Wikipedia:Teahouse

I used a site made using weebly for chutney music . The site wholely focus on the Trinidad Guyana Indian themes. Is it reliable or okay? https://trinidadguyanahindu.weebly.com/chutney-music-origin-artists-and-popularity.html #[(te#Blaada---Yi (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no. Blogs have no paid fact checkers and no public reputation for truth. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 04:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOG has a more in depth explanation. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so, can be used? That site is specially made by Trinidad and Guyana hindus for their history heritage. Only downside is it is published on weebly. #[(te#Blaada---Yi (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, can't be used. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 03:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how does this wiki community have any more authority than a blog owner on truth? Digitalgodus (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're on the Wikipedia website and go by the policies and guidelines here. On your blog, things are done as you prefer them. This doesn't mean you have to think of a WP-article or Wikipedian as having more authority than you or your blog. Grabergs Graa Sang (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm hoping for some guidance after making a mistake that has escalated badly.

Background: I am the subject of the article Matthias Schweger. The article has existed since 2016 and covers my career as a television director/producer in Austria. I wanted to update it with recent career developments (I've since become a certified chef and founded a sake brewery that won an international award).

My mistake: I created an account, posted a COI declaration on the Talk page, and then - foolishly - made a direct edit to the article instead of waiting for editor review. This was immediately reverted by User:ChildrenWillListen for COI editing, which I completely understand and accept.

The problem now: Following my mistake, the article has been significantly cut back:

• A {{notability}} tag has been added
• Content has been removed as "unsourced puffery" by User:Theroadislong
• The article is now much shorter than before my involvement

I feel terrible because my well-intentioned but clumsy attempt to update the article has actually made things worse. Content that existed for years is now gone.

What I have done since:

• I have NOT made any further direct edits
• I posted an apology and comprehensive edit request on the Talk page with third-party sources
• The sources I'm proposing include:
  • Existing Wikipedia articles that already credit me (e.g., Shut Up (and Sleep with Me) explicitly states "directed by Matthias Schweger" and mentions Echo Award nomination)
  • Music & Media trade publication archives (worldradiohistory.com)
  • IMDb director credits
  • WorldFest Houston official winners list
  • Gault & Millau and Gastro.news coverage of my culinary work
  • International Wine Challenge official database

My questions:

1. Is there anything else I should do (or avoid doing) at this point?
2. The Wikipedia article for "Shut Up (and Sleep with Me)" already credits me as director and mentions award nominations - is it appropriate to point out that this information is already verified elsewhere on Wikipedia?
3. Should I just wait, or is there a better way to engage with the editors who removed content?
4. Is there any way to address the notability tag? I co-founded chart-topping music projects (Edelweiss reached #5 UK, #1 in six countries; Bingoboys reached #1 US Billboard Dance), directed award-nominated videos, and have coverage in reliable sources.

I understand I created this mess myself and I'm not looking for sympathy - just practical advice on the best path forward. I want to respect Wikipedia's processes and not make things worse.

Thank you for any guidance.

Mschweger (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best thing to do is to quit looking at the article and return to doing what you're best at.

The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia and IMDB are not reliable. Trade publications are not independent (they exist to serve you, not to serve the public). Mentions in lists and databases are insignificant. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 17:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Observe that the article about Einstein is in quite good shape - and I hear it has been more than two years since he looked at it!) :) TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources."

Not so. Once again, please refer to WP:SELFCITE; also WP:NIS. Non-independent sources are perfectly acceptable for certain types of statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct but NOT for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which I challenged, The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources, has nothing to do with notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mschweger, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you have hit something that quite often happens when people try to improve or update an existing article about themselves, or their friends, or their company.

If the subject actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then the article can be saved. But if in fact they don't, the article cannot be saved, and should never have been accepted in the first place.

From Wikipedia's point of view, deleting an article which cannot be properly sourced is an improvement; but of course for the subject, they're probably unhappy about this. But if it was the case, then the only thing you have relevantly done is accidentally brought a deficient article to people's notice - absolutely nothing you could have done to the article would make it worth keeping.

(I haven't looked at the article, or attempted to verify your notability: if in fact the sources exist, then somebody other than you should find them, cite them, and ensure that the article consists of a summary of what those sources say, not what you say or want to say). ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand that this isn't some kind of 'punishment' for your involvement. All you did was call attention to the article which evidently was not in a good condition, and now an editor is cleaning it up. I know it's frustrating that "content which was there for years is now gone," but that's how Wikipedia works. The only content we preserve is that which is recorded in sources that meet our requirements, you do not own the article about yourself and unfortunately what you want to tell the world about yourself is irrelevant to our decision on inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, @Mschweger, from a quick Google search it seems to me that you're most likely to be notable through your work making sake wine -- that's what most reliable independent sources talk about. I don't see any news articles etc. on your filmmaking work. Most of the sources on you as a director currently in the article only give you passing mentions, which means that the article shouldn't rely on them, because an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should only summarise existing knowledge on a topic, and not do any of its own research, and hunting through the internet for little scraps of information definitely goes against that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this good response also highlights one of the less-famous reasons that COI editors are generally unreliable: COI editors, only able to view their own story "through the wrong end of the telescope", very often designate a "primary career" for themselves, and while we most often encounter that in the way they tend to inflate what they see as their primary accomplishments, it can also happen that they under-emphasize things they consider secondary. This could be a conscious branding strategy to try to prop up their "primary career", but it could also be a genuine misunderstanding of the relative value of the things they do.

Note for all COI editors (including corporation COI): You're incapable of judging your own strengths, weaknesses, and influence, because the main requirement for judging those things is to be everyone except yourself. There's no escape from this, not even by asking for input, because (for the same reason) you're equally incapable of processing whatever input you might get - and any outsider you find to mitigate this problem becomes an insider as soon as they get to know you (or as soon as you start paying them, whichever happens first).

I think there are individuals who make a genuine and serious effort to see themselves as others see them; I think they mostly aren't trying to make Wikipedia articles about themselves. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to them, their only edit to Matthias Schweger is this. JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"passing mentions, which means that the article shouldn't rely on them"--We should not rely on them as evidence of notability. However, if the sources are reliable, we can safely rely on them as evidence for the statement made, such as a film-directing credit.

"hunting through the internet for little scraps of information definitely goes against that"--that absolutely does not go against our Policy on OR.

Your understanding of how Wikipedia works is flawed at the most fundamental level. Please stop giving advice until you have corrected it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope of the Teahouse, but, from WP:OR (emphasis mine):

To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in one's own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly.

It doesn't go against the policy explicitly, but I don't see how me interpreting it as being discouraged based on this (or indeed, what I thought was common sense, but is obviously a point of wikiphilosophy instead) deserves such as sweeping statement as my understanding of how Wikipedia works being flawed at the most fundamental level. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quote is shortly preceded by "On Wikipedia, original research means material--such as facts, allegations, and ideas--for which no reliable, published source exists." and the first pargraph is immediately followed by "The prohibition against original research means that it must be possible for editors to find a reliable, published source that directly supports any given bit of material." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Andy, this response is much too close to being a personal attack, especially since your reasoning is - in this particular context - merely an academic quibble over how JustARandomSquid chose to word an explanation. If you have a more general complaint about his competence, his being guilty of ignoring this academic quibble (I don't doubt that he's guilty of that) is not a legitimate piece of evidence in that regard.

There are times when your complaint would be relevant. This certainly wasn't one of them. Statements are not relevant or significant simply by being true. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 20:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

like on wikipedia fr why do they call him kanye if his name is ye John Marston III (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @John Marston III. He is more famous as "Kanye" than "Ye". Sources refer to him as Kanye, so that's what we should do too per WP:COMMONNAME. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok John Marston III (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the what the consensus is among WP:RS. Iljhgtn (they/them * talk) 20:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do you do scrolling text? I want to learn how to do it so I can use it for my userpage. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 21:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking how to scroll on a page, if you have a computer mouse, just roll the scroll circle in the center up or down, or if you don't, use the mouse on the screen, click and hold on the vertical bar on the right of your screen, and move the mouse up or down. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean text that scrolls across the screen, but thanks. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but could you clarify what you mean by scrolling text? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Text that moves from left to right/right to left across the screen. I saw it on someone's userpage (I forgot who's), and a humour page. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no idea in that case. I'd recommend trying to remember who's userpage, going to their userpage, and viewing the wikitext in source mode. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

trying to find the humour article. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! It was Wikipedia:CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?

and it was

Marquee

text! Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are referring to a gif image ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complicated CSS way to do it that is probably impossible to implement in wikitext as it requires an external stylesheet. And now I have to go cry in a corner and mourn the loss of the tag. Cremastra (talk * contribs) 01:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it still work, for now at least? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably depends on what browser you're on, but it's been mostly phased out by now. It hasn't worked for me on Firefox for many years now. Cremastra (talk * contribs) 02:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im on chrome Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 13:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Flies page

[edit]

Hey, so this is maybe weird or maybe how Wikipedia always runs, I don't know. The page for the movie Mother of Flies contains a bafflingly inaccurate plot summary. It's so detailed yet so wrong I had to look into why and on the talk page someone else had already brought it up. Cool! But then the editor who posted the original plot summary got extremely defensive in suggesting people point out exactly why the summary is wrong. And listen, I know this is an indie horror flick of low importance, but it's a much shorter trip to explain what the summary has right - a girl has cancer, her dad goes with her to visit a healer. The entire rest of the summary, and it's a detailed one, is totally wrong. All you need to do is watch the movie to see that. Instead of changing anything, this editor is just being belligerent, deflecting, or insisting others make the changes. And dude, OK, but they made the page. Why would someone make a page on a topic they literally know nothing about? Even if they didn't use ChatGPT to generate the summary, and it looks like they did because of how wrong they are, what's the point? This editor, Sundayclose, has edited thousands of pages here, and they are both hostile and factually incorrect. They are literally making more work for someone else, it would have been more helpful to say nothing. So how can I, or anyone, trust that any of the things this person is editing? I looked them up and there have been a number of incidents in the past with people having issue with this editor. They do not take criticism, they're openly hostile and it is clearly beyond doubt to anyone who knows the subject matter that they are entirely wrong in this case. Maybe someone else can look into it and stop this person from having a baseless power trip on a random movie page. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-69402-5, @Sundayclose was not being "hostile" or "factually incorrect". They were telling you that claiming stuff doesn't make that stuff true and that you (and the other users who participated in that discussion on the movie's talk page) that you need evidence to prove that the plot was AI-generated. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually said it was AI generated, that was another user. I said it was blatantly wrong and later suggested it looked like it could be AI generated after asking for how they came up with such an incorrect plot summary if they had seen the film and receiving no reply other than to suggest I fix it myself. Short of giving you a link to the movie to watch it yourself I am not sure how you'd like me to prove the plot summary incorrect otherwise. To be clear, my specific issue at this point is that this editor is posting clearly incorrect information and expecting others to fix it. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you and those other editors who participated in that discussion have no evidence or source to prove or found your claims on, please do not make them. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound sarcastic, but I swear it isn't. We're talking about a film I saw and that literally anyone can watch. What would you suggest I source for the plot of a film? How many film pages have actual citations for a sources here? Looking around there are few because the info comes from literally watching the movie. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone can watch a film, for example people in poverty, and I did not imply the use of a source only. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess my issue here is it seems like the consensus, even from my friend Sunday over there, is that if I want this fixed I should do it myself. And while I appreciate that can-do attitude that Wikipedia is based on, community and all that jazz, I think my bigger issue is the forest for the trees thing of the fact that I shouldn't have to fix it. Like, why was a totally incorrect summary posted in the first place? And why is it being defended by the person who posted it? This is weird, isn't it? If your kid's teacher told them Hamlet was about a pig and you told them it wasn't and the teacher kept saying it was unless you can prove otherwise, isn't that odd to you? Of course you could read Hamlet to your kid, but why is it your job now? Why did the teacher make up such an easily disproved lie? Keep in mind, I was the 4th person to go to the page for this movie to address this issue. It seems like this is just being dismissed as "ah well, feel free to change it at your leisure" and that seems like a poor way to run things. Clearly I'm no editor around here, I'm just a dude who showed up but man, this can't be an easy way to steer a ship. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"if I want this fixed I should do it myself" is the precise definition of Wikipedia:Be bold. As for "I shouldn't have to fix it, see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralCarl - As far as I'm aware, the source for plot summaries IS (and ought to remain) only "watch the movie", "read the book", etc as the case may be. You seem to be doing the equivalent of demanding a source for the solution to 2 + 2. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 00:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, not an actual source (such as a journal or website). AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the one and only source necessary to write a movie plot summary is "I watched it"? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agreeing to that. I am saying that making a claim without evidence doesn't make that claim true. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is "I watched it". TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The person can't watch you the movie, to prove to you that they watched it. Merely saying "I watched it and this isn't what happened" IS your sufficient evidence. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2026-69402-5. Wikipedia always has and always will have factual inaccuracies. That's a foundational and completely natural problem a project like Wikipedia has; it can be edited by anyone. The only quality control available is random people who happen to care about something. You seem to care, so you have the power to fix it. Or you can just leave it incorrect, if what you say is true. Whether you want to trust that any of the things you see on this website is up to you and you alone. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 00:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God. I appreciate how much this is making me laugh, but you guys have to see how absurd this is, right? Like if someone posts that Andre the Giant was 6'9" and you know he was 6'10" and can prove it, awesome! Inaccuracy averted. This person made up a whole detailed movie! Just a whole movie from start to finish. That's weird! That's so weird! I can't stop laughing at this so thank you again for that but man, there is a line between factual inaccuracy and this guy writing some kind of detailed fan fic and it's up to intrepid film viewers like me to set it right. I feel like I'm being recruited into some sort of half drunken army against my will. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you want to leave the plot full of inaccuracies? That's great for you. Now who do you exactly expect to fix it? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're killing me, man. This is like walking into a house and watching a guy kick a hole in the wall and then having you come and ask me why I'm not fixing the hole in the wall. I mean...yeah, I see the problem. I for sure see the problem. I just feel a bit put upon here. I regret watching this movie now, I regret the actual, truthful knowledge I have in my head. It's like a curse all of a sudden. How dare I know this thing! ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this analogy, I wasn't the one who kicked a hole in the wall and I also don't know how to fix walls (because I've never heard of this movie in my life). You're the one who can fix the wall, so it's a benefit for all of us if you fix it. Not like we can force you though. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I am clear as day on how this work but, for my own sanity, admit it. This is weird, right? Assume I am 100% correct in my position. If this was something you stumbled on, you'd scratch your head over this for a second or two. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is how all wikis work. Anyone can edit it, break it, and fix it. I don't know how else you thought wikis like Wikipedia worked because that's how it has always been. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that part, just someone purposely starting a page that never even existed before and then filling it with inaccurate info. Then defending the inaccurate info. That's weird to me. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the forceful tone of my previous comment but I'm saying that continuing to discuss about the inaccurate plot will not make it accurate. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I got you. No worries. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-69402-5, I recommend you quit complaining about the inaccurate edit summary as it will go nowhere and fix it yourself. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the forceful tone really necessary? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sounds forceful in tone but at it's heart it's a recommendation. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"against my will", for the second time, please note Wikipedia is a volunteer project and no one is forcing you to participate. Again, see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I'm wallowing in the absurdity of this whole, weird situation. Grant me leniency in my word choice. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe one thing that's missing here is that there's so many inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Some are genuine mistakes, some are deliberate, some are AI hallucinations. We're not surprised to hear that you found one! When one is found, if it's an easy fix, another editor stumbling upon the thread might come to fix it. A plot being wrong isn't really easy - we'd need to have watched the movie and feel up to the task of summarizing it. Or we could just remove the plot section, and hope that our claim of 'this is wrong' is believed over the previous editor's claim of 'this is the plot', but that also means we have to trust that you are in fact right (because we have no idea, and you and the other people on the talkpage could be trolls or sockpuppets, and you would be amazed at how tiny and dumb things can be and still turn into a massive edit war).

