, be sure to ping Viewmont Viking. When you address Viewmont Viking, do not ask "Seriously?", as I have never seen doing so lead to a concession ("No, as you suspect, I was joking") or to any other advance in a discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I shall. Thanks! BubbleRaechel (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I use a school hub page

Hi. I am working on the Brisbane christian college article. I noticed the namesake of the Wesley house was missing but there is an online school hub page about it. however, the page is only readable by members of the school community. can I still use it as a source? SabrinaSwift (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi SabrinaSwift. Your description of the source makes it seem like user-generated content, and such sources aren't typically considered to be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. The limited access of the source itself is also problematic because it sounds like it would make verification by anyone not a member of the school community near impossible. Ideally, the same information would be best verified by a citation to a WP:SECONDARY reliable source, but even a citation to a WP:PRIMARY source could work if it was more accessible. Such a source doesn't necessarily need to be available online (though that makes things easier), but it needs to be published and reasonably accessible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally no. Sources should be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Dagoofybloke ⋆˙⟡talk? ๋࣭⭑ 05:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Schools don’t have much notability, I’ve seen many schools (articles about them) be deleted or draftified beacsue they simply have no credible sources other than a list to prove they exist (which isn’t helpful for notability) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

the school has been mentioned in news articles ect, which are cited on the article. thanks for the clarification! SabrinaSwift (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

KeyolTranslater, you cannot generalize about the notability of schools. While most are not notable, many of them are, and Wikipedia has thousands of acceptable articles about schools. It is all about the quality and depth of coverage of the school in reliable, independent sources. SabrinaSwift, being "mentioned" is not enough. The coverage must be significant and in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I said “many” and “much” which doesn’t mean I think all schools aren’t notable, but many aren’t, especially local or rural schools which have no claim to notability. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

here are some sources:

https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/brisbane-mans-fence-flattened-by-school-bus-moments-after-dropping-off-kids/c3d7179c-9324-4a5b-ac7a-fc45a2c8599a

https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fquestnews%2Fsoutheast%2Fbrisbane-christian-college-starts-new-aviation-academy%2Fnews-story%2F3ac49e9eb0a05cb0f2172662ecff01d8&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE

https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/north/the-former-nyanda-state-high-school-may-get-a-second-chance-as-a-school-with-the-site-up-for-sale/news-story/0aadae1c6e870809a0a6196da6326e3f

submit an AFD if you want, but I doubt it will go though considering how many other Aussie schools have pages :P SabrinaSwift (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, @SabrinaSwift, at least two of those are not good sources. The first one is about an incident with a bus, not about the school; the second is paywalled but sounds like the information probably came from the school; the third is speculation about the school possibly acquiring the site, which is basically WP:TRIVIA.

While you edit, keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't care what the school wants everyone to know about it - we only care what independent, reliable sources have chosen to write of their own accord. At the moment a lot of the school's article is promotional, trivia, and routine business activities, so it needs a good trim. I'd actually suggest you start by doing that, before trying to add anything new. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

An article which was repeatedly created and got salted in the past.

I am thinking of creating an article which has a terrible history of being created and deleted in the past. This one Draft:Emiway Bantai. No idea how it even reached this level of mess, currently this draft has a redirect to another draft under the subject's real name. But according to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME it should be titled Emiway Bantai right? So should i start the draft in Draft:Emiway Bantai or in Draft:Bilal Shaikh (Rapper) which has the history of AFC declined. Dagoofybloke ⋆˙⟡talk? ๋࣭⭑ 05:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from creating the draft and submitting it for review, you'd just have to make sure it's a very strong draft because it clearly has a habit of being created in a low effort fashion by paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Use the name that appears most in stories by English reporters. The other writer of a draft might have been trying to be sneaky by using a different name.

What sources do you already have for it? The #1 main thing you're going to need is three sources where every single one of them covers every detail of WP:42 - three sources where every one of them is perfect. Without those, it's probably just going to get thrown out again, so you might as well start there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

did a surface level search and found these [1] [2] and this article [3] claims that he won Best Indian Act at MTV Europe Music Awards which i think is a notable award. There were more i didn't attach here...and looking at them, i think he should pass gng if the article is properly made. Some of the sources might already be there but failed to come out of the prose as commented by the last reviewer. Dagoofybloke ⋆˙⟡talk? ๋࣭⭑ 19:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Out of these three, the last is very short and the first is full of interview answers, automatically disqualifying both of those from WP:42 consideration. (I can't see the second one without a subscription.) But so far, it's not even close. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Company name change

Hello! I'm currently working on a film article that mentions Wētā FX multiple times. However, when the film was in production, the company was called Weta Digital. As of now, it is referred to as Wētā FX in every instance, but after the first instance (in the lead) it is followed by "then known as Weta Digital." Is this correct procedure, or should the old name be used more? Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryOtter. I think it should be fine to refer to the company by its old name for encyclopedic accuracy without clarifying each and every time it's mentioned beyond the first mention. There might not even need to be any need for such clarification anyway because Weta Digital is a WP:REDIRECT to the current name of the company; so, even if you create a Wikilink for the old name it will automatically send readers to the correct article about the company. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of the reason for Marchjuly's answer is a kind of rule (maybe it's written or not, but important), that when you need to refer to something by both an old name and a new name, the main thing you have to do is make sure readers understand the real meaning behind what you wrote and are not confused. (That's why most of the other old name/new name rules exist.) Once you've made things clear and correct for the reader, you don't have to waste your time (and theirs) by restating it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you please review my article in the Sandbox

Hi , I am trying to create a wikipedia page for aliving person . i have created the draft in Sandbox can you check. TechEditorUAE (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE I moved the sandbox to Draft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi and Thank you for submitting it, now just take a cup of tea and wait for formal review usually takes days or weeks or months or a minute. Happy editing. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Traduction article Syd Barrett en Français

Pour info, il y a une erreur de traduction dans l'article Syd Barrett anglais traduit en français : ".... Syd Barrett a eu comme élève la mère de Roger Waters ..." Non, Syd Barrett comme enseignante la mère de Roger Waters .... Puis-je corriger ce contresens ? Merci. Joisy78 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oui, ou peut corriger les erreurs. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Mais il faudra faire ça dans l'article en langue française. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oui, c’est Vrai The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

OK Merci.

Mais je ne peux pas la corriger moi-même apparemment car la traduction en français est semi-protégée ... Joisy78 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

As others have said, you definitely can and should correct errors you find, that's one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. In the future, if you need help with the French edition of Wikipedia, you should ask at their fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux – each language edition of Wikipedia is autonomous and thus we here can't necessarily comment on the policies and practices of the French Wikipedia. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Comme d'autres l'ont dit, vous pouvez et devez absolument corriger les erreurs que vous trouvez ; c'est l'un des principes fondamentaux de Wikipédia. À l'avenir, si vous avez besoin d'aide concernant l'édition française de Wikipédia, vous devriez poser votre question sur le forum des nouveaux contributeurs français : fr:Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux. Chaque édition linguistique de Wikipédia est autonome et nous ne pouvons donc pas nécessairement commenter les politiques et les pratiques de Wikipédia en français. (French translation of Maddy’s comment) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The Swaddle

Draft:The Swaddle

How do I get this approved? I've stated all links about the company I could find. Tuggi79 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You cite at least three sources which meet the criteria at WP:42. If you cannot, then the organisation is not eligible for a Wikipedia article.

In terms of citations we are interested in quality, not quantity. There's more advice at WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

About this...

