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. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
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.
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)[reply]
On Wikipedia (the English one, anyway), primary sources are considered to have low value, compared to the kind of secondary sources that are known for their reliability. This is because primary sources want to tell the best story about themselves, so primary sources might brag and might not always tell the truth.
You can use primary sources to add factual details, but not to add anything that someone else might disagree with. (For example, people might disagree about how important an organization is, or how much support it has, so those things cannot come from primary sources.) TooManyFingers (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion! For this article, my current construction is primarily based on a 1996 National Chengchi University M.A. thesis I accessed at the National Library of Public Information: 王良卿, 三民主義青年團與中國國民黨關係研究（1938-1949）. I am also expanding the entry further by consulting the various primary sources cited in that thesis (with professional terminology translated into English where appropriate).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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? Nail123Real (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, I understand AI can be useful but i see it takes out the pleasure of writing articles by your own hands and by your own knowledge. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The way I see it, there could be uses within making articles, like looking for sources, but if somebody wanted an article with the quality of AI they could just use AI. Ben edditing (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you see it the same way at all - the people you claim to be agreeing with are saying the opposite of your ideas. I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you either.
Let me put it this way: if anyone wants a full article from AI they should stop wanting that, and they should stop using AI and never touch AI again. Do you agree? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI definitely has it's uses, it can give you information about things that don't meet notability guidelines or things without significant information online (which will still be somewhat accurate, which is sometimes helpful). Ben edditing (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Apple Music isn't a reliable secondary source and I would delete all of those sources. I think you're going to struggle with this to be frank. Most of the sources that you mention above aren't really reliable, except BBC Radio. Think Le Parisien, Figaro, Arte, FranceInfo, or Telerama. For sig cov, you're looking for discussion of about 250 words or more. I think you may need to leave this in draft until he gets more coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I completely agree that Apple Music (and similar databases) are not acceptable as secondary sources, so I will remove those.
However, the draft is not based only on those listings. There is significant independent coverage in professional print magazines such as Coda (France, Issue 12, 2001, p. 50 – feature article by Y2M: “Neo – la touche (Néo)classique”), Trax (France, 2002), Remix (Japan, 2003), and Jazz Hot, which include 1–2 full-page feature articles and reviews. These are published by recognized editorial teams, archived in the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the National Diet Library of Japan, and meet the criteria of reliable, independent sources.
One important point is the time period: Neo’s main coverage took place in the early 2000s, when most professional music magazines were still published in print only. That is why these sources are not easily found online today, but they are preserved in national libraries and remain fully valid under Wikipedia guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV).
The guidelines do not require only Le Parisien or Télérama; specialized international magazines are explicitly valid when they provide substantial analysis. In this case, the coverage is more than passing mentions—it includes critical discussion of Neo’s albums and career across several pages.
BBC Radio coverage is indeed strong, but it is complemented by these multiple print sources, which I will now highlight more clearly with author names and page numbers.
I hope this clarifies that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable, independent publications, well beyond simple database entries. AriaKeys (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Nobody wants to preserve dated information. However, replacing it with information from a biased source is worse than doing nothing. We do trust a company to give information about itself when that information is plain neutral facts with no potential for controversy and no business advantage to be gained, but as soon as there's the slightest hint of a company trying to influence a reader's opinion about anything, it's not acceptable. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have previously tried to make a change to the main page and it was also not taken because of my disclosed COI. This is quite the loop. I will try again for a neutral, facts-only tone on a new page and then make a redirect from the old page. Gguice (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article has been declined many times, always for the same reason. It makes me wonder why you have continued submitting it for review without really dealing with the problem.
I wonder if the word "advertising" is being misunderstood. Advertising is ANY material that is intended to make people want to do business with you. It does not help if you word the advertising in a neutral-sounding tone; it's necessary to delete every sentence that might have been put there to attract business. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@My planet is Homlos, all of the stuff about your fictional star system is of no value to Wikipedia and does not belong on your user page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. You should remove everything below the table of contents. If you don't, your whole user page may be deleted. CodeTalker (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible,I will try to make a web outside of Wikipedia and put all the things there, and put the link of the web inside of my user page so if the viewers of my page are interested. They can click into the link and get the whole information of my star system. So I didn't really put all the information of my star system in Wikipedia. I technically stored it outside of Wikipedia. Then will I get banned? Can I do that? All put a"further reading" under and put the link there. Is that possible? Will my whole user page be deleted? At least now I removed 13,000 bytes. More than half than before, having the peak of 21,400 bytes. It's now only 6000 bytes My planet is Homlos (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When people have been so definite and specific with you, why are you saying things like "technically..."?
There was never going to be a ban. It's just please delete every trace of your star system from every page that has 'wikipedia' anywhere in its address. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can I even avoid mentioning something in my Star system. Even If I deleted my user page. My user name is still"My planet is Homlos" Which is a planet in my system. My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I really want to put my things back. Don't be concerned because I just want to do that,I won't revert all my edit and bring back all the things. My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, the second amendment you made:
(i) added a middle initial for Stern
(ii) put in two brackets }} that weren't out of place.
(iii) made a minor description change about the book
(iv) moved a date in a sentence
(v) change a source, deleting the access date and archive page
(vi) added one category (Musicals by Stephen Schwartz).
If I had to guess @SanAnMan's reasoning, the changes you made to (ii) and (v) made the article worse and he didn't think the additions to (i) and (vi) justified it and (iii) and (iv) are neither here nor there.
He should have explained this to you but a lot of people revert instead of discussing (and they don't think about how the notification of a reversion feels). Also if you look, he created the page and amends it a lot.
Suggest you just make changes (i) and (vi) again. You could made (iii) and (iv) again if you feel strongly about them. Just make sure not to do (ii) and (v) again.
Regarding (v), the source linked was the main page for the theater company and didn't mention the Geppetto musical at all. I changed the link to the specific page that did. (iii) was changed because it is incorrect. Stern didn't write a book, he wrote the screenplay for the movie and then adapted it into the musical book, but what's written is that Stern wrote a book which the film was based on. I corrected that info on the film page and have had no issues with that.
I'll just note in general that I feel like I am running into this a fair bit, beyond this particular edit. Very experienced editors who revert changes with no explanation and will not engage or do so passive aggressively, expecting me to read their minds. It's particularly frustrating when there's an edit like this one where there is at least some obvious improvement being made, but it seems to be judged along the lines of if it is more bad than good or if it has anything they disagree with at all. It's very odd to me. WinstonDewey (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of editors revert and it's rude. There is an essay on reversion that says you should fix a good faith edit rather than revert if any part of the edit is useful but some editors will argue it's not policy. At the end of the day, people are people. I've already told you what I suggest: make changes (i) and (vi) again, make change (iii) and (iv) if you want to. You don't need anyone's permission. If he reverts it again, he reverts it. You'll have to decide at that point if you want to escalate it or if you're going to walk away. About (v), the archived page isn't about Pinnochio and neither is the page you linked so there's no reason to keep it.MmeMaigret (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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♥talk17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made considerable improvements to a couple of articles, and very minor improvements to hundreds of others, but have never started an article myself. Maybe - and I might even be serious about this - maybe for people like me who have never had an article approved, we should be required to submit only a title and a list of sources, no text permitted. And to then wait for permission to begin writing. If I had to do that for my first several articles, I'd consider it reasonable. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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).
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)[reply]
Nope! I started editing wikis when I was 11, and simultaneously failing computer science classes in school :) (not this account, obviously) jolielover♥talk17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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♥talk17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...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♥talk17:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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♥talk17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
When people are talking about "tone issues" and "reads like a resume", those things overlap but are different. "Reads like a resume" seems to me mainly an issue of content; it means we're reading what the person wants to have said about themselves, instead of reading what publicly-available independent reporting has already said.
