Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, 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 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Great, thank you for this. For his early life, I've found his own personal site gives the most information. I do remember his interview on a popular skateboarding podcast called The Nine Club where he talked about growing up in Missouri. I believe I can cite the YouTube transcript. WhippySmash (talk) 23:13, 9 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)

Noted! Yes I am obviously new to Wikipedia editing and I am very happy to learn these things. I am going to work on a new version that completely avoids any LLM's for help. WhippySmash (talk) 23:16, 9 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)

Gotcha! This is like a secret little world here, so yes, the LLM definitely helped me figure it all out - granted not well enough. Now I know what not to do, thank you. Do you think it would be best to start from scratch? Would I be able to delete [draft:Shawn Hale] and resubmit a new one where I make sure to follow the instruction parameter more thoroughly? Also, apologies, I am going to look for answers about this as I explore this side of the site. Just want to say thank you for reviewing it certainly helps! WhippySmash (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to start from scratch, but it doesn't hurt. As I said, you can have the AI help you find sources that are reliable and independent of the subject (see WP:Golden Rule for a brief friendly overview of the kind of sources we need). You can write the article and give it to the AI to suggest improvements. But if you let the AI write it, it'll be full of superfluous boldface, phrasing that makes liberal use of em-dashes, and bullet lists, and it isn't going to come across as neutrally written even though the AI insists it's neutral. And it's likely to include hallucinated sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, I will certainly learn more about the use of bolding. I actually have a pair of the shoes he created and they really helped my foot pain, which is what made me dive deeper into how it all came about. As a skateboarder myself, I've seen so many skateboarding outlets cover Shawn over the years. When I looked for a Wikipedia article on him, I was surprised to not see one. I only saw one for his sponsor Birdhouse Skateboards which I have loved since I started skateboarding in the 00's. I see they also need some help with information there, and not just Birdhouse, but all my favorite iconic brands lack information and history. Skateboarding in general seems to not care about Wikipedia, but us skateboarders are obsessed, especially when skateboarding concepts transition to other parts of culture (constantly). This is what I saw when learning about the patent and why I thought this would be a great place to start Wikipedia editing. Thank you for the advice! WhippySmash (talk) 23:29, 9 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)

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)

Awesome, happy editing :). GoldRomean (talk) 17:15, 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)

@Hoary, I like your thinking and not a bad idea. Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:38, 10 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)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia has not got any kind of "editorial board", or any "strategy" for most things. What gets done, what gets picked up, is purely a function of who is editing, and what they are interested in and willing to do. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"are pages about officeholders ... more "priority'"—No, though obviously each volunteer chooses for themself what to work on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

How to use Copyrighted image

I want to use Copyrighted image on Muhammed Abdul Ali, Can someone help??

獅眠洞 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞 You can't. It's freely licensed or nothing. Which is why "nothing" is very common on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång i mean fair use Like- File:Sir-Francis-Fenwick-Pearson-1st-Bt.jpg; Wikimedia allows it for language Wikipedia. 獅眠洞 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The rules are different for people who have died. Francis Fenwick Pearson died in 1991, so it's impossible to take a new photo of him; Muhammed Abdul Ali is still around, so it is - in principle - possible to take a new photo of him and license it appropriately. DS (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Note however that there's no contradiction between "copyrighted" and "freely licensed". Indeed, "freely licensed" implies that somebody licensed it -- and who other than the copyright holder? Take File:Chris_Pratt_(43672959202)_(cropped).jpg for example. (As it's currently exhibited on the top page of en:WP, you can be sure that the legality of reproducing it has been carefully checked.) Somebody named Gage Skidmore owns the copyright, and has kindly copylefted it, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license (a copyleft license that's acceptable for Commons). What is 🄯Gage Skidmore remains ©Gage Skidmore. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Release history question

Hello all,

I'm currently making an article on the song Peace of Mind by the Killers. The song was originally released on a 10th anniversary reissue of Sam's Town on October 7, 2016, and had not been available prior to this, but was also released as a single from the reissue on that same day. My question is, do I include the vinyl release information in the release history section of Peace of Mind or just the single release?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I can think of no reason for not mentioning the vinyl release. However your current wording of the lede needs some work:

'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released a single [sic] on the remastered double vinyl . . .'

is confusing and contradictory. (I take it the single release was online only, not in any physical format?)

I suggest you simplify this lede sentence to something like:

'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released in 2016.',

and transfer the further details to the Background and release section below.