Sorry, I have a question for the article José Sá, because I'm a soccer expert, I'd know that for goalkeeping stats, it'd show saves, not goals, should I change that? Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like {{Infobox football biography}} doesn't have a parameter for saves, so the template would have to be modified to allow for it. Athanelar (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

can I change it? Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Thenascarsonicblueyfan: No, it's fully protected. You have no template eidts and shouldn't try to edit a template used in 217,000 articles anyway. Do you know a reliable source which lists saves for many goalkeepers? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

transfrmarket.us and trading cards I have (Topps) Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Thenascarsonicblueyfan: Your link doesn't work. José Sá is active so trading cards would be obsolete. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Objectivity regarding an artist's page

Hello! I was filling the wikipedia pages of some UK artists-- one hadn't been updated since 2015 and an editor reverted my update due to it being too "CV-like". I'm not very good at wikipedia and I wasn't sure how to contact this AntiDionysus fellow, so I wished to ask here if there existed templates one could use to just add information to an artist's page without it sounding like a promotional campaign. Thanks in advance! ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

ah, forgot to mention said artist: Katerina Jebb. (btw, I think the edit log shows the edits being made by a different account because I made the initial edits from my laptop. I probably should make my own wikipedia account lol) ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no such template, but you might like to read through WP:NPOV and MOS:WTW. Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, that second one makes sense yes. I think I wrote the exact same thing as the Bob Dylan exemple: "xyz is a great [...]" rather than "this magazine called xyz a great [...]". I assume it'll pass once I change/remove all of these. Thanks! ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right. It also depends on who said these things. If someone is called "great" on the cover of a major trusted publication, it means a lot. If I call someone "great" on my blog, I'm just some guy, so it barely means anything. So if any of these compliments come from lower-quality sources, it might be better to just cut them out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Ping|AntiDionysius}} (renders as "@AntiDionysius:"; also note spelling) will usually reach them; to be sure leave a message on User talk:AntiDionysius. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Each article has an associated talk page where you can explain your edit when it is reverted (WP:BRD is good practice). In case you have a personal or professional relationship in relation to the subject of a biography, WP:COI may be useful. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

On the subject of truth.

What philosophical basis does Wikipedia use to determine what is presents as true? What is the logic behind which information is recorded and how it is published? Is there a dogma that Wikipedia stands by or is it subject to the feelings of the author writing the article at any given time? ~2026-98759-8 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please read WP:TRUTH. Philosophical questions like this are rarely asked in a vacuum; has something prompted your question? 331dot (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I was just curious. This answers my question. Thank you! ~2026-98759-8 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

To answer your other question What is the logic behind which information is recorded and how it is published? the criteria for a subject to receive an article is notability, which is here defined as the subject having been written about in-depth in reliable sources; a requirement which is summarised by the golden rule.

As the other link indicates, Wikipedia cares very little about what is or is not true; because we do not record 'true things,' we record what has been written about notable things. Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What is truth? said jesting Pilate... Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 00:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedians do care about what is/isn't true; it is the basis for determining whether a source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In some cases we know what's true (2+2=4), and in other cases we don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi,

I sometimes see that triggering 'edit filters' is a blockable offense in the wiki world. But I am unsure what that means and how one can do that. I would appreciate an explanation, thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Some edit filters automatically disallow obvious vandalism before it even gets onto the page. I think there are edit filters for catching other things too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh! There's more information at Wikipedia:Edit filter. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, many editors will accidentally trigger some and it may be harmless and without consequence, but it's also useful for patrollers, as it can point out unusual activity. The last time I've triggered one designed to block edits, was when I attempted to blank the talk page of a previous Temporary Account, from a new TA. The filter's code could not detect that both TAs were really the same person using the same IP address and in some cases users assigned a new TA may still have the talk page of their former one open. A common user error that worried nobody, but blocked and logged the edit. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

To add on to what others have said, triggering edit filters on their own isn't a blockable offense. Being blocked for triggering filters depends on what filters you have triggered, for instance counter-disruption related filters. We have a fair amount of edit filters that just exist for logging, such as filters 1339 and 602. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Modern Skin

I used have modern skin enabled within preferences, but after I changed to another skin within appearance I no longer have the option to select Modern. I cannot remember how I originally set it up. Can anyone offer advice? Blethering Scot 19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SKIN has instructions, in the "deprecated" section. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on starting AfD discussions

I have been editing for some days now and I have gained knowledge about reliable sources and formatting. Can I start participating in AfD discussions, and? Also, how do I start the AfD process — what is the proper procedure?ButterflyCat (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Deletion for an overview of the deletion process (of which AfD is just one part). The easiest way to nominate an article at AfD is to use WP:TWINKLE.

You can participate in AfD discussions whenever you like. Athanelar (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll review WP:Deletion and check Twinkle before starting any AfD. Appreciate the clarification. ButterflyCat (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Question re: Wikipedia:Articles with a single source

Hi folks,

I've been editing for a while now, but another editor has recently indicated that some of the list articles I've worked on (population lists for various animal taxa) are in violation of WP:ONESOURCE because all population estimates come from the IUCN Red List. For an example of one of these lists, see List of Pterocliformes by population or any of the child articles of List of birds by population and List of mammals by population.

My understanding of the single source guideline has been that articles with a single citation are generally not good; in the case of these lists, almost all information comes from one organization (IUCN/BirdLife International), but are species-specific and normally have different authors for each species, especially in the case of mammals. What this looks like in the reflist is that every species has its own, species-specific citation, but most/all will be citations to its Red List profile.

I'm hoping to get some clarification on whether the citation structure of these lists violates the one source guideline, and if so, how the articles could be improved -- IUCN is the standard, normally, because they perform semi-regular updates and collate several different studies for the species; if one were to cite all the individual studies, it would likely end up being original research.

Thank you very much for any and all guidance! DuckWrangler97 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

List of Pterocliformes by population has 17 sources, albeit from one publisher.

WP:ONESOURCE is an essay, not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV is a guideline however. 'Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.' 11WB (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I just don't think the articles would be improved by citing outdated guesses for single species from individual papers. IUCN is the standard. It would be like citing a paper from 1993 to report the population of Texas when information from the federal census exists. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

My edits are not constructive

How do I make my edit to a page "constructive"?

Second Australian Imperial Force (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Below are some helpful resources:

-Help:Getting started

-Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia

-Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1

-Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset

-Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1 MossOnALog^Talk 22:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ndombrowski, your only edit to any article was to speed square. It deleted useful content without explanation - that was clearly not constructive. It also added an ® symbol, which against Wikipedia policy, though that is easily forgiven. Maproom (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit to Speed square was probably reverted for contravening MOS:TMRULES which states;

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"; [e.g.,] use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile, avoid TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile and Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context. Athanelar (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

New editor

Hello I am anew editor how do I edit things I tried to edit articles before but it's such a tedious task btw I am doing this on my shitty school chromebook.  ~2026-92530-1 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello I am new to editing on wikipedia can someone show me around please? ~2026-92530-1 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I am a new editor please help me. ~2026-92530-1 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-92530-1, I've sent you a welcome message with some useful information that should help you get started - The Wikipedia Adventure is a great place to begin! Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice my school doesn't allow us to make Wikipedia accounts but it's still a good use of knowledge. ~2026-92530-1 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

We also have some special guidance for younger editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Stub/Start class

Happpy weekend to everyone :)

Is there a way to change the definition of a page from a stub to a start class article? I've been working on this article and i dont think its a stub anymore, is there a tool to check if i'm right? If the article is no longer a stub, and if so, how do i change the definitions inside the article? Thanks for being here 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 Anyone can change the assessment of an article between Start to B class, though there are expected standards for these. To do this, WP:RATER is the easiest way (it's a user script). Otherwise, you can manually go into the talk page in the source editor, find something that says |class=, and change "Stub" there to "Start". HurricaneZeta^C 00:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appriciate ths response 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I tag autobiographies?

