Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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.
Messages generated by AI will be collapsed and may not be answered.
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.]

Which name should be used in the website parameter for GMA Network webpages?

Hello, I would like to ask for guidance regarding the appropriate value for the "|website=" parameter in "{{cite web}}" when citing webpages from GMA Network's website.

I'm talking about GMA News Online, GMA Entertainment (and others), because they are considered as the official news website, and entertainment website, respectively.

For example, consider a news article published under: "https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/" There are a few possible names that could be used in the citation for the website parameter:

1. GMA News Online – the name associated with the news section where the article is published. 2. GMANetwork.com – the name of the larger website.

According to the documentation of {{cite web}}, the website (or work) parameter identifies the title or name of the website, while publisher parameter identifies the organization that publishes or controls it. Also, it explains that when a cited webpage belongs to a more specific publication or organizational subsite within a larger website (like gmanetwork.com), it is generally preferable to use the name of that more specific publication.

I ask for guidance because there is an editor who cite "GMA Network Inc." in the website parameter despite it being the parent company. The editor said because GMA Network Inc. is the owner of the domain. I think it doesn't seems right, because it might fall into the publisher parameter.

so I think there are 2 options here: 1. Cite the specific publication (GMA News Online, GMA Entertainment, etc.) 2. Cite the larger website (GMANetwork.com)

But for me, citing a more specific publication (like GMA News Online and GMA Entertainment) are I think common in English Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedian editors cite BBC News rather than British Broadcasting Corporation in the website parameter despite the domain bbc.co.uk. Same with ESPN under Disney/ABC. So specifc publication is for me better because they have their own identifiable name, editorial content, contributors/authors, and intended audience.

I'm asking because I would like to apply a consistent and accurate citation format across articles that use GMA Network sources.

Thank you!

Eegnetwork (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I would use GMA News Online, but GMANetwork.com is also fine. The name of the website doesn't need to be 100% uniform across all citations as long as the name in the citation refers to the source it is citing. I normally don't fill out the publisher section, but you can if you want to. Not all parameters of a citation needs to be filled out; as long as you have the title of the source, the name of the website/source you are citing, and the URL (if there is one), you should be fine. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

This was also discussed in another talk page. Editor Eegnetwork wants to use different labels for the website parameter, while those links are under the same website anyway which is GMAnetwork.com, the official website of GMA Network Inc. - which covers several divisions of the company. Hotwiki (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledged that the website is GMANetwork.com, but you continue to label it as GMA Network Inc. in the website parameter. You also removed the GMA source from the article, which I have no problem with but that doesnt address the issue. If your argument for using GMA Network Inc. is that the company owns the domain, I guess you would also have to change the website parameter for PEP references to "Philippine Entertainment Portal, Inc." simply because that is the company's name. (?) I'm fine with using "GMA Network" "GMANetwork.com" or "www.gmanetwork.com" for GMA Entertainment, GMA Radio, and other sections of the website but I don't think GMA Network Inc. should be used as the website name just because it owns the domain. For GMA News Online and Balitambayan (let's include that) articles, I believe their respective publication names should be retained in the website parameter, particularly since Wikipedia's citation generator identifies GMA News Online and Balitambayan as the source for its articles. Eegnetwork (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

How do i make pages

i dont know how but i wann try it Yurifusion (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Yurifusion I would first caution you that creating a new article on Wikipedia is the hardest task a new editor can do! I would really recommend spending a few weeks or months improving existing articles first, so you learn our policies and guidelines. Then, you could submit a draft article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation to be reviewed by an experienced editor. qcne (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Yurifusion (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Sup @Yurifusion! I havent been here awhile, but I do know you can search the name of the article that you want to make and there will be something like: The page "My New Article Example" does not exist. You can click on "My New Article Example" to create the page directly, or you may create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

However, you must be a confirmed/autoconfirmed user. Even though creating a new article on Wikipedia is the hardest task a new editor can do, I would practice in your sandbox. Remember to keep it informal and include lots of reliable citations! Good luck! Wikiwiz910 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

"informal"? Autocorrect strikes again. General Defense Enthusiast (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

but why

like the inflation page has a hyperinflation page why doent the deflation page have hyperdeflation? ~2026-58922-27 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-58922-27. Hyperdeflation has never occurred and sounds unlikely. Hyperinflation easily passes Wikipedia:Notability. The idea of hyperdeflation probably doesn't. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Maybe because 'hyperdeflation' has (almost) never been observed to happen? It's a theoretical thing that is sometimes mentioned in passing by economists, but has no settled definition and no-one has written at any length about it, so there is nothing to base a Wikipedia article on.

Something like it has occasionally happened in the market for a particular commodity, and in Bitcoin trading, so perhaps it will become a more common phenomenon in the future, be written about more, and thus become eligble for an article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Inflation and deflation are about average prices. Economic bubble#Notable asset bubbles has examples of particular commodities. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

At this point, hyperdeflation is almost entirely speculatory. If a major economic event involving hyperdeflation took place, it might get an article then. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

What to do if I'm super busy with life but want to help Wikipedia?

Hello, I'm a relatively new editor who is SUPER busy with "life" things, such as transitioning to be an adult (I am currently 18), learning about life itself, and struggling with autism and disabilities. What can I do to help Wikipedia, even if I'm super busy with a transitions program in my state? Should I edit periodically? Should I not edit at all? I truly want to help Wikipedia, but I'm always scared to mess up and be reverted, and can't access many sites used for sourcing. The main thing I'm doing is reviewing and familiarizing myself with the guidelines and policies. Thank you for taking the time to help me, and wish you a great day. 🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷 (Talk to me!!) 21:48, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for your generous offer, Thatg1rl Av3ry. Putting aside worries about guidelines and policies for a moment, what kind(s) of activity and/or subject area do you think you'd find worthwhile and enjoyable? Then we can consider it (or them). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, Thatg1rl Av3ry, please point to two or three articles that are about subjects that are very different from each other and that aren't very long. Then let's take a look at these. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:58, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Thatg1rl Av3ry: To address one of your concerns: we'll take any help you're willing to give. Many editors are busy in real life, and you're definitely not expected to devote all your free time to Wikipedia. You can edit whenever you feel like it; no one will discourage you from editing just because you're busy. Happy editing! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 23:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

If you're scared of being reverted, remember: if you aren't getting reverted every now and then you probably aren't being bold enough (see also: Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss). Editors should assume good faith, so messing up infrequently won't get you banned. If you get something wrong, nobody should make it personal. If you get in a dispute, check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Wikipedia is overall fairly friendly, as long as you make a good faith effort. — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 00:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

If you're looking for small, easy edits to make when you have a moment, check out the Wikipedia:Typo Team for some ideas and guides. You can do more as you learn! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Other language editions & notability

How do I know if a topic that has an article in other language editions of Wikipedia is notable enough for an article in English Wikipedia?

Like what the title says, I found some articles on Thai Wikipedia that could be useful to have an article entry on English Wikipedia. Problem is that I don't know how to properly assess its notability by English Wikipedia's standard. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 22:30, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Jothefiredragon, the standards for notability of a subject don't vary according to whether or not the subject happens to be written up at Thai-language Wikipedia. See WP:N and pages that it links to. (If I misunderstand, please explain.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:55, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you very much for your response.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 18:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Basically, no matter if the subject of the article is from Thailand or Australia, it's exactly the same notability standards for English Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be in English, though they still must be reliable. Different-language Wikipedia's have their own notability standards (and other guidelines/policies), so just because an article exists on another language doesn't mean it's notable for English Wikipedia standards. (see WP:OSE) JuniperChill (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Need to update locations for Fifth Third Bank

I looked up the name of Fifth Third Bank because I wanted to know why the bank was named that way. I saw the bank at 5450 Jackson Dr, La Mesa, CA 91942. Upon reading the Wikipedia page it said there were branches in 12 states but California was not listed as one of the states. I can't figure out how to edit the page to include California branch. Fifth Third Bank Iasa001 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Iasa001, welcome to the Teahouse. The list of 12 states is from a source saying "At December 31, 2023". If there are changes then the states should be updated together with a published reliable source. The official website would usually be acceptable for this type of information so I tried that.

https://www.53.com/content/fifth-third/en/customer-service/other-banking-faqs.html says:

"How many branch and ATM locations does Fifth Third operate?

Fifth Third Bank operates more than 1,100 branch locations and more than 2,400 ATMs throughout its 10-state geographic footprint."

and later:

"Where does Fifth Third Bank operate?

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Fifth Third Bank operates in 10 states. For more information view the Regions We Serve."

The last link says: "12 states" and also lists 12 states.

https://locations.53.com/content/locations-fifth-third.html doesn't give a number but lists 15 states, adding Arizona, California and Texas.

None of the three different claims are dated. What a mess for a business which wants you to entrust them with your money. Maybe the list of 15 is newer than the others but is it actually current or is it yet another obsolete claim? And it's undated so we cannot use {{As of}} to specify when it applied. I'm not sure what to do with such a clusterfuck of a website. Maybe somebody can find a better source like an updated version of our 2023 source. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, the addition of California was removed, claiming that the bank does not operate there. This IS a mess. David10244 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I have mailed the bank. My mails to other websites about errors are usually ignored but let's see. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Cell

como puedo saber si mi teléfono está jaqueado ~2026-58880-63 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

This translates as "how to know if your phone is hacked". This is not an appropriate question for the Teahouse, where we answer questions related to editing and reading Wikipedia. Please try asking at a more appropriate forum, and remember to include details of your phone and why you think it might be "hacked". Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos. ¿Tienes una pregunta sobre Wikipedia en Inglés? DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Puedes tambien ir al Wikipedia Español. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage

Hi, Dare2Leap here.

I asked on WP:WikiProject Video Games#About significant coverage and primary/secondary sources, but I still don't know exactly what counts as significant coverage. Does stating facts count or it must be subject analysis? Is it WP:100WORDS minimum (I know word count isn't a guarantee of notability, but it says on the essay that it is an indicator of notability)? Does coverage of outside activities (such as Hermitcraft with Gamers Outreach) count?

List of sources I want someone to analyze regarding significant coverage:

• https://www.pcgamer.com/automate-the-collapse-of-reality-in-clicker-antimatter-dimensions-now-on-steam/ (Antimatter Dimensions)
• https://www.mirf.ru/games/udivitelnye-zanyatiya-v-minecraft-nauka-opyty-i-sredizeme (Draft talk:Hermitcraft)
• https://dotesports.com/minecraft/news/all-hermitcraft-season-10-members (Draft talk:Hermitcraft)
• https://www.notebookcheck.net/Free-RPG-launches-with-99-positive-reviews-and-12-wildly-different-story-routes.1427913.0.html (Draft:Heartfall: A Tale in Three Lives)
• https://www.vidaextra.com/rpg/este-rpg-fantasia-tiene-99-criticas-positivas-steam-puedes-conseguir-totalmente-gratis (Draft:Heartfall: A Tale in Three Lives)

The Draft:Hermitcraft rejection was painful to acknowledge. It's slowly getting better over time, though I sometimes feel despair when recalling the memories that came with it. At times I feel that all the other wiki activities I have been doing was just coping from the acrid feelings. I am holding off on submitting more drafts until I understand WP:SIGCOV. In the meantime, I am participating in WP:NOV26 unreferenced articles drive and working on getting Astrophotography to GA status. Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 14:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I learned a lot about SIGCOV by hanging out at Articles for Deletion; that would be another way to participate. You could look for articles with substantial discussion of sources. Hang in there! M kuhner (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dare2Leap. Significant coverage generally means a source does more than mention briefly and/or list basic information about a subject. Instead it discusses, or analyses, or debates, or critically examines the subject in an independent way. For those sources, what is the actual subject you're writing about? Hermitcraft? If so, as far as I can tell only dotesports.com mentions Hermitcraft.

Remember too that ideally we need a source to be reliable and independent and provide significant coverage. It's common for a source to meet one, or two, of those criteria but we really want a source to meet all three of those criteria. Interviews often give detailed coverage of a subject, but are not independent. Reviews by Youtubers often give critical depth about a subject, but are not reliable.

I'd also recommend having a read of Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which outlines in a really basic way what significant coverage (and all our other main policies) are in a simple way. qcne (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

For now, my main draft priority is Heartfall, though Hermitcraft is not far behind. I recently worked on Heartfall, but put it off for now until I better understand SIGCOV.

User:Athanelar said that the DotEsports sources that you mentioned are listicles. Do you agree?

• https://dotesports.com/minecraft/news/all-hermitcraft-season-10-members
• https://dotesports.com/minecraft/news/all-hermitcraft-season-10-permits-and-current-owners

I would still like an example of what is significant coverage and what is not from the 5 example sources I added above though.

|)are2|_eap (Talk) 23:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap yep, they're partly listicles and partly fairly low-effort journalism. qcne (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @User:Qcne. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 23:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I rarely participate discussing notability in English Wikipedia, but I think WP:WHYN is a key.

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.

The way I see it, "significant coverage" prevent us writting articles smaller than stub, articles contains original research (including synthesis of published material), and a dictionarial content. Can we write something to a stub, and more, that complies content guideline, by reliable sources? I guess this is what "significant coverage" in notability of English Wikipedia want to tell.

----

You may want to hear my experience of notability in Chinese Wikipedia. In Chinese Wikipedia, articles shorter than stub can be deleted (zh:WP:SUBSTUB, closed in English Wikipedia), while one reliable source is enough for notability in Chinese Wikipedia. One day, there's an AfD over zh:漢口路210號. One of the keep comments showed a reliable source from a book. Based on the book, I left my comment below:

From the legislative spirit of our notability guideline, "significant coverage" was there to prevent editors carelessly cobbling sources togeter, and thus preventing an article with synthesis. It also ensures that when we write articles without synthesising sources won't be a dictionary definition or a substub. I believe that it is enough to have an notability here if we can write something more than substub by the givern source merely.

— Translation of my comment

Finally, someone provided more sources and the article was kept, while somen agreed my comment over view over "significant coverage". Of course, policies are different between Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia (maybe notability enforces stricter in English Wikipedia, I don't know), so this is just for your information, but I wish this may help you understand the idea of "significant coverage". Saimmx (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Considering that notability on English Wikipedia requires multiple independent and reliable sources (with notable exceptions of certain politicians and legally recognised towns), it goes to show that it likely has the strictest notability requirements of all, despite having the most articles. Maybe its to do with the fact that English is the most popular language on the internet and is used by many non-native speakers.