Incidentally, I think the usual format for song titles is to use single quote marks rather than double, as you have done, and to italicise album titles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Changing username

I have since changed my username, but previous edits are still under the old username and appear when it is searched. Is there any way to either delete these or move them to the new username? Thanks Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Longhorncowfish. Signatures posted before a username change stay as they are, and should stay as they are, so that people can come back to them in the future and see what they're supposed to look like at the time you sent a message. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Email preferences

I do not want people to email me, but every time I turn it off in settings (I do click the save button and turn it off in global settings), it just resets whenever I leave the page and come back. How do I fix this or do I just have to keep it on. Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe you have to keep it n and not reset it again and gain, as this may cause the beta preferences to malfunction. The Cunning Eagle^talk 23:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Rejection (seemingly subjective) appeal

Hi, I’m seeking a second opinion on my declined draft Draft:The Flood: Music for MANNA.

I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS because it received substantial coverage in [TV, radio, web with most of web coverage and all radio coverage being about just the albium].

The AfC reviewer hasn’t replied and the Help Desk request for an independent reviewer received no response.

Could someone take another look or advise the next step? Guyshomenet (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Guyshomenet, you did in fact receive a response at the help desk, where another independent reviewer explained why it was declined. If you want a third opinion, I can say that I agree with both the decline and the Help desk editor's response. If you are unable to find any more reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, the album unfortunately simply may not meet our inclusion criterion at this time and should not have any article. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out, Guyshomenet, is that Rejection as you wrote in your header is different from Declined which is what happened to your draft. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you are welcome to add more references, specifically to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the album, and then resubmit the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally, an album doesn't merit an article unless the artist(s) already have an article. See the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A9, which applies to "any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." If your draft had been moved to mainspace, it would have been speedy-deleted because it makes no assertion of notability and none of the artists (as far as I can tell) have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Article in Draft

Hi, I’ve submitted my draft Draft:Nainital Literature Festival

Could someone please take a look or suggest how I can improve it for quicker review? Literaturebee7 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just be patient, Literaturebee7, and it will be reviewed. Though I don't suppose it will be viewed favorably, as most of the references have titles indicating that the sources are about what at the time was planned to happen, and so was most likely just on the say-so of the organizers. Where is the material, written by sources independent of the festival's organizers, about what did happen? -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Banners and inline tags

Hello! I have a view that I haven't seen expressed or refuted anywhere on Wikipedia and I'd like to know if it's widely held and maybe if there's already an essay on it that I couldn't find. Simply put, I think that inline tags like , as well as banners at the top of a page, are helpful for readers as well as editors, in that they inform the reader that the information they find in that article/section might not be entirely accurate or balanced. As such, I think that flagging issues in article space is important even if there's already an appropriate message on the talk page. Thank you (: lp0 on fire (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I have always assumed that as a given, so obvious that it hasn't needed emphasising. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire See WP:DRIVEBY and the section below it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ensuring accurate translations from English articles

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

---

Hello community,

I’ve noticed that the English article Surfshark VPN is translated into several other languages, but some of the translations appear inaccurate, and a few facts do not match the English version. I would like to ensure that translations in other languages remain consistent with the English article and reflect accurate factual information. Since I am affiliated with the subject of the article, I cannot edit the articles myself due to conflict of interest. I would greatly appreciate advice on how to: request corrections in other languages, ensure that volunteer editors can safely implement these updates, keep everything fully compliant with Wikipedia’s COI and neutral point of view guidelines.

Any guidance or recommended process would be very helpful. TeaAndPages (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

TeaAndPages I've answered you at the Help Desk, please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The Edgcumbe Arms (Cornwall heritage pub)

Hi everyone — I’ve just resubmitted Draft:The_Edgcumbe_Arms., a Grade II listed riverside pub at Cremyll, Cornwall.

It now includes multiple independent, published and academic sources (Historic England, Pevsner & Beacham Buildings of England: Cornwall, Langley & Small Estuary & River Ferries, Kittridge Steamers & Ferries of the Tamar, Good Pub Guide 2004, Cowdery 2014, Cornish Times 2025, Herald 2023, etc.).

The earlier AfC declines cited “no significant coverage,” but that’s now addressed. The page currently shows “Review waiting” — could someone please confirm it’s properly submitted and perhaps flag it to a reviewer familiar with heritage or Cornwall topics?

Many thanks!

— Ddpc341114 (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ddpc341114 It's been submitted correctly. Whoever ends up reviewing it depends on who sees it and decides to review it first. Whether they are familiar with Cornwall or not their review should be fair. Ultraodan (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed and published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reference desk question

Hello, can somebody please answer my question at the reference desk? Diff: [1]

try to see this. HavingATea303 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Culture?

