Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

Follow-up to More formal tone

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1266#More formal tone

<The reason it is a worthy post is that the companies have split and formed separate entities.>

The company TP-Link Systems (US-owned) and TP-Link Technologies (Chinese-owned) formally separated into two wholly distinct entities in 2024. So, I disagree with the assertion that "Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies" is not relevant. For TP-Link Technologies, which has a wiki page, to be the only landing page for the companies creates confusion not only amongst consumers, but policymakers. That creates risk because there is a strong anti-China sentiment in the US and companies are being targeted. TP-Link Systems needs to make certain that policymakers and consumers are aware that it is not affiliated in any way with the Chinese-owned TP-Link, which only sells its products in China, and has for decades.

So, I can correct the internal reference to Wikipedia and find an alternate source for the market share information as that was pulled from an independent source. That would seem to address the errors. But the relevance of the page to distinguish it from the Chinese-owned entity is clear.

I appreciate your help and look forward to engaging on this matter. I apologize for not being more responsive on the last thread. It was over the weekend. I will actively monitor it this time. Gguice (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gguice What you describe is a promotional purpose, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We do not care about spreading awareness or defending companies from "being targeted"; we only care about reflecting what has been written about the companies in independent reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The key point is that there are now two entities instead of one and that is not "promotional" that is fact. Letting the TP-Link Technologies wiki remain as the only one, presents an inaccurate page that I am not able to revise. My explanation was to provide some context on why it matters, not to be promotional. In fact, on the draft page, I have added third party information about the new entity and issues in this space. I find it a little hard to understand why preservation of dated and inaccurate information matters more than updating the record to reflect current circumstances. Gguice (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

We do support adding updated information as long as it complies with core content policies such as neutral point of view. Broadly, your draft Draft:TP-Link Systems is written to defend the company from various accusations rather than summarizing what independent sources have written about the accusations.

It might be easier to request updates to the existing TP-Link page using the edit request wizard, if you avoid the defensive writing you used in the draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody wants to preserve dated information. However, replacing it with information from a biased source is worse than doing nothing. We do trust a company to give information about itself when that information is plain neutral facts with no potential for controversy and no business advantage to be gained, but as soon as there's the slightest hint of a company trying to influence a reader's opinion about anything, it's not acceptable. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have previously tried to make a change to the main page and it was also not taken because of my disclosed COI. This is quite the loop. I will try again for a neutral, facts-only tone on a new page and then make a redirect from the old page. Gguice (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much the tone as the content. We reject content that seems to be for promotional purposes, even if it has a neutral tone. And clearing your company's name is a promotional purpose.

People don't decline to make a change just because of your COI. The real reason was that you requested something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Any advice for helping to speed up a review

Hello, I submitted a revised draft of an article almost 2 months ago and have not received any feedback. Previous submissions were declined within several days. I have been advised that the fact that I have disclosed that I am a paid editor and the article is about the company I work for, that this could be causing the delay, as these types of articles could take more time to review. My concern is that it may never be reviewed for this reason. I am curious to know if the article has a 'black mark' against it and if there is a possibility it will never be reviewed. I was also advised by an editor "it looks pretty good - that is, you haven't done anything that would make it harder for reviewers to review."

Is it just a case of waiting it out? Or is there anything I could do to improve the submission? I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have. Many thanks in advance. Sinead RAU (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft (Draft:Reddy Architecture + Urbanism) is submitted and pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,840 pending submissions waiting for review." That you are a paid company representative is not relevant to this(we want you submitting drafts). This is an entirely volunteer driven process, with people doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me and confirming that being a company representative is not relevant. I will be patient. Kind regards. Sinead RAU (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Being a company representative is highly relevant (just not to the length of wait); you are required to comply with our policy on paid editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The article was re-reviewed on 30 September. MmeMaigret (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The article has been declined many times, always for the same reason. It makes me wonder why you have continued submitting it for review without really dealing with the problem.

I wonder if the word "advertising" is being misunderstood. Advertising is ANY material that is intended to make people want to do business with you. It does not help if you word the advertising in a neutral-sounding tone; it's necessary to delete every sentence that might have been put there to attract business. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Kenneally (Irish karate instructor)

Hello, and thanks in advance for your help. I’ve been working on a draft article about myself, Aaron Kenneally, an Irish Shotokan karate instructor. I understand there are conflict of interest concerns, which is why I am building the draft in my sandbox rather than resubmitting straight away. The draft is here: User:Aaronkenneally/sandbox I believe I meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because there is significant independent coverage of me in reliable sources, including: Multiple articles in the Evening Echo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023) A feature in Irish Fighters magazine (2011) A profile in the Cork Independent (2011) Mention on the SKIF Yudansha-Kai executive committee website These are all independent publications with full articles and features, not just passing mentions. I’ve tried to keep the draft strictly neutral and source-based, avoiding promotional wording. Some self-published sources (my club website and personal photography website) are only used for non-controversial details like official sites and occupation. Before I submit this draft for review at AfC, could an experienced editor please look over it to confirm whether the tone and sourcing are appropriate, and suggest any changes needed to give it the best chance of being accepted? Thank you for your time and guidance. –– Aaronkenneally Aaronkenneally (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The photograph in the draft seems like it was taken by someone else other than you, however you claim that this is your own work. Is this the case? Also, it might be best to stick to using #th Dan rather than using Sho/San/Yondan given that's generally the common verbiage I believe when referring to Dan as opposed to Kata. The main issue I see is that a large amount of the newspapers you link to on your website are only you talking about the club or the paper talking about the club, not talking about you. The references that you have that would contribute to the general notability guideline (all articles must be notable in some way, by this guideline or another) is the Evening News paper from 04 Nov 2013 and the Irish Fighters paper from 01 Jun 2011. Is there any other sources which talk about you in detail and not as a passing mention? Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

(... and that also did not involve interviewing you or asking you for material) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, reading the draft, I'm struggling to see how you're notable. I don't think your dojo or level are particularly special. Suggest your best angles are: representing your country, being on an exec board for the sport, being an international judge. The draft say you received judge, referee, kansa credentials but have you actually refereed? Note (1) You can't link to your own website for the different sources - you need to link to publications themselves or to an independent source of them. (2) The Evening Echo counts as one source no matter how many articles there are. (3) No one is interested in the personal interests of a living person. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

ps. I've reviewed and revised the draft. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Self published citation

In what context is a self published citation appropriate?

Hey y'all, I'm pretty new here and I am aware that self published sources are almost always NOT something we want to use when citing information in an article. I was looking at the web page for Yung Leans Mixtape Frost God, and saw a citation needed for a directors credit. The only place I could find that information was the description of the youtube video published by Yung Lean. Is this an appropriate exception to the rule? Since it is information from the creator with a detail about the thing that was created? I would love some more explanation as to why this is or isn't appropriate, so I can provide higher quality edits in the future. Thanks so much.

Please see my change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frost_God&action=history

InsertMode (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@InsertMode I'm not an expert on this, but I have a couple of things that may help a little. My first question assumes that you're knowledgeable about the artists being discussed.

How likely is it that this director credit might be controversial? (Meaning, is there anyone out there who might want to argue that somebody wasn't telling the truth when they put that credit on YouTube?) If you think someone might argue, then you should try to get some better evidence.

Second thing: In my experience, credits on YouTube have REALLY often contained very stupid mistakes. It happens so very often that I wonder if YouTube itself might be partly to blame, but regardless, there are tons of wrong credits on there. Maybe I see this so much because I listen to a lot of very old stuff, but honestly I think the mistakes are pretty widespread. I'm NOT saying yours is a mistake, but I'm asking: Does it look right to you? Do you, knowing about these artists pretty well, think this makes sense?

