Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, 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.

Request for Collaboration: Three Principles of the People Youth Corps

Hello everyone,

I am currently working on the Wikipedia article for the Three Principles of the People Youth Corps (Sanmin Zhuyi Qingniantuan), a youth organization established by Chiang Kai-shek in 1938. The article currently covers its founding, key leaders, organizational structure, and historical role, but it remains incomplete and could greatly benefit from expert attention, additional citations, and further context.

I would greatly appreciate help from editors interested in:

• Taiwanese political history
• Chinese Nationalist Party history
• Youth paramilitary organizations
• Wartime China and party factions

Any contributions, suggestions, or peer review would be very valuable. Please feel free to edit directly or discuss improvements on this talk page.

Thank you for your time and expertise!

--Weirongn (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I went to look. Would it be possible to translate the titles of the references, so that English speakers can understand where the information is coming from? TooManyFingers (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT usage

If i use ChatGPT, just to improve my article, is this prohibited or not, like if some person decided to use AI to improve their article, will they be warned? Nail123Real (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nail123Real: How willing are you to go thru what the chatbot says with a fine-toothed comb to fix errors and outright hallucinations? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Another way to put it: it's not strictly prohibited, but the level of effort in reviewing and ensuring that the chatbot's output is correct and usable is similar to the level of effort of just writing it from scratch, so I don't really see the point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

so it isn't prohibited but never required or useful? Nail123Real (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nail123Real: That's a good way to put it, but I'd emphasise that the community in general discourages, borderline hates, their use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

yeah, no one likes AI for page edits on wikipedia, and all of its sister projects, it isn't even great at having opinions or bias Nail123Real (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Anything "AI-looking" is quite likely to just be deleted. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

well, as long as it is obvious, but still, that's a good statement Nail123Real (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's not really a problem in taking inspiration for upgrades or collect references, etc from AI until or unless it Violet any Wikipedia rules but i prefer and tell everyone to find and write and do everything from start by yourself and don't use AI in a large amount. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

But why use it in ANY amount? Using AI is a clear and obvious admission that you are incompetent. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why i am telling to prefer writing it by yourself and do not use AI as much as as possible. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

But to "not use AI as much as possible" is just to never use it. There's never a case where someone needs to use AI.

Being in a hurry to get an article written and put up, and not even caring what's in it, is really bad - and I'm afraid that's probably the biggest reason it gets used.

If, for example, someone felt they needed AI to cover for their lack of skill in some area, then they would have no way of knowing if the AI result was flawed - they'd be blindly submitting material, having no clue if it was good.

I could use AI to write about advanced geometry, but the writing would be garbage because I don't know the subject. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct the same thing i am talking about Abdullah1099 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Bit of a side question, but has Wikipedia taken any steps to discourage AI from scraping data from it's articles? OwlParty (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia do that?

How would Wikipedia do that? —scs (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors would either check the text or just remove the text

just because you use AI for laziness, doesn't mean it is perfect, it would probably write horribly because it doesn't know that YOU know the subject Nail123Real (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood my questions, which were in response to OwlParty's "side question" just above. —scs (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

well, i don't really check history in pages, so i don't really know if Wikipedia is or isn't removing AI generated data from its articles?

OwlParty's question had nothing to do with AI-generated content. The question was whether Wikipedia should try to somehow prevent AI's from reading and learning from Wikipedia's public content. —scs (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Nail123Real (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh also, just wanted to mention, I tried using ChatGPT and then later one of the other AIs (I forget which)to generate some text for a story I've been working on and... yeah, just No. Took FAR too long to get anything remotely close to what I was trying to write. About the best it did was give me one or two extra ideas of what to write on my own. Mostly it became a conversation about the themes I was exploring, and the writing techniques I was using, but with a robot who was clearly programmed to be tirelessly positive about my writing, and just regurgitate whatever I told it about my writing. Good if I were looking for a digital sycophant to stroke my ego. Basically it seems to be a digital parrot. OwlParty (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Then write everything by yourself simply not use AI. Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If you use AI, you wont learn how to write better. Its like a self driving car, maybe its useful, but if you use it too much, you wont know how to drive a car. It takes trial and error to learn how to write better. A computer program made up of other peoples writing wont help you write better. And theres nothing wrong with making mistakes and learning! Dont be ashamed. Many of us have decades of experience writing that not everyone has. Metallurgist (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct i also write in my early days extremely bad. You are not understanding i am not prohibiting but telling never to use. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi - is there someone in Australia who can help fix issues on my wiki page?

Scott_Mayman

I'm not literate enough and it seems I upset someone. I can explain if there is someone in Australia who may be in a better position than myself to fix?? I'm way out of my league on this. Scott Mayman (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scott Mayman You can try asking at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Scott Mayman (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Scott, it's highly recommended that editors do not edit articles about themselves (see WP:COI). One option is to make edit requests on the article's talk page, following WP:COIREQUEST, and another editor will evaluate the proposed edits for you.

To do this, go to Talk:Scott Mayman, copy and paste {{edit COI}}, and then write what needs changing underneath.Nil🥝 08:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi - and many thanks for your response... I made an update and I didn't know I was causing an issue. It was not my intention. I'm locked out of edits. I like your idea of another editor evaluating. I don't want to walk away from this but instead, I'd like to reach out to someone who can review the edit and fix the issue. I promise not to do my own edits anymore... any thoughts on this? Scott Mayman (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scott Mayman Happy to have a look in the upcoming week. But I would recommend the article be moved (back) to draftspace because it would help to start with a bullet-pointed career summary in chrono order with dates. Also, have you been covered in a book, newspaper or magazine at length? MmeMaigret (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi - yes, lots of newspaper stories and trade publications - which are already listed on the page.

I think Wiki wants someone else to edit... or atleast review and accept the article is OK... but I'm not technically minded enough to fix this myself. Thank you for your reply... I think I need someone to speak with on the phone who is willing to jump in and fix this... Scott Mayman (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Just reiterating something I said on your talk – remember that most editors here are volunteers who work on what we choose to work on when we have the time. There are no paid staff who can take edit requests over the phone. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scott Mayman, @Mmemaigret, I've replied on Scott's user talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Scott Mayman @ClaudineChionh For info, I've done a once over (quick revision) of the page, which is what I take it you were after. I've added a heading to the query on the talk page, which also highlights your COI. I think the article is still liable to be recommended for deletion at some point because it's not clear that there is sig cov. The problem with your sources is they're mainly from the same publication (counts as one source) and they're behind paywalls so its hard to tell if they're significant. You shouldn't amend the page yourself but I'm happy to discuss the sources with you on the article talk page or your user talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I really had no idea I was doing the wrong thing. I don't normally do work in this particular sphere - I'm in broadcasting, not the back end digital side and I find it incredibly complicated.. It became a problem in June and everything I did to fix things, just seemed like I was going down a rabbit hole. I'm not going to touch it anymore. It looks like the things you did made it better and I am very grateful. I really appreciate your effort and time... and I'm even more grateful, knowing you and the rest of Wiki crew are volunteers. thank you. Scott Mayman (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi... and thank you for your assistance. would these help?

Can these links help? they are from Linked In... can they replace the questionable links?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/23-years-after-911-scott-mayman-0llyc/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/newsroom-inexperience-leads-aborted-courtroom-trials-scott-mayman/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-news-we-know-scott-mayman/

I'm happy to oblige where I can.