Hi, does Wikipedia have a culture, besides community? Giver058854687 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really? The selling point of Wikipedians is that we're each very different and unique, having diverse backgrounds and beliefs! jolielover♥talk 12:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

wat als je nu een vraag kan beantwoorden en over een tijdje niet meer

wat als je nu een vraag kan beantwoorden en over een tijdje niet meer 188.205.73.114 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, this is the English Wikipedia. We request that you communicate in English. You can find the Dutch Wikipedia at nl:Wikipedia:Hoofdpagina. jolielover♥talk 12:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover: This is the Teahouse. Everyone is welcome here, including those with limited or no English, who should be signposted to The Embassy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, I had no idea that section existed! That is really useful, thank you. Knitsey (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition to nl:Wikipedia:Hoofdpagina, you may (especially if your query is about this Wikipedia), contact Dutch-speaking editors via our "Embassy". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Linking articles to drafts

Can you link articles to drafts? Possible? Userbasoork07 (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Userbasoork07! To answer your question in one word, no. Mainspace articles should not have links to the draftspace. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. CodeTalker (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Dates not lining up?

Hi, I wanted to try my hand at making my own page: Draft:Air_Parabat, but some of the dates do not line up with sources. The page List of defunct airlines of Bangladesh state that Air Parabat started in 1993 and ceased operations in 2001, while some other places say that it started in 1994 as Air Parabat Flying Academy and its operations as a private sector airline started in early 1998. There is also the fact that the airline ceased operations in 2001 but a crash was reported in 2002. However, i do think that that is about the flying academy which i can't find anything more on. Also the issue of it being a flying academy confuses me as I'm not sure if I should seperate the accidents into two categories. What dates should i be using? VTECAndVAR (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You may first need to consider how reliable each of those sources is. This is perhaps an issue best discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh and. or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, depending on whether those source are locally- or industry-focussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Rename article.

I want to rename the article Middle Pleistocene to Chibanian. But I don't know how. Christianhatley527 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Requested moves, but note that your proposal may be considered contentious and act accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page

Hello, how do I declare a conflict of interest for a future wikipedia page that I have been instructed to create? For context, the person I am creating a wikipedia page for is a notable solicitor in the UK and I work in the marketing department. Would it be easier for him to set up the account and do it himself or can I help him with it? 82.32.67.118 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See, in this order, WP:BOSS, WP:PAID and WP:COI. Compliance with WP:PAID especially is obligatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Improving a Wikipedia page draft

Hello, I'm working on Draft:SerpApi and would like to make it better.

If I understood correctly, the article missing an in-depth info about technology and the history behind the company? I'm a novice in contributing to Wikipedia and would love to understand what to improve.

Best regards,

Illia Ilyazub (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ilyazub You main issue is notability and sourcing and also the draft it reads a bit promotional. You can ADD independent reliable coverage LIKE news,, tech sites or journals about SerpApi itself also keep History and Technology brief and neutral. I suggest you can use these guides will a. WP:CORP b. WP:RS and bb. WP:NPOV. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 15:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Getting familiar

Trying to familiarize myself with the site and I have some most likely pretty newbie questions. 1. For noticeboards that have "Administrator" in the name, does that mean only administrators can comment or interact? 2. What is the difference between administrator notice board and administrator notice board / incidents? Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xkeylimepie Anyone can post or comment on those pages — they’re not limited to admins. The Administrator’s Noticeboard (AN) is for general admin related issues ON THE OTHER HANDS administrator notice board / incidents is for specific conduct problems or like disputes that needing admin attention. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

auto update infobox

i want to know how you can make this infobox automatically update to your current edits, if possible.

 ? This user has made ? edits to the English language Wikipedia.

Breck0530 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Breck0530 I'm pretty sure you can't, as there is no "magic word" like {{NUMBEROFARTICLES} for that. You can, however, list your latest n edits on your userpage: see mine for an example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok Thanks! Breck0530 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Box things

What are the box things on peoples user page,and where do I get them? Starlet147 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Starlet147 See WP:Userbox for details. You can search for such things in the Wikipedia search box by putting WP: at the front of obvious keywords. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but how do I put one on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlet147 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is easiest in the source editor (See Help:Introduction), simply by copy/pasting the code from another editor's page or via the boxes listed on the Userbox page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How to make a new page

I am wondering how to make a new page. If you can please tell me how Imgoated926 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Imgoated926 If by "page" you mean an article in mainspace, then see Help:Your first article for detailed instructions. However, the best advice is to spend a couple of weeks updating existing articles in areas that interest you, so as to learn how Wikipedia works. New articles need to be on notable topics, as that word is used here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

For what reason are editors calling military command units Police?

