Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tarlby, 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 2 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.]

Adding friction to AFD process for articles affected by WP:BIAS

Hi! I've been working on rescuing articles that have been AFD'd lately and finding that there is a heavy amount of bias involved in what gets nominated. I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women, and so often these are extremely notable subjects that the nominator has failed to research appropriately. It's so frustrating. Has there ever been a move to add a condition to the AFD process such as "is the article's subject from a category often affected by bias?" I'm currently working on rescuing Mary Mgonja, a Tanzanian plant scientist. I've rescued Leyla Soleymani and Mabathoana High School and I'm upset by how casually these articles are dismissed without the slightest bit of work. I'm not alone in noticing this of course, but I would like to see action to make it less easy to list articles for deletion that fall into underrepresented categories. If anyone is working on this, I would like to help. Thank you for reading. H0n0r (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that different notability standards should pertain to subjects "affected by bias", in other words, for Wikipedia to apply a counter-bias of some kind? If an article on, say, a female social media influencer from an African country gets taken to AfD, is that evidence of bias on the part of the nominator? And if the community then agrees to delete the said article, is that the community also being biased? Or could it be simply that there are many articles in Wikipedia on social media influencers of various origins and demographics that do not meet our notability criteria, and some of them almost certainly deserve to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that AfD nominators have biases that are unchecked. I am pointing out that women and other subjects affected by bias are over-nominated in a casual way. Research backs me up here (see Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.") and I'm wondering what is being done about it? H0n0r (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Rereading what I wrote, I realize I was answering only the first part of your question. I don't know where you came up with 'female social media influencer from an African country', but yes, I'm saying article nominators are provably biased, and that the community working on AfD appears to be also, and that this seems to just... continue. Wikipedia's multiple deletion of Donna Strickland prior to her Nobel win continues to get press coverage and nothing changes. I'm asking if anyone is working on changes, and if so where, and can I help? H0n0r (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. The draft was speedily deleted because the entire draft was a copy-and-past copyright infringement. This is a legal requirement, which would have been done for any draft submitted in such a way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I think your response was meant for a different question? H0n0r (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r read the 2014 PROD on Donna Strickland and tell me what you see in the edit summary Mausfield (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I feel the same about the article on school choice where it’s explained as “non-public education options” … “[that] include scholarship tax credit programs”. The article then proceeds to explain some random school financials, homeschooling, online schooling etc. Finally there’s a list of ‘school choice’ for various countries.

As far as I know, and teacher unions, and the schoolbooks write about, it’s a concept that started as the opposing counter-reaction that formed after school desegregation after Brown vs Board of Education. The ‘bussing’ policies.

IMHO a kitchen sink article like that will only confuse the reader away from what the [US] National Education Association states the "#1 takeaway" that it's "a policy rooted in resistance to school integration." This applies from the founding of the USA itself untill time of writing, february 2026: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-school-vouchers. I wrote my thoughts and references in the talk page there.

Most worryingly, that article revises the history of black emancipation, because it is linked from pro-segregation politicians / famous people… This makes it seem like they proposed other means of finance instead of apartheid.

Note that Google’s AI uses this Wikipedia article instead of, and in complete opposition of, what the US National Education Association wrote, or what the Retro Report classroom material teaches the actual kids, better imho than that Wikipedia article.

Especially with the current state of society, it greatly scares me for folks to forget recent history. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

NEA is a teacher's union that primarily represents public school teachers. Even if I happen to largely agree with them (and I do fwiw), we can't just cite them as if they're a non-partisan authority. Wikipedia needs to present things from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to the viewpoints that have significant sourcing. This doesn't mean that we have to give equal space to fringe theories but in the case of something like school vouchers we probably do need to represent the viewpoint that school vouchers are a good thing for students to the degree that viewpoint is backed by reliable sources.

That Wikipedia strives for neutrality is one of the reasons why it is a project ill suited to righting great wrongs. Wanting to change the world is commendable but Wikipedia exists to document it as is, warts and all. Packrat3860 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You write "I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women . . .". That in itself means you are not selecting a random sample. How do you know that there is not an equal proportion of (by your criteria) unfairly nominated articles in areas that do not fit into those categories?

You may, of course, be right, but your methodology does not seem to warrant blanket accusations of (presumably anti non-Western and anti-women) bias.

I'm sure most editors are not consciously applying biases, but we are all only human and a volunteer crowdsourced project is never going to operate to perfect standards. How would your proposal actually be effected? Who would decide which categories are underrepresented, and judge whether nominated articles had not been properly assessed, beyond what is already done?

Remember also that proof of Notability requires Reliable sources, and the World is such that Reliable sources themselves have biases, particularly of omission – we can only work with what there is. I myself am particularly interested in science and scientists, and despair over the poor cover that the media devotes to scientists of all sexes and ethnicities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you might be new here. Here's Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. H0n0r (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here for over 24 years (from quite soon after Wikipedia was launched), but have always deliberately chosen not to have a User account.

I am well aware that there are general gender and ethnic imbalances (resulting in biases) in both the editorial makeup and the coverage of Wikipedia. I think these stem from biases in very-long-established cultural expectations (leading for example to a deficit in female editorial volunteers) and in the published Reliable sources we are (rightly) constrained to use. I do not think these biases are consciously maintained by any significant number of Wikipedia editors, and while biases may be inherent in sources generally, this ought not to change the way in which Reliable sources are searched for and used, and articles in general edited and assessed.

In particular, I am a little doubtful that the specific issue that you raise, discriminatory lack of care in dealing with AfD candidates, is real, but until someone chooses to perform a statistically valid survey we cannot know either way. That is all I have to say on the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often. We don’t need a new survey because you’re doibtful. Further, if people are targeting those pages, there’s no reason others can’t target those pages to save. It’s no different than any of us editing subjects we’re interested in. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often.

Was it demonstrated at the same time that the two groups of articles were equal in terms of their adherence to Wikipedia policy? If not, then the claim hasn't been shown. And this is very different from editing subjects we're interested in, because editing according to interest is useful and inspiring, but pushing to save a bad article about anyone just because of their body parts is simply dishonest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No one is talking about saving bad articles. The OP was concerned about articles where the nominator hasn't done their due diligence but she thinks sources exist and can be added with a little bit of research. I'm also talking about saving articles where the sources exist to meet notability. If those happen to be articles about women or POC, what do you care? Mme Maigret (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Here's the study I was referring to: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023772, from Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women." H0n0r (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Avoid WP:BLUDGEON, especially with that paper (which I presume you did not read entirely), because it is empirically garbage and starts out with a blatant lie.

For it's introductory citation it mentions the speedy deletion of Donna Strickland "six minutes after the article's creation" as clear evidence of gender bias, but somehow the author did not even decide read the PROD, which was for unambiguous plagiarization (ie copied from some external source). The editor who added the PROD created, among many others, the articles Women LEAD and Feminism in Nepal, and contributed to Women's colleges in the United States, Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame, Women in the Maldives, List of women explorers and travelers, etc. Definitely sexism, right? Tripodi says:

Despite clear evidence of Dr. Strickland’s professional endeavors, some did not feel her scholastic contributions were notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography.

Which is simply a lie. One person PROD'd it for plagiarism, a user with a history of creating and contributing to feminism-related articles. I am going to avoid any statements about the evidence-basis in modern sociology, you can check Tripodi's methods section and tell me what you think:

First, I conducted an open coding (Charmaz, 2006), consisting of listening to recorded interviews while reviewing my fieldnotes and writing down emergent ideas on a series of notecards. Second, I arranged these cards in clusters, identifying which themes were the most salient. After flagging particularly salient “in vivo codes” (Charmaz, 2006), I conducted a more focused coding of my transcript data, determining the accuracy of the threads identified.

Mausfield (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Mausfield Yikes, this is an unpleasant, condescending and unhelpful comment. The paper I cited is peer-reviewed, has over 150 citations, and yes I read it. Please find some way to be civil in discussions. H0n0r (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming you didn't read the entire thing. I just imagined if that blatant lie as the central narrative starting point of the paper stood out to me, it would also stand out to someone with way more experience on wiki than me.

Did you look at the PROD? Mausfield (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r When you say "notable", it seems you might mean it in a way that's not only different, but in fact almost directly contrary to what it means on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call that your fault, because Wikipedia uses the word in a non-standard way.

Here's my ultra-short summary of the difference: Wikipedia rejects the idea of deserving coverage. Only those who already had lots of coverage are notable here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Right, this is semantics to what I'm actually bringing up. Leyla Soleymani and Mary Mgonja have had lots of coverage. The nominators simply didn't look for it. H0n0r (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE describe what nominators are expected to do as part of the AfD process. If you have suggestions about how to beef up these requirements, I suggest you make them on its talk page. You are probably correct that many AfD discussions start without adequate checks and I suspect that is not related to any specific type of article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you very much. H0n0r (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE are often inadequately applied, and disproportionately so, and that the disproportion is related to the demonstrated bias that @H0n0r has already linked to here.

H0n0r, I am currently working in different areas of Wikipedia from you and don't have any good leads on other Wikipedians who might be trying to correct this bias, but I am interested in any constructive responses you find here. I'm honestly aghast at the pushback you've had so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Suðurhafsljósæta. I've never nominated an article for deletion. I'm wondering, are there boxes to check as there are when uploading a file to commons, affirming that one has done one's due diligence? Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it appears to be a very simple (way too simple) process. Surely there should be a way to slow this down and make nominators jump a few 'Before' hurdles? H0n0r (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The process is too slow when dealing with bios of non-notable living persons. Such articles should be deleted at once to spare the person the embarrassment and occasionally severe anxiety of being subjected to an often insulting ripe-or-rotten-tomatoe debate. Wikipedia should have a much clearar bias against such treatment in better alignment with our quite strict WP:BLP policies. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing I don't disagree with you on this point, but do think that we try to cast a wide net instead of looking at individual cases, which is why I think it would be somewhat prudent to effectively hide an article amidst a BLP-deletion discussion (if, and only if such concerns have been raised), while slowing down the deletion process for other articles more broadly. The latter part I've raised several points about in the recent past, but I'm actually quite interested in whether the community would be on board with the former, if it's plainly obvious that there are character-assassination-esque concerns.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I might suggest that, taking care to consider the concerns and counters raised by others here, you bring this up at WP:Village pump (idea lab), as this isn’t really the appropriate venue for it.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 That's a good idea. Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I've finally brought this proposal to the idea lab. Thank you for digging into this here, giving me a lot to chew on, and the push to take it further. I'm so appreciative! H0n0r (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r If I could give you one piece of advice, save yourself the stress and avoid AfD. I also tried broaching the issue at the Village Pump – I found the discussion to be disappointing. That's when I realised I could have more impact rescuing articles that have been PRODed and expiring drafts. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret this is so nice of you, thank you. Afd is pretty awful. No, it's really awful. There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles and it's so disheartening. I can't understand this issue gets continual, high level, international press and yet goes unaddressed. Thank you for your work and camaraderie. H0n0r (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret @H0n0r @Suðurhafsljósæta @Mike Turnbull @~2026-41275-62 Given your comments, I suspect you may be interested in this discussion I've started at Village pump. Any input is welcome / encouraged, as I'd like to get the ball rolling on something that might serve to address this problem in the near future. The more we let ourselves get caught up in despondency the worse it's gonna get.

I don't disagree with Packrat3860 that we need to operate with NPOV at front of mind, but I don't think that necessarily clashes with the notion of this site serving as an instrument to right great wrongs. I think we often conflate one with the other because those attempting to right those wrongs are unable to detach themselves from their biases in their editing behavior, which leads many editors to take on an unnecessarily broad view of what constitutes biased content to guard us against off-wiki accusations that we have an irreconcilable liberal/progressive bent. The thing is, just as conservative editors are at times correct that we've failed to include relevant context that supports their worldview (whether intentionally or not), so too is this sort of overactive policing of acclaimedly 'biased' content in fact impeding our site's ability and responsibility to tell the whole story, most often silencing the perspectives of those who've never had a seat at the table in the first place. As others have pointed out, we only have so much time until a great deal of that relevant context is gone, and even less time before those that care enough to tell the story lose interest, or are stopped from ever getting the opportunity to do so again by those who committed the great wrongs in the first place.

This thread, which was one of my first major disagreements here on the website, might help to contextualize the issue I'm describing. I just think we need to be able to separate these concerns in a rational manner which nonetheless acknowledges that relevant facts are rarely biased, and undue weight is typically a reflection in the eye of the beholder.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just because I'm referenced here, I want to go on the record that I don't think WP:RGW should be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia does not have systemic bias, or that it is even possible to not have systemic bias. I also don't think it means we should unquestioningly accept systemic bias (and I commend those who try to improve them).

I only meant that we should be cautious about thinking about article content as a convenient vehicle for changing hearts and minds. I think Wikipedia has some duty to consider to consider its role perpetuating certain kinds of bias (as does any sizable organization), and neutrality does not mean uncritically presenting "both sides". But I value the neutrality of the encyclopedia even when my personal views are (at times) trying to chip away at the bedrock of established thought. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, in theory, undue weight is not in the eye of the beholder at all, but determined by what's in the reliable sources and what isn't. Of course that is always distorted to some extent because it's humans analyzing those sources, but we hopefully want to correct that distortion without swinging the pendulum. This thing gets handled wrong in all kinds of different ways and I don't blame anyone for wanting to improve it.