Please let me know.

Scott Scott Mayman (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for jumping in. It is a relief - it just got too much for me and I'm very appreciative. thank you. Scott Mayman (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important for you to know that no one is upset with you. You did two things that aren't accepted - putting up material about yourself or someone you know, and not being up-front about who you are when you did that - but it didn't upset people. Don't do those things anymore, but nobody is angry. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It became an issue in June and everything I did, just seemed to make it worse. I mentioned this in a separate reply that it was like I was going down a rabbit hole. I really had no idea I was doing the wrong thing. I also thank you for reaching out saying you don't think anyone's upset with me. I now know I did things that are not accepted (I had no idea of that at the time.. I thought I was doing the right thing) I'm not a technological person.. I'm not that smart.. I'm just an everyday person. It was never my intention to do the wrong thing... I won't touch the page anymore and will leave it as is. Having said that, I really appreciate you reaching out, the way you did, along with your wiki colleagues over the past day who've responded with such helpful advice and jumped in to review the situation. It really has turned things around and I'm incredibly gracious. thank you. Scott Mayman (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a bit late to the party, but I just want to say that I hope this does not discourage you from editing Wikipedia in the future. I know the technical stuff can get pretty complicated. I barely know what I'm doing half the time. But there are always simple ways you can help out, especially if you find Wikipedia to be a useful resource. Sometimes I am just reading an article and find simple spelling/grammar errors which are easy to fix, down to just a single letter even, and taking care of those when you catch them is a great way to ease into the process.

Also, I find that reading article talk pages and looking through revision histories can often add a lot more depth and and context to the information presented in just the article itself. Wikipedia is not a static book to be read as if permanently printed on the pulp of dead trees. It is a fluid document presenting the best consensus of verifiable (and note-worthy) information we've come up with so far. Just reading the articles is only a fraction of the experience. If I understand correctly, the actual articles only make up about 11% of the total size of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia OwlParty (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi - and I really appreciate you reaching. Yes, this entire experience has discouraged me from editing. I suffered a stroke recently, and the technical side of wiki has made things all too difficult. but I get what you're saying. It's just not for me anymore. I don't know how to remove the mention at the top of the page that questions the credibility of the wiki page. but it's a heck of a lot better now. It used to have multiple listings of issues but not anymore, thanks to so many others who stepped in to help. I gotta say, the wiki community was impressive when I called out for help. I respect everyone's a volunteer, which makes this an even better outcome. For me, I'll just let it be. I won't touch it again. If it needs updating, I'll seek advice but no I won't be editing again. Scott Mayman (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Attracting visitors to an article

Hello for this, how can I make this article attract thousands of viewers and visitors, and how to make it as a popular page, and potentially a good article? Show me. 100 users edited the article (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@100 users edited the article This is your only edit. To which article are you referring? And why do you want to attract more viewers? Please note that Wikipedia may not be used for advertising or promotion. Regarding Good Articles, please see Wikipedia:Good articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The article I’m referring are articles marked as good articles, such as entertainment. 100 users edited the article (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think they aren't sufficiently viewed; why is that a problem; and why are you interested in increasing viewers? Do you work in the entertainment industry? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I don’t work at entertainment industry. 100 users edited the article (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the best way to achieve your goal is to write your article down on a piece of paper, post a video of it on Tik-Tok...

And make it about cats.

Any other suggestions I can think to make are even worse. The goal of editing or writing an article on Wikipedia should never be to make it "go viral". Go do something noteworthy in the real world, preferably something for the good of all humans, and perhaps it will get an article here that everyone wants to read about. OwlParty (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on Superbet draft

Hi everyone!

I’ve been working on the [Superbet Group draft] (Draft:Superbet) for several months and received multiple rounds of feedback from different reviewers. Two editors previously mentioned that the structure and tone were appropriate, and that the article was close to being acceptable, the main issue being the need for an additional independent, in-depth source (per WP:42).

Based on that guidance, I’ve revised the draft multiple times to follow a strictly neutral tone, removed any promotional content, and kept only independent, verifiable sources. Recently, I’ve also come across a few new sources, including coverage in Newsweek, Forbes Romania, The Recursive, Profit.ro, and others which I’ve integrated into the draft with proper citations.

The most recent resubmission was declined again, this time with the note that it still “reads like an advertisement.” I left a message on the reviewer’s talk page asking for clarification (especially about which parts seem promotional), but haven’t received a reply after 10+ days.

I would really appreciate a fresh set of eyes to clarify if the current draft still falls short of Wikipedia standards, or if the updated sources and structure now meet the notability and tone requirements.

Thanks in advance for your time and guidance! Have a great day ahead! Contributor Marius (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

User:RangersRus Can you answer the question put to you at User talk:RangersRus#Clarification request about Draft:Superbet rejection, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing, thank you for the nudge to follow up and for previously pointing out the need for higher-quality sources. I've now reworked the draft again to remove sources that lacked in-depth coverage and added several that hopefully meet WP:42 more clearly.

If you get a chance to take a look after the next resubmission, your insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Contributor Marius (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Contributor Marius: a couple of minor points about your draft (and irrelevant to its repeated declines): section headers should be in sentence case not headline case, and Brazil is not in Europe. Maproom (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Maproom, thanks for pointing out those small issues, I’ve fixed the section headers to sentence case and corrected the geographic reference for Brazil. I understand your comment was more about style than substance, but I appreciate you flagging those details nonetheless. The updated draft now also includes new sources with stronger editorial weight. I’ll be resubmitting shortly and will continue refining based on your input. Contributor Marius (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

During my review, I found the article written for promotional and advertising purposes. Sources were trivia and routine. What I was looking for is the depth of coverage in the sources that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization that shows a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. If you believe that since my review you have made notable changes, you are welcome to resubmit the draft for review again. RangersRus (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @RangersRus, thanks again for taking the time to clarify your feedback, it’s very helpful to better understand what’s needed. I completely see your point regarding the depth and type of coverage required (not just brief mentions or routine updates), and I’ve since revised the draft accordingly.

I’ve removed several sources that were borderline or lacked sufficient analysis, and I’ve added new ones that offer more detailed reporting, such as The Recursive's deep-dive on fundraising strategies and Profit.ro's feature on Superbet’s tech expansion. I've also reviewed the structure and language once again to remove anything that could appear promotional.

I’ll finalize these updates shortly and resubmit. Thanks again for your transparency, it's helped me recalibrate how I assess “notability” in this context. Contributor Marius (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft disappeared

I was working all afternoon on a draft article and must have accidentally closed the window. I went rto my home page but I don't see anything there to pull it up again. HELP. Natrlron (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your edit history indicates all of your edits so far have been to this page. Unfortunately it appears your draft was lost. It's important to click "publish changes" occasionally to save your work. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

For the future, pressing Ctrl+Shift+T will reopen a tab you accidentally close – many times your browser will have cached the content as well. Nil🥝 20:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I found it. Now my question is where is this public drafting area where published drafts are kept where you can continue editing. I see no link to it. Natrlron (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Any page name that begins with Draft: is in the draft namespace.