If you can answer that nobody's likely to argue, and the credit seems right to you, then I think it's safe to leave it the way you did it. But if some other editor isn't satisfied and changes it back, I think you should easily let them do that because the evidence isn't 100% solid. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That's very helpful context. I am very familiar with the artist, and this particular credit is a long time collaborator. That can be shown with other sources (unfortunately I can't find a source that directly confirms this credit) so I think in this case this change made sense. I'd be very surprised if it were disputed, but I will defer to a disputer if that time comes for the reasons you described. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I will seek to learn more as I continue editing!

InsertMode (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have a conflict of interest with a topic or with a source, the best practice is to write a proposal on the article talk page to include it, and let the community decide. The community generally frowns on editors adding citations to their own works. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think this editor had a connection with the subject. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't try to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, I do not have a connection with the subject. I am just a fan of their work and wanted to include a citation for a director credit in their article and wanted to know if my citation was appropriate given the context. InsertMode (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hierarchy of information

In the Ukrainophilism article, should the 19th century nationalist movement take precedence in the lede or should the modern understanding of the word? I'd argue the former is more significant but most people searching for the article would likely be looking for the latter. I was planning on rewriting that section at some point. Joko2468 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Both can be mentioned, though they should be explained in more thorough detail in the article's body. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but specifically on the order in the lede? Joko2468 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Best to try to write in such a way that the order will not make the reader believe that one of them is more important. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Copying sources between articles

If I can't confirm that a source on the wiki says what it supposedly says, can I reuse it on another page on the wiki?

This question is brought to you by the Citation Hunt tool. Which send me to: Slave Rebellions - Europe - Servile Wars. Since those have their own pages, I figured they might be the best starting points. Turns out there are the sources I need, but they are books. So I can't confirm they say what they supposedly say. Which begs the question, can I copy the source from one article to the other if it confirms the assertion made in either, even if I can't check what it says myself? MMichkov (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ideally you should check the sources before citing them—sometimes what they're being cited for is vague, and sometimes sourcing is sloppy or the sources get separated from what they were originally cited for. If you could see the secondary sources, I would say you might get away with citing the Greek and Roman writers as cited in them. But in this case, it looks like those are the sources you should be able to check: chiefly Diodorus Siculus and Livy, but also the other writers cited in the bibliography under Third Servile War. I would feel safe citing these once you check them, since you should be able to find all of the Greek and Roman sources online, and possibly also Mommsen.

Among secondary sources, you should be able to check some good sources through the Wikipedia Library, possibly including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, and possibly some version of Pauly-Wissowa (in German). The Cambridge Ancient History is sometimes accessible.

Some older sources that likely have relevant information are available through Internet Archive and Google Books, including the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (under biographical articles for the participants), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (under places, usually including historical information), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. These works have copious citations to Greek and Roman writers, though you should check them for what they say and to make sure the citations are correct; proofreading citations was hard in the 19th century, and many sources have different editions with different numbering. Obviously attitudes toward social issues (such as slavery, race, and class) have changed since these sources were written, but in terms of supplying the basic facts and providing the authorities for them, they are unsurpassed in detail among English-language classical scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Although it's not quite what you're asking, it's worth being aware of WP's rules around copying from one article to another. Attribution isn't required if you're only copying the citation, but if you also copy any of the article text (along with the source), make sure you have a read of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Nil🥝 00:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

unsourced or dead linked material

Should unsourced or dead linked material be removed? I have found several of them around, I just don’t want to remove that if it is against the rules. DawnB3 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The best practice is to look for sources, including copies of the formerly-linked material if it's available. It often will be, if the source is a published book or journal; search Google Books or Scholar, or Internet Archive for older works. The latter also has a tool called the "Wayback Machine", which archives web pages from time to time, and may include the original text saved when the link was live. It's possible to link to those archived versions for citation purposes, indicating that the original site is no longer available. However, if that site was citing a source that's available elsewhere, it may be preferable to link directly to that source.

If you can't find the original source in any form, you still should be able to search for the claim being made. You might have to formulate the search in different ways, but there's a good chance that you can find a source for most valid claims—Google Books and Internet Archive are still your most useful tools for anything likely to be found in books or magazines.

If you can't locate any sources after a reasonable search in likely sources, then technically the material can be deleted. However, I usually take guidance from two of the guidelines for sourcing: first, the guidelines say that material likely to be challenged may be removed if it can't be verified by reliable sources; I note that verifiability requires only that sources exist, not that they're available to you or over the internet. This means that if the best possible sources are inaccessible, but seem to exist or likely to exist in some format that isn't available, the material may still be verifiable, even if you're not able to verify it yourself.

As to what "likely to be challenged" means, I refer to "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue". Meaning that if something seems obvious, or uncontroversial, it should probably remain even if no source has been located for it. Perhaps you'll think of a source, or some other editor will find one, but if it seems likely to be correct, I would leave it alone, and remove only things that seem dubious or probably wrong. Experts in the subject matter of an article may recognize errors that can never be verified because they are simply wrong, and delete them. But if you're not sure, and you can't find anything on point, it may be best to leave it for another editor. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You can see if the source has been backed up at archive.org. Failing that, one time I succeeded in convincing the publisher to restore the source so that it could be cited. If that doesn't work, see if alternate sources can be found. You may have to dig deeper than a Google search, maybe using Lexis/Nexis, the newspapers.com archive, and so on. And if the source ever existed in print, there are always libraries. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

As the third leg of the tripod - No its not against the rules and is expected of a good editor, but it does take a level of skill to maintain the article flow correctly and not knacker it. If it has a "cn" - citation needed tag on it and that tag is dated more 3 months old, then remove the content in every case. If its completely unsourced and there has been no attempt to cite from the get go, remove all of it. Be bold. You won't be able to cite everything unfortunately, even if its extremely important. You'll get good at judging what needs to go and what doesn't. Wikipedia works by the group effect, so if the content is important it will go back in at a later date, properly referenced by some other more knowledgeable editor. So don't worry. If the article is under active development, don't remove anything at any time, unless an editor is adding uncited content at scale. They can be tagged and potentially reported to admin, if needed. scope_creep^Talk 03:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I dunno, I have run across some "citation needed" tags attached to interesting and relevant statements that I know to be true because I've observed the stated fact myself, but I can't find anything to cite, and I'm loathe to remove it due to its encyclopedic relevance and factual nature. These tags can stay around for years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I've done the same thing numerous times - not removing things that are unsourced but it's clear to me that they're factual. Yet, by doing that, I am clearly engaging in original research (by any non-weaselly statement of what Wikipedia means by OR). I don't like the conflict inherent in that - but I still do it. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Too true, been there myself just recently (about 8 months ago maybe), banging my head against a wall trying to reference properly on a battle article that was virtually empty of references, potential sources in a foreign language. It wears you down something terrible as though your failing. It is both contingent on yourself, rewarding and a "good thing, the proper thing to do" to try and reference but its not always possible. Ultimately I think it is the mark of a good editor how well you do it. Too much and you destroy the article, too little and its all conjecture thats left and not reliable. I take the point about it being effectively OR. I've still got that article on my todo list. In fact, I've got two of them. I'll need to have another go this weekend. scope_creep^Talk 11:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Renaming a page

HI Teahouse, I've got a question about renaming a page. I'm a native-English speaker learning French, and I've come across this page on French Wikipedia: fr:Chāt masālā which I believe should have the title "Chaat masala" instead of "Chāt masālā" as macrons are not a thing that exists in French (as far as I am aware). I could do an edit to the page to change the text within the article, but this change would also need to be in the title of the page (which if I understand correctly would also change the URL).