Wikipedia doesn't just prohibit righting great wrongs because of NPOV; wanting to right great wrongs goes directly against most of Wikipedia's basic principles, not just one. Righting great wrongs is vitally important and must be done, but not here. A scheme to right great wrongs using Wikipedia is just a sabotage plan, not a noble cause or even an intelligent one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, based on the way you seem to be characterizing this. Nothing wrong with disagreement if not, but I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 this is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be what I'm talking about so much. It's certainly a piece of it, but what I'm really after is that by not going and looking for sources that are reliable and definitely exist, Wikipedia continues to essentially commit great wrongs. AfD routinely nominates and deletes non-western articles, particularly on female subjects, without doing a lick of research. I'm trying to be charitable and assume this is laziness or unconscious bias, but whatever it is, it continues daily, unabated.H0n0r (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I don’t disagree with you, and if you have a strong argument to make I encourage you to make the case. It’s nominally a location for proposals but, as you can tell, many editors have thrown in alternative ideas and reflections on the issue. If we want something to get done about it everybody has to be involved, so please do share.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you have to get everybody involved to tackle the issue or that you will. In fact, I think trying to get everyone involved is like trying to boil the ocean. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Pretending that "Wikipedia" should do "a lick of research" is badly missing the point. Anyone who comes here wanting to publish something must finish the research before they arrive here. Wikipedia is not a person. Wikipedia can't possibly do anything. Wikipedia has no obligation - and no ability - to do even the tiniest lick of research. That's on the person who wants something published. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers WP:BEFORE? WP:DILIGENCE? H0n0r (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, [...] I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

"Righting great wrongs" has a more or less accepted meaning, from what's been written about it. To badly oversimplify, it means having a goal bigger than "What's in the reliable sources?". Any guiding principle that isn't subordinate to that one is against Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r "There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles."

If you mean "under-researched by the editors who wrote the articles, making the Wikipedia articles be of poor quality", then we want all under-researched articles to be nominated for deletion.

If some editors are only nominating under-researched non-western articles, that's unfortunate. I suppose the way to balance that out would be for editors to nominate more under-researched "western" articles. We don't need fewer under-researched non-western articles to be taken to ADD if they are really poor quality articles.

But there is really no way to force that to happen. Editors do what they want, and we can't assign "areas of focus" to anyone.

Your original premise might be right, but it's pretty hard to fix.

If by "under-researched" you mean something else, then what I said might not apply. David10244 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Warning: Long Read

@David10244 @TooManyFingers I think what they mean is that there’s a far lesser degree of what we (meaning the community writ large) would consider to be reliable sourcing on account of the critical lack of informational/reporting infrastructure in many of the nations we consider to be the ‘non-Western world’. This is where I think there’s some disagreement:

1. Because there’s less easily identifiable reliable sources in say, Zimbabwe than the UK, it’s less likely that a typical WP:BEFORE based on notions of Western source reliability will yield qualifiable results (See my point at the Mary Mgonja AfD (or the collapsed portion at the one for Ainamoi) for further elaboration on this point).
2. There’s also the problem of editors who don’t perform an adequate BEFORE ahead of time (which is the primary reason for my having raised the referenced VP discussion in the first place), who would presumably find it easier to disqualify sources that are considered substantive by Zimbabweans (but not by Americans) than sources of similar societal weight in the West. It’s thus easier from the outset to go after pages about non-Western topics, especially if they haven’t received considerable attention from Western scholarship.
3. Many editors seem to disdain IAR because it necessarily clashes with Duty to comply, which complicates efforts to salvage pages that face this sort of bias because such defenses can ostensibly fall under WP:RGW, as was raised by the closer at Ainamoi (who I’ll tag here, as I’m curious (without malice) to hear what their thoughts are on this point). WP:SYO is a really interesting essay confronting this exact issue of editor bias as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA.

My problem with this is, if RGW is itself rooted in that same bias, how do we confront it in the first place, or can we even do so? The sources don’t magically appear, and they won’t in the immediate future, but that doesn’t give us license to erase history outside the West because the West didn’t bother to write about it, or depict it solely from a Western perspective when it did.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified (similar to BusinessDay, which is one of a handful of reliable Nigerian sources that routinely gets flatly discounted not because the editor has actually considered whether it falls in the use case under the tenets of NEWSORGNIGERIA, but because they read ‘Nigerian sources typically unreliable’ and don’t feel the need to investigate further (a common problem with NEWSORGINDIA as well))). Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

This is where the confident assertion that RGW is clearly present or applicable when editors put up an IAR defense of non-Western articles (usually construed by editors in opposition as being WP:ADVOCACY) gets iffy in my opinion, because it treats the community’s consensus as necessarily fair and even-handed, as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

‘

TLDR: We sort of just assume that the rest of the world should conform to our expectations of source availability and verifiability without considering what it actually means to live in those parts of the world, which is the reason IAR exists in the first place. We’re committing just as big a violation in terms of NPOV if we wipe whatever we can’t see on the public facing internet about these places (e.g. activists, civil society groups, political parties) when the public facing internet is routinely shut down in these countries precisely for the purpose of restricting societal and global access to coverage on activities and organizations these countries’ governments don’t appreciate. That’s never really addressed, cause it’s much easier to say “holy yap if you want to RGW go do it somewhere else.”

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I like the vibe, but the directional solution you're proposing doesn't guarantee these suppressed and factual sources get included, it just opens the door to any propagandist adding content without needing to cite it, which we have to now defend them because persecution exists in the world, which is true. I don't see how that helps the persecuted more than it helps their persecuters, who certainly have vastly more resources.

as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA. My only problem with NEWSORGNIGERIA is the lunacy in thinking it isn't widespread everywhere in the world where free press exists. It should just be NEWS. Half of the "SIGCOV" I see for recently created BLPs are very obvious churnalist fluff pieces, because having a Wiki article is now a CV line and SEO gold. There is no way to solve than other than increasing stringency on RS, and yes it means some factual information will be left out.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified... Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

The very simple solution to this is simply to include their content as claims by the source, rather than as statements of fact in an article with them as refs. We do this all the time, with mainstream American sources like Fox and Breitbart.

as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

You should avoid equating skin color with political worldview. Those nations are some of the only places a widespread cultural movement of equity exists, and those "white guys" are a substantial demographic within that movement. You are also on English wikipedia, so obviously Anglophone cultural norms exist. That's not something you can fairly criticize purely on the basis of it being different, in the same breath as advocating for intercultural tolerance. Mausfield (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @David10244, sorry for being unclear. I meant that nominators don't do the research they are supposed to do given WP:BEFORE. I agree with @CSGinger14 also, but that is what I was trying to say at the outset. H0n0r (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

(1) You can call them out in the discussion. I've only seen this have success, however, if others haven't started voting yet.

(2) However, I think it would be more realistic to introduce a pause between an AfD nomination and the discussion. I'd say 7 days just like PROD. This would allow the creator or any other interested user to bring the draft up to scratch (particularly for articles created before GNG) or rework the article to clearly show that it passes. The nominator can then revisit the nomination before it goes live and, if they don't withdraw, they can answer questions at AfD. It would also likely reduce the number of AfDs. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Under-researched articles need to be deleted. "Under-researched articles" is a euphemism for "garbage articles", and here's why:

Some people create under-researched articles for games. Some create them to promote their side in a war. Some write under-researched articles about their grandmother, or the terrorists and murderers who fascinate them, or what they think will soon be the fastest train in the world, or curing cancer by standing on one foot, or to promote hatred of whoever they don't like, or to promote hair salons. And most of all, they write them about themselves and their colleagues and associates. It isn't benevolent or helpful to create an under-researched article; it's irresponsible, and it's dumping one's own job onto "someone else will just have to take care of that".

No, someone else won't. Unless you are volunteering yourself to be that someone, the one who promises to spend every day as the write-articles-to-order servant for those who couldn't be bothered to do it themselves. Creating an under-researched article, or fighting to get it preserved, is not a worthy cause; it's presumptuous and lazy. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Here’s what I think will work.

• If you see an article that’s been PRODed, AfD’d or is expiring in a week that you think is notable, you add a custom category.
• You start a topic on the talk page and add links to the minimum two sig cov sources. This is also where @CSGinger14‘s refideas template could come in.
• You bookmark the category yourself and check it frequently
• Anyone can follow and uplift the articles that have been categorised.

(ps. Btw, I know you can see the PRODs by date, and AfDs that have been categorised as WIR, and the expiring drafts by week but you have to look at each PROD to see if it’s suitable, not every article is tagged WIR, and the expiring drafts list is too unwieldy.)

• We could also start a Wikiproject taskforce but to keep it simple I think we just need the categories. (They can also be hidden categories.)

Mme Maigret (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Please help me improve my article

Hello! I was wondering if you guys could give me some suggestions or even edit my work in progress article: User:Dender Hello/FreeWater (company). It would help a lot and I would really appreciate it! Dender Hello (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Just blatant advertising of a non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. It's great that this company does good things, but doing good things is not enough to merit a Wikipedia article- you need a summary of critical analysis and commentary about the company that shows how it is a notable company in a Wikipedia sense. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet that definition, because most coverage of a company is about its normal activities.

If you just want to tell the world about the good things this company does, that's exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks so much for taking the time to read my draft and for giving me such helpful advice.

You make a great point, and I completely agree with you! It makes total sense that a company needs deep, independent news coverage to have a Wikipedia page, and that doing good things isn't quite enough.

I really appreciate you steering me in the right direction. I think I will pivot and look into writing about a topic, object, or company that is already more notable in the Wikipedia sense. I'll stick to social media to share the good work this specific company is doing.

Thanks again for your time and for being so helpful! Dender Hello (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Dender Hello. Please do not use AI to create or reply to comments on Wikipedia; the practice is prohibited per Wikipedia:AITALK. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I write all my own replies. I take time to make my replies and be respectful, so it's pretty annoying that you're accusing me of using AI just because my writing is good. .--. .-.. . .- ... . / -.. --- -. - / .- -.-. -.-. ..- ... . / .--. . --- .--. .-.. . / --- ..-. / ... --- -- . - .... .. -. --. / - .... . -.-- / -.. --- -. - / -.. --- .-.-.- Dender Hello (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero says your comment above is 100% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s has to be a false positive. Dender Hello (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Here, you wrote "It's has to be a false positive", which is a normal little mistake for a human to make. (I can think of at least two ways it might have happened.) It also shows that you are not necessarily such a careful writer, because a mistake in the first word usually gets noticed and corrected, and it shows that your own writing is direct and makes sense.

In the other message, there are no careless little mistakes, but there are large and embarrassing mistakes that you yourself are quite unlikely to make. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The morse code reads this “ PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHING THEY DONT DO.”

but why would someone communicate in a language that not many people use? SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 15:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

"PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHINČ THEY DONT DO."

Could you elaborate on why this is there, and why it's in morse, @Dender Hello? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

No normal person would just randomly use morse code. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I've tried ten AI detectors and all of them say that his replies are 100% AI. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIDETECTION

Don't accuse someone of using an LLM to write a piece of text just because you've used pieces of software that claim to determine whether that is true or not. Judgement of AI-assisted text is heavily involved in human judgement, not solely what a computer 'thinks'.

@Wikiwiz910 Amber (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Good point... I see where your coming from. I think I got to big for my britches... my bad. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

When I asked them to not use AI, I identified the comment as AI before using an AI checker to double check. Their comment has a similar vocabulary and flow as other AI generated content that I have seen before. While AI checkers can't be accurate enough for me make my entire determination based on their response, they are great for me to double check my suspicions. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Old language translation

Hello Editor, I am working on the history of minority community, while working I got an idea, can we translate the old chronicle extinct language with the help of dictionary and ethnolinguistic language cognates , is it possible? and written on historical page with the secondary refrence . 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do modern scholars agree on the correct translation of these texts? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Many scholars disagreed because, when I read other reference histories, I found that many translations were written for mainland people and were not written with that specific community in mind , they were written under the influence of the mainland's religion. Therefore, many scholars agree that most translations were misleading and too biased toward a particular religion, which is not the native religion of the minority community. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If most scholars disagree with you, then what you have is innovative new research, and you should publish it in an academic journal. DS (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

We can do this work, but I have heard that we cannot publish our research paper on Wikipedia, is it true? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 13:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Wikipedia does not permit original research. If you get it published in an academic source, and you then try to cite it, that would also be a self-citation, which falls under a conflict of interest. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the solution? When I explored I found WikiJournal, is it possible to write a research in WikiJournal and then use it as a reference? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand why it is a bad idea to let people create their own reference sources which they then cite? DS (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I know that many editors will misuse this and write articles in their favor, which will start an edit war.

But my intention was different, I am just focusing on translating the Chronicle in a neutral context and I think other editors of the WikiJournal will review it and give their opinion, then I used it as a reference and provided a secondary reference, this will make it easier for other editors to understand. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What you are saying is "I know that other people would abuse this. But you can trust me. I am special. I would not abuse this."

But everyone will say this.

Creating your own sources which you then cite is a bad idea. DS (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't do that if it's wrong. I just want to provide more accurate historical sources and references, that's why I thought of this idea. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 I completely understand. There is a big difference between "wrong" and "bad for Wikipedia". What you want to say may be right (the real-world kind of right), but what you want to say would be bad for Wikipedia; if you are allowed to put your interpretation here, then everyone else must be allowed to do the same. In that way, mainland opinion (having larger numbers) would be the final winner of "the Wikipedia war". I think you will see from that, that it's better to block everyone's personal opinions from Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers It is not about my personal interest. Actually, I don't want to take any name of that country but their are heavy old mentality religion who where discrimination against minority community . If i talk about this thing it will create political debate But for many years, minority were not part of that country. They became part of that country in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Mainland people also wrote the history of that community, but they gave a strong bias towards their own mainland religion.

