Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

Approval of Not Just Bikes' statements?

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.

---

Original title of this thread: Could the existence of Not Just Bikes Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toarin (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to self: I really gotta stop worrying about this topic. Toarin (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to self 2: ditto Toarin (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Not Just Bikes § Could the existence of this Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements?

Also, for someone who generally agrees with the overall messages of his channel, some of his videos, to me, made a few claims that might not be WP:DUE. Such as saying that “American trucks” are murder machines or that footbridges would almost always be a bad idea.

References

Notes: 1. Should the Wikipedia community approves of those statements, I'd be more than happy to have them used as sources in appropriate articles.

2. “by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers” was in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber), an AfD that was closed in Jan 2026. Toarin (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Toarin (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

Subscriber count is a poor indicator of notability as it barely takes a second to hit subscribe to a youtube channel and we are looking for substantial coverage from reliable sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

> I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

That is a strong argument. Although I think that for many of the times, such things are labeled accordingly to not be endorsed. Such as entries in Category:War crimes committed by country

Having an article on a particular subjects does certainly not imply endorsement. After all, we have articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, many serial killers, etc etc. That's not to say that the article is written from a neutral point of view right now, that would be a separate, and potentially valid criticism (though I haven't read the article). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Having an article on nazism doesn't mean we approve nazism. Yes, Godwin's law, I know. sapphaline (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about other Wikipedia editors but the feeling that such an opinionated person have an article on Wikipedia but the Wikipedia editors like us are expected to not be opinionated in their editings is such so demoralizing. Toarin (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable independent sources say it's a war crime, or a bad YouTube channel, then we can say that. If you have a reliable source criticizing this channel, for example, it would be reasonable to include in the article. But we're not allowed to put in our own opinions.

This may not suit you, which is fine. There are good places for well written opinion pieces: this just isn't one of them. M kuhner (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have abridged the original, wordy title of this thread. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Toarin, any editor of any encyclopedia must be neutral and objective, and state facts rather than opinions. If you are unable to be objective, then on Wikipedia you should not edit on subjects you have strong opinions about. Save your strong opinions for social media, blogs, or off-wiki conversations. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you are concern that I might be too opinionated to be objective on Wikipedia. But be assured that I always intended to be objective on Wikipedia. Pretty much the only reason I started this thread is to make sure that it'd be okay to disregard what I believe might cause factual inaccuracy down the line. Toarin (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing "considered a reliable source" with "has a Wikipedia page." Like most YouTube channels, this one is unlikely to be considered a reliable source: information taken from it can't be used to support other articles unless it can be shown that the channel owner is a recognized expert. But Wikipedia has lots of articles on unreliable sources, for example the articles on OnlyFans, IMDB, or Breitbart. Existence of an article is not an endorsement: all it says is that the subject is notable (in the Wikipedia sense).

If you find anything sourced to this channel that you feel is inappropriate, feel free to either boldly remove it, or start a Talk page discussion.

Thanks for your concern about accuracy! Questionable sources are always worth keeping an eye on. M kuhner (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response is highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Toarin (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Finding Sources

Is it okay to use LLMs to find sources for articles? I am aware of the concerns about using AI to actually write articles, but is there any problem with using it to find sources? Just asking in case, because I don't want to do anything that violates policy or that is potentially unethical. Thanks! Tufflikethat (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're using an LLM off-Wiki to look for sources, that's your affair. But you should carefully investigate any source thus found before you place it anywhere on Wikipedia, because AI/LLMs frequently hallucinate non-existant sources, and cite real sources that actually have no mention of the facts they supposedly support or contain. They also, as I have found by experiment, readily proffer as fact things said in fictional works that are not true in the real world.

However you find sources, it is your responsibility to check them before use.