I am a relatively new and inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I assume this isn't a change I can make by myself. How would I go about requesting / kicking off the converstation about this change?

Thanks :) PeelBaronets (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally, the proccess of changing a page's URL (which also changes the main page header) is called moving a page, though, given the fact that the page in question is on frwiki, you will need to ask over there (perhaps at fr:Project:Forum_des_nouveaux, which appears to be frwiki's equivalent of the Teahouse) regarding the exact procedure. Victor Schmidt (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

fr:Spécial:Renommer_une_page/Chāt_masālā. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the French Wikipedia rules for foreign-language page titles. Maybe they have it this way intentionally. But you are right to be asking them a question to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Above: macrons are not a thing that exists in French. They're hardly a thing that exists in English, either. "Le français n’utilise normalement pas de macron (sauf pour les transcriptions de termes étrangers, notamment arabes et japonais)." So as regards macrons, French is very much like English. But there are differences. For Hepburn: "Le macron est parfois remplacé par un accent circonflexe par contrainte typographique.... Anyway, fr:Wikipedia is the place to ask about this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

💡 Macrons are actually quite common in NZ English for loan words from Maori. (Also, if chat were a Maori loan word, both spellings (chaat and chāt) would be acceptable.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Accident report

How much of an accident report do I add to the article?

I am currently trying to improve this draft about USAir Flight 499. I was wondering how much of the report should I add to the article. Should I summarize the main points or try to add everything into the article but word it differently?

Draft:USAir Flight 499 - Wikipedia

AAR87-02S.pdf Zaptain United (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Because that's a primary source, I would defer to what actual journalists chose to cover from that report, and cite the secondary sources instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be kind of a pointless question, because the reviewer already told you that the source you're asking about doesn't count for much. You need to be finding the other different sources that the reviewer said are needed, not trying to optimize this one. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying take this source away, I'm only saying that fixing up the way you use this source has no chance of saving the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Zaptain United, the question that you need to answer for yourself and for other editors is why an airline incident that resulted in only one minor injury meets the standard of notability? In all honesty, I doubt that this mishap is notable and I see no evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then why are those sources not yet referenced in the draft? Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage does not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Summarise the report. No more than 100 words. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure this is good advice, but it's probably advice to be taken on an article that has a chance of being accepted. This article will continue to be a waste of time, until it shows significant coverage of the event in independent sources. Anyone planning to summarize this accident report should find those other sources first, and if they don't find good enough coverage, find a different article to work on. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis

How do I suggest some kind of POV evaluation on the article 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis?

Currently most of the 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis article is a collection of info derived from both Cambodian and Thai media. Which most media in both countries depicts their own country as the morally correct one.

Personally I can't help but comparing it to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, especially with the escalation in 2022. And it's clear that Russia distorts the truth way more (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine)

With that stated, I'd like to politely ask, can POV in 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis be shifted toward Thai media more? While I don't have conclusive proof of Thailand's innocence, I don't think the Cambodian media are very trustworthy (Scam centers in Cambodia#Media repression)

P.S. For the record, I'm a Thai citizen who supports Ukraine.

Cordially

Jo the Fire Dragon

🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jothefiredragon. The first step in any content dispute is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. So, Talk: 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis in this case. Base your presentation on what the full range of reliable sources say, including those that are neither Cambodian nor Thai. If you do not reach an acceptable result there, then open a discussion at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir

Resubmitting improved AfC bio draft after declines; confusion on versions for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir

Hi Teahouse hosts,

I'm User:Abujahangir (65 edits since July 2025), improving a bio draft on Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur and Community Leader Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, who is noted for his role in leading the initiative that resulted in the city of Port Alberni, British Columbia, being recognized by FIFA as a potential training site for the 2026 World Cup.

The original Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (by blocked User:Farzana.1970, January 2025) links in the Jan 2025 Teahouse thread (Archive 1247) to a July 18, 2025, declined version—not matching the early stub. It was declined for sourcing/formatting; I've left it abandoned.

My expanded Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) (submitted Sep 2, 2025) has 2 declines (July 21 by Utopes: WP:REFB/MINREF; Oct 1 by Theroadislong: similar). I've fixed refs (31 independent sources now: CHEK, Alberni Valley News, CBC, Daily Janakantha and more), structure, and neutrality—meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO.

Resubmitted today. Could a reviewer check for approval/feedback? Tips on merging versions or avoiding future declines?

Thanks! Abujahangir (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Abujahangir, you say "Resubmitted today". No, Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) has not been resubmitted. For that purpose, you have to click on the blue "Resubmit" quasi-button. It reads much less like an encyclopedia article, a lot more like a PR piece (and close to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir). Its promotional nature and your seemingly exclusive interest in writing up Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir combine to make me wonder: How are you related to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (the man, not the draft)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Abujahangir I don't think your subject is Wikipedia notable. He's a businessman who helped get a small city identified as a training site (not even a venue). This isn't enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Are there any pages on Wikipedia that will link to it or will this page be an orphan? Second, your name suggests that you might be related to the subject. If so, you'll need to declare your COI, see WP:COI. I'd suggest you park the draft for 3 months and, in the mean time, get more familiar with Wikipedia first. You seem to be good at referencing. Maybe start by helping to reference articles. (If the subject is notable now, he'll still be notable in 3 months.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary and MmeMaigret—your advice has guided my next steps perfectly.

COI: Disclosure now on User:Abujahangir (plain text for now; confirms family relation to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, covers both drafts). No paid editing—proposing via talk pages per WP:COI. (Suggest adding {{COI|Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2)}} template if markup issue.)

Resubmission/Tone (per Hoary): Right—"resubmitted" was inaccurate; no tag added yet. Proposed on [[Talk:Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2)]]: Insert {{AfC submission}} at top, plus neutral lead ("Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (born c. 1970/1971) is a Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur with over three decades in textiles. He co-leads Port Alberni's FIFA World Cup 2026 bid committee, which achieved candidate status in September 2025.") to address WP:REFB/MINREF and PR elements. 31 refs validated.

Notability/Practice (per MmeMaigret): Wise call—local coverage solid, but global needed; parking 3 months while referencing unreferenced articles (WikiProject Canada starting today). Links possible to Port Alberni/2026 FIFA World Cup.

Merging: Propose moving (2) content to original stub, then CSD (2) as dupe—okay?

Thanks—eager for thoughts! Abujahangir (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help with a draft

Hi friends at Teahouse,

I hope you are all well. We are trying to make a wikipage for a company called Life After Me, but I'm finding it hard to find my way around Wikipedia and it's rules and regulations. My hope is to get some pointers and perhaps help on what we need to do to get this page approved: Draft:Life After Me

The main goal for this page is to show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do, we don't want to use wikipedia as place for promoting Life After Me, but we want to use it as place where people can independently find out more info on Life After Me, like it's security certifications and who they have worked with as in trusted partners and such.

As mentioned earlier, I'm finding it hard to navigate myself around here, so feel free to explain everything as simple as possible. Kind regards, Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to the teahouse! First off, I noticed your use of 'we', and I'd just like to let you know that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared as per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Please ensure each individual has their own account going forward.

I see you've submitted a draft of your article recently which was declined as it may not meet the standards for needing an article. The notability guidelines for organisations has in-depth information on what should and shouldn't get articles. I'd suggest reading this in full and then deciding whether the company needs an article.