It will really help a lot when you delete all material that the public wouldn't have known until you told them, and stick to only sources that are independent from you - avoid "filling in the blanks" with what you know to be true. If the public record has been incomplete or flawed, we need to intentionally keep the flawed incomplete version, without setting the record straight. (Serious legal issues excepted.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've set that up for you. It will archive threads that have not been replied to for 7 days. It will always leave at least 4 threads, so you will always have a table of contents. Both settings are configurable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Honestly, reading the draft, I'm struggling to see how you're notable. I don't think your dojo or level are particularly special. Suggest your best angles are: representing your country, being on an exec board for the sport, being an international judge. The draft say you received judge, referee, kansa credentials but have you actually refereed? Note (1) You can't link to your own website for the different sources - you need to link to publications themselves or to an independent source of them. (2) The Evening Echo counts as one source no matter how many articles there are. (3) No one is interested in the personal interests of a living person. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ↻ dialupnetworkConnect?19:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
@EatingCarBatteries congrats on the new role.... G4This 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.
You can try asking the deleting admin if they're willing to check the deleted version for you. Sometimes, if the recreation is at a different title (or if the deletion is old and the admin inactive, for example), I ask at requests for undeletion as a more centralized and watched venue. A minor clerical note: because the Teahouse is intended to help newer users, you may asking NPR-specific discussion pages to be more effective. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 22:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can always apply WP:G4 to new articles that have been previously deleted. Only administrators can delete them anyway, and any administrator would check the current version against the deleted version, as well as check the AfD discussion to be sure the issues have not been addressed if the two versions are different, and make a decision. That's what I do. My decision may be to delete the article, move it to draft space, or leave it in main space, depending on what I find.
There is a bit of confusion on some world cup statistics. According to every source I checked and even his Wikipedia page it states Lionel Messi has the most world cup goal contributions with 21(13 goals and 8 assists). However your statistics state Pele as having 10 assists and he also has 12 Goals which adds up to 22. I kindly ask for this to be cleared up and The record removed from Messi’s page and added to Pelé's page but if indeed Messi actually holds the record then the most assists tally should state Lionel Messi with 8 assists not Pele as those information contradicts each other. I just want to provide accurate football information on Wikipedia that's why I changed it to Messi but my review was taken down. I hope it gets rectified in the coming days. TheBronzeFury (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot trust Messi's website (or his fans, or Pelé's fans). Hopefully this should be straightforward to clear up, using unbiased reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this is my first time ever chatting on wiki so bear with me lol. i made a wiki account last weekend after using wiki for so long in my life, i didnt even know you could make an account! however it seems like i got hacked almost immediately within the next few days, and ive been extremely confused ever since. i genuinely have no idea what is going on with my account. i put in a request for help or something like that a few days ago, because i suddenly have so many languages and posts and it’s just so wierd. i tried to make a talk page but it got immediately taken down. i tried to connect to libera but it disconnected me, and then when i tried to connect to it again it just banned me for “harassment” i literally do not know what is going on, can someone at least TELL me what is going on at least because there’s soooo many articles and words and processes and i’m extremely confused. thanks! Myteethhurtman (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ohhh i just saw jamies message on EFFPR. no no no ive never been blocked before. Im fairly certain I was hacked and i was put in a user group, and then I contacted wiki and they helped. i mean it cant be anything else. otherwise you are telling me that ive spent hours and hours on wiki thinking my account was in trouble for no reason, in which case i should probably go to the psych ward.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myteethhurtman The account you're logged into (and posting from) was created this week (30 September). When you say I made a wiki account last weekend, what name was that account under? Nil🥝02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was the exact same name with the same email. i am extremely confused. I was never told my account was banned. In fact its the same one with the same password. unless I am somehow tripping all of this man i am so confused. in fact i will go look in my search history and see what was going on to retrace the steps tbh. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh. I just checked my screenshots. looks like I made my account in the early hours of sept 30, was sleep deprived, and went on to a public library when that hacking stuff showed up, like 12 hours later... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the earliest screenshot I have with the user logged in to wikipedia is 4:11am at sep 30. and sept 30 I had a login fail at 1:28pm, and the issues started from there. im ngl....i hope I havent wasted 10+ hours of my life thinking my wiki account is hacked....thats embarrassing. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh my oh my it looks like i did a hotcat for something, and I didnt even know what it was. i thought the plus and minus buttons were for me, kind of like how you tell social media you want more recommended like this. I think that is definitely one of the reasons my account got in trouble, but hold on let me see everything else Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes some sense now. It's possible that the IP address of the public library was blocked due to people using it disruptively, and not your account itself – that's why you've been able to access your account now as you're not at the library / on a different IP address, I assume.
In terms of the times, Wikipedia uses UTC for all of its logs – unless you're in the UK or Portugal, that means times shown will be different to the time of your local time zone. Nil🥝03:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok so i just want to/oh my god make sure, ive spent hours and hours in the past few days thinking my account is hacked by people with chinese characters, and uploading a variety of wierd things, and in reality it was the IP address of the library, which I still have a screenshot of (it starts with 2A09, not sure if its safe to post here) and in reality my account is actually fine (The IP I use the most starts with 45, again not going to post the rest lol)? I know sleep deprivations cause hallucinations but dang i hope this dosent mean i am in the early stages of a schizophrenia diagnosis.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Myteethhurtman and welcome to the teahouse! among the stuff I can answer:
due to single user login, user accounts for other Wikimedia wikis, including other language wikis, are automatically created when you access these wikis at least once while logged in with your current account. it could be that someone is accessing your account in another wiki, but it is more likely that you just viewed one article in say, the Arabic wiki after being linked to it or even by accident and such an Arabic-language account for you was automatically generated.
it seems you have tripped an edit filter recently which disallowed an edit of yours here and an admin has posted your post here for you. unfortunately as I am not also an admin and this is a private filter, I am unable to determine why this has occured but as this was posted here it could be to be a false positive. these filters are here to prevent constant vandalism from new users, which unfortunately does cause issues with false positives from genuine new users
the HotCat edit you did in Commons removed a category from the category list. I have reversed this edit, but as long as you are now aware what it does, such accidents can always be easily undone and forgiven.
wait so does this mean that anyone who signs into wikipedia in that library has access to my account? that is extremely scary. there were accounts from many years ago and it didn't look good lol. Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Special:Preferences and in the user profile "Basic information" section there's a setting called "two-factor authentication" (this is what "2fa" means). You will need to download the Google Authenticator app to your phone (Android or iOS), and follow the steps to set it up.
After that, you log in as usual with your username and password, and input the 6-digit number shown in the app on your phone. If you have the checkbox ticked to save your login, it'll save for a year before you have to worry about 2FA again.
Just be sure also to verify your email address further down the user profile tab. That way if you forget your password, you can get email instructions to reset it. You may need this if you don't have to log in for a year. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, this only works for members of specific user groups (like administrators). @Myteethhurtman, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:2FA instead. But you don't need to do this - you're totally fine, you're not banned or blocked, I'm 99% confident you just saw an IP block at the library and got spooked. Don't post that IP address unless you want us all to know which local public library you go to. -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the 2FA setting in user preferences isn't available to all accounts. I wonder why?
It was only enabled to a small group at first for testing purposes, I imagine. I suspect they want to maintain a slightly higher barrier to entry than just "press this button on your preferences" either for testing scale reasons or because they don't want to deal with a deluge of "locked out, what do??" -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned that your account is compromised, you may abandon it (it only has 12 edits, and none are to articles), and create a new one under a different name; then set up 2FA immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using wikipedia's editor and templates as a text editor for personal use
Is there a way to use the wikieditor and the templates to write, say, an essay or a thesis? I find it very convenient, especially when citing is easy as a click and a link, and the ref list is automatically updated. However, I am very sure making a personal work in draftspace will end up with it getting deleted, so, it there any way i can run it locally? Thanks in advance.