I think I could argue that a very short stub here (less than a couple sentences) would likely be merged/redirected to another article where possible (or anything else in WP:ATD), but otherwise deleted. JuniperChill (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dare2Leap, I'm assuming that the five sources you listed should be considered in relation to the drafts/articles linked next to them - if not, let me know.

• PCGamer - Antimatter - I would say this is significant coverage; it's a review, it discusses the game, it focuses entirely on the game and doesn't incorporate lots of info from the developers. That being said, I would also hope that the other WP:42-meeting sources had more sigcov, because this one is a bit short.
• Mirf - Hermitcraft - is not sigcov. The article is about Minecraft, with a brief mention of Hermitcraft.
• Dot esports - Hermitcraft - is not sigcov. I wouldn't even call it a listicle; it's a list with a brief introduction. Listicles usually briefly discuss each item in the list, and this doesn't. This is probably very interesting information for someone who loves the game, but as an outsider it tells me nothing of use or interest - which in my opinion is what significant coverage is asking for.
• Notebookcheck - Heartfall - is sigcov. Like the Antimatter source, it's a review focused completely on the game and talking about it in some depth.
• Vidaextra - Heartfall - is not sigcov. Compare this to the previous source: this one has basically three sentences discussing the game, whereas the last one was pretty much entirely talking about the mechanics, the creation, and what people enjoy/dislike.

I hope that gives you a bit more insight into how I would be assessing the sources if they popped up in a draft I was reviewing. Meadowlark (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate your help. This will be useful for me to find golden rule sources and create appropriate drafts. Thank you very much! |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Petard

Why does the page Petard (disambiguation) state that "petard" is a synonym for firecracker? In reality, the term only refers to medieval metal container. Should this statement be removed? ~2026-59156-83 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59156-83: Good catch. Petard § Etymology says it's used in French to mean that, but this is the English Wikipedia, and not a translation dictionary. The firecracker article makes no mention of it. I've removed it, but am happy to have it replaced if reliable sources are found supporting the claim. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

My (paper) copy of the OED (1971 copyright so 1st edition text) has as meaning 2 "A kind of firework that explodes with a loud report; a cracker" with examples dating from 1668 to 1882.

Although a web query suggests the term is not used in modern pyrotechnics, usages approaching (or likely into) the 20th century suggest to me that this usage might well be encountered in older literature, and should probably be retained, though perhaps marked as 'obsolescent'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56420-06: Thanks for researching that. I've found a reference in my old COD which I'd forgotten I had: kind of firework, cracker. I've restored the firecracker meaning to the primary definition at Petard (disambiguation); and added the word, with my reference, to firecracker and petard. It's not for us to judge its obsolescence without a reference which states such. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

References & Notes in Wikipedia Articles

What is the difference between a 'Reference' & a 'Note'? I am looking at the article 'The Reluctant Tommy' & can't see how they differ. Any advice is very welcome. Thank you ~2026-59009-84 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Footnotes § Reference lists: the basics. — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 22:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. ~2026-59009-84 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Editorial guidance for a non-native speaker.

Hello everyone, I am not a native speaker and have written my articles based mainly on analogue sources that are not available in the digital domain. I would like to kindly ask for some help with my articles and recurring issues of AI tagging (categorized as “oddly phrased paragraphs”). I will be grateful if someone could help me with editing my contributions, how to remove the tags and how to get my articles out of the draft slot. Phasenvoid; Talk:Phasenvoid; Draft:Neo-Krautrock Thank you very much, Repevox (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox, please see WP:ESLAI. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:43, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. That is why I am here asking for help. Thanks again and have a great weekend. Repevox (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox Your article would be improved if you used the first sentence to tell the reader what neo krautrock is, not just who invented it. Imagine you are a reader who has never heard of it. ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, after reading the article, I'm not sure at all what specifically differentiates Neo-Krautrock. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Thank you very much, your critique is highly appreciated. I have already extended the introduction. Maybe it helps to make the distinction clearer. If you like, please have a look. Thank you very much for helping to improve the article. Repevox (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, your help is highly appreciated and I see your point, I have already reworked the introduction. I will be very grateful if you like to have a look. Again, thank you so much I am happy to find some advice. Repevox (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox Describing it as a sociocultural phenomenon doesn't help the reader. Isn't it a style of music? That's what the first sentence should say. ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57795-42

Hi, thank you very much.

It was not just a musical style, it was a cultural attitude (from using the term Kraut Rock, fashion, vinyl records, etc.) – comparable to the original Kraut Rock in the 1970s.

What do you think of something like: a musical style shaped by a continued countercultural attitude?

Repevox (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox You might be better to add to the existing Krautrock article rather than trying to create a new one. There's a lot of shared information. ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57795-42

Thank you very much, I really appreciate your feedback.

I think a separate article would prevent an incorrect historical classification, since Neo-Kraut Rock is a distinct phenomenon. Kraut Rock is encompassed to a specific period, zeitgeist and post-war generation. Comparable to Psychedelia and Neo-Psychedelia that have separate articles as they refer to different contexts. Neo-Kraut Rock (as well as Neo-Psychedelia) is Post-Punk generation and today has become a self-referring simulacrum in metamodernity unlike the original Kraut Rock.

I think I should try the separate article – what do you think? Repevox (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox @CoffeeCrumbs also had a similar view, above. Given the issues that have been identified with your draft, I think you would be better to add to the krautrock page in the first instance. Also, other editors who are watching that page may be able to help & advise. ~2026-57795-42 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57795-42

Thank you very much. I agree this is a good idea. I would like to suggest, since I see an actual value in a separate article for example for journalists who otherwise can find only misinformation on the genre, that I aim for a separate article (and try to improve it), in case it does not work, we can even incorporate a much better article into the Kraut Rock article. I have already started, let´s see what I can do. What do you think?

and of course if you have suggestions on how to improve my English, please let me know, I will be very grateful. Thank you again.Repevox (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Repevox, you could create a section in the Krautrock article discussing Neo-Krautrock. I agree with others who have replied here that having a whole other article for this really isn’t the best idea. This is the second time you’ve asked ‘What do you think?’ about creating a separate article; what we think is that you should not. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 07:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474

I am sorry. My second "what do you think?" was about the workflow of improving the article and does not ignore the suggestion to incorporate it into the Krautrock article. Maybe I have not expressed myself correctly. Repevox (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I didn’t understand you correctly :) But now that I do, I like your suggestion to improve on your article so that you’ll have a better section to work into the original article. Apologies for accidentally wasting your time! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 21:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

bad links

As a complete newbie, where and how do you report links not working or linking to unrelated sites? ~2026-59213-24 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, ~2026-59213-24! If a link looks like this, we call it a red link (because it's red). These typically mean that an article should exist for the topic, but has not been created yet. They can also just mean that someone put in a link wrong. This is a hard decision (talk to me!, contribs) 20:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Building on what @This is a hard decision said, not all red links need to be removed, as some can encourage editors to start an article on the subject. That's how I wrote my first article.

As for links that go to different websites, if they do not add anything meaningful to the article, you can remove them OR find replacements (like archived pages or new links to the same information). PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your last statement. If links were valid when first used but are now not, every effort should be used to find replacements, either archived copies of the originals, or new links to the same information. See WP:Link rot. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for the correction. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 01:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

To answer your actual question: there is no single place for such reports. You can report broken links on the talk page of the article in question, but if the article is small or not often edited, few people may be watching. In that case, pick one of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page, and report the matter on the project's talk page.

If you're not sure how or where to do that, report them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:18, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are talking about an external link (like this) that links somewhere completely random, you can do the same thing. The only difference is that these link to another Wikipedia page, while these link outside of the Wikimedia projects. This is a hard decision (talk to me!, contribs) 17:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ~2026-59688-22 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure bug

I was trying out the Wikipedia Adventure game, but I noticed that after completing mission 3, that badge never appeared on my user page, and the game is acting as if it is still in progress. Halloweenbunny 21:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Not sure, but I would suggest maybe try restarting the game. Robloxguest3 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

ITN nom notification

Is there a notification template for ITN nominations? Fortek67 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67 Do you mean templates to go on user talk pages after a nomination has been featured? If so, there are lots of examples at User talk:Onegreatjoke, although I don't know exactly how they were produced. Other templates related to ITN are listed as "ITN Tools" on pages like WP:ITNC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest in Article Creation

Hello: as a supporter and reader, I would like to try to create a Wikipedia page for a 38 year old community writing group that my late husband co-founded…naturally these members are my friends/colleagues. Is this a Conflict of Interest that rules out my proposed submission? ~2026-57972-37 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (COI) does not rule out contributions, but you must follow a few rules. See the conflict of interest policy. Common mistakes include:

• Using LLMs to write articles
• Not understanding the notability policy
• Not understanding the reliable sources policy

Also, watch out for SCAMs.

IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 23:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-57972-37, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Ilikecats has answered your specific question, but I would like to answer a question that you haven't yet asked.

I'm afraid it is likely that you would be wasting your time trying this, because Wikipedia has a non-negotiable set of criteria without which no article on a subject will be accepted: those criteria are called notability.

This word is used with a special meaning, and it mostly means "enough people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen of their own bat to write in some depth about the subject, and been published in reliable places".

The fact is that most organisations in the world (even including some high-profile charities, for example) have not been written about in this way, and so are not wiki-notable.

Thus, if you do decide to try this, you would be well-advised to start by finding several sources each of which meets all the conditions in the WP:golden rule. Unless you can find at least three such sources, I would advise not spending any more time on a doomed attempt.

If your group is one of the rare ones that are notable, that is where the challenge of writing with a COI begins: you would need to effectively forget every single thing you know about the group, and write a summary of what those independent sources said about it.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

This probably sounds a rather depressing answer; but I'm afraid that what you are wanting to do is very likely impossible, and if it is possible you may not be happy with the result (see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Not able to describe edits — glitch?

In my last couple of edits I was unable to describe the edit because after going to "review edits" and hitting the blue arrow again I was not returned to the "describe your edits" page as expected but instead the edit went live and appeared without a description. Is this a temporary glitch or have they changed something? I usually look at my edits before deciding how to describe them. I use visual editing on a mobile. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Maybe make some test edits on a sandbox (yours, global sandbox) to confirm it's doing such. Maybe test if it also does this in the source editor? — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 06:03, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I don't seem to have a sandbox. Does that happen if I make a user page?

The global sandbox doesn't behave in the same way as the edit window for all the other edits I've made on wiki so it's not proving a useful test and it doesn't seem to let me use visual editor at all, which would appear to be a glitch in itself because it doesn't have the drop-down options or go to visual if I click on the word here in the message about using visual editor in its own text.

Also, once I've edited the sandbox, it doesn't have the show changes button lower left that I'm used to, despite suggesting in its own text that it does. But it does show me the full edited text on the first window after publish, which is not what I'm used to.

It did let me edit in source and I was able to see my additions in the first page after publish (blue arrow top right), so it doesn't tally with what it says in its own text, which suggests there should be at least one button with text on it allowing you to go elsewhere to see the finished text or review your changes. But the finished text button isn't needed because you can already see the added text itself below. Which seems odd. So the global sandbox has just complicated things for me. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-57767-13, welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm not sure how it works on mobile, but on desktop you should make sure you click the back arrow in the top left of the 'Review edits' screen before you click the blue 'Publish box' on the right. Maybe this is what appears as a blue arrow on mobile screens?

You've got to go backwards and enter an edit summary in the previous page otherwise it will publish the edit without asking again. I agree it's a little counterintuitive and it's caught me out a couple times too. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In mobile on visual editor when doing ordinary edits I arrive first in an add summary window where I get a review your changes button on the lower left which takes me to a page that shows me highlighted differences, and usually if I go there to check my edits I can come back via the blue arrow top right to return to the summary window and add my summary and then use the blue arrow top right again to fully publish.

(Or, from the summary window I could use the top left white arrow to go back to the edited text itself.)

What is happening now is that if I use the lower left review changes button to check things, when I try to go back to the summary window using the blue top right arrow, I skip the summary window completely and go straight to full publish. So that's very different from every other time I've edited. And I don't think there's any other way to get back to the summary window from review changes.

I think it's a glitch because I've just tested it on a real edit (had to apologise in the talk page for doing an unsummarised edit but it was the only way to test it properly) and while I was in the review changes window, I think the system thought I was still in the summary window, because at the top left it was showing text suggesting that if I clicked top left again I would reach review changes. But of course I was already in review changes so I can't think of a good reason for that text or arrow. So I think something is screwy and I can't test it again for obvious reasons.

In order to keep editing for the moment I will just have to make sure I summarise before reviewing, but this is not a good way to do it as I may forget to mention all aspects of my edits.

Should I take this to the tech people or is posting here enough to alert them? ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Further to this, it appears that when in review changes, if I select the "review changes" arrow/direction on top left, it does then take me back to the summary window. Which means they've just changed the route back to summary. It used to be publish (blue arrow top right) and is now this option top left. But they haven't fixed the signposts yet because surely that direction top left should now say summarise your edit because that's where it leads.

The new system seems contradictory when I've been so used to going left for reviews and right towards publishing, but I can understand the thinking behind keeping the blue publish button for final publish. To some extent. I'm not sure.

Is it very unusual to edit on mobile? I'm surprised that lots of people aren't asking about this today.

So at least I'm still able to review my edits before summarising them. I'll just have to try to remember not to go top right afterwards any more. Unfortunately it's become second nature and I anticipate a string of unsummarised edits and many apologies. Sorry in advance.

The oddness of not being able to use visual in the global sandbox remains a mystery. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I’ve made some edits on mobile and nothing seems to have changed for me, perhaps it’s a browser or device specific issue. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

They have updated the mobile view pretty recently - it does the same for me (review changes bottom left & no edit summary box if you go that way) but you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Editor → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. I'm not certain if this is available for temporary accounts though, so you'll need to check. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:56, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Much appreciated. I seem to be managing to remember the new system now and when I use the review changes at bottom left, I'm able to get back to edit summary by using the top left arrow apparently marked "review changes". (Although it's possible that that text isn't supposed to be a direction and is just a heading for the page I'm on.) ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

What is going on with the 2026 United States elections page?