I recommend using articles for creation to create your draft. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is the "public drafting area" where I can continue editing my draft article? I don't see any link to it. Natrlron (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Natrlron, all of your edits have been to the teahouse. Have you perhaps been editing while logged-out, or forgot to hit “publish changes”? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I found my draft. A few other questions if I may bother you. THe first is, where is the public drafting area where your draft is saved for future ediiting?. I can find no link to it. The second question is I used ref tags for my inline citations, but none of them appear at the bottom under References. According to the info box when I clicked on References, that should happen automatically. Natrlron (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to the draft? Your edit history indicates no edits to a draft(though you may have while logged out).

Drafts are typically created via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Natrlron: It will be helpful if you can link to what you are working on, so editors trying to help you can see the problem RudolfRed (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:American Values. Content is however totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

As Theroadislong has pointed out, this (i) was lifted from a page of somebody's website, and (ii) even if it hadn't been lifted from elsewhere, would be utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Natrlron, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia by reading some of its better articles before attempting to add to these, and of course observe copyright constraints. -- Hoary (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

It is mostly an article I wrote on my website, so it wasn't lifted.  But I'm curious as to wby it was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

The topic is certainly appropriate.  I take a neutral tone.  It is footnoted to legitimate sources.  What is the problem?

Thanks,

Ron Natrlron (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ron, have a read of WP:FREECOPY, which will explain why we can't copy material from other websites unless it's appropriately licensed.

That said, probably the main issue with the draft was that it was written as an essay, not an encyclopedic article. ~ Nil🥝 00:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Natrlron (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't a place to post your thoughts about American values(especially where this is a global website). Your website is exactly where that should be. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, A few questions. After I send Widkipedia the copyright permission email, if I remove my opinion as to the "right" answer and the article is just an exposition of the 2 differing approaches to defining American values, will it then be an appropriate encyclopedic article? There are many entries that are strictly American matters. If the answer is YES, why did my inline citations using ref tags not automatically show up under References in the Wizard template? And after I hit "Publish," how do I go back to my draft from my home page?

Natrlron (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The 'article' would not be an appropriate encyclopedic article because it would be an essay or 'exposition' presenting, or including, your personal interpretations. This falls under the heading of WP:Original research and is not allowed by Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Wikipedia articles must only summarise, without editorial interpretations or judgements, material published by Reliable sources, which your personal blog is not (unless you happen to be a recognised academic authority and/or expert on the particular subject in question). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The difference between conservatives and liberals on American values is a fact. This is not my interpretation. The original draft/my website article did present my interpretation of which view was correct. My proposed article would just present the two opposing views without making any judgment. The reliable source is not my blog, but my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, which was endorsed by James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic. I have become an expert on this question. I recently became a regular contributor to Fulcrum, an online magazine, (fulcrum.us) and I have been asked to write articles about the Declaration of Independence for Lawyers Defending American Democracy in celebration of the 250th anniversary.

I would also add that the rest of the world is very confused by what has been happening in the US and my article would help people understand what is going on. Natrlron (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is not welcome here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not the place to do this. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

So that would be the book we have an article on here.

In general we prefer editors _not_ to base their article contributions on, and excessively cite, their own published work, however eminent (see Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself), though other editors of course may use it. You would need to be very careful to avoid presenting your own original research for that book as well as that in the book itself, and you really need to title the proposed article with a term already widely used and written about explicitly in several other published Reliable sources, and avoid copying passages from them verbatim or from your own (doubtless copyrighted) material, which is an absolute legal no-no for Wikipedia even if you're copying yourself. Wikipedia articles must be based only on summaries (in fresh words) of such already-published sources, and must not contain new or re-interpreted ideas.

Writing in compliance with Wikipedia's peculiar requirements is often difficult for even experienced academics and journalists used to other conventions. As a rule of thumb, if a piece is anything like an essay or piece that might be published in a journal or news outlet, it will not be suitable for Wikipedia.

All that said, you are free to create and submit a (non-copyright-violating) draft (preferably via the WP:AfC process); the worst that can happen is that it gets declined with reasons given, so that you can improve it and try again, which is quite normal. I would advise you, however, to first spend a few days familiarising yourself more with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Good luck! {The poster formerly knowna s 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for draft review

Hello! I submitted my draft article more than a month ago and it is still waiting for review. The draft has independent coverage in reliable sources (BBC Radio, SoulTracks, Paris Jazz Club, Remix Japan, etc.), and I believe it now meets the notability and sourcing requirements.

Could someone please take a look at it? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stéphane_D’Esposito

Thank you very much for your help! 🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriaKeys (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@AriaKeys Your original decline notice pointed out that there is little evidence that he is notable as Wikipedia defines that for musicians. Many of your sources are just links to his work and evidence they have been played somewhere by someone e.g. on BBC Radio Solent, which you mention twice in different citations, where using a named reference would be better but still hardly evidence of a significant coverage of the artist. Focus if you can on finding sources meeting our golden rules and mention the three best ones as a comment at the top of the draft to help a future reviewer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, Mike. I understand that many of my current sources may not fully demonstrate significant coverage of the artist as required by Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. I will rework the draft by focusing on independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage rather than just mentions or playlists. I will also add a short comment at the top of the draft highlighting the three strongest sources to make the review process clearer for future reviewers. AriaKeys (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the previous feedback, Mike. I have revised the draft to focus on independent editorial coverage as requested. The three strongest sources are now highlighted at the top of the draft (SoulTracks 2014, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2015, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2020). Additional reliable sources such as Trax, Remix Japan, Marseille l’Hebdo, Paris Jazz Club and Radio Africa Paris have also been included to demonstrate broader coverage. The draft should now meet the notability and sourcing requirements for musicians. AriaKeys (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to More formal tone

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1266#More formal tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CoI Editing Question

How do conflict of interests work with education institutions? For example, if I went to the University of Arkansas, how would my conflict of interest as being a student of it work? Would I still be allowed to edit it, as long as I don't do biased edits, or are there more restrictions? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally you're OK with such edits, so long as you're not promoting your own publications or those of your peers or teachers; nor the teachers themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Not directed at OP or anyone else in particular, but educational institutions are one example of how conflicts of interest could also lead to negative bias, for instance a disgruntled student, league tables/rankings, or any kind of rivalry with another institution. So I'd reword Andy's advice to: do not make any edits about your teachers or colleagues or their work, and do not add defamatory or disparaging comments about your institution's academic or sporting rivals. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s a good point. But what if you’re a student of the institution, and a faculty member that used to work there left and was replaced, but it doesn’t have it updated on the article. Would you be considered trustworthy to fix that error? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that would depend on the content of the edit. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Even CoI editors are welcome to make such edits (duly cited, and with the COI declared, of course). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You have more leeway when it's an emotionally neutral fact that anybody could have looked up for themselves. Anything that has even a little bit to do with any controversy, or that anybody might want to argue about, you have to be a lot more careful. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

500 Edit Protection

If I spot an error on a 500 edit/ 30 day page, do I wait until I can edit it or do I ask someone with 500 edits to check it Kirby123456 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

If you need to request a change, then you can use this page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kirby123456: Please do not game your edit count by making pointless edits. Doing so will lead to your extended confirmed being revoked. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I need help to nominate the page.

Hi! Can someone help nominate the page of a scammer for deletion? I have never done that before and the instructions seem confusing. The real name of this fraudster is BASSEL FARRAN. People have been laughing at him because he has been calling himself the founder of the multi-billion-dollar company DoorDash, and a billionaire with 20 billion dollars. All sources are fake PR. He even added a fake GQ South Africa website that has no connection to the real GQ, as well as a fake paid Rolling Stone article clearly marked as paid. It does not meet notability criteria, nor the general criteria, nor the actor criteria.