@Mint Keyphase You could use the source editor in your personal sandbox but never "publish changes": just use "preview". As Harold says, you can copy/paste the source code into a local PC editor and save it locally. When you are finished, you can "preview" the result in Wikipedia and copy/paste out the rendered text (or even save it as a .pdf). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could use User:Mint Keyphase/sandbox in your own user space, but that really shouldn't be used for maintaining things for personal use off-wiki. You could do as Mike Turnbull suggested, using your sandbox for preview and saving the markup in a text editor so you can continue working on it later in your sandbox. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, does Wikipedia offer donations? Where can I donate? How does this donation impact the quality of Wikipedia? Where would the money be spent? Giver058854687 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve put a lot of effort into collecting references, writing, editing, and uploading the article, but unfortunately, it was still declined. Could anyone please guide me on how to improve it and get it approved? I truly believe the subject is notable and well-recognized in her field.
The key to showing that someone is notable and well-recognized is to show that reliable sources have said a lot about the person, using the source's words (not interviews, because interviews use the subject's words).
If I want to learn about Babe Ruth's baseball career, I don't need to get information from his family or from things he said, and I don't need to call the offices of the teams he played for. I can read books about him, I can read magazine articles about him that are not interviews, I can look at the sports sections of old newspapers - reliable information is easy to find.
If you try to do the same for me, you'll find nothing. You'd have to ask me, ask my friends, ask my boss.
I don't belong on Wikipedia, and Babe Ruth does belong on Wikipedia. All the reliable independent public information about him is what makes the difference between us, for this purpose. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "put a lot of effort" into this, and yet it was written by an AI. Bear in mind that LLMs don't know how to write Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used to work for a video production company in the early 90's that produced a series of commercial and retail videos, as well as commercials and local cable shows. The company went out of business long ago, but its products still pop up on Ebay and YouTube from time to time. I'd love to write an article about it to preserve some history of the company and it's products. The issues are that I am clearly tied to the company and there are not many sources to pull from. I would pull together everything I can find to document the authenticity of the information, but if this category of article is not allowed, I don't want to go down a road that can't lead anywhere. To be clear, I have zero financial gain from this, the products are old VHS tapes that I do not own or sell, they are not collectors items, I am not helping anyone out here, it was a small company, I just don't want it erased from history entirely. Shockschneider (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company would neet to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG guidelines; that is, you'd need multiple third-party reliable sources with significant coverage about the company (not just mentioned). Why not just create a Youtube channel for the company if you want to preserve/share old videos? OhNoitsJamieTalk12:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Youtube is a great idea. I would also suggest looking for some service place (if you haven't already) where they will copy these tapes into newer formats. Not because new formats are better, but because it gets harder to find VHS players. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theres this myth about a talking baby named Quarcoo Bah-Boni and in the myth he beats up some animals and cause them to run to different parts of the world to explain why they live there. Its a very cool story that I think belongs on wikipedia but im not sure if it should be its own article or be part of a bigger article. Its a story from somewhere in west Africa. ShiningVictory (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any articles on Wikipedia that already say something about this story? Wikipedia search (and any other web search) will help you to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was unaware that my username could not be the name of my company, so it has been changed. However, I submitted an article for review under the previous username ChessUp. Now I cannot figure out how to get back to my unaccepted article to make the edits and resubmit it.
Thank you ChessMasterKS (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ChessMasterKS. 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. And that is even without the issue of conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am trying to add books to the 'In popular culture' section of the Yves Saint Laurent page but whenever I use the template it just turns into a subscript number when i want it to look like this: Rawsthorn, Alice (1996). Yves Saint Laurent: A Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-385-47645-0.
I honestly cant figure it out so any help would be appreciated. Cocodrilo018 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit on the Blues page was incorrectly marked as a 'minor edit'. I have warned the user through Twinkle.
My concern is - the edit itself seems to be WP:OR without any citations. Should I also be reverting the edit? Or will that be overstepping? Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues not withstanding, the inclusion of "As David Evans explains in “Blues” (Burnim & Maultsby, eds.)" means it was not uncited. Of course, a more complete citation, better formatted, would be preferred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated page for our architecture firm (since 2015)
Hello, I am new to this but want to learn how to request updates to the wikipedia page for 1100 Architect.
It looks to be outdated as of 2015. I understand as an employee, I am not participating in the edit. But I can provide a list of resources to support many updates. We are a well-established firm, with federal contracts, awards, publications, etc. Please advise. Much appreciated!
Thank you,
Betty Gonzalez Maxinik (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxinik. Firstly, please disclose your conflict of interest on your User Page at User:Maxinik by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then, you'll want to propose an Edit Request to the article. Use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard which will properly format it and allow interested uninvolved editors to evaluate the request. I would recommend starting with some small edit requests first before doing anything big. qcne(talk)23:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edit summary: I imagine this had been discussed before, but I don’t know how to search the history. So: should we really be showing the signatures of living persons? They’re a personal Sicilian, and in some cases, e.g. politicians, it seems irrelevant. It feels like a form of doxing to me. They may in many cases be available to autograph hunters. But, presumably their ready availability will facilitate forgeries on merchandise. Had this been discussed? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a TOL member: generally, it depends. If the subgenus is particularly noteworthy, then sure. If an article on the subgenus is purely going to be a list of species, then don't bother and redirect it to the genus. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for a bit of guidance here. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 14:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, please look at my sandbox here, I don’t understand why the references keep showing up in the middle of the article, even though there’s a reflist at the end. This is also happening on the main article once I publish it. Can someone help me fix it? I’m unable to figure out the reason behind it. 456legendtalk08:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason for having a standard naming protocol: Categories exist to help readers make sense of what's here, and to help them find the thing they're looking for. If all possible categories were included, even ones that are duplicates or near-duplicates of other ones, everything would make less sense and be harder to find. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made all corrections based on the previous reviewer’s suggestions for Draft:Neel Hurerzahan.
It has been waiting for quite some time without further review.
Could someone please take a look and let me know if it’s ready for publishing? Thank you! Saafayat (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2,931 pending submissions, or an approximate ~8 week wait. Reviewers are all volunteers, so it may take some time before your submission can be reviewed.
Hello, @Saafayat. You have not resubmitted it for review, so it was not even on the list of drafts for reviewers.
You had removed the decline notices, and along with them, the "resubmit" button.
I have restored these, and you can now resubmit it, if you believe you have addressed the issues in the notices.
Once you resubmit, it will go on the pile of drafts waiting for review, and there is no way of telling whether it will be reviewed quickly or not. Requests to review sooner achieve nothing except possibly irritating other editors. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help other editors understand what you've done: Several titles of your references are not in English, and I suggest that you also give a translation (of just the title, not the whole article). That makes it much faster to understand what each reference is about.
It seems to me that there might still be a problem, not with the number of references, but with what kind they are. We want to see independent writers who are not doing an interview, who go on and on writing a lot of analysis of her past work or why she is so important. If she has had many jobs and been mentioned many times, that's good for her but it doesn't help the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, @Nil and other reviewers — thanks very much for your guidance.
I have implemented the suggested corrections:
Replaced given-name usage with the subject's surname throughout the article (kept full name in the lead).
Removed IMDb as a reference (it was an incorrect link) — I will add a verified IMDb profile in External links if/when an official entry exists.
Provided English translations for Bengali reference titles to help non-Bengali reviewers understand sources more quickly.
Retained and cited independent, third-party coverage (for example, The Daily Star profile).