So everyone's suggesting that you - who have seen the movie, and noticed the problem, and felt it's important enough to mention - can fix it. You don't have to! No one has to. But you're currently the one in the best position to do so. If you don't, someone will eventually. Today, tomorrow, five years from now...it's always a work in progress. Meadowlark (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This subject IS "Notable"

[edit]

Draft:Danny Cummings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I have absolutely NO connection, personal or otherwise, to the subject I wrote about, but the DRAFT:Danny Cummings has been declined twice (by the same editor) for "notability" concerns. This British musician was a member of the first Western pop art to play communist China; he has been the subject of at least two long, independent/non-promotional, feature interviews; he has composed music that has been used in feature films and TV programs; and has been a member of top-charting ensembles....all of which I referenced in the article. By my count there are at least 20 Wikipedia pages that would redirect to this musician's Wikipedia entry were it to be published, and so for all of those reasons, I am frustrated that the one editor who reviewed it keeps saying this musician doesn't meet notability guidelines for a musician. What to do? It's very frustrating! Thank you all. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an independent interview; the subject is speaking.

A person's volume and quality of work may go unreported by reliable sources.

Membership in an ensemble does not equal having one's individual story told in reliable publications.

Wikipedia's use of the word "notable" is not supported by real-world usage of that word. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 03:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: I used Wikipedia:Notability (music) as my guide (this was recommended to me early on by another WP editor). I quote from it: Guideline #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" [check! My draft Refs #6,#23]; Guideline #4, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [check! My draft Refs #20, #41]; Guideline #6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." [check! Numerous draft Refs and also On Every Street; Dire Straits; Mark Knopfler; Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 et al., see also Wikipedia's own definition of "ensemble" and "band": Musical ensemble and Band (rock and pop); Guideline #10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." [check! My draft Refs # 24-27, #38, see A Shot at Glory (soundtrack) and The Princess Bride (soundtrack). I hope I have provided enough proof that this musician passes guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Despite what User:45dogs says, I have no COI but it appears this musician is the ONLY member of Dire Straits who does NOT have a Wiki entry, so I attempted to draft one. Simple! Thanks very much. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: Star Mississippi, who rejected the draft, and Theroadislong, who declined it. These are both different editors who reviewed your draft, not the same editor. If he is talking about himself in the interviews, then they aren't independent. Other Wikipedia pages redirecting to this artist doesn't necessarily mean he is notable. The draft needs to either meet the notability standard for musicians or the general notability guideline to pass as being notable for an article. 3 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage is usually the standard for the general notability guideline. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @45dogs

Wanda believes I do not "comprehend" her message, because she disagrees with my assessment and does not realize that more sourcing isn't better, therefore the edits weren't addressing the declines. For someone without a COI, she's very focused on Cummings and only Cummings. I don't have anything further to add to what I said at User_talk:WandaL1710#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Danny_Cummings_(December_22) and nothing Wanda says above makes the situation different to a month ago, which is why I saw no path to notability. I'm declining to engage further here but if an established AfC editor thinks my rejection is no longer relevant, feel free to remove it. Star Mississippi 03:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor fails to (or refuses to) comprehend the meaning of "independent sources" on Wikipedia, then frustration often results WandaL1710. But experienced Wikipedia editors who work on a wide range of articles in many topic areas are not going to change their assessment just because the editor who does not understand complains repeatedly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: I used Wikipedia:Notability (music) as my guide (this was recommended to me early on by another WP editor). I quote from it: Guideline #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" [check! My draft Refs #6,#23]; Guideline #4, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [check! My draft Refs #20, #41]; Guideline #6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." [check! Numerous draft Refs and also On Every Street; Dire Straits; Mark Knopfler; Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 et al., see also Wikipedia's own definition of "ensemble" and "band": Musical ensemble and Band (rock and pop); Guideline #10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." [check! My draft Refs # 24-27, #38, see A Shot at Glory (soundtrack) and The Princess Bride (soundtrack). I hope I have provided enough proof that this musician passes guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Despite what User:45dogs says, I have no COI but it appears this musician is the ONLY member of Dire Straits who does NOT have a Wiki entry, so I attempted to draft one. Liking a band is NOT a COI and noting that one of its members does not have an entry on Wikipedia do not preclude drafting one. Thanks very much. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither said nor insinuated you have a conflict of interest with this artist. I would appreciate it if you didn't falsely attribute words to me. I can look over this draft, but I am prone to believe what Star Mississippi and Theroadislong have said, since they are both competent AFC reviewers. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: Yes, you are correct, this ediscussion thread got a wee bit convoluted and it was User:Star Mississippi who claims I have a COI, not yourself. Still, I kinda resent the implication. As I said above, liking a particular band or ensemble AND noting that one of its members is the only musician to not have an entry on Wikipedia do not, in themselves, negate any reasonable attempt at writing a draft and improving Wikipedia. That's all. Thanks! Cheers. WandaL1710 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My review, per what you have said:

Guideline 1: ref 23 is an interview with him, about himself, and so isn't independent. Ref 6 might be sigcov, but its a bit borderline.

Guideline 4: ref 20 doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 41 says he was part of this one show. This appears to be referring to an individual show, not a international concert tour or a national concert tour.

Guideline 6: No references provided.

Guideline 10: ref 24 doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 25 and ref 26 are both user generated, and so aren't reliable. Ref 25 also doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 27 doesn't seem reliable (seems like a fansite) and also doesn't mention Danny at all. As for ref 38, I don't see how this relates to the guideline at all.

Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I reply to each of these? WandaL1710 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please see my responses to others here. I hope I have proved my subject's notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music). We can agree to disagree on this matter but I've now given concrete examples of how this subject/musician undoubtedly passes those criteria. I thought the Teahouse was a place for friendly discourse over Wikipedia matters. Please don't "bite the newbie." While I have tried very hard to steer away from the Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, but I am truly trying to understand how musicians Jordan Fish and Phil Palmer qualify as "Notable" and have entries. I do wish someone would concretely demonstrate to me how they "qualify" and then I would understand. Or perhaps it's just the roll of the dice as to what Wiki editor was awake when my draft was submitted? Seems arbitrary to me, kinda. Thank you, peace. WandaL1710 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yes, I realize they are different users/editors. As for interviews (and I referenced two different ones), interviews specifically about a particular musician (and not his/her band) is a criterion under "Notability." I referenced two such interviews, both by drumming/percussion outlets, these are not self-promotional or self-published or press releases. I see NO requirement that it be "three" sources, as you say ("3 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage is usually the standard for the general notability guideline"), only that it be "multiple." Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles states, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.." Again, I am not seeking an editing "war," but I correctly applied the guidelines for notability. Those guidelines MUST be applied evenly to all entries for musicians and, again, please let me point you to other entries Jordan Fish and Phil Palmer and I wish someone would tell me exactly how these two qualify when my subject does not. Thank you very much for your comments and review, I am merely trying to learn why those sacrosanct guidelines are applied to my draft subject but not to these others. Cheers. WandaL1710 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GNG doesn't explicitly say that it must be three. I said it is usually the standard because that is generally what people aim for; see Wikipedia:Multiple sources. As for your point on the other articles, please see WP:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. They could very well be non-notable, in which case the correct course of action is to delete them. What it doesn't mean is that another non-notable article should be published. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music) makes no mention whatsoever of interviews, and interviews cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help on an AFC draft

[edit]

Editor requested deletion and flounced. Star Mississippi 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Hello, Just submitted this draft to AFC Draft:North Texas Performing Arts. I need help reviewing the draft for minor errors. COI already declared. Thanks! Kavento ( talk * contribs ) 13:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavento we currently have a large backlog of 1800 submissions, so this may take a while before a reviewer can look at your draft. Please be patient and allow the draft to go through thz formal WP:AfC review process., So in the meantime feel free to continue improving the draft. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, cheer! Kavento ( talk * contribs ) 15:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this song notable

[edit]

Pottiye Kettiye" is a viral political parody that gained massive popularity during the 2025 local body elections in kerala.

Here are the key details about the song:

• The song, officially titled "Pottiye Kettiye Swarnam Chembayi Maattiye," uses satire to refer to the Sabarimala gold loss case. The lyrics also mentions Unnikrishnan Potty, an accused in the case, and mock political figures regarding alleged theft and the conversion of gold to copper.
• The tune is similar to the famous Lord Ayyappa devotional song, "Pallikettu Sabarimalaikku.
• This is the song
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9j_FmvSGs.
• This song was even accidently sang by non-keralite pilgrims from tamil nadu,karnataka, etc as they thought this song was a devotional song to Ayyappa

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Kerala Police registered an FIR against the creators following complaints that the parody "mutilated" a sacred devotional song and hurt the religious sentiments of Ayyappa devotees.
• its Political Impact: even though it was not written for any party, it was widely used by the udf and bjp in their election campaigns and they even played during protests outside Parliament in New Delhi

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This parody went through a lot of controversies. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well @TheGreatEditor024, has it received significant coverage in reliable and high-quality, independent sources? That is the crux of notability in WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. HurricaneZeta^C 16:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It received more than significnt coverage. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many national news channels reported it TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" meaning there are several long detailed publications about it? Or just hundreds of little mentions? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well many news channels reported the case registered by kerala police. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any multi-paragraph discussions of the song itself? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes but I tried to post it here but it says that the website is blocked banned idk.I only used

The Hindu, NDTV,Social News XYZ,etc

It affected LDF chances in kerala=

Case=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/viral-anti-left-spoof-song-parody-pottiye-kettiye-sabarimala-gold-theft-complaint-filed-9830155

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/a-political-parody-set-to-the-tune-of-an-ayyappa-devotional-song-triggers-controversy-in-kerala/article70407473.ece

INC against case=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/congress-dares-kerala-government-to-arrest-creators-and-broadcasters-accused-of-politically-parodying-ayyappa-devotional-song/article70415428.ece TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

affected ldf chances=https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2025/Dec/15/how-an-ayyappa-parody-song-boosted-the-udf-campaign TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know what.Ill create the draft and you say if its can be accepted or not. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Please look in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to make sure none of your sources get a bad mention on that list. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thank you. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't let an AI write the draft for you (like countless newbies do here) or it will be declined. You can use AI to help you find sources, but you need to write about what those sources say yourself. See WP:NEWLLM. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, we can use AI to find sources. I didn't know that. I used to waste at least 2 hours to find sources. Btw , Thanks. And don't worry, I won't use AI in my draft. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful. If a simple Google search cannot find good sources because you need context in the search, AI can help, but you must check each source it finds against WP:Golden Rule. The AI often returns unusable sources such as Wikipedia, Reddit, press releases, the subject's own website, tabloid newspapers, sources deemed unreliable per WP:RSP, reprints, and so forth. But you can talk to the AI to narrow down the kinds of sources needed. I did this when I wrote Star of Pure Land. It found a bunch of sources, several of which were reprints of one Associated Press article. After several tries the AI had to agree that there were only two unique sources meeting my criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble creating user id

[edit]

I'm trying to create an account but the user ids I've put in keep coming back as invalid ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Binz32

Schveibinz32 ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71055-3 Better, stick to one location, as you have already asked this at the Help Desk and the volunteers who respond won't want their time wasted. You can look at existing usernames via Special:Userlist to check for duplication or too-close names. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that tip ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the user lists but all of them are blocked with just exclamation marks. I looked up the user ids I wanted to use and nothing very close came up ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The list starts with the exclamation marks but goes on to other names if you put something into the search box. For example this search starts at "Binz", which is near the name you suggested in your Help Desk question. I don't know precisely how close a name has to be to be refused now but I would have expected "Schveibinz32" to be OK. Please indicate the precise error message you are getting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are trying to create a new account at Special:CreateAccount and not logging in? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something decidedly screwy is going on. I tried creating an account with the name "Schveibinz32" and it says the name was already in use. And it is, created 1 Feb 2026 with no edits.

@~2026-71055-3 Try logging in to that username with the password you set. Cremastra (talk * contribs) 23:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The account was created after the name was posted here so it could be the poster, or anybody else testing it. The fact that it could be created strengthens my suspicion that the poster never actually tried to create it but just tried to log in without having an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with AFC draft

[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate a review of my AfC submission at Draft:No Packers No Life. Thank you. Yalzorneem (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has already been reviewed, and declined. Please see the advice there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What Andy says. But if some point in the advice is hard to understand, feel free to ask here for an explanation. Incidentally, I suspect that RangersRus' "The reception is quite poor" might baffle. I'm pretty sure that in this context "poor" means "sparse" and not "unfavorable", but RangersRus may care to clarify. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in this case "poor" would probably mean "sparse" or "lacking something". Perhaps the small amount of material in that section makes RangersRus think it's not worth having a section heading just to put these two little sentences under it. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my comment because I see you ended up completely removing the "Reception". I want you to add "Reception" header and under it, I want you to add 2 or more reviews by professional critics. Professional critic reviews are secondary independent. Here is another documentary film Melania (film). Please pay attention to the critical response under Reception and hopefully this gives you an idea about what kind of critical reviews is needed. RangersRus (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

Does Draft:Alexander Astridge look like it has potential to be an article? I've submitted it for review with AfC, but I know reviews there can take time. I'm very open to edits or suggestions from more experienced editors, particularly around structure, sourcing, or expansion.

If anyone is willing to take a look before or during the AfC process, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Alpineskiingfan123 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does have potential but from a BLP perspective most sources currently focus on his sporting results and events rather than providing broader biographical coverage. It may help to add more independent secondary sources that discuss him in a wider context (background, significance, or impact), which would strengthen notability and BLP compliance. QuickRevert (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion!

I've added some background context to the Early Life section using an additional independent source. Appreciate you taking a look. Alpineskiingfan123 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that as well..but some of the articles lack deeper biographical detail. That said, there is at least one independent biographical source, and it's likely the AfC reviewer will comment on whether additional depth is needed. For now, it's probably best to wait for the AfC feedback and improve the draft based on that. QuickRevert (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alpineskiingfan123, unfortunately at the moment I'd have to decline - you are looking for sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42, and interviews don't count as independent. Most of your sources are interviews. You can use those for biographical information, but what you really need is sources that talk about him but do not rely on information from him or his friends, family, coach, etc. Being a young sports star from an unusual country/sport combination means a lot of sources will see interviews as the best way to go, but sadly that's not the case for Wikipedia's purposes. You can find more information at WP:ATHLETE. I hope this is helpful! Meadowlark (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFC submission necessity

[edit]

Hello. I have started to create articles, more and more especially during the last months, after gaining experience in other areas, like the easier tasks of copyediting or removing advertisement-like information, or the most challenging deletion process. Because I see that almost all of my drafts are accepted, 10 right now without major issues, and due to backlogs that make the review a very lengthy process and without a major review of each draft in detail, I believe that it is better from now on to just move my drafts to Wikipedia:Mainspace. Now, I have 4 drafts waiting review, I regularly check my drafts for notability, and I try to make articles beyond stub-class, with as much detail as possible. From now on, I believe I have to just use AFC submission only for something that I feel blocked and I need some specific feedback or review. Also, if there is anyone to ask questions and guidance in general, now and in the future, on how to make articles in the top Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings, I would appreciate this help. Let me know, thanks! Chiserc (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chiserc. The Articles for Creation review process is entirely optional for experienced editors like you. If you are confident that a draft you have written is about a notable topic and written in compliance with Wikipedia's Core content policies, then you are free to move it to the main space of the encyclopedia yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will do this from now on. I may ask for a more detailed review on a draft, especially if I intend to make top contributions, or even good articles. Thanks! Chiserc (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could also let the review process run its course for your current submissions, because sometimes it's good to have another set of eyes on it. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, after all. I once spent a year or so with a draft, totally rewriting it at one point about a related more-notable topic, based on suggestions a reviewer gave me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiserc, the only time you must use AfC is if you have a conflict of interest with a topic - if you're happily writing about things that catch your attention rather than anything you're involved in, then you're totally fine. If you start your articles outside mainspace, you can also use the AfC helpdesk at WP:AFCHD for help with the draft without necessarily going through the AfC process.