Looks like a paid page. I laughed reading it. I am having issues trying to understand how to place the nomination tag. Thank you very much in advance!

Bastiano Ferrari WestwoodHights573 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've converted your url to a standard internal link. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

How do you know all this? 331dot (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have came across an expose a while ago on Reddit, about scammers. Wanted to check what new they are up to and saw a wikipedia page. Wild. I do not seem to understand how the nomination tag works. Should I also go clean up the article before the nomination? (remove unsourced information and sources) WestwoodHights573 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You are going to need specific evidence that particular sources are fake or paid placement. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That is what I men. Look at the sources. Some have big paid mark on them, for sponsored content, also also personal blogs and Amazon or IMDB. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@331dot This complaint has merit; these sources have generic bylines and/or other telltale signs of PR pieces. I'm too busy to nominate at the moment but might do so later today if nobody else has. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that I didn't think the claim had merit; just saying they would need evidence of their claims. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried to place the code from instructions to nominate, and it says it should open a window to add the reasons, but the window does not appear. I could be wrong, but I do not see even one real source that can be used.

Here are some quick comment on the sources:

1. Paid Rolling Stone piece with a sponsored note. Boye, Kody (2025-01-21). "Bastiano Ferrari: The Art of Diversification—It's Not for Everybody". Rolling Stone UK. Retrieved 2025-04-17.
2. Source that does not exist, probably some PR stunt. "Emmy Starwalk: Shining Moments with Bastiano Ferrari and Kelly Clarkson". www.flaunt.com. Retrieved 2025-04-17.
3. IMDb. "Bastiano Ferrari | Actor, Producer, Director". IMDb. Retrieved 2025-04-17.
4. Amazon Bastiano Farran Ferrari". Amazon.
5. Some more PR. Mago, Karishhma (2023-06-07). "Bastiano Ferrari is giving James Bond vibes in his upcoming TV series - NetNewsLedger". Retrieved 2025-04-17.
6. An image - "IMAGO". www.imago-images.com. Retrieved 2025-04-17.
7. An interview GANAP Magazine - Bastiano Ferrari". MagCloud. Retrieved 2025-04-17.
8. A casting list in Dutch Holiday Twist (2023) (in Dutch). Retrieved 2025-04-17 – via www.filmvandaag.nl.
9. Broken blog
10. same interview as 7
11. IMDB search
    1. "Advanced search". IMDb. Retrieved 2025-04-17.

WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon Added comment on the sources for you, in case that might be helpful. I'll try to look for some YouTube video with explanation about how to make nomination. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon Hi! I wanted to add a note for you. As you can see, I tried to put the template on the page, but when I looked for the delete template, it did not long the window for me to write the comment. I tried to follow instructions from wikipedia guide. Do you have any ideas on what could be wrong? I'd appreciate the help. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@WestwoodHights573: I'm not sure what you mean by a fake GQ South Africa website that has no connection to the real GQ. The source you are referring to appears to be the genuine website for GQ South Africa. The same website can be reached by selecting South Africa from the main GQ website. cyberdog958^Talk 19:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion of my phrasing. I mean it has no editorial connection to the GQ magazine, published by staff. It is managed by a separate unrelated media entity from Conte Nast, and is only under the GQ trademark. If you read the text - it is deeply promotional. Editorial pieces, real interviews are in separate section. So it is not a reliable source. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

How do I cite sources and keep my edits neutral on Wikipedia? Mjhdiajcjac (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It would help us to help you to know if there is a specific article you want to edit. I can say that you can learn about referencing at Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Somewhere around the edge of this web page, Mjhdiajcjac, you should see a link named "Learn to edit". Click it, follow to other pages, and read. If you don't understand part of what you read, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a limit of doing GA’s/FA’s?

I have seen some discussion about this, and I want to have clear. (I guess I didn’t know as much of Wikipedia as I thought) Protoeus (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

By doing a GA or FA, do you mean nominating an article (normally one largely written by oneself) for GA or FA, Protoeus? -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes Protoeus (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

For sheer number, Protoeus, this page may hint at the answer. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Nope! Better, even, improving so many articles :) jolielover♥talk 07:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Doing a lot of good work is a good thing.

Doing a lot of bad work is ... not. :)

If someone is doing a lot of good work, they should not be stopped. And if they're doing a lot of top-quality work, all of it should be recognized as such. The other choice would be to patiently wait for me to produce a top-quality article, and I probably won't ever do that. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I asked the question after reading User:Doug Coldwell case, and I think it’s in other side Protoeus (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

"Other side", meaning he wasn't doing good work? I didn't read, but that makes sense. There are people who are very intense and dedicated but who do it in the wrong way. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Help with article

Hi, I followed the same structure as another local football team in our division used and had sources pointing to information provided. Just not understanding how mine was declined but they are approved with a single source point that just points to AFL Queensland Wiki. If anyone can please help me to get this approved. Draft:Pomona-Cooroy_Demons_Football_club BayHarborButcher1 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

BayHarborButcher1, for one thing, it seems less like an encyclopedia entry than like a tourist brochure. A single sentence: Nestled in the scenic Noosa Hinterland, the club is based in the small town of Pomona (population 2,931), renowned for the striking silhouette of Mount Cooroora, which rises dramatically behind the oval and is bordered by dense native forest creating one of the most picturesque backdrops in regional sport. (Emphases added.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep; @BayHarborButcher1:, please see MOS:PUFFERY, a guideline about such words. jolielover♥talk 07:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BayHarborButcher1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You are making a common mistake of supposing that if you just get the format or structure right, most of your job is done This is like saying "I built a house that looks like that one", when you haven't built any foundations for it. By far the most important part of creating an article is finding suitable sources, that meet WP:42.

Your assumption that the other article was "approved" may not be right. Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of seriously unsatisfactory articles, which should be improved or (in many cases) deleted; but as it is a volunteer project, people don't necessarily want to work on these. We evaluate new drafts on their own merits, not against existing articles. See other stuff exists.

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) 13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Request review for draft: Som Nath Sachdeva

Hi, I have created a draft about Som Nath Sachdeva: Draft:Som Nath Sachdeva

I would like someone to review it and suggest improvements so that it can be accepted into the main Wikipedia article namespace. I have added reliable sources and citations. Any feedback on formatting, notability, or sources would be highly appreciated. Thank you! Baljitjaalvi (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Baljitjaalvi, this draft is illustrated with a photograph, c:File:Prof. Som Nath Sachdeva, Vice-Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.jpg. This is described as (i) "a work by Kurukshetra University from www.kuk.ac.in", and also (ii) your "own work". Does this mean that you are editing as a representative of Kurukshetra University? -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issue with the photograph. I have uploaded a new image that is my own work. Please let me know if any further corrections are needed. Baljitjaalvi (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Baljitjaalvi, it's clear that the new photograph was made thanks to cooperation between the subject and the photographer. Please read, digest and implement Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I recognize the potential conflict of interest and will ensure that any further edits are made in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Baljitjaalvi (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to start by declaring your COi and whether you are working for pay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I have updated my COI declaration accordingly and will continue to follow Wikipedia's COI policies. Baljitjaalvi (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Trying to understand notability

Recently worked on creating a page namely Draft:OCK Group Berhad and my submission was rejected due to "Primary sources and routine business reporting do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. This is basically just a company presentation, the business telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional."