I have now resubmitted the draft for review. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Thank you again for your time and feedback. — @Saafayat (talk) Saafayat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The items in the Daily Star only mention the subject. Seeing her mentioned is not a bad thing, but it doesn't count as any coverage at all. We need to see things where she is the main topic of the report (and it's not an interview), not just saying she was in a band's video or hosting an awards ceremony. And we usually know that an awards host is not going to be getting any awards themselves, which somehow makes that reference seem even less encouraging. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it a different way: As the article stands now, a cynical reader could complain "Anyone with a pretty face could have replaced her, she's not important" - and you have no reliable sources to prove them wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally sent my article for review before I had finished
You have already resubmitted it; you may continue to edit it even after it is submitted, or you may reverse your submission. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created Draft:Hypertouch (ISP) submitted it, it was declined, and then you submitted it again after putting content in but nothing like what a Wikipedia article requires, and also removing the decline notice. Another user restored the decline notice. It is now waiting for review.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, demonstrating that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. Since the draft has no proper citations, it will, I am sure, be declined very soon. (You have included a couple of sources as "External links", but since they are not cited inline, it is not clear what information in the draft they are intended to verify. See WP:REFB).
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) 22:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't intentionally removed the decline notice. I had published what it should look like after it was declined, but had started before. Thanks for assuming, very welcoming. Bobobebops (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bobobebops, please note that ColinFine did not say that you intentionally removed the decline notice. Only that you had done so, which was accurate. If you made an unintentional error, I would think that you would want a more experienced editor pointing out your mistake, so that you can learn from it and not repeat it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that neither of you considered that the deletion notice was added while i was editing. Once again I note that this was not a mistake but was not an intentionally done thing. Very welcoming. (I'm going to get another 'smart' comment, aren't I?) Bobobebops (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @Bobobebops. I'm sorry you found my reply unwelcoming: it was not intended to be. I did not make an assumption: I noticed that you had removed the decline notice, and pointed this out and that I had restored it. It is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to do this, and I have no idea whether they do so intentionally or not. There was no way I could tell that you were in process of editing, even if I had gone to look (which I didn't think to do, I admit): I see that you submitted your edit eleven minutes after Wikishovel declined the draft. I'm surprised that you didn't get a message about an editing confict in that case, and the invitation to resolve it.
I don't know if you found the rest of my message unwelcoming: again, it was not intended to be. I wish there was a I way I could get a message to new editors saying "STOP! If you try to create an article without first getting some experience, you are likely to have a frustrating time". ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just created a category under the wrong demonym ... It's "Somalian" and not "Somali"... But I couldn't find where to move the category page as articles have... May anyone move that please? (Category:Somali football referees to Somalian...). Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking for guidance in creating a Wikipedia page for Johnson Rays (Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson), a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. I have a draft ready and would like to ensure it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, and neutral tone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicContributor78 (talk • contribs)
Draft of blatantly promotional article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About Johnson Rays
Blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Gospel Reggae
Key releases: Belief (2023, album), Motivate (2024, single), God Did (2024, EP)
Born 18 August 1978, Nigeria
Draft Summary
Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson (born 18 August 1978), known professionally as Johnson Rays, is a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. He blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Reggae Gospel to create uplifting music with messages of faith, perseverance, and motivation.
Career and Releases:
Belief (2023, Album): Combines Gospel Reggae and Gospel Afrobeats to deliver motivational messages rooted in faith.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/belief_johnson_rays
Motivate (2024, Single): Encourages listeners to persevere and stay motivated.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/motivate-johnson-rays
God Did (2024, EP): Celebrates triumphs over challenges and fuses Reggae Gospel with Afrobeats.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/god-did-johnson-rays
3. Shoplife Africa Magazine – shoplife.com.ng/2024/09/shoplife-africa-magazine-exclusive-interview-with-johnson-rays/
4. Lagos Jump Radio – lagosjumpradio.com/featured/johnson-rays-a-musical-journey-fueled-by-hope-and-inspiration/
Vision
Johnson Rays’ music aims to inspire, motivate, and uplift listeners while blending African rhythms with gospel messages. His work emphasizes faith, perseverance, and creative expression.
Hey there, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and welcome to the Teahouse! As another user mentioned, please don't post draft articles here, your sandbox page is a good place for doing that! For help with writing articles, check out this page, it's got heaps of info on how to write articles. You can also go here to start an article that will be reviewed by other editors before it's published live on the site (this is good for starting out!) Let us know if you have any further questions. SnowyRiver28(talk)
Hello, MusicContributor78, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine, thank you for the warm welcome and for your advice. I appreciate your guidance and understand the importance of learning more about Wikipedia’s policies before creating an article. I’ll take time to study and improve existing pages so I can better understand how everything works. Thanks again for your patience and support. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bazza 7, thank you for the reminder. I didn’t mean to remove anyone’s comments — that was a mistake while I was trying to tidy the page. I appreciate your feedback and will make sure not to delete others’ comments again. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page references a medical article, but the text doesn't match the contents of said article.
Hello, I was reading the page Life expectancy, and I noticed in the Japan section it said
Japan's high life expectancy can largely be explained by their healthy diets, which are low on salt, fat, and red meat. For these reasons, Japan has a low obesity rate, and ultimately low mortality from heart disease and cancers.
I thought this was odd, since Japan has a fairly high level of salt consumption per capita. I decided to look at the cited article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189904), and it didn't match up with that text, it said
The decreasing mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease are thought to reflect the increases in animal foods, milk, and dairy products and consequently in saturated fatty acids and calcium, together with a decrease in salt intake which may have led to a decrease in blood pressure. This decrease in salt and highly salted foods also seems to account for the decrease in stomach cancer. The typical Japanese diet as characterized by plant food and fish as well as modest Westernized diet such as meat, milk and dairy products might be associated with longevity in Japan.
What can be done about this? I don't have enough confidence to re-write the section myself. Is there perhaps some template I could add to call this out?
Sorry for the long question, I felt this was important to address considering it's a medical reference. 51.37.88.62 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you want to add a template to call this out in the text, the appropriate template for when an article doesn't match the source it's cited to would be Template:Failed verification. But I agree with Andy that it would be great to raise this on the talk page so it's easier for another editor to fix. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and rewritten the section you noted, though, so at this point I don't think you'll need to add that template (unless you disagree with my summary, which is of course fair). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what context is a self published citation appropriate?
Hey y'all, I'm pretty new here and I am aware that self published sources are almost always NOT something we want to use when citing information in an article. I was looking at the web page for Yung Leans Mixtape Frost God, and saw a citation needed for a directors credit. The only place I could find that information was the description of the youtube video published by Yung Lean. Is this an appropriate exception to the rule? Since it is information from the creator with a detail about the thing that was created? I would love some more explanation as to why this is or isn't appropriate, so I can provide higher quality edits in the future. Thanks so much.
@InsertMode I'm not an expert on this, but I have a couple of things that may help a little. My first question assumes that you're knowledgeable about the artists being discussed.
How likely is it that this director credit might be controversial? (Meaning, is there anyone out there who might want to argue that somebody wasn't telling the truth when they put that credit on YouTube?) If you think someone might argue, then you should try to get some better evidence.
Second thing: In my experience, credits on YouTube have REALLY often contained very stupid mistakes. It happens so very often that I wonder if YouTube itself might be partly to blame, but regardless, there are tons of wrong credits on there. Maybe I see this so much because I listen to a lot of very old stuff, but honestly I think the mistakes are pretty widespread. I'm NOT saying yours is a mistake, but I'm asking: Does it look right to you? Do you, knowing about these artists pretty well, think this makes sense?