I also saw your conflict of interest disclosure and thank you for making this. Please keep WP:COIEDIT in mind when developing your article further. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the quick and clear response! 1. My apologies, my English isn't that good, with "we" I ment me and my colleagues helping me, I am the only one using this account :)

2. Thank you for this! Having read through it I am still struggling with which sources I should remove or add, I have made an attempt in the last revised edit and i think i am waiting for approval or decline. The sources mentioned on the draft are under media coverage, with main purpose to let people know where they can have heard of Life After Me before, but i have a suspicion this is also where its going wrong? Perhaps i cant mention any media coverage to let people know who talk about Life After Me?

3. "We" prioritize transparency and honesty, this is core in the business of legacy planning! When Life After Me is big enough as company perhaps others will write this for and about Life After Me instead. Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tijmen Blue Marloc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is for.

To show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden in Wikipedia.

Basically, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what your company wants people to know about itself. If several people wholly unconnected with your company have independently chosen to write in some depth about your company in reliable publications, then an article about your company is possible - and it would be based almost entirely on what those independent people had said, not on what you want to say.

I recommend you read WP:BOSS carefully, and probably show it to your colleagues. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Thanks for your input, I have already read this before making the initial draft.

I opted into the conflict of interest disclosure and taking into consideration not to "Self-promote" with specifically "This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view" and "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations" where "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." has been tried to my best capability and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" has been tried to my best capability. I hope to not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is" by following the rules set as best as I can and most importantly never self promoting.

Since the first time the initial draft was not denied because of any of these reasons I assumed to have passed on the neutrality side of the article. When the draft gets denied because of these reasons I will surely comeback here to get help on staying neutral on these pages. For now the first hurdle is the articles and sources I think.

Kind regards, Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment That is an advert and if reaches mainspace it will be reaching Afd soon after. scope_creep^Talk 03:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Article

I wanted to create an article of my own made fictional character in Naruto. Wanted to know how it would be applied. Saeuortklmh (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the correct place to write about something you created, take a look at WP:NOT for more info. Amstrad00 (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets to find another place you can store this creation. jolielover♥talk 13:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Quantum Archeology

I was looking through Wikipedia, and saw there's no page for Quantum Archeology. Seriously!! It's like an idea that says one day we might be able to rebuild people from the past using insanely advanced tech. The basic thought is that if the universe keeps a perfect record of everything that’s ever happened, you know, every atom, every interaction then in theory, we could dig through that data and re-create entire lives, memories, and minds. It mixes quantum physics, computing, and a bit of sci-fi optimism, imagining a future where even the long-dead could be brought back digitally or physically. I don't believe it personally, but it would be ridiculously fun to read about. Why doesn't a page for it exist? I never edit wikipedia, so I guess it's something to do with sources? Let me know :) 31.208.88.59 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You can recommend it at Wikipedia:RA; but its a dead project, and barley used; or you may create an account and submit it through the Wikipedia:AFC process, but that's the advice I have. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 14:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor. With sources (according to Google) only on Substack, Reddit and Quora etc, any attempt to place an article in Wikipedia will fail as fringe-of-the-fringe. Wikipedia doesn't really do "ridiculously fun to read about". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Quantum archeology is the kind of topic that I might hear about from that one crazy friend of mine. (I don't really have such a friend at the moment, but I hope you know what I mean.)

Wikipedia handles those topics (whether the stories or the friend himself) basically by "covering the coverage" while pointing out that the stories he tells have no basis in fact. At least that's the idea, as far as I can tell. And so we wouldn't write about it at all, unless a ton of coverage kind of forced us to. I hope. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea for part of a sci-fi novel (god knows sci-fi is all soft these days), but it's not really encyclopedic. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Does Wiki deliberately want to be out of date?

I have twice changed an entry for Caroline Corby because it was out of date and therfore wrong, incorrect and misleading. This is annoying for the subject and makes Wiki an unreliable source. The first time it did change at first, and then some genius must have switched it back to the old version, despite me linking the new information to government websites and other authorative sources. Now, when I go into edit mode and publish, it won't even seem to change at all. Should we just give up and accept Wiki is a poor source or can anyone help? Olde Danny Boy (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Olde Danny Boy: We don't consider ourself a good source, and we are a lagging indicator to begin with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Olde Danny Boy Your edit summary for your recent edit to Caroline Corby says that you made it on her behalf. This means that you have a conflict of interest and should only make suggestions on the talk page of the article. You also need to decide whether in Wikipedia terms you are a paid editor and, if so, act as described at that link (which includes disclosing that fact on your userpage). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You are required to assume good faith in the actions of other editors, so remarks like "someone, who is clearly badly informed", "some genius" and "deliberately want to be out of date" are not acceptable.

The reason given for the reversion of the previous edit (presumably made by you, though you were not signed in) was "Unsourced, external links"; That's because you didn't cite sources (or not adequately), and because you linked text in the article body to external websites, which is not how we do things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is deliberately out of date in one particular way: we don't take a subject's word for anything that's of real importance, and instead we deliberately wait until reliable secondary sources have published the material. This causes consternation for the subjects of articles (as well as for unpublished experts in various fields, whose word we similarly don't take). If we DID take subjects' word for things, we would see a few articles greatly improved, but at the expense of having thousands upon thousands of grossly unreliable articles filled with puffery and outright lies. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Your comment we don't take a subject's word for anything that's of real importance is not quite what the policy says: see WP:ABOUTSELF. We accept primary and self-published sources for many things that are important to the subject, such as their birthplace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Aurora Controversy Section deleted

Take a look at this edit. Apparently, this user has fully removed the 'Controversey' section form the Aurora page. I feel this section should remain in the article.

Subsequent good-faith edits have made it difficult for me to undo the changes without losing good content. Please guide me on how to best deal with this? I use Twinkle, but not sure if it could have helped. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer Welcome to Teahouse. I think the IP editor's removal might actually follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE rules.. The controversy was mostly about Aurora’s drummer, not Aurora herself so giving it a full section could give too much focus to something not really about her. Oh almost forget Twinkle wouldnt really help here it's more about using good judgment with content and policy than reverting edits. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kingsacrificer, just to add to Thilio's comment above, it's recommended that Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" (see WP:CSECTION). If there is consensus to include the information, it should be included into an appropriate part of the article's body (with consideration to WP:BLP & WP:DUE), rather than as a standalone section. My personal read of the situation is that, as the article is about her (and not her band), a whole paragraph or section feels undue. Nil🥝 21:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, noted. Thank you! @Nil NZ @Thilio Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:America's Gold Star Families

I have submitted reliable sources but my submission keeps getting rejected. Draft:America's Gold Star Families AGSFaccounts (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft wass declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reasons for the decline were left by the reviewer. It is sourced only to primary sources- your organization itself. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself.

You will need to change your username, please see your user talk page for instructions. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Also worth a gander: WP:YFA. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for saying "In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article." But your username suggests that you are an employee of AGSF. Is this so? (i) The draft hasn't been rejected but declined. (ii) You present a set of "References". And then you present a set of "References". Why not expand the first set with what are now in the second set, thereby informatively linking specific assertions with specific sources? (iii) For almost all purposes, the sources must be independent of AGSF. Is there so little about AGSF in the websites of the more serious newspapers and magazines? -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Shawn Hale

Looking for help getting my draft reviewed

Hello! I’ve been refining my Draft:Shawn Hale article. It’s been revised a few times to fix all the citation and formatting errors from the original upload, and I noticed someone else even made a small edit recently, which was great to see.