Keen to understand how to get around this? Does this mean OCK Group at this point can't have a Wikipedia page or I have to work on making more neutral, etc. If the answer is OCK Group is not suited to have a page now, then will move on I guess. William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Link to page Draft:OCK Group Berhad William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

William Ooi Inn Khang I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.

Yes, this means that the company does not yet merit a Wikipedia article.

The editor that started the draft disclosed as a paid editor; if you are a company employee as well, you need to do so, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood - have disclosed as well. Will try one more time and include all sources with neutral info. If still not worth will let it go. Thanks William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I see it now- you may wish to disclose on your user page, for better visibility(you disclosed on your user talk page with a template meant for article talk pages). You may just write out a statement on User:William Ooi Inn Khang.

I would also suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors/colleagues. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes have reflected that on my user page and thanks for that haha.

Submitted my last try which is purely all from independent sources. If it can't get approved, got to read WP:BOSS in detail lol. William Ooi Inn Khang (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources that make their story by quoting a company representative or a press release are never independent. They may be used for certain things in an article, but they don't help to show notability. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Any advice for helping to speed up a review

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

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

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

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

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

Gerald Edward Galloway Page In Progress

Hi! I’ve submitted Draft:Gerald Edward Galloway Jr. for AfC review. I have a declared COI ({{connected contributor|user=Jgalloway24|declared=yes}}) and would appreciate neutral feedback.

Key independent sources already cited in the draft: • National Academy of Engineering member page (elected 2004) • Congress.gov nomination/confirmation (Mississippi River Commission) • International Joint Commission 1998 release (U.S. Section Secretary) • IFMRC “Galloway Report” (1994) + contemporary coverage in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1994-05-27) and AP/Columbia Daily Tribune (1994-10-15) • Engineering News-Record Top 25 Newsmakers (2018) • Washington Post (2017-08-29) on urban flooding

Specific questions: Is the sourcing sufficient for GNG? Any wording that feels non-neutral? Thanks for any pointers. Jgalloway24 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Jgalloway24 I deactivated your use of the connected contributor template so it isn't displayed as a formal declaration(as that is meant for article talk pages).

Your draft was accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. You should now use the edit request process to propose edits to it. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I make my signature colorful?

I have seen multiple posts by people on talk pages where their username is a different color from the standard one, and I was wondering how I could do this (I want to make my username on talk pages purple too) Icannotchoosemyuser (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Icannotchoosemyuser Welcome to Teahouse! You can make your signature color or style by editing it in your preferences. The main guide is at WP:SIG, which also links to Help:Using colours if you want to choose specific hex codes like purple etc. Just make sure your signature stays legible and follows the guidelines. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 19:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Icannotchoosemyuser I think there's a policy that your signature should contain your username, but I'm not 100% sure about that. The signature you have chosen is confusing. Maybe someone else can clarify this. David10244 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no: "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, but this is not required" – WP:CUSTOMSIG/P ~ Nil🥝 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the signature has no problem since it links properly to the user’s page and is not disruptive. Per WP:SIG Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 04:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Coppa 2.0

can i make rants about Coppa 2.0 on The COPPA Talk page or just any rant in general? i promise i wont harass anyone and all opinions handled. Douglas15amor (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Douglas15amor Douglas15amor (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not the thing that is the subject of the article. Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 19:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

so can i or not, just say Yes or no anything works. Douglas15amor (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

no, you cannot rant because if it isn't about the article it would be irrelevant, and if it was about article you would be rude, and this is Wikipedia, not twitter Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

ok sorry. Douglas15amor (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It's fine, sorry if I came off as rude. Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 20:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft "Plasma Energy Corporation"

Please suggest ways I can make my Wikipedia article for "Plasma Energy Corporation" more notable. Steve Hickel (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

To start with, you could add sources. See Referencing for beginners. If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Steve Hickel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the company in reliable publications, and little else.

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.

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) 10:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Irish faction fighting

Hi! I’m a student working on a draft article about Irish faction fighting in the 18th and 19th centuries, this is my first every attempt at creating an article.

Here’s the draft: User:Wiki_Editor_mq/sandbox.

I’d appreciate feedback on whether the article is neutral, well-sourced, and ready to be moved to mainspace.

Thanks! Wiki Editor mq (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

maybe rename The Caravats and Shanavests could be their own article, because the article feels to be about the physical fighting, not the reasons it occured. if you want to keep that information, maybe you could have a section title something like "common factions in the practice" or something (do not use my name for the section my name is very bad) and include other commonly fighting factions Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 20:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, I have changed the title of this section to 'Notable faction groups', perhaos it is not even necessary for this section to remain. Wiki Editor mq (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion to article status, Wiki Editor mq. As for your question, to me, "Notable faction groups" sounds no more informative than "Notable faction factions". Why not simply "Notable factions"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

done Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 23:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Good though Faction fighting is, Wiki Editor mq, you could and I think should improve it. You refer several times to the book Irish Peasants: Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914. I believe that this is an edited volume of papers, totalling over four hundred pages. So it's unlikely that each of your references to the book is to the book as a whole. Which paper within it are you referring to? And at four hundred plus pages this is a rather extreme example of a problem common to your references, many of which are to papers that are dozens of pages long. Just which page, page span, or other collection of pages are you referring to each time? Wikipedia provides various ways of indicating this. Since you're already using REF tags, I think the easiest course for you is to augment these with Template:Rp wherever doing so would help the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and advice on the references, I have this publication on my kindle and shall try to ammend same. I shall also try to familiarise myself with 'Template:Rp: as I am new to wikipedia any suggestions are helpful. Wiki Editor mq (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Editor mq, I've forgotten how the Kindle works (I possess one, somewhere -- I mislaid it years ago), but very likely it doesn't display page numbers. If it doesn't, well, we'll have to do without them. But surely the Kindle doesn't make it too hard to identify which chapter of a book you're looking at, and to see both the author's name (authors' names) and the title of the chapter. And for those sources for which you'll be able to find page numbers, I think you'll find Template:Rp an easy way of displaying them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Page under Review

I am interested in getting feedback about an article I have been working on about an American Cardiologist, who is noteworthy. I would like to expedite the review process. I would love any feedback, and even better would be any endorsements that anyone is willing to lend to the project. Thanks a lot in advance!

Draft:Austin A. Robinson. Steenblikrs (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You have already submitted it for review. We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. All I'll say is that it's hard to find sources that meet all three requirements of WP:Golden rule, which is what the reviewers will be looking for. It relies far too much on primary sources and wouldn't be accepted in that state. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Should I make a page on a game merge fellas

mergefellasgame.com yes or no

Should i make one Polandball63 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polandball63 Welcome to Teahouse! And Yes, you should make one. I posted on your Talk page some useful links please go through it first and also you need to read this :Referencing. Happy editing Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 04:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As "Polandball63", you have no experience of editing an article. So attempting to create a draft, even a draft on a promising subject, will be tough for you. You'd better first get experience of improving and augmenting existing articles. And any article subject has to be "notable" (that is, "notable" as defined by and for Wikipedia). Have you checked that this subject is notable? -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

My page's length

Guys can my user page be long like 50,000 bytes? I read that articles size can't be too long or short but can MY user page be pretty long? I believe not much people will see my user page tho. My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's now like 21,000 bytes My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Half of them are for my imaginary star system. You might want to visit my page and understand the situation better. My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @My planet is Homlos, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's not a matter of length. WP:UPNO says clearly that one of the things you may not have on your user page(s) is Content, discussions, or activities that are not directly related to Wikipedia's goals.