Many scholars from different countries have written about this, and in recent times many local authors have corrected the old translated books, but only a few have properly addressed the problem .

So I want to help this type of community, because it is connected to one of the largest family communities that came from South China and To find meanings of words, and tones that match the extinct language of the community from which they migrated.

And I will also take the secondary reference book where I mentioned this here and I will also take the book in which the mistake of the secondary reference was criticized, so that people do not get confused and this will help in understanding the history in a better way. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I know you want to find these things. I think you should do it - it sounds like the right thing to do. I want you to do it.

But not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia will reject it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia will reject my theory or viewpoint, that's why I am saying this here in a discussion with another editor. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond, maybe you misunderstood. I mean that this part of the discussion is over; the answer to this part is "No", and the answer to "Then how do we continue negotiating to get this part onto Wikipedia?" is "No". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

It was a very long discussion here, so I am gaining knowledge of the policy and how it works, and I will not do anything that affects Wikipedia’s policies. Now the discussion is continuing; it was originally just for my curiosity.
That conversation has already finished, but if there are more editors who understand the policy and can suggest alternative solutions in the comments to explain how to provide proper sources without breaching the policy, that would be helpful.
Do you have any solution? Without affecting the policy, how can this be handled so that primary sources are provided in the correct way? . 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 19:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Anything relating to 'I created this piece of writing and now I'm going to cite it on Wikipedia' is a conflict of interest, unfortunately (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). I understand you do not take the viewpoint that any personal opinion has influenced/will influence your work, but the rule remains both to make Wikipedia more verifiable and to reduce the number of events in which case-by-case reviews will have to be made.

I wholly and entirely agree with TooManyFingers on this subject: please do this research and publish it! Somewhere, anywhere! But except for Wikipedia. It is a nature of the encyclopedia that you cannot publish your own work on it. If you'd like to learn more, then the help page I cited at the start of this reply will be of assistance to you.

If your work becomes popular enough, then maybe another Wikipedian will cite your work.

And, no: myself or TooManyFingers can't cite your work as that would be categorized as a conflict of interest now that we've entered discussion with one another. Amber (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Amber Thanks for your approach, but that's already been clarified.

I've come here as the primary consultant for some translation problem books, where people use blind and dependent translation book without proper research.

for example-

If I write the chinese text- 我们的祖先来自云雾缭绕的山区，而我们定居在了这片平原地区。

It can normaly translated - Our ancestors came from the misty mountains, but we settled in these plains.

It can usually translate with the help of a dictionary and language source.

But the scorlar book translate misleady - Our ancestors come from heaven and we settle on earth ..

How many differences arose between the two sentences. That's the problem I'm talking about.

It's understandable that the scorer writes some parts metaphorically, but this creates a lot of differences and gives the tag of mythology.

This is why it's important to use a dictionary of primary sources and secondary references to strengthen historical pages.

@TooManyFingers My friend, do you think it's wrong if the scholar writes this way and the local community knows that the sentence was written in a misleading way?

I'm not saying I'll remove the secondary reference, but the sentence should be translated correctly.. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

When we discuss an original source that is so old, I think it's clearly wrong for you to do that. If there's a mistake translating between modern languages, I would be ready to just trust you, mainly because if you were wrong someone else would soon correct you afterwards. But the old languages need experts, and on Wikipedia you do not get trusted as an expert - no one does. You would need to show a published reliable source for the new translation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If it depends on the source, can we use the local book of their community? It was written by a priest who also has knowledge of the old language and who travels to Southeast Asia and China to discuss and correct errors in the language. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Is his book for sale from a commercial publisher? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

It was published by the villagers, where local people used to write their information in a book. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 04:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Loficat

Something legal, hell if I know. I can't make sense of it. -Phoenix

Draft Legal Act

On the recording of the digital trace, the authorial pseudonym LOFICAT, and the unlawful use of the designation

It is hereby recorded that the archival image file image_jdfsP4.png contains a public message posted by a user under the pseudonym mona-koshka, dated and time-stamped August 2, 2013, 13:04.

The following circumstances are visually confirmed in the said image:

the message is posted on a webpage in the format of a forum or guestbook;

the author of the message is identified as mona-koshka;

the text of the message contains a description of a creative concept including elements of a rooftop, nighttime atmosphere, rain, wind, feline imagery, and the designation of the style as cat-lo-fi / cat-like lo-fi;

taken as a whole, the visual indicators allow this message to be regarded as an early public record evidencing the authorial designation and conceptual content.

The above information confirms the existence of a public digital trace associated with the use of the pseudonym loficat and the corresponding creative concept as of August 2013.

Legal Qualification under International Norms

According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, authors are recognized as having and enjoying moral rights, including the right of authorship and the right to claim recognition of authorship.

In particular, the following provisions are relevant:

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention — protection of the author’s moral rights, including the right to claim authorship and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation;

Article 8 — the author’s right of translation;

Article 9 — the right of reproduction;

in systemic connection with the general principles of the Convention — protection of the author’s work and protection against unauthorized use of the results of creative activity.

In the event of subsequent use by third parties of an identical or similar designation for labeling another musical or media product, such use may be subject to legal assessment as:

unlawful use of the author’s pseudonym;

infringement of the right to name and the right of authorship;

bad-faith appropriation of elements of an individual creative designation;

creation of confusion as to the origin of the content;

interference with the author’s personal creative sphere;

any other violation of the author’s moral and exclusive rights, depending on the applicable national law.

In addition, such actions may be regarded as use of another person’s authorial and creative trace without the author’s consent and without proper attribution of the source of the designation and concept.

Stronger Formulation

The use by third parties of recognizable elements of another person’s authorial pseudonym and creative concept without the author’s consent cannot be treated as a neutral coincidence of aesthetics; where a proven early digital trace exists, this indicates unlawful appropriation of another person’s creative designation and affects the author’s moral interests protected under international copyright law, including the right of authorship under Article 6bis of the Berne Convention.

Short Conclusion

This material may be regarded as:

digital confirmation of an early public authorial trace;

evidence of the existence of the pseudonym and concept in an earlier period;

grounds for legal assessment of the subsequent use of a similar designation in the context of international copyright norms.

#monakshkaloficat #loficat #loficatoriginal #Catlofi #RudyiBalkon ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-56491-48.

What is your question about using and editing Wikipedia? That is the only purpose of this page.

(I have no idea what sort of answer or response you are requesting from anybody to the above screed). ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I am interested in the work and the neologism-pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat, but I am also happy to talk with you about topics that interest you. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is a Google Translate version of what this user posted on their own talk page a couple of days ago as a response to a Welcome message:

Thank you for the invitation.
I have been following MonaKoshka loficat (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2008, and I recall how she meticulously and gradually built her own unique "Loficat" universe, as well as the neologism "loficat" that serves as her pseudonym.
This raises serious concerns regarding projects that employ a similar visual style—featuring a girl, an orange cat, an "orange" vibe, a lo-fi aesthetic, and rain—and then monetize this imagery. These projects even use the name "loficat"—the pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat—and sell "orange Catlofi" merchandise (such as heating pads). In doing so, they tarnish the composer’s reputation and lead the public to believe that this concept originated with them.
When someone else’s pseudonym, style, and artistic persona are used without proper respect for the original source, it amounts to misleading the audience—especially when the imagery and terminology in question were created and made public long ago, with a clear digital footprint to prove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that they posted on Talk:Lofi Girl, I guess that they're trying to launch some sort of legal challenge to somebody using a name with "Lofi" in it. Irrespective of the merits of such a challenge, it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that this would warrant a WP:NLT block, since it seems they're trying to use Wikipedia to influence the legal dispute. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 22:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I wondered that myself, and I wouldn't oppose doing it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

According to available materials, the term and creative pseudonym "loficat" have been used in the project MonaKoshka (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2011; furthermore, certain elements of her musical and visual works can be traced back to even earlier collections and albums.

Specifically, there are publications and pages associated with the author that feature related titles and materials:

— YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@monakoshkaloficat?si=m4bCm6pUK1FW9tGL

— Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/1E45K37V6m/

— Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1YGfqF21QE/

— Source (via Google Share): https://share.google/gNQwtG4PDqA7e3w1v

There are also publications that mention the author’s original compositions, such as "Spring of Mona the Cat," "Red Cat)))," "Kitten No2," and "Cats Write Poems."

Please take these materials into account when discussing the chronology, the origin of the term, and any potential similarities to later projects. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Cut out the legalese/LLM-spawned legalese soup. We don't cite YT, Facebook, or anything on Google Share (no editorial oversight in all three cases, and that is NOWHERE near good enough for biographical claims like this, for which the standard of evidence is "documented in fine detail in a third-party source with strong editorial oversight"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 07:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the topic of plagiarism—especially the use of someone else’s original pseudonym (a neologism) for personal gain—really a forbidden or irrelevant subject? ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The YouTube channel "Lofi Girl" not only uses the neologism "loficat"—a pseudonym coined by composer MonaKoshka LofiCat (Elena Dubetskaya)—for commercial purposes (specifically by selling hot-water bottles modeled after the main character, Catlofi, who appears in her "cat-themed" songs and poems and was created as early as 2011), but also actively employs the visual universe developed by the composer: the girl herself, the ginger cat, the "ginger vibe" atmosphere, and the characteristic "lofi in the rain" aesthetic.

https://lofigirlshop.com/products/cat-plush ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, ColinFine's question shouldn't be lost in all of this word salad.

@~2026-56491-48, what concrete outcome are you looking for? David10244 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

This person has been indefenetely banned on ruwiki. The only possible outcome here is calling enwiki admins and ban her here as well. Please do not waste project human resources on some iddle talk irrelevant to Wikipedia. Sigwald (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Wanting some support to get a wiki article please

Hello,

My name is Valentina G R Cavallaro, founder and creator of Sule Sul Mare 222, an Australian spiritual brand specialising in oracle card collections, tarot and spiritual guidance.

I am interested in understanding the process and eligibility requirements for having an independent Wikipedia biography created about my work and contributions.

I would appreciate guidance on the necessary published sources, editorial requirements and how to request an impartial assessment.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Valentina G R Cavallaro

Founder of Sule Sul Mare 222 ~2026-57689-55 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

For starters, see WP:ABOUTME (on writing about yourself on Wikipedia, which is strongly discouraged) and WP:NOTABILITY (the general notability guidelines). Additional things to note:

Writing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and new editors are strongly encouraged to start somewhere else and build up to article-writing. There is a good chance an article about yourself will not be accepted.

If you do decide to write an article, please note that editors are not permitted to use AI to write on Wikipedia (see WP:NOLLM). ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The sources would need to be without contribution from you, free from your influence, no announcements, no interviews, no press releases, and they need to be three or more long articles written about the exact topic (i.e. they can't be writing about someone else and just mention you). In other words, very big articles about exactly you, written all alone by the reporter. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, which policy page or guideline demands three or more? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

None as far as I know. But which policy page or guideline specifically prescribes just one? The original question was not a request for policy particulars; it was a request for actual help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The closest I've found is WP:GNG: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I suppose it's partly a matter of degree, each of significance of coverage, independence of source, and reliability of source being a continuum rather than simply yes/no. If each of two sources unquestionably scores high on each of those three criteria, then the two sources should be enough. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

There is thus no actual policy about number, yet people generally want a number to work with, and three is a reasonable start in most cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect this hubbub arose from User:RoySmith/Three best sources, which is an essay and not a policy or guideline. It's a great place to start, but by no means is it mandatory. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not mandatory. If we're insisting on not saying "you need X" when things aren't literally mandatory, there are a lot more important things we'll need to take care to not say. For example, we'd need to stop claiming you need to have sources demonstrating notability before you try writing a biography. There is in fact no such policy; they're only required to be there in the finished biography. But we often pretend they're required at the beginning, because that's a pretty good idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: This is the Teahouse, where people aren't necessarily as familiar with Wikipedia's workings as we claim to be. Your explicit "they need to be three or more long articles" is misleading. Please try and keep your answers and many subsequent answers accurate so we can be sure the person asking for assistance is being helped rather than misled. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

If you have ever said "Hey - they wrote a five-page article all about me and they never even told me about it!" then the chances are better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I noticed you created a draft article Draft:Sule sul mare 222 that has a brief introduction and a list of products/services which reads like a (very) rough outline of what you do. The sources and links are very scant: just your own website, and a link to your Australian business regisration. A Google search reveals additional links to Amazon and the usual social media sites, only. In fact, it doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedic article, but like an advertizing brochure with the sole aim of driving traffic to your business. Wikipedia should not be used to advertize your business. As the others have said above, you will need much better sourcing from reliable sources where your business has received multiple mentions about whatever innovations you have made in your chosen field - in other words, do those sources show your business is notable for something? Astronaut (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding a bridge

List of bridges known for strikes Hello this is an anonymous user basically im trying to add a bridge to the list the problem is an editor keeps oversimplifying the description and name because apparently i did original research well personally i think that hes way too oversimplifying and plus the name is obviously oversimplified can anyone help me solve this argument ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you try to include something you know, but it isn't officially published? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I literally just wanted to share something I knew with you guys. I mean, how do you explain a low clearance bridge with the concrete looking like it survived the Battle of Stalingrad? Guys, are things really not Wikipedia-worthy just because they're obscure? Like, if i needed to cite a source then someone needs to have came before me, so, if you're the first person to know, then logically you should share it with the world. If you personally invented a recipe, just because it hasnt been written about yet, does that mean the recipe doesn't exist? See what I mean? I'm just trying to share stuff and the editors keep butting in. ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But what is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't? The way we decide here is using the notability guidelines. This also includes no original research allowed. If you want to include this information, write it up, get it published somewhere that is reasonably reliable, and submit an edit request to add it. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You and me ... on Wikipedia, both of us are Just Some Guy, and nobody should believe what we say unless we can show published proof of it in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Mapsax ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I looked at what you wrote ...