I’d really appreciate if a reviewer or experienced editor could take another look and help move it toward publication. Thanks so much just for reading this! WhippySmash (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhippySmash At a glace the big issue I'm noticing is you have sections without sources. There's no citations for early life or the second half of personal life. There's possibly other issues but that's something simple to work on. I didn't check notability for example but finding more sources will help with that. Ultraodan (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WhippySmash, the most important issue is the one Ultraodan highlighted above about a lack of sources. There are also signs that an AI/LLM (such as ChatGPT) was used to create your draft; please have a read of our help page on large language models and the issues they can introduce. Nil🥝 03:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

GPTzero shows an 87% probability of being AI-generated. That isn't acceptable. Use an AI to help you find sources. Use it to suggest improvements after writing the article in your own words. Don't take the lazy road and let the AI write for you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhippySmash Your draft has been declined. If you re-work it, pay attention to the use of bolding, which is not in line with the manual of style. If you can replace the bolded terms with wikilinks to relevant articles, that's fine. The fact that someone has a granted patent does not contribute to their notability. Patents are in any case a primary source: we need secondary sources showing that the invention is significant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that this hasn't been declined. It was created from the outset with a false 'decline' template in it. Some AI tool out there seems to think that's how things are done. We see more and more of these at AfC; it's one of the hallmarks of an AI-generated draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. If that becomes commonplace, perhaps we should expand WP:G15 to include deleting such drafts. Actually it already would include it because one can speedy-delete unreviewed AI submissions, and anyone submitting a copy-and-paste with a fake decline template clearly hasn't reviewed it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's more a glaring hallmark that AI was used in the process, but I AGF that it doesn't always mean the content itself wasn't reviewed as required for G15. New editors are (quite understandably) unlikely to understand or change template coding – especially when the decline parameter in this case is a simple "d" between the pipelinks, e.g. {{AFC submission|d|ts=20251005}}.

I take it as a sign to be extra skeptical of the content, but imho it's not a 100% guarantee the body content itself wasn't reviewed or rewritten by a human (but it's fairly obvious when it hasn't been). Nil🥝 00:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hi I was trying to create a new page for my organization, kept the information neutral and followed all the guidelines as per my knowledge.

Let me know what could be improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prashantkapturecx/sandbox Prashantkapturecx (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I moved your draft to Draft:Kapture, the preferred location for drafts, and will add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

okay, got it. Prashantkapturecx (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, let me know if any changes should be made from end or when should I resubmit it. Prashantkapturecx (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I will note that you have just told of the routine activities of the company and mentioned a non notable award, not significant coverage of the company that shows what makes it a notable company in a Wikipedia sense.

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

General Mechanics

Hello,

I love Wikipedia and had the idea to come up with a wiki for cars/trucks/autos/motos/etc were all their engineering parts, drawings, and assembly are stored and organized in order to facilitate mechanic work and the such. This means cars would be disassembled and reassmbled part by part down to the fasteners/electronic wiring diagram/etc with information/pics/instructions.

The idea of recycling/upcycling, overall preservation, and maintenance of transportation seems like an untapped region of the internet. I hated going to junkyards in the US and seeing materials, time, and energy wasted as well as gatekeeping of mechanic information (all beit for job preservation).

I was wondering where to start, how to make an "ifixit" type beat wiki for 'things' in general? From, Ivan 2806:102E:E:AB9B:A1:416D:8E9D:8437 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Aren't you basically describing the Chilton Company auto service manuals, or Haynes Manuals? They're pretty detailed about tearing down a subsystem of a car to its individual components, and they have many manuals about old cars no longer in production. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. Your idea might be suited to Wikibooks or Wikiversity, and you could ask on one or other of those projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Film date

Should the "date" for a film be its premiere date or its release date? I ask because the article for the film Room at the Top has recently been moved from (1959 film) to (1958 film), on the basis that it was released in January 1959 but was premiered in December 1958. MOS:FILM and WP:Naming conventions (films) do not help. MOS:FILMYEAR implies release date. Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I think FILMYEAR is pretty clear: "earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". That would mean the premier date would be more appropriate, as it's the earliest date the film is available for viewing by the general public. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Francisco Quinones Jimenez

Any info 2600:100D:B025:C272:0:4D:55AB:7601 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

We have an article on Francisco de Quiñones, who was educated as a page of Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. Are you referring to either of them? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Articles

Is it allowed to ask for reviewing for good article status on an articles talk page? For example: "Hello everyone, I nominated this article for Good Article status. Any feedback or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated" WhatADrag07 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Draftspace problem: Caribbean timeline

Reference Draft:Caribbean timeline for the seventeenth century. Someone, who apparently knew nothing about the Caribbean, moved this into draftspace because it looks odd, which it does. The problem is that each island has its own history and the only way I could find to organize the facts is with a timeline. Draftspace is supposedly to make improvements, but I see no way to improve it. Could someone, ideally someone who knows about the Caribbean, look at this again decide what should be done? I think the article is valid and should be published. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

One of the hallmarks of an article not yet ready for mainspace is the complete lack of inline citations. There's a short bibliography at the bottom, but no way a reader can verify all the claims in that article.

You can ask the editor who moved it what was perceived as wrong, but I'll bet that's it, and not the overall organization of the article. Adding citations is how you would improve it before moving it back.

You may personally know a lot about the Caribbean, but on Wikipedia we cannot write what we know, we must write only what is reported by reliable sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello--thank you for your question. Here are some starting improvements I would recommend for the article:

• in-line citations
• remove unnecessary boldface
• remove or rewrite and retitle the "lists" section

The last sentence: "Since this is mainly an index article, sources, details and footnotes are best found in the linked articles"-- is not appropriate. See MOS:SELFREF.

Hopefully these suggestions will help you improve the article; you may also want to look at WP:Timeline.

Have a great day! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft articles

I am currently working on Draft:Abuzar Roohi on enwiki and I need some help. Do I have to add the persons official title on the actual page title itself, or just the infobox? Pls answer quickly. Thank you all. The Cunning Eagle^talk 00:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't add it to the title of the draft. As for adding it to the infobox, you don't even need an infobox. What you do need is body text that will demonstrate that this person is notable as the term is understood in and for en:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Creating my page

as First Journalist from Africa Accredited in The United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland

Hi, On July 12, 2000 I got my first permanent accréditation in The UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland and was congratulated by the Press Officer at the time, Ms, Cathy FEGLI, French, as the first journalist from Africa. How can you assist in creating a page for me.

I have a brother on wikipedia SYDNEY ONAYEMI, first DJ in Sweden HolyMichaelGeez (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

HolyMichaelGeez, the simple answer is "We can't". I suspect that you are confusing Wikipedia with LinkedIn or similar. Don't be surprised if you are contacted by persons offering to create an article about you for payment. Most of these people will deceive you or are plain incompetent (or both), so be sure not to pay anything. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

HolyMichaelGeez, please read WP:FAMOUS 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to ask, why do you want a Wikipedia article about you? Publicity? Ego? Neither of those are good reasons. The best reason is if someone else unconnected to you thinks you merit an article, and writes one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Production location television infobox question

In the production location infobox. Should I put the location like this for example. Toronto, Ontario or Toronto, Ontario? Is it ok to put both the city and province seperately? What is the correct way? 203.177.220.206 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd definitely prefer the former, as more helpful to the reader. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: the Manual of style suggests Toronto, Ontario. See MOS:GEOLINK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding a timestamp to a source

Using the "cite AV media" template, I want to add a timestamp to a video source that is used multiple times. Using |time=12:00 would produce "Event occurs at 12:00." within the citation in the reference section, but this would only account for one usage and not appear in the article's body. I instead want to preface each citation in the body with the timestamp, which would appear something like "...some words sourced by a video.[3][12:00] More words...". However, I don't know the proper way to do this and cannot find the articles again that I previously saw this used on. How do I do this? CMYKBird (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@CMYKBird I think you're looking for Template:Reference page, which is placed after the ref tags. For a time stamp of 12 minute, you'd put <ref>{{Cite AV media|name = etc}}</ref>{{rp|at=12:00}} which will appear as [3]. Nil🥝 04:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