Save it on your computer, or your blog, or wherever, but not anywhere in Wikipedia. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you could worry less about your user page and more about contributing to Wikipedia? Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, content that is not relevant to your Wikipedia contributions is likely to be deleted. There are alternative outlets for your other writing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok I will limit myself and won't have like 10 things unrelated to Wikipedia. My star system,My YouTube channel Omniplanets and "I think". That's it I won't have anymore than that My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

My planet is Homlos, consider reducing that number by ten. (After you've made a couple of thousand constructive edits to articles, perhaps bring the number back up to a concise one or two.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There's always another place to put that kind of things. I also agree that it should be zero. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Took reversion to Talk page, but no response

Hello, I made a number of edits to Disney's My Son Pinocchio: Geppetto's Musical Tale the other day, which were reverted with the reasoning "Unnecessary changes did not improve". I went to the Talk page, tagged the editor who reverted and explained the edits. It's been a bit and I haven't gotten a response, though the editor appears to have done some activity since then.

In this case, what is the proper protocol? Is a reversion considered edit warring even though I've attempted to reach out? Obviously a non-response can't put on hold an edit indefinitely, but is there an amount of time people typically give for responses? WinstonDewey (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Some editors don't check their notifications every time they get a new one. /nm Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 15:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You could go to that editor's own talk page and leave a notification about the article talk page discussion you started. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that now under Template:Talkback. WinstonDewey (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

New editor unsure of protocol

I have recently done major copyedits for a few of The Boys season 1 episodes, (Cherry (The Boys episode), Good for the Soul (The Boys episode), and You Found Me (The Boys episode). I am not sure what I did wrong and why most of my work was reverted and would appreciate a more experienced editor looking and letting me know so I can improve. Snuggle 🖤 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like a lot of the spelling and other errors were re-added? I'm not sure if it's vandalism or I'm missing something. Snuggle 🖤 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Snugglebuns!
I took a quick look at the pages and it looks to be one IP editor, 187.188.95.153, that is making the changes. You can speak to them on their talk page (the red link I posted above) about this and ask why they reverted your edits. Please remember to assume good faith when speaking to them, and that they are a human just like you (not just a collection of numbers).
Hope this helps, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I left a note on the talk page. What is the protocol for reverting edits if they don't respond? There are a decent amount of errors that were added back in plus a lot of tone changes. Snuggle 🖤 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I would give it about 24 hours before taking further action, due to timezones and to make that the IP reads the message. If they don't respond by then, then I think it would be appropriate to restore your previous edits to the page. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Title of article

I'm thinking of making an article covering Urban F. Diteman Jr., a descendant of Sir Francis Drake who died in 1929 due to a failed flight across the Atlantic. Should the article be named Urban Diteman, Urban F. Diteman, Urban Diteman Jr., or Urban F. Diteman Jr.? Nighfidelity (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Nighfidelity!
The article should be named per how the subject appears most commonly and in reliable sources. From a quick Google search, this looks to be "Urban F. Diteman", though I may be mistaken. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm really saying the same thing as the previous response, but different words: the article title for a person should be exactly what people will find when they go elsewhere to look them up (in reliable sources). Specifically, we should not "set the record straight" by calling them something else. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

approve the page

Please approve the page Draft:SBOA Public School, Guwahati. Guwahati editor (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Guwahati editor. Somebody resubmitted the draft on 5th September. It says at the top Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,859 pending submissions waiting for review.

In the meantime, if you are concerned with this draft, you should find some sources which are people wholly unconnected with the school writing significant coverage about the school in reliable publications. (See WP:42). At present few, if any of your sources meet the criteria, and the draft will be quickly declined (or perhaps rejected: if you have no managed to find any suitable sources in four attempts, the reviewer may decide that there is no point in spending any more time trying).

I am a little surprised that you are asking about a draft on which you have made no edits at all. How does this come about? ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet? Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's always possible. Do you have any evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Only suspicions.

- The account was created one month ago.

- Has been warned of making incorrect edits.

- Has removed a warning from their talk page which had a vandalism warning against them.

Some shady activity, but admittedly, no credible evidence. Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable links/references on Jerome Ro Brooks

Before I get started on writing a page, I have a question on links I have on an actor, Jerome Ro Brooks. Are these acceptable?: Links and references

1.7.2015 www. EURWeb.com

https://eurweb.com/books-ro-brooks-puts-out-how-to-go-from-extra-to-actor-a-second-edition/

Rolling Out 2013

https://rollingout.com/2013/11/20/jerome-ro-brooks-mean-streets-baltimore-starring-sons-anarchy/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bod Journey 1.17. 2024

1.4.2025

Conversations Magazine

https://conversationsmag.blogspot.com/2025/01/jerome-ro-brooks-building-brand-and.html?m=1&utm_source=chatgpt.com

The Jim Masters Show – YouTube 2.2025

https://www.youtube.com/live/HSn15v3R8_M?si=6jqbAtJ44VUmM1Ma

Linwoods96 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Linwoods96, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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.

Most of your sources should be completely independent of the subject. An article which is basically an interview is not that. WP:42 is a useful guide to the criteria for 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.. (I see you created your account nearly two years ago, but you have yet to make a single edit in article space, and your one previous draft was abandoned and deleted: I'd say you are still a new editor!). ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Tamil cuisine content duplication

heya, i've been editing the article for tamil cuisine and it seems like there are two sections just describing and listing foods (Dishes and Typical meals). the latter has a lot of awkward wording and formatting, while the former lacks descriptions for the food entirely. removing an entire section seems a little too WP:BOLD. they're also both entirely unsourced, but thats easy to fix. ive also posted this on the talkpage. lumerix 18:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Its fine, remember, no edits are permanent. maybe try rewriting the second section to be less akward, or editing the former to include descriptions of food, then deleting the unedited section. Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 20:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You can request a copyedit at WP:GOCE if needed. Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like maybe merging the best parts from each of the duplicate sections could help? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for draft review: Stephane d'esposito

Hello,

I have been working on improving my draft about Stéphane D’Esposito (aka Neo). I added multiple independent and reliable sources, such as BBC Radio, SoulTracks, Paris Jazz Club, and Remix Japan.

Could someone please take a look at the draft and let me know if it now meets the notability and sourcing requirements?

Here is the link to the draft: Draft:Stéphane D’Esposito

Thank you very much for your help 🙏 AriaKeys (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @AriaKeys, welcome to the Teahouse!

It currently says that your draft is waiting for review. "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,921 pending submissions waiting for review." Your reviewer, once they get to the draft, will either approve the page and move it to mainspace or provide feedback on how to fix the draft so it can then be approved in a subsequent review.

As a minor note, I would suggest adding some wikilinks to your draft. This way, readers can click on a topic and get to a related one. I'd suggest things like places, and (in your case) news outlets and individuals.

Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Valid free use?