I found an article that I have a high degree of certainty is an autobiography. How would one tag it so that it can receive proper attention? ~2026-10026-82 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"Being an autobiography" is, by itself, not wrong. (But that doesn't mean the article is automatically fine, either.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. But I'm new, snd somebody who can examine the article and sources to see if they meet wiki standards would be cool. So how do I mark the article for an experienced editor to see if its cool or no? ~2026-10026-82 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

What problems do you think it has? Maybe whatever it was that tipped you off that the person probably wrote it themselves ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Autobiography}}. If you think the issue warrants immediate attention, you check the instructions of the conflict of interest noticeboard or a similar board [to see if it is an appropriate venue for you to request help]—but only post in one place to avoid decentralized discussion. Best of luck, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but note the guidance in the template documentation: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-10026-82 That particular article was created in 2006, when it looked like this. The standards for biographies in those days were low compared to today but I doubt that it was autobiographical even then. It has been edited by many other editors over the 20 years it has existed. I agree that it could still do with more citations of the best type. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

... actually, I take that back. The page statistics suggests that the bulk of the article was added by an IP and is pretty obviously autobiographical. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

question number 2 in this encyclopedia so far

how do you join one of the countless groups that wikipedai has like wikiprojects the counter vandal unit and i think countless more? Dommer simpson (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Dommer simpson, this makes me wonder if you'd be of help to such groups (or even if you're at the right website). Anyway, these numerous groups (many of which are more or less moribund) typically explain how interested people may join. -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

what how did ya find that Dommer simpson (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Most groups on Wikipedia are informal, and the proper way to join most of them is to start doing whatever work they aim to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Not so; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine#Active participants (a project from the last article the OP edited) and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Participants, each of which include directions for joining the project or group. Please stop answering questions where you do not know, and have not researched, the answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this true, that most groups on Wikipedia are closed-access? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The examples I gave are not "closed access". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood; I should have asked in a better way. Is it true that most groups require each member to join before they can participate? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The examples I gave are not of "[groups requiring] each member to join before they can participate". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are you giving these evasive answers? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Formatting Table

Hi! I'm trying to improve this page (specifically the Vancouver sections) but my table is too wide. What is the best practice here? Thank you in advance! Rivergnawdelete (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Rivergnawdelete,

1. Place the sorting arrows under the column headers
2. Replace each comma in the Hosts column with {{br}}
3. Change date format to yyyy-mm-dd
4. Change the header in col. 1 to ACTRA{{br}}Award, and change all the data values in column 1 to piped links; for example, row 1 col. 1 becomes [[1st ACTRA Awards|1st]], and so on
5. Use col specifications in the header section with style max-width css specifications

See Help:Table (and related Table pages linked from the top of that page); lmk if you need assistance with any of these. Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Do you have any advice for the Vancouver sections? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACTRA_Award&wvprov=sticky-header#UBCP/ACTRA_Awards_2023-2025_(Vancouver) Rivergnawdelete (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Rivergnawdelete, the Vancouver table cells seem to already be at minimum width or close to it, so I would look elsewhere for savings. The widest table has three rows and ten columns. For that one, you might have one interesting possibility by inverting the table—that is, swapping rows and columns, so that you end up with three columns for the years and ten rows for the award categories. (A downside of this approach is that it might be a bit confusing for readers used to having the categories as columns.) Inverting a table is very cumbersome to do by hand, but there is a user script somewhere here I've used before that can manage it, so we should try to find that. Alternatively, you might try asking your fave LLM to invert the table for you; it might be able to manage it. As for the other tables that have 7 rows and 10 columns, you just have to try it out and see how it looks. And please don't use the article itself for your experiments; instead, copy the table code to your sandbox (or to Special:ExpandTemplates) and do your trials there, until it looks good, then copy back. Lmk how it goes! Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Africa (Goddess) Roman or Berber

Hello, I am asking the community's opinion on the article of a deity known as Africa (goddess), she is mentioned as a berber deity and her origins are traced to north africa and was worshiped by berbers, she has a cult center in north africa and temples of worship there, after Rome took over north africa they adopted some north african deities, among them is Africa, despite this she had no temples in italy and has no cult centre in italy only still in North africa.

The disagreement in the article occured over classifying her, in my opinion she must be classified as a berber deity who was adopted in the roman pantheon.

Another user disagrees and thinks she must be classified as a Roman deity.

what do you think is optimal in this scenario ? Deceptecon (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Academic consensus as stated by scholarly sources on the matter is optimal, @Deceptecon. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, your opinion is never part of the answer, even if you're legitimately an expert. And the same goes for community opinion, which can be important in how Wikipedia is run, but has zero authority over ancient goddesses. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk: Africa (goddess). Of course, the opinions of Wikipedia editors are part of the answer, if those opinions are based on what high quality reliable sources say, and on Wikipedia's core content policies, and its guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre

Other language link wikicode issue

Hello,
Regarding the Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre, on the left hand column, where are displayed the wikilinks to other languages article versions (FR and RO), there is a mistake that I could not correct: The link to the Romanian version of the article is wrong. It directs to a non existing article: TVRM Educațional whereas it should direct to ro:Teatrul Național de Operetă și Musical „Ion Dacian”. I need help from a developper or someone that has the access rights to alter the code on this precise link.
Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Albacore60: Fixed by [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

[ec] "Left hand column"—OP referred to the interwiki link in the sidebar, which was indeed broken, although your edit was also a good fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The incorrect code produced text starting wuth [[ro:TVRM Educațional]] instead of [[TVRM Educațional]]. This made the wrong interlanguage link in the sidebar (see WP:LOCALLINK). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a developer issue: The link is sourced from the corresponding entry on Wikidata. I purged that entry, and the issue is now resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your action and speedy intervention :) Albacore60 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding deletion tag on “ബാഡ് ബണ്ണി”

Hello, I noticed that the article “ബാഡ് ബണ്ണി” (Malayalam Article) has been tagged with {{SD|യാന്ത്രിക വിവർത്തനം}} (machine translation). I would like to understand whether the article should be improved and cleaned up instead of deleted. If possible, could someone guide me on what specific corrections are needed to meet the required standards? I am willing to improve the article accordingly. Thank you. Jaisonll799 (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: ബാഡ് ബണ്ണി

You'd be better off requesting advice on the Malayalam wiki, because anyone here who isn't fluent would have to rely on a translated version of the article and may not be able to fully grasp the issues. They should be mentioned in the AfD linked in the deletion template. However, given Bad Bunny's international prominence, I would imagine it should be improved rather than deleted - he certainly passes WP:NOTABILITY for en wiki, and I would guess that's true for most other languages. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Flagging deadlink

Can someone help me flag the deadlink in ref #19 on Brahmapur, Odisha? I found the deadlink template, but the article source only contains the reference template which isn't editable, and the citation editor has no option to flag deadlinks or add markup.

My connection isn't cooperating at the moment to check for archives, but even if someone else is able to find one I'd like to know how to handle this in the future. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Done, @ChompyTheGogoat.

I found the place where the reference is defined, and changed url-status = live to url-status = dead. Since there was already an archive-url specified, it fails over to that. ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked multiple times and still managed to miss that that ref criterion - as well as the existing archive 🤦‍♀️ But now I know! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

enquiry

hello. ...Syedsabira (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and weclcome. If you are just interested in reading Wikipedia, there's nothing special that you need to do- use the search bar to find topics you might be interested in reading. We cannot help you with advice on life in general or where you should go to school. If you're interested in learning more about Wikipedia, you may use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Wikiproject

I made the page 497593 Kejimkujik (asteroid)

Named after a national park in nova scotia.