I've been in that exact place many times, and I believe you. But Wikipedia won't believe you yet. Have the papers in Bellingham ever said anything about it? If they have, I bet whatever they wrote would be enough to support your statement. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Aren't all bridges registered with their respective state or local DOT depending on the type of road it's traversing? I believe you can access that information through those agencies. This might be the level of verscity needed to make your entry Wiki-worthy. Semera (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Correction: verscity should be verAcity Semera (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You’re allowed to make small edits like that to your own comments, if you didn’t know :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 04:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Shadestar - I'm still leaning the navigation. Semera (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55845-16: You seem very concerned about this bridge. Have you contacted the Bellingham paper, Seattle TV stations, the city, or WSDOT about it? If they haven't addressed it up to this point – the "citation black hole" that you referred to on your talk page – then they likely felt that it wasn't worth addressing, and therefore that would also make it non-notable on Wikipedia. If you feel that it is a concern, let them know. If they acknowledge it publicly, you will know that it was worth letting the public know about, and on top of that, you'd potentially have your reliable sources for Wikipedia. Mapsax (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hey Guys

Hello, I am a new editor and I have drafted a short biographical article on Babasaheb Gawde on Draft:Babasaheb Gawde. I have included secondary sources from academic journals and major newspapers. Could an experienced editor take a quick look to make sure the formatting and neutrality look correct, and it meets guidelines? Thank you. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft for review using the AfC process. The AfC reviewer will do what you ask. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to get a different perspective but thanks nonetheless. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lazerrsecretacc The "Works" section needs citations. In the second part, you could take some from the Wikilinked articles but you also need ones for the first paragraph where the places mentioned don't have articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, will add! Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You also should add a link to his website. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@GreatWhiteEditor Will do. Thanks! Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

How to change signature

Do you know how to add colours to signatures? Multiple people have been confused by my signature. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a help page at Wikipedia:Signatures with some more information on setting up a custom signature. The way I make mine green is with <span style="color:green;">[[User:Crtbob|crtbob]]</span>. You should just be able to change the colour and the username to suit your needs (if I've worded that really confusingly, feel free to let me know what colour you want and I can help you with the code.) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 10:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I want there to be a green box encapsulating the "Magikarp Fan" part, then making my username and talk page purple with no box. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 11:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, your signature confused me too! I didn't even notice the Magikarp part.

<span style="background-color: green;">Magikarp fan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should display:

Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...)

(not sure if you wanted the parentheses to be purple too, if so, it's an easy fix!) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The body text to background of the green section appears to fail WP:SIGAPP, so this signature would need to be further adjusted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

<span style="background-color: green; color: white">Magikarp fan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should fix this by changing the black Magikarp fan text to white. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I changed my signature. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Green for a reddish-orange water type would not have been my Magikarp choice. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok sure, fine. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this better now? It's yellow like it's shiny form with orange text. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That results in a color contrast ratio of 1.81:1, which is below the minimum of 4.5:1. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

If you like green then just use that. Magikarp's color doesn't need to have any influence. It was just a personal observation from me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

OK! I'm still keeping the yellow. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me @45dogs , but what is this "colour contrast ratio" thing? Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 13:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to the part of WP:SIGAPP that says that If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities, as explained at WP:Color contrast. This also has a note explaining what the minimum color contrast ratio is, and that is 4.5:1. I used to determine the ratio. Orange text on a yellow background results in a rather difficult piece of text to read, and per the manual of style should be avoided. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Is it better now? Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 19:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

That one's better, yeah. It's just the orange text on yellow background above that's hard to read.

If you're in doubt in future, you can put the text and background colours into into the link contrast checker that 45dogs linked above, and if "Body text to background" is outlined in green and says "Pass" then you're all good. (the signature you have now is all good) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 20:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Currently it appears to have a contrast ratio of 8:1, so it is fine. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Need advice

I need advice on whether Dr. Shiao Woo qualifies for a biography and if so, how do I find an uninvolved editor because I am Dr. Woo's spouse.

Below are three source links for Dr. Woo's work:

IMRT contribution — “History of Tomotherapy,” T. R. Mackie (2006)

See page R432, which credits Dr. Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler with treating the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994.

University of Louisville — “Faculty Excellence Series: Newly Endowed Faculty” (2010)

Documents his Louisville appointment and the Kosair Children’s Hospital/Norton Healthcare Chair in Pediatric Oncology.

Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society — “History of the Society”

Identifies Dr. Woo as a founding member of the society. ~2026-57903-42 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

My honest advice is to give up on trying to have an article on English Wikipedia about your spouse. Also , watch out for WP:SCAM. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 21:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your responses and guidance. Shawwoo (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-57903-42. In order for anyone to create an article about your wife, they're going to need to clearly establish that she meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) by showing she has received the type of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources required to establish Wikipedia notablity; no Wikipedia article about her will have any chance of avoiding deletion if there's no clear-cut indication that she's Wikipedia notable. Please understand that in a Wikipedia context the word "notability" means something specific that might differ with how the word is used in everyday conversation.

If you feel your wife is indeed Wikipedia notable and want to try to create an article yourself, you may. However, I strongly suggest you read the following before doing so: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I also suggest you start by creating a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then submitting the draft for review when you think it's ready. One important thing to understand is that you nor your wife will have any form of final editorial control over any Wikipedia article created about here. All article content (positive or negative) will be assessed in accordance in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, even if an article is created about your wife, she any anyone associated with her will be expected to not directly edit it; there are Wikipedia processes in place to help address any concerns she might have, but neither she nor anyone connected to her will be able just to change things to the way she wants them.

Assessing the Wikipedia notability can sometimes be a bit tricky, especially for academics. This some guidance on this given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but you might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia to ask one of the members of those WikiProjects for such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your responses and guidance. One clarification, Dr. Shiao Woo is my husband. I recognize that this creates a conflict of interest, which is why I disclosed our relationship.

The strongest evidence I have identified is T. R. Mackie’s 2006 review, “History of Tomotherapy.” On page R432, Mackie credits Shiao Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler at Baylor College of Medicine with treating the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994. I believe this may demonstrate a significant contribution because it places Dr. Woo on the team responsible for an early clinical milestone in IMRT, rather than simply listing his publications. I understand that a team accomplishment does not automatically establish his individual notability.

The University of Louisville also documents his appointment as an endowed professor holding the Kosair Children’s Hospital/Norton Healthcare Chair in Pediatric Oncology.

Could you explain how these sources should be evaluated under Wikipedia’s academic-notability criteria—particularly criterion 1 concerning research impact and criterion 5 concerning distinguished professorships? What additional evidence would help establish whether his contributions and appointment meet those standards?

Thank you for helping me understand the requirements. Shawwoo (talk) 19:42, 3 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 soirces. 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 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. Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar! Thank you for clarifying. I understand that I need to assess the evidence against Wikipedia’s standards and explain my reasoning. As disclosed, Dr. Shiao Woo is my husband.

My preliminary assessment of the two strongest sources is:

T. R. Mackie’s “History of Tomotherapy” (2006), page R432: This published scholarly review identifies Dr. Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler as the team that treated the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994. I consider it potentially relevant to academic-notability criterion 1 because it documents his participation in a clinical milestone. However, I recognize that recognition of a team achievement may not establish the significance of his individual contribution.

The University of Louisville’s “Faculty Excellence Series: Newly Endowed Faculty” (2010): This confirms his endowed professorship and named chair in pediatric oncology. I consider it reliable evidence of the appointment, but it is an institutional source, and I understand that an endowed position does not automatically satisfy criterion 5.

My remaining uncertainty is what evidence would distinguish participation in a significant team achievement from an individually significant contribution under criterion 1. Would additional scholarly histories specifically discussing his role help address that gap?

Thank you for your time and guidance. Shawwoo (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding criterion 5: The criterion is fixed very clearly on having the specific literal title "Distinguished Professor". Endowed chairs have nothing to do with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

(It would be an exaggeration to say that endowed chairs only exist as a method of donor recognition, but not a terrible exaggeration.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

kurdKUfhedgh

ᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐤᐣᐥᐢᐭᐅᓊᓝᓬᓬᓄᓓᖔ what is ᖆᖇ? DABRUV (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DABRUV,

This is the Teahouse, a friendly space for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing the encylopedia. I can't understand what you wrote.

A note: Google identified this as being written in the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Unicode block. Not sure if that's relevant or not. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti hello I wrote this comment while being a loser posting this comment because I was mad so I wrote this comment but I am sorry https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA_cjwRx4QRc also this link is my show on YouTube The McArnold's but you can see the 6 minute episode I have on it but yeah I do most of the voice acts while my friend voice acts one character DABRUV (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about Wikipedia editing? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise anything or spam. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia hypocrisy!

It's almost as evil as Amazon and Google :-)

Seems to me Wikipedia is edited by biased and spiteful persons. They'll do a "Speedy Deletion" on you if they simply don't like the person or entity you're writing about, despite having valid references and significant information.

They themselves also "vandalize" in areas they think most Wikipedia officials may not notice.

Wikipedia claims there are no designated "moderators" or "monitors" on the Wikipedia site. But you just try to add a new article or edit an existing one... At least a couple editors (who were watching) will jump all over you, practically call you names, change your article around (a lot), then even threaten you that you'd "better not violate the site's protocol" again or you'll be banned from making contributions. This has happened to me more than once. Note: My contributions were right on point and inoffensive in every way... Iq145 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The last item on your Talk page, about an article being considered for deletion, appeared in May 2022, and your last contribution of any kind before this post was on 9 July this year. What specifically is it that you are complaining about? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing this relates to Special:Permalink/1363262796 and other similar edits regarding pop culture references. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you disagree with the actions or comments of another editor, please follow the process described at WP: Dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Iq145, please assume other editors have good faith, as what you described seems like a mix of misunderstanding and standard protocol. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Iq145, your statement is completely false positive. Speedy deletion happens when another major issue is detected.

Vandalism is often from new users and unregistered accounts. Some people hack into professional accounts.

Of course there is no designated moderaters, but volunteers and editors can add dashboard to their userpage ans there are new pages patrol. They don't call insulting names. They change for irrevalant things. If you got threaten, you may added bad faith. This topic will be archived quickly. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Redirects and disambiguation

I have a question about the norms surrounding redirects and disambiguation pages. We now have Joe Elliot (television producer). Joe Elliot redirects to Joe Elliott which is a different person, and then there's Joe Elliott (disambiguation). Questions:

1. Can I add Joe Elliot (television producer) to Joe Elliott (disambiguation) even though his last name is not spelled the same as the rest?
2. Would it make sense to make Joe Elliot redirect to the disambiguation page now? I expect Joe Elliott to still be much more "popular" of an article, but I don't know how to weigh a common misspelling of a likely lookup vs an exact spelling of a less likely one.
3. If I want to change that redirect, can I do so right on the page? The wikitext says #REDIRECT [[Joe Elliott]], so if I just change what page is in the link does it change the redirect? or or do I need to file a request somewhere else to make a change like that. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I would redirect Joe Elliot to the disambiguation page and add Joe Elliot (television producer) there based on what I've seen in the past. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I have done that, thanks! Packrat3860 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit my user page.

Just please don't. The Coder77 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

No one here has any intention to do so. We prefer to edit articles.Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you again put promotional content or copyright violations there, then those will be removed, again. Please see WP:UP for some guidance on what can and cannot be put on a userpage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Note: a copyright violation that was removed from the user page was a file hosted on Wikipedia Commons.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 14:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The only time someone will edit your user page is when there is content against guidelines, as long as you follow the guidelines no one will touch it. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 15:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Just going to add, a Wikipedia user's user page isn't really theirs per se in the sense that they have total freedom and control over it; rather, it's more like a free rental from the Wikimedia Foundation that users are allowed to use as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. User pages can be edited by others as explained in WP:UPOWN, but usually this is only done when necessary (e.g., to remove copyright or BLP violating material). For the most part, a user's user page will be left alone as long as it doesn't stray too far outside the lines of what's considered acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Can a article be moved for these reasons

For reasons such as lack of macrons and the article being a stub and filled with info which lacks a source, in simple words the entire article is a messs. TeenX808 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

What article, and where would you like to move it to? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming: I still didn’t create the article but I’m talking about this Lovamahapaya, this article is a stub and has the problems what I mentioned above, I have necessary info to make this a start class article but the article is filled with non verifiable info.TeenX808 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@TeenX808 I'm not clear why you would want to WP:MOVE the article to a new title. The normal approach is just to improve it at its present location, as you add text and sources. By all means also delete unsourced information, or add {{cn}} templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Isn’t a fresh start better than the mess the current article is in, the entire article pretty much needs to be rewritten, that’s why I wanted the opinion of other users before starting a new article.