After a conversation on the Wikimedia Commons Village pump, I uploaded this image under free-use rationale for the article Ankahee (1985 film). I want to confirm if this is valid. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

At 500×750 pixels, Kingsacrificer, your version is unnecessarily and improperly large. WP:IMAGERES recommends resolutions in the area of 320×240 or 250×400 pixels. I'm about to resize it accordingly. (I'd concede that this is rather silly, as the image quality of the 500×750 version is so poor that it looks no better than something blown up from an approved, smaller resolution.) ¶ Frankly I find WP:NFCI rather obscure; somebody else here may wish to comment on issues unrelated to resolution. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the image page now shows you, Hoary, as the uploader, with no mention of Kingsacrificer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for the oversight. Did you resize the from any local or third-party tool? In this image, I can see that a bot resized it automatically. Why didn't that happen with me? Thanks for the change! Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from my end, doesn't a bot fix it up eventually? User:DatBot? jolielover♥talk 17:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

ACAS

Hi everyone,

I’ve been researching organizations involved in anti-smoking campaigns, since tobacco use and public health are such major global issues.During this, I came across a nonprofit called Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, Inc., which has been active since the 1980s.

From what I can tell, they’ve done work like promoting smoke-free living and have been mentioned by groups such as the American Lung Association. I did find some coverage, but much of it is tied to the broader subject of anti-smoking efforts in Arizona rather than in-depth profiles of the organization itself.

I was wondering, would an organization like this likely meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for a stub article, or would it be better suited as a mention within a broader article (like on anti-smoking campaigns in the US or Arizona)?

Thanks in advance for any advice! ChronoTexts (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to say if they'd meet WP:NORG without seeing the sources. If you're unsure, you can always create a Template:Source assess table in your sandbox. My recommendation though would be to start with your latter suggestion – if you start with adding content to existing articles, you'll begin to get a fair idea on whether or not there's enough content and sourcing for a standalone article. Nil🥝 20:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ChronoTexts. I agree with Nil. Note that the notability requirements are exactly the same for a stub as for any other article. (Personally, I don't understand why anybody would create a stub in 2025. If you've found adequate sources to establish notability, you've done the hard part of the work). ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

ColinFine, why would anyone indeed? Good question. Hmm, a desire to present a superficially impressive list of "creations" on one's user page? Or just plain sloth? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I used to think such until someone on the Wikimedia Discord told me that even a small article has inherent value (well, they sounded a lot more poetic saying it, this recount sounds kind of lame. Also, obviously, must meet GNG). Or maybe since starting an article is a hard feat and people may find it easier to build off a foundation. I'm actually the opposite - I don't really like expanding my article creations with ones that are evidently not going to reach GA or beyond. But at the same time, I want to contribute to the availability and accessibility of information :) jolielover♥talk 17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Reliability

How reliable is wickapedea. Kyla baddie (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kyla baddie, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see the article Reliability of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty good in parts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

editing text & references

To this newbie, it looks like one has to know html to edit. Correct? WickedBill (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

... and my "Wicked Bill handle is NOT meant to suggest I'll defile any Wiki work product. After password # 100, I ran out of common passwords. WickedBill (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect. And that's if you "edit source". I'm sure that it's just as true if you use the "visual editor", but can't speak from experience. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@WickedBill Not really. Wikipedia's source code is a highly simplified version of html called wikitext. (that said, regular HTML code mostly works here, too).

If you want to use a what-you-see-is-what-you-get editor (that looks like Microsoft Word), use the VisualEditor. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a Visual editor user, though, @Cremastra … I can say (somewhat painfully, as I find it much easier to think and edit in WYSIWYG) that we still have to be able to do at least a little in Wikitext for some of our work. Augnablik (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Nope! I started editing wikis when I was 11, and simultaneously failing computer science classes in school :) (not this account, obviously) jolielover♥talk 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, two categories of people are most likely to ask this question: people who lack experience with this kind of thing, or people who always feel helplessly lost when they see something new. Anyone who's not in the second group will quickly pick up on what's necessary to get the basic things done here.

In my experience, learning where to look up solutions when I don't know how to do something (i.e. different places for different kinds of problems), and where to ask for certain kinds of help, have taken me much more effort than learning what to do once I got there. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Possibly helpful: look for existing articles that successfully use a technique you want to know how to do. Click as if to edit that article, which should reveal how they did it. Copy any parts that will help you, then quit editing without saving anything. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirects & Automation?

In lieu of categorizing redirects manually:

Should there be a bot, which automatically categorizes a redirect?

Is there a bot, which categorizes redirects? – KaijuEditor (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@KaijuEditor Redirects are not normally placed in categories, but there are some exceptions. Have you read Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects? I don't see any way a bot could do that. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that's misleading, it's not required to be in rcats, but it's not uncommon either. Almost every redirect can find an appropriate rcat (I've made a bunch and can't think of any that I couldn't find a single rcat for). jolielover♥talk 17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean categorizing through mainspace categories, or categorizing through rcat? Although I suppose the answer doesn't matter since it's 'no' to both. For the latter, WP:Capricorn makes it easier to do it (apparently, I personally did not like it), or User:Eejit43/scripts/redirect-helper. But no automatic categorizers. jolielover♥talk 17:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

...but maybe there's a bot or something that can perform mass edits to add a specific rcat. Either way, not easily accessible or just easy to do; you'd have to be very precise to make sure something wrong did not get tagged. jolielover♥talk 17:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t know Capricorn existed. Well… least it answers my second question.

True, is there way to train it: you know keywords and topics?

How does one use the bot (especially on mobile)? – KaijuEditor (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't "train" Capricorn, you click buttons of the rcats you want to add and it does that. Just easier than copy pasting or typing out, but you still need to put in your human input. I've never edited on mobile so I can't answer your other question. Like I said, I only used Capricorn briefly, and in general I'm not well-versed in bots. Sorry! jolielover♥talk 17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Voice clips in infobox which are almost unrelated

I was looking for voice clips to use for the infobox of Brian David Gilbert. My options are currently:

• His very tiny bit in a trailer for Complexly
• A joke video about Thom Yorke which I can't link because it's technically a copyvio

Neither contains any information about Gilbert himself or anything related to him. Should I simply not add either voice clip? Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is not required for anything right? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not required, but I was thinking something along the lines of "a voice clip is better than no voice clip", especially because Gilbert is notable for being a YouTuber, which requires a lot of talking. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You could contact Gilbert, and ask him to kindly make a recording, as described at c:COM:WikiVIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Requesting help with updating outdated biography

Hello, I am Neil Anderson, the subject of the article Neil Anderson (writer).

The current article is very out of date. I have drafted a new version in my sandbox here: [[User:Detox22/sandbox]]. It is neutrally written, fully referenced, and includes ISBNs for my books.

I posted a request on the article’s Talk page on 19 September, but I haven’t had any response yet.

Could an experienced editor please take a look at the sandbox draft and consider replacing the outdated version? I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance.

Thank you very much, Detox22 (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use Chat GPT or other LLMs to write here.

I have tagged that talk page with {{Edit coi}} to indicate that review by a neutral editor is requested; as that template indicates, there is a long backlog; review can take several weeks. Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Images are not showing up in Wikipedia

I’ve noticed that images are not showing up on Wikipedia pages. Instead of displaying the usual pictures, the pages are only showing empty placeholders (or broken image icons). This seems to be affecting multiple articles, not just one. Mediainc55 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mediainc55 Can you link a couple of examples where you see this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mediainc55: this should be fixed now: https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ MKFI (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Incident link: https://www.wikimediastatus.net/incidents/cll27hvs2wj5 MKFI (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Merging problem

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.