For the past few minutes when I've been trying to pull up the 2026 United States elections page, it instead shows a neon blue screen with text reading "I am User:[banned user] on wikipedia." Pebble1043 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pebble1043, welcome to the Teahouse. It was template vandalism and was fixed after five minutes. The vandal account has been blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Editing

When I edited Argoina High School USD 359, my edit didn't stay and I was hoping it would stay. Coolguy818 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Coolguy818: Welcome to The Teahouse. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that editorial remarks (such as the one you made that was rightfully reverted) have no place on articles here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Article ratings

I recently expanded the "Lawrence Shepp" article, but it's still rated Stub-class. Who updates the article ratings, and how does the process work? Benatny (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Benatny,

For article ratings Stub through B, you can edit boldly and change the ratings yourself. Here are the requirements for each class of article. The rating of the article can be changed by editing the source code of the article’s talk page.

Cheers. 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 05:06, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Category

Sock

If a page has its own category named after it, does the page only need THAT category listed and nothing else?

For example, should child pornography only have Category:Child pornography, while every other category should be added to the aforementioned category itself? Puzzlepiecelad (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Puzzlepiecelad Help:Categories has some suggestions. You can see which sub-categories are already covered by looking at the category page itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible help writing an article?

I've recently been researching the sinking of the SS City of Atlanta and I was surprised to hear she doesn't have a Wikipedia article about her. I've made two articles and sent them but got rejected because they sound too much like an essay/news report. I've looked through more articles so I think I know how they talk on Wikipedia. Could someone (or a few people) help me possibly write an article on the SS City of Atlanta/Sinking of SS City of Atlanta? Thanks. ~2026-58901-50 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58901-50 Thanks for wanting to add such an article. Your best bet is probably to begin a draft and then post at one of the talk pages related to WP:SHIPS, where those interested are more likely to respond than here at the Teahouse. Like all drafts, you should focus on showing how the ship and its sinking are notable in the sense used in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2026-58901-50 (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

See WP:AfC for guidance on how to start a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:12, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

روبیکا

@zahra_rasouli_1995

اکانت روبیکا چند ساله تعلیق شده برگردون Zahra rasouli 1995 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. We cannot help you with issues on the Persian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Filter blocking me from editing my own sandbox

I tried to edit my sandbox, but a filter stopped me from doing so saying it was "destructive" can someone please fix this? Nas4th48 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nas4th48 You've already reported it to the false positives log, someone there will review it, there's nothing more we can do for you here at the Teahouse. Athanelar (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nas4th48: I know it's problematic in an IPA edit but can you avoid adding three consecutive special characters? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Beth Fraikorn

I have a wiki account - but it only reflects one TV series I have done ..I would like to add my other credits and background. When i try to create a second account it does not allow due to "too similar "

this is more like what is should read : Beth Fraikorn

Collapse for brevity The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Television Producer | Media Executive | Entrepreneur

Beth Fraikorn is an American television and film producer, media executive, entrepreneur, and leader whose career spans more than three decades in entertainment, digital visual effects, television production, international content distribution, and documentary storytelling.

Her career includes executive leadership at The Walt Disney Company, where she served as General Manager of post-production operations at Disney-MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida, and led Disney i.d.e.a.s. She subsequently founded and led independent media businesses, including Compulsion Entertainment and Remarkable Content Group, and held a U.S. executive position with Canadian production company Breakthrough Entertainment.

Fraikorn's production work encompasses documentaries, television miniseries, true-crime programming, unscripted entertainment, and social-impact films. Her credits include The Stand, The Langoliers, The Perfect Murder, Style Exposed: Baring It All, and Second Shot. Her was recognized with an Emmy Award, a Silver Telly Award, a Gold Award from Houston International Film Festival as well as a Grand Prix From Imagina Festival.

She has also served in leadership positions with the Producers Guild of America (PGA), including its national Board of Directors and Chair of the Non-Fiction and Documentary Committee. In Connecticut, she has served on Stamford's Economic Development Commission.

Early Career, Education and Digital Media Innovation

Fraikorn graduated from Lehigh University with an interdisciplinary bachelor's degree. Her studies included business, mathematics, psychology, and photography.

She began her professional career during the formative years of computer graphics and digital visual effects, working with Symbolics, a technology company associated with the early development of computer graphics and artificial intelligence systems.

Her early experience in the emerging CGI industry helped establish her career at the intersection of technology, creative production, and business development. Rather than pursuing a career as a designer, she concentrated on producing, developing business relationships, structuring production opportunities, and bringing creative and technical teams together.

She subsequently worked with NHK, Japan's public broadcasting organization, as Lead Producer for NHK/HDCG, an early high-definition computer-generated imagery operation. During this period, she produced Lost Animals, described as the first high-definition CGI animated film. Her early work also included visual-effects production for the highly acclaimed Time-Life miniseries Lost Civilizations.

Fraikorn later held executive production positions with Image Design, Inc., and NVC, Inc., overseeing visual-effects and post-production activities for feature films, television programming, and commercial projects.

The Walt Disney Company: Disney-MGM Studios and Disney i.d.e.a.s.

One of the defining chapters of Fraikorn's career was her executive leadership in Orlando, Florida, during the expansion of the Central Florida film and television production industry and following the conclusion of The Post Group's management arrangement with Disney. When The Walt Disney Company assumed direct responsibility for the facility and the Disney i.d.e.a.s. identity was created and represented Imagery, Design, Editorial, Art, and Sound.

The Los Angeles Times reported Fraikorn's appointment: "Disney-MGM Studios has named Beth Fraikorn general manager of post-production operations at the Orlando, Fla., facility. This appointment placed her in charge of the post-production operation at Disney-MGM Studios during an important period of expansion and repositioning. The Orlando Sentinel described the facility's efforts to expand its business beyond Disney projects and attract national commercial and television clients. Fraikorn led the operation's efforts to market its capabilities to the wider entertainment industry. Projects associated with the facility during this period included:

• Extremely Weird, an NBC television special, From The Earth To The Moon (HBO); (ABC); Disney’s Christna Parade, etc.
• National Commercial productions.
• Voice-over recording for Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, and other features.

Fraikorn's management philosophy emphasized investing in technical capabilities and pushing creative and technological boundaries to attract outside clients and compete with established post-production companies. She has been described her as the youngest female studio head at the time and noted her responsibility for expansion of the nationally recognized facility.

Independent Media Ventures and International Distribution

Compulsion Entertainment, Inc.

Following her corporate studio experience, Fraikorn established Compulsion Entertainment, Inc., as an independent production and media business. The company provided a platform for developing content, building production relationships, consulting, and pursuing opportunities across television and international media markets. Her work through Compulsion expanded her focus from studio operations into independent production, strategic development, and business partnerships.

Remarkable Content Group

Fraikorn subsequently founded and led Remarkable Content Group, a television packaging, content representation, and international sales agency. Working with industry partners around the globe, she focused on representing documentary and factual programming, developing distribution opportunities, and connecting producers and content owners with broadcasters and international buyers.

In October 2010, industry publication Realscreen reported on Remarkable Content Group's representation of two projects involving actor William Shatner, including the feature documentary The Captains. The company's activities reflected Fraikorn's growing involvement in international television distribution, documentary packaging, and content acquisition.

Breakthrough Entertainment

Canadian independent production company Breakthrough Entertainment opened a US office and appointed Fraikorn to lead its alternative-content operation. C21Media's reported, "Breakthrough opens US office," covering

• Development and production of nonfiction and reality programming for the U.S. market.
• Business development.
• Joint partnerships with independent production companies.
• Relationships with broadcasters and digital content providers.
• Expansion of the company's American production and coproduction activities.

The report also identified Remarkable Content Group and Compulsion Entertainment as businesses she had previously founded.

Transform Films and Odyssey Impact

Fraikorn subsequently became involved with more social justice projects in her role with Transform Films / Odyssey Impact, concentrating on documentary development, content strategy, partnerships, and socially relevant nonfiction storytelling. Her work in this area included the documentary Second Shot, for which she is credited as an executive producer, which explores the U.S. parole system and the relationship between punishment, rehabilitation, and social justice.

Film and Television Production

Fraikorn's production experience spans television movies, miniseries, documentaries, true-crime programming, factual entertainment, and social-impact films. Her selected production credits include the following titles

Selected Production Credits

Early television and visual-effects work

• The Stand (1994) — Producer credit listed in IMDb.
• The Langoliers (1995) — Producer credit listed in IMDb.
• Extremely Weird (1995) — Associated with Disney i.d.e.a.s. post-production operations.
• Lost Animals — Lead Producer, NHK/HDCG.
• Lost Civilizations — Visual-effects executive production work, Time-Life Television.

Documentary and television programming

• The Shift — Executive Producer.
• Style Exposed: Baring It All (2011) — Consulting Producer.
• The Captains (2011) — Production and distribution association through Remarkable Content Group.
• I Married a Mobster (2011–2012) — Executive Producer credit.
• Family Pickle (2011–2012) — Executive Producer credit.
• The Captains Close Up (2013) — Co-Executive Producer credit.
• Who Took Johnny (2014) — Executive Producer credit.
• The Perfect Murder (2014–2018) — Producer; IMDb lists 46 episodes.
• Hollywood Homicide Uncovered (2016) — Executive Producer credit.
• The Legend of... with Chris Jericho (2017) — Executive Producer credit.
• I Lived with a Killer (2019–2020) — Executive Producer credit.
• Iconic Women of Country (2020) — Executive Producer credit.
• G.O.A.T.s: The Greatest of All Time (2021) — Executive Producer credit.

Documentary and social-impact productions

• Second Shot (2022) — Executive Producer.
• Panthera Britannia (2022) — Executive Producer credit.
• Phoolan — Documentary project; Producer credit.

Awards and Recognition

Emmy Award — 2012

Consulting Producer on Style Exposed: Baring It All, an installment of the NBC/Style Network.

Telly Award — Silver Winner

Fraikorn an Executive Producer of Second Shot, which received a Silver Winner recognition at the 43rd Annual Telly Awards.

Film Festival Recognition — Second Shot

Other festival selections and recognition, including:

• Martha's Vineyard African American Film Festival — Official Selection.
• Chagrin Documentary Film Festival — Official Selection.
• Social Justice Film Festival — Official Selection.
• Charlotte Film Festival — Official Selection.
• International Social Change Film Festival — Official Selection.

Additional Historical Awards and Recognition

Fraikorn's professional history also includes recognition associated with her early computer-graphics, animation, and visual-effects work, including:

• IMAGINA Grand Prix.
• Houston International Film Festival Gold Award.
• International computer-graphics and animation festival recognition.
• SIGGRAPH-related screenings and recognition.
• Images Du Future.
• International Animation Festival.

These honors form part of her broader professional history in emerging digital media and visual-effects production.

Producers Guild of America and Industry Leadership

Fraikorn has maintained an active role in entertainment-industry governance and professional development. She serves on the national Board of Directors of the Producers Guild of America, an organization representing producers across film, television, and emerging media. She previously served as Chair of the PGA East Non-Fiction and Documentary Committee from June 2015 through January 2022.

Her industry involvement has included documentary-sector leadership, professional panels, mentoring, educational speaking engagements, and participation in industry judging activities. She has also served as a judge for competitions associated with the Producers Guild of America, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Canda’s Rockie Awards, and other media-industry organizations.

Civic Leadership: Stamford, Connecticut

In addition to her entertainment-industry work, Fraikorn was appointed to Stamford's Economic Development Commission by Mayor Caroline Simmons

Professional Approach and Areas of Expertise

Throughout her career, Fraikorn has worked across the creative, commercial, and operational sides of the entertainment industry.

Her professional experience includes:

• Studio and post-production management.
• Computer-generated imagery and digital visual effects.
• Television and documentary production.
• Unscripted and factual programming.
• International content sales and distribution.
• Production-company development.
• Business strategy and joint ventures.
• Executive producing and creative partnerships.
• Documentary and social-impact storytelling.
• Industry governance and mentorship.
• Municipal economic development.

Her career reflects a continuing interest in combining creative talent, technology, commercial strategy, and meaningful storytelling.

---

Selected Online Professional Profiles

IMDb:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3325574/

IMDb Awards:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3325574/awards/

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/beth-fraikorn-4a73754/

Producers Guild of America:

https://producersguild.org/board-of-directors/

Lehigh University Alumni Profile:

https://alumni.lehigh.edu/news-blog/life-three-acts-emmy-award-winning-producer-beth-fraikorn-82

City of Stamford Economic Development Commission:

https://cityofstamford.granicus.com/boards/w/171c51bf52d23c24/boards/50214

---

Published References and Historical Documentation

1. Cruz, Skye. "A Life in Three Acts: Emmy Award-Winning Producer Beth Fraikorn '82." Lehigh University Alumni, March 19, 2026. https://alumni.lehigh.edu/news-blog/life-three-acts-emmy-award-winning-producer-beth-fraikorn-82
2. "Company Town: Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group Appoints Vice President of Media." Los Angeles Times, February 9, 1996. The article reports Fraikorn's appointment as general manager of post-production operations at Disney-MGM Studios. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-02-09-fi-34063-story.html
3. Hinman, Catherine. "Studios re-emphasizing post-production." Orlando Sentinel, January 24, 1996. The article discusses Disney i.d.e.a.s., its general manager Beth Fraikorn, its technical capabilities, staffing, and efforts to attract non-Disney clients. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1996/01/24/studios-re-emphasizing-post-production/
4. "Disney's post-production i.d.e.a.s." Orlando Sentinel, June 9, 1994, page B1. Historical coverage of the facility's transition following the end of The Post Group's management arrangement. Original print details and page reference should be checked against the newspaper archive.
5. "Breakthrough opens US office." C21Media, April 9, 2015. https://www.c21media.net/news/breakthrough-opens-us-office/
6. Anderson, Kelly. "Remarkable Content Group reps two William Shatner projects." Realscreen, October 18, 2010. https://realscreen.com/2010/10/18/remarkable_shatner-20101018/
7. "The 39th Annual Daytime Entertainment Emmy Award Nominations." National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, May 2012. The nomination listing identifies Beth Fraikorn as Consulting Producer on Style Exposed: Baring It All. https://www.postmagazine.com/documents/39thdaytimeemmynominations.pdf
8. Day, Patrick Kevin. "PBS tops Daytime Creative Arts Emmy winners." Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2012. The article confirms Style Exposed: Baring It All as the Outstanding Special Class Special winner. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-xpm-2012-jun-18-la-et-st-daytime-emmys-creative-arts-winners-20120618-story.html
9. "Second Shot." Kinema. Production credits, Telly recognition, and festival selections. https://kinema.com/films/second-shot
10. "Board of Directors." Producers Guild of America. https://producersguild.org/board-of-directors/
11. "Economic Development Commission." City of Stamford, Connecticut. Official municipal commission information and member records. https://cityofstamford.granicus.com/boards/w/171c51bf52d23c24/boards/50214
12. "Action Report of the Regular Board Meeting of the 31st Board of Representatives." City of Stamford, February 3, 2025. Documents the approval of Fraikorn's Economic Development Commission appointment. https://boardofreps.org/Data/Sites/43/userfiles/minutes/2025/250203.pdf
13. "Beth Fraikorn." Internet Movie Database. Production credits and awards listings. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3325574/
14. "Beth Fraikorn." Producers Guild of America professional profile. https://producersguild.org/board-of-directors/
15. "Beth Fraikorn." LinkedIn professional profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/beth-fraikorn-4a73754/
16. "Beth Fraikorn." About.me professional profile. https://about.me/beth.fraikorn

Beth I Fraikorn (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I think you are confusing the term "account" and "article". The content of the encyclopedia here is usually referred to as articles or pages. Your account is what enables you to contribute to the encyclopedia. I assume you are referring to the Draft:Beth Fraikorn article draft.