If you can answer that nobody's likely to argue, and the credit seems right to you, then I think it's safe to leave it the way you did it. But if some other editor isn't satisfied and changes it back, I think you should easily let them do that because the evidence isn't 100% solid. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful context. I am very familiar with the artist, and this particular credit is a long time collaborator. That can be shown with other sources (unfortunately I can't find a source that directly confirms this credit) so I think in this case this change made sense. I'd be very surprised if it were disputed, but I will defer to a disputer if that time comes for the reasons you described. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I will seek to learn more as I continue editing!
If you have a conflict of interest with a topic or with a source, the best practice is to write a proposal on the article talk page to include it, and let the community decide. The community generally frowns on editors adding citations to their own works. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Ukrainophilism article, should the 19th century nationalist movement take precedence in the lede or should the modern understanding of the word? I'd argue the former is more significant but most people searching for the article would likely be looking for the latter. I was planning on rewriting that section at some point. Joko2468 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been trying to add some well-sourced information to an article, but another editor keeps insisting my sources are "unreliable" and been reverting, without giving more explanation beyond that. My instinct is that this might just be stonewalling, but I know policy says we should assume good faith WP:AGF. The irony is Wikipedia already supports every single fact I want to add in - That Taiwan constitution claims all of China and not just Taiwan. That Taiwan never declared formal independence and it requires majority of lawmakers to make a change to their formal status. I know info is good but if they use "unreliable sources" claim then I figured if I take it to RSN then it should settle this and can't continue to label as bad sources. Is there a faster or better way to resolve this when only a few editors are involved? I believe with more editors involved, the more likely balanced that discussion and more odds of neutral people weighing in, but I am dealing mostly with very too few same people saying this source is not credible.[1] Thanks for any advice - I really want to handle this properly and understand where the max limits of AGF apply. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already mentioned in Wikipedia then that's easy-- just use the same reliable source used there. But you should take care to ensure that it explicitly supports your addition, ideally and sometimes as a necessity in the same context, and there's no WP:SYNTH. Given that your additions appear controversial, editors may demand that such facts be explicitly covered in the relevant context-- they'd be right to do so. Joko2468 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what happens if I be bold and add in that "Taiwan ROC constitution currently asserts claim over mainland China and not just island of Taiwan + Taiwan has not declared formal independence nor formally renounced one China policy" and "it requires 75% of lawmakers to actually approve of formal independence and change their status" and use sources like [2] and [3] and [4] which supports every single statement above. I doubt UK gov library and multiple reputable outlets all are mistaken about this. The elephant is the info is unpopular to acknowledge but that shouldn't be an excuse to remove them as wiki policy is to be neutral and not remove simply if you don't like it. My facts are all explicitly covered by sources. I want to know how to get more editors involved so it's not just the same ingroup of people constantly at that article resisting and telling me the sources are rubbish and cannot be trusted. I read about RFC - I Think that may be an ideal pathway to escalate to if I need get wider range people to accept the sources as honest. BTW I am not saying I am going to do that now - I am just figuring my options. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you've cited are WP:BESTSOURCES, you can conduct a search on Google Scholar for an academic source. Where are you acknowledging it? Note what I said previously about context and also see WP:RELEVANCE. Specifically on getting more editors involved, you can invoke a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You can then make your case and discuss the issue towards a consensus. You may want to read WP:RFCNEUTRAL and the surrounding text, I made that mistake when I first invoked one. Joko2468 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are several avenues to fix the issues here but I do not (just very superficially looking at the website) think all these sources are actually very reliable. One way you can use the UK gov source in a safer way would be to cite it directly. (Like: “the UK government says x/describes x as y”)
But definitely try to find better sources. Especially for things that are controversial.
To deal with the reverting: my advice is to make a talk page section about the things that were reverted, ask what is the issue there (politely, stating your case if necessary, asking for how other editors think you can better add certain things) if applicable and ping all or some of the people who have recently reverted those things.
Apologies, I assumed he'd have done that already-- take Slomo666's advice first if you haven't done that already. If you find yourself at an impass and believe you have a point then you can invoke an RfC but doing this prematurely before optimising your approach would not be enjoyable. Joko2468 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was confirming a theory. I get what you are saying. But many educated people knows that the Taiwanese constitution claims the mainland and Taiwan has never declared formal independence. The US government has also stated it does not support Taiwan moving to declare independence. So this information is not reasonably doubted. The real question is why The Conversation, with subject experts, would not be trusted. Similarly, why would the UK Parliament Commons Library be wrong about this? Given that both sources report the same facts, it seems highly unlikely that they are incorrect. If a small group of editors claims these sources are unreliable and revert additions, an RFC seems necessary, as I doubt the wider Wikipedia community holds that view. Wikipedia policy on WP:THECONVERSATION regards it as reliable. If a subject expert and the UK Parliament Commons Library both state that the constitution claims all of mainland China, why should this information be doubted? I believe only a small group would claim UK Parliament Commons Library and The conversation are subpar sources for those hard facts. But when given a RFC of wider editors - I believe it's not possible to still believe that collectively the sources are all wrong about something that many educated people know to be true and supported by too many experts saying the same thing. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is why you would insist on opinion sources when there are most likely academic works that are among the best possible sources available to support similar content. Ultimately it is not up to others to prove that these sources are wrong on the facts, it is up to you (see WP:ONUS) to convince others to support your proposed edits. The best way to do that is to find the best possible sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's just barriers. Not everyone can easily find peer reviews papers and don't need to when there's UK gov common library and reputable outlets saying all that. I believe that's the point of RFC. My plan of action is to add the edit including "Taiwan’s (ROC) constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, not just the island of Taiwan." Some individuals, including on RSN, may argue that my sources are unreliable and not to be accepted. Except my sources now include the UK Parliament Commons Library and Ben Saul from The Conversation, which I consider high-quality and reliable. If these sources continue to be challenged, I believe an RFC is the most appropriate way to resolve the issue fairly, as a small group of editors should not be able to unilaterally decide that the information or sources are invalid. I think this plan makes the most sense (if I am unable to access membership-only peer reviewed journals for undebated facts). I can't convince people who refuse to admit facts. But I can convince neutral people my sources are correct and trustworthy and believe only an RFC can create that setting with a lot more neutral people weighing in and so to reach a fair resolution. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Yeah that's just barriers", it appears to demonstrate that you want your version of events rammed through regardless of what anyone else has to say. That's a bad plan on a site where collaborative editing is the point. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering the opposite actually. To engage a lot more people in RFC (if need be) to decide this. My point is maybe not wise to rely on a small group of people to remove claims like "Taiwan never declared formal independence" etc even when there's decent sources to back them. And have more editors weighing in if it is unable to be agreed on. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing a very reasonable request for better sourcing is setting yourself up for a failed RFC - which is not a quick process anyway. You should be doing the work yourself rather than looking at spending a bunch of community time on an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you're considering the opposite, but then you describe something that (in context at least) sounds an awful lot like searching for a way to get your desired changes rammed through. I can't tell if that's really what you meant, but it is certainly how it's being received. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can and yes you do, Jared. I don’t think an RfC will do much. All the people replying here on the tea house are neutral and also all agree that you need to do more to comply with guidelines. You may say “yeah that’s just barriers”, but frankly I don’t think you have taken the time to relativise yourself.