For GAs and FAs, it might help to have a look at the criteria and assessments for those - WP:GACR, WP:GAN, WP:FACR and WP:FAC respectively. I enjoy peeking in from time to time, so you might enjoy it as well if you're thinking about getting an article up into the top ratings! Meadowlark (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for clean up then threatened?

[edit]

So, turns out I like doing cleanup and have been involved on the clean up project page. Because of this, several accounts have reached out to me asking me to help clean up several Korean BLP's that read as promotional or cvs. I'm going through and removing items in the text that are already listed later in the page or on linked pages.

Removing information that reads as WP:Everything is getting me threatened. Advice? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're working through it, but goodness. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm

People making actual threats should not be tolerated for one second. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, threatened with being blocked as a vandal. Not physically threatened. Attempting to work through it with them. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeurbanite For the situation you're now describing, yes your approach is right. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned of vandalizing the page not threatened. He began delete info from long existing page. Ilona I (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilona I, that is not vandalism. Read through WP:VANDAL. Edits that are attempting to improve Wikipedia are never vandalism, even if you disagree with them. You should be discussing with other editors on the article's talkpage instead. Meadowlark (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I discourage you from working through it; threats should be summarily blocked, not dealt with. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I have them blocked? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was it threats, as in threats? Or was it an "I'm calling the WikiPolice!!" type of thing? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's actual threats, use the link I already gave TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're not certain they were serious, do that anyway TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even glanced at these edits.

Most editors can't block other editors. The most they can do is request that those other editors be blocked. The editors handling such requests consider each such request.

"If you persist in [doing XYZ], I will have you blocked" can be called a threat. If XYZ is constructive, the threat will turn out to be empty. Ignore it. If XYZ is destructive, well, stop doing XYZ. Either way, the threat isn't obviously problematic. (What prompts the threat may or may not be.) If there are differing interpretations of XYZ (or if XYZ is a misnomer), attempt to discuss. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is (if I can call it this) "Wikithreats" vs "real threats". If someone makes what I'd call a Wikithreat (such as "I'll get you blocked", "I know Very Powerful People", and so on), the proper response is to snicker and continue. If someone makes a real-life threat, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, getting them banned really is the only acceptable outcome. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 08:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers, Coffeeurbanite wrote at 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC) that they had been "threatened with being blocked as a vandal". Thus not what you'd call a "real threat" (which incidentally is not terminology I'd recommend, as threats to block for goofing off on Wikipedia can be very real). -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they mean threats that present a real danger, as opposed to just loss of editing privileges. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I see "[something I did] is getting me threatened" without qualifying information, which is what was in the first message, I assume they mean threats of physical harm. Getting "Me" threatened is something it would never occur to me to say under any other circumstances. And it's made clear on Wikipedia (as it is in many other places now) that every physical threat, even if ludicrous, is to be dealt with the same as a serious one. Anyway, I'm glad it wasn't that. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, a heartfelt thank you to everyone for the thoughtful advice and careful answers. I'm truly proud to be part of this community.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I believe it's being worked out, and I'm always open to collaborating, discussing, and learning from others.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted revisions?

[edit]

genuine question, why are edit revisions sometimes deleted in the edit history? for example the articles on Nelly Furtado and Michael Middleton if you go to the edit history , it shows crossed out stuff which means that the edit revision has been deleted. But why does this happen? ~2026-71453-6 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REVDEL. Usually for copyright reasons (if someone pasted in a blatant copyright violation), or for legal reasons (if someone wrote something obviously defamatory). Sometimes particularly egregious vandalism (such as replacing the entire article text with slurs) is deleted too. Cremastra (talk * contribs) 02:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, WP:OVERSIGHT is used for cases where REVDEL isn't enough, such as for cases of doxxing. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 03:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only one area used for info

[edit]

I forgot what its called but i keep getting rejected because im not citing evidence or whatever. Even though I got ALL of my info from one website. Also, it keeps saying my article reads as an advert and not an article. Which its not. Evant79 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide which article? AdmiralCarl (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Draft, I have completed writing for the upcoming "Norwegian Aura" for Norwegian Cruise line. Though, I dug far deep into the web and Re-submitted with major changes to the text and references. Evant79 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's Draft:Norwegian Aura. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft will be decllined again, because you have absolutely zero sources that are independent of the topic.

Please read WP:Golden Rule. It's a short, easy read. Do it right now. It tells you what we expect in a draft to show the topic is notable.

If you cannot find any sources that meet the three simple WP:Golden Rule criteria, then it is WP:TOOSOON for this ship to merit an article here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Routine example, Evant79: Aura represents an evolution of the Prima Class design and builds on the success of earlier ships in the series, such as Norwegian Prima, Norwegian Viva, Norwegian Aqua, and Norwegian Luna.

• No source is provided (let alone a good one). Why should the reader believe this?
• "B represents an evolution of A": Why not "B is a slightly revised A"?
• What does "B builds on the success of A" actually mean? (To me, it reads like vacuous brochure-speak.)

--Hoary (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I think I'm just going to abandon this one. I'm too deep into a hole and can't come out. Thanks all for the help. Evant79 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. AdmiralCarl (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete it, you can tag the draft with {{db-g7}}, or simply blank the entire page, and an administrator will come along and delete it. You can always recover it again when the topic is notable, by posting a request at WP:REFUND.

Or, you can just let it expire, because I have un-submitted your draft, so it will be automatically deleted after six months of inactivity, after which you can still request restoration at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:TOOSOON. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft submission query

[edit]

I am attempting to submit a new draft for review. When I click on the "Submit draft for review" tab it goes to another page (white background with a blue tab titled "Submit draft"), but when I click on the tab nothing seems to happen. I the return to the draft page and update (purge), but it still says "This draft has not been submitted for review. I've been attempting this for several days now to no avail. Please advise on next steps.

Thank you for your attention to this matter Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly someone with the technical knowledge will solve the problem with the button that isn't working.

My comment has to do with the sources you've written this draft from - almost every one of them is an announcement or a bio page. They're not wrong, but they're also not good enough to support an article - and the reason is that announcements and bio pages are only forms of advertising. They don't tell the history of your subject; instead, they tell us the messages he wants us to hear.

Until you get some better sources - which means not bios, not interviews, and not announcements, but long real stories written by the reporter alone - I don't think this will be accepted. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 07:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I will look into it and adjust citations accordingly Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nthabiseng Modise, I tried pressing the button and ended up at a page asking for more information, so it's definitely something on your end. However, I can make it submit on your behalf, so I've done that. If you have this problem again, put {{AfC submission}} at the very start of your draft and it will very helpfully auto-submit itself. Meadowlark (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your assistance, thank you Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trace edits via their contents?

[edit]

I've run into this a few times. I find a piece of information on an article that is either unsourced or out of place, and I check the edit history to try to find when it was added. I can't find it by searching manually.

Are there any ways to track edits by what text was edited or the length of the edit? For instance, an edit length greater than +10, or an edit that contains the word "duplex"? SenshiSun (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a browser extension that can tell you who added a particular bit of content to an article, if you are using a desktop browser. See mw:Who Wrote That? Meters (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or use "Find addition/removal" at the top of the page history. - Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Find addition/removal" is also known as Wikiblame, and it definitely does what you want, @SenshiSun. Put in a word or phrase and it will offer up the diffs where that word or phrase existed. From there it's very simple detective work. Meadowlark (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Meadowlark, Meters, and Arjayay! I appreciate it. SenshiSun (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is a really useful teahouse thread. Toarin (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Draft - Feedback on Updated Version

[edit]

Hi everyone.

My first draft I submitted for AfC was declined for peacock language and too many sources. I can understand this feedback and appreciate the editor for taking the time to read through it. For transparency, this article has a COI tag.

I have gone over it and thoroughly reviewed the article and made updates. I want to abide by Wikipedia's publishing guidelines, so was hoping someone could please read my new draft and confirm if it is now strong enough to submit for AfC, if there is more I can do or it's a lost cause.

Wikipedia:Editor review/Boyd2703

I appreciate I have a COI with this article but I would like to note I have been actively working on edits throughout Wikipedia as I am committed and believe in what Wikipedia is working toward. I do understand however the difficulty with COI articles but have strived to only keep it to information that has been shared by third-party news sources.

I appreciate everyone's help and efforts. Many thanks in advance.

Boyd2703 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI to generate the content by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you but it seems promotional in style, I can't fully comment on it as business drafts aren't my expertise, Mwen Se Keyol Translator-a (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate that and your time to review.

I suppose this is what I am finding difficult as well, as I am uncertain as to what element is 'promotional' but understand this could be how it is interpreted. I have purposely focused on information that is all publicly available and reported by third party sources and is simply the 'facts' of the business.

Thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language is usually what the company wants to promote, so websites sponsored by the company or the company website itself can include big, bold and flowery language. Wikipedia requires the facts from independent sources, which usually also discuss the facts (unless they have a bias od are being paid, then they aren't independent) for example:

" Saltus provides investment management, financial planning, pension planning, and tax and estate planning services. It provides financing and operation support for advisory businesses through its Partnership Programme" this although linked to something sounds a little promotional, the use of the word "provides" can sometimes indicate that, although I'm not sure how I would change it and I'm the the authority on matters like these so I can easily be corrected. Mwen Se Keyol Translator-a (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That makes sense! I have avoided using sources from the company website and don't have any sources that were sponsored by the firm either. I like that flagging about the word 'provides' and understand what you mean. I'll go through and see what I can change when it comes to explanations like this.

Thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, a quick tip is that if it sounds like it would be on a LinkedIN post or on the company's website then that is promotional (most of the time, although it here probably are the odd exception such as true facts etc.) Mwen Se Keyol Translator-a (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Boyd2703 Promotional means the kind of information expected by bosses, investors, and customers. A Wikipedia article cannot seem like it was written to give that kind of information. If the boss is angry that the article doesn't represent his company properly, and if the article fails to attract any customers, then the article is probably not promotional. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 21:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While that is one definition, I think that is particularly narrow; my definition would be, "content designed for possible customers instead of researchers". VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used to leave bosses out of this as well, but for many of the people who come here asking for help because of promotional writing, their boss is at the root of the problem. They are stuck trying to reconcile [what they know their boss wants] with [what they hope Wikipedia will accept], and it makes sense to tell them directly: what their boss wants is not going to happen. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your help and insights.

Yes, I can definitely see where that would create an issue! Whilst I work for the business, I will say my boss has no say/has not read what I have written. This is an entirely independent project. I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines completely.

In saying that, seeing everyone's replies makes it seem like it still reads promotionally and I will go back through and see what I can change/edit or if it's a lost cause currently.

Would you say the sources are in line with Wikipedia's notability? They are all third party news sources (no paid sponsorship etc.) and I have ensured I haven't used any from the website. Boyd2703 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to think of it as "What would my boss have to say if they DID read it?" It doesn't automatically have to include negative content, but it should if there is negative coverage in sources - not just the ones you've currently included, but any sources that can be found that meet Wikipedia standards. Any valid criticisms or public issues the company has had in the past would probably come up - the types of things bosses like to bury. Even if those don't exist it should stay neutral. If the answer to "Would my boss like this" is yes, it's probably promotional. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, that makes sense!

I feel like I have kept to the facts and only provided information reported on by third-party news sources. I like this nuance and will go back through and read my article through this lens.

Many thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, I didn't use AI to generate the content. After the first draft I did a thorough review myself and edited everything I thought could be an issue based on the feedback. Afterwards, I asked AI to identify if there was any further peacock language and to highlight the words/sentences. From there, I went in and reviewed/altered the wording to what I thought was straight forward and in no way promotional but didn't allow AI to generate the content.

I recognise I am still learning, so appreciate if this was a wrong course of action. Thanks for your question and help! Boyd2703 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you write the actual words yourself and don't generate or copy them, using it for suggestions only is acceptable use (See: WP:NEWLLM). We see a lot of generated content - including in comments like this, not just articles - so sometimes formal phrasing and grammar starts to sound suspicious. AI is trained on real people's words, after all, and some people's normal writing style (especially neurodiverse) is more like it than others. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is now located at Draft:Saltus 2. HurricaneZeta^C 14:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Boyd2703 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Burugula

[edit]

Krishna Burugula

Hi, Does this Notable? ~2026-72209-0 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems like RangerRus believed he is a notable actor and film maker, so that is how he is notable. Mwen Se Keyol Translator-a (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to create my wikipedia

[edit]

my name is TABISH ALI "I am a professional singer who has participated in Indian Idol Season 13 and Indian Idol Season 16. I would like to create my own Wikipedia page. Could you please guide me through the process of creating a Wikipedia page and let me know the necessary steps to effectively showcase my achievements and experiences?" TabishALI2003 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse. If you are notable somebody else will write an article about you, I would strongly suggest you don't do it yourself. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TabishALI2003 Wikipedia is not the place to "showcase your achievements and experiences"- you should do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and blessings your way, I am also trying to figure this same question out. I don't understand what determines if someone has a page in this encyclopedia or if it is all just a bias oligarchy running things yet. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by how much coverage there is in UNBIASED secondary sources about the subject. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TabishALI2003, @Digitalgodus:

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

Until enough people unconnected with you have chosen to publish enough material about you to base an encyclopaedia article on, anybody who tries to write an article about you is wasting their time. (This is roughly what we mean when we talk about them not being notable).

Until you have enough editing experience to understand important Wikipedia policies such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, promotion and reliable, independent, secondary sources, then for you to try and create any article will probably be a waste of your time.

For almost anybody, trying to create an article about themselves will be a waste of their time. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

[edit]

I lost my account via forgetting to save the password it didn't have an email Morocco18134alt (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if you lost your password and did not associate an email address with your account, your account cannot be recovered. You are free to continue using your new account, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also edit the user page of your original account to mention the change of name. Another possibility is to return to a browser / device on which you accessed that account in the past and see whether it stored the username/password combination locally. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Truth and Wikipedia

[edit]

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Normal Nia (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is "the truth"; see WP:TRUTH. It is up to the reader to examine the sources provided when determining what it is they think about what they read. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting too philosophical, Wikipedia is no different to any other source; how do you know that anything is "true"? What we try to do is present information from what are generally considered WP:Reliable sources, and cite those sources so you can read them and make your own mind up. - Arjayay (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal Nia, Arjayay is correct. If you like, you can read Reliability of Wikipedia and see if you find it, and its references, plausible. Grabergs Graa Sang (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to start a encyclopedia topic

[edit]

I am trying to be more understood and in between social media, and my blog, there are news outlets interviews conducted on my user page here on wikipedia bio and I want to discuss theroetical physics math meta and more but I need some direction to push me in the right direction, as I do not understand how to get anything done on this community. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalgodus: The first thing you have to do is change your name to something else that isn't a name of your website. You may do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. You can then start with simple stuff like fixing typos and removing promotional content from articles. Note that Wikipedia isn't a social media site and we don't host interviews here. Children Will Listen ( talk, contribs) 18:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as per WP:Forum, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We do not discuss topics, other than to agree what information, taken from WP:reliable sources, should be included in our articles. - Arjayay (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i plead the first on my user name. Your personal feelings that come out into your mind about my user handle are not relevant to this discourse. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their personal feelings, it's policy - specifically WP:PROMONAME. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, First Amendment rights don't apply to private platforms like Wikipedia. Children Will Listen ( talk, contribs) 18:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution restricts the power of the US government. Wikipedia is not affiliated with the US government, so it doesn't apply. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Digitalgodus. Answer this for me first; do you want to create an encyclopedic article about your blog, or do you just want another venue to promote it? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI question--writing Wiki article for a client

[edit]

Hey there! Full disclosure: I am a content writer at a digital marketing agency and one of our clients has asked if I'm able to create a Wikipedia article for their company. I am super new to Wikipedia, only created an account today, and I've done some research about COI, but would love some expert input if possible! Is this just a no-go, or am I able to draft the article so long as it adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality, notability, and other guidelines? I'd be happy to give more information about the company and a list of sources if that's helpful. Thanks! Looshsprout (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Looshsprout. It is possible to create an article for your client if you abide by the policies. Relevant material can be found at WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:AFC. Good luck. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are required by the Terms of Use to disclose paid editing, see WP:PAID.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client. In short- most in your position fail in their efforts, especially without prior knowledge and experience. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles. However, if you have gathered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your client(not interviews, announcements of routine business activities) that shows how the company is notable in a Wikipedia sense, you may use the Article Wizard to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Looshsprout.