GA Nom review I'm a part of

I reviewed The Grub-Stake for GA status at Talk:The Grub-Stake/GA1. long story short it's very close to passing but the only matter left is the copyright of some files. I was told some files were public domain due to publication pre 1930. However the file pages at the source assert copyright and the nominator says it's too tedious to find the images in the original trade publications. Given that they're supposedly promotional photos for the film I am inclined to believe they are PD. Should I pass the review given 6a of the GA criteria? Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Therapyisgood. The archive's website says those 3 photos are film stills, which would have been taken in order to promote the film in the early 20s. Have you tried asking at WT:GAN or Commons:Village pump/Copyright? Since it is kind of an edge case (public domain if distributed, but you don't have proof they were distributed yet), you can solicit some opinions from those two forums and lean on the consensus. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Notability of news orgs and finding sources

I want to un-redirect Gamers Nexus and turn it into an actual article if I may. What notability guideline would I need to follow, and do you folks have any tips on finding sources about the news org without just finding more stuff from the news org itself? guninvalid (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! WP:RSP is a great place to start to find sources that are considered generally reliable or unreliable, and ones that are often closely linked to the subject themselves. Keep in mind this is not a strict guidebook, and sources that may not be in the green can still be used - however, it's up to your best judgement to determine whether the source is factual or not. I believe you can filter out certain domains when searching online, so that may be useful. A source from the company, or from another one that owns it, is considered a primary source that doesn't count towards establishing notability. See WP:GNG for the sitewide guideline, and WP:CORP for a more specific one. Hope this helps! jolielover♥talk 09:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Guninvalid, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with most of what @Jolielover says, but I would suggest that your judgment is not about whether the source is factual but whether it is reliable - i.e. has a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking.

An unreliable source can get things right sometimes but that doesn't make it reliable. Conversely, a reliable source can sometimes get things wrong: this can be more troublesome, because in that case, unless there are other reliable sources which disagree, Wikipedia should follow what that source says. (See Verifiability) ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Waiting for publication

Hello everyone,

I submitted the draft Draft:Arman Darian for review a little over two months ago, but it’s still waiting in the review queue. I understand there are many pending submissions, but I just wanted to kindly ask if someone could please take a look at it when possible, or let me know if there’s anything I can improve to help the process move forward.

Thank you very much for your time and help! 🙏 Armand2017 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Armand2017 The delay is probably because several references are in languages few can check properly. You could improve the draft by making it conform to MOS:BOLD and by using WP:Named references where you have duplication. I've added the usual sectioning for the references themselves. Adding some Projects to the talkpage may help: see the "Improving your odds of a speedy review" link in the box at the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like you didn't actually write that article, but you let an AI write it for you. We generally don't like that, AIs tend to make messes that reviewers aren't willing to clean up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Psychologie of Home Design School

Hi everyone! I’ve created Draft:Psychologie of Home Design School and would love help moving it to mainspace. It’s written neutrally, properly sourced, and formatted with an infobox and categories. Could an experienced editor please review or move it? Thank you so much! Kami Gray (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article has been reviewed, and requires further work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kami Gray, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have some major misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is.

First some absolutely essential housekeeping:

• As the founder of POH, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and it is mandatory to make a formal declaration of that status, usually on your user page (see that link for how to do it).
• Your user page must not resemble an article, and should not contain an autobiography. You are welcome to share some information there about you as a Wikipedia editor, and a limited amount of information about yourself outside that context is permitted, but not what you have. See WP:UPNO. I will move your user page to Draft:Kami Gray - but note that (separately from the issue of user pages) autobiography is very strongly discouraged; and if you try it, the same strictures will apply as I explain below about your draft.

Your draft is based on primary sources, and tells what you want people to know about the School. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in any of that. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.

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) 16:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah. It appears that, as I am not an admin, I cannot move another editor's user page, so I have not moved your user page. But you should remove most of the content from it immediately. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the user page to User:Kami Gray/sandbox and tagged it as a draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Help with Article Creation

I am an employee of a company called PDWare, we are a software company that handles resource management for businesses that are struggling to manage the capacity and demand of their labor force. They brought me in to aid in growing their online presence to create more awareness of their existence. We do not have a wiki page and would love to have one up but I also understand the pain point in a conflict of interest since I am an employee. There doesn't need to be and there can't be any bias in the page itself. Am I able to request that another editor here on Wikipedia write the page? If so, how can I go about doing that? All advice or responses are appreciated! Matthew Blaes (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Matthew Blaes, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not interested in contributing in any way to anybody's "online presence", or in "creating awareness": those are both part of promotion, which is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.

If there is ever an article about your company, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, and it will not be based on what you or your associates or your company want to say, but almost exclusively on what people wholly unconnected with your company have chosen to publish about the company - good and bad.

I suggest you read WP:BOSS carefully, and show it to your colleagues.

Note that, now you have put this request out, it is quite likely that somebody will approach you offering to create an article for payment. Please be aware that such offers are almost always scams: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding but I do in fact recognize everything in which you said. I, neither my company, desire to control or influence what is said. Good, bad, or ugly that is entirely up to the author. My question was more to ask is there any place to request a page to be written. Who writes it, how they write it, and what they say completely being up to them. Matthew Blaes (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Matthew Blaes There is WP:Requested articles but it hardly ever gets a response. Your best bet is to read this essay and then use WP:Articles for creation (in view of your paid status) to draft a short article using only your very best sources to show how the company is wikinotable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok great thank you so much for the help! Matthew Blaes (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @Matthew Blaes. Two further things I would add to what Mike has said:

• Before writing so much as a word, or creating a draft, make sure you can find several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42: nothing written or published by the company or its associates; nothing based on what the company or its people say (whether in an interview, from a press release, or any other way). Then check that the sources you have found can together establish that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - most companies don't. Be especially cautious about WP:CORPDEPTH.
• If you have found any sources, you will need to put aside everything that you know about the company, and write a summary of what those sources say. Did they leave out something you think is important? Tough. Did they say something you think is factually wrong? Then you may be able to argue that including it would be WP:UNDUE, but if other editors disagree with you, tough. Do you see why editing with a COI is difficult?
• 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) 14:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This is great thank you very much for the details, yesterday I decided to do just exactly that and put it away for a few weeks while I dive into how Wikipedia works. I have also found that the company I hope to write the article on has very few sources available, not enough to pass Wikipedia standards. Seems I'll have to help the company increase their notability before we ever see an article first. Thanks for the help! Matthew Blaes (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Beach Haus Creative Page

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for guidance on how to properly create a neutral, well-sourced article about a creative studio called Beach Haus Creative. I understand the conflict of interest policies, so I’m not planning to post it directly myself — I’d like advice or help from an experienced editor who could review or submit it through Articles for Creation (AfC) once the draft is ready. Could someone please advise on the best way to proceed, or if any editors here would be open to reviewing a draft?

Thanks so much, Marnie Beachhausbysea (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Beachhausbysea: There is a help article about writing an article at Help:Your first article. If you think the studio meets Wikipedia's requirements (for example, the notability criteria) then you can use the Article wizard. This should take you through the necessary steps to declare a conflict of interest. When you are finished you can submit it to the WP:Articles for creation process and a reviewer will take a look and either accept it or tell you why they think it is not yet ready as an article. Mgp28 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, one of the most common preventable problems is that people misunderstand Wikipedia's requirement for independent reliable sources, and usually misunderstand in the same way.