Sorry if this sounds 'stern', but dealing with fake facts and sources created by so-called AI can potentially waste a lot of our time, and yours. WP:LLM and some of the linked essays, etc. at WP:AIDIR, including WP:LLMSEARCH, are worth studying if you haven't already. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment. It is solely your responsibility, and it is a serious one, to determine whether any given source is reliable and whether or not it actually verifies the assertion in question. This applies to sources found with AI/LLM tools just as it does with sources found through conventional Google searches, library books, or books from your own shelves or found at a used book store. Do not believe any assurance by an AI tool about the quality of a source. Verify it yourself. Determining the reliability of any given source is one of the most important skills of an encyclopedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

While just going through this discussion again, Cullen, I just noticed I misspelled your name in an earlier message referring to this message that I posted on the 17th. Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Using an LLM for this gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it. The differences: the LLM is faster, and the LLM is programmed to conceal its own stupidity. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

I think Colin’s reply well represents an approach that most in the scientific fields would agree with … which leaves the door open to different approaches of gathering information but uses rigorous standards of verifying it. Augnablik (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

Yes - absolutely. The stupid person will retrieve some good items too. It's not different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As an educator, I can assure you that even an idiot can sometimes find a decent source. But what I stress to students like yourself is that the process of searching for sources often reveals context, and for this reason they should "map" their research process. In searching a topic, one may find that scholars and journalists hold different views than what one imagined. This is especially rewarding on Wikipedia. Using a LLM search engine can skip a lot of that process and filter out the conversations and debates that made a topic worth writing about in the first place, in favor of strictly answering your prompt. It would be like walking through a forest and looking only at the dirt trail you're hiking. One may not always need that context, but my point is that the risk is greater than just verifiability. As a high school student who obviously cares about their intellectual development, I think you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs. You wouldn't ask a robot to lift weights for you; you shouldn't ask a LLM to do your thinking for you (because research is thinking!) Gebble (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this helped a lot. Yes I have really taken up Wikipedia to further myself, so I guess skipping the process of finding sources would be like shooting myself in the foot! Tufflikethat (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

📚As a fellow educator, @Gebble, I fully agree with your aim to get students to look for "different views than what one imagined" and mapping their research process. But I think you ended your advice to @Tufflikethat just shy of a well-rounded discussion when you said, "you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs," as AI needn’t be relied on but simply be made intelligent use of. Which is something perhaps you too hold, but I just wanted to pick up on the wording of your message in light of our young new editor's original question.

AI is so often viewed through "either-or" lenses so that it’s seen as worthy of either tossing in a trash bin or placing on a throne. And to those who view AI through the first of these lenses, anyone who suggests the merest possibility of middle ground is worthy of choice words of rebuke for presumed low intelligence.

To help students understand there can be legitimate use of AI as a tool and how that's done—especially at the start of an assignment to get some traction going that could include a few possible sources that might be helpful to follow up on personally—is an approach I’m seeing more and more news reports of in the academic world. But I also see it adapted elsewhere, such as news reports from the journalistic, medical, and legal worlds. It points to increasing valuation of AI as a very beneficial tool for when used wisely, which in turn means clear guidance and expectations absolutely must accompany all school assignments and work production.

Two publications from the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Kansas are just a few examples of this approach in the academic world: “Helping students understand the biases in generative AI” and “Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era.” Augnablik (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that "decriminalization" is an acceptable policy for a classroom, but this is not a classroom. @Tufflikethat is here for their own intellectual development, and I'm saying that using LLMs may be depriving them of the opportunity for growth and enrichment.AI can be useful scaffolding for students still learning how to meet secondary learning objectives such as planning and organization. But if it's used to replace the primary learning objective (e.g. writing an effective argument) I think you will agree that that is not good for a student's intellectual development.

I'm incredibly skeptical of higher education's endorsement of AI as I think that is a reaction to 1) the demands of employers to manufacture a workforce which is ostensibly prepared to exploit the genAI bubble and 2) the immense pressure on students to do anything necessary to obtain credentials. The contingencies of a classroom are not the same as the differentiated advice one should give to individual students. Gebble (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course I agree with you about not using AI to replace critically important primary learning objectives of writing, Gebble. I'd have hoped that was crystal clear in my earlier reply to you. If it wasn't, I'd appreciate knowing where the question arose for you.

I'd like to pick up on your above message more than I'm able to at the moment, but I'm in the middle of a few projects that I won't be free from till tomorrow. I look forward to any useful discussion then that might arise with the aim of cutting through some of the muddle around AI, while connected with @Tufflikethat's original question. Augnablik (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Gebble, what I am concerned about is that @Tufflikethat, the originator of this topic (“Finding Sources” ), clarified as being based on an underlying question—”Is it okay to use LLMs to find sources for articles?”—might leave this Teahouse table believing it is not, period/full stop.