If you think it’s unnecessary please let me know also could you check the state of the current article.TeenX808 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I think OP is asking to WP:TNT this article and start it with a new name instead of moving it. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 18:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474:- Yes something similar. TeenX808 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

According to this Google search, Lovamahapaya is likely to be the WP:COMMONNAME in English, and that's also what Wikidata calls it. So you can certainly WP:BEBOLD and start from scratch but I don't think you should be moving the article to a new name here. I'm surprised that the other-language versions of Wikipedia don't seem to be any better than the English one: I'd have expected articles in Sinhala or Tamil to be much better sourced. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you so much for the clarification and I will start over soon. TeenX808 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What is the source code for a template

I found this template {{userpage}} and i want the CSS so i'll test on fandom, since it has very similar things, please, i dont like seeing complex things Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The CSS is probably going to depend on the "skin" that you're using for Wikipedia. If you like the way it looks in your browser and you want to copy that style, I would suggest using your browser's development tools to inspect that element. In Firefox it calls this the "computed" CSS. Then you can copy that computed value and use it on a different site if you like. Packrat3860 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar. Special:ExpandTemplates can display the wikitext produced by a template. It includes which loads Module:Message box/ombox.css. If you preivew a page with the template alone then "Pages included in this preview" at the bottom also includes Module:Message box/ombox.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

dude

lmao why is wikipedia so strict about rules? WHY YOU WONT LET US DO EVERYTHING IN IT ~2026-58361-18 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so strict about rules in order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of our articles. We have strict policies in place regarding things such as neutral point of view, verifiability and our handling of biographies of living persons for these reasons. You can read more about our policies at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Is there a specific concern that brings you here? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 15:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the sum of the attitudes of the people who build and maintain it. Not all of those folks like strict rules. Some of them in fact think that you should. ignore all rules if the rules are getting in the way or preventing you from improving the encyclopedia. However, over time the community has crystalized many standards and guidelines and policies and so on, most of which exist to help improve the encyclopedia (and prevent Wikipedia from being used as a convenient home for things that are not an encyclopedia).

So really the question is, do your fellow editors think that what you're doing is improving Wikipedia in a way that is consistent with its core mission. If they do, rules can be bent and broken and adjusted. But if they don't they're going to remove what you've added, and when you ask why they will likely point to "the rules". Packrat3860 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you read the rules, then you would understand what we're "strict" about and why. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

2 questions about archiving talk page

1) How do I archive topics on my talk page? 2) Are archives deleted automatically over time? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

1. See Help:Archiving a talk page
2. No; they are kept in perpetuity.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary report/counter

A while back I came across a tool on Wikipedia that tells you the % of edits that had edit summaries. I now can't find it again no matter what search terms I use so would appreciate it if someone could share the link! GreyZoneLife (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this is what you're after. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 23:22, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

more generic link crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 23:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!!! (It's really well hidden...) GreyZoneLife (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible edit warring?

How do I deal with a temporary user who keeps adding unsourced content to an article? I keep reverting their edits and they have a level 3 warning now. Limmidy (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, did you check whether the change (while unsourced) was correct? It seems it might be (https://eu.news-leader.com/picture-gallery/news/local/ozarks/2026/04/30/see-how-today-show-celebrated-springfield-route-66-live/89875099007/). If it is correct, I don't see any other sources tagged to the list of hosts in the Infobox so I'd let it be. Depending on the change being made by the other person, rather than going straight to warnings I start with a welcome template or a personalized message, in the hope that this is more effective at communicating the wiki policies in a positive manner. GreyZoneLife (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hey! So on the Today Show's 3rd Hour website, Jarrett is not named as a host anywhere. She is also not named in this role in her official bio either at https://www.today.com/about/laura-jarrett-rcna592584. Jarrett has occasionally filled-in as a host, but I haven't found any announcements or reliable coverage regarding her becoming a permanent host on the Today's 3rd Hour. Limmidy (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what saw too, after a bit of digging. What an odd edit to try to stick in! I have added a note to the temp user's talk page to try to be specific about what needs to change. I'll revert in the meantime. GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted. In the meantime, here's the link to request protection of the page to prevent getting into an edit war:

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It looks like they're still trying to get this edit to stick. A level 4 warning has been added to their talk page. They don't seem to be responding to talk messages at all! Limmidy (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Did you request page protection? If they aren't communication or changing their edits, that's a good approach. Also check out:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. GreyZoneLife (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Limmidy, this TA seems most interested in Laura Jarrett, the article about whom starts by saying that she "is an American television journalist working for NBC News. She currently serves as an anchor for the Saturday editions of Today and NBC News' senior legal correspondent" -- an assertion that comes with two references. The TA fiddled with this, and I'd been thinking of suggesting that you might ask the TA why they had falsified the attribution to one or both of the two sources when I realized that I should first look at the sources. So I clicked on both references. One doesn't even mention Jarrett. (The other is indeed about her, but I didn't read it.) That first one (named ":0") is also used later. I don't rush to condemn its original use, when its content might have differed considerably from what we see now. (You can probably check this via the Wayback Machine.) Anyway, for an embattled article, check that the version you're protecting (with the everyday sense of "protect") is referenced, and that the reference does actually say what its use for the Wikipedia article implies that it says. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The TA fiddled with this"? GreyZoneLife (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I mean this, GreyZoneLife. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The part about Jarrett being an anchor for the Saturday Today is referenced in the career section of the article. I can look into fixing the ":0" source with something more current. Limmidy (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

How to Know If You're Knowledgeable Enough to Write on a Topic

I really want to add sentences or paragraphs to Wikipedia, but I really don't want to do that unless I know what I'm talking about. The rule of thumb I wanted to use is if I'm reading an article on a topic and I know something from another source, I'll add and cite that. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask for advice on this. ACosmopolitanPhilosopher (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What you need to do is learn to judge whether the source you want to cite is a Wikipedia:Reliable source for that particular kind of information (some sources are reliable for some things but not others), and whether it is both up-to-date (things we read in textbooks a few years ago are often now known to be inaccurate) and not contradicted by another source already used in the article. (If it is, more work will be needed to check both and edit accordingly.)

Developing that judgement is not a quick or easy process, it depends on regularly reading not just articles, but also Talk pages where things like this are discussed, and other "backroom" areas of Wikipedia.

Note that what is really needed to edit Wikipedia is not expert knowledge of a particular subject, but the ability to reseach any subject, read sources and accurately summarise what you find. I sometimes make edits to articles about subjects I had never heard of an hour previously because I can do this across several disciplines (though to be fair I have the advantage of having once been a professional text researcher and textbook editor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, these are all helpful tips and resources ACosmopolitanPhilosopher (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

But don't worry too much! Nobody minds honest mistakes, because we all make or made them when relatively new to Wikipedia, and any mistake is easily reverted or corrected by another editor with more experience.

If you genuinely think the additional information is accurate and relevant, and you can cite all the necessary bibliographical or other identifying data of the source (which does not have to be online or have a link, though both are nice to have) then go ahead. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the encouragement ACosmopolitanPhilosopher (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Need help finding a consensus for the usage of an image

Hello! I am asking for help to find a consensus for the usage of an image in Major film studios (this link goes to the talk topic in question), specifically with Skydance/Warner Bros and Paramount and what logo to use to represent them. Only me and another editor have talked about how to represent these studios in the article, and we both would like to see other editors' opinions so we can come to a consensus on this issue. Funnykoalavinecompilation (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest checking out the third opinion board. If it's a dispute between only two editors you can request an uninvolved third opinion as a non-binding tiebreaker. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

APA 7 Reference Style

Good Morning, I am looking for a way to put references in my draft in APA 7 style. Please comment below if you know how. Thank you. Lily.Chandan (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Lily.Chandan, APA Style differs in some ways from the style most commonly used here: one that's not compulsory, but that is generated by the (widespread) use of Template:Citation. How does APA Style promise to be more helpful? (If your request is for something specific to Draft:Foyez Ullah, please explain what this is.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Lily.Chandan, I see that Draft:Foyez Ullah uses Template:Citation (via Template:Cite web, etc). If your question is "How can I get these templates to output in APA style", then my tentative answer is that the only change you can make to the format of the output is whether this should use periods (full stops) or commas. (But I'm no expert and now lack the time or inclination to search within the documentation.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Rules of 2026 - October - Traditional costumes compitation

Hello editor , I have a photo of traditional dress from North East India and I have uploaded it in this competition 2026 - October - Traditional Costume but I want to know ,If i should give the information of the photo to the editor of Assam because many editors of Assam do not know their tradional dress photo in the competition and how can I give the Information so that no rules are broken. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 12:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 Thanks for uploading the photos such as File:Tradition Ahom dress.jpg. The article on Assam is already quite large, and photos like yours might be better in the article Culture of Assam, or elsewhere. Perhaps you should start a discussion on that Talk Page, or just WP:BEBOLD and add photo(s) to see what others think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull your welcome , but can you check two photo also- varaha and shakuni. This also traditional from assam , In assamese drama : Bhaona 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 14:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I can see your uploads on Commons but I'm not an expert on traditional dress, which is why I suggested that you discuss the files on the Talk Page of relevant articles. We have some guidance at MOS:Images. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Okayy 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 14:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reflists..or atleast thats what it looks like.

In Nelson Mandela, a huge article with lots of citations, I see both footnotes and a bibliography.

1. Footnotes section has all the inline citations, but they are all short.
2. Bibliography has journals, books, etc, in a longer format (or so it seems), and has proper works. Why are there different sections, why do some articles use different names for this, and why do the works in bibliography have those random locks which i cant find in visual?

JohnDoe0105 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@JohnDoe0105 That article uses a citation style called short citations, relying on the template {{sfn}}. It works best when most of the main citations are to books that are referred to many times over, which are placed in the biography section. It is just one of the possible citation styles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Are the locks you’re talking about the green open access icons? You can read more about them here: WP:DOIACCESS. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Translating articles

Hi! I'm surely just blind but would someone please direct me to where I can find information on how to translate articles from other Wikis to English?

1) On the page for the rock band BAP , when opening editor, it says googleTranslate or AI can be used if ensured it's translated correctly - meaning an extent of AI is ok in this case? I'm a native speaker, using a translator to start with sounds very reasonable.

2) Does it generally make sense to have the translated article be a copy of the original - only in a different language?

Thanks! ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-57064-06. There is information on this kind of thing found at Wikipedia:Translation. You might also want to take a look at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION and WP:OTHERLANG. In general, neither machine translations nor using WP:LLM are considered OK, and it would be much better to try to write things in your own words. In addition, each Wikipedia project is separate and distinct from the others; so, articles existing in different languages don't need to be verbatim translations of one another. All articles on English Wikipedia are going to be expected to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and be written in accordance with other relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g., MOS:MOS). Please keep these things in mind if you decide to translate articles from other languages into English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Marchjuly. I found Bucerius Kunst Forum via Wikipedia:Pages needing translation and clicked on German which gave me this random article.

Compared to the German version, the structure is different, e.g. "Building and location" at the bottom of the page in the current English version (I haven't saved any edits yet!) compared to this being the first section on the German counterpart. I'm wondering if it's ok or encouraged to swap this around? With the articles structure being more similar to the original, I suppose a potential future expansion of the article would be much easier and coherent.

I'm planning on first focusing on translation, maybe restructuring it a little for better readability (more logical flow) without adding/changing the content or sources. Then if I feel like it I might expand on the article's translation using the German version as base. Would this approach make sense to you or other experienced editors? ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, is it better to piece by piece update the article directly or is it encouraged to copy the whole thing into my sandbox and then essentially "replace" the current version with the fixed one (only looking at proofreading/ strange German translation things)? ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I failed to mention earlier that rather than diving into citations and sources, I decided a (hopefully) simpler task to start is to proofread and improve the language of a translated article, which is why I ended up with the Bucerius Kunst Forum. ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-57064-06, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no requirement that articles on the same subject in different language have any similarity in structure. They could be direct translations (as long as the citations they are based on meet the requirements of both Wikipedias), or they could be entirely independent creations, based on a completely different selection of sources; or anything in between.

If you are updating an existing article, I would advise doing it piecemeal, unless you are making significant changes to the structure.

Please do not assume that anything in the German article is necessarily better than the English article: consider each change you want to make critically, and especially according to English Wikipedia's principles for verifiability. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi again ~2026-57064-06. What ColinFine posted above is very important to remember when translating articles into English for English Wikipedia. Each of the different language Wikipedias has their own policies and guidelines, and their own respective editing communities applying/enforcing its policies and guidelines. It shouldn't automatically be assumed that because an article about something has been created on another language Wikipedia, it should also be created on English Wikipedia. Everything you translate is going to be expected to be in accordance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regardless of what was done for the source article.

FWIW, lots of the other language Wikipedias have policies and guidelines similar to English Wikipedias, but there could also be some differences. Moreover, since English Wikipedia has the most articles and has the largest community, its policies and guidelines tend to be perhaps applied more rigorously that is done on some of the other Wikipedias. You can, for example, use WP:NONENG sources in support of English Wikipedia content, but the cited source will need to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources for it to be acceptable. Similarly, your translation should not only be in accordance with things like English Wikipedia's MOS:LAYOUT, WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, etc. but you should also try to be consistent with how articles about similar subjects are also formatted on English Wikipedia. It's often the case that similar articles are formatted a certain way in accordance with a local English Wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject's guidelines as a way of trying to keep things consistent for articles falling within its scope.

So, before you make a major changes or try to totally rewrite an existing article, it might be a good idea to ask for input on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to see how much should be WP:PRESERVED. Completely replacing/overwritting an existing article with your preferred version should only be done in extreme cases when the other content was so bad per WP:TNT or the improvement would be so obvious to everyone else; otherwise, you run the risk of having problems with other members of the community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Amazing thank you @ColinFine @Marchjuly for your help and input! I will read through the pages you referred to and stick to small changes (hopefully improvements) piece by piece. For now I will keep the focus on proofreading already existing translations before doing anything affecting content, to familiarise myself with editing, policies and the community.