In addition to what others have said, I'd like to make two further points:

1. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. That last sentences especially applies to anything your client knows, says, or wants to say about themselves.
2. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Name Order question

[edit]

I received an email from an editor who asked me for help with an article about a Chinese professor, Xu Jianbin. The correspondent editor wants to change the article so that the name of the subject is displayed in the usual English-language style. They want to rearrange the name to Western name order, which would be Jianbin Xu. I have looked at the article, and I see that the name in the lede sentence has been reversed and so is in Western name order, and the title is still in Eastern name order. I know that inconsistency should be corrected. I am inferring that what the emailer wants is assistance in moving the article to retitle it.

I think that the emailer is making a good faith mistake in asking to westernize the name, and the title should be left as is and the lede sentence restored to Eastern name order. However, I have looked at the Manual of Style, and I didn't see where it says to use Eastern name order for academics in Hong Kong (because I didn't see where it said what form of the name to use). Maybe I was looking right at it and didn't notice it. I can't find the instructions on when to use Eastern name order for Chinese names.

So I think that I have a two-part question:

• 1. Where are the instructions on when to use Eastern name order for Chinese names?
• 2. How should the name for this person be presented?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that "Make it match the reliable sources that are in English" should at least be part of the answer, if not the complete answer. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the name in the lede to Xu Jianbin and added the {{family name footnote}} template, which adds a footnote explaining In this Chinese name, the family name is Xu. Athanelar (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the lede. I thought that was what should be done, but wanted additional opinions.

I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Ordering. I am not entirely satisfied for two reasons. First, it was not obvious, starting from the MOS, where this guideline was. It was too hard to find a useful guideline. Second, it describes Eastern name order without calling it Eastern name order, which would be a helpful link.

So I understand that if reliable sources in English use Western name order, a move/rename might be in order.

I will leave the article as corrected and let the matter drop unless the originator, who is mistaken in good faith about name order, raises the issue again. Thank you again. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

only 1 edit?

[edit]

what sort of edits if more than one edit where made to the following pages:

• Template:25 biggest cities of Norway
• Template:42 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:30 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:40 most populous cities of Norway

Logoshimpo (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Logoshimpo, could you clarify what you mean? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} or were there more than 1 edit? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you asking? Your comment is unclear. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how many edits were made to these templates or were they just redirects? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Logoshimpo.

I don't know what you mean by "What sort of edits"?

Also, none of those templates exist.

Do you mean Template:Largest cities of Norway or Template:25 largest municipalities of Norway? These are different templates; and I can't find the other three at all. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They were all previously deleted, so I suppose they're asking what the edit history of those templates were prior to their deletion. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that's correct. what is the edit history of the 4 templates i listed? did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}}? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

which 3 are you referring to? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have had some connection to block-evading "Amss125". Why do you ask? -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm interested to see if the templates had been moved from one template to another. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can these be used in Wikipedia?

[edit]

Context: I have a idea for a Wikipedia article on SDH Triplicity. Context on what SDH Triplicity is: SDH Triplicity (formerly known as The Rodfellows from 2014 to 2021 (with this name being the most commonly known outside the community), and The Jungle Forest Gang from 2021 to 2023) are a group of anthropomorphic cartoon characters created by Dan P. Lyons. There was also a movie made in 2020 called The Rodfellows Movie. It never had a widespread release on movie theaters, but there is information spread online (i think it came from someone on the chat on a Saberspark twitch stream if i remember it correctly, but i honestly dont know) that said that it did actually played on a local theater they went there. I know that many of these probably coundl't be used in Wikipedia, but i'm just here to confirm that there is a IMDB page and many IMDB-like websites that have this movie, a Rate Your Music page, and there was a DVD release (There was a page online where you could buy the DVD but it no longer exists, the only two concrete proofs it even existed, other than it being mentioned on few wikis, is a now-defunct link https://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00ZWFJ1G&pp=1 which has a archive in the Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20230121034447/https://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00ZWFJ1G&pp=1 and a DVD rip on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vts-01-1_20220121 ), and even Plex, a streaming service has this movie. https://darrenalex2000.wixsite.com/sdh-triplicity https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12716012/ https://www.csfd.cz/film/924518-the-rodfellows-movie/prehled/ https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/1394370/?utm_referrer=www.google.com https://watch.plex.tv/cs/movie/the-rodfellows-movie https://en.kinorium.com/2407377/ https://rateyourmusic.com/film/the-rodfellows-movie/ ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the poor quality of sources here, it seems unlikely that the topic would pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones could pass and be used on Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of them would be suitable for Wikipedia, see reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should we do? How could these be used in Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't use them. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should we do? Maybe i should find webpages that could be used on Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about these? https://x.com/TheJFTeam https://web.archive.org/web/20250107081355/https://cohost.org/SDHTriplicity?page=0 https://www.instagram.com/sdhtriplicity23/ https://bsky.app/profile/sdhtriplicity.bsky.social https://www.threads.com/@sdhtriplicity23 https://rodfellowsteam.wixsite.com/officialsite/home https://www.youtube.com/@SDHTriplicity23 https://odysee.com/@TheJungleForestShow:1 Note that i put some of these because there are posts section on channels, not everything in general. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby, can you respond before this discussion gets thrown to the archive? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those links are Twitter, Bluesky, and YouTube accounts. These are not reliable. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But Twitter posts has been used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts have been used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts have been used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby, Twitter posts is being used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts is being used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts is being used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby, Twitter posts is being used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts is being used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts is being used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-73469-7.

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

Unless you can find several sources of that nature, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awards, Thanks, Gifts.

[edit]

Hello,

There is something I've noticed on many user profiles--some editors have awards, thanks, or trophy-style achievement icons. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than seven months now, but I haven't received any awards yet.

I wanted to ask if there are any specific tasks or types of contributions that lead to receiving these appreciation awards or trophies. If so, I would kindly appreciate your guidance on what kind of work I should focus on to earn them. Jameskida (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are official, so it's "oh, Jameskida did something cool! I think I'll give him one of those award icons!" DS (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jameskida. Most of the awards have no official status. You can see the various kinds at WP:Awards. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i got it and thanks for your time. Jameskida (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Understood.. Jameskida (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that BarnStars can be received and given by anyone. But like you... I've always wondered about the rest. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Trying to 'earn' anything through your editing is a bad road to start down. Expect no reward for your hard work and you can't go wrong. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A simple "thank you" from another editor is always nice and been enough for me. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly had no bad intention or beieng greedy. I was just curious because I saw tasks on some pages where the page creator or other people ask for help to fix things. I thought that by completing those tasks, people earn those award things. Thanks for clearing me out that these awards has no official status.

Thanks All i understood everything loud and clear. @~2026-19602-0 @ColinFine@Athanelar@DragonflySixtyseven Jameskida (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Important Update

[edit]

Greetings, Some people keep reporting the fact that Wikipedia is yet to have an article on KOD Ajayi.

It will be appreciated for a public figure of such influence to be featured as soon as possible. Thank you. ~2026-73286-2 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, luckily for some people, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, and if they can find good sources of information about this KOD Ajayi figure, they can make an article themselves. Athanelar (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-73286-2, and welcome to the Teahouse

Wikipedia is entirely organised and edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose: there is nobody who assigns jobs, and nobody has a particular job unless they choose to make it their job.

This means that there is no reliable way to ask for a particular article to be written. There is a place to ask (Requested articles), and you're welcome to ask for it there: but in all honesty, most requests sit there forever.

So unless you are going to do an amazing job of getting people interested in working on an article about KOD Ajayi (which you haven't done so far: I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this who has never heard of them), nobody is going to come and say "OK, I'll research an article about him".

So, if you want an article written in Wikipedia, the most effective way is to do it yourself.

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

Secondly, writing an article starts with finding suitable published sources, because A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. If suitable sources do not exist, then no article about that subject is possible, whoever writes it.

Thirdly, the fact that you are asking for an article about this person makes me wonder if you are connected with the person, or even whether you are that person. If you have some connection with them, then Wikipedia regards you as an editor with a conflict of interest: that doesn't mean you may not try and write an article, but it makes it even harder to put aside absolutely everything you know about the subject, and just summarise what the independent sources say.

If you actually are KOD Ajayi, then writing about yourself is so monumentally unlikely to succeed that you are very strongly discouraged from even trying: see autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some people keep reporting the fact that Wikipedia is yet to have an article on KOD Ajayi. Where do these people keep reporting this fact? (And what has been importantly updated?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My websearch on the name turned up at least four apparently different people, none of whom seemed likely to meet Wikipedia's required standards for Notability (which means "well-documented", not "important") and none seemingly more prominent than the others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

infographics

[edit]

Hello again :)

Is it ok to upload infographics i created using Canva, or Procreate?

many thnks in advance.

Happypenguins82 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Happypenguins82, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've noticed we don't actually provide tea that often, so here you go:

Now to answer your question, yes, plenty of Wikipedians upload self-created infographics. While the usual software of choice is Inkscape, Canva or Procreate can work just as well for illustrating a concept as long as its neatly formatted and would work well in an encyclopedia. A useful tip for adding an image, or any content, is "would the article be improved by adding this?", and "if I proposed this to be included in Encyclopedia Britanica, aside from space issues, would they consider it?". Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't use any of the images provided by Canva. Almost all of these images are copyrighted and ineligible for Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can use Wikimedia images, your own images, text, and any of the basic "elements" things (you cannot copyright a square, circle, or polygon). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

roger

ill use only my own creations made from scratch

thank you so much for all the clarifications :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use images from Wikimedia Commons I believe, or any images under a free Creative Commons license, as long as those are properly credited when you upload your infographic. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you so much for the warm welcome and the lovely tea, it goes well with my fresh home made cookies, try them and tell me if you think i added too much sugar

ill take your notes to carefull thought, im working on an article that could really use some infographic to better explain certain biological structures. Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A useful tip for adding an image, or any content, is "would the article be improved by adding this?"

I would modify this a little: ... "would everybody else agree the article was improved by adding this?"

Most of the time, the person who is offering to add something would be thinking "Of course it would improve the article! Otherwise, why would I even be offering it?" TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 22:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, forgot that part there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

btw if the infographics i create would resemble the ones that exist in the article sources, is that ok? or considered as a copyrights violation? Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant point is that they can't claim copyright on a concept, but they can claim it on a picture. But I don't know the practical applications of that distinction. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 23:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ill open a new question with copyrights as the topic, just to be extra careful.

Thank you very much for the helpful guidance :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ill make sure to keep that in mind. Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Move AfC draft from userspace to Draft: namespace

[edit]

Hello! I have an AfC submission in my userspace sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FleurTdeFrance/sandbox The yellow box says "This page should probably be located at Draft:Paul Deheuvels (move)", but when I try to move it, I get an automated filter error (new editor restrictions on page moves). Could a helpful editor please move it to Draft:Paul Deheuvels (or the appropriate Draft: title) for me? This will help with the AfC review process. Thank you so much! FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The filter is working properly. Per log entry 43321929, you were trying to move Talk:Paul Deheuvels to Draft:Paul Deheuvels instead of moving your sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why you are doing this as we already have an article on Paul Deheuvels. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I am Paul Deheuvels daughter. He died Friday)

Extreme events happen: earthquakes, tsunamis, finance, lottery game, meteor... these extreme events were my father's specialty. Before heavy computers, only maths could address the problem. Even with computers, you can't always calculate properly the extreme. There needs to be strong references for mathematicians and industrials who are confronted to these problems. I offer them in my draft.

The current text is erroneous. The last editor removed "emeritus" and replaced it by "retired" for instance, which is false.

The bio details are not that important but why not? Many mathematicians do have them (Laurent Schwarz for instance). The last editor left for my father the high school Lakanal...

I am not a doctor in maths but I think that only two lines for his scientific work is weak. Thanks for reading! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been moved to Draft:Paul Deheuvels, FleurTdeFrance. From there, it's going nowhere. If you have no conflict of interest, you are free to improve Paul Deheuvels. I note that on your user page you say "I sometimes edit articles related to my family members and follow Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guidelines." If you do have any kind of conflict of interest with Deheuvels, you should instead make suggestions on Talk:Paul Deheuvels. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made them on the Talk. I am his daughter, so I am forbidden to make them directly in the page. See my previous comment on why math readers could modify it!

Talk:Paul Deheuvels

Thanks! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a new draft, its better to use {{Edit COI}} on the talk page to propose new additions. This makes it easier for each bit to be refined when added, and makes it easier for volunteers to make sure the suggested edits are in line with policy. Currently, we would have to ensure the entirety of Draft:Paul Deheuvels is up to standard all at once to replace the article with it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 45dogs and other editors,

Thank you for the helpful advice -- you're right that proposing changes incrementally via {{Edit COI}} on the talk page is a better approach than replacing the whole article at once. I appreciate the guidance and will follow that method going forward.

I'll start by proposing small, well-sourced additions (e.g., basic biography details, honors, a brief summary of research areas) one at a time, with clear references.

For reference, my sandbox draft (which I won't push as a full replacement) is still here for comparison if needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FleurTdeFrance/sandbox

Thank you again for your time and patience.

FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help point out what needs to be fixed for submission

[edit]

Courtesy link: User:RobertVelline/sandbox

Extended content (of draft) HurricaneZetaC 23:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Vee Robby Vee From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Robert Velline, known by his stage name, Robby Vee, is an American singer, songwriter, recording artist, and guitarist who is in the Rockabilly Hall of Fame and the Iowa Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.[1][2] Biography Vee was born Robert Velline, named after his father, Bobby Vee, a famous singer in the 1960s. He has been performing his unique style of rock-n-roll music for years on tour with the legends and architects of rock-n-roll, sharing credits and stages with artists including Carl Perkins, Bo Diddley, Albert Lee, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, Sir Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Dion, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice, The Crickets, Dick Clarks Caravan of Stars Rock n Roll Shows and his father Bobby Vee to name a few. Throughout his music career, Vee has received many positive reviews. Radio-TV editor of Billboard magazine Claude Hall wrote, "If this guy had been around during the era of Elvis, he would have given Elvis a run for his money." Vee formed the "Rock-n-Roll Caravan with Strings & Things" to celebrate the American Bandstand 'feel good' era of rock-roll and Rockabilly music, honoring his father Bobby Vee's Legacy.[2]. He has had many successful albums through out his career spanning over decades. Vee has captured the attention of audiences and respected industry professionals both Nationally and Internationally with his 2025 release "Shake It All Up!" debuting in the top 200 at #183 on the AMA Radio Album Charts and over 250,000 weekly streams of his 2024 singles "A Forever Kind of Love and Good Morning." In 2023 Robby Vee's Vinyl Album Release "Double Spin" featuring the single "BUZZ" reached #91 on the Modern Specialty radio Singles Chart. Accolades Robby Vee has been referred to as the "Prince of Twang" and as a "Neo-Rockabilly Artist" for combining the roots of his rockabilly heritage with the new sounds of today. In 2015, Vee was honored by the Senate of the State of Minnesota with a "Senate Resolution" honoring his life, art, and legacy and recognizing his involvement with charities. Vee is currently an Artist Spokesperson for the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, "Artist Raising a Voice For Care." Vee's Blue Moon Blue Project featuring the song "Blue Moon Blues" was written for Alzheimer's awareness and is featured in his shows. Also in 2015, Vee was inducted into the Rockabilly Hall of Fame alongside his father, Bobby Vee, including a "Second Generation" artist recognition. In 2022, Vee was inducted into the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame by the IRRMA. He is also recognized by the American & Canadian Rockabilly Hall of Fame. 2004 Vee performed at the prestigious Royal Albert Hall, London, England, as an 'Honorary Cricket' (Buddy Holly & the Crickets). He is also featured on The Crickets "The Crickets & Their Buddies" 2004 release. Vee headlined the weekend slot at the Surf Ballroom's Winter Dance Party Tribute Concert in Clear Lake Iowa that same year honoring Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens & J.P. Richardson (the Big Bopper). In 2020, Valens' sister, Connie Valens, invited him to perform at the Ritchie Valens Lunch-in. For the third time, Vee headlined the largest Car Show in America, "Back to the 50s," in 2022. 1995 & 1997 Vee performed at Paul McCartney's Buddy Holly Week, Live Streaming to over a million subscribers in 1997. In 1996, he performed at Andrew Lloyd Webber's 22nd Sydmonton Festival and in 1998 he performed for Webber's 50th Birthday Party at Andrew Lloyd Webber's home outside of London, England. As a co-writer, musician & singer Robby Vee contributed and performed on many Bobby Vee records, including Wink of an Eye (Platinum Collection Rockabilly Stars The Everly Brothers, Bobby Vee & Gene Vincent Vol 1), Adobe Sessions, Whatever Happened To Peggy Sue (Tim Rice, Bobby Vee & the Vee), Down The Line, I Wouldn't Change A Thing, Last Of The Great Rhythm Guitar Players & UK 90 and We're Going To Be Friends, Rockin' Legends Pay Tribute to Jack White (Vocal Producer/Arranger for Bobby Vee). Vee is a Founding member, Songwriter, Vocalist, and guitarist for the Rockabilly group The Vee's. Records include Bigger Than Ed "Really Big Shoe," Vee For Victory (Single/ Limited UK Release), Two Weeks Later, The Vees (EP), Crash Boom Bang It Out, Moon Dog House Party, and Nashville Sessions 'Limited Release.' Discography Robby Vee & Beej Chaney (Shake it all up..!), Double Spin (Vinyl Edition), A Forever Kind of Love/Good Morning, Double Spin, Vee Hall, Blue Moon Blue, Viva La Twang, Liquid Love, Bop, Early Years with the Vee's, Vee sings Vee (Robby & Bobby Vee), SINGLE: 'This Love', SINGLES: Champagne Lane & Permanently Temporary. Film, TV, and Streaming Dedications (Robby Vee Acoustic Live Stream for Alzheimer's Foundation of American Fund Raising), Catch Me If You Can (movie appearance), Keep It Rockin' On and On (featured song from the movie "Don't Let Go"), Whole Worlds Rockin' (Jazzercise Theme Song), Walk Right In (National Commercial for Great Clips), Paul McCartney's "Rock & Roller Dance Party" (Roseland Ballroom New York City NY, Live Stream), Garmin Products (Paul Douglas Weather App Theme Music), Live at The London Palladium (Andrew Lloyd Webber Production for Archive), Tell Me How (NPR Spotlight Performance), Pat Boone's, Easter Seal Telethon, Cotton Club (WCCO-TV CBS, Evening News Performance & Intro Theme Song), Robby Vee Music Video- A Forever Kind of Love, Robby Vee Music Video- Buzz, Robby Vee Music Video- Good Morning , Robby Vee & Bobby Vee Music Video- The Man In Me , Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Small Town, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Vacant (Shake It all Up), Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- We're Open All Night, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Give Mn Your Heart, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Straight On References____________________________________________________________________ https://www.albertleatribune.com/2023/07/rockabilly-performer-and-son-of-bobby-vee-coming-to-albert-lea/ External links Website https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7UCpFh8hJoI&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1VBsw4gBg https://youtube.com/watch?v=IEtcQMdRMaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5jy_v0ubLLA&feature=youtu.be RobertVelline (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RobertVelline (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing is that there are three MoS:PEACOCK language instances (words in bold are peacock): many positive reviews, many successful albums, and and respected industry professionals and that too many sentences and paragraphs have no inline citations to a reference to a reliable source. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can you tell me what i need to put sources on?

The 3 bold Mos:PEACOCK need to be removed? ~2026-73372-0 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertVelline @~2026-73372-0, practically everything requires an inline citation, and all of the draft's content must come from those sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise, how else can we trust what the draft says? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RobertVelline, and welcome to the Teahouse! I noticed we don't provide actual tea too often, so: :To answer your question, I took a look at the draft in question and it cites no reliable sources. Reliable sources, specifically independent secondary sources that cover the subject in significant detail (see WP:42, the Wikipedia version of the answer to life, the universe, and everything) in order to a) verify facts about the subject, and b) prove that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on it. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability to help you with proving the notability of the subject, if it even is notable. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hellllllllo

[edit]

can anyone tell me why my draft got declined and what i need to put sources on

Draft:Jon Zherka

thnx :) Gamb33ro (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i mean like specificall what needs to be improved Gamb33ro (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that people who don't know him and don't care about him have published major stories all about him, in major trusted publications. You also need to wipe out all the information that comes from him, or from people who know him. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gamb33ro. It looks like all four of your sources are affiliated with the subject, so there is no evidence this person is notable or we can reliably trust the draft. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://x.com/ZherkaOfficial hes got 200k followers on his twitter and 160k on his youtube,https://www.youtube.com/jonzherka ill add it to the draft, Is that enough? Gamb33ro (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you actually read the links I gave. WP:N especially. So no, that is not enough. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i think i understand now. I'll grab some articles about zherka and find if they can verify any info, if they;ll can ill add them, and then ill come back and ask if this is enough. Thanks so much! Sorry for not reading the hyperlinks, i mean i just did but sorry for not doing it at first. Gamb33ro (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There i added and linked some sources Gamb33ro (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UGC. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that "are affiliated with" part; on Wikipedia, reliable sources need to be independent of the subject of the article. For example, the U.S. government as a source to write an article about the U.S. Constitution is not independent as the Constitution is the government's charter and the document that established the government, therefore, it is not independent of it as a source. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do i do this sorry @Tarlby there we go Gamb33ro (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Lynch44, who declined the draft. Like others have said, Popularity does not guarantee notability. What determines notability is the number of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Twitter posts aren't reliable per WP:UGC. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

trying to get a draft reviewed.

[edit]

Hi. Im trying to get a draft reviewed. It should be a simple page...It is referenced by a bunch of other wikipedia pages...So the organization in question Ardsley Curling Club wanted to make sure that they had a page for those links to land on. Draft:Ardsley Curling Club (ACC)

It was reviewed a couple of times the first night it was created January 27th ...and rejected because of insufficient references. At this point the references have been added....AND a bunch of other stuff was added and cleaned up.

Yet no one has looked at it in days. The review queue has moved from 1400 to 1900.

What can i do to get this page reviewed and (i assume) approved.

Thanks in advance. Paul10583 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to try. Just wait. It might be in a minute, it might be in a month or two. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 23:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paul10583 Please disclose your COI on your user page, for better visibility. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review?(related to the Olympics, perhaps?) 331dot (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I dont understand what you mean about disclosing my COI on my user page...Do you mean that i should explain what conflict i have with the Ardsley Curling Club on the paul10583 page?

And yes, the Ardsley Curling Club president (whom i know) would like to get the page up before the olympics because the have current and past members who are known olympic names...who even site the Ardsley club on their olympics pages.

TY Paul10583 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Paul10583, you post the additional COI notice on your user page (i.e. Paul10583). -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You assume approved? That's quite an assumption, Paul10583. Better than just waiting, spend these frustrating minutes, hours, days or weeks getting a grasp of how references work. (Tip: You add the reference immediately after the assertion that it supports.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for commenting...AND thanks to the person who actually looked at my draft and told me what was mechanically wrong with my references.

Now i can put the citiation in the correct place so they can be clicked on AND i need to have a more historical third party reference for the history/existence of the club.

So at least i know how to proceed.

-paul Paul10583 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's improving rapidly, Paul10583. But read carefully. I mean, the first sentence (and a bit?) reads: The Ardsley Curling Club (ACC) is a curling, club started in 1932. is a dedicated-ice curling club in Westchester County, New York, about thirty minutes north of New York City. Grammatical oopsie. And if you don't specify either where in NYC (its center, whatever that might be? It's northern edge) or whether you're assumed to be traveling by car, bicycle or whatever, the distance is very unclear. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for reading the draft and giving advice and catching some of the awful grammatical oopsies I missed on my last submission. This can be very overwheming. Im finally getting a hang of it (i think) :D Paul10583 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI editor - no responses to {{Edit COI}} proposals on deceased father's stub article

[edit]

Hello Teahouse volunteers,

I am the daughter of Paul Deheuvels (article: Paul Deheuvels) and have disclosed a clear COI.

The article is a short stub. I have made several small, sourced {{Edit COI}} proposals on the talk page (e.g., updating lead for death date, adding honors list, brief research summary), but they have received no responses or action yet.

The actual page of Paul Deheuvels is false (retired instead of emeritus; bio limited to high school and college; two lines on scientific work). He is an academician, elected member of ISI, ISS and corresponding member of the Real Academia, because of the scientific work (for which I provided links).

Talk page: Talk:Paul Deheuvels

I would greatly appreciate if an experienced editor could review one or two of the proposals and either implement them or explain why not. I'm happy to make any adjustments.

Thank you for your help!

FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that your father passed away 4 days ago. May his memory be a blessing. I must ask, though, would that not mean that he no longer holds those elected positions?

Do you have sources that say these things? Preferably independent ones, as the article already has a template tag regarding excessive primary sources?

Unfortunately, if not, there is little we can do. I know a significant amount of things about many Wikipedia article subjects (including biographies) that aren't in the articles themselves, but because these things aren't independently and/or reliably sourced, I can't add them. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearly declaring your COI, FleurTdeFrance. You ask for many changes. Here's the most compact item (Proposed additions:academic work): Several math scientists refer to their invitations to foreign universities, which I propose to add on Paul Deheuvels page. It allows to follow the paths of ideas and communications. This isn't a clear request; rather, it's a rationale for and description of material to be added. It expects some other editor to read the description, imagine what it might entail, decide if it should be implemented.... But most other editors who might be interested in implementing suggestions are hurried. You may, if you wish, provide a rationale for the addition; but in order to greatly increase the likelihood of acceptance you should provide the material to be included (complete and of course referenced, so that it can be added verbatim). Incidentally "Several articles about similar mathematicians include XYZ, so this article about a mathematician should include XYZ too" is not a strong argument. In principle, you should instead cite a policy or guideline, but in practice attempting to do that is hard work. So I suggest instead that if you appeal to precedent you should point to precedent in one or more featured articles (as these have been rigorously checked and are supposed to be representative of the best in Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

This is the text I mention to complete the strictly academic work:

Beyond his scientific contributions, Paul Deheuvels played a major role in structuring statistics in France, notably by founding and directing the Laboratoire de Statistique Theorique et Appliquee (LSTA) at Universite Pierre et Marie Curie from 1980 to 2013^[1].

He supervised nearly numerous PhD students, many of whom have become prominent in academia and industry. He held visiting professorships at institutions including KU Leuven (Belgium), Universita degli Studi di Torino (Italy), Columbia University (1989, 1999), and Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands)^[2]. FleurTdeFrance (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will post the rest in the talk about the page of Paul Deheuvels Talk:Paul Deheuvels FleurTdeFrance (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I have posted them all in Talk:Paul Deheuvels FleurTdeFrance (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "LPSM Paul Deheuvels".
2. ^ "Academie des Sciences".

FleurTdeFrance, when you write

"Academie des Sciences".

I first thought that you meant

"Paul Deheuvels". Academie des Sciences. 23 January 2026.

(Note the needed information that I have added to the latter.) But I couldn't find all the information on it that's attributed to it. (I simply searched within it for "columbia", "leuven" and "louvain", and found none of the three.) I'm pretty sure that the information appears on Deheuvels' CV, to which the page links (and which I didn't bother to digest). But if the reference is to his CV, we're saying "He did this, and our reason for saying this is that he says he did it." And this is unsatisfactory. (Yes, it's inconceivable that a distinguished Professor Emeritus would stud his CV with fiction, but we don't rate credibility by age or eminence.) So you need better references.-- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you. You are absolutely right that for now, I haven't found precise other sources about visiting professorships. The information below are summed up on the Academie page, but also in The Festschrift.

The text could suppress that part for now and would become:

Beyond his scientific contributions, Paul Deheuvels played a major role in structuring statistics in France, notably by founding and directing the Laboratoire de Statistique Theorique et Appliquee (LSTA) at Universite Pierre et Marie Curie from 1980 to 2013.

He supervised numerous PhD students, many of whom have become prominent in academia and industry^[1][2]. FleurTdeFrance (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "Mathematical Statistics and Limit Theorems: Festschrift in Honour of Paul Deheuvels".
2. ^ "Academie des Sciences".

Should I make a new article? Treaty of Fort Laramie (1858)

[edit]

Is the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1858 notable enough to make an article of? I saw articles for other treaties of fort laramie but never the one in 1858. Dekryptab!e (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dekryptab!e, and welcome to the teahouse! Since I realised we don't actually serve tea that often, here you go:

To answer your question, you would need to browse, say, Google Scholar and see if there are at least 3 or 4 reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject in significant detail. See WP:42, Wikipedia's version of the ultimate answer to the life, the universe, and everything. From that you can deduce if that is notable enough. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Error

[edit]

Draft:Norwegian Aura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Cite Error - Named reference was invoked but never found." Any fixes? Evant79 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you copied from another article; please don't do that, it can lead to confusions like these. You need to go to the article you copied from, click on that source you used to take you to the references, go to the first instance of that reference (marked a), and copy that so that it actually defines the reference. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evant79, welcome to the teahouse. I presume you are talking about Draft:Norwegian Aura. The draft is filled with instances of invoking references (like ), but they aren't defined. To define this one, you need a reference that looks like (ref content). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article ideas

[edit]

Hello, teahouse. I was here, I think last year? I haven't been on in a while. But anyways, I was hoping to actually commit to an account for once (I've recently been banned on scratch for a misconception/account mixup, with no apparent appeal method) and was hoping to fix my internet rep before I become a YouTuber by building some cred online. So, I was hoping someone could give me an idea for an article that either doesn't exist yet or is so arbitrary or obscure that nobody will care if I make a duplicate. Thanks, @Notsharediplol Notsharediplol (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an inexplicably complicated plan to get unbanned from a semi-popular coding website, and I'm not sure how creating a Wikipedia page links to it, but nevertheless it's good you are asking rather than forging ahead.

1) Editors and reviewers will know if you have created a duplicate of a page that already exists, and your page will be deleted very quickly. That is not a good idea.

2) There are lists of possible articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles, where people can ask for another editor to create an article. It would be good to look for requested articles that you have a pre-existing interest in, because you'll have a notion of whether or not the subject of the request article is actually notable etc.