After all, what the originator’s July 18 message to you gave you specific thanks for was help in seeing that “skipping the process of finding sources would be like shooting myself in the foot!” That’s somewhat different from the question quoted above that the originator wanted an answer to.

When I checked Wikipedia’s policy on using AI, it looks to me that we are clearly not prohibited from using it to help find sources we then can (and must) check. Cf. WP:RSML, the “Wikipedia: Reliable sources” policy, Questionable and self-published sources section, Sources produced by machine learning subsection. Using AI in this way is far from relying on it to do the work, but rather to help in a guided assistant role. And similar to how calculators and computers have been incorporated into the production process in both the work world and the school.

By the way, my earlier comment that schools are increasingly allowing a carefully boundaried role for AI in the writing process was something I thought of interest to Tufflikethat and other editors who happen to also be students in “real life”—even though subject to whatever constraints their schools might have in place about AI. Augnablik (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely want to become a much better person

I need help ~2026-40328-68 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. If you feel you have a genuine problem, please reach out to a therapist. This is the Teahouse, where volunteers answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 09:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

This is the Wikipedia teahouse, where you ask questions about help with Wikipedia. If there is a genuine problem you’re having, I sincerely hope it will get better soon and I wish you the best of luck. If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, you’re free to ask here.

Happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 00:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40328-68 It seems like you have posted this more than once recently, but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, this is not the place to get help being a better person. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this is user ~2026-38996-08 who got blocked for disruptive editing, as that editor posted the same thing. Please do not vandalize on Wikipedia. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 22:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor adding potentially fictitious/forged material

Hello, recently I was examining edits on my Personal Dashboard when I saw an edit for the article Rick May, a user by the name of Eightmakegreat added a Listen module to the infoboxes module parameter with an audio file they uploaded to Commons, this file claims to depict "Rick May" giving an answer to an "interview" question, however the audio file appears to be a AI/Computer generated facsimile of Rick May's voice, and as such I reverted the edit with proper reasoning, and warned the user on their talk page, I believe that is when on a logged out session they reverted my reversion giving a citation link to a webpage that is a 404, and the evidence they are referring to was released in 2005, which makes the reasoning of them reverting my reversion weak, should I report the IP Editor and the Editor themselves to administrators for vandalism? Thanks. Aeyeu (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Not for vandalism, because being wrong is not vandalism. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, they're adding false information and making claims that are false and slanderous, and they are engaging in edit warring now. Aeyeu (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I honestly forget the proper place to take this. I do know you're right it needs to be taken somewhere and shouldn't continue. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

General steps for dealing with content disputes are given at WP:Dispute resolution. But in the case of potentially damaging material in a biography of a living person, I'd recommend posting at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and making a brief, clear case there for ongoing damage, with diffs. Be sure to read the instructions at the top of the noticeboard first. If you need help with this feel free to put a message on my Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Smm panel with link

can I write about article that contain smm panel with link ~2026-40826-04 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea. What's an "smm panel"? And a link from what to what? Anyway, if by "write about article" you mean "write an article", and if the subject of the article is "notable" (as defined by and for Wikipedia), then yes, writing an article is possible. You'd do it by creating a draft and submitting the draft for consideration. But before attempting to create a draft, you'd be wise to get practice augmenting and improving existing articles. Be sure to cite a reliable source for anything that you add. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary

according to de:SMM-Panel is an accronym for "Social-Media-Marketing-Panel". Obviously some suspicous marketing service... Maresa63 ^Talk 15:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Maresa63! That's most educational, in a depressing kind of way. Payola for the 21st century. Yes, a website that already can at times be pretty bad could imaginably be made still worse.... Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Draft for overlooked major doc "Running Stumbled"