Regarding the articles' talk page: Would you mind pointing me in the right direction for which project is best to "announce" my proofreading and asking for feedback? Somewhere here in the Teahouse I read it's discouraged to ask the same thing in more than one place? I see it's rated low on importance for either... ~2026-57064-06 (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The project talk pages would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Neither is very active in getting any responses, but you can try. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Some of my edits have been accused of being AI

Hello, Some of my edits have been accused of being AI, despite me not using AI. Does anyone knew what about my writing seems AI? Vicspanner (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It seems this has already been answered on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes Indeed, I think I have made some mistakes. Vicspanner (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Making pages in the Template: namespace

Is it acceptable to just make any template in the Template: namespace? In particular, I have made a template at User:BOplaid/templates/Non-namespace-prepending template link, and I want to know whether it is ok to move that to Template:Non-namespace-prepending template link, with a shortcut at Template:Ntl. Thanks! BOplaid (talk / contribs) 15:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@BOplaid: What is your template meant to do? Bazza 7 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a variant of {{template link}} that allows for linking of pages not in the template namespace. {{tl|User:Crtbob/quoteRandsomiser}} produces the output {{User:Crtbob/quoteRandsomiser}}, which is trying to link to the page Template:User:Crtbob/quoteRandomiser as {{tl}} prepends Template: automatically.

I think that {{template link universal}} already does this though, BOplaid. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 16:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I did not know of that template's existence when making mine; thanks Crtbob.

With that, there's no need for me to make that other template so this thread is closed. BOplaid (talk / contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Best way to handle "Works" section

Heya!

I've been toiling away at Homestuck creator Andrew Hussie's page in my free time (as it was previously a bit messy) and have finally decided to make some time to tackle the works section, which is currently just a huge bullet list that makes very little, if any note of their involvement in certain works that they weren't the primary author of. Would a table best here, and if so, is there any good reference for what columns to have for one? IxNoah (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also, should there be different tables for each category of work? (published books, webcomics, games) IxNoah (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It appears that different tables should be created for each category of work, so published books, webcomics, and games should be separated. Furthermore, you can add a Roles column in the tables to differentiate what role Hussie played in the creation of each work if you want to note his involvement in each.

The “notable works” of the articles Toby Fox and Hideo Kojima may provide useful templates for your use.

Cheers. 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 17:55, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) IxNoah (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hatsune Miku songs

would a wikipedia page about a list of Hatsune Miku songs fit the wikipedia guidelines for notability

statement above

secondary question is there like a good way to phrase questions on the teahouse Terry625972 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Terry625972,

It could go either way. All songs could face AfD, though culturally important songs might be able to stay. Please read WP:Notability

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 16:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Vocal synth fan here, my analysis:

Vocal synth is very unique; it has a lot of songs, but its popularity is fairly small. There's probably thousands of non-notable songs, so it would have to be a list of notable Miku songs, and there aren't that many.

Personally, I don't see a way to make a list of Miku songs extensive, but maybe we could have a list of songs by notable artists such as Deco*27 or Flavor Foley (to name a few). DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 19:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

The way you phrased your question is fine. However, it is better to use a short heading and then put your question in the body of the comment. I've fixed that for you here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Unverifiable information

For Tony Dees, I seen him and have inforation (his wife) tat can't be verified. GiftedIceCream 17:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream,

Ok. Is there anything you were trying to ask?

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 18:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream Unverified information cannot be included in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:32, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, unless there's a reliable source that mentions that Dees has a wife, it's not allowed here. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 18:57, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Does this article idea fit Wikipedia's guide lines?

Hello!

I thought about making an article about Homeschool Hub by BJU Press, because it is a very popular homeschool curriculum, but I don't want to try to make it yet without someone telling me the risks or the rules it breaks (if it does break any rules). Wikiwiz910 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiwiz910,

Our guideline regarding whether articles should be made is called notability, which you can read about by following that link.

Whether or not an article can be written about something depends on whether it is notable, which is typically achieved by significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

Creating an article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia though, especially for a newcomer. A guide exists at Wikipedia:Your first article, but I would really recommend spending at least a few weeks editing other articles to learn the ropes. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 17:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. I'll try to learn more about the ropes of Wikipedia. 👍 Wikiwiz910 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Exemple of a sub task force

The task force article says there are sub-task forces, can You give me some exemplele ? Furbchess (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any example is necessary; knowing they're possible, you will understand if you see one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Furbchess (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

See this search. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Furbchess (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Why am I getting notifications about Deletion sorting/People

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

This may be a strange question to answer, but why am I getting notices about the delition sorting page for people? I created an AfD listing for an article in there, but sometime recently I have begun to get "notices" (the little inboxy looking tray, not the alert bell) about replies to entirely separate AfD listings. I don't even recall having ever touched this page (I suspect my nom is included in it by transclusion?) and it isn't on my watchlist. Is getting these just like a normal consequence of allowing oneself to become embroiled in AfD? I don't even know how to unsubscribe because the UI makes it appear as if I must subscribe first.

Apologies if this seems like a silly question or if there's some obvious button I should have clicked to disable this functionality (or did click unknowingly enabling it). Packrat3860 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how you got subscribed in the first place (I don't have much experience with AfD), but if it's listed in Special:TopicSubscriptions you should be able to unsubscribe there. You could also just try subscribing and then unsubscribing if it is a glitch. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 20:38, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This is a bug with Twinkle, sometimes when creating an AfD is subscribes you to the sorting topic. Just unsubscribe from it at Special:TopicSubscriptions qcne (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Packrat3860. The feature is WP:SUBSCRIBE. I don't know the precise rules but if you get subscribed to a topic which transcludes discussions from other pages then you may get notified about edits to those pages. If you never want to subscribe to topics and get associated notifications then you can disable "Talk page subscription" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Special:TopicSubscriptions is linked there on "(Edit subscriptions)". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Happens to me too when I use twinkle to report someone to AIV. St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 01:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I want to make small edits without getting banned

this happened before what do I do (like grammar errors) ThatGuySal (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, ThatGuySal, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are getting messages about grammar edits, you may want to slow down on that particular kind of edit, but small edits in general are certainly welcome on Wikipedia. You might want to consider trying your hand at other kinds and seeing if you enjoy any of them! One particularly helpful one (even more so than correcting typos) is adding references to statements that don't have a source – you could check out this referencing introduction for more information on that kind of edits. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

What was the user name you got banned with? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@ThatGuySal Or do you just mean you edited something and your edit got reverted? That's not called being banned. ("Banned" basically means kicked out.)

I see what you're talking about, and it's a tiny misunderstanding. You intended to make a good edit, but you accidentally typed "bring" when you meant "being". The next person only saw "bring", which didn't make any sense to them, so they put it back the way it was. If your finger hadn't slipped, then I'm sure they would have seen that your way was an improvement. (Note: Every editing screen on Wikipedia has a Preview area to show you what your edit will look like; on some of them you have to click "Show preview" to see it, and others are automatic.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

How can I add pictures on article ?

Thank you very much for invited on Tea House .May I know , how could I add pictures, on Wikipedia Editing Article ? ""Thank you""

"Hajiani , AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen,

(On the visual editor) You can use the + button then click Images and Media. For images already on Wikimedia Commons, you can search for them, or else you can upload them.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 02:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hajiani, AMB Dr.Seyed Firdawoosbee Hanifdeen, let me rephrase and elaborate on Bennett Li11's last sentence. At Wikimedia Commons, you can search for the images that you want. Any that you find there, you are free to use. Or you can upload to Wikimedia Commons ("Commons") an image whose copyright you own. As for images you may find in books or periodicals, or elsewhere on the internet, you should assume that they are conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright unless you find, and can present, clear evidence that they are not. Do not upload to Commons any image that is conventionally copyright. You may upload to Commons images that you can show are in the public domain (where "in the public domain" means not "already available to many people" but instead "free of any copyright claim". ¶ Copyright is not a simple matter. As many of your edits to text were reverted, I think it would be better if you first concentrate on text edits. When you've become consistently (or almost consistently) successful with text edits, then start to think about adding new pictures to Commons (or to Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

For a more though introduction, see WP:Images for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Differentiating between two categories

What is the difference between Category:Old age and Category:Ageing? Puzzlepiecelad (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Ageing is a longer process that begins much earlier. Sort of a "destination vs journey" difference. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Can primary souce can cited if secondary sources are not available

Can we use primary source like law websites or gov .related press releases as source if secondary source is not reliable or unsupervised.And also limitations for using primary source .

Spbvj (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj: Welcome to The Teahouse. The important part of an article is that wikinotability needs to be demonstrated; this is done by using good secondary sources, which should be reliable and independent of the subject. Primary sources can be used to support the existence of a subject, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily noteworthy to others.

ETA: You asked for limitations for using primary source [sic]; I should have pointed you towards the section in our no original research policy that talks about primary sources: WP:PRIMARY. Another important point to be aware of aside from "do not use only primary sources to cite an article" is "do not interpret primary sources". (added 13:36, 3 November 2026 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:26, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

No. Primary sources can't be used for anything, unless the secondary sources are already good. They can't be used as the basis of an article, because such an article would not be able to meet the notability requirements. They can be used to support only minor facts, in an article that already meets the notability requirements. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Not so, it's more complex than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

That's quite misleading. The skeleton of an article is built on reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources may be used to flesh out the article, but said article must not be wholly composed of them per policy point 5. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

User:TooManyFingers Is wrong. Read the policy at WP:PSTS.
However, for demonstrating WikiNitability, you need generally two sources that meet the WP:GNG, and neither of these two can be primary sources. Once WikiNotability is established, primary sources may be used, especially for important facts where the primary source is most reliable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I quickly assumed that the original question was about notability, and obviously it could have been about something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used only to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.", according to WP:PRIMARY. — qkuldo(tell me about it) 09:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj. reliable primary sources can be used for facts in an article. See the policies at WP:Primary and WP:PSTS, which says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you Spbvj (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Seeking Advice on Wikipedia Notability for a Skin Care Clinic in Bangladesh

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I am seeking guidance regarding Wikipedia's notability requirements for an organization.

I am associated with SUO XI Hospital (Skin Care), a skin care clinic organization based in Bangladesh. We are interested in understanding whether our organization could qualify for an article on English Wikipedia.

Currently, our organization has an official website and an established presence in the dermatology sector. However, we do not yet have significant independent media coverage from reputable newspapers or magazines.

I would appreciate your advice on the following questions:

1. What specific criteria must a healthcare organization meet to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article?
2. What types of independent and reliable sources are considered sufficient to establish organizational notability?
3. Are newspaper features, interviews, and independent magazine articles useful for demonstrating notability?
4. Should we first establish independent media coverage before preparing an article draft?
5. Where can we find experienced Wikipedia editors or consultants who understand the Conflict of Interest (COI) and Articles for Creation (AfC) processes?

I understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and that an article is not guaranteed to be accepted.

My intention is to understand the policies and follow the correct process.

Thank you for your guidance. Basil (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Basil Khongstia: Welcome to The Teahouse. In the future, please do not use AI to generate text to be used on Wikipedia. Please see WP:42 for what is considered generally necessary for a subject to be on Wikipedia.

As a pro tip, be very wary about people reaching out to you unsolicited who offer writing services for money. Many are scams, and no one can guarantee content that stays permanently on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:30, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Significant independent coverage in the media is in fact the main requirement. ("Independent" means the reporters wrote all by themselves, with no contribution from the hospital or anyone associated.) Being a large or important organisation does not help; having a website and an industry presence also do not help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Hoping to get your assistance ahead. Basil (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. It seems you won't need my assistance because there is not going to be an article about the hospital. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:51, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Sarfraz Khan ke liye naya draft banane ke baare mein madad chahiye

Hello! Mera pehla draft (Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor)) notability ki kami aur purane sources ki wajah se reject ho gaya tha. Main is actor ke baare mein naye sire se ek naya aur behtar draft banana chahti hun. Kya aap mujhe bata sakte hain ki Wikipedia ke niyam anusar mujhe kis tarah ke reliable aur independent sources ki zaroorat padegi, aur kya main wahi purana page use kiye bina naya draft safely kaise bana sakti hun taaki G4 speedy deletion se bach sakun? Richa002 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Teahouse. Please ask at Hindi Wikipedia. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Since the question is about to draft on this Wikipedia, that's not a helpful reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. I understand. I will create a new draft at Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor) 2 with better sources as per WP:42. Richa002 (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

For sources, see WP:42.

You can start a new draft at Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor) 2, if you really think the original rejection was in error.