People tend to assume that there must be a big exception to independent reliable sources: "Yes, but this other material is true, so obviously I should be allowed to add it." But there is no exception like that; things that are true, but haven't appeared in independent third-party coverage, are intentionally excluded from articles, and people are often incredulous when they find out that a great deal of what they've written is not going to be accepted because they can't show that reliable third parties have published it. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I just did a quick search of google and newspapers.com and I don't see any newspaper articles or book references about the studio. Suggest have a read of WP:BOSS. MmeMaigret (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete during open AfD discussion

Is it acceptable to nominate an article for speedy deletion when there is an open AfD discussion (albeit stalled) about the same article? Sometimes SD feels more appropriate than AfD (for example if there is debatable notability but an article qualifies for G15). NicheSports (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a Bad idea... You shouldn't nominate an article for Speedy deletion if there is already an open WP:AfD discussion or even if it's been stalled for a while. WP:AfD takes priority it allows the community to weigh in and because speedy is meant for straightforward cases that clearly meet criteria WP:G15 not to bypass an on going Articles for deletion. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

No, now that the AfD is started, you need to let the AfD run its course. Also if there's even one vote for keep, then speedy deletion isn't appropriate. Is there a particular hurry? If speedy deletion would have been appropriate, the article will be deleted anyway. MmeMaigret (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to the others, NicheSports, I think it can sometimes be appropriate, for example if the article has been nominated due to notability concerns and then you realise it's an unambiguous copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I also think it's appropriate in some cases, such as articles created by UPE socks getting WP:G5'd. Our most precious resource is volunteer time, and !voting in an AFD should take time when you do the bare minimum. The CSD criteria are strict for a reason (and an admin can decline a CSD if it's not appropriate), so if we can save the community's time by speedy deleting articles where appropriate, then I see it as a positive. Nil🥝 22:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

how does YouTube do it? They don't seem to believe any political rights exist only their policy 2A00:23C6:C8D6:5301:2D1F:8B9C:E4C0:2145 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Youtube has an owner, so on their site whatever the owner says, goes. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Full CV on an editor's user page

Is there an accepted general procedure for "this user has entered their full CV on their user page"? I have been too likely to jump down people's throats for wrong reasons, so I'm asking.

I'm referring to MLSantaella TooManyFingers (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a CV to me - it looks like an attempt at a draft page. The username gives the impression it's a CV but the username could be an undeclared COI or a username issue. I would move the content to their sandbox and ask them to clarify their relationship to the subject. MmeMaigret (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's probably a draft autobiography that isn't in the right location. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Help about a user interaction.

Hello everyone, it just came to my attention that 6 days ago, a user contacted me, though my talk page, which they asked my help about a draft. I was ready to see what was it about, but then i noticed that the us3r mentions that they are sending the message through a second account, since their primary was blocked. That made me a bit worried, so i looked at the user page, of the sender, and the account was banned for sockpuppetry. The main account of that user (found it based of the ban notice), as the user mentioned, was also banned, and their talk page had unblock reuests from administators, which were denied. What i am supposed to do now, should i ignore it, inform an administator? This is the first time this has happened to me, so i don't know what to do. Any assistance will be valuable. Please help, and thank you to everyone responding in advance, as this seems a bit serious?! Mant08 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

They've been indefinitely banned - I think you can safely ignore the corro. MmeMaigret (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me add on what @Mmemaigret said...@Mant08 In the future just ignore the message and don't reply to the blocked user. Then notify an administrator or post at WP:ANI briefly explaining what happened. Engaging with a blocked or sock account can violate WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio I haven't interacted with the blocked user. Should i contact an admin now? Mant08 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mant08 They've been blocked indef.... So, take a cup of Tea and relax (: happy editing !! Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret @Thilio Thank you both, for your immediate responses. Both have a nice day! Mant08 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Political opponents using Wikipedia to battle eachother

Dear Wiki people. I read wiki mostly for history and law and hobbies.

I heard stories about the CIA affecting wiki information to insert Propaganda.

My attention has now come to certain political focus now that there are immediate tensions in our country. I am sad to find that when I went to read about a random political party and another page about its leader... Paul Golding of Britain First Party

It is clear that someone has gone and put a heavily defamatory and bias view on this person and Party.

I thought it was very harsh and decided to edit some of the offensive words. But one of the pages has a protective feature so it cannot be edited.

I find that the links and material in the urls and citations all suggested that it was one of Mr Goldings opponents who has put the page together and framed his party and personal page.

The links and citation urls suggest that an opppsing group called "Hope not Hate" are likely to be responsible because they benefit from search engine optimization by having their own organisation heavily embedded into the page.

I find it absolutely unacceptable that a group called hope not hate would go around making pages and content designed to attack and discredit their opponents while increasing their own optimization. At someone's personal defamation

Actually the Internet says that fascism is the suppressing of opposition. So actually they themselves hope not hate are unfairly suppressing their opponents. I think now Wikipedia has become a war ground and that CIA yarn I heard about Propaganda is actually true. We don't know who is behind the hope not hate campaign but the police have recently unlawfully taken their vehicle twice. When special law is meant to be in effect that protects ALL political parties fairly themselves.

Wikipedia should not be hijacked by either side. And used to gain electoral advantages.

I think that the Labour Party or bigger groups or Mi5 UK government might be behind the information because someone seems very keen that nobody edits it.

I am asking if any impartial Wikipedia members who don't take sides might be able to find a resolution

I think it creates fear that people will become objectified on here if they step up and stand up. Because of pages like this.

It's why I am independent buy I think its very concerning what is happening. Maybe there shouldn't be pages on political parties as it has to be accounted for by election agents. Maybe Wikipedia should ban politicians and parties except independent petition campaigns that are connected to an election

Thanks 2A00:23C6:C8D6:5301:2D1F:8B9C:E4C0:2145 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The content of articles is built using sources considered reliable (defined in WP:RS) as assessed by the community. The people who edited those articles probably, and should have, followed our policy on using a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). The way those articles are constructed are based on how the sources assess the subject.

Also, articles are protected to prevent general disruptive editing like vandalism, not to prevent good-faith changes. Banana is semi-protected, and I assume that was not to promote propaganda. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

And I forgot to say, as the fellow below me said, Hope not Hate is only used in 4 and 3 times respectively in both articles. Doesn't seem too severe to me. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

From the article it seems as though the organisation Hope not Hate is only mentioned 4 times, all in the references section. The page in question that is semi-protected, Britain First, was protected from editing by new or unregistered accounts due to persistent disruptive editing. As for the claims that the party is far-right and neo-fascist, they are supported and rigourously research to prove that they are supported by multiple reliable sources. If you'd like to request any other changes, you can do so on the articles' talk pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: on a minor technical note, Wikipedia links are marked as "no-follow" as far as search engines are concerned, so no organisation gets any benefit from including links in articles, See WP:SEO for more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The decision to keep a Wikipedia article protected from editing by certain types of accounts is made by the Wikipedia community, not "the Labour Party or bigger groups or Mi5 UK government", whatever the latter might mean.