For what reason are editors calling military command units Police? There are no Police in any military organization in the world. Police are civilians and typically considered illegal militia by military organizations. Police were not created until after World War II and it is not appropriate to associate any military group with their illegal insurrectionist movements. 24.199.148.218 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

IP editor. As our article police describes, many police forces were set by 1900. As to your question, I assume this is because that's what the sources have called them. You can discuss this with other editors on the talk page of any articles where you feel the terminology is being wrongly used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article where this is occurring? I'm not entirely sure what you mean and some context would help. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Military police is a common well-established term used in numerous reliable sources and the official name of organizations like Military Police Corps (United States), Canadian Forces Military Police and Royal Military Police. We are not going to pretend that military police doesn't exist just because somebody has their own definition. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Graham Haig

Hi, my name is Graham Haig. In Canada, in 1992, I won a very significant gay rights case, Haig and Birch v. Canada et al., (1992) 57 O.A.C. 272 (CA) https://ca.vlex.com/vid/haig-v-can-680869385. In that case, I won the original ruling that the Charter of Rights covered "sexual orientation", and the first positive remedy in Canadian history - the courts ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act must be read as including "sexual orientation" rather than striking the Act down. Also some side precedents. It was the preeminent ruling in Canada regarding gay rights.

Birch died and I became a recluse (lol, not quite), I disappeared from view. Wiki has no biographical information on me, and has no page regarding the case, even though it is one of the most significant cases in Canada wrt gay rights. Many of the other pages documenting the history of gay rights in Canada may be misleading because Haig and Birch is not documented or referenced.

To complicate things, I also fought another case "Haig v. Canada" about voting rights, which went to the Supreme Court, which is minimally documented on wiki Haig v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer).

Anyways, I always said stories are for old timers to tell, and now I'm an old timer, I've decided to tell the story of Haig and Birch. I've started a substack, grahamhaig.substack.com, called "I was a teenage gay activist" to tell the story.

I was thinking that I could assist wiki to document Haig and Birch, and maybe a little biographical information on myself, but it is daunting just writing the substack! It seems a little vain to just go ahead and write about myself on Wiki, but I was wondering if there was a path where an experienced wiki editor might be interested in documenting the case?

Anyway, I'll check back here on Monday, October 10, to see any responses.

Thanks! Ghaig (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It's mentioned at LGBTQ history in Canada#1990–1994 and Timeline of LGBTQ history in Canada#1992. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Primehunter,

Yes, but in LGBTQ history in Canada#1990–1994, it is misrepresented. It is a common misinterpretation. The thing about Haig and Birch was, that although Birch was in the Canadian Air Force, the case was not about that, nor about gays in the military. It was a pure legal case, launched by myself, which simply asked the court to interpret the Charter, absent of any specific controversy. It sought declaratory relief alone. I added Birch to the case very late, of many volunteers, to get around the question of standing, although we were sure I had standing, we were asking for so many related precedents we didn't want to get bogged down on the issue. But because Birch did have an active controversy after being discharged from the military for being gay, some confusion has resulted about the case of Haig and Birch. Ghaig (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Correction to my original post, Monday is October 13! Ghaig (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Above: Many of the other pages documenting the history of gay rights in Canada may be misleading because Haig and Birch is not documented or referenced. This is ambiguous. If you're saying that Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. isn't, other than fleetingly, documented anywhere, then there's only an insignificant amount of material for a Wikipedia article to be based on, and thus no Wikipedia article can be constructed. If you publish your own account at Substack (or anywhere else), then a Wikipedia article could make no more than incidental use of that. But your account at Substack (or wherever) might interest one or more social historians, legal scholars, or others; and what they write, more or less based on what you've written, could be the foundation for a Wikipedia article. (Or you could just be saying something quite different: that Wikipedia's articles fail to document or reference the case.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Sidemen Infobox

I wanted to have some comments from the experienced editors on here about the Infobox in Sidemen. Do you folks think this is ideal? Is there a way to improve this? Should we create a new infobox for Creator Groups? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

When it says that the number of "Subscribers" is "155.6 million (combined)", explaining that the number "Includes the Sidemen's five group channels and twenty-four of their individual channels which host Sidemen content", is it describing subscribers or subscriptions? (If I subscribe to exactly two of their channels, how many "subscribers" do I constitute?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Trying to add a new article

I am trying to add a new article about a play. After inserting references as best I knew how, when I go to pubish, I get an error message that says "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing.