Don't know which category to put it in. My best option is to put in 'Science and technology in Nova Scotia' but it dosen't seem to fit in with the category. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 13:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this actually... I kind of want to make a category for the Nova Scotia asteroids but I'm not sure if it's really necessary. According to your article there's fifteen of them, I'm rather fond of 516560 Annapolisroyal. You could throw it in the science and technology category until we find something better, no big deal. MediaKyle (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

et al

How do I code to use et al in the author line when I dont want to show all authors? StNiVe (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

It may be easier to get the right help if you show exactly the kind of thing you want to put it into.

(One of the fastest ways of getting attention on Wikipedia is to give a defective example of something.) :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @StNiVe and welcome to the Teahouse. The "cite" templates have a field, "display-authors" that lets you specify how many of the authors listed should be displayed. If there are 10 authors ans you use "display-authors=3), the "et al." will appear after 3 names. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks StNiVe (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's better form to include them all in the template call, rather than just a several-author subset, even if you only want to control the display to even fewer. For example, the first ref you have in Draft:SeqCode:

{{cite journal |last1= Hedlund |first1= B.P |last2= Chuvochina |first2= M. |date= 2022 |title= SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data.  |journal= Nature Microbiology |volume= 7 |issue= 11 |pages= 1702 - 1708 |doi= 10.1038/s41564-022-01214-9 | display-authors = 1}}

Hedlund, B.P; et al. (2022). "SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data". Nature Microbiology. 7 (11): 1702–1708. doi:10.1038/s41564-022-01214-9.

suggests that there are actually two authors, even though there 14 listed in the article itself. That could be confusing (at best) for using this ref as given in a context where house style is to list more than just the first two. DMacks (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Lego Juniors Create & Cruise

Draft:Lego Juniors Create & Cruise

Anyone want to look at this and tell me how it looks before I move it to mainspace? Thank you. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources like "list of best apps..." are not useful to establish notability. You need WP:SIGCOV. Athanelar (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

When should the phrases "pregnant woman", "pregnant person", and "pregnant man" be used on Wikipedia?

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.

---

In response to Encyclopedia Britannica's list of abortion laws by state changing all mentions of "woman" to "pregnant person": https://www.britannica.com/science/US-abortion-rights-by-state-2236312

I heard an editor started replacing the phrase "pregnant person" with "pregnant woman" in almost every instance, while repeatedly saying "standing for the truth" in edit summaries. They were then given a 31 hour block: Special:Contributions/Oifwejiofwje

Aside from WP:NOTACTIVISM applying to this specific case, what are the guidelines on Wikipedia for using these terms? ~2026-10030-84 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You've asked this at the Help Desk, which is probably a better forum for it. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask exactly. I will look at Help Desk then, thanks. ~2026-10030-84 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow reliable sources and context, not personal beliefs. Use “pregnant woman” when sources refer specifically to women, “pregnant person” when sources use gender-neutral language (often in legal or policy contexts), and “pregnant man” only when referring to a transgender man and supported by reliable sources. Mass changing terms without consensus is disruptive discussion should come first. Seni öldürürüm, piç (talk) 20:32, 14 February 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.

Sources & book plots

Hi, I recently had the chance (for the first time), to merge three articles about fantasy books that were a part of the same trilogy.

Is it expected that the editor who performs the merge will take “responsibility” for the content? Even in a copy paste situation?

and in the same context, I found myself editing the merged article in order to improve it, a challenging task on its own because it’s a book I haven’t read, and I’m relying on reviews I found online about the books.

One of the many questions that came up are: how do I provide a source that functions as a “proof” for the book’s plot? To understand this, I tried to look at a similar article as an example. And I discovered that even there, there wasn’t a single source provided to describe and “prove” what happens in the plot of the story.

Is this accidental? Or is it because there is no way to actually produce a source to prove a made up plot? Sorry if this comes out a bit confused, but I’m trying to learn and understand what to do in these situations and how to proceed. Thanks a million for being here for support 🙏 :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no compulsion to perform any task on Wikipedia; but if you make such a merge without "tidying up" afterwards, someone may revert you.

The book is the source for its own plot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response :)

I made sure to tidy up, and actually enjoy this. Are there any special guidelines on how to edit articles about books? Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If there are, they will be listed at WP:WikiProject Books, on whose talk page you can also discuss them with editors experienced and interested on the topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are. MOS:PLOT will give you some guidance. In addition, plot lines are an exception to the general requirement for independent, secondary sources to support article content; the book itself (a non-independent, primary source) is considered sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Forgot ping. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh super!! this really helps, i'll make sure to check MOS:PLOT, thanks i really appreciate the advice :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation on splitting Crust (baking)

Recommendation on splitting Crust (baking)

Hello,

New editor here. I noticed that the Crust (baking) as an article covers two separate things: the dry exterior of a loaf of bread as well as the shell in which a pie filling is placed. While these obviously have relationships to one another, they feel like disjoint (in the same way that a pizza crust is its own thing). In fact, Wiktionary lists them as distinct definitions.

Can I just...make a new page and split them up (with proper citations for new material of course)? I know about WP:BOLD, but I'm not sure yet of where the line is. I'd ask on the article's talk page, but it's currently blank so I'm worried it may not be seen.

There's also Pastry which generally covers pie crust, but I feel like there's enough material to separate out pie crust into it's own article.

Thank you for any and all help! Hibachrach (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You can, if there are sufficient sources to support the new article(s). This seems highly likely.

I suggest "crust (bread)" and "crust (pastry)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Crust (bread) is a redirect to Bread#Crust and crumb. Anything in Crust (baking) that's about bread can be split off and merged into the Bread article.

Crust (pastry) sounds like it's the same thing as Shortcrust pastry (aka pie crust). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Not all pastry dishes that have a crust are shortcrust.

Not all of the pastry in a pastry dish (shortcrust or otherwise) is the crust ("eat your pizza, but you can leave the crust"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

A pizza crust is a flatbread, which is not pastry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Notability, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and portions of WP:Your first article, and see what you can find out about the two topics. If there isn't enough sourcing to support two standalone articles, then consider structuring it as a WP:Broad-concept article. Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Change Redirect To New Article

I just made a draft article that is ready to be in the main space on Draft:Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina), but the same title is in the redirect (Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina)). Due to this, I can’t move the draft to main space. So instead, I had to make this draft into review, so the redirect can be deleted and I can move the draft to main space. Also, I hope I can get the draft ready in the main space soon. Eggboss2.0 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined. Once it's accepted, someone who can will move it to the mainspace, replacing the redirect. DMacks (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue was no or lack of secondary sources, so I now added secondary sources, that’s all I have for I-20 bus. Hopefully it helps. Eggboss2.0 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Eggboss2.0, what is required are references to published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the SCDOT, and that devote significant, in-depth coverage to the stretch of road that is slightly over two miles long. What is so notable about this short stretch of highway that it ought to have its own Wikipedia article? Your second paragraph is unreferenced and confusingly makes some point about stretches of roads in Texas, roughly 1200 miles away. It is difficult for me to understand why you think that this content belongs in an encyclopedia. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

In other words, magazines, newspapers, or reliable online sources, where "I-20 business" (or its business district as a whole and going by that name) is a real topic - proving that it's become "a thing" (I'm sure you know what I mean by that). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Starting RFC - Hoping to transclude previous discussion

Hi everyone. There's been a rather heated debate over at Culpeper, Virginia where there seems to be agreement that an RFC is needed to work out remaining disagreements, given that those disagreements have more to do with policies at USCITIES and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE than the specific topic under discussion. Though any additional commentary from users here is appreciated, I'd like some assistance with setting up an RFC. I'm aware of the basic idea, but would like guidance on whether transcluding the original discussion would be useful or superfluous, what steps need to be taken beyond the basic instructions outlined at the RFC page, and whether the discussion is best served happening at the talk page listed above, or at the relevant locations noted below it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and hope that everyone has enjoyed their Valentine's Day. All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

CSGinger14, I would just link the previous discussion in your Rfc question; no need to transclude it. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I take it back; in your shoes, I would not start an Rfc at all. There are numerous editors who are opposed to your central wish, and Rfcs are very expensive in terms of user time. I think it would be a bad idea to start one now. This comment of yours seems to sum it up:

The only reason I'm continuing this for as long as I am is because all of you refuse to actually respond to the points that I'm making.