If you have questions or ideas let me know. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This whole plan doesn't make sense. It doesn't improve your cred at all to do any of this, because nobody on other sites is going to believe "that was me on Wikipedia, I swear!" TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And "Hey look, that guy who got banned has also worked on some no-name crap on Wikipedia, so he's OK after all" is never going to be said. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Notsharediplol Also, at sort of a deeper level, cred doesn't come from your actions. It comes from the guesses people make about why you acted the way you did, and from how your actions affected them. Treating people badly in one place, and then trying to "work that off" by going to a different place and treating some different people better, ... well, if I do something to you so bad that you kick me out of your house and tell me to never come back, are you really going to change your mind if I later act OK to someone else, and I call you and tell you I was nice to them? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting codes

[edit]

Where is the page on Wikipedia which shows how to do Wikitext ? Italics, bold, bold+italics, bullet points, etc ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Help:Wikitext#Format and Help:Wikitext#Common_templates? You can also click on "Source" instead of "Visual" when editing a page and it will have bold, italic etc. on the top left corner above the text box. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

draft

[edit]

I got blocked from publishing drafts on my... well draft, I listened to what the moderators said and more than doubled both the sources AND content of the page, as well as corrected some less formal writing, however it's being "automatically" blocked from being updated. I cant keep this tab open forever and I want to publish my draft which i've been working on and move onto other work. They blocked it because I didn't have enough sources, however now I do so can someone please help me

Draft:Jon Zherka Gamb33ro (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you ask to be unblocked. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AdmiralCarl, they aren't blocked. Its filter 614 stopping them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've pushed the edit through. There wasn't a need to be worried, since it was stopped by an edit filter, meaning the content was saved as a log entry. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I was able to publish the edit. Gamb33ro (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wish the draft gets approved! AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

<3 Gamb33ro (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamb33ro Your draft contains a lot of what he says about himself. You basically need to wipe all of that, and put only what reliable publishers want to say about him. For example his religion and the details of his ethnicity: they can't be mentioned unless publishers have said them in their own words (without getting prompted by him). TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 01:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers, wouldn't him saying hes catholic and Albanian be permitted under WP:BLPSELFPUB? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My concern on BLPSELFPUB is part 5, which says an article can't include too much self-sourced material. Otherwise you're right. (I think this one may have way too much of it.) TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 02:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you not heed the advice in my decline comment, but you actively removed it.

I will repeat here what I said there: my strong suggestion to you is to give up on your draft for now. The odds of someone managing to successfully create an article as their first ever action on Wikipedia are astronomical.

It is patently obvious at the moment that you have no idea what a good source should be, or how to demonstrate notability; and that's fine, nobody would expect any differently from an editor whose account is literally a day old. Stick around making smaller edits to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works for a while. Creating new articles is literally one of the most difficult tasks here. Athanelar (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and defamation

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In here, and many other subjects, there are many un registered ppl spamming and defamationing (is that the word?) Wikipedia, saying "Exactly. A mouthpiece for propaganda and the incitement of hatred. Among the so-called "editors" and "authors" of Wikipedia there are now far too many biased pseudo-intellectuals, people with nothing in common with humanism. And Wikipedia protects them." when it's literally them, it's pretty bad for Wikipedia's name as that page is literally advertised. So I think that stuff like that should be removed as it is false. CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 05:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the vulgar and purely disruptive edits. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your thoughts?

[edit]

What do you think of this section? MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it there? Isn't it only saying obvious things? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 08:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it only suggesting to do the things everyone already knows they should do? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But it's probably better to put it there as a shortened guideline that will be seen by everyone who opened it and probably want to contribute.

The main point is that the section is to store uncitated claims of vague accuracy in order to give it a chance of having a citation while keeping the article clean off of ^{[citation needed]}, since most of the time, it was time and luck that helped me to sort these kind of things out, as a guy who is not really familiar with this topic.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People often edit an article without reading the talk page first, so please don't be surprised if some people ignore your request. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to read the talk page before editing to stumble upon the section. They just need to read it sometime.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

help me to create article

[edit]

hi i am new here, in technology, i seen one my insperation who is called harsh vardhan (ai evangelist), seems no wiki for him, but he is notiable person can anyone write article or help to me wiki article for him? RajBlr01 (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RajBlr01, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who choose what they wish to work on, the chances of somebody responding positively to your request are small.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sure thanks, i will do the same. when i explored i just curious about who is inspired me so i though i can create, difintly i appricate your time for to help and described about how to achive and how publish article thats great, thanks RajBlr01 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for independent review of a draft biography (COI declared)

[edit]

Hello,

I have prepared a draft biography in my user space and have declared a conflict of interest, as I work as an administrative assistant for the subject.

For this reason, I am not submitting the draft myself. The draft is fully written in an encyclopedic tone and is ready for review.

I would appreciate it if an independent editor could review and, if appropriate, submit the draft via Articles for Creation.

Courtesy link: Draft:Dieter Jaksch

Thank you very much. Psonmez (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. You are allowed to submit a draft for a review, that is one reason for the review process.

I have placed the draft in Draft space at Draft:Dieter Jaksch and placed the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for a review. Draft space is the preferred location for draft submissions and can be accessed via the Article Wizard.

However, your draft is completely unsourced. We need to know where you are getting your information from so it can be verified. Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn about referencing.

As you are employed in relation to the subject, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and for moving the draft.

Just to clarify: I have declared a conflict of interest, as I work as an administrative assistant for the subject, but I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, nor is Wikipedia editing part of my employment. I therefore understand this as a close connection rather than paid editing.

For this reason, I am trying to proceed carefully and involve independent editors in both sourcing and submission.

I am currently collecting independent secondary sources and will list them on the draft talk page shortly.

Thank you again for your guidance. Psonmez (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially it doesn't matter if you are paid directly for editing Wikipedia or not...you can call it a close connection (sounds a bit like lawyering around imho), but as User:331dot does, I think we are in PAID territory here, and it should be declared accordingly. Lectonar (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification.

To avoid any ambiguity, I will add a paid editing disclosure in line with the Terms of Use, even though I am not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. I appreciate the guidance and will proceed accordingly. Psonmez (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Psonmez. The subject of the draft is your boss. If you succeed in getting an article published, that will be good for your career, because you are behaving like an ambitious self-starter. Make the paid editing disclosure. Your approach to writing the draft is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable article is to gather up properly formatted references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Then, all you need to do is neutrally summarize what those sources say. At this point, you are writing what you know personally about your boss. That leads to many problems, especially with the core content policy No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you are employed by the subject, see also WP:BOSS. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. I understand the points raised under WP:BOSS and related policies. I have made the appropriate disclosures and have stepped back from directly drafting the article text, leaving sourcing, summarizing, and submission to independent editors. Psonmez (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to do that, the draft is entirely promotional and unsourced, it is down to you to edit accordingly and submit. Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments.

I would like to clarify that I am employed by the university, not by the subject personally, and that this work provides me with no financial or career-related benefit. Nevertheless, due to my professional relationship with the subject, I am deliberately following the guidance set out under WP:BOSS and related conflict-of-interest policies.

As explicitly stated in WP:BOSS and the associated help pages, editors with a professional connection to the subject are advised not to draft or submit article text themselves, but instead to seek review and involvement from independent, experienced editors. This is the approach I am taking.

It can be readily verified that the subject is a well-established academic in the field, and that a concept bearing his name (the "Jaksch gate") is already discussed within Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_atom_quantum_computer#Jaksch_gate

This link is provided for contextual reference only and not as a source.

In response to feedback received, I have made the appropriate conflict-of-interest disclosures and listed independent secondary sources on the talk page. The draft itself was intended solely as a neutral starting point based on publicly available information and does not contain promotional language. If the draft is considered unsuitable to proceed further without my direct involvement, I consider it more appropriate to leave it at that rather than to advance it myself. Psonmez (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have supplied on the talk page are insufficiently detailed to be of use, the draft will be deleted after 6 months, your best option is to edit the draft yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think the user has been using AI for their responses, they seem overly formal, especially with the excessive "thank you" and "clarification" correct me if I'm wrong but the responses seem odd. Mwen Se Keyol Translator-a (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that they have used AI in every single one of these responses, the boilerplate response format is obvious from a mile off. Athanelar (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Food and list articles

[edit]

Can I create a List of Armenian dishes article (similar to List of Greek dishes and List of Philippine dishes etc.) even though List of dishes from the Caucasus already exists and includes Armenian dishes? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian cuisine seems to largely serve this function already. Athanelar (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can make it as a redirect. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect would be the right option. Thank you all! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed: rolling sharpeners as article or as addition to existing article

[edit]

Heya, I'm considering writing an article about rolling sharpeners, a sharpening tool for knives. Since there are articles about other sharpening tools such as sharpening stones, honing steels, or razor strops, I was wondering whether it would be deemed notable? Or would you rather edit the section ,,mechanical sharpeners" in Sharpening to also include rolling sharpeners? L0ll0Bi0NDa369 (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L0ll0Bi0NDa369,

If you can find enough sources about that well-defined topic, it sounds like it could be notable enough. See WP:42 and wP:YFA. I see you got some feedback at your initial attempts at Draft:Rolling knife sharpener. Even if you merely added some info to the Sharpening article, it would still have to be written properly and cited clearly. DMacks (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DMacks,

How many sources are usually considered enough? i'm overall new to wikipedia, so thank you for your patience with my silly questions... How about 5? I'm aware it probably also depends on the length of the wiki article and the quality / information density of the source. So just a rough rule of thumb measure would already enough to help, if thats not too rude to ask.

Also thank you for commenting on my initial attempts. When you say "cited clearly", does it mean more sources? Or same sources referenced more often (e.g. after every sentence it refers to?). I'm well accustomed with academic citing but entirely new to wiki citing.

Written properly means without use of LLMs? To be transparent, English is not my mother tongue, so I did write a first draft myself and had it proofread by an LLM to help with grammar, spelling and choice of words. Is there a way to declare this without the entire article being rejected? OR would it generally be wiser to write it WITH possible grammatical (or other linguistic) mistakes and WITHOUT the LLM support?

Overall, thank you for reply. I'm happy to learn! L0ll0Bi0NDa369 (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The companies that produce LLMs lie a lot about their capabilities. Using an LLM has a strong chance of introducing factual inaccuracies into your content. It would be wiser to write it without the LLM 'support' and let other editors fix your grammatical and vocabulary errors.

Fixing each other's mistakes is a key part of the Wikipedia ethos, but that's not a reason to recklessly use a tool that generates them. DS (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong material that LLMs create is hard to repair, because it's made to look nice. It's like a slick professional liar, or more accurately a skilled but insane writer who's lying without realizing it. Mistakes made by an honest human are much faster and easier to fix. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 15:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on the Draft's talk page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories

[edit]

Hey folks,

What's the policy that suggests removing categories from an article when more specific subcategories exist? (e.g. removing 'Cat:American actors' when 'Cat:21st century American male actors' is already in the article) I often hesitate to trim categories from an article since I don't have a policy I can link to justify the removal.

Thanks :) LayTaffer(they/she) 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want WP:CATSPECIFIC TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, thank you so much! LayTaffer(they/she) 16:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @LaffyTaffer, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think WP:DIFFUSE (which is a different part of the same page) gives a more nuanced answer. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah that's perfect, I ran into the issue of non-diffusing categories shortly after posting that initial message. Thank you! LayTaffer(they/she) 16:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Translations in the lead

[edit]

I just started a GA Review, and I just wanted to know if there are any relevant policies or templates to including a translation of the title in the lead (the title is a non-English word). I checked WP:MOSLEAD but it wasn't there. Are there any relevant things I should know about here? I know it should be included, but I wanted to make sure the formatting is correct. Specifically, if you need a reference, the article is Duetos (Armando Manzanero album). FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think your translated title is fine. It has the advantage of being an easy and non-controversial thing to translate, and the format looks right, so I believe people would have a very difficult time finding any way to complain about it. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! I was mostly worried about formatting, I figured it was right but might as well check. Again, thanks! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a tag

[edit]

Hello, a new article Veronika (cow) needs tagging to make clear that it is not established science, cattle do not use tools. I'm not sure whether an RFC wouldn't be a good idea also, but what tag? Can you help here? Thanks. I don't know why my signature is always red, I am logged in. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If the provided sources are not being accurately summarized, please tell how on the article talk page. Wikipedia does not, in Wikipedia's voice, qualify the content of an article if sources do not. I don't see any claims in the article that this is established science, it is something new. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The claim is that scientists are rethinking tool use in cattle. There is no evidence of that except for the two that created the story. It needs a 'sceptical' tag if there's such a thing. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying they faked the video evidence that's linked at the bottom of the article?

I don't see any claim in the article saying all cows use tools. I do see them saying that this one clearly does, and that she doesn't seem extra smart compared to other cows. "Other cows might be able to use tools, because this one did" is certainly a reasonable thing to say under the circumstances. It is no longer reasonable for anyone to say "Cows can't use tools", unless the video was faked. (Though it IS of course still reasonable to say that they usually don't.) TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's an AI generated video. See it this way: probability of 10,000 years of knowledge about cattle and tool use being overturned close to zero, probability, in 2026, of a deefake science hoax nearer 100%. Please feel free to discuss further. This article has Wikipedia voice saying this cow uses tools, it should say this is a report of a cow using tools. (by two authors) It bears the characteristics of a hoax as described by Wikipedia. I'm waiting for an editor to say 'yes this isn't right'. Cheers TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tag articles as a means of commenting on their content; we tag them because they either need to be cleaned up, or checked to see whether they need to be cleaned up. In the absence of a specific tag, use a more general one and describe the issue on the talk page; or simply do the cleanup yourself.

That said, at present I can't see a claim that "scientists are rethinking tool use in cattle" in the article; to which specific wording do you object? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can only say that scientists are sceptical if a scientist writes somewhere that she/he is sceptical. Something is established as soon as it's published in a reputable journal. So at the moment, the article isn't bad science. It may prove irrelevant because in the fullness of time poor Veronika's role as the first recorded tool-using cow might be dwarfed by the bigger picture of bovine scratchiness, but that's a question for the future. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I completely agree. The absence of corroboration does not mean it's wrong but it does also mean that wikipedia should not treat it as fact - to do with due weight. There is no evidence beyond one (AI) video and the word of two people. It can be regarded as a claim, that's all. Not how this article is written. Cheers TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Scientists rethinking" It's in the lead cited to some press but the scientists doing the rethinking are the authors of the correspondence, no others have made any input. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This last comment you've made is going against the way Wikipedia works. When reliable news outlets publish something, they are recognizing it as significant enough for them to report on. Wikipedia follows that. If you found false claims in the article, that would be different - but you haven't mentioned any. If you're not convinced that this one cow has used tools, you have explaining to do. If you're not convinced that ALL cows use tools, that's perfectly reasonable - and the article isn't saying they do. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 22:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes appreciate that. It is a question of tone when there is only one original source.TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your red signature is like other red links, showing that it leads to an empty page. That's because you haven't put anything on it, and there's no rule saying you have to. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just put something on your talkpage, so that's blue now. You can just publish something on your userpage too, if you like. Grabergs Graa Sang (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the possibility that a media reporter overstated a researcher's claim, perhaps enough that the researcher would respond "I never said that, and I wouldn't go that far". So checking the relationship between the reporting and the research paper can be useful. BUT we can't make people not say what they said just because we disagree. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 16:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia work ngl

[edit]

Idk how ~2026-66342-6 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @~2026-66342-6, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd reccomend reading Wikipedia:Introduction to get you started. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Extra Eyes on Draft:Martina Dimoska's References

[edit]

Hello, everyone! I'm back again. First of all, thank you to whoever reads this and types out a response! My draft was recently declined and I received a good amount of feedback on here a couple of days ago. I'm currently on my recovery journey and I invited an editor to have a once-over on my references. Feedback from them was my sources are generally unreliable. I had to sleep on the perennial source list and found it out to be so. I have a full paragraph of questions to ask about specific categories of my references but I would like anyone to take a peek and reconfirm that I have severely unreliable references (aside the LinkedIns and 404 error message from ASCEND, I know, I'll get to it ). Please note that if you respond, I'll hop onto you like a leech and never let go because I tired and confoosed. Thanks!