---

Yesterday, on September 1, I created Draft:Tropical Depression Paolo (2025), an active and potentially strong tropical cyclone in the Western Pacific basin. No one cared about that, with one saying I was too quick and another one creating a draft having a different title but the EXACT same information just three hours later.

I want to merge the latter draft, Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo to the former one, then changing the title to Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo again. Is it possible, or, at least alright?

I am in a hurry, so I hope someone can help me with this problem ASAP. Thanks! EmperorChesser 12:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. If e.g. Draft:FooBar exists, can an article moved to a new one with the title being FooBar? EmperorChesser 13:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Fork of a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Responded altogether over there. Let's keep the discussion centralised at one place. Thank you, Andy, for spotting this. 124.217.189.70 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. EmperorChesser 14:36, 2 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.

Creating a draft for Bright the Seer

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 everyone, i have been trying to published an article for Bright the seer and at this point its quite frustrating. i believe i have followed the guidelines properly don't know what seems to be the problem.

please i need help Sundayochigbo (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#13:08, 2 October 2025 review of submission by Sundayochigbo, which is the best venue in this case. Please only start one discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 2 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.

Metacritic

Doing this on behalf of 118.99.81.105, discussion on Ben 10: Omniverse 2 about metacritic reliability (since I don’t think he would respond me)

he states the following:

The reliability of metacritic is disputed across critics, so I'm not sure if this is a good source for this article.

bringing it up here for an little discussion about this, since it is used universally across Wikipedia. Feel free to send this to an sources reliability page. Protoeus (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about this probably could have stayed in Talk:Ben 10: Omniverse 2. I made a reply over there to the IP's concerns. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Uploading to Wikimedia Commons

Hello friends. I uploaded this file to Wikimedia commons and it's flagged for deletion by a bot in 7 days. I had reached out to Jay Zigmont, the person in the photo, asking if he'd be willing to share one on Wikimedia commons and he was. He has sent the email template releasing the image to a Wikimedia Commons license, so everything should be OK from a legal/licensing standpoint. How to I take the appropriate steps to remove the flag for deletion while the email is still pending review? Thanks so much for any help you can provide. I've done things like this before without issues, so I'm confused. LaesaMajestas (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Try searching the origin of the photo, and the rest of the data you can find, if you don’t know many of the authorship, then it isn’t the best idea to upload the photo.

PD: Why are you asking here? Here is a place to ask about Wikipedia, and you can easily talk on the talk page, of either the bot, or its creator, to discuss it. Protoeus (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess I didn't know the best place to ask. Thank you - I'll check there. LaesaMajestas (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@LaesaMajestas The metadata on that file shows that the copyright holder is NASHVILLE CORPORATE PHOTOGRAPHY. The subject of a photograph like that cannot license it: only the copyright holder can. You may seek advice at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. The bot is just doing its job and there is no point in discussing it with its creator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - I appreciate it a lot. I think the image and copyright rights were purchased by Jay Zigmont (I would assume he commissioned the images to be taken for him). I will verify, but if that turns out to be true, would I update the metadata and reupload it? Not sure what the correct steps are. LaesaMajestas (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@LaesaMajestas As can be seen at [1] the mail has been received, so now we wait and see if VRT gets what it needs. If VRT accepts it, I don't think you have to do anything. If it turns out Zigmont isn't the copyright holder, you'll have to do something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful. Very much appreciated. LaesaMajestas (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A novel's author's afterword a reliable source?

In a novel, there was an important information about the author in the "Afterword" section. I would like to know if I could cite it as a reliable source or not. Thanks in advance! AntJoyZz (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:ABOUTSELF territory, which is fine unless the author has a propensity to make up stories about themselves (e.g. Will Wood). Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Archive box

Hi! I have a question about the archive box. I saw that some editors have an archive box on their page. I put the template on my page too, but I do not know how to make it work. Is it possible to make it automatically archive every week? I made some more edits and it has become confusing looking for new messages on my talk page because of all the old posts. I have to scroll all the way down. Thank you in advance for suggestions. Maybe you can recommend an archive template that works. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Just adding the archive template doesn't activate archiving, check out Help:Archiving (plain and simple) for info on how to set it up properly. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Amstrad00 thank you very much! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on sandbox draft: Aaron Kenneally (Irish karate instructor)

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

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

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

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

Looking for help editing a Wikipedia Page for Acceptance

This is the message we received for a page I submitted that was not approved. Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
– Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
– Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
– Essay-like writing
– Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
– Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best approach is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, rather of using a large laLguage model. SePlease reviewur help page on large language models. Are there editors that have success with helping out? Raisedconsciousness (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The main help is these two things: Please read the sources with your own eyes. Please write everything by hand without ever allowing AI to touch it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Raisedconsciousness Who is "we"? Do you represent a company, PR firm, or organisation? qcne (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia moderator emailed me re: making a wikipedia page on me?

Is there a moderator called 'Jesse Rafe'? And is it true they wanted to compose a Wikipedia pageregarding my professional career, etc., as a writer? Tonya Liburd (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No; it sounds like you are being scammed. Wikipedia does not have moderators, it has administrators, and they would never reach out to you to offer a page to be created. Please see this essay for some more information and do not send this person any money. Additionally, you should forward the email conversation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org CoconutOctopus talk 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirection of "Coin Locker Baby" to an album rather the phenomenon

I noticed that entering in "coin locker baby" links to a redirect to the Maretu page rather than Coin-operated-locker babies, which I believe would be what most people would be searching for, not a Vocaloid album, as good as the album is (highly recommend it!). I wanted to be sure this was the right move before I research how to do that, exactly, and have a popup at the top of the aforementioned page to say "not to be confused with the album Coin Locker Baby" etc. ↻ dialupnetwork ^Connect? 19:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You could put a {{hatnote}} on the top of Coin-operated-locker babies, but the section in "popular culture" referencing the album is currently inappropriate on that page without a secondary source that discusses it. -- Reconrabbit 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

3O request

Could anyone here reply by unbiasly verifying the amount of likes (millions) shown here for the #5 entry of List of most-liked Instagram posts? This is something of a curiosity/informal WP:3O~ish adjacent request, as some editors are using values from a completely different range than I can find displayed directly or in secondary sources. Respublik (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

47,141,134 likes for me. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, as I'm shown 41,867,946. Respublik (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Question about CSD G4

G4 states that articles that were recreated after being deleted via a discussion are subject to speedy deletion. I was relatively recently granted New Page Reviewer, and I've encountered a few articles that fit those requirements. How can you tell whether they are identical? Not all of them are on the Internet Archive.

Are you supposed to apply the rationale of the deletion and apply it to the new article?

Thanks, EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 21:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@EatingCarBatteries congrats on the new role.... G4 This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. lemme put it this way G4 only applies if the new page is basically the same as one deleted after a discussion. If its a word-for-word or near copy you can tag it. If the new version adds different or sourced content even if its weak it should go back to AfD instead of speedy. When in doubt, I think Articles for deletion is the safer route.

and also you can tell if its identical by checking the AFD log (or whatever deletion discussion closed it). The log entry will link to the deleted page. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 22:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)