Have you reviewed the autobiography policy? Almost everyone who attempts to write about themselves fails at it, especially as new users without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Beth I Fraikorn The (collapsed) draft here is actually much less like a Wikipedia biography than the version that was declined when you submitted it. Just a tiny example: you now want to say One of the defining chapters of Fraikorn's career was... but you cite no source. Who published in a reliable source to suggest that this part of your career was a "defining chapter"? Wikipedia has a policy you can read at WP:NPOV that says that article content should be neutrally worded, so that such an assessment of your career would only be allowed if quoted to someone independent of you who had written about you. Another significant policy is that about biographies of living people. Please read that and you will see why your efforts so far are wide of the mark. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Beth I Fraikorn, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

If there is ever an article about you (whoever writes it), it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it will be editable by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Do I put template above or below the disambiguation?

User:PixelsRCool/sandbox/Olalla, Teruel

As you can see, I put down the translation template talking about the corresponding article in Spanish. However I do not know if I'm supposed to put it above or below the "For other uses, see Olalla." part. Or can it go anywhere?

I currently have it below the disambiguation. Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

The template should be placed atop the article page along with other maintenance templates.

— Template:Expand Spanish/doc#Usage

All templates have documentations which talk about template usage.

I'm assuming this means the very top. Pixel Reindeer (Talk) 17:13, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi PixelsRCool. MOS:ORDER says hatnotes before maintenance tags. That means {{Other uses}} before {{Expand Spanish}} as you already have. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

"Sites of interest" sections on city-related articles

Struggling to find a specific consensus that I was curious about while editing the Kissimmee, Florida and St. Cloud, Florida articles, so I'll ask: are "Sites of interest" a noteworthy section for an article? It's a pretty subjective thing to include, so I don't really know if that's appropriate to include, and if so, how is that best handled? WAVELANDSHIELDDROP (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I suspect not, see Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Check out Wikivoyage. — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 17:40, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Right... I figured as such. Should those sections just be removed altogether then? WAVELANDSHIELDDROP (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You know, I just dug further. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure § Attractions / Amenities, there actually should be a section as such. I suppose that, as long as it has some citations saying why X location is of interest, and doesn't expand into full travel guide terratory, it can probably be kept. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 18:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

"Interest" is subjective; "amenities" is not. See WP:NPOV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Incorrectly licensed files

What should I do if I see a file put under the wrong licence, or if it's submitted as 'own work' incorrectly? There's no Commons "Teahouse", so I'm asking here. Pixel Reindeer (Talk) 17:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Image use policy § Deleting images — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 17:38, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check that out later. Pixel Reindeer (Talk) 18:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PixelReindeer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure if those instructions apply directly to files in Commons: what I do when challenging a file that is on Commons, is go to the Commons file description page, and pick "Nominate for deletion" from the Tools menu. That lets you give a reason.

If you think it would be better to discuss it first, post at C:COM:VP/C. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@PixelReindeer: You can always ask about a Commons file at c:Commons:Help desk or, as ColinFine posted above, c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. Moreover, a Commons file doesn't necessarily need to be deleted just because the uploader might've incorrectly claimed it as their "own work". People often upload files to Commons as "own work" simply because they don't know better, but the actual file itself might no longer be or never was eligible for copyright protection for some reason or might be something actually released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. So, unless your fairly certain the file's description or licensing can't be fixed, you might want to seek other opinions about it before tagging/nominating it for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Is my account & username out of date?

Hi, I have not used my account or username for 8 years. Do I need to create new ones? Thank you ~2026-59009-84 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You can (and probably should) use your old account. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 17:37, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ~2026-58947-91 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

There is no expiration date for accounts. As long as you can still log in, you can use the account for as long as you like. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 18:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I can’t log in & have emailed for re set but not had a response ~2026-58947-91 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-58947-91, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Do you still have access to the email that you set up when you created the account? If so, have you looked in your spam folder?

Unfortunately, if you no longer have that email, then there is no way to recover your account. You may create a new one, and are recommended to put a note on your user page saying that this is a replacement account and giving the original name (and linking it to the old User page, if you had one). ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Yes, I still have & use the email address. I check my spam box every day & delete stuff not wanted. Is there anything else I can do? ~2026-59009-84 (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Omary

hi, my name is Omary, I am writing a wikipedia page for my artist page and career and I need Feedback on the sources and neutrality before submission. Draft:Omary. Ostna (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Ostna: Welcome to The Teahouse. Please don't ask for pre-review feedback, as that is what the AfC review process is for. You can still work on it even after you've submitted it for review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ostna, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read WP:autobiography which explains why creating an article about yourself is so insanely difficult that very few people have ever managed it successfully.

Honestly, it is likely that you will not succeed. I advise you to spend your time on furthering your career, and posting on sites which permit promotion - Wikipedia does not. ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

William McKinley

I tried to edit the William McKinley page to correct a significant error. After removing it and applying a change, it caused a message that I created some sort of error. A couple of fellow editors have been to the page, cleaned up and removed the wrong information. May I now go back and replace it? I dont want to cause a fuss or run afoul of the rules. Here is the entire paragrah which contains the change I would like to make:

McKinley was sworn in as president on March 4, 1897, as his wife and mother looked on as he wore on his left breast lapel the fraternity badge of Sigma Alpha Epsilon as an honor initiate of the Ohio Sigma chapter (Mount Union) while serving as governor of Ohio.

Who would give me the okay with making this change. Thank you, Behold1856! (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Behold1856!. Please discuss this on the talk page Talk:William McKinley, and get consensus.

Personally, while I accept that his membership might reasonably be added to the article, I don't think that is the right place to add it. (But I know little about American presidents or fraternities, so I shall not be contributing to the discussion). ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Behold1856! (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Behold1856! With five uses of "as" in one sentence, I think you need to reword your suggestion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

No kidding! Behold1856! (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

You don't need permission (be bold!), but you do need to cite a source (see WP:V). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on expanded article about Putt's Law

Hello, I am a student editor working on the article Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat. I have added several new sections based on reliable sources. I would welcome any feedback on the content, sources, or formatting. Thank you. Threebearrye (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Putt's Law — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 21:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Article expansion Hinrich Kaiser

Hinrich Kaiser

Hi everyone, I am more generally known for editing etc at Wikispecies and also some higher roles I have. However, I have been approached by a colleague whose sone has written an expansion to his biography. But he realises he cannot make this update himself. He asked me. As I am not really a regular editor or EN WP and I also technically have NPoV issues here I am hoping someone would be willing to expand this article. I can provide the text file they sent me which is effectively the wikimarkup. Curently the article in question just just a link to his Wikispecies page, so this would be an expansion of a page that already exists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Faendalimas, if the colleague's son you are discussing is Hinrich Kaiser, there is no biography for him on English Wikipedia. That opens two possibilities.

1. If this is related to updating his entry on Wikispecies, as far as I know they don't share the same COI rules as en-wiki. You could ask at the Wikispecies Village Pump.

2. If this is related to creating a new article here on the English Wikipedia, you can refer your colleague or his son to the general notability guideline, the policy on conflict-of-interest editing, and the rules on autobiographical articles. Theoretically, you could ask at WP:RA, but it's so backlogged that it's basically useless.

An important closing note: now that you've asked here, beware of scams. If anyone approches you offering to create, guarantee acceptance of or undelete your article, they are most likely a scammer. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Um no it has nothing to do with Wikispecies, where I am a crat. Its ENWP and the article already exists. I linked it above. The son of the subject of that article has written an expansion of it. But the subject of the biography sent it to me as we are long term colleagues. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Faendalimas, fair enough. But click on the link you provided, and you'll see a page that says: "Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedic article for Hinrich Kaiser (search results).

You may want to read the Wikispecies entry on "Hinrich Kaiser" instead." Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I think they're asking whether someone would create the article here on their behalf.

@Faendalimas You've got a couple of options - the son could absolutely write and submit this as a COI draft with the relevant tags. It would definitely need to be compliant with English Wikipedia policies etc., so I'd strongly encourage them to read through all the help guides and so on first. It won't be easy, as the Wikispecies page is barely the skeleton of a Wikipedia article and writing with a COI is hard, especially for a new editor. It'll depend on how much effort they would like to put into seeing this through. Honestly, this isn't a great idea, but it's possible.

You could also write and submit the draft yourself; I think you're far enough removed that there wouldn't be a COI, but you might prefer to COI tag anyway or at least disclose it when you submit the draft for approval via WP:AFC.

Otherwise, articles aren't written on request so it's unlikely that you'd come across a volunteer who'd create it for you (especially on the Newcomer Teahouse) - that's one reason why WP:Requested articles is currently inactive. We're more of a "get your hands dirty and dig in" project. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Faendalimas, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Frankly, unless the son is an experienced Wikipedia editor, it is unlikely that he understands enough of Wikipedia's policies to even determine whether his father meets the criteria for notability, let alone to write an acceptable article about him. It is likely that his draft was written WP:BACKWARDS, in other words, from what he knows, rather than from what the independent sources say.

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

We very often get people posting here who want an article about themselves or their close colleagues or relations, and I'm afraid the stock answer is usually "only if you write it yourself, but you are very unlikely to be successful in doing so". This is partly because of their inexperience in Wikipedia's policies, but usually also because most people in the world do not actually meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Please ask the son to paste the mark-up into Draft:Hinrich Kaiser. You should not do that for them, because it would be a breach of their copyright; and false of you to claim to be the author.

Once we see proposed content, we can advise further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:17, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

How does SDZeroBot determine quality of unreviewed articles?

Recently, User:SDZeroBot has classified my yet-to-reviewed article, Shakti Shalini (NGO) as GA which makes me very happy. 🥳💝

I was curious how this bot ascertains the quality level of an article. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the bot, but looking at it's User page it seems to use ORES automation to estimate the quality of articles? An official WP:GA has to jump through quite a lot of hoops to get GA status, but that's not to say that your article won't make it if you wanted to explore that in future! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:12, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. 💜💜💜 Honeybrowneyes (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Art Therapy and ADHD

Hello!

I am a Northeastern University student, I am doing an article on Art Therapy and ADHD and i need feedback on my article. How can I improve it, what I need to remove, what is missing.

Best,

Emily Ilarslan

Here is the link to my article!

User:Emily_Ilarslan/sandbox

Emily Ilarslan (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the link to your sandbox, the whole URL isn't necessary. --Maresa63 ^Talk 04:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Emily, welcome to the Teahouse! Honestly, the article does need a few improvements to get where it needs to be.

Before we begin, please read these two pages: Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Everything you need to know so you've got a good baseline understanding.

Once you've done this, here are a few suggestions & recommendations:

• Make sure there isn't a similar article already in existence.
• You need reliable and secondary sources, that discuss the central topic - basically, proof that the subject is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Look to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for an explanation.
• Since this is a medical subject, read through WP:MEDRS.
• Your article also doesn't have many wikilinks, but that's easy to fix.
• Each claim that's likely to be challenged (e.g. anything beyond "water is wet" will need a citation, but you've got entire sections that aren't sourced yet.
• You also need a separate References section, right now your references are at the bottom of the Limitations section.
• You'll need to try to write this as an encyclopedia article, I'm afraid it currently looks more like an essay. Read through similar articles for inspiration.
• Above all, don't use AI, LLM or chatbots to write any part of your article and avoid using it for finding sources, unless you've looked at every single source manually to make sure it's not hallucinated and says exactly what it's supposed to. Even then, I'd still recommend not touching it - AI can't do Wikipedia very well at all! I don't know if you have or not, it's just happening so often that I'm mentioning it to be safe.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The lead is blatantly promotional. The sources cited are all works by people working in Art Therapy. If it's to be accepted as an article, you'll need to find and cite some independent secondary sources. As it stands, the draft gives the impression (at least to the undersigned cynic) that the technique is probably bogus. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't this be condensed into a paragraph or two, and the result added to the ADHD article? ~2026-59375-29 (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Emily Ilarslan Your draft looks a lot more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article. This makes sense given your background, but is of course a problem. We don't really talk about things in the framework of "research and limitations" here. A Wikipedia article is a neutral summary of what is written about the subject in in-depth, reliable, independent sources. Importantly, academic writing tends to encourage original research and synthesising conclusions from different sources, whereas this is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia.

WP:WRITINGFORWP might be helpful in summarising some of the major differences between writing for Wikipedia and writing for other formats. Athanelar (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Related advice also at WP:EXPERT but the most important issue here is WP:MEDRS, as already mentioned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Multiple moves creating a new primary target

I am looking for advice. I was planning to be bold and 1) move Logan's Run to a new article Logan's Run (novel), then 2) move the current Logan's Run (film) over to Logan's Run, changing the primary target from the 1967 novel to the 1976 film.