We would advise you to post comments here in English - you can use Google Translate if you need to (but please don't use AI). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If a draft author takes issue with the rejection of their draft, they should approach the rejecting reviewer to discuss this. Creating further drafts, and especially submitting them without a single source, is not helpful. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

OP's original draft had six sources when first submitted, and three the second time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Banana

Banana Republic and a few others are the same person that is trying for a change to their country. ~2026-58484-42 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58484-42: Welcome to The Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I've been scrolling through the teahouse for a bit, and to me it seems like one person is trolling or just spamming here. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thai celebrity BLP names

Hello, I'm just wondering if it's worth moving a lot of Thai celebrity BLP pages to this name format: [Nickname/Stage Name] + [Surname]. I'm an European of a different Asian ethnicity, not Thai, so maybe there's something I'm missing?
For example, Sarocha Chankimha. I looked her up, and most of the English headlines under Google News refer to her as strictly Freen (her nickname/stage name) + Sarocha. As in Freen Sarocha, not "Sarocha Chankimha." Similarly, a lot of articles about Metawin Opas-iamkajorn refer to him as simply "Win (nickname) + Metawin."
I have noticed that a lot of Thai celebrity BLP pages use full names, even Becky Armstrong (half-British, with a fully English birth name) previously. And the editors/her fans keep trying to refer to her as "Rebecca Patricia Armstrong."
Is there something cultural I might be missing, or is it fair to change their page titles to the Nickname + Surname format, as the majority of English sources use that name format for them? Thanks. Handsome Ellis (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it should go through WP:RM as this is a WP:COMMONNAME situation. You could go boldly and move, but a fair warning, it could be reverted, thanks for asking! In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the RM on a few Thai celebrity pages. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I wish we had a clearer more-specific way to describe the English-language uses of names when the person's original name follows a separate pattern. I'm pretty sure that by "nickname" you don't mean a joke name invented by friends, and it's not your fault that there isn't a suitable easy word for this thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:14, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Just to explain it a bit, Thai people go by nicknames they've had since childhood. I'm aware of that cultural practice, but yeah, it's tricky to know what to call these celebrities on Wikipedia. Here's a blog post on the US Library of Congress website explaining it. Extract:

Although it is not officially registered or recognized under Thai law, nicknames are widely used in everyday life. Most Thai individuals receive a nickname at birth. Thai people do not usually change their nicknames; some do, but fewer compared to changes in their first names and surnames. Thais’ nicknames have changed over time. In the past, most nicknames were in Thai, which were short and simple. usually named after animals, fruits, colors, and nature, such as Khao (Rice), Kai (Chicken), Fah (Sky/Blue), and Ploy (Gemstone). Nowadays, the number of syllables increases, and the use of foreign languages in nicknames has increased. Nicknames can be random English words, such as Donut, Golf, or New Year, brand names, such as Porsche, Benz, or Pepsi, or even be an alphabet letter, such as A, B, S, or X. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

What to call the celebrities is not tricky - you call them whatever they're called in the reliable sources, even if the reliable sources are out of date or incorrect. What's tricky is only that "nickname" has a different status but the same word for it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure a person is a reliable source for their own name if we prove it's really the person, but just "everybody is using a new name for them now" doesn't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Can a normal title be created as a redirect to a category?

Theres a category about a music video director (Category:Music videos directed by Stuart Gosling), but no page for Stuart Gosling. He is not notable enough to create a page, but I wonder if his name could serve as a redirect to the category? Emcgonigle (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I would wonder if there should be a category related to a person without an article. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The category should not exist. If he becomes notable in the future so that there's an article about him, the category could then be created too. But right now it should be changed so that his name definitely fails to appear in redirects and categories. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:18, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Nominated for CFD. In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Request to add photo to 2008 Mumbai attacks page

2008 Mumbai attacks

Hello Editor, any Extended Confirmed user can accept my request to add a photo to the 2008 Mumbai Attacks page. Because this photo was published by the government and is evidence of the Mumbai attacks. It was uploaded under Section 52(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act (fair use). Used for non-profit education. This will help better showcase the article about the incident.
Full details in the talk page 2008 Mumbai attack talk page - my comment 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 17:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Etymology

What's the etymology of Teahouse like what inspired the name and why this nane ? Furbchess (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

A teahouse is a place where people gather for tea and conversation. It represents the sort of environment we want here. Athanelar (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, thats cool. Furbchess (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

13 colonies flag

Concerned that the 13 colonies 13 star flag is not put up but is instead of the British flag that is not the United States original flag Uscitizen1988 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Uscitizen1988 Which article are you talking about? Athanelar (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

13 Colonies Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thirteen Colonies Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The revolutionary flag the Star-Spangled Banner flag of the 13 colonies of the 13th states on the East Coast of the United States of America Uscitizen1988 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're saying at all. Also, you do not have to make two Talk Page discussions about this. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Uscitizen1988 I understand your concern is that on some article we are using the British flag rather than the Betsy Ross flag, but which article is it that you saw this on? Athanelar (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Thirteen colonies but it’s the British flag Uscitizen1988 (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

The article Thirteen Colonies is specifically about the period of time when that territory was colonies of the British. After that it stops being the Thirteen Colonies and starts being the United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

If your wondering about Thirteen Colonies, I believe that article is on the colonies before the states were founded. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 23:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

How to add images?

hello, so I was planning to add new, more up to date photos to the article for jujo station. However, i don't know how to replace pictures or edit the date. I also don't know if I have to save or archive the previous pictures in any way or if I can just delete them. Thank you. Hellothe22 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Help:Pictures — IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 23:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

These "more up to date" photos, Hellothe22: are they already at c:Category:Jūjō Station (Tokyo)? If so, all you need do is edit Jūjō Station (Tokyo) accordingly. If not, and if you own the copyright, then you first need to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (adding them to c:Category:Jūjō Station (Tokyo)), and then edit Jūjō Station (Tokyo) accordingly. Even if you are convinced that a newer photograph should supersede an older one (because it depicts the station as it now is, because the lighting is better, because the resolution is greater, or whatever), you should give it a new filename and you should not attempt to delete the (in your view) unneeded older photograph. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

ok! Thank you. Hellothe22 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hellothe22, if when you talk of deleting pictures you mean removing them from an article (as opposed to deleting them from Wikimedia Commons), then yes of course you can do this. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you for the clarification. Hellothe22 (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Lapaine

Daniel Lapaine

Hi I've just added a role to the TV table but noticed that the heading to video games is there above TV and the video games (which I didn't edit) are below the TV and without an edit button. I was going to try and move the Video heading but I can't see how to with the body of it having no edit button. Ive worked on a few tables and never seen this before. Any help would be appreciated. Lakelady2282 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The table for TV had no ending bracket. Please see if it's OK now, or if I fixed it wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Searching Newspapers.com for overly-initialed names

I'm trying to search Newspapers.com for articles about W. F. R. Mills, who's name has three initials. By searching "W. R. F. Mills" on the website, however, I'm told it has too many single-character words (that being the W. F. R.). I know he has mentions with his name like so, but I just can't search them due to this stipulation. Searching "W.F.R." or "WFR" doesn't work. Is there any avenue I can take to be able to search this guy's name on Newspapers.com? Roast (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Does F. R. Mills work? (It's in the right order, just missing the first "word".) Or does that become too general with too many hits? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: Welcome to The Teahouse. I unfortunately don't have access to Newspapers, but search fields like this usually allow for the searching of phrases with the use of quotation marks. "W. F. R. Mills" could work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Guerreroast I have a newspapers.com account and after a bit of trial-and-error I think that your best bet is to search for "William Mills" (loads of hits) and then refine by places he lived and times he was in those locations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This works thank you Roast (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Changing errors on pages

I have found several pages that are out of date or based on an algorithm that is inappropriate so full of errors about individuals. I naively thought I could correct the errors using edit. They keep getting reverted or whatever. How should I actually go about drawing attention to pages with a lot of errors and getting someone who DOES have the authority to fix them ? Ianjcmcgrath (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be editing British Journal of Pharmacology and replacing large chunks of article text with instructions like "please remove so-and-so". If you want to suggest or discuss a change, please use the talk page: Talk:British Journal of Pharmacology. If you blank out big parts of the live page just to say what you want done, that's going to get reverted. Packrat3860 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

What algorithm do you mean? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I believe User:Ianjcmcgrath might be referring to the article Regius Professor of Physiology (Glasgow). There is a list of holders of the professorship there, most of which were cited to their page on a University of Glasgow subsite that was taken down at some point after early 2023. Only some of the references contained an archive url, so the others just had dead links. I've cleaned that up now. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Your username seems to indicate a conflict of interest with some of your edits. Read the policy to check if it is or not. IlikecatsSDF (talk | contributions) 15:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

can you right article about you day to day experience

thinking of writing my a article

Watchnbe3 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Watchnbe3. No. Please use socal media for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and contains articles about notable topics. See WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a digitally drawn map

I’m in the process of creating a drawn map for a archaeological site but I’m using another map as a reference, the author of the map is unknown since this map has been used by several authors without credit, this map is extremely important for readers of that specific article to understand the site, what am I supposed to do and how can I upload it to wiki.

I don’t know if I’m just being cautious for no reason, if that’s the case let me know. TeenX808 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

TeenX808, I recommend that you ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and that when you do so, you link to a page in which the map appears. (If the page includes more than one map, of course say which map you have in mind.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary:- The page isn’t found online but found in a book from 1994, sure I will copy past this message over there, thank you so much for the advice. TeenX808 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Published Book Cover page image Ownership

Hi everyone,

I recently created an article for a book and uploaded an image of the book's front cover. I downloaded the image via Google Images from an Amazon listing because it was high quality, though the same cover appears on the publisher’s website and other media outlets.

Shortly after, I received a copyright notification regarding the file. I want to understand how copyright works in this case:

Does copyright belong to Amazon, the publisher, or the cover designer?

If taking a personal photograph of a physical book cover is also considered a derivative work of copyrighted artwork, what is the proper procedure?

What is the correct way to upload a book cover under Wikipedia's Non-Free Content (fair use) policy so that it complies with guidelines?

I want to make sure I follow all copyright policies properly for future contributions. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Rashesh purohit (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Rashesh purohit, the covers of most books you'll find on Amazon are copyright. The copyright holder is likely to be the publisher. As an example, the book that's in front of me now is from "Vintage Books", which (the copyright page tells us) is, or at the time was, part of "The Random House Group Limited"; it says on its rear "Cover illustration © Vicki Gausden". I'd say that the front cover is copyright "Vicki Gausden and the Random House Group Limited". Wikipedia holds that the photographer/scanner, no matter how skillful or painstaking, of a two-dimensional object does not have copyright; so whether I scan it myself or get a scan from some web page makes no difference. (Also, the author of the book is not a/the copyright holder of the cover.) The only way I can upload such a scan is for "fair use" within a specified article (not for a draft). Please read and digest Wikipedia:Non-free content; if you don't understand something within it, feel free to ask. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed and clear explanation. Using the concrete example really helped me understand how copyright works between the illustrator, publisher, and platform, as well as why scanning or photographing the cover doesn't create a new copyright. Rashesh purohit (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to us. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of a deletion discussion

Hello, I am Luca Poma, the subject of the article Luca Poma, which is currently being discussed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Poma.

Shortly after the discussion was opened, I was contacted privately by someone offering, for a fee, to "defend" and "protect" the article. I did not accept, and I reported the matter to Wikipedia's dedicated email address for paid-editing cases. I therefore decided to take part in the discussion personally and transparently.

In the discussion I have disclosed my conflict of interest and listed some independent sources (Adnkronos, Manageritalia, FashionUnited, Wired Italia), but so far no other editor has commented.

I understand that each edition of Wikipedia applies its own criteria, so I am only asking that an experienced editor assess the English article on the basis of the available sources, against WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.

I will not edit the article myself. Thank you for your attention. ~~~~ ~2026-58613-59 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The deletion discussion will result in editors reviewing the article as you are requesting. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please also note that it is forbidden to add any text generated via AI to any Wikimedia projects. I have put {{Uw-ai1}} on @~2026-58613-59's talk page. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 17:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Article on Viking combs

Hello, I'd like to get some advice on whether creating an article on Viking combs would be sustainable as a standalone article. I'm unsure whether Viking combs would warrant their own article or if they would be considered too specific, since they are a type of comb. I'd be covering the archaeological excavations and finds, the history dating back to the Viking Age, as well as their dating and construction. I'd also include documented uncertainties where relevant, particularly when discussing whether a find can actually be dated to the Viking Age or is from an earlier or later period. I'd appreciate some editorial advice on whether this would be a suitable article and what areas would be most important to cover before I get into the research.

Thanks StamoFamily (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @StamoFamily. The general rule of thumb to test if a subject merit's a standalone article is three strong sources that each are independent, from reliable publications, and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. I think you could probably find three academic journal articles and book chapters that discuss Viking combs as a distinct object! qcne (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Can I reference a strong source with a weak source to back up a claim?

I'm looking at a paragraph which makes a claim, and I found a secondary source which backs up most of it, but not all of it. I also found a primary source that backs up whatever the secondary source could not. Can/Should I reference them both? BoldedExclamation (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

i am not a professional editor, but I have seen 2 sources for one claim on multiple articles before. not sure if the reason for it is the same as your case and I'm not sure if this info is helpful, but that is just from my experience from viewing articles. Pottedpots1929 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

This depends on what type of claim and what primary source. For example, if there's a claim that Company X's machine produces 10 units per hour, and a company source confirms it, then this claim must be deleted from the article. What claim do you have, with what primary source? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at Charriol, and trying to source the first paragraph under History. From my searches, I found that I can cover (most of) the first sentence with https://www.charriol.com/pages/charriol-history, but that's a primary source. The rest I think can be sourced in a foreign-language article I found at https://www.journalduluxe.fr/fr/montres-joaillerie/charriol-luxe-accessible-alexis-de-prevoisin

I also found another source (Coralie Charriol interview) which in my opinion has better information overall, but I'm unclear as to how reliable it is considered. BoldedExclamation (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@BoldedExclamation: Welcome to The Teahouse. My view on this is that this article could benefit from having more secondary sources. The references currently used are either advertising products from the brand, focusing on the founder's death than the company, or showcasing that a philanthropic foundation in the founder's name gives scholarships to promising design students.