I recently wrote a draft for this overlooked gem which has been in the AfC queue since March 31. Has solid sourcing including Variety, The Guardian, Time Out, IndieWire, 100% Tomato score. I saw this film in 2007 in a UK release at ICA and it's a damn masterpiece. Was just on MUBI in a retrospective. Was a major title in 06 and nominated for a Spirit Award. Is incredible that it doesn't have a wiki page. Would any experienced editor be willing to take a look? Thanks Janet Harahan Janet (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Running Stumbled ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer, but FWIW, I think that although the draft is well structured and written, it is a little thin on citations to Reliable sources (which IMDb is not). In particular, the rather important Legacy section, pivotal to demonstrating the film's Notability, is entirely unreferenced. Although the Film Independent Spirit Awards are themselves notable, I'm not sure that merely being nominated for one carries enough weight by itself to meet the notability threshold.

It may be the borderline notability so far demonstrated is what has delayed a review. There is no strict queue for submitted drafts, just a 'pile' from which the volunteer reviewers pick whatever they choose. Obvious 'declines' (and even more so, obvious 'Rejects') tend to get processed first, because they're quick and easy. Obvious 'Accepts' take a little longer because the reviewer still has to meticulously check everything. Questionable drafts get overlooked because they are the hardest to make judgements on.

While you're waiting, you're free to continue improving the submitted draft: that might improve the chances of an earlier decision. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Harahan Janet It sounds like there might be a disconnect between [how good this film is] and [the amount of detailed analysis it has in reliable sources]. If that's the case, then it isn't good news for the article. The existence of a Wikipedia article on a film is 100% based on the detailed analysis found in reliable sources, regardless of the film's quality, perceived significance, or other factors.

You know the term "under the radar"; Wikipedia is, intentionally, firmly inside the radar. Anything that went under the radar doesn't belong on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback. I've added citations, fixed broken references, expanded the Film section with additional sourced material including a 2019 MUBI interview with the director. also removed IMDB as a source. Hope this improves the article. HJ Harahan Janet (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

An interview is a message that the subject wants to put across, and that's not what Wikipedia is interested in. Wikipedia first needs long significant messages from reliable reporters who were working by themselves. (After that's in place, interviews can be worthwhile for the right purposes.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'm using the interview only to attribute the director's description of the plot not to establish notability. The notability case is very clear and rests on major citations (Variety, Guardian, IndieWire, Time Out and Filmmaker Magazine) There are scores of wiki pages for AFM films with far thinner critical coverage. Harahan Janet (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

One specific question: where on IMDB is the source for the idea that the father admits to murder? The only place I saw it was a user-edited part of IMDB, and anything user-editable - especially when from IMDB - can't be cited as a source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Good catch thank you. Shouldn't need to be sourced if it's in the film. It's referenced in many of the reviews Harahan Janet (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Profile editing

this might just be me sucking really hard at using a computer like this but in simple terms how do I put a user box into my profile that has already been created by another user Reeput13 (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Reeput13, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can easily copy a WP:userbox from another editor's user page if you use the source editor. (I don't know whether you can using the visual editor, as I never use that). ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The way to follow ColinFine's good advice: Go to the other user's page and click the edit button (we're not going to edit anything, just copy their code). After you click edit, make sure you're using the source editor not the visual editor - this is controlled with the pencil icon. Now find the chunk of code that creates the userbox you want, and copy it, making sure all the parts of the userbox code are selected before you hit copy. Quit editing their page now (i.e. hit the cancel button), without saving anything.

Then you go to your own page, get into the source editor there, click at the place where you want this userbox to be put, paste it in, and save. Take a look at your results; if you got what you wanted, you're done. If your own page has garbage on it now, then you'll need to correct or redo. Don't forget that the easy way to correct a bad mistake is to go into the edit history of your own page, find the edit you know is bad (usually the top one), and click Undo. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

is there a way I can browse some user boxes? I think I managed to but I forgot how Reeput13 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

okay disregard that question cause I figured it out, I pasted the thing in and it's all messy now. Do I just do it again or is there something I have to do Reeput13 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You can make a tidy storage area for your userboxes by putting:

{{Userboxtop |}}

near the top of your page, then the userboxes, then

{{userboxbottom}}

after the last userbox. This puts them on the right side in a neat stack. As there aren't any boxes on your page at the moment I don't know what went messy, but this helped me get them organized. You can look at my user page for an example. M kuhner (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

A biography

I am trying to do something which should surely be simple enough, but is defeating me.