• I do not believe that there would be any dispute over changing the primary topic. Page information shows 24,502 views for the film article to 5,905 views for the novel article, and the film article's views are north of 70% of total combined views including other related topics (e.g. the DAB, a short-lived TV spin-off, etc.) Clearly the film is primary. Twenty years ago, the novel and film were a single article. In 2006, the film was split off into a new article and the novel was left at Logan's Run on the grounds that the novel predated the film based on it; I can find no talk page discussion since 2008 regarding primary topic or article names.
• However, I have not previously done a series of article moves that effectively replace a primary target. I don't know the technical issues that might be involved, and wanted to avoid creating a mess in terms of redirects, existing links from other articles, etc. that might require clean up.

So, question: Should just doing the two moves that I am proposing myself work without undue mess? Should I go to Wikipedia:Requested moves (and I am mindful that there is an admin backlog there)? Should I go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#TR? Something else? I'm trying to be respectful of fellow editors, and any advice is appreciated. Thanks. CAVincent (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Just an observer. I think you should talk on the page's talk page before discussing move. Also, if there are more than one name for a page (like multiple pages), you can create a disambiguation page. But, I would talk on the talk page of the page first. Have a great day. And, thank you for your question! Nepaxt (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this does not help. I'm not asking how to obtain consensus for the page moves, but how to make them happen from a technical standpoint. CAVincent (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

When in doubt about a complicated move you can ask for an experienced page mover to handle it here. You'll also have to make sure incoming links point to the right articles, because a redirect can't immediately handle it. I can do stuff! (talk) I can do stuff! (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Review of COI edit request

Hello,

I submitted a sourced proposal to expand the existing Stub-class biography on 2 October. An editor responded on 5 October, requesting additional internal WikiLinks. I made those changes and reopened the request on 21 October.

As of 6 November, the revised proposal has not received a further response.

I understand that there is a substantial backlog of COI edit requests, and I'm not seeking to bypass the review process. However, I'd appreciate some guidance on what the wait time should be or whether there is an appropriate way to bring a revised, fully sourced proposal to the attention of an uninvolved editor.

The existing proposal is available at Talk:James Majoos under "Proposed expansion of biography and career".

I have disclosed my personal and professional connection to the subject in the original request.

Many thanks for any guidance. Devans1989 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Your proposal has been declined, according to GPTZero it is 100% AI generated slop. Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong, I'm David. I'm sorry - having just read Wikipedia’s AI policies, your indignation is completely fair.

I probably seem just like any other lazy git who relies on ChatGPT and disrespects the actual human intelligence and labour that people like you put into maintaining the quality of the site.

Would you be opposed to offering me some further correction here? What should I do to suggest edits to this article in a way that reflects something of actual value to Wikipedia?

To be fully clear, I verified all sources manually to reflect the accuracy of the suggested edits, but regrettably I did use ChatGPT to edit the wording and help generate markup language for links and tables (I'm embarrassed to say, I found them a challenge to write myself). I can absolutely see now I should have overcome this on my own and I'm sorry to have caused issues.

If you have any further tips regarding what I might do from here, I would be extremely grateful. Devans1989 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but the phrasing of this reply would suggest you’re still using ChatGPT to ‘edit the wording’. Have you read WP:LLMTALK? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 07:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shadestar, I don't know there's much I can do to prove otherwise at this point, given the precedent I've already set. Please just know this was my first attempt to contribute something on Wikipedia, and I am trying to learn from the mistake, not cause further problems to myself or anyone by continuing to use AI. Devans1989 (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Oral history

How to write an article about what was oral history? Ras jurie (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ras jurie. Unfortunately on the English Wikipedia our articles are summaries of what reliable published sources say about a subject. If the subject was only discussed orally, and has no published sources, then an article is not possible. qcne (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, my friend.I forgot to mention that it was also recorded by multiple writers such as NoYi Robert Balfour,Tiyo Sofa and others I just wanted to summarise the rest of the history? Ras jurie (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then if you have multiple reliable published sources you can perhaps write an article about the subject, as long as the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. Instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. qcne (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple sources about the Subject but the problem is that I do not know how to write an article? Ras jurie (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

In that case, @Ras jurie, I would recommend having a read of Help:Your first article. Please remember writing a new article on Wikipedia is really difficult: I would recommend spending a few weeks at a minimum improving existing articles first, so that you get used to our policies and guidelines. I'd also recommend having a read of Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which outlines our most important policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way. qcne (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Ras jurie: Creating a new article is actually one of the most difficult tasks for a new editor to perform on Wikipedia, because there are many ways in which the article may fail to satisfy various requirements, which a new editor is unlikely to know about. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

How to add references in an article?

How to add references in an article? Ras jurie (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ras jurie. Does the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 help? qcne (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Background

Can you alter your background to bloody red, so I can actually enjoy my articles. Pretty please; with a cherry on top!

~2026-59715-08 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

We can't alter our background, but I'm sure there's a way to get the desired effect with a common.css page. Unfortunately, I can't really help you, but I'm sure there's somebody who knows CSS and is willing to help. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 14:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59715-08, you could create an account and add this to your global.css page. But you'll notice that a blood-red background is requires quite a few changes. This is a just a very basic attempt, I would not recommend using it.

html, body,
.mw-page-container,
.mw-body,
.vector-body,
#content {
    background-color: #880808 !important;
    color: #ffffff !important;
}
/* Optional: make links readable on dark red */
.mw-body a,
.vector-body a {
    color: #ffd27f !important;
}

Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Quick question as I find this idea intriguing and might want to implement it for myself with some other color but know absolutely nothing about CSS—why shouldn’t you use it? If it has an undesired effect, couldn’t you just delete that part of the .css page? (Sorry if that’s a stupid question, lol) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 07:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

It only "requires" changes in the sense that some text colors are hard to read on a dark red background. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474, as Primehunter said, text and link colors are chosen to work on a white background. Changing said background forces you to choose new colors for basically every component. Many things also depend on color, such as redlinks, disambiguation links, etc. So I wouldn't recommend just copying and pasting the code above to a new user who may not be familiar with color-related concepts. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I get it now; thanks. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 21:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Article creation/translation

I would like to translate https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%92%8C%E5%90%88%E7%9F%B3%E6%94%AF%E7%B7%9A into english but do not have extended confimed

what does I do? Terry625972 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

also does a article have to have passed the notability guidelines for the Wikipedia it is being translated to in order for it to be translated Terry625972 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Terry625972, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please look at Translation.

In answer to your second question: the notability guidelines for the source Wikipedia are not relevant. I believe that English Wikipedia has the strictest requirements, so the answer is probably Yes; but all that matters is whether the subject meets the English criteria for notability. (Note that it is the subject that must meet these criteria: the article should demonstrate this by citing appropriate sources, but it can happen that an existing article covers a notable subject without actually establishing that it is notable).

As for your first question: I'm guessing that you are using the content translation tool: because of the need for review by experienced editors, this requires ECR to use it to main-space. You may however use it to generate a user-space draft (eg User:Terry625972/Wo Hop Shek branch) review it to check the translation and that it does meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and then submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} (including the double curly brackets) at the top. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

sorry for asking, but how do I use it to generate a user space draft? Terry625972 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Terry625972, I'll just add that based on a quick scan through the sources, the article definitely passes WP:GNG on the English Wikipedia. I haven't read something so interesting in a while :) Good luck on your effort! LkL-70547 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

There is a little bit about the Wo Hop Shek Branch Line already in the article for Wo Hop Shek, so should I just make Wo Hop Shek Branch Line just link to Wo Hop Shek? Terry625972 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

if so, should I expand the paragraph? Terry625972 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:SPLIT makes more sense in this case, given the original article (and paragraph) is in pretty bad shape, if you just expand that you would end up with an article that's just 75% railway section, and the rest still unsourced. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

alright so I should leave the section and add something more, or should I move the section to the new split article Terry625972 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

can I just rewrite the article given citations from the Chinese version, or do I need to translate it from chinese

I have realized my limited Chinese (about CEFR B1) is NOT gonna take me many places

(pun intended) Terry625972 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Terry625972 I don't entirely understand what you mean. If you just mean whether you have to translate the sources cited, you definitely don't. Non-English cites are fine per WP:NONENGLISH.

As for the Wo Hop Shek article, just leaving a link should be fine. We can always improve it when we have the time, but that's a separate project.

Let me know if you have any other question. LkL-70547 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I realized that I am not good enough in Chinese to translate the article. I will use the chinese version as possible, but I need to work on it in english Terry625972 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Terry625972 not quite sure what you mean here. Do you plan to write parts of the article with English sources? That would be fine, even though I think finding those sources in the first place would be tricky. If you still plan to use the Chinese sources, those are usually harder to read compared to the zhwiki article itself, so I'm at a loss as to what you plan to do. Sorry if I misunderstood you. LkL-70547 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm essentially rewriting the article and not translating it. I am too ungood at mandarin andor cantonese to read the chinese article in the first place Terry625972 (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

So, what sources are you basing your re-writing on? I haven't found any good English sources, but you might have better luck :)

WP:Translate have some more guidelines, but in general you shouldn't go for a verbatim translation anyways. For example, there is a paragraph in the zhwiki article that's sourced to HK Maps, which is a dead link and almost certainly a failed verification (I pointed that out on the Chinese talk page), so we should leave it out of the English version. Overall, don't be afraid of writing it in your own words, as long as it fits the standard of the English Wikipedia. LkL-70547 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Article Feedback on Hair oil

Hello, I'm a student at Northeastern University and I'm updating the preexisting hair oiling article here on wikipedia! I would apperciate any feedback and constructive criticism on what to improve, add, or change to my edits!

link: Hair oil#

Thank you so much! Nadiassidani (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Always start with the Talk page to see if there are any discussions about issues in the article. In this case, there aren't, but you can see at the top of the Talk page the article is rated as "Start class" on Wikipedia's Content assessment scale. The scale is a helpful guide to improving articles. Look at the descriptions of A-class or Featured Articles and dig in!

The History section is extremely short. The article already has a lot of high quality sources. I'm sure there's information in the cited sources that can help expand any part of the article that interests you. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nadiassidani, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A much better place to ask this is at the article's talk page, Talk:Hair oil: people with knowledge and interest in the subject are more likely to see your question there than here. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I did some minor fixes to your referencing, correcting a duplicated citation and creating the citation for The Age source. For future reference, Gale is the database so instead of using {{cite web}}, you can use the appropriate template for the source (in this case {{cite news}}). Also, instead of the 'url' parameter, I used 'id' alongside the template {{Gale}} and the article's ID there. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox

How do I publish my Sandbox Zeamays (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zeamays, the easiest way to publish your sandbox would be to search for the title of the article. You'll get a prompt to create an article with the title, and you can paste the contents of your sandbox into the new page. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Trumpetrep. I would contend that that is a less easy way than moving it; and that copy and paste is not in general a good thing to recommend within Wikipedia, though in this case it would be OK as the content was presumably all created by Zeamays, so there is no copyright issue. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Zeamays, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since you are autoconfirmed, you may simply WP:Move your draft to Mainspace.

However, I am dubious that any of your sources meet all the requirements of WP:42, and therefore that the draft establishes Notability, so I don't recommend this unless you can find some better sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Article expansion and request for feedback

Hi everyone. I am looking for feedback and review on my contribution to the Hair Receivers Wikipedia page. I expanded the Hair Receivers article for my online communications classes adding information about its history, materials and design, uses of collected hair, later use, etc. I would appreciate feedback on my talk page if possible! Thank you! Talk:Hair receiver AileenBerl (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AileenBerl. Generally, the talk page of an article is a better place to solicit feedback on edits, since that is more likely to be seen by people with knowledge and interest in the subject than here. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Peer-review for "Running Clubs" page

Hi everyone. My name is Nysa Kothari and I am looking for feedback and review on my contribution to the Running Clubs Wikipedia page. Please leave comments and feedback on my talk page if possible! Thank you. Link: User:Nysakothari/Running Clubs Nysakothari (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC) Nysakothari (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nysakothari It's not a bad start, but like many student editors you've fallen into the trap of writing this more like a class essay than like an encyclopedia article. Please have a read through Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I can also see some indications that you used AI to help you with the writing, which isn't allowed here, so please don't do that. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the advice. I will edit my style of writing accordingly. I am confused about the ai indications because I haven't used it for my writing. What is leading to that? Nysakothari (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

I just see some quirks in the writing which are typical of AI and less typical of humans. If you have used AI, you don't need to worry about it; if you didn't know about our rules, you do now and you can avoid using AI in the future. If you didn't use AI, then you have nothing to worry about. Athanelar (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you! I have read all rules and regulations about ai and have also worked with my professor for writing but thank you for looking out for me I really appreciate it. The feedback was super helpful and I plan to make those changes. Nysakothari (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Table and paragraph spacing

I have created a table (with margin-left) followed by one or two blank lines and then a paragraph of text, but on output the paragraph appears next to the table (to its right). I expected the blank line to force the paragraph to be set below the table, which is my intention. I've tried unsuccesfully to force this. What should I be doing? Johsebb (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. Please always post a link or the code when you ask for help with broken code. We have to see what's wrong to fix it. If you refer to then it doesn't have margin-left but float:left which explicitly asks the browser to display the following content to the right if there is room. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="float:left;margin-left: 5mm;"
::|+  align="bottom" style="caption-side: bottom" | ''AB''<sup>2</sup> <br>''t''+ 2''u''
::|| 0
::|| 2
::|| 1
::|-
::|| 1
::|| 0
::|| 2
::|-
::|| 2
::|| 1
::|| 0
::|}<br>
|}
::Here's some text.  It needs to go '''under''' the table. 

Johsebb (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Johsebb: It's caused by float:left as I suspected so it's behaving as the code asks for. Just remove it if you dont actually want it to float left with other content to the right. You can also cancel out float by adding {{clear}} below the table but that seems pointless if you can just remove float. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a standalone article on Browser fingerprinting

Hello!

I am researching browser fingerprinting and would like to contribute to Wikipedia by creating a dedicated article on this topic.

Currently, Browser fingerprinting redirects to a subsection of Device fingerprinting. I understand that a previous discussion resulted in its merger, but I believe the topic may warrant reconsideration because of its extensive independent research and coverage of techniques, applications, privacy implications and countermeasures.

Before preparing a draft, I would appreciate guidance from experienced editors:

1. Would Browser fingerprinting meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for a standalone article?
2. Is there an appropriate process to request reconsideration of the previous merger?
3. Should I prepare a draft in my sandbox and request feedback before submitting it?