Please get more support for your views, before starting an Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot, I appreciate your responding, but the fact that that statement sits about a third of the way through a massive discussion means you shouldn't be using it to sum it up. It feels cherry-picked and non-representative of the actual summation of the discussion. Though I acknowledge it was a fairly aggressive statement, it resulted from the fact that no one was actually responding to the points I'd made, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it was an instance of the editors (among many others) who were in direct opposition to my position doing exactly the thing that they were accusing me of. The statement is being taken out of context to suggest that it was representative of more of the debate than it actually was.

'

Had you analyzed the entirety of the discussion, you'd see that both I and the editor who were originally in disagreement both agreed that there was need for an RFC. There's been compromise on a number of the points under consideration, but others appear to be sticking points (that aren't nearly as clear cut or wholly against my point of view as you seem to be suggesting (i.e editors have brought in opposition to the position negating my own which differs meaningfully from mine, but which nonetheless refutes the position they're taking).

'

If you disagree with this, you're welcome to present your view based on the broader context of the discussion, but it's not nearly as simple as me against the world, as you seem to be insinuating.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Please follow the guidance at WP:Dispute resolution and WP:RFCBEFORE, and good luck with whatever path you choose to take. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Mathglot, but I just read the entire discussion. That discussion is, in essence, simply you against the world, and I agree with Mathglot that the quoted comment pretty much sums it up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Poland - Parliamentary or Semi-Presidential Republic

I would like some input from other people. currently most articles about Poland state that it's a semi-presidential republic, however that is simply not what most sources say. Whoever added the original claim overcited it (in some cases references contradicted them) and while it occasionally someone questioned it, the discussion never gained much traction to my knowledge. I believe most sources you can find clearly state Poland is a parliamentary republic (which is also consistent with what the constitution itself says) I made a section on the talk page going in more detail: Talk:Poland#Poland_-_system_of_government.

--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 01:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears to me that the designation "semi-presidential republic" might only be cited to some relatively recent publications in the theoretical study of political science, which - just to me as a non-expert in politics - does seem like an unusual move that might be hard for them to justify. I haven't heard of other cases where that was done, but I know very little about any of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Wojtekpolska1013, please refer to the section of the Neutral point of view policy found at the shortcut WP:DUE, which says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. If you are correct that most reliable sources describe Poland as a "parliamentary republic" and only a few reliable sources use the "semi-presidential republic" formulation, then that is how the relevant Wikipedia articles ought to present the matter. The first description should dominate and be given the most emphasis and detail, and the second description should be noted briefly as a minority view. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. This has been very helpful and gave me a confidence to make the change. (as it indeed is pretty hard to find sources calling it "semi-presidential republic") --wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, seems there is someone pushing back against my changes. do you think you could look at the discussion if possible? --wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 20:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

How to add additional information

 Courtesy link: Andanada

I´m asking how to add additional information to ANDANADA WIKIPEDIA page for more accurate infomation about the history, as one of the former owners of this business. I´ve trying to edit the page but accused of vandalism by wikipedia. I´ve been the owner of this restaurant (named before Gastroarte) from 2010 until 2017 and now wikipedia accuse me of vandalism!. I can provide and you could verify our ownership by sending you our legally establised US company GRAFFIT USA LLC with the list of owners of Andanada, including myself of course. Thanks for any hint to go over this situation. Lopezjosei (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to answer how but I need to know:

• Which page, as you created your account 20 minutes ago and your only contribution is to the Teahouse.

ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 02:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I'm not a contributor of wikipedia, but I've created the account few minutes ago to let wikipedia who I am. The page I'm refering to is ANDANADA. I don´t wnat to delete anything. Just want to add the three owners of that restaurant that are not mentioned in WIkipedia. Just that. If I have to prove our ownerships the years that are mentioned in the wikipedia article I can provide the legal status thorugh these years. Thanks in advance for your answer. Lopezjosei (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The page "ANDANADA" does not exist as an article. Are you sure it's an article? ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 02:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Andanada (LINK) Lopezjosei (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere where you have been accused on vandalism; but I can see some edits (made by someone who was not signed in) which were reverted for not being sourced and for being malformed ("Jose PEDRO GOmezzzz", really?). We require reliable sources, especially for statements about living people.

Also you have a conflict of interest, and must abide by our WP:COI policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Lopezjosei, please make your suggestions for the article on Talk:Andanada. For any proposed addition, please cite a source that's reliable, published, and independent of the people involved. -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lopezjosei, only because you just announced you are the owner of the restaurant, please check the conflict of interest note I left on your talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

checked and updated my suggestion for the article , citing a reliable source, published as I´ve mentioned in TALK:Andanada. Thank you! Lopezjosei (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources for old video games

Where to find sources for old video games that likely have had many sources decay?

I'm working on a draft for a list of Wii U games that had network connectivity. I'm unsure how to properly find sources though, as I assume that most would be gone due to time (especially sources that were directly from Nintendo). What would my options be?

Draft:List of Wii U Nintendo Network games. KamiraMV (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi KamiraMV, have you considered old newspaper or magazine articles or reviews? I remember Nintendo had their own magazine for a while (or longer?), maybe you can find release information or otherwise there? If you can find the old issues somewhere... Where did you come up with the list that is there now? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I mostly went off the box art for games with the Nintendo Network logo in the top right corner. I did also use a list of games with NEX servers (backend for Nintendo Network), though I definitely can't use that as a source. KamiraMV (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@KamiraMV I also question whether that article should exist to begin with. Please be aware of WP:NLIST; for a list article to exist, you need to demonstrate that secondary sources have discussed that list as a concept in itself, and not merely discussed the individual items of the list separately. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". We can't merely create lists based on categories that take our fancy, that's WP:CROSSCAT.

It is easy to forget that Wikipedia should not be used as a directory of lists considering how many lists we do have. Athanelar (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if the article could be sourced first before discussing notability, would've been moot if there was no way to source it. lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, one should have sources before they even start writing the draft. Finding sources that establish the topic is notable is step 1 of writing an article. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Released films vs. WP:NFF

I usually publish drafts for released films that have reviews, but I am new to drafts of films yet to be released. I am aware of there are specific guidelines at WP:NFF but I am not sure if I should be publishing unreleased film drafts or going to WP:AFC. For example, I published an upcoming film Attack of the Killer Tomatoes: Organic Intelligence without controversy 8 months ago, but Draft:Street Smart (upcoming film) keeps getting declined. I think they both have enough proper sourcing to be ready for mainspace, but I am not sure AFC reviewers consider WP:NFF. I would like to hear more thoughts on this as I am confused if I should even bother submitting upcoming film drafts or if I should just continue being bold and publishing to mainspace when I think a draft is ready. –Filmforme (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Filmforme Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. It seems that your article does satisfy NFF, particularly the clause on that upcoming films should've started principal photography (which has started since last year already). I agree on User:Nighfidelity regarding their reason of decline, though. The film needs more significant coverage, particularly per WP:NFO, which would happen once the film is released. Cheers ! --- n✓h✓8 (he/him) 12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