SpaceTrail (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis, in order:

1. Is an interview; can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF but not notability.
2. WP:PASSING mention
3. Ditto
4. Ditto
5. My browser can't translate Macedonian, but given the quotation marks in the title, I assume another interview.
6. Authored by the subject. Again, only usable for WP:ABOUTSELF
7. Another interview.
8. Another interview.
9. Passing mention.
10. Ditto
11. Ditto

I'm not going to continue from there. In the first 11 sources, not a single one of them is usable to establish notability.

My advice to you is to find three sources that meet all of the requirements at WP:Golden rule, and trim the article down to include only the information included in those sources. You can look at expanding it from there, but there's no point in having 25 interviews to cite minor biographical details if you don't first have the necessary significant coverage to establish notability.

Imagine if I told you "This show is really good, you should watch it!" and when you ask me "Oh really? What's it about?" I reply "Oh, I don't know, but it was on a list of the Top 10 Best Shows of 2026, and the show's creator said it's amazing." Athanelar (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar awe, man. Thank you so so much for this. Seems I'll need to first understand different acceptable sources in-depth before proceeding further. This would mean a significant trim down of the article. However, if I can only find 4 sources that meet the golden rule, then wouldn't the notability of the subject come into question? SpaceTrail (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources that meet the golden rule is a solid threshold for establishing notability. You can arguably get away with less than that in some circumstances, and more than that is a bonus, but three golden rule sources is a great benchmark to hit.

Trimming down the article is a goal, not a downside: less is often more, and it's much better to have a smaller amount of robustly-sourced content than an endless wall of dubiously-sourced waffle (not saying that's what your current draft is as I haven't read it, just a general point) Athanelar (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oooohhh! Okay, okay! This makes sense! I'll work with this. I'll trim it and revert! May I reach out on your talk page in case this topic gets archived before I'm done? @Athanelar SpaceTrail (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can. Athanelar (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to business, instead of waiting around. Yes, the old sources are bad. So do you have some much better ones? If you don't have them, then either look for them or give up. This isn't complicated. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 18:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:BITEy. Nobody's forcing you to respond here if you don't have the patience to do so calmly and helpfully. Athanelar (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. @SpaceTrail, I'm sorry for the harsh tone of that message. I do hope some better sources are available, and that when you find them the article turns out well. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 19:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you for apologising and saying that. I even appreciate you more for your initial response. My sources are criminal. I should be flogged at a pole. SpaceTrail (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha definitely no flogging. There are always going to be bad sources in the world, and it sometimes takes experience to spot them. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 22:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan page won't publish

[edit]

I have tried several times to publish an article about a prominent man in Texas. I have followed all of the guidelines and the latest rejection mentioned it was an orphan page, meaning no other pages link to him. How can others link to him if I can't get his page published? This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Woody_L._Hunt Anglass21 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anglass21. I'll ping the reviewer, @User:Youshouldchooseausernamethat, because I'm also confused. An article being an orphan doesn't relate to notability. If the reviewer can point out problems with the sources themselves, then I'd understand. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comment and the decline reason are two different things. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 20:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you did say Because of WP:ORPHANPROBLEM, I won't be accepting... (emphasis on the because) so it was confusing. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 06:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should Denno Senshi Porygon be changed to Denno Senshi Porigon?

[edit]

Should Denno Senshi Porygon be changed to Denno Senshi Porigon? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when a mouse cursor is on a Japanese text, a small textbox next to the mouse cursor says "Japanese-language text", but for some reason when i hover over "dennousenshiporigon" at the very beggining of the article, like the first sentence of this article, then that small textbox dosen't appear right next to the mouse cursor. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thing to note on is that other than the already existing discussion on the usage of the video in this article, the color quality of the video should also be discussed because the source of the video came from Internet Archive of a VHS recording. This is because i noticed that in each different screenshot/video sources, the color each look different from each other. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my reason for the change from Denno Senshi Porygon to Denno Senshi Porigon is because (Japanese: dennousenshiporigon, Hepburn: Denno Senshi Porigon). It dosen't make sense for me as to why it is written as Porygon rather than Porigon as it should be. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Denno Senshi Porygon (as the article is currently written) should be the Selected anniversaries/On this day section on December 16, 2026 and December 16, 2027 (the 30th anniversary of this episode's airdate), and i think that "induced epileptic seizures in 685 children" should be removed and changed, because not all were seizures and the number of 685 was from a survey by Japan's Fire and Disaster Management Agency, in fact, it is in thousands as written on a source used in the Japanese Wikipedia http://www.maroon.dti.ne.jp/mamos/tv/pikacyuu.html This source has valuable information along with links to other sources with valuable information, this one https://info-geocities.yahoo.co.jp/Hollywood/1751/12chanime.html isn't archived in the Wayback Machine, which sucks because this one is a "|This page is amazing . It tells you a lot of things you didn't know. A must-see!!", try finding it on other web archiving sites. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also on http://www.maroon.dti.ne.jp/mamos/tv/pikacyuu.html , it features a section named "<>" which details that "The second and third meetings of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's "Clinical Research Group on Photosensitive Seizures" included an analysis of a survey conducted on approximately 10,000 children (elementary, junior high, and high school students) in four prefectures from mid-January to early February. Of the 9,209 valid responses, 4,026 (43.7%) had watched the Pokemon program in question. Of these, a whopping 417 (10.4%) experienced health problems, with the most common symptom being "eye pain" (40.5%).

If this survey were reliable, the number of children suffering from health problems across Japan would have been on the order of hundreds of thousands (10% of several million). However, this does not reflect the reality. Some doctors seem to think it is a bit strange (but with their senior colleagues at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare seriously discussing it, it is hard to question it), but the bottom line is that they were fooled by some bad kids. Of course, many junior and senior high school students filled out the questionnaires nonsense .

"I lost consciousness of my surroundings" and "My hands and feet trembled, twitched, or had convulsions" were the two most common symptoms among 18-year-olds, but since nearly 90% of the 700 people who were actually taken to the hospital by ambulance were elementary and junior high school students, the survey results are a lie . Other symptoms such as "I felt tired," "I wet myself," and "My eyes felt like they were going to pop out of my head" are just the kind of jokes that these people would write down. Pediatricians who don't understand these things are a real problem. They may understand children's bodies, but they have no idea about children's minds.

To begin with, photosensitive seizures rarely cause the symptom of "eye pain." This is why some doctors questioned why such a question was included. Perhaps it was chosen because it was at the top of the list of options, and they were discussing this in broad daylight in a conference room at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (lol). Even such a pointless (and ultimately completely useless) fact-finding survey would eat up millions of yen in the budget (our tax money, of course). Bureaucratic work is truly hopeless.

Furthermore, I was unable to find the final report of this investigation on the Internet. It is unclear whether such a document was ever compiled. Perhaps it was scrapped because it was so unscientific. What we must not forget is that the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has repeatedly conducted similarly unscientific investigations into AIDS and other drug-related issues, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility that the doctors who made up the research teams and committees may have similarly failed to raise doubts." This is important to note because the survey is extremly flawed and including it on Wikipedia is dangerous. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote more information in the Talk page of Denno Senshi Porygon (as the article name is currently written), so if you want to read about it, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon#Important_things_to_talk_about ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Denno Senshi Porygon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-73469-7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To answer your first question: the policy COMMONNAME says that the title of an article should be that used in the preponderance of (English language) sources. A quick look suggests to me that most of the sources don't use the title of the episode, and of those that do, some say "Porigon" and others "Porygon".

Given this, I think it is acceptable to move the article to Denno Senshi Porigon, which is currently a redirect. Because it's a redirect, it's best to request the move as a "technical move" at WP:RM.

Regarding the Japanese text: that is displayed using the template {{Nihongo}}, which does not, as far as I can tell, give you a tooltip (hover), but there are other templates which do. I guess that the other examples you are talking about use a different template.

I haven't read the bulk of your post here, and I don't intend to. If there are questions in it that need answering, please restate them succinctly. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, by the way i wrote more information in the Talk page of Denno Senshi Porygon (as the article name is currently written) instead of talking about it in the Teahouse, so if anyone wants to read about this, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denn%C5%8D_Senshi_Porygon#Important_things_to_talk_about ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request it at WP:RM? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you request it at WP:RM? I don't have a account. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Unknown births' category

[edit]

Can I add it when the person's birth date isn't mentioned on the page? or does "unknown" mean that the person's birth date is not known at all (not just that it doesn't appear on the page)? Thank you! ScottyNolan (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown births isn't an existing category. If the article doesn't mention a birth date, don't add a birth category. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyNolan, please click on Category:Year of birth unknown for a helpful explanation of its use and also those of Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people), Category:Date of birth missing, Category:Date of birth unknown, and other potential confusables. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Allen (songwriter)

[edit]

It should be recorded that Ms. Allen attended Waynflete School in Portland for her high school education; class of 2010. This is proved on Waynflete's many social media pages praising her for her accomplishments. Add Ms. Allen to the alumni list on Waynflete School page, too. ~2026-76551-8 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't cite social media except to verify a subject's quotes or other uncontroversial information. This would require a much stronger source. --Jeske Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What webpages can you find so that it can be used as reliable sources in wkipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SOURCETYPES to be specific. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source for this, then make the suggestion on Talk:Amy Allen (songwriter). Of course, cite the reliable source when you do so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the company "Ghostwriting" aka "Brilliant Enterprise Solution Ltd" and "Brilliant Minds" legitimate?

[edit]

A company advertising in NZ (where I live) offers services for Wikipedia Page Creation and claims to be NZ's best but it's not based in nz (despite having a NZ email addy) and payment is asked for upfront through an offshore bank. All these signs are red-flags to me but their proposal and email communication seem legit - are you able to tell me if I should walk away? I'm keen to get a page submitted but I can't do it without help. Any advice greatly accepted. Donna Letstalkaboutwomen (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCAM. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want guidance to create an article see Wikipedia:Your First Article. However, most editors would reccomend not even thinking about starting a new article until you have made several edits and understand how Wikipedia works. I'd reccomend maybe near the 100-200 edit threshold to start working on a page through the Article Wizarrd. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Letstalkaboutwomen: Assume any company offering Wikipedia article-writing services is a scam at best. --Jeske Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does at best mean? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikitionary: "In the most favorable of conditions, especially in a situation that is otherwise negative." AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, how could it be worse? A scam already seems at worst. I would say that it's either a severely uneducated Wikipedian at best, a scam at worst. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a robbery would be worse, but you can have your own opinion. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would define a scam as a robbery by trickery, but I probably should stop getting off-topic. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VidanaliK: Worse would be if it's intended to harvest PII for identity theft. --Jeske Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The company is most definitely a scam. It looks really weird, it is registered on a UK government website. It was also, for some reason, involved with the UN, but the company was expelled due to lack of communication. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I appreciate your response. Too risky methinks. I would love to offer a page for submission to Wikipedia but the technical editing is beyond me and I was looking for a company that could do it for me if I sent them the material. I'd rather they were NZ based. I'll try and hunt someone down through other channels. I appreciate your help Letstalkaboutwomen (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. Any company that offers to create a Wikipedia page for a fee is a scam. See WP:SCAM. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At best... AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or a form of social engineering. The point is that it's not legitimate. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you can submit a draft for review at the article wizard. I could also do a basic search to see if the topic meets our notability criteria--the search would only be surface level and it would only determine if the topic meets our most basic criteria. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Letstalkaboutwomen (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Letstalkaboutwomen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would want to ask, why do you want a Wikipedia article created so much that you are even considering the possibility of paying somebody to do so?

If your reason is (or is like) any of the following:

• to tell more people about it
• to enhance somebody's or something's web presence
• to present a new invention, theory, or explanation
• to argue a case for or against anything

then it is not what Wikipedia is for, and such an article will almost certainly not be accepted. Please see What Wikipedia is not. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can a volunteer here assist a new user?

[edit]

Anonim71 (talk * contribs * deleted contribs * logs * filter log * block user * block log) created Wikipedia:Report a violation to list some concerns they have with the article Turkish Kurdistan. Can somebody here assist them with getting their concerns to the right place? Also, anybody who has suggestions on what to do with that orphan page, I welcome that as well. --C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A new Wikipedia project page should not be created to list concerns. The talk page of Turkish Kurdistan would be a good place to post a discussion, and then they could notify the editors of WikiProject Kurdistan and WikiProject Turkey of the discussion to get input. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I leave a message on the user's talk page inviting/asking them to visit this discussion? AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That does not strike me as a good idea, AdmiralCarl. After all, the Teahouse is not for discussing content disputes or similar; so you'd have to say something like "At WP:Teahouse#Can a volunteer here assist a new user?, three or four of us have briefly discussed what to do, but the discussion shouldn't be extended, so please don't respond there". Which would be of no help and also sound dismissive. Meanwhile, the templates already posted to User talk:Anonim71 explain the situation. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first place to discuss problems in an article is at its own talk page. So for Turkish Kurdistan the place to discuss it is Talk:Turkish Kurdistan. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a redirect

[edit]

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How to delete a redirect ~2026-76788-5 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] What's the redirect? (Link to it with [[:redirect name]]) --Jeske Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Grounded videos ~2026-76788-5 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Courtesy link: Grounded videos And why do you want it deleted? Do you just feel like it, or would you mind telling us the reason so we can better help you? I can make a request for discussion at the appropriate venue for you. Cremastra (talk * contribs) 02:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grounded_videos&diff=prev&oldid=1336488046 ~2026-76788-5 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You're dancing on the line between "uncooperative" and "obstructive". Do you actually want help? I notice that "Grounded videos" is not mentioned at the redirect target. Is that the problem? Cremastra (talk * contribs) 02:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes ~2026-76788-5 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] FYI, the actual problem here might just be block evasion... WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Imbackjjj#04 February 2026. Magitroopa (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] OP indeffed for evasion. DMacks (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a template?

[edit]

block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How to delete a template? ~2026-76788-5 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] By carefully digesting and following the explanation at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think we're wasting our time. Here's what's now the OP's most recent edit. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] OP indeffed for evasion. DMacks (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] WP:SUPERHATting this post, OP blocked for block evasion; VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Giving feedback on the software?

[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I want to give feedback on a relatively recent change in the mobile interface. Where can I do that? --DocWatson42 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is your feedback regarding a particular bug you've identified, or more generally the way a feature works?

The more general feedback goes to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical); near the top of that page is a separate link for bug reporting. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 05:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A feature. Thank you. ^_^ --DocWatson42 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May i please get help?

[edit]

I drafted a biography about myself and learned that this is discouraged. I have independent sources and would appreciate help submitting it neutrally Agumemark (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome!

Which independent sources do you have? TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 07:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , thank you for showing interest, here are my sources ..