I would appreciate any advice. Thank you! 3y3damm (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable sources. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion (and I mean your own opinion, don't ask AI to do it for you) of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself.

In this case, considering that the article was already merged per discussion at Talk:Device fingerprint#Overlap with Browser fingerprint and Canvas fingerprinting, you need to specifically demonstrate that there are new sources showing has become notable since that time. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @3y3damm, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer to the first question depends on whether or not there are several independent, reliable, substantial sources on the subject - it is up to you to find those sources, checking that each of them meets all the requirements in WP:42. Unless you can find such sources, the answer is no.

If you have sources that were not cited in the former article, then whatever you are going to write will be different from what was there before, so I suggest that there is little point in thinking in terms of "reconsidering the merger": write a draft and submit it. You could put a note on the talk page of the merged article asking for input or feedback. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@3y3damm I already gave you my advice about this yesterday. Did you read it? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Table formatting

In the following table:

	0	1	2
0	x	x	x
1	x	x	x
2	x	x	x

the cells of the top row and of the left-hand column do not need to be enclosed in boxes. How do I do that?

Alternatively, I could keep this table but thicken (or double) the horizontal line after the top row and the vertical line after the first column. How do I do that? Johsebb (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Help:Table § Individual cell borders may help you IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 19:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@Johsebb: I'm guessing that the numbers in your table are column- and row-headers. If so, keep things simple and mark them as such:

	0	1	2
0	x	x	x
1	x	x	x
2	x	x	x

If I'm wrong, perhaps you could give more details about what you're trying to achieve, including the page or draft you're working on. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

This works fine. Thanks. Johsebb (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

No specifics for declined drafts

I'm tempted to push Draft:Paul Guay (screenwriter) and Draft:Kambra Potter through to mainspace, but I would like further opinions. The same reviewer at WP:AFC declined both very quickly after I submitted but I'm not getting exact reasons for why they don't meet WP:GNG. Some sources aren't as significant or independent as others, so that could be the issue. I've piped the best citations to the lead on each. –Filmforme (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Filmforme, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Which of your sources each meet all the conditions in WP:42 - that is, they are published in reliable sources, they are wholly independent of Guay/Potter, and they contain significant coverage of the subject i.e. of Guay or Potter, not just of a particular film or pageant?

That is the only kind of source which is relevant for determining notability. Looking through the list of sources, it doesn't look to me as if many of them meet those criteria (though I may be wrong, as I haven't looked at the sources). ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Filmforme, I haven't thoroughly inspected all of your sources but I have first impressions that might be of use. The majority of the sources you're using for Guay are interviews with him; being information directly from the subject, interviews are generally unhelpful for notability purposes because they're not independent. Remember that a suitable source meets all three criteria in WP:42!

Most of the sources for Potter are from a single publication, Elk City Daily News, which is a small and very local newspaper. I can't immediately find the policy, but I'm confident in saying that we usually require the subject to be getting attention at least in their home country and ideally globally. Someone else will probably know it by heart, but I'll keep looking and link it here if I find it before another editor jumps in to save the day. Meadowlark (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:AUD is something similar, but technically only applies to WP:NCORP. Even if it's not written down anywhere, I agree with you that it's a good benchmark. Athanelar (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

A piece of pragmatic advice: It is better to get declined at Articles for Creation, which allows you to fix the article and try again, than to push it to mainspace and end up at Articles for Deletion, where a deletion outcome tends to be the end of the road. M kuhner (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Question on "Guinness"

On Guinness (disambiguation), the surname is listed at the beginning with a link to Guinness (surname), but it is also mentioned again further down under the "People" section. Should the initial claim be removed to avoid duplication? ~2026-59526-49 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59526-49: I have reverted a bad edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Any Tips for New Editors?

Hello! I’m interested in helping out on Wikipedia but I’m brand new to editing. What’s a good place to start? I’d love to hear about beginner-friendly tasks, and about other ways to contribute that newcomers may not know about. Thank you! Curiousrubee (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The Task center has many tasks you can take part in. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 01:10, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you can select your areas of interest and Wikipedia will make recomendations based off of that. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Curiousrubee, what a great question! I'll put a welcome message on your talk page, but my personal favorites are adding references to statements without citations in the underreferenced articles category, deorphaning orphaned articles by following the instructions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage, and of course looking at the suggested edits on your Homepage. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Curiousrubee! When I started exactly 100 edits ago (woohoo!), I found it easiest to edit based on topics I felt interested in, instead of using the training wheels program on the account homepage thing. I’m not saying that the training wheels thing isn’t helpful, but it can get a bit dull editing these random stub pages. Therefore, my advice is to find a page about something you’re very interested in and make a small edit, being sure to cite reliable sources and not add unnecessary trivia. Actually knowing what you’re editing about makes edits much more interesting. (Unless you don’t mind working on something completely random. Those who don’t mind that keep Wikipedia running.) WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 01:43, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

How to request an article be re-started

Hi all, I hope I've come to the right place!

I've been a registered Wikipedia User for some time but am very green with inexperience on Wikipedia. Some years ago, I was unaware of the CoI rules and sought to edit an article which had already been created, and that I am very familiar with as a volunteer manager, Plenty Valley FM. I've been blocked from updating the article (and as I now understand, rightfully so!), but I've since had limited success trying to arrange edit requests to be made to the article as I am aware much of it is factually incorrect and the links cited either don't exist or are inaccurate. I'm conscious that people do like to research organisations using Wikipedia, so I am very keen to seek support to improve the article for relevance and accuracy. I have once requested a TNT for the article, but it wasn't assessed or completed. Thank you for considering my query and I welcome assistance on how the article can be improved. As a NFP, I'm aware the organisation does not have a budget to pay anyone to support making edits for it. Wrightceee1990 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

(To my knowledge!) You simply don't ask for a page to be "re-started", as everyone here is a volunteer who works on what they want. Other than edit requests, there's not too much you can do without violating WP:COI. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 02:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I have removed everything with no source which is basically all of it. I would suggest that the article probably ought to be deleted outright but I have not done my due diligence there so I'm gonna hold off for now. If you want to request an edit as an editor with a COI, please use {{edit COI}} or probably nobody will see it. That backlog of requests is very long, so please be patient. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Webster groves

Is there a way to add Large student protests against ICE as School students walk out of campus? We made sure that WGHS stuff was removed because the editor said “It’s only town article, not school article and I don’t want any edit wars.” Carrotbrick (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Carrotbrick,

Wikipedia has a guideline about general notability: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

If there is significant coverage of student walkouts, it certainly could be an article. It's a little unclear what you're talking about regarding WGHS and another editor's comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this is someone asking if student walkouts at WG (presumably Webster Groves) HS (presumably High School) are notable enough to warrant mention in the WGHS article (if it exists). A Texas high school I know of had walkouts discussed in a dedicated New York Times article, so I think it’s plausible there’s mention of WGHS student walkouts in reliable sources, though probably just local news sites for wherever Webster Grove is. As for the rest, I don’t understand what’s being asked and can’t help there. Carrotbrick, since you say “we”, I should mention this: each account is for one person and one person only. Shared accounts are not permitted. I’ll find the policy, guideline, or essay talking about this in a second. WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 04:48, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I completely forgot about this, when I wrote the above it was rather late at night for me and I fell asleep before I could find that link. WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 14:36, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Carrotbrick: If you're referring to this Webster Groves High School and there is a reliable source you can cite that reported on the protests (the Post-Dispatch?), then I think infomation about the protests could certainly be added to the "History" section of the high school's article. Deor (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

It has to be on the town’s article where The Mayor sees people marching on streets to Protest ICE in the city’s history Carrotbrick (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t “[have] to” be anything. Wikipedia does not follow external schedules, nor does Wikipedia promote things, advertise things, or anything in those lines of thought. This information will go where it fits best, which will probably be the WGHS page (if it exists), if reliable sources discuss it. WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 22:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Biography

Huge amount of text — IlikecatsSDF

=== Khwaja Ayub Zickriya ===
'''Khwaja Ayub Zickriya''' is an Indian engineering and operations management professional and researcher whose published work addresses the relationship between religion, philosophy, the human soul and Ayurveda. He has held management positions in India and Saudi Arabia, including serving as Assistant General Manager and subsequently General Manager at the International Centre Goa. His academic research includes studies on the human soul from Islamic and comparative religious perspectives and the relationship between Ayurveda and the soul-body concept.

==== Education ====
Zickriya studied electrical engineering at the University of Bombay and subsequently obtained a master's degree in industrial engineering from Goa University.

He pursued doctoral research in the School of Sanskrit, Philosophy and Indic Studies at Goa University. His doctoral thesis, titled ''Understanding Human Soul: Islamic Perspective'', examines the concept of the soul in Islam and other religious and philosophical traditions. The thesis was submitted in July 2022 under the supervision of Professor Sanjyot D. Pai Vernekar.

==== Professional career ====
Zickriya has worked in engineering, industrial operations, manufacturing, facility management and administration in India and Saudi Arabia.

He joined the International Centre Goa (ICG) as Assistant General Manager on 1 October 2007. The centre's January–March 2010 newsletter listed him among its management team and described his qualifications in electrical and industrial engineering, together with more than two decades of industrial experience.

He subsequently served as General Manager at the International Centre Goa, where his responsibilities included facility operations, engineering and infrastructure management.

He later worked in the pharmaceutical and Ayurveda manufacturing sector in Pune. His professional experience has included manufacturing operations, quality assurance, supply chain management, maintenance, project management and organisational administration.

==== Research and publications ====
Zickriya's research has examined religious and philosophical interpretations of the human soul, particularly in relation to Islamic thought and Ayurveda.

In 2018, he co-authored the paper ''Human Soul: A Religious Perspective'' with Sanjyot Pai Vernekar. Published in the ''International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research'', the paper examined the concept of the soul across different religious traditions and its relationship with neuroscience.

In 2019, he published ''Ayurveda a Tested Elixir for Human Soul'' in the same journal. The paper explored the relationship between Ayurvedic principles, spirituality and the human soul.

In 2020, he published ''Significance of Ancient Ayurveda in Soul-Body Relationship'' in the ''Annals of Ayurvedic Medicine''. The article examined traditional Ayurvedic perspectives on the relationship between physical health, mind and spiritual well-being.

In July 2023, he published ''Ayurveda and Mystery of Panchmahabhuta in the Treatment of Human Soul'' in ''Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences''. The paper discussed the Ayurvedic concept of Panchamahabhuta and its relationship with human composition and the soul-body relationship.

==== Publications ====
Selected publications include:

* ''Human Soul: A Religious Perspective'' (2018), with Sanjyot Pai Vernekar.
* ''Ayurveda a Tested Elixir for Human Soul'' (2019).
* ''Significance of Ancient Ayurveda in Soul-Body Relationship'' (2020).
* ''Ayurveda and Mystery of Panchmahabhuta in the Treatment of Human Soul'' (2023).

==== References ====

# International Centre Goa, ''Goa Dialogues'', January–March 2010, management team profile.
# Goa University Institutional Repository, ''Understanding Human Soul: Islamic Perspective'', doctoral thesis, July 2022.
# Zickriya, Khwaja Ayub, and Sanjyot Pai Vernekar, "Human Soul: A Religious Perspective", ''International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research'', December 2018.
# Zickriya, Khwaja Ayub, "Ayurveda a Tested Elixir for Human Soul", ''International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research'', June 2019.
# Zickriya, Ayub, "Significance of Ancient Ayurveda in Soul-Body Relationship", ''Annals of Ayurvedic Medicine'', Volume 9, Issue 4, October–December 2020.
# Zickriya, Ayub, "Ayurveda and Mystery of Panchmahabhuta in the Treatment of Human Soul", ''Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences'', 6 July 2023.

Ayubkhwaja (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for Volunteer Guidance on a Biographical Wikipedia Draft

Dear Experienced Wikipedia Editors,

I am seeking guidance from an experienced volunteer Wikipedia editor regarding the preparation and possible submission of a biographical article about myself, Dr. Khwaja Ayub Zikriya, from Goa, India.

My academic and professional background includes engineering, industrial management and doctoral research. I have also been associated with academic, research and professional institutions, including the International Centre Goa.

I have collected some potentially relevant published references, including newspaper reports, institutional newsletters and research-related material. I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the available sources meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for a biography of a living person.

I fully understand Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, conflict of interest and paid contributions. Since the proposed article concerns me personally, I will disclose my conflict of interest and would prefer an independent volunteer editor to review the draft and advise on the appropriate submission process.

I am not seeking promotional content or preferential treatment. My objective is simply to understand whether the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and, if so, how to prepare a properly sourced and neutral article.

I would be grateful for any guidance or assistance from experienced editors.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

Dr. Khwaja Ayub Zikriya

Goa, India Ayubkhwaja (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

This is formatted in a terrifying way that hurts my brain, so I hope this is the right space to make a note. User:Ayubkhwaja, did you use AI or an LLM in any way to write this? Google Translate and Grammarly count as AI, since they’re powered by LLMs now. LLMs and AIs are not permitted on Wikipedia except under very strict circumstances. WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 04:52, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have three more notes.

1) Reliable sources cannot be published or written by you, as I believe a couple of your sources are. There are some other conditions for a reliable source, but I haven’t gone through your sources so I don’t know the quality of your provided sources other than the note I just gave.

2) Please read WP:Notability. Very, very few people are notable enough for Wikipedia using Wikipedia’s definition of notability. You must have reliable sources (see above) detailing you to be notable.

3) You may be contacted by scammers posing as Wikipedia editors asking for money to write an article for you or something. This is not something Wikipedia does, as we are all voulenteers, working for no money, and there is no way to guarantee an article can be published or a specific revision of an article can be permanently retained. Familiarize yourself with WP:Scam warning and be wary.