(TL;DR)  The article should focus on establishing that the company Charriol is wikinotable before adding details like history from primary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I think I might have used some confusing language, that's on me. I meant more that I was trying to provide references for the material already in the article, and that some of the references could verify different parts of said material. BoldedExclamation (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find your language confusing; I'm just saying that the sources being used look poor and unfit as references, even if they are secondary. Were I bolder, I'd slap a {{promotional}} on the top of the article with some of the sources being used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

That makes no sense: if a primary source supports a claim, it could be included; whether it should is a different story. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Including a (potentially) self-serving claim by the subject is a detriment to the article. It depends what might or might not be self-serving TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I said it should be determined if it should be included. If it's non-controversial, it's generally fine, but many times it gets into minutiae that isn't required for or wanted on an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Adding sentence about a character's gender identity in the Gorillaz article

hello, I was wondering if it is okay that I added a sentence about a character's (Stuart "2-D" Pot) canonical gender identity? It was confirmed nearly a year ago on December 12th 2025, and I didn't see anything about it in the article. Is there a reason for that? Should I remove it? Pottedpots1929 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If it was reported on by reliable independent sources then it's probably worth including. If it's just a tweet from the artist or something then probably not. What would be the source? Packrat3860 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The source is from https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/69260/1/the-unknown-is-whats-exciting-gorillaz-upcoming-album-tackles-death . Dazed did an interview with Jamie Hewlett and Damon Albarn (the creators of Gorillaz)

It reads:

Albarn: That’s the lovely thing about Gorillaz – it’s still committed to everything existing in its own world. It’s why I put that sound on my voice to separate me from [cartoon lead singer] 2-D. He… Well, I actually don’t think he’s much of a he, he’s more of a ‘they’, isn’t he?

Hewlett: They’re definitely more at home in that [non-binary] world. They’re a sweetheart, they’re open and accepting new information.

Albarn: Exactly, it’s such a nice place to sing from. Pottedpots1929 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

draft good enough?

is my draft at

User:Terry625972/sandbox

good enough to submit yet Terry625972 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Seem rather small to me, also I'm not sure the topic is notable enough since List of Vocaloid songs is currently a redirect to Vocaloid#music ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Terry625972 have you seen our criteria for inclusion for lists at Wikipedia:NLIST? qcne (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so um should I keep working on it or just drop it Terry625972 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You'd want to prove that the list distinct grouping is discussed in three or so reliable, independent sources. qcne (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

In other words, that "All Hatsune Miku songs" is already the title topic of reliable articles - not just that you can find info on each of the songs. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:20, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so in sum I need to prove that my article is good enough and sourced enough in order to keep working on it to maybe get it submited as a draft? Terry625972 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not enough. You need to prove that "All of the Hatsune Miku songs together in one article" is already the topic of major reliable articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

articles as in wikipedia articles or news articles

also for 3 sources do I want primary or secondary sources Terry625972 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources including news - not Wikipedia. In those sources, it needs to be a topic they're discussing, not just something they mention.

Secondary sources TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

so I need to prove that the list of songs is already in a article and then move that list to Wikipedia adding sources for each one? Terry625972 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You have to prove that it has become "a thing" for reporters to write a big article discussing all together all of the songs - not just listing them, but talking on and on about all of them in one big article. How many reporters have done that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

How to remove a dangling 'citation needed'

I found an instance of a citation needed being added when there already was an existing citation for it on the article. That was the only change made in that edit -- should I revert it, or just remove it? BoldedExclamation (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Was there some other problem? For example, is the existing citation not good enough (maybe the necessary fact isn't in there), or it's a good one but it's not near the fact it's supporting? (The same citation should be used again if it will really help the reader see what's going on.) If there were no such problems at all, revert it. Otherwise, fix the (maybe minor) problem and remove the tag. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:59, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's just that the existing citation wasn't near the fact it's supporting. So I will go ahead and fix that. Thank you! BoldedExclamation (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Notability assessment for a biography of Roch Domerego

Hello,

I have been preparing a draft biography of Roch Domerego, a French beekeeper, author and apitherapy specialist.

Before considering submission through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the available sources are sufficient to establish notability under English Wikipedia's guidelines.

My draft is available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christarakaza/sandbox

Some potentially relevant independent sources include:

• Alpes 1 (2012): https://alpesdusud.alpes1.com/news/locales/22457/un-scientifique-dignois-explore-la-therapie-au-venin-d-abeille
• La Dépêche du Midi (2001): https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2001/03/25/216727-il-faut-sauver-les-abeilles.html
• ELLE à Table (2018): https://www.elle.fr/Elle-a-Table/Les-dossiers-de-la-redaction/News-de-la-redaction/Pollen-frais-3646097

I have a professional connection with ROBEEC Ltd, an organization associated with the subject, and wish to disclose this relationship transparently. The current sandbox was prepared with AI assistance; I understand that it requires an independently written, policy-compliant revision before submission.

Could you advise whether the independent sources demonstrate sufficient significant coverage, and whether additional sources are needed?

Thank you for your guidance. Christarakaza (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Christarakaza. You're asking for a pre-review. Submitting via Articles for Creation is how your sources are judged. However, none of your sources independent of Domerego - the latter two are interviews. The first source is just briefly promoting his book. qcne (talk) 14:06, 4 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 soirces. 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 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. Athanelar (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The use of AI is grounds for an immediate fail; an AI-assisted article has no merit, and nothing in it is worth saving. It would be to your great advantage to delete everything - yes, lose the whole thing, blank - and start again with no assistance. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Why does AI think we do notability assessments? We don't! That's what AfC is for! DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It's not even what AfC is for, really. AfC is a "double-check," ideally you're supposed to have made an actual good faith effort to check notability yourself, since by submitting to AfC you're saying "I believe this article is ready to go to mainspace, I just want an experienced editor to make sure of that first."

What AfC is explicitly not for is for people who know nothing about our policies and guidelines to write down whatever-the-fuck and then have somebody do all the legwork of checking whether their subject is notable on their behalf. That is increasingly what it's turning into, though, since nowadays for a lot of people the creative process seems to be to discuss it with ChatGPT, have ChatGPT generate a draft, and then submit it to AfC and give some poor reviewer a headache. You can see a lot of this at User:Athanelar/Chatbot transcript analyses. Athanelar (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Since I agree with you, and since it's easy to see that theory and practice are currently quite far apart, I'm considering making a proposal that amounts to gatekeeping the process of writing articles, having three main features:

• make it impossible to create an article, submit a draft, or make an AfC submission without a ticket unique to the topic;
• the ticket is obtained by passing Source Review, which of course currently does not exist;
• source reviewers must either issue the ticket or give their reasons for refusal, and are prohibited from providing assistance beyond that - if refused, the submitter has no recourse but to try again.

Is this as stupid-crazy as I'm afraid it might be? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. I feel like that many roadblocks would also filter out a lot of potentially notable articles whose authors don't want to go through all the hassle.

Maybe we should have an automatic check-and-reject system to detect various AI signs, including (but not limited to):

• The AI exposing itself in the citations (|utm-source=chatgpt.com, for example)
• Large copy-pastes

The flagged articles would have a comment added to them automatically. This comment would notify AfC reviewers that the draft was flagged and specify what check failed. This way, the AfC reviewers would have to spend much less time with the flagged articles.

If needed, we could add a scenario that automatically declines the draft. I was thinking this could happen if over 3 checks failed. Thoughts? DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 19:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

My idea was not AI-focused, or at least it wasn't meant to be.

My idea has only one roadblock: if you don't have good sources lined up, you aren't permitted to begin. No other obstacles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't think either of these really address the problem at hand, which is that people are going to ChatGPT and saying "I want an article about xyz" and ChatGPT is saying "Wikipedia requires that xyz be notable if you want to have an article about it, so rather than submitting to mainspace you should make a draft and submit it through AfC so that somebody can check whether xyz is notable."

If we want to keep drafts out of AfC that haven't even been checked for notability by their authors, the best thing we could do is provide a legitimate avenue for people to request source assessments as a separate thing entirely from AfC. Let the chatbot direct people to that queue, let people dump an AI-generated source assessment request in there where it can languish for however long until someone gets around to declining it for being AI generated, and AfC gets freed up for people who've actually done the reasonable due diligence. The good thing about these new editors who rely on AI for everything is that they're generally profoundly lazy, and if they get told "Yeah, your submission's in the queue, please just wait however long it takes" they're likely to actually wait (or maybe at worst come to the Teahouse to ask for an expedited review) rather than trying to circumvent the process; as evidenced by the amount of people we get coming here and posting AI generated comments to the effect of "I submitted a draft SO VERY LONG ago (normally it's like, 3-4 weeks tops) and nobody has reviewed it yet, please check!"

So yeah, that's my proposal. We add a new "request for notability assessment" feature as basically a honeypot for these sorts of requests and let that get backlogged to fuck instead of AfC. Athanelar (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty much what I said? I think? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You suggested requiring people pass this step before they can submit an AfC, but I don't think we even need to go that far. Just having requests for source assessment as a separate thing should be enough. Plus as a bonus, any editor in good standing could carry out a source assessment since it's merely an opinion and wouldn't directly approve an article to go into mainspace, so the pool of potential reviewers would be much higher. Athanelar (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I get the difference now. You certainly have a clearer view of what might or might not actually work, so I'd happily go along with that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea, mostly because it's incredibly funny. Of course, we would need to make sure we directed people there enough that the models pick up on this, so it would take a bit. I think we should be able to implement this if we add a button to the AfC templates. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 20:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

TF bot undoing CL edits

Edited the indiantown, FL article to remove unconstructive whitewashing language; TF undid revision, claiming the edit wasn't constructive.

This is opposed to the purpose of the project, which is to provide informative and accurate articles, information and language in a helpful manner.

Whitewashing and soft, neutralizing language are contrary to the purpose of bias removal. ~2026-58618-14 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

While I personally agree with your idea (the word 'settled' implies that nobody was there in the first place, which there clearly was), the content (especially the wikilinks) that you added were not constructive. Though I do agree with the use of the word 'colonist' over 'migrant'. I'll rephrase that sentence a bit. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You are right that neutralizing is contrary to the purpose, but antagonizing is equally contrary to the purpose; in fact it's the same error in both cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Your edit was not vandalism and User:T430 should not have described it as such.

Please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Good place to promote an RFC?

Hi, I'm a newer editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to make some additions to the Stranger Than Heaven page (an upcoming video game) over the controversy regarding the game's use of Tupac's likeness (after his death). Those edits were stridently opposed by two other editors who, after both talk page discussion and a DRN case, remain unconvinced of the merits of my edit(s) in any form.

The volunteer leading the dispute resolution created this RFC (just linking to the diff for my proposed edit).

This has, thus far, attracted no attention (the only "No" vote there currently is one of the editors involved in the dispute) as at a glance it's unclear what's going on and requires people to do too much reading on what really is a personal dispute between three people. Both editors have indicated they will revert anything I apply to the page (including relevant WP:RS) rather than applying edits over my own. Discussion on what they'd like to see changed in my edit has become circular.

This isn't a conduct dispute—I'm sure both other editors are sincere in their belief that my edit is unacceptable—but this has gotten very drawn out and I just want a couple other uninvolved editors to weigh in. What is the best place that I could promote this RFC or otherwise ask for some input? TrainTrash (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The best way to promote the RfC is to put a neutral announcement (i.e. "there is a debate about whether or not to do X", without the detail given above), on the talk page of one or more relevant WikiProjects; in this case that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! TrainTrash (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Questions about campaign sources and a former surname

A previous discussion about a biography draft raised concerns about independent coverage. I have since obtained complete newspaper reports through public libraries:

• Gord Howard, “Falls needs jobs, opportunity: mayoral hopeful,” The Niagara Falls Review, July 18, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Mayoral contenders Craitor, Mansour debate Thundering Waters,” October 11, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Please don’t call me a politician: Mansour,” October 15, 2018, pp. A1–A2.
• Gord Howard, “Falls mayor holds off challengers to win seat,” October 23, 2018, p. A1.

The first and third are campaign profiles; the second reports a debate. The fourth mentions me briefly. All share the same reporter and newspaper, and the profiles contain substantial interview material.

How should I assess their independent secondary content and their common authorship when considering notability? What published evidence would be appropriate to connect my historical candidate surname, Mansour, with my current surname, Mourise?

I am asking about those sourcing questions, rather than requesting approval of an article. Dlilamourise (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

campaign profiles (not independent), brief mentions (we require significant coverage) and interviews (not independent) are not sufficient. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Academic notability

I would appreciate some guidance concerning WP:NACADEMIC.

I am Thomas P. Devereaux, a theoretical condensed matter physicist at Stanford University. A previous draft biography was deleted under G11 for promotional language and sourcing problems. I understand those objections and do not intend to recreate the deleted article.

My research has approximately 33,300 citations and an h-index of 94 according to Google Scholar. I have received the Humboldt Research Award and am an elected Fellow of both the American Physical Society and the AAAS. I have also served as Associate Laboratory Director at SLAC.

My question is whether this record might satisfy WP criterion 1, concerning significant scholarly impact, even without several lengthy independent biographical articles.

Given the previous G11 deletion and my conflict of interest as the subject, what would be the appropriate way to request an independent editorial assessment?

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zFJUD8EAAAAJ

Thank you for your advice. Tpdevereaux (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dr. Devereaux! Using the golden rule, you can create an article if you have three sources that are reliable, independent from the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject (you), then you can create an article. I recommend just making a draft with the same name as the previous, so you'd click the little red link on your user page. And you'd write it without AI. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 22:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Phoenix. I understand the importance of independent sources and the concerns about my previous draft. My question was specifically about WP, which I understand allows academic notability to be established through significant scholarly impact, even without three independent biographical articles. Would my citation record, Humboldt Research Award, and APS/AAAS fellowships be relevant under that guideline? I'm trying to establish whether I meet the academic criteria before attempting another article. Thanks again! ~2026-58716-12 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dr Devereaux. The criteria most relevant to you are at (surprise!) Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm sure you're capable of reading them and determining if you can fulfil them. (I strongly suspect that you can.) Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2026 (UTC)