You are trying to change something that is (very) controversial. Consensus isn’t a barrier here, but a necessity. Edits going against consensus have no staying power. Slomo666 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces, even when published by subject matter experts, are always subpar sources for hard facts. Those also don't appear to be hard facts but matters of opinion on which subject matter experts differ... I think the main objection to your edits is that you want to oversimplify what is a very broad and unsettled issue to fit your own personal beliefs about it. To put it in other terms you appear to be working backwards from a position and looking for sources which support it rather than looking for the best possible sources and summarizing what they say including the various disagreements they may have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back it's not a matter of opinion. Whether a constitution says that it claims all of mainland China or doesn't. That's a hard fact. It either does or doesn't. There's no opinion. You saying constantly it's an opinion - is just wrong. Just one question - can you find a single source that says Taiwanese constitution doesn't claim all of China? I can find numerous expert sources all saying it does. That fact isn't an opinion where it varies. Unless there's a constitutional amendment, nobody can claim otherwise. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading what others are saying. The sources you are citing are opinion outlets. See for example the note in WP:THECONVERSATION, which you cited earlier. And again, it is up to you to find sources that will convince others to support your changes. Trying to reverse that burden by requesting sources that disprove your edit is not how things are done on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that you've been asked to find an academic source to use instead of the conversation, and if your goal is to reach a consensus you should just do it rather than keep trying to use the conversation. MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie What about this source? [5] I noticed one of the controversial statements that Taiwan was never even given to ROC is made by this source. Additionally another source [6] used to argue Taiwan’s legal independence doesn’t even mention Taiwan at all, but instead describes an unrelated ICJ case involving Euro states. Using that case to imply the same principle applies to Taiwan seems like WP:SYNTH. It seems the standards to accept subpar sources and info are far lower for Taiwanese Independence and my sources. Why is that okay? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self published websites and primary legal documents are not academic sources, no. But sourcing is different when context is different. The context this time is you are trying to gather consensus for an addition, and someone indicated they would be more inclined to support your position with an academic source. So just go look for an academic source already. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Ok. In terms of context. One of the statements in (Legal argument for Taiwanese independence)[7] argue that Taiwan was never given to ROC KMT in the first place and there are precedents. Their argument uses a source that doesn't mention Taiwan at all, but instead refers to a legal dispute involving european countries. They imply if it worked for those European countries, it prob applies for Taiwan too. That seems like Synth or original research to me where their source doesn't explicitly say it applies to Taiwan dispute. Is that okay? I don't think so and think the standards are set dangerously low to allow that in. Do you think that's acceptable? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond because you directly addressed me, but only to say that I think that is an issue that is unrelated to what I've been saying here. I'm not interested in weighing in on every aspect of this content dispute. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow your advice that only high quality sources are allowed. Even higher than subject experts from The Conversation then I should have the right to delete almost every weak sourced info in Taiwanese independence chapter. Especially when it doesn't even meet the most basic criteria if verification where it mentions Taiwan dispute even once. I am just learning the integrity here. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:POINT. You are also putting words in my mouth here - your summary of my advice is not what I have actually been saying. As a matter of simple practicality if you are trying to reach consensus and someone asks you to provide something that you should be able to provide - just provide it. WP:WIKILAWYERing instead will get you nowhere. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Relax. I was already considering to address them before. Yesterday I mentioned it on talk that the section about Taiwanese independence was flawed and with one sided weak sourced arguments. However I will address them later in the future. I am not doing it to prove a point but was already considering yesterday doing it as it's SYNTH. Regardless any neutral responsible editor will read that CHAPTER where it says (Sovereignty transfer to the ROC by prescription does not apply to Taiwan's case since:) and it includes non sequitur arguments like it doesn't apply because of what happened in Gaza strip or what happened to a European countries dispute. Most of the statements don't even have sources and the one that do, many don't even talk about Taiwan once. They just imply it probably applies to Taiwan dispute. The entire thing is SYNTH and highly flawed and should be removed regardless. You can read the chapter yourself if you don't believe - [8]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a constitution means is open to interpretation and that interpretation changes over time (ask an American about that one) there are no hard facts besides maybe character count, thats what we have constitutional courts for. Does the Taiwanese constitutional court currently interpret that constitution as meaning that Taiwan and China are one country or that Taiwan claims China? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's debatable. They are not simply saying China. They even state that mainland China is claimed by ROC. They were pretty specific. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The courts do not hold the claim to be active. Thats a nuance I think you're missing, just because the claim is made in the letter of the law doesn't actually mean the claim is actually being made in reality. I'm sure wherever you live there are obsolete and obscure things still in the books which the courts have ruled irrelevant but your legislature never got rid of. There isn't just one truth here... There are multiple truths because its an unsettled issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? Currently the Roc hasn't denounced one China policy or declared independence. That's not a matter to debate on. In this article - https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202509300007 - United States announced its opposition to move Taiwan toward formal "independence. The article is dated this year. If Taiwan already is formally independent, then this article contradicts it. EITHER Taiwan is formally independant or it isn't. There's no in-between. You can't claim to be formally independent when Taiwan doesn't denounce one China policy and doesn't even declare itself independent. It's only defacto independent as long as there's been no changes to its formal status and constitution that holds back formal independence. Regardless I am not going to argue with this further with you. We clearly cannot agree on facts and sources so moving to DRN or RFC eventually. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the wonderful world of law and international relations... Where things are almost always in-between, especially so when it comes to Taiwan. The great thing about wikipedia is that we don't actually need to agree on anything besides how to summarize the reliable sources, we have no interest in what is true only in what is verifiable. If you really are this interested in what is true maybe this isn't the place for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, every argument in the Wikipedia article for Taiwanese independence should be fairly removed too. As they do not prove that Taiwanese independence is legally achieved. Esp when Taiwan has not unequivocally declared its independence from China. The article should reflect all major viewpoints. As Long as Taiwan identifies as ROC or Republic of CHINA. Then it's not possible to say they are legally independent from China when they are formally arguing that are China. Yet there's only weak arguments for Taiwanese independence but zero counter arguments for why Taiwan is not considered legally independent. I wondered why the article is so unbalanced.[9]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be specific about the double standards - Literally in one of those arguments, it is too one sided and shallow. Where it cites a source that doesn't even explicitly mention the complex case of Taiwan at all. It writes, “Prescription as a rule for acquiring sovereignty itself is not universally accepted. The International Court of Justice ruled that Belgium retained its sovereignty over territories even by non-assertion of its rights and by acquiescence to acts of sovereign control alleged to have been exercised by the Netherlands over a period of 109 years.”[133] The source doesn't even mention Taiwan even once. If you place that sentence inside a paragraph about Taiwan’s sovereignty - implying that "because the ICJ ruled this way, therefore Taiwan’s situation means X" - then it becomes original research. Another uses a source that is far less quality than I use and can't even afford a basic security server to host its info and we don't know much about the author [10] How is that okay? Yet the standards I have to meet is far greater?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think part of the article is badly sourced or dubious, that does not give you the right to balance it out with more manure nor to delete it per WP:PRESERVE. Your only option here is to find an academic source per WP:BESTSOURCES that supports your assertion-- you appear capable of doing this. In the time you've spent labouring the point in this thread, you could have actually found an academic source that supports your points and is near impossible to argue against, forcing your 'opponents' to engage in academic rigour which would substantially improve the article. Yet you appear to be stubbornly refusing to work in the spirit of consensus and evaluate your own approach. If you continue to push subpar sources per WP:RS then you will be wasting your time. Believe me, there are many barriers to editing on Wikipedia and, despite much torment, in my experience they usually benefit the encyclopedia. Joko2468 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying that my sources are far higher quality and there's objectively a double standard. Whereas I see the opposing arguments have terrible sources yet are in Wikipedia. My issue is in this chapter- [11] there are many arguments for why Taiwan is independent and all of them are flawed sources. One of them uses a legal dispute involving european countries and imply it maybe applies to Taiwan despite the source doesn't explicitly say that. By every right, according to you guys, I should delete them all as they fail at source standards. Meanwhile every one of my source is far more reliavle. I use a subject expert who knows international law and from The Conversation and yet I am asked for further lofty standards even more than that. I want to know what is the fairness factor here?