WhyNotZoidberg? ^{Woop-woop-woop!} 04:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

yes sir AI was used can you perfect it please Ayubkhwaja (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Nobody is going to work on your article for you, unless they want to (and I doubt anyone will). You appear to be trying to write an autobiography. Here's why you shouldn't. Also, here's the policy about AI (it's not allowed for what you're doing). IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 05:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you .Let us forget it.It seems impossible Ayubkhwaja (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's impossible for somebody to create an autobiography, if they're notable enough and understand Wikipedia policy. Respectfully, you don't seem to be notable enough for an article. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:14, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing historical stats in NFL season articles

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Sourcing historical stats in NFL season articles

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a new editor. On 2026 Chicago Bears season, some game summaries include historical claims (for example, "first 6–2 start since 2012") without inline citations. Is the NFL.com page linked in the game box enough, or does each claim need its own source? Thanks! BearsFan734 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BearsFan734, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Claims about superlatives ("first", "fastest", "highest" etc) always need sourcing, or that would be original research. Furthermore they should almost always be sourced to independent sources, because non-independent sources sometimes exaggerate their superlatives, or because (as might be the case here), if an independent source hasn't picked up the claim, why is it interesting or important enough to be mentione in a Wikipedia article? ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to do this without SYNTH?

I was looking at Thomas_Mundy_Peterson#Legacy and it looked like a pretty big synth problem, as the claim that he was the first African American to vote in an election (supported by a few reasonable sources) was "debunked" by sources that only stated previous black voters, with no source refuting the previous sources. I l cleaned up most of the tone issues, but it feels wrong to just delete the debunking part since it is true by common sense, and keep the "he was claimed as the first African American to vote in any US election" as that part is supported by sources - and I know it's not OR to assess the reliability of sources. What's the balance here? LkL-70547 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

how many girls born called henney in the 19550s on funen denmark

how many girls name of henney born in the 1950s on funen denmark ~2026-59545-36 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59545-36 That question has nothing to do with Wikipedia. The Teahouse is here to help users with editing and using this encyclopedia. Do you have a question within that scope? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

You might want to go to the WP:reference desk for questions about encyclopedic topics. This is a hard decision (talk to me!, contribs) 12:56, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I cannot create a page

I cannot create a page please help ~2026-59584-32 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

New accounts are not allowed to create articles until they become WP:Autoconfirmed. However, you can use the WP:Articles for creation process to begin a draft and ask that it be reviewed by experienced editors. That said, I would advise you to begin by editing existing articles until you know how Wikipedia works. Jumping straight in to article creation can be frustrating for new users who don't understand the policies, especially about the notability requirements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! Checking out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia can help you understand about contributing. Cwater1 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Roberto Forzoni – are these sources enough?

Hello. I am Roberto Forzoni, so I have a conflict of interest. My draft about my thirty years’ work in performance psychology has been declined several times for lack of notability. Before I try again, could someone tell me whether these three sources show better coverage of my work?

1. Ian Florance, “Careers – Mindsets, music and magic”, The Psychologist (BPS), 5 August 2014 – https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/careers-mindsets-music-and-magic
2. CRACK “Mental scars”, The Observer, 6 January 2008 – https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jan/06/features.sport20
3. “And for my next trick”, Daily Mirror, 17 September 2007 – http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport-old/football/2007/09/17/west-ham-3-0-m-boro-115875-19801199/

Any guidance would be welcomed. Thank you.

Rforzoni (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rforzoni. Genereally your sources need to meet our golden rule: be reliable, provide significant coverage, and be independent of you. Your sources, in order:

1. An interview with you. It meets our reliable and significant coverage criteria, but fails our independence criteria since the information is coming from you. There is a little bit of independent analysis from the interviewer, but not quite enough. I also wonder about the independence because it comes from bps, where you assumedly have a conflict of interest with?
2. This is an average source. It contains some choice quotes from you, and some basic analysis. The Guardian is certainly reliable but it doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage nor independence.
3. We generally say that The Mirror is not a very reliable source, being a tabloid. It provides a little bit of independent analysis, but not enough to meet our significant coverage criteria.

So, all the sources fail at least one of our golden rule criterias. Hope that helps. qcne (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rforzoni, welcome to the Teahouse.

The issue with the three sources you've provided is none demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. They're all about other things and not you specifically. I'd also suggest reading the feedback provided by the reviewers who declined your previous drafts. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Help.

I have written all the necessary information for an article but it has been a REALLY long time since I have written one, was trying to submit as article for creation/inclusion. i think i have moved it into draft, thought i was publishing a draft but ended up publishing live. i think i have moved it into draft status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vonlane_DraftDjpaisley (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Djpaisley. I have moved Vonlane Draft to the correct name Draft:Vonlane and added an articles for creation box. Can Draft:Vonlane Draft be deleted? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

yes please, thank you Djpaisley (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Question about a source

Would The Washington Post be a reliable source that I could use in potential articles or when I edit? I don't really know because it sounds like a blog but 'Gemini' says it is (which I really don't believe). Thank you! ~2026-58901-50 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't trust Gemini. See WP:WAPO, which is Wikipedia's own assessment. BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 14:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I recommend not trusting Gemini (or any LLM, for that matter) post-exorcism incident. (IYKYK) DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I believe what DollarStoreBa'al is trying to say is that LLMs are not reliable sources or assistants for Wikipedia editing. BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 16:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Correct, and for future reference, the guideline that states that LLMs are not reliable sources can be found at WP:RSPLLM. The most you should really be using them for is to look for sources that are reliable, with a significant amount of human oversight after you have experience finding good sources yourself.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 16:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Sort of, not quite. I was referencing a song I like. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 16:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Well, then, please explain that in the future. BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 17:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Seconded, I could not have determined that from context, even with the addition of "IYKYK". Perhaps a wikilink to the song might be better for next time, if one exists.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 17:43, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I know the OP is asking for whether WAPO is reliable, but the WP:RSP page lists the most commonly cited and discussed sources, and whether they are reliable or not. For instance, BBC and Guardian are (also generally) reliable but user-generated content such as YouTube and Instagram, as well as certain sources like Daily Mail and The Sun are unreliable and should not be used (especially the latter two as they are also deprecated). And also, the use of LLMs to articles and drafts, as well as discussion pages are not permitted. If you are looking for help on Wikipedia, it's always best to search within Wikipedia. JuniperChill (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting feedback on Draft: Peter Lodwick – could someone please help?

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.

---

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping someone can help me understand why Draft:Peter Lodwick keeps getting declined, as I've received somewhat contradictory feedback.

Initially, I was told there weren't enough reliable sources. After adding independent newspaper articles and reviews, I was then told there were too many references. I've since reduced them from over 70 to around 40, prioritising quality over quantity and retaining the strongest, most relevant sources.

Now the latest reviewer states that most of these sources are unreliable and questions notability, which I honestly find difficult to understand.

The remaining references include independent reviews and articles from major Norwegian newspapers such as Aftenposten, Dagbladet and Klassekampen, as well as specialist publications. These are established, editorially independent sources, many preserved by the National Library of Norway.

If articles published in major national newspapers and preserved by the National Library of Norway aren't considered reliable sources, what would qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaySundAnd (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I believe Lodwick meets WP: Creative and potentially WP:Music. He has composed music for major Norwegian theatres, including Nationaltheatret, Det Norske Teatret and Riksteatret, and his work has received independent critical coverage over several decades.

Could someone please take a closer look and explain why these sources aren't considered sufficient? I'm also wondering whether the Norwegian-language sources have been properly assessed.

Would an experienced editor be willing to help me review the draft or offer some guidance on what specifically needs improving? I'd really appreciate a fresh perspective.

I'm happy to make further improvements, but after several rounds of conflicting feedback, I'm unsure what is still missing.

Any specific guidance would be greatly appreciated!

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look through the sources, here's what I've found so far:

• Source 7 is Wikipedia in another language, violating WP:CIRC.
• Source 42 is an interview with the article subject, which would be considered a primary source

Other than that, things seem at least okay, though an AfC reviewer would be better suited for a request like this. The two sources I listed are the only ones that immediately strike me as unreliable. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:10, 10 November 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.

Hyphenating "stepfather?"

As I've been copyediting articles, I've come across quite a few instances of "stepfather" being hyphenated, and I think this is a mistake. The most recent instance of this I came across was in Sharp Objects (2nd paragraph in "plot" section). I reviewed the Manual of Style, and couldn't find a clear guideline on this. According to this website it is not hyphenated per English conventions. What should I do? Can somebody point me to a part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style that dictates this? Am I missing something? Skyeteam (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen that word hyphenated. Unless it's part of a quote or something, it looks like the hyphen should be removed.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 16:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Skyeteam (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The hyphen is not wrong. Burchfield's New Fowler, for example, uses step-father, step-son, etc. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to amend WP:MOS to clarify this. I don't know how to do this/what the process is, but it might be good idea. Skyeteam (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hyphenating stepfather would now be called outdated in almost all linguistic guides. Frankly, I thought it might be correct British English format, as hyphens are more often used in that English variant than US English—but an online search says otherwise. Augnablik (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

There are rather a lot of word pairings in English that at one point in time were hyphenated ("to-day", "to-morrow", "week-end", etc.) but for which the hyphen was gradually dropped over time to the point it's no longer considered common usage, and the pairing is instead treated as a single word. I'm not sure if it's necessary to update the MOS for something like this unless it's a major issue throughout the entire project. Since "step-father" isn't incorrect per se, it probably should be treated along the lines of MOS:ENGVAR and only changed if it needs to be changed (i.e., for in-article consistency). You could, if you want, start a discussion about this at WT:MOS, but project-wide changes tend to require a WP:RFC with lots of participants and a pressing need to make the change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, I would disagree on this because in modern times it’s not an Engvar situation. Major authorities (I could make a list if asked, but Ikind of hope I won’t be) all seem to agree that common words describing relationships that start with step aren’t hyphenated unless they’re followed by something else denoting relationship, like step-grandfather … or perhaps if the relationship is less common and might cause confusion if they aren’t hyphenated, like step-uncle. Augnablik (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, @Augnablik: Looking at several prominent English online dictionaries (which record but do not dictate how words are written) I see:

• Cambridge: stepfather; no recognition of step-father (*)
• Collins: stepfather, "also step-father"; step-father redirects to stepfather (*)
• Longmans: stepfather; no recognition of step-father (*)
• OED: stepfather; no recognition of step-father
• My 1964 Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "step-, pref., ... ~′father...", so step-father; no entry for stepfather

Those marked (*) have entries for "step-" showing examples for step-son, step-granddaughter, etc, but not step-father or step-mother.

Were I from Clapham, I'd say it's now invariably "stepfather" in contemporary British English.

I don't think an MOS entry is needed, just common sense and the ability to use a dictionary; else we'd risk turning MOS into a spelling dictionary whenever someone came across a spelling from times past. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Chambers specifies that it is all one word, that is, no hyphenation. And the same for stepson, stepbrother, etc. It makes no distinction between British and American usage. Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

References

Citing Albums

I got this article of Bill Evans tribute albums as a suggested edit (lacking citations). As a Bill Evans fan I would love to go through and add citations to this page but I have some questions and would love some resources as a new editor.

My first question is, are other user edited websites like “Discogs” considered reliable citations. Discogs likely includes entries for all of these albums and I wouldn’t mind adding citations to each one with further information.

Secondly, if Discogs is not considered ideal as a source is it possible to cite the albums themselves? I worry that’s almost a circular reference somehow to just cite, for example, the CD release, as a source on this page.

Lastly is it excessive to provide sources for every release? Or is there guidance on whether some releases require citations and others don’t?

thanks in advance!

G GrantMHawkins (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources tells you what is a reliable source. Specifically, Wikipedia:Reliable sources § User-generated content (which specifically mentions Discogs).

I'm not entirely sure whether or not the article you mention is even notable in the first place, though.

IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 18:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the resources! I wasn’t familiar yet with the notability guidelines so that is helpful for a new editor. Thank you! GrantMHawkins (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello Grant!

This very issue is currently under discussion!

The albums themselves are sources that can be cited. They prove their own existence. No further citation is required. If there is supplemental information that would help the article, it should be added. There is a recommended style for discographies.

Discogs is a user-generated website. Wikipedia considers those unreliable sources. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I had a feeling this may have been the case but wanted to check with more experienced editors. GrantMHawkins (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Trumpetrep,

if you have time I have a follow-up question for you as I notice you’re an experienced music/arts editor.

I get various music articles recommended to me for potential edits and I find myself wanting to cite releases (typically albums) directly as a source. One page was to do with a track listing that had been flagged as requiring citations and another was for a record label that listed bands they had released records for. In the second case I feel as though it makes sense to cite the album itself as evidence that the label put that album out, but I am struggling to find any resources about citing albums which leads me to believe it’s not encouraged to do so. Similar to your point in the discussion about “lists of works” I feel that it’s a bit self evident to cite in this way, however in the example of a list of artists released by a label, I feel as though it may be more warranted to cite those releases.

thanks in advance,

G GrantMHawkins (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Hey Grant,

Yes, the album can absolutely be the source for track lists. There is a basic citation format for albums that you can see in this MLA guide. Citation styles vary, but the bottom line is that albums are primary sources that can be valuable references.

Liner notes can also be an important source to cite. They are frequently readable at Discogs or the Internet Archive, as well.

As for record labels, citing the album as a source might cause other editors to balk, but it obviously suffices. Any record label worth its salt will have generated some press for a release, and that would be a good secondary source to establish a release.

A lot of content doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. It's a helpful metric to use while editing. For a record label's article, I'd keep the notability guideline in mind. Is it important to name individual releases and artists in the article? If so, go for it. In a lot of cases, it might be trivial.

For the record, I agree that the Bill Evans tribute albums list does not seem notable enough for an article. I could be convinced otherwise though, given Evans' importance. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It definitely seems that I will have to familiarize myself much more with notability guidelines. GrantMHawkins (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Seeking independent editor's guidance on a potential biography (conflict of interest)

Hello,

I'm looking for some guidance on the appropriate process for determining whether a biographical article about me would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.

I'm an independent creative producer and curator working across opera, music, performance, and interdisciplinary arts. I previously served as Director of New Works and Creative Producer at Opera Philadelphia for 11 years and now work independently through SarahProduces LLC.

There is independent coverage of my work in publications including Musical America, The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, The Daily Beast, and other arts publications. I've begun assembling the sources and would appreciate an experienced editor's perspective on whether they collectively establish notability.

I recognize that I have a conflict of interest as the subject of a potential article. I don't intend to write or publish the article myself. I'm hoping to find an uninvolved, experienced editor who might be willing to assess the sources and, if appropriate, independently consider preparing an article through Articles for Creation.

Could someone point me toward the best way to proceed, or toward editors experienced with biographies of people in the performing arts? Producedit (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but just in case: you are not allowed to use AI here. This includes on talk pages, such as the Teahouse.