NFF was edited about a month ago to remove "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" but I'm not seeing where that was agreed to, so I restored it pending finding out. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Complicated situation…

I think I have done a horrible mistake. As a nuance to a nuance (without revealing the page in question), I have added a reputable source published by an academic at Cambridge. Weirdly, this academic was putting forward their German roots. I didn't see the rest coming. The problem: once I looked up the name on google, I found a twitter account with a map of imperial Germany. Next, I looked at some of the tweets, and they were sexist (openly, talking about how "the man" must take control over "the woman"), calling Nazism and fascism leftist ideogies, criticising COVID-19 measures as communist and "globalist", claiming that Poland was massacring Germans, and was at fault for the German invasion, and genuinely asking an AfD-politician why Jews were German and not Muslims (this was not a rhetorical question, but a way of "understanding logic" as the person vaguely put it). The article concerns an indigenous people often essentialised as ecologically conscious "tribes", and this people themselves use this as a way to gain money and buy land through NGOs (this has been described by various anthropologists). Anthropologists usually criticise this for being essentialist and removing this people from History and political agency. The academic with the questionable tweets (a natural anthropologist, if I remember right) was trying to put more value to indigenous claims on ecology. So far so good. But the field sadly has a history with objectifying and "Othering", and the founding father of the research on this indigenous people was a guard at Dachau and member of the SS, who lied about his past and was expulsed from the SS only because of a nervous break. This founding father is still very respected as an academic (but his now known past is important), but his theories are outdated by now, and are either considered a remnant of his SS-past (by finding "purity" in indigenous populations) or a result of the conservative logic of the country in question at the time of his living. I won't go into details (names, etc.). Now, back to our living natural anthropologist, I don't know what to do with him… There is no academic source calling him out to my knowledge (but there are sources contradicting his research, which doesn't mean much honestly, considering I added him as a nuance for said sources). He is part of the ontological turn trying to emphasise the validity of indigenous worldviews, and is close to the makers of popular documentaries on this people (which use the same rhetoric of "saviours of the world" that supposedly have come from their holes to "help us in the modern world"). I can't just remove a reliable source on the basis of tweets, can I? It's a small page, and the guy is directly mentioned now, among all the people that could have been mentioned. His paper is obviously pretty solid too… ~2026-10204-61 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That's quite a wall of text, with few clues at to what article it's about (though some Teahouse hosts do appear to have psychic powers). You'll be more likely to get help here if you post a much shorter much clearer request. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC).

I don't want to call someone with a name out on something publicly accessible to anyone through Twitter but very niche and therefore unknown to most people. Naming the article would be the equivalent of giving a full name. Maybe I'll just remove the mention with some excuse, but that might get reverted. Or not. I'll see for myself if no one is able to provide any advice here. Still, thanks for taking the time to read the text, it should have been more concise. Regards, ~2026-10200-43 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, TLDR, you added a source (possibly a sentence or two) and now have second thoughts about it. You can could try to remove/revert it yourself, and use "some excuse" as you say. This will work better if you can identify which specific edits you're reverting (using 'Undo' or some other edit summary) along with the some excuse. Even better would be to identify the edits as your own (editors can usually judge if that's likely, and would be perfectly normal). Making other useful edits, there or elsewhere, around the same time, will probably help. If that fails, and possibly/preferably as a precaution, you could write something on the talk page, even if it's just 'some excuse'. If it still fails you can talk to either the person doing the reverting, or identify established users who may be able able to help. See WP:BRD, WikiProject links on the talk page, page histories, and any related pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Shitty people, even outright evil people, can still provide us with useful information about certain topics. A Wikipedia article using a person as a source is not an indication that Wikipedia or its editors agree ideologically with that person on all matters; it is merely an indication that we consider them a reliable source on that specific piece of information pertaining to that specific topic. I'm sure some moron will take it as example of Wikipedia's editorial bias in one direction or another, but that's an endless source of debate anyway; there's no reason to remove the reference unless you believe this person's awful ideological positions make them an unreliable source for the information you're citing from them.

As a tangential example, it is well known that the ADL are highly connected to the Israeli state; we nevertheless consider them a reliable source except on matters relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for providing various possibilities. The researcher might be using this people as a way to describe a 'natural hierarchy', but this is purely speculative and based on correlating the tweets and the paper (though it is pretty transparent once you look at everything). I cited the author in a context where he claims that we shouldn't move to the "extreme" of dismissing the esoteric ecological knowledge of this people completely as "actual possibilities", and that the beliefs of this people supposedly aren't compatible with the post-modern Anthropology dominating since the 1990s. If this putting forward of the knowledge of this people (contradicting most modern anthropologists' analyses, but not unheard of) might be linked to this person's beliefs is the central question. At the end, I just stumbled upon the imperial Germany map and searched his twitter, and the author wrote his PhD in social anthropology but works as an ecological anthropologist today, so not focused on this people for long. It is a fairly interesting point of view, and a technically reliable source. ~2026-10118-19 (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Most sources in the article Architecture of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple are primary and unreliable. I am not sure if I should nominate it for AfD so I won't be doing that. Do I just tag it and let it be? Kingsacrificer (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The subject is clearly notable, so AfD would be a waste of everyone's time.

The biggest issue seem to be that a lot of statements in the article are completely unsourced.

Better than tagging is finding and using better sources; especially if you have the subject knowledge and/or language skills to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you say the subject is clearly notable? The temple may be notable, but the architecture of the temple doesn't have to be, does it?

Given the used sources, I am not confident in your claim of clear notability to be honest.

But I cannot find better sources so I guess I'll have to leave it for someone else to pick up. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kingsacrificer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

With very rare exception (like declaring paid editor status) there is nothing that you must do as a Wikipedia editor.

If you find a problem with an article, you can ignore it; or tag it; or attempt to fix it. No blame attaches to any of these options.

Fixing a problem often involves a lot of work, so many people tag problems and leave them ("Drive-by tagging" - I do so myself). That at least gives readers notice that there may be a problem. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to-do list. Athanelar (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Couple of questions

1. Some disambiguation pages have '(disambiguation)' in them, while others don't.

Ex - '!!' and 'WWW (disambiguation)'. Why?

2. The page 'Software Tools Users Group' cites wikipedia pages (i think). Is this allowed? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 12:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SomnambulantFish, and welcome to the Teahouse.

1. If there is a primary topic for a title, then the article on that topic will have the simply name, and there will be a separate disambiguation page for all the meanings of the title (including that primary one).

If there is not a primary topic, then the title will be given to a disambiguation page. This doesn't need the "(disambiguation)" qualifier, as we only use qualifiers when necessary for clarity or disambiguation. Sewe WP:DAB for more details.

2. I don't think that article is citing Wikipedia (which would not be acceptable). It has some citations to offline sources (which is perfectly acceptable), whose author or journal names link to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia is not reliable and should not be cited.

The very tiny number of exceptions are when we are talking about Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Italexit

Hello to everybody! I feel I am an emigrant…. Until last fall I had an uneasy contribution to Wikipedia Italian pages. It took me weeks before undertstanding the layout and where and how to write. After several (written) arguments with other contributors and - mainly - tutors I was firstly blocked for 7 days and later for one full month. Then I have been banned indefinitely. I am wandering if I may just contribute to the English pages as a lot of written contribution and many images are still in my hands. ~2026-10241-83 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You may participate here as long as you are not blocked here. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Query about adding interlanguage links

Hello,

I was looking at this template page: Template:Gmina Osiek, Pomeranian Voivodeship and noticed that the interlangauge links don't include its Polish equivalent: pl:Szablon:Gmina Osiek (województwo pomorskie). I'm wondering if anyone can instruct me how to link them as I can't work it out.