I am a former British Ambassador to Sweden and High Commissioner to Canada. Nearly all the recent holders of those posts have Wikipedia entries, but I do not.

I tried to rectify this by submitting a factual and uncontroversial account of my career, but the draft was turned down because the citations I had found relied on Wikipedia (eg my name on the list of High Commissioners to Canada on Wikipedia, etc). I now understand why that cannot be accepted, as it is self-referential.

I asked an AI to help, NOT in drafting the article - which is only a list of facts in any case - but in finding independent sources and turning the draft into the right format. I can attest that there are no ‘hallucinations’. The assertions are all factually accurate. But the draft was ‘speedily deleted’ because I used AI to reduce the drudgery of finding independent references to validate the various assertions. Surely this is a sensible use of AI?

How would you advise that I should proceed, without spending hours and hours learning the complexities of Wikipedia editing? Who has generated the entries for other retired (and serving) diplomats? Thanks. Candide2727 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't enjoy writing on wikipedia, you shouldn't write on wikipedia. Why are you bothered by the absence of an article about yourself? This essay may be worth reading if you haven't already: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gebble (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, and is strongly discouraged. It requires you to completely ignore your own knowledge. Imagine that I have never heard of you, have been given nothing but your name and your date of birth, and I go and search for reliable public sources of information. Your ability to convincingly pretend to be me in that scenario (i.e. steadfastly ignoring all the true information not easily found by a random person) is probably not as good as you'd estimate.

For a person, frankly, the best way to have a Wikipedia article is for a random person to write it after you've already died. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe you are notable. You do not gain presumptive NPOL notability because of NAMBASSADOR, which means you notability must be proven on its own merits. After some research, I cannot find enough sources to prove your notability. It is unlikely, no matter how long you spend on this, for an article on you to be published. The only non-primary source I could find on you was an article by The Times. This was the reason you are one of the only High Commissioners without an article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

When an individual writes about themselves, they have a very strong tendency to "set the record straight", both for controversial issues and for missing or incorrect details. Wikipedia specifically rejects this approach, except when fixing minor details that won't affect public perception. "Exactly what the record says, without setting it straight". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Candide2727 I used AI to reduce the drudgery of finding independent references to validate the various assertions. The problem is you've got the whole idea backward. A Wikipedia article is a summary of the information available in the sources. We don't make "assertions" and then find sources to "validate" them - we find sources and then summarise the information they contain.

This is universally the #1 thing that people trying to write articles about themselves or the things they're affiliated with get wrong; because the instinct is obviously to write down everything you know about yourself/the topic, then find sources because the rules tell you you have to. It is nearly impossible for people like yourself to ignore the compulsion to fill out the article with additional information not available in good, published sources. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That model of article-writing is wonderful when you're trying to write a long article. I'm also fond of the more colorfully named Wikipedia:Amnesia test, which is more specific to questions of whether a separate, stand-alone article should be created. However, when you're really just trying to write a few basic sentences about a subject you already know quite a lot about, then it's really not necessary. Almost every biography opens with "____ was a [nationality] [occupation]". The article then normally proceeds through the ordinary, policy-approved basic facts, e.g., the next section saying something about which country the person was born in and what kind of education they had. Most brief Wikipedia articles can be constructed "forwards" or "backwards" and still end up being a summary of the source-able information. And it's that end product, rather than the process, that matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

When a person writes about themselves, they may say it will be "just a few basic sentences", but that's usually not at all how it turns out. I think the "don't write backwards" caution is highly suited to an individual's autobiography (especially the idea of refusing to consider anything that isn't already printed in the sources). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Anthony, you write on your userpage that My wife was annoyed to discover that I seem to be the only one in recent years without a Wikipedia entry but in response to another editor disputing your notability you add It seems odd that the value of a diplomatic career should be measured by media coverage, since it is mostly happening below the radar. The presence or absence of a wikipedia article is not a statement of value of the subject. I think you should assure your wife that it's a good thing that you've done nothing worth writing about in an encyclopedia, because, as you say, if you do your job correctly, everything remains under the radar. If it's any consolation, I'd wager that other names who have shared your post probably are not notable either. Plenty of extremely effective teachers, scientists, and diplomats do important, laudatory work that does not receive coverage. Just because they lack Wikipedia articles doesn't mean their careers are without value. Wikipedia is not your resume and the absence of an article about you does not mean you've accomplished nothing important in your career. Gebble (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit own wikipedia page