"I find it absolutely unacceptable that a group called hope not hate would go around making pages and content designed to attack and discredit their opponents while increasing their own optimization." I and most other Wikipedia editors would find that absolutely unacceptable, but you have provided zero evidence that it has occurred. Such baseless accusations are also absolutely unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Creating my first Wikipedia Page

Hello everyone, i am interested in creating my first Wikipedia article from scratch. I decided to create a wanted article from the WikiProject Medicine Requested Articles Page, so i choose to create a artivle about "List of shoulder injuries". My questions are a) are the requested articles in any official wikipedia requested article page, automatically notable b) if not is the page "List of shoulder injuries" notable? And c) which criteria make a list page notable, as i am not very familliar with list pages. Finally. I would like to ask if you have any other additional suggestions, as i am already accustomed to the concept of Draft Pages and aware of the strict WikiMed source guidelines. Thank you eveyone in advance! Mant08 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

For this specific page I assume it is about different kinds of shoulder injuries. From my uninvolved standpoint this sounds like a helpful article to have, but make sure that it fulfills the notability criteria. For lists specifically, I would recommend reading through this page as it will be very helpful with your article. I wish you luck with your first article! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chorchapu Thank you for your help and kind words! Mant08 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mant08! As Chorchapu said, seems like it could be promising (though perhaps the folks at WT:MED could give you a better assessment). WP:Requested articles is not "official" - anyone can add a request - and it has many very old or non-notable requests, so proceed with caution (though it's likely that topics (like medicine) might be in better shape than others (say, biographies or companies)). Regarding list notability, WP:NLIST might be what you're looking for. See also the category of articles Category:Injuries of shoulder and upper arm. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean Thank you for your reponse, but i stopped developing ther article as i found out an equivalent page already exist: Shiulder Problem, although the page name should be changed, to become clearer. Mant08 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviews in the body of BLP?

I'm coming up against an issue I'm not sure how to handle. BLP's of playwrights tend to contain reference to numerous plays that have been or are in production. Not each play has its own standalone wikipedia page, however many of the plays do have their own reviews from theater critics. Is it correct to add a "reception" section to the BLP of the playwright as a container for the reviews or should each the reviews be connected to small pages about each play. For example playwright Jamie Lloyd has directed a revival of Waiting for Godot starring Keanu Reeves. It's a known story, so maybe not a standalone page for the play, but the play did get a review. How should it be handled? Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think what you're asking is dealt with by using Wikipedia's definition of "notability". A playwright's notability is separate from the notability of each individual play. Thus (in a too-obvious example) both Hamlet and Shakespeare are notable, so each gets an article – but Sonnet XI is not notable enough by itself to have its own individual article. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It isn't? TooManyFingers, you may wish to take the article Sonnet 11 to AfD. (And as for "Hamlet", see Hamlet (disambiguation).) -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ha. I blindly assumed and was completely wrong. Sorry for the false information. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xkeylimepie: The revival is mentioned in the last sentence of Waiting for Godot#2000 to present and the last sentence of Jamie Lloyd (director)#2019–present. If you want to cite a review, either of those places would seem to be a logical location to do so. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Noted and thank you. Xkeylimepie (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Xkeylimepie, I'd tend to call Waiting for Godot a known non-story. Play reviews typically describe as well as evaluate (although there rarely is, and perhaps there can't be, a clear division between the two functions). I've not heard of Lloyd and am a theatre ignoramus, but I presume that a description of this production would be appropriate (or even required). Why not derive this description, at least in part, from the one or more reviews published about it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help restoring my biography draft (COI)

Hi everyone!

I’m the subject of an article draft about myself, Laurel House (dating and relationship coach, writer, and media personality). My previous edits were reverted because of a conflict of interest, which I completely understand.

I’ve prepared a fully sourced and neutral version of the article in my sandbox here: User:DateNightLaurel/sandbox. Could someone please take a look and advise how I can request an independent editor to review or move it into article space?

I am not had experience on Wikipedia and I may have done it wrong. But I definitely don't want to unknowingly do more wrong.

Thank you so much for your time and help! ~~~~

DateNightLaurel (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I left a comment on your draft(which will also appear on your user talk page). 331dot (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw: you've got the same content on your user page and in the sandbox but your user page is only supposed to contain information relevant to work on Wikipedia. You'll need to delete most of the text on that page. MmeMaigret (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @DateNightLaurel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Your draft makes many of the same mistakes that new editors often make when they try to create an article: in particular, including a lot of non-independent 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) 14:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Bulk Editing URLs When Site Structure Changes

I am a webmaster for a site that was bought out by a larger site. The smaller site’s structure has now changed. I want to update the ~200 URLs that point to the old site: some of them 404 because they’re quite old and the structure has changed over the years, and others redirect properly to the new site (but that redirection can be skipped).

I don’t want to just make a new Wikipedia account and immediately edit 200 URLs in case that seems suspicious to automatic tools. Can anyone give me any pointers on the best way to accomplish this? 67.85.157.46 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You can go to WP:URLREQ to get these changed over NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

how did security studies begin

peer to peer Philip Eyo (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a page for questions about using Wikipedia. Your question seems instead to be about security studies. If you can't find the answer in some article here, you might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

On Filipino songs

If I create a draft for a filipino song. If the song is not english. Will I put Tagalog or Filipino? I know they are used interchangably and Filipino is now the natinal language of that country before it was Tagalog. So would Filipino be the more useful one? 203.177.220.206 (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I regret that I have no idea, and perhaps other people here don't either. I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, which it's likely to be read by people who are well informed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor: does the song you have in mind already have articles in either languages in other-language versions of Wikipedia? If not, these might be better places to start drafting and if they do, you could check out WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You would describe the song as being in whichever language the sources you cite say it is in; if they differ roughly evenly, you would note that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding new wikipage publication

Hi, I want to publish a new wikipedia page for a university website. What is the process and requirements?

Thanks Sharmapk752 (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you want to write about the website or the university itself?

Your question is similar to asking "how do I build a house and what are the requirements?" without knowing anything about permitting, land acquisition, construction techniques, architecture, etc. There are many things to learn if you want to have a good chance of success at writing a new article. It is highly recommended that new users not dive right in to article creation; doing so often leads to frustration and anger as things happen to work you spend hours on that you don't understand. You should first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to build experience and knowledge of Wikipedia. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea, too.

However, if you still wish to proceed, please first read Your First Article; you may then use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You should first gather independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic(that are not interviews, press releases, the reporting of routine activities, or brief mentions) so that you have them in hand before you begin to summarize them. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sharmapk752 One of the difficulties is that your draft will have to show how the University/website is notable in the way that Wikipedia defines that word. If you tell us in this thread the name of the University and can mention some publications about it which meet our golden rules for sources, we may be able to give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sharmapk752 On the face of it your question doesn't quite make sense. For example, WP has an article about IIT Bombay, but why should we have an article about the website https://www.iitb.ac.in/? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Donations

Can't you all set a cookie so contributors that have been sending Wiki money, forgo having the ad blast/cover the initial Wikipedia screen? It's rater irritating, and I know you all must have developers on staff that can set that option on the main web page. I'm all for and fully support Wikipepedia asking for donations.... Pbounds (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pbounds. The answer is, Yes and no.

Any logged in user can turn off these messages: there is an option in your preferences.

But there is absolutely no connection between donation and any account, so nothing in Wikipedia is able to tell whether or not you are a contributor. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The option to switch off the banner message is at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Slow processing of review of new pages

Hi, i saw recently slow processing about reviewing/patrolling new pages in Wikipedia, is this becouse editors are busy on new projects or... 81.26.202.141 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The speed at which activities are done is purely a function of the number of people to do them and the amount of time they have available. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Virtually all contributors are volunteers. Reviewing drafts is, it seems, one of the less popular ways for them to spend their time. No doubt this is at least in part due to the quantity of spam, vanity content, and LLM slop involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean mainspace articles, and out of curiosity are pages about officeholders in gov posittions more "priority' than other normal articles about notable peoples? 81.26.202.141 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Most editors focus on the things that interest them, and politics is a topic that many people are interested. Generally if there is an article about something recent or in the news it will receive more attention than a random biography. There's a giant backlog for new pages being reviewed and reviewing a page can take anywhere between 6 hours and 6 months. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)