Thanks. Wikociewie (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

They were attached to two separate items on Wikidata, which I have now merged (as Template:Gmina Osiek, Pomeranian Voivodeship (Q22755459)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, brilliant. Thank you so much! Wikociewie (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

How to handle this type of disputes

Hi, I've been on Wiki for a while and read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but recently I've gotten myself involved in a few disputes that I'm not sure how to handle, most recently on Everybody Scream Tour, all regarding additions of content not supported by any type of source, or user-generated sources. The policy page seems to address only cases where there is room for interpretation, not clear violations of core guidelines like Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Should this be considered vandalism then? I'd like to get Everybody Scream Tour to GA status, but it won't be possible with unsourced content in the article. Poirot09 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I see, there should be no dispute, as all encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. If no source can be found for such content, it is then original research and must be removed. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but in a previous dispute I've been warned for violating WP:3RR because I reverted additions of unsourced content to one article, saying I should pursue dispute resolution. In this case, I would also violate 3RR if I went ahead and removed the content. Would it be okay? Poirot09 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, wait until 24 hours has passed, and then remove the content. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 16:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be against the guideline at WP:3RR that says "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."? Also, I've been in situations when editors keep on adding the content for days on end despite warnings and discussions, so it would not exactly be a definitive solution. I'd like to find a permanent resolution that is compliant with Wiki policies. Poirot09 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that part of the rule. As for a permanent resolution, I'm not sure what to do in that regard. Consider asking other users for assistance. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 16:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not literally vandalism if they honestly think they're helping - even if they're obviously wrong about that - so you can't use vandalism warnings for this case. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and see if it has what you need. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it might do, thank you! Poirot09 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You say you have read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but you don't say which of its recommended steps you have followed, nor how they failed to resolve the matter. Please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I explained the issue through edit summaries and warned the editor on their talk page, following the usual procedure when performing multiple reverts. However, after they violated 3RR, I wasn't sure how to proceed since Dispute resolution deals with content disputes with room for interpretation and does not mention clear violations of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now that I've read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I'll try to engage again in a discussion with the editor and, if that doesn't work, I'll follow the procedure listed there. Poirot09 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If an editor is persistently breaking policies and guidelines after being warned, it is no longer a content dispute but a conduct dispute, and an escalation to admin attention might be necessary.

Namely, in the case of inserting unsourced content, the WP:ONUS is on them to seek consensus to include the content if it is disputed (and the fact you reverted it once means it's disputed by default.) If they're continuing to reinsert that content even after you've warned them and reverted them multiple times, the appropriate course of action would be to report them for edit warring at WP:ANEW. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There is whole section of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution called "Resolving user conduct disputes". Follow that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Would 's "hit me where it hurts x" EP be a good first article?

Skrillex

I want to create an article for the EP as my first article on Wikipedia. I've gotten good practice from this and other wikis, and it would be a good contribution to WP:EDM. I will be following H:YFA. I've managed to collect 5 notable links about the article, but I don't believe the EP received any critical reviews. What should I do? Octostomp (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

When you say "notable links", that's not a term used on Wikipedia so it's hard to know what you mean.

To write an article about an EP, or about pretty much anything, first you need to find where Wikipedia:Reliable sources have basically already written the article for you. On Wikipedia, the only thing we get to write is to repeat what those sources already said - so if they didn't have anything to say, we have nothing to write. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If all we can see from the sources is the facts, like who's in the credits and what the songs are, then there's no article. We can't fill it in from our own knowledge. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Octostomp, 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.

Do your sources meet those criteria? If not, the subject is probably not notable. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine There was one source from Beatportal that could be biased, but the rest of my sources are secondary and neutral. I have linked them below.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Octostomp (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If you took only the top three of those sources, and just cut & pasted them into one window without adding a word, would that be good enough to stand as your complete article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the infobox and credits that can be adapted from streaming services, I think it would cover a good span of information about the EP. I am open to other opinions, however. Octostomp (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at these, and was quite surprised to find that almost all of them say barely anything except personnel lists and track names. The only exception is the one about the cover art - it looks from here like that cover photo has turned out quite a bit more notable than the EP. Unless there are some big sources you just haven't found yet ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Help

Talk:497593 Kejimkujik

On the page, i wanna add the wikiproject Astronomy template.

it dosen't work. help. thanks. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What did you try that didn't work? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

it dosen't show like the others.

it just shows:

'Template: Wikiproject Astronomy' in red SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Fixed; you had "Wikiproject", but the word is cased as "WikiProject", with an upper-case "P". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

silly me :] SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@SomnambulantFish WP:RATER makes adding WikiProjects and classes easier, for future reference :) HurricaneZeta^C 16:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

September : “Big Event”

In the September article, there’s a section that shows “Big Event that Happened in September”.

Compared to all the other months, it normally has Observances and Symbols. If someone could check that section and how it should most likely be deleted, that would be great. I’m not on computer so phone editing is very weird. Thanks - RoyalSilver 16:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, there are sections named Observances and Symbols, but for the other months, like January, there is a "Fixed" section for historical events under the full Observances section. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 16:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Request deletion for a redirect - where should I go?

"Technocratic socialism" does not have any other language. [[10]] - utterly none. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion; where discussion will take place on whether the redirect to be deleted, kept, or retargeted. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 16:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There are no links pointing to it, but the term is used in a few articles. Obviously we don't link within reference-titles, but for example in State socialism, there is:

These forms of socialism are opposed to hierarchical [[Technocracy|technocratic socialism]],

but the current Technocratic socialism redirect points to Planned economy. What to do?

• Change it to "hierarchical technocratic socialism", as the claimed meaning of that visible-text term in general
• Change it to "hierarchical technocratic socialism", more clearly identifying what the target of the link is
• Leave it as it is, assuming the visible text is the standard term in this special context

DMacks (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Ensuring my article is notable and uses reliable sources

 Courtesy link: Draft:Macheteada

Hello. I'm currently writing an article on a Honduran food. I want to ensure that it's notable and the sources I have chosen are reliable. If they aren't, please give me examples on what would be a reliable source, since so far all I've really got are recipes. Thanks! Everestnc (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Recipes alone are not "significant coverage". Do those pages also talk about the dish's cultural role or history? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

They do not, no. I found this website which states its origins are unknown, however. Everestnc (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request for draft article on artist Dana Montlack

Hi everyone,

I am preparing a draft article for the American contemporary artist Dana Montlack. I have a disclosed COI which is declared on my user page, so I want to be extra careful about adhering to neutrality and notability policies.

I have focused on meeting WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST by prioritizing independent secondary sources such as The San Diego Union-Tribune, ArtsATL, and museum exhibition catalogs to establish notability.

I have also worked to ensure the tone remains encyclopedic and objective.

Could an experienced editor please take a quick look at my Sandbox draft and let me know if there are any obvious issues before I submit it to Articles for Creation?

Draft link: User:Adam-LittleDeer/Sandbox

Thank you for your time! Adam-LittleDeer (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews. If you want feedback, submit your draft for review and an AfC reviewer will get to it in time.

Your references should be in a separate section called References, though. Athanelar (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Adam-LittleDeer (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Adam-LittleDeer.

Musuem catalogues are not usually independent, as they are written (or at least published) by somebody who has an interest in promoting the subject.

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 is expecially hard for editors with a COI, as they need to ignore essentially everything they know about the subject and (especially) everything the subject has told them about themselves.