Can i edit my own wikipedia page ~2026-40945-37 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Which "own" page do you mean? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You can create a User page and a User Talk page (click on your temp ID at the top of this page to get started). You can edit both of those, within reason--don't put copyrighted material, don't host ads, don't insult other people, remember these pages are public. However since you are on a temp account, the material will tend to disappear when your temp account expires. If you want to make a nice User page, you should register your account so that it will be permanent.

If there happens to be a Wikipedia article about you, you can NOT edit it. If you need to request changes they can be placed on the Talk page of that article as an "edit request": be sure to disclose your connection, and be very clear and specific about what you want. ("Birth year is given as 1963 but is really 1962." Not "I don't like how this article talks about me.") M kuhner (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Propose deleting or AFD?

Just wondering what people think is "better" to use in a pinch. Been looking thru some BLP pages that I genuienely believe meet the criteria for deleting, and have been posting them to the "Articles for Deletion" page. However, in looking over deletion guidelines, I have reminded myself of the "proposed deletion" tag.

Generally speaking in regards to best practices, for something like a faulty BLP article (e.g. the page's only listed source is an IMDB page or a personal website), do you think it is better to lean towards adding a "proposed deletion" tag or putting it in the day's "article for deletion" discussion? LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

{{prod}} is usually for uncontroversial cases that won't be contested, i.e. an obviously non-notable biography or company. If the PROD is contested (which can be done by anyone, including the page creator) then it can be sent to AfD if you still think deletion is a given. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Should probably clarify, if you think a decision is uncontroversial and won't be contested, PROD it, and if it is contested then send it to AfD. If you think it will probably be contested, then send it to AfD from the get-go. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

AfD is the general case. It allows the community to look for better sources, and also builds a consensus that can be used to resist re-insertion of the same material.

PROD is only for uncontroversial decisions. Note that an article can only be PRODed once; if it's PRODed and the tag removed, it has to go to AfD. If you think anyone is likely to contest your decision, might as well start at AfD.

The one exception is unsourced contentious material: that's supposed to be immediately removed. WP:BLP has the policy here. If the issue seems severe, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard is the escalation path; among other things, admins there can remove defamatory or personal material from the record if necessary. M kuhner (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I received a death threat over an edit revert

I undid this edit for adding a statement without a source. Sometime after, the temporary user behind the edit reverted the revert and put "so leave it or I'll kill you" as the edit summary. I'm not sure and am a little shaken by it, so I was hoping to receive some help or advice on how to respond. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 21:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Their response was wholly inappropriate and they should be warned at the minimum. This violates WP:NPA and they can be blocked if repeated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@SleepyRedHair, I've asked for the page to be protected.

@Spiderone, death threats do not require any warnings, per the policy you linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(i.e. upon a death threat it's possible to block without any warning) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the summary. Opinions will be divided on what I'm about to say. Once can be a childish mistake, and it requires a response. Twice is a deliberate action and will almost certainly result in a block. I would normally block without warning about 98% of people who did that. How you should react is to let someone else do something about it. Just report it - there's actually lots of places to do that. I would also suggest you don't let it affect your editing in any way. It's not for me to say whether this is something to be concerned about, but I will inform you of this page: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Correcting typo and addressing out-of-place contributions

I changed the titles of 2 articles (previously both titled "Afoxé) to reflect the fact that one article discusses a percussion instrument and another discussed a musical tradition. However, I accidentally entered the incorrect diacritic above the "e" in "Afoxé." It is supposed to be an acute (é), not a circumflex. When I attempted to correct my error, an automatic filter was triggered and I can't move the article. It said to ask a more experienced editor at the teahouse to move it for me, so here I am. Would another editor please retitle the article with the correct diacritical mark?