An article is not a forum. An article is not about achieving balance between opinions for and against. There is no double standard: the single standard being applied is this: anyone who wants to introduce a major change in a controversial topic must meet a very high burden of proof. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If one standard applies, there wouldn't be incredibly flawed info in that article. Read that CHAPTER [12] where it says (Sovereignty transfer to the ROC by prescription does not apply to Taiwan's case since:) and it includes non sequitur arguments like it doesn't apply because of what happened in Gaza strip or what happened to a European countries dispute. Most of the statements don't even have sources and the one that do, many don't even talk about Taiwan once. They just imply it probably applies to Taiwan dispute without the source actually saying that. The entire thing is SYNTH and highly flawed and should be removed regardless. The issue is there's so many rubbish sources for why Taiwan is formally independent. Yet currently exactly ZERO arguments why Taiwan is considered not formally independant. I tried adding in an argument but was removed. Despite my sources are a prestigious legal expert on a reliavle sources. Frankly, I am starting to understand the issues and think it be helpful to bring awareness to a RFC. But only after I exhausted attempt to find sources - so far I found (Christopher J. Carolan's article, The “Republic of Taiwan”: Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence, published in the NYU Law Review, argues that Taiwan exists as a de facto independent state but has never formally declared independence.
so now I have one. If that's rejected then I will take to DRN or RFC as you can't continue to forever ask me to find even higher quality sources than even that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. If it's rejected then you can call an RfC which may not resolve it the way you want (I don't know how well you've considered WP:UNDUE) but it will improve the article. Best of luck. Joko2468 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it doesn't go through make sure to cite guidelines in your argument, they're powerful consensus-building tools. You should have most of what you'd need in this thread. Joko2468 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promise you, if you put the effort in (and it's usually a sunk cost affair) it'll be worth it. Theorising about your victimhood is going to get you and the encyclopedia nowhere. Joko2468 (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, small groups of editors can influence what is accepted on controversial topics; this is where RFCs or broader discussions help. They bring in more neutral eyes and reduce the effect of entrenched biases. I still think that's the best option. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I went through this exact same thing on Trumpism#RfC: Non-academic sources in the infobox and lede and relevant guidelines. It failed but it armed me with relevant guidelines that I then cited to help me improve the article and the Background section that I was workshopping at the time. I've provided you with those guidelines. If you think your sources are highly reliable but their reliability is nuanced, then perhaps an RfC is a good idea. However for such an immensely controversial topic, editors will likely demand that the material be peer reviewed. Correcting systemic biases isn't easy but it is rewarding if you go about it the right way. Editors will throw the book at you, this is how consensus building works and if you're not prepared to counter that then maybe take a step back. Joko2468 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poor sourcing when there is a wealth of academic material on the topic is an NPOV problem and you should avoid being called out for hypocrisy if you want to make a strong argument. Joko2468 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joko2468 I hope you don't mind me asking but what about these ones - Taiwan‟s Long (Impossible) Road from a de facto to a de jure. Country. Is a New Constitution the Answer?, Columbia Undergraduate Law Review[13] and Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan" by David Scott Mathias in Islands Study Journal [14] that both says because of China's influence and lack of broad international recognition, Taiwan functions as a de facto state limited to paradiplomatic channels because of China's influence and lack of broad international recognition. And Oxford Public International Law / Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2020, author Björn Ahl) under section D. International Legal Status, 1. Lack of Statehood.[15] that makes claims like: "Taiwan meets the objective criteria for statehood but has not formally claimed de jure statehood due to the risk of PRC military action." Etc JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If I can't confirm that a source on the wiki says what it supposedly says, can I reuse it on another page on the wiki?
This question is brought to you by the Citation Hunt tool. Which send me to: Slave Rebellions - Europe - Servile Wars. Since those have their own pages, I figured they might be the best starting points. Turns out there are the sources I need, but they are books. So I can't confirm they say what they supposedly say. Which begs the question, can I copy the source from one article to the other if it confirms the assertion made in either, even if I can't check what it says myself? MMichkov (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you should check the sources before citing them—sometimes what they're being cited for is vague, and sometimes sourcing is sloppy or the sources get separated from what they were originally cited for. If you could see the secondary sources, I would say you might get away with citing the Greek and Roman writers as cited in them. But in this case, it looks like those are the sources you should be able to check: chiefly Diodorus Siculus and Livy, but also the other writers cited in the bibliography under Third Servile War. I would feel safe citing these once you check them, since you should be able to find all of the Greek and Roman sources online, and possibly also Mommsen.
Among secondary sources, you should be able to check some good sources through the Wikipedia Library, possibly including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, and possibly some version of Pauly-Wissowa (in German). The Cambridge Ancient History is sometimes accessible.
Some older sources that likely have relevant information are available through Internet Archive and Google Books, including the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (under biographical articles for the participants), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (under places, usually including historical information), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. These works have copious citations to Greek and Roman writers, though you should check them for what they say and to make sure the citations are correct; proofreading citations was hard in the 19th century, and many sources have different editions with different numbering. Obviously attitudes toward social issues (such as slavery, race, and class) have changed since these sources were written, but in terms of supplying the basic facts and providing the authorities for them, they are unsurpassed in detail among English-language classical scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not quite what you're asking, it's worth being aware of WP's rules around copying from one article to another. Attribution isn't required if you're only copying the citation, but if you also copy any of the article text (along with the source), make sure you have a read of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Nil🥝00:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have very simple and brief question: is there a template one could use that displays in editing mode to warn editors to use a certain time style? There’s a template for “use DMY” dates for instance. What I’m looking for is basically a “use 24 hour clock” template. Thanks in advance.
That’s what I was considering. Now that you confirmed me not finding the desired template is not merely my own bad searching, I’ll probably do that soon. Thanks. Slomo666 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should unsourced or dead linked material be removed? I have found several of them around, I just don’t want to remove that if it is against the rules. DawnB3 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best practice is to look for sources, including copies of the formerly-linked material if it's available. It often will be, if the source is a published book or journal; search Google Books or Scholar, or Internet Archive for older works. The latter also has a tool called the "Wayback Machine", which archives web pages from time to time, and may include the original text saved when the link was live. It's possible to link to those archived versions for citation purposes, indicating that the original site is no longer available. However, if that site was citing a source that's available elsewhere, it may be preferable to link directly to that source.
If you can't find the original source in any form, you still should be able to search for the claim being made. You might have to formulate the search in different ways, but there's a good chance that you can find a source for most valid claims—Google Books and Internet Archive are still your most useful tools for anything likely to be found in books or magazines.
If you can't locate any sources after a reasonable search in likely sources, then technically the material can be deleted. However, I usually take guidance from two of the guidelines for sourcing: first, the guidelines say that material likely to be challenged may be removed if it can't be verified by reliable sources; I note that verifiability requires only that sources exist, not that they're available to you or over the internet. This means that if the best possible sources are inaccessible, but seem to exist or likely to exist in some format that isn't available, the material may still be verifiable, even if you're not able to verify it yourself.
As to what "likely to be challenged" means, I refer to "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue". Meaning that if something seems obvious, or uncontroversial, it should probably remain even if no source has been located for it. Perhaps you'll think of a source, or some other editor will find one, but if it seems likely to be correct, I would leave it alone, and remove only things that seem dubious or probably wrong. Experts in the subject matter of an article may recognize errors that can never be verified because they are simply wrong, and delete them. But if you're not sure, and you can't find anything on point, it may be best to leave it for another editor. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see if the source has been backed up at archive.org. Failing that, one time I succeeded in convincing the publisher to restore the source so that it could be cited. If that doesn't work, see if alternate sources can be found. You may have to dig deeper than a Google search, maybe using Lexis/Nexis, the newspapers.com archive, and so on. And if the source ever existed in print, there are always libraries. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HI Teahouse, I've got a question about renaming a page. I'm a native-English speaker learning French, and I've come across this page on French Wikipedia: fr:Chāt masālā which I believe should have the title "Chaat masala" instead of "Chāt masālā" as macrons are not a thing that exists in French (as far as I am aware). I could do an edit to the page to change the text within the article, but this change would also need to be in the title of the page (which if I understand correctly would also change the URL).