Report error"

When I click on "report this error," I'm not sure what's happening. I don't know what the "automated filter" has identifed. I don't knw what it means by a "constructive" edit. Can someone help me fugure out how to get this article published? This process is very complicated and confusing. Cbohanan (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cbohanan I've restored the sandbox for you at Draft:Second Samuel. Nthep (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Great -- so what do I do now? Delete the refernces as I typed them and use the automatically generated ones? And then how do I get it actually published? I don't see a "Publish" button. Cbohanan (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Cbohanan, I've added the draft template to the article. You can submit it for review, and a AFC reviewer will look it over and determine if it is good to publish to mainspace. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help -- what do I do about Reference 1, has three links that go to the box where I entered the details about the published script? What is it asking me to add? Cbohanan (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cbohanan They're advisory message but you've got both |year=1991 and |date=1991, you only need one or the other. You've also got too much information in |location= just the town and state is enough. Nthep (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a great help. Cbohanan (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a close

There is a merge template over on Swedenburg v. Kelly which has been open since April. How and where do I request a close for that? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That's what Closure requests is for. However, if were I not so inexperienced (and given my opinion here, I count myself as involved) in that area, I'd close it myself as merge, I think, given the similarities between the articles and the quite short size of the non-duplicated parts. LightlySeared (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I see it as a no-consensus close to actually. I don't see consensus for that close. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, not exactly my area of expertise. And yeah, that assessment was based on a pretty short reading of the discussion, given that I have zero intention of closing it, sorry if that gave the wrong impression. But, based on the arguments as presented, I do think it's in the murky area where one can reasonably see it either way. LightlySeared (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

2024 Pittsburgh Pirates season clean up

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down past the roster, where Paul Skenes photo is, the Playerstats header is off, needs to be fixed. Thank you. P.S. No symbols appear at the bottom so I cant do a redirect. Theairportman33531 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 sorted. It needed {{clear}} adding to make sure the heading stays below the image rather than trying to wrap around it. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Who's doing this to me

I am a sockpuppet and I can't figure it out 2600:100D:B005:DB62:0:4F:E2FA:1D01 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Getting my article approved

I've written an article in the Sandbox. What do I do next?

Thank you-Marc Portland Marc Portland (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You've written a rough draft. Sample: Sid is referenced in Diary of a Rock n Roll Star by Ian Hunter and Keep it together! by Rich Deakin. "Be referenced" can mean no more than "be mentioned"; if this is what it means here, don't mention this stuff. If on the other hand Hunter and Deakin each say something substantial, then for each, paraphrase it and add a reference pointing to the page(s) within the specific edition of the book (providing the place, publisher, year, ISBN). Oh, and Wikipedia isn't on chummy, first-name terms with its biographees. He's not "Sid", but "Bishop".

Likewise for the other ingredients of your draft. Be sure that every assertion is backed up by a reliable source. Most kinds of assertion have to be backed up by a source independent of Bishop (and thus not an interview with him).

Once that's done, your draft can be moved to Draft:Sid Bishop (musician) and you can submit it for consideration as an article.

If all of this sounds like hard work for a newbie, yes, it is. You'd be wise to put it aside for some weeks while you get experience augmenting and otherwise improving articles that already exist. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Lafcadio Hearn and mentions by Overly Sarcastic Productions

The article Lafcadio Hearn was mentioned by the Overly Sarcastic Productions video Fables and Folktales: Yuki-Onna at around 4:25-4:28 way through in the ending and I was unsure if this warranted a mention on the talk page and if so how to properly put that on the talk page. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me and explain exactly why or why not it warrants a mention. Thank you very much in advance. Fun Chaos (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

And another Wikipedia page mentioned by Overly Sarcastic Productions: Astraea, mentioned in Miscellaneous Myths: Astraea just throughout the first half and shown on screen, so should this also be mentioned on the talk page and if so why, and if not why not, and if so, how? Thank you for your help and patience in advance. Fun Chaos (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Press coverage. (I confess that I haven't bothered to read it myself, or to watch either video.) If one mention qualifies (or of course if both do), then use Template:Press. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Images

How do I add images to articles,please help. Starlet147 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Rebecca Alpert

hi @Starlet147 and welcome to the Teahouse! images have to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons before they can be used. in this case, please check out Introuction to images. do note that images have to have the appropriate license before you can add them, and as such as a rule of thumb you cannot upload most of the images that you simply found online onto Wikipedia (unless they are already licensed under Creative Commons or are in the Public Domain). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Issues with Template:Location map

I tried to add a location map to List of World Heritage Sites in Arab States but it isn't working could someone help me fix it. I am an experienced user but I don't have much experience with templates. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 01:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

1RR

How long is it considered reasonable to wait after someone has violated 1RR, and you have properly asked them to self-revert on their talk page, before reporting them for the 1RR violation? Also, is that in the same place you'd report for edit warring? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)