Also, part of why I wanted to disambiguate the articles is that a student editor recently significantly expanded on the Afoxé instrument article (which I previously worked on) for a class project, but added information about the musical form (a related but very distinct topic). It seems the editor thought they were contributing to a page about the Afro-Brazilian musical/cultural tradition, rather than one about the idiophone instrument. Since an article about the musical tradition already exists, would it be appropriate to remove the information from the article covering the percussion instrument? Should I then transfer any unique information to the existing article about the musical tradition?

Below are both articles. As a new editor, I appreciate any help or advice! :)

Afoxê (musical instrument)

Afoxê (musical tradition)

LydianLiquorice (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done for the page move. And yes, that information should ideally be moved to the correct article, but make sure to note when you're moving text between pages to preserve attribution. See WP:COPYWITHIN. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming Thank you! Much appreciated. Should I note the transfer of information in the edit summary, the article's talk page, or both? Also, should I leave a message on the instrument article's talk page (the one where the student added extraneous research) to explain the deletion? I wouldn't want it to look like vandalism. LydianLiquorice (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Note it in the edit summary on both ends (when you're removing content and when you're adding content), ideally. You can leave a message on the talk page if you'd like, but the edit summary should be clear enough. There's a recommended format for attribution in the destination (musical tradition) page: "Copied content from [[Page name]]; see that page's history for attribution.". SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way to fix my draft? (Declined for notability)

Hello!

• Draft:ContentAsia Awards

When I first started editing, I noticed an article that confused the Asia Contents Awards with the ContentAsia Awards. Unfortunately, as I had very little experience in both editing and policy, I didn't realise the topic is probably not notable. I spent a huge amount of time on it, and I guess it would be nice to have something to show for it? But my research while writing the article turned up nothing that we could use to properly establish notability—only primary, press-release, or passing-mention sources.

The reviewer recommended that I attempt to prove notability for ContentAsia as a company, but I'm only really interested in the Awards. Also, even if the company was notable, I'm not convinced that I would be able to go into as much detail on the Awards as I would like.

Could anyone have a crack at finding useful sources? If not, is there anything I can do besides let it be deleted in six months? JordyGrey _talk🧸 03:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Since the work you've done on this is obviously significant to you, I think the first thing you should do with it is make sure you have a personal copy of all of it properly saved on your own machine.

The second thing, in my opinion: since you're really not interested in taking this topic in a different direction (and that feeling makes total sense to me), I suggest that you make a bold move: drop the whole topic for two weeks, to see how you feel about that. You could pick up a new topic during that time, or decide not to. And if you reach day 1½ out of 14 and you already hate the 2-week thing, then just forget I even said it. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I think I'll just chalk it up to experience and move on :)

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

One possibility: would this material be able to improve an existing article? I don't know this area well enough to suggest one, but it's worth a look. Often things that are not notable stand-alone are perfectly reasonable as a section in another article. M kuhner (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think so... There aren't any pages related to the "ContentAsia" side, and the "awards" side seems to be mostly standalone articles (or series). I could probably go through all of the recipients to add the award to their page, but if it's not a notable award I probably shouldn't.

Thank you for trying to help though! ☺︎ JordyGrey _talk🧸 05:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ancestry dna tests

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 would like DNA companies to make their cousin relationship labels clearer. I know the tests are 100% accurate but it needs updating and they are updating every time. When a DNA test says “3rd cousin” or more, 4th cousin etc, many people may misunderstand this as meaning the person is part of their close family. It would be helpful to explain more clearly that these are very distant ancestry connections and are not family relationships such as parents, siblings, grandparents, or 1st cousins or 2nd cousin. Please consider adding clearer wording, such as “distant genetic match” or something. We are only blood related to our 1st and 2nd cousins and incest is wrong!! Please ancestry dna, update it. Don’t include 3rd cousins plus as a family member, I don’t even want to know them please. Lilycoo21 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lilycoo21: Welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia has no say over how DNA testing companies label their results or how they're defined. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This was said by ancestry dna “Your DNA doesn’t change, but our knowledge does. As our data increases over time, our analysis improves and we update your results” it’s on my ancestry dna page on my matches. ~2026-41205-11 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia help page. It's where editors ask for help editing Wikipedia. We can't change anything or assist with anything on other websites. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 05:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lilycoo21: If you have an issue with what AncestryDNA results say, please bring it up with them; again, we have no say over how DNA testing companies announce their results. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lilycoo21: Meanwhile, you might like to read Wikipedia's article on Cousins to correct your impression that you "are only blood related to [y]our 1st and 2nd cousins". Bazza 7 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Adding facts about a living person that are unfavorable