We also do not do notability assessments. An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, either way. If you are notable, someone will probably make an article about you at some point. You have zero control over the process. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 18:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Producedit, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My recommendation is that you forget about Wikipedia, and go on with your work.

It is unlikely that another volunteer editor will offer to create the article about you - not impossible, but unlikely.

You are permitted to try yourself, using WP:AFC as you say, but you are unlikely to be successful, especially as an inexperienced editor. ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Is the obelisk acceptable per WP:SPS

Hello!

I've been working on a handful of articles in the stoner rock/psych rock scene. I've found quite a few at this point that source https://theobelisk.net/obelisk/ as a source. The Obelisk is a self published website ran by JJ Koczan. Wikipedia WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources states that self published sources are generally unacceptable UNLESS the individual is particularly well versed in their field. Koczan has been running the website since 2009 so he has some stake in the scene. On the flip side, it is one person and runs a higher risk of poor sourcing.

Before I went on a frenzy reciting articles I wanted to get some confirmation on how I should approach articles utilizing The Obelisk as a source.

Cheers! EdnPld (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

An excellent question, EdnPld, for raising at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music or WP:RSN (but not both). (Meanwhile, I'd say that the recitation of articles may be impassioned, but not frenzied.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction and advice Hoary.

Edit - took me a second.. re-citing...haha!

Cheers! EdnPld (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguations regarding spelling

Searching “Notos” in the search bar will redirect the user to Notus which has Notus (disambiguation) linked in a hatbox at the top. However, I want to include, via either a disambiguation entry or a redirect page, the page for the album Notos by the Oh Hellos, which is named after Notus. However, the disambiguation page only includes terms spelled “notus”, and I’m unsure whether I should change the redirect page of the term “notos” from the Anemoi to the album. What should I do?

Cheers. 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 05:16, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

You can add a hatnote at the top of the page. For example, you can use the template {{redirect}}. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 13:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

BLPPROD or Draft?

In the case of an unreferenced BLP, is it better to draftily or BLPPROD? (In fact, is it better to draftify instead of delete in other cases as well?) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jacksonvil. It's not really a case of which is better per se but rather whether you believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia:Notability. If you do a little WP:BEFORE and find what you believe is significant coverage about the subject of the article, then neither draftify nor BLPPROD should really be done per WP:NEXIST. You can either try to improve the article yourself in such cases (adding a single source would mean BLPPROD would no longer apply) or you could add a maintenance template like {{BLP sources}} or {{BLP unreferenced}} to let others know about the problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best advice, WP:BLP is very specific in saying that Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis from the original) If you leave a maintenance template on it that template is likely to languish for months or years, as we well know, so I think if you aren't willing to seek out the sources yourself, then both draftification and BLPPROD would be a sensible response to an entirely unsourced BLP.

WP:BLPPROD even says that it's specifically designed for this case; the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Athanelar (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Young Actuaries World Cup

Hello. I chair the International Actuarial Association’s Young Actuaries World Cup, so I have a conflict of interest. Before preparing an article, I would appreciate advice on whether the available sources could establish notability.

The competition held editions in 2023 and 2026. Sources include:

• A substantial feature in The European Actuary, June 2025, written by Henning Wergen and Martin Oymanns, who are involved in the competition: https://actuary.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/TEA-42-Young-Actuaries-World-Cup-2026.pdf
• An Actuarial Review announcement about the first edition: https://ar.casact.org/are-you-35-or-younger-compete-in-the-young-actuaries-world-cup/
• Canadian Institute of Actuaries coverage of the competition and its Canadian entrants: https://www.cia-ica.ca/news/canadian-talent-shines-in-the-young-actuaries-world-cup/

There are also official results and announcements, but I understand these do not by themselves establish notability.

Do these sources offer a reasonable basis for a standalone article, or would more substantial independent coverage be needed? I have not created a draft yet and would use Articles for Creation if I proceed. Thank you. Fredw1806 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable sources. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion (and I mean your own opinion, don't ask AI to do it for you) of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself.

Please also be aware that the use of AI to talk to other editors is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Looking for experienced eyes and help with sources on an article draft

Hi all,

I've just created my first article, Draft:Juda, about the Bikinian chief who saw his home bombed and his people displaced by American nuclear testing. I'd welcome any feedback, but there are a few specific areas that I'm hoping can be improved by editors with better research skills or resources than me:

-I've used what appears to be the only photo of Juda on Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure if any of these would be available for Wikipedia use, but there's a color photo of him here from the University of Hawaii, as well as a black and white profile photo in the Weisgall source and a photo of him with his "first lady" in the Richard source.

-This article would definitely benefit from access to newspaper archives from the era, both to expand on certain events covered in the article, and for the sake of discussing the nature and tone of news coverage of Juda, as he seems to have been discussed in the papers fairly frequently. I think the most useful publications would be the New York Times, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, and the New Yorker, as well as the New York Herald Tribune, National Geographic, and Time.

-I haven't seen any sources on Juda's life before Crossroads. He was alive, and presumably chief, at the time of the Japanese occupation and US capture of Bikini, but nothing I've seen mentions any role he specifically played in those events - perhaps those details are discussed somewhere, although it's also possible nobody at the time bothered to mention him.

-The Weisgall and Richard sources differ as to whether Juda was present on the 1947 tour his alaps took. This seems like something that US government records could shed light on.

-The last few lines - his presence at the 1949 Majuro conference, his membership in the Marshall Islands Congress, and his death - are sourced mostly from the Bikini Project website, and I'd like to do better than that. The site seems reputable, but I don't have access to the books in its bibliography to hunt down the details. The 1949 conference seems to have been a sort of 'constitutional convention' setting up the Congress, but I don't have a good source for that. I did find two sources listing him as a member of Congress in certain years in the 50s and 60s, but I have no reason to think he didn't serve continuously from 1950 to his death, and I imagine there must be a record somewhere confirming that.

Once again, I'd appreciate any help tracking down any of this information, or with anything else you think could be improved! TheAngelEleleth (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI to talk to us. This may get your question ignored. And if you used AI on your draft, it is advised you start over with that as well. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I did not use AI at any point in the creation of the draft or this thread. TheAngelEleleth (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

If there are specific articles that you've identified and are looking for full text of, you could try asking at the Resource Exchange. You might be able to find someone with access to one of the books in the bibliography there as well.

For the photographs, I'd ask at the copyright village pump on Commons to see if someone can determine whether they're under copyright. If so, we wouldn't be able to use them since we already have one public domain image so I don't think they'd meet our fair use criteria. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Pokemon Mewtwo returns

Hi , I added a article for 'Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns (Pokémon TV Special)' and is not going to that page, instead it send me to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_films#Television_specials even though it has many other langauses for pages - samples https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_:_Le_Retour_de_Mewtwo https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon:_Mewtwo_Returns https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F:_%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95

I do not see the page that I made? what happened to it? I'm very new to Wikipedia just so you know. Ketchupisgood (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

It was redirected because it didn't address the issues from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 19:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what that mean, sir? Can you please fix it then? Ketchupisgood (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I'll give as simple an explanation as I can.

In 2024, there was an article on this TV special, which was then sent to deletion debate, where there was a consensus that the article didn't have the sources to exist as a standalone article and the title should instead redirect to the list article. Because of this consensus, any new article on this special would need to address the issues raised in that debate, namely the lack of usable sources.

Your sources are Amazon (online storefront), Bulbapedia (no editorial oversight), and an Anime News Network profile for the film (too sparse). We would need professional reviews of the TV special in order for us to even consider an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 20:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

yes, i have some ,

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review/3228

https://blurayauthority.com/standard-dvd/pokemon-mewtwo-returns/

https://digipedia.db-destiny.net/reviews/mewtwo.htm

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=1584

https://www.dragonflycave.com/movie-reviews/mewtwo-returns/ Ketchupisgood (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on revised Draft:Alice Wang (artist)

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.

---

Hello, I'm looking for guidance from an experienced editor on Draft Alice Wang (artist), which is currently awaiting AfC review.

The draft was previously declined, with concerns about notability and reading too much like a record of the artist's work. It has since been substantially revised to focus on independent critical reception, drawing on reviews and essays published between 2017 and 2026 in Artforum, Esse, Artillery, Art in America, Contemporary Art Review Los Angeles, and Chinese-language art publications.

Could someone take a look at the current version and advise? I'm particularly interested in identifying any substantive issues that remain before the next AfC review. Thanks so much for your help. SAWSAWSAWSAW (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SAWSAWSAWSAW,

We don't offer pre-review reviews, since that's the job of the AfC reviewers. Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 20:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SAWSAWSAWSAW. You're asking for a pre-review which we don't really do. It'll be reviewed in due course. qcne (talk) 20:26, 11 November 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.

How to sound more human?

Draft:Alice Wang (artist) was rejected for sounding like it was AI-generated. What can be done about this? Please advise. SAWSAWSAWSAW (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Did you use any AI at all when working on the article? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 21:58, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to help with article generation! Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

What can be done is to....not use AI and do the work in your own words. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Here's a neat trick: don't use AI.

But if you want to revise your current draft, what you should do is read a section carefully, and close it out so you can't see it. Then, write what you just read, but using your own words. Do this with every section, and then it won't have AI wording in it.

By the way, your draft was just rejected, not declined, meaning you can't resubmit it. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

But if you want to revise your current draft, what you should do is read a section carefully, and close it out so you can't see it. Then, write what you just read, but using your own words. Do this with every section, and then it won't have AI wording in it. This is bad advice. Running AI output through a thesaurus is a situation of putting lipstick on a pig. The thing to do is to go back to your sources and write the article from scratch based on the information in the sources; i.e., how an article is supposed to be written in the first place. The problem with AI content isn't just the "wording". Athanelar (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Merged this discussion with the earlier one. Please don't ask the same questions in many different venues.Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 00:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Spacing with exponents

In B², the exponent is too close to the B. In B ² it's too far. What's needed is a half-space, but I can't find it via help pages. Is there a way to control spacing that finely?

An alternative is to use math mode. Is that my only choice? Johsebb (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

And this one: B²? Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this organization's page is written by itself

I think the "History" section of International Bird Rescue has been written by the organization itself. (There's no COI mentioned in the talk page. And the original user only has a Talk page. ). There are only a couple times that it cites itself directly. However, it uses the same structure and wording from different parts of its own website. Old pages on their site like "Founder's Story" and "Our History" are central to the history, predating the page's inception and initial rejection. Most obviously, the history section looks A LOT like their site's "Our History" page today. (There are other sections where the references are to their own website, especially it's own blog).

(1) I'm not sure which rule best describes what's going on here (or the more common ones editors use). My noob impression is WP:SPONSORED or WP:COIEDIT.

(2) I don't know what to do about it, or who to direct this to. It seems like this page would need a whole overhaul, which I have no interest in.

Please advise. And, if you have the time/energy, please walk me through your thought process so I can get a better sense about how wikipedians approach stuff like this. Gmedinakim (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

About 72% of the page was written by User:Lnorlandh (talk - contribs), who has only ever edited that one page. Thirteen years ago, there were two declines of a draft for the page (see talkpage), and it looks like they moved it to mainspace anyways. I suspect undisclosed paid editing. The whole article almost certainly needs to be TNTed. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 23:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

OK, so I wasn't tripping. I saw the two page declines in the history, but I wasn't good enough at reading the history to see when/where/how it was moved to the mainspace.

Sorry for the silly question @IlikecatsSDF. Are you recommending that it is TNT'ed in general, or are you recommending that I give a shot (i.e., follow that process outlined on the WP:TNT page)? Gmedinakim (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

About reading the history, I just hit "View history" and selected "oldest". About TNTing, I was just saying that it should be TNTed, by anyone. This may also require an admin to delete the copyrighted material. I'm just not interested or experienced enough to rewrite the article. You can take a shot at it if you want. — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 02:29, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Auxiliary source for non-promotional, factual historical information

Is it acceptable to use an artist's gallery, estate, or website as a source when there is no other third-party source available and employ those auxiliary sources for a BLP and/or a biography artical of an artist who is no longer alive, solely for the purpose of giving historical information, such as birth or family background, and is not promotional in any way? Ache Erie (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

What you're describing is basically WP:ABOUTSELF which is fine, yes. Primary sources can be used to verify uncontroversial facts, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties; It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and The article is not based primarily on such sources. Athanelar (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I was thinking, and it's helpful as this seems to be a problem for another editor PigeonChickenFish who's a stickler for third-party sources, which I always try to obtain. Ache Erie (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Request to review or move a draft on an ongoing event (2026 Flatbush building collapse)

Hello, I wrote a draft about an ongoing news event: Draft:2026 Flatbush building collapse. It is well sourced (ABC, CNN, AP, NY1, News 12) and neutral. Since the event is developing, could an experienced editor review it or move it to mainspace soon? Thank you! Kotemyolu (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. We don't work to any deadline, and in any case it'd be better to wait a while and see if this event actually has any lasting significance beyond the next week or so. Big events like this attract a lot of coverage early on but typically don't end up being encyclopedically notable because the attention dies down shortly after the actual thing happens. Athanelar (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. I'll keep updating the draft. Kotemyolu (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

CSD U6 Bot tagging user sandboxes that is inactive after 6 months

Why does CSD U6 Bot tags user sandboxes that are inactive for 6 months, when users have never edited outside userspace and these subpages are eligible for deletion? Why was the bot account created recently in late 2025, with a backlog behind this? ~2026-59874-43 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

See WP:U6 and Wikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 00:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Why can I not edit on my Chromebook?

I have tried to edit, upload, and even share something on the help desk on my Chromebook, but it is not working. My computer doesn’t have any problems or viruses and I am fully logged in. Can you please help me?

Rhubarbpie63 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is happening when you try to edit? Athanelar (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

It just does a loading screen similar to when you search up an image with lines flashing by Rhubarbpie63 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Would you happen to be on a school-assigned chromebook? IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 02:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

No Rhubarbpie63 (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

But I do use it for school work Rhubarbpie63 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

If you are signed into the school account, I'd guess it's a school internet filter extension messing it up. Make sure you're signed into your own Google account, and not the school account. Private windows might work too. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 03:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok I am Rhubarbpie63 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

... is it working? IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 03:41, 12 November 2026 (UTC)