1. https://mbu.ug/2024/11/25/pearl-international-film-festival-awards-winners/
2. https://www.pearlfilmfestival.com/
3. https://www.africamonologue.com/finalists/agume-mark/
4. https://agumemark4.wixsite.com/agumemark-1
5. https://mediavision.ug/mediavision-academy-attends-the-11th-pearl-international-film-festival-in-kampala/
6. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29765190/
7. https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/entertainment/ugandan-actor-mark-agume-reaches-finals-of-af-NV_185309
8. https://www.africamonologue.com/
9. https://www.africamonologue.com/2024-finalists/
10. https://www.filmmakers.eu/en/actors/agume-mark https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13324273/

Agumemark (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agumemark, you created it here, but then wisely deleted it. I notice that you have enabled email contact. Don't be surprised if you get email from some "experienced Wikipedian", "Wikipedia moderator" or some such, offering to help you -- for a price. If you get any such email, have a good laugh at it and then delete it. Meanwhile, some Wikipedia editor could move your draft to Draft:Agume Mark if you liked -- free of charge. Although the draft would have to show clear notability; and all in all writing about yourself is, as you say, discouraged. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning , honestly i am having a hard time here , i created a draft and i openly declared a conflict of interest, took all the time to make sure i collect all reliable information about me and reliable sources . I am an actor in my country, notable , mentioned in festivals and i have some awards , recognized on google but an administrator here , just deleted my article , just like that , no warning , saying its Ai, but Ai is definitely reasonable for Grammar correction , i cant avoid that , i am having headache understanding this platform Agumemark (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Agumemark, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Editing Wikipedia is indeed quite complicated and difficult to understand.

But I think the overriding principle here is fairly straightforward: promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Note that promotion has a broader meaning than normal: it's not just trying to sell something, but includes telling the world what somebody wants people to know about themselves.

I find it hard to conceive of any other reason then promotion for trying to get an article about yourself published.

That comment is about intent, rather than execution: I'm sure it is possible in principle to write an article about yourself that doesn't come out promotional, but why would you want to? Once the article is accepted, you will not own or control it in any way - you won't even be allowed to edit it directly (though you will be welcome to make edit requests). Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When Is Ai Bad ?

[edit]

Hello , i am still crashing out , when an administrator completely deleted my article partially because it sounded so Ai written, But then i always use Ai to fix grammar. i am a new user and i plan to write articles about notable creatives in my country but now i don't know if , these wont be deleted if i use Ai again to correct my grammar. Agumemark (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please read Wikipedia:LLM and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Toarin (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted for being unambiguous advertising. What is also obvious is that an LLM was used to "write" the whole article, not just to correct grammar. Lectonar (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

generally is yes ~2026-58144-6 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was obviously was far more written by LLM than just some light grammar checking. It certainly doesn't bode well that your plan to write articles about notable creatives in your country apparently starts with promoting yourself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is "when is AI good?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone Help with this Draft

[edit]

hello fellow Wikipedian,I started this Draft for the tiktok Boy Band Boy throb Draft:Boy THROB ~2026-58144-6 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-58144-6, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Unless you have several sources which meet all the requirements in WP:42, there is no point in continuing with a draft. It doesn't look to me on a quick look as if you have even one source which meets the requirements (the first two don't appear to be independent of the band, and the other two aren't reliable sources).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-58144-6 There are plenty of ways to contribute other than creating new articles, and I highly encourage you to pursue them. Athanelar (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who to contact about changes in Wikipaedia

[edit]

To whom do I address a request a general change to all Wikipedia articles relating to a subject. ~2026-66342-1 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What subject and what change? Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-66342-1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The best place to discuss changes to a particular article is on the talk page of that article. If there are several articles, either start with one and start a discussion on its talk page; or see if there is an active WikiProject related to the articles, and open a discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject. (Often, if you look at the talk page of an article it will list the WikiProjects related to that article). ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You ~2026-66342-1 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question for my Userpage.

[edit]

So in my own userpage, User:HorseBro the hemionus, can i add userboxes related to porn especially Lesbian Porn and put it in my User Infobox too? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason, other than to scare most users away? jolieloverheartstalk 10:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to the comment you deleted: Why would you want to? First of all, there is no age minimum on Wikipedia, so a kid can now stumble upon your... likes. As I matter of fact, I have, so there's that. Also it sounds fetishistic to reduce a group's identity for your sexual consumption. Sure, do whatever you want privately, but do you seriously have to display that? It contributes to making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment. jolieloverheartstalk 11:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that it isn't allowed, simple as that. See our project content guideline at WP:UPYES. Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UPNO; there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense [...] and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community.

There is zero reason for you to broadcast your sexual proclivities on your userpage. Athanelar (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. jiraijohnny@+.Shya hearts 2Vep .+@ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.@.) 16:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

How do I make a edit ~2026-78225-2 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Editing Athanelar (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where to report a disruptive user?

[edit]

hello, if there is an administrator here somewhere, there is this user, who does not appear to be an admin, that likes to constantly revert edits from Temporary Accounts/IPs without ever explaining why. And whenever they explain why they reverted when asked by the frustrated editor on why they reverted the edits, they always make vague excuses. But they never mentioned why they are reverting the edit when they are doing the actual reverting, and if you look at their contributions, they make some edit contributions, yes, but they are also reverting edits without explaining why and it has made me and many other IPs frustrated. ~2026-78186-3 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-78186-3: okay... and will you tell us which of our millions of users you're referring to, or should we consult The Admins' Magic Crystal Ball(r)?

Alternatively, you can always go yourself post a {{uw-editsummary}} (if they are a newish user) or {{uw-editsummary2}} (if more experienced) on their talk page. To do that doesn't require admin rights. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review my first article Draft:Missa Hebie

[edit]

Hi everyone! Missa Hebie is my first article I'd appreciate a review and assessment Thank you..(: Muhskk (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, I am a newbie new page patroller and also been engaging with AfDs lately. I reported @Muhskk as a potential sock of Alakmarsaify yesterday, but they were cleared. I followed their activity in case anything else sus came up. Today, I noticed they moved this article into the mainspace from draft, so I reviewed it and it seems fine (very open to feedback on that assessment . I'm curious if WP policy is to remove content created by socks unilaterally. Anything I could/should have done differently? Thanks! WidgetKid ^{chat me} 17:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in AfD correction

[edit]

In listing an AfD at the first initial stage on the article page, I incorrectly listed the AfD as Tom Snow [1] instead of Thomas Snow (pianist). I was reading the name in the article and sources as Tom Snow. I corrected the link within the listing: [2] but not in the History Summary. Is this important enough to correct? I should know by now how to do this; but unfortunately I do not. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In future, use WP:TWINKLE for listing AfDs and it'll make your life much easier. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a little help with a draft

[edit]

Draft:Ardsley Curling Club (ACC)

Everyone was very helpful a couple of days ago with me getting the references right on the above draft for the Ardsley Curling Club. As far as I can tell...I now have them appropriately referenced in superscript and at the bottom of the page. They include 3 articles from the New York Times going back to 1966...as well as numerous other independent sources.

If possible, i'd like a little more help...

1)If someone can look at the draft and see if there is anything in it which would prevent approval

2)If someone has any more time than that....Would love someone to actually be able to approve it. We are on the eve of the Winter Olympics and one of the curlers who began at that club actually made the US Olympic team and the Club site is referenced by a number of other Wikipedia pages.

Thanks in advance.

-paul Paul10583 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul10583 Not familiar with sports articles, but I notice that the Notable members section is unsourced. Could you add sources for these or use WP:REFNAMEs if they are in sources used earlier in the article? HurricaneZeta^C 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...yes...they are referenced in an earlier paragraph from the us olympic team site....Should I move the reference down from a higher paragraph to the Notable members area?

thanks Paul10583 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can reuse references. For instance, if the information is sourced in your first reference ({{Cite web |title=History of Curling |url=https://www.electricscotland.com/history/curling/chapte r7.htm |access-date=2026-01-27 |website=www.electricscotland.com}}), you can add to the first part of it, making it {{Cite web |title=History of Curling |url=https://www.electricscotland.com/history/curling/chapte r7.htm |access-date=2026-01-27 |website=www.electricscotland.com}}. You can then reuse or invoke the reference by putting . This allows you to source multiple things to the same reference. HuricaneZeta's link also explains this. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool...thanks....took me a few moments to get the slashes / right...But now have references being reused. Paul10583 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul10583 Given that I have already declined your draft once, I will not do it again - but I will say that if it were up to me I would decline it again, because you have not actually addressed my feedback.

As a reminder: No independent in-depth coverage about the club itself is presented in the references. Please review WP:NCORP and WP:Golden rule

Articles about curling in general, or Team USA, do not demonstrate that the Ardsley Curling Club is notable. Nor does the article from 1966 about them dedicating their rink, or the article about a game taking place at their rink. You need to provide sources that offer significant coverage of the club itself. Passing mentions do not count. A 'gold standard' would be an independent article writing about the club's history, for example.

It's rather like me saying "Have you seen this movie? It's really good!" and when you ask "I haven't! What's it about, why should I watch it?" I reply "Oh, well, I haven't actually seen it but it's in the Honourable Mentions on this list of the Top 10 Best Movies of 2026, and the movie's creator says it's really good." Athanelar (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Radqueer and Democratic communism could be articles rather than redirects

[edit]

USER BLOCKED

OP is a block evasion account. (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Radqueer has never been used to refer to Queer radicalism, it refers to something else entirely, it's honestly difficult to describe what it is so here's a webpage explaining what Radqueer is https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/ This webpage has also been used as a source on other wikis and could be used on Wikipedia and there are resources in the webpage that could be used on Wikipedia, although Wayback Machine should be needed for some pages in the resources section because it has been sometime since these webpages have been made and they have either changed or got removed or deleted. And democratic communism could be a article rather than a redirect, because it used to be a article before it got deleted on 12th November 2007 from a discussion, why could Democratic communism have to be a article rather than a redirect? This is because just like how other variations of communism have their own articles and dosen't redirect to Communism, Democratic communism is a variation of communism and therefore could be its own article, and also now it's 2026 than in 2007, so it is different, i haven't seen how the article looked like in 2007, but nowadays you can find webpages about Democratic communism that could be used as sources on Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, user created sites like carrd are not acceptable as sources. See the policy on user generated content for more details, and make sure that "radqueer" has been covered by more than one reliable source and is notable before you think of writing an article. (despite being queer (and quite knowledgeable about my community) myself, I genuinely have no idea what that is, so there may not be many reliable sources available.) Much love, jiraijohnny@+.Shya hearts 2Vep .+@ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.@.) 16:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about these? https://www.beyondtheplus.org/ https://transid.org/ ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read what Radqueer is on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are self-published or involve user-generated content. Until bona-fide reliable source publishers like news organizations start writing about the term, it can't have a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Including https://www.beyondtheplus.org/? Orgnanizations are being used as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so why coundl't Beyond The Plus, a Seattle-based organization be used in Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Beyond The Plus also does public activism. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And also Beyond The Plus organizes events in public. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Plus comes across as an obscure personal self-publishing project consisting of a staff of two. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it does do public activism and organizes events in public. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, this is an extremely niche community centered around trying to include trans-disordered/racial/ethnic/age identities and extremely harmful paraphilias under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. Barely anything has been officially published on it, and I doubt there are enough "activists" for this cause to make a mark on pretty much anything. This may seem a bit bitey, but please, stick to Twitter and Tumblr for this kind of "fandom"-esque discourse. jiraijohnny@+.Shya hearts 2Vep .+@ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.@.) 18:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While there are undoubtably some very problematic parts of the community, the community actually highly varies from one to another and isn't entirely a "extremely niche community centered around trying to include trans-disordered/racial/ethnic/age identities and extremely harmful paraphilias under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella.", i mean most of them don't even have a official contact stance or are anti-contact, radqueer is a neutral term rather than a pro-contact term or anything, i mean there is even a Seattle-based orgnizanation named Beyond the Plus, which has its own website and public activism, so it isn't some entirely extremly niche problematic harmful internet community as a whole, but something that is diverse in opinions and contact stances, and complicated to understand. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying very hard to keep my personal opinion out of this, and it's really pissing me off, so I won't reply to you any more after this.

The article is not going to be made unless reputable, non self-published sources report on it. There are plenty of articles on problematic things: take pedophilia, necrophilia and vore as examples. The only reason why those things have articles is because they're widely covered subjects that have countless articles, news stories and studies about them. And I (and presumably most people) are staunchly against those things, but the articles about them stay because they have significant ideas in them that people deserve to know.

"Radqueerness" does not meet notability criteria, nor does it have any reputable reporting on it that I know of. If you want to go find some, go ahead, but expecting other people to find them for you is unfair. jiraijohnny@+.Shya hearts 2Vep .+@ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.@.) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, the overwhelming majority of radqueer communities don't have a official contact stance or are anti-contact, radqueer is a neutral term which can not only be used for pro-contact, but also for anti-contact too. In fact, there has been a controversy within the raduqeer community surrounding the term "anti-contact radqueer" because it implies that the base term radqueer is a pro-contact term only, when in reality the term radqueer can also been used in anti-contact, not to mention the fact that most raduqeer communities don't have a official contact stance or are anti-contact. Beyond The Plus in particular dosen't advocate on lowering or abolishing the age of consent or legalizing necrophilic ativities, they don't advocate to change the legality of paraphilic acts. Radqueer is acceptance (but acceptance dosen't correlate to supporting contact) to people that are mspec monos, condradictory labels, transidentities (shortened to TransID), paraphilias and others, here is information on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources sufficiently report on the subject, write an article about it. If not, don't -- just because a concept exists doesn't mean it will be on Wikipedia unless reliable sources care about it. It's that simple. OmegaMantis^(he/him) blather | spy on me 19:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, i found "Got other questions? Feel free to message @radqueer on discord!" on the FAQ section on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/, and i think that they will help you with it, i think that contacting Beyond The Plus's social media accounts and TransID's discord server https://discord.gg/Mttw9EesPP will also help you with it, in the meantime, i will look more to find independent reliable sources about it. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I would very much not like to help write the article. Do not use social media as a source or to establish notability. I hope you can find independent reliable sources. OmegaMantis^(he/him) blather | spy on me 19:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not meant to use discord or other stuff as reliable sources, but for them to help discuss about it. Also, just to be clear, i don't necessarily support or advocate Radqueer, i just wanted to discuss about whatever Radqueer could be added in Wikipedia or not. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "them to help discuss about it?" Does that mean you want them to debate whether they should have an article? If so, forget it, as their opinion has nothing to do with notability for an article. OmegaMantis^(he/him) blather | spy on me 19:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i meant that they will help find something that can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what can we do about it? Also, i honestly wonder if there's someone that is part of the Radqueer community or really anything surrounding Radqueer that is in the Teahouse and is gonna discuss here, let's wait and see if this happens. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Members of that community is exactly who can't make any difference to this discussion. What the group says about themselves does not count. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stuff they say woundl't affect Wikipedia because it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, only stuff they can find that can be used in Wikipedia can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-73469-7, I am trying to be patient so let me repeat. I have given my feedback and have told you I do not want to write it. If you want to write it, you can. You don't need to wait for permission from radqueer discords or (curses, no) the radqueer community discussing in the Teahouse. You just need to follow the rules and provide reliable sources. We're not here to do stuff for you. OmegaMantis^(he/him) blather | spy on me 19:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. And also, it's possible that if you wait for a while, the radqueer community appears and discuss in the Teahouse, honestly i don't know what to say to that, just maybe expect that it could happen if there's enough time. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stuff they say woundl't affect Wikipedia because it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, only stuff they can find that can be used in Wikipedia can be used in Wikipedia. I meant that they will find stuff that can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their help is exactly what Wikipedia does NOT need or want. What they have to say about themselves is completely uninteresting to Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him * talk) 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-73469-7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is really not the best place to ask about making changes to existing articles: better to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-73469-7 Infodumping on the Teahouse and then expecting other editors to do the actual legwork for you is really not a productive way to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, you were previously active on another TA where you did much the same thing.

The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to use Wikipedia itself. If you want to discuss articles, that's what their talk pages are for - but it would really be much better if you take the leap and start editing things yourself. Athanelar (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that we're only talking about Radqueer and we haven't even talked on democratic communism. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think democratic communism is notable and has the required reliable sources, try writing it yourself -- although since a quick Web search on my end is not showing any use of the term, I am wary that there are any. OmegaMantis^(he/him) blather | spy on me 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean creating a draft article? But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. Will there be someone in the Teahouse that will see this and decide to create a draft article about it? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)