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) 20:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Request article on: Shahzadeh Sereen

Hi he have Wikipedia page in Persian but nothing on him available in English !!! I try to write one but new here and wasn't able can anyone help me? https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/15/nz-asked-to-speak-out-about-citizen-imprisoned-in-iran/

(born Sereen Badiei, 1973) is an Iranian-New Zealander social media personality who gained notoriety for his controversial online presence and self-proclaimed royal titles. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Iran following his arrest in early 2024. 

Key Background and Arrest Online Identity: Known as "Shahzadeh Sereen" (Prince Sereen), he claimed to be a descendant of ancient Persian royalty and a "head immortal" of Zoroastrian blood. He frequently posted videos critical of the Iranian government and religious establishment. Return to Iran: Despite his vocal opposition to the regime, he returned to Iran in March 2024. Shortly after posting videos of himself in the streets of Karaj, he was arrested by security forces on 25 March 2024. Sentencing: In August 2024, he was sentenced to over 9 years (109 months) in prison on multiple charges, including: Provoking impurity and indecency (66 months). Insulting religious sanctities (36 months). Propaganda against the regime (7 months). Current Status: He is detained in the Central Prison of Karaj. Daruishsabri (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daruishsabri: Interesting, but... are there any indications of NOTABILITY of that person? --CiaPan (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi no problem you are welcome.

I think it is a very important issue. Especial since now that Iranian government is under spot lights. His Persian Wiki page is

fa:سرین بدیعی

شاهزاده سرین

https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cd1vq99007no -- Daruishsabri (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I think you replied to the wrong question. Good luck! Adam-LittleDeer (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Moved to correct section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Fermat (computer algebra system)

Fermat (computer algebra system) I believe I have added enough references to remove the objection at the top of the page. I could add many more if necessary. Shall I remove the objection? Rhlewis (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "the objection" is? MosquitoDestroyer (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

(There's a tag saying the topic may not be notable.)

@Rhlewis Notability is not covered by having a larger number of sources. Instead, it depends on having better sources. What would you say is better about the sources you added? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rhlewis.

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. Do any of the sources meet those criteria? ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Rhlewis, you were the creator of this article in 2006, and the principal developer of the system was Robert H. Lewis of Fordham U. Are you he? If so, this raises additional concerns about Wikipedia's WP:Conflict of interest guideline, which will have to be dealt with as well. For the moment, involved or not as the developer, you can search for and provide additional sources as requested. If you don't know what to do with your sources once you find them, as a first cut, add a new Further reading section to the article above the External links section, and add your sources there for the time being. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Help with source for when Velidhoo was initially populated?

On February 6, 2026, I was sent to the page Velidhoo (Noonu Atoll) by [11]. I found a sentence about when Velidhoo was initially populated and by whom, that failed verification.

I first deleted the reference, and then replaced the sentence with a different, less specific sentence, along with a citation to a reliable source. I found some more specific information (closer to the sentence I replaced) in a PhD thesis. However, I wasn't sure the PhD thesis would be a reliable source in itself. The passage in the PhD thesis cites a couple of books, to which I don't have access, that might be reliable sources.

I wasn't sure what to do, so I asked a question on the Talk page with all the details. I haven't gotten a response yet (though the page is being actively edited in the meantime). @Mathglot suggested that I ask here.

I also don't know whether anything else is to be done regarding the failed verification (besides fixing it). Here is a bit of the history of the sentence, with my last version at the bottom:

• November 5, 2005 The Administrator of [12] wrote on its History page, "The historians date early settlers back to 5 th century BC with the Aryan immigrants coming from neighboring countries India and Srilanka." [13]

• January 7, 2007 211.24.241.2 added the sentence to Velidhoo (Noonu Atoll): "The historians date early settlers back to 5 th century BC with the Aryan immigrants coming from neighboring countries India and Srilanka." [14]

• December 21, 2020 209.212.207.232 changed the sentence to "Historians date the earliest settlements to the 3rd century BC with Arabian immigrants coming from Oman and saudia rabia." [15]

• May 20, 2022 @Jung-En-Wang changed the sentence to "It is believed that indians immigrants were living in the island in the 5th century" [16]

• August 5, 2025 @Dhoru 21 added "Citation Needed": "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Indian travelers believed to be among the earliest inhabitants." [17]

• September 18, 2025 @Ayamhoitin added the citation that failed verification: "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Indian travelers believed to be among the earliest inhabitants." [18]

• October 11, 2025 Leaving the citation untouched, @Wittyfox23 changed the sentence to: "The first settlers arrived on Velidhoo in the 5th century, with Aryan immigrants believed have arrived from neighboring regions such as India and Sri Lanka."

• February 6, 2026 I deleted the old citation and changed the sentence to: "Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, which have been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka."

Aurodea108 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops, here's a link to the revision by @Wittyfox23: [19]

And here's a link to my last revision: [20] Aurodea108 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. It seems like references [1] and [2] are just a full export of the entirety of Spanish Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source to begin with.

As for the article you referenced, when it's peer-reviewed and comes from a reputable journal already (the American Journal of Physical Anthropology), you don't really need to worry that its citations are closed-access, which are those that require some sort of fee or library card to obtain. --- n✓h✓8 (he/him) 04:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Refs (Velidhoo)

Two syntactic possibilities:

• Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, which have been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka. Have does not take a 3rd-person singular subject. This rules out "Velidhoo"; the sentence is therefore about the history of the population of "the Maldives" (plural).
• Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, which has been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka. Has does not take a subject that isn't both 3rd-person and singular. This rules out "the Maldives"; the sentence is therefore about the history of the population of "Velidhoo" (singular).

-- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that the group of islands in the Maldives have been populated since the 1st century. The source I cited only discusses the group in general, not the individual islands.

I had not been able to find any reliable source discussing how the individual island, Velidhoo, was populated.

I had mentioned at the end of my question on the Talk page, that for this reason, perhaps a sentence on this topic does not belong in the Velidhoo article at all. Aurodea108 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Though, given the history of the sentence, I suspect if it were deleted without explanation, someone may put it back. Aurodea108 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not go with Velidhoo is an island in the Maldives, an archipelago that has been populated since the 1st century, most likely through migration from parts of South Asia such as India and Sri Lanka. if you want to preserve the context of the Maldives? Or a chain of islands instead of an archipelago? Seems there are other possibilities to deal with the ambiguity. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

So, you're not discussing the populating of either Velidhoo at the one extreme or that of the Maldives archipelago at the other; you are instead discussing the populating of an intermediate level: Noonu Atoll (because this is the closest you can get to discussing that of Velidhoo, for which the numbers aren't available). If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to correct me. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggested Edits box

Hi everyone, when following the Suggested Edits on my userpage, I open up an article, and the Quick Tips box scrolls very quickly from tip to tip. I would argue it would be a tad more user friendly if even 1 second was added to the timer. I know it's possible to manually go back to a previous tip but not every new user might be able to figure it out. I don't know if Wikipedia has a technical team who handles this; is there a place where I can make this suggestion? As always, thank you very much, I've found the Teahouse amazingly helpful. Itsaclarinet (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You can try the technical section of the village pump. Speedrunz (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Help in improving the article for meeting the approval for publishing

Request the worthy form to impart the necessary corrections to improv the article for meeting the approval for publishing Pooshshashi (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When it was reviewed, they gave you advice, including links to pages telling the details of what is needed. Has their advice been difficult for you to use? I can try to show you how to use it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Mehak manwani ka filmography in wiki shows bhooth bangla but going into bhooth bangla page Mehak is not there. Either you put her in the bhooth bangla cast or you don't put movie name on mehak's filmography. Put her

the suspicion of sam nair ~2026-85927-4 (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! --- n✓h✓8 (he/him) 07:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)