I am a relatively new and inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I assume this isn't a change I can make by myself. How would I go about requesting / kicking off the converstation about this change?
Generally, the proccess of changing a page's URL (which also changes the main page header) is called moving a page, though, given the fact that the page in question is on frwiki, you will need to ask over there (perhaps at fr:Project:Forum_des_nouveaux, which appears to be frwiki's equivalent of the Teahouse) regarding the exact procedure. Victor Schmidt (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the French Wikipedia rules for foreign-language page titles. Maybe they have it this way intentionally. But you are right to be asking them a question to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
💡 Macrons are actually quite common in NZ English for loan words from Maori. (Also, if chat were a Maori loan word, both spellings (chaat and chāt) would be acceptable.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How much of an accident report do I add to the article?
I am currently trying to improve this draft about USAir Flight 499. I was wondering how much of the report should I add to the article. Should I summarize the main points or try to add everything into the article but word it differently?
Because that's a primary source, I would defer to what actual journalists chose to cover from that report, and cite the secondary sources instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be kind of a pointless question, because the reviewer already told you that the source you're asking about doesn't count for much. You need to be finding the other different sources that the reviewer said are needed, not trying to optimize this one. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zaptain United, the question that you need to answer for yourself and for other editors is why an airline incident that resulted in only one minor injury meets the standard of notability? In all honesty, I doubt that this mishap is notable and I see no evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then why are those sources not yet referenced in the draft? Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage does not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I suggest some kind of POV evaluation on the article 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis?
Currently most of the 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis article is a collection of info derived from both Cambodian and Thai media. Which most media in both countries depicts their own country as the morally correct one.
Resubmitting improved AfC bio draft after declines; confusion on versions for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir
Hi Teahouse hosts,
I'm User:Abujahangir (65 edits since July 2025), improving a bio draft on Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur and Community Leader Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, who is noted for his role in leading the initiative that resulted in the city of Port Alberni, British Columbia, being recognized by FIFA as a potential training site for the 2026 World Cup.
The original Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (by blocked User:Farzana.1970, January 2025) links in the Jan 2025 Teahouse thread (Archive 1247) to a July 18, 2025, declined version—not matching the early stub. It was declined for sourcing/formatting; I've left it abandoned.
My expanded Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) (submitted Sep 2, 2025) has 2 declines (July 21 by Utopes: WP:REFB/MINREF; Oct 1 by Theroadislong: similar). I've fixed refs (31 independent sources now: CHEK, Alberni Valley News, CBC, Daily Janakantha and more), structure, and neutrality—meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO.
Resubmitted today. Could a reviewer check for approval/feedback? Tips on merging versions or avoiding future declines?
Abujahangir, you say "Resubmitted today". No, Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) has not been resubmitted. For that purpose, you have to click on the blue "Resubmit" quasi-button. It reads much less like an encyclopedia article, a lot more like a PR piece (and close to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir). Its promotional nature and your seemingly exclusive interest in writing up Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir combine to make me wonder: How are you related to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (the man, not the draft)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abujahangir I don't think your subject is Wikipedia notable. He's a businessman who helped get a small city identified as a training site (not even a venue). This isn't enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Are there any pages on Wikipedia that will link to it or will this page be an orphan? Second, your name suggests that you might be related to the subject. If so, you'll need to declare your COI, see WP:COI. I'd suggest you park the draft for 3 months and, in the mean time, get more familiar with Wikipedia first. You seem to be good at referencing. Maybe start by helping to reference articles. (If the subject is notable now, he'll still be notable in 3 months.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are all well. We are trying to make a wikipage for a company called Life After Me, but I'm finding it hard to find my way around Wikipedia and it's rules and regulations. My hope is to get some pointers and perhaps help on what we need to do to get this page approved: Draft:Life After Me
The main goal for this page is to show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do, we don't want to use wikipedia as place for promoting Life After Me, but we want to use it as place where people can independently find out more info on Life After Me, like it's security certifications and who they have worked with as in trusted partners and such.
Hey there, welcome to the teahouse! First off, I noticed your use of 'we', and I'd just like to let you know that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared as per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Please ensure each individual has their own account going forward.
I see you've submitted a draft of your article recently which was declined as it may not meet the standards for needing an article. The notability guidelines for organisations has in-depth information on what should and shouldn't get articles. I'd suggest reading this in full and then deciding whether the company needs an article.
Hi, Thank you for the quick and clear response! 1. My apologies, my English isn't that good, with "we" I ment me and my colleagues helping me, I am the only one using this account :)
2. Thank you for this! Having read through it I am still struggling with which sources I should remove or add, I have made an attempt in the last revised edit and i think i am waiting for approval or decline. The sources mentioned on the draft are under media coverage, with main purpose to let people know where they can have heard of Life After Me before, but i have a suspicion this is also where its going wrong? Perhaps i cant mention any media coverage to let people know who talk about Life After Me?
3. "We" prioritize transparency and honesty, this is core in the business of legacy planning! When Life After Me is big enough as company perhaps others will write this for and about Life After Me instead. Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Tijmen Blue Marloc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is for.
To show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden in Wikipedia.
Basically, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what your company wants people to know about itself. If several people wholly unconnected with your company have independently chosen to write in some depth about your company in reliable publications, then an article about your company is possible - and it would be based almost entirely on what those independent people had said, not on what you want to say.
Hi ColinFine, Thanks for your input, I have already read this before making the initial draft.
I opted into the conflict of interest disclosure and taking into consideration not to "Self-promote" with specifically "This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view" and "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations" where "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." has been tried to my best capability and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" has been tried to my best capability. I hope to not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is" by following the rules set as best as I can and most importantly never self promoting.
Since the first time the initial draft was not denied because of any of these reasons I assumed to have passed on the neutrality side of the article. When the draft gets denied because of these reasons I will surely comeback here to get help on staying neutral on these pages. For now the first hurdle is the articles and sources I think.
Hello! I see that you've created an Article about your son; father; grandfather; or someone that you have a close relationship with! Which is called a Conflict of Interest on Wikipedia. I can help you find some sources and help you make the article non promotional; but I recommend looking that the hyperlink I made to the page for further information! Valorrr(lets chat)14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the legacy section of the page for Sevalal Maharaj, there is a random list of names after it talks about his siblings. There doesn't seem to be any indication of what the list is for, and it's not the names of his siblings, because it lists those before that. There is also some weird formatting inside the list as well.
Maybe i'm missing something and the formatting is just junked up, or the title for the list was deleted and the list stayed or it was just mis-placed? If anyone has any idea, please tell me.
I was looking through Wikipedia, and saw there's no page for Quantum Archeology. Seriously!! It's like an idea that says one day we might be able to rebuild people from the past using insanely advanced tech. The basic thought is that if the universe keeps a perfect record of everything that’s ever happened, you know, every atom, every interaction then in theory, we could dig through that data and re-create entire lives, memories, and minds. It mixes quantum physics, computing, and a bit of sci-fi optimism, imagining a future where even the long-dead could be brought back digitally or physically. I don't believe it personally, but it would be ridiculously fun to read about. Why doesn't a page for it exist? I never edit wikipedia, so I guess it's something to do with sources? Let me know :) 31.208.88.59 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Marla Stone (author)