Hello. Two famous people each have a Wikipedia page, let’s call them person 1 (living) and person 2 (deceased). In high school, person 1 “mercilessly” bullied person 2 making their life “miserable” with lasting effects. Person 2 even described this in their memoir. I say this fact should be added to person 1’s page. This behavior is unacceptable. I also don’t want to be hunted down and beat up or worse. Advice? Thanks. ThaliaDog (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ThaliaDog. Why should this fact be added to person 1's page? Just because p2 alleges in a memoir that p1 did something does not make it WP:DUE for mention, especially if no reliäble sources mention this allegation in the first place or treat it seriöusly. toby ^(t)(rw) 06:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply. Note that I made a correction and addition. ThaliaDog (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

…Oops! Correction: Person 1 (living, the bully) even described this in their memoir. Addition: This is also documented in a book about person 2 (deceased, the victim). ThaliaDog (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi ThaliaDog. I suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before adding any such content anout a living person to any Wikipedia article (or any Wikipedia page for that matter) because content about living persons (positive or negative) tends to be held to a higher standard than perhaps content for other types of articles; so, it's easy to make mistakes and find yourself in trouble. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Right great wrongs because Wikipedia articles/pages aren't really the place to "set the record straight" or otherwise let the world know about something (positive or negative) just for the sake of doing so. Contentious content (postive or negative) like the kind you're describing almost certainly is going to be expected to be supported to citations to multiple and strong third-party reliable sources for a consensus to be established in favor of including it in any article regardless of the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-41326-12 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a near zero chance that someone will hunt you down and beat you up for an action you take on Wikipedia The. worst case scenario is that you get reverted. If you do ever experience threats of physical violence on Wikipedia, please report it at please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That was sort of a joke; I would be anonymous, suppossedly. Anyway, the “victim’s” book was published by Simon and Schuster and the “bully’s” book was published by Scribner so I think I’ve got something here. ~2026-41326-12 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Neutral read on notability — Draft:Biju Bhaskar (declared COI)

Hello — I'd appreciate a neutral second opinion. I have a draft, Draft:Biju Bhaskar, about an architect working in natural building. I have a declared conflict of interest (the draft is about me), disclosed on my user page and the draft talk page.

It has been declined twice at Articles for Creation on notability for people — one reviewer called it "marginal", the other declined with the standard template. I'd like an outside read on whether my three strongest sources meet WP:BASIC:

1. The Hindu — a dedicated profile, "Homes with soul", by Nidhi Adlakha (12 May 2017)
2. Mathrubhumi — a full-page Sunday feature, by Sandeepani Cherkkatt (26 February 2017)
3. Planet Protectors: Stories of Green Heroes (TERI Press, 2024) — a full chapter, "The mud home-maker", by environmental journalist Bahar Dutt

All three are cited in full (with archived links) in the draft, and all three are dedicated pieces about the subject — feature articles and a book chapter, not Q&A interviews or press releases. Do these meet the bar for significant, reliable, independent coverage — and if they fall short, what kind of source would close the gap? Thank you. Bijunabas (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your real request, but everyone reviewing articles is an ordinary volunteer, just as everyone responding here is an ordinary volunteer. So you already have received two neutral opinions, both of them saying the article doesn't show notability. I think you might get a better result by asking the people who already reviewed it what they thought the problems were. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Bijunabas Have you read the autobiography policy? Writing about one's self is difficult and rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You wrote "Bhaskar's work has been covered by The Hindu (2017) and Manorama (2020), and featured in a full-page article in Mathrubhumi (2017)." What did they say? We don't just want to know what media outlets you appear in,we want to know what critical analysis and commentary they have. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bijunabas The bigger problem is that both your comment here as well as at least some of your draft are AI generated. Please communicate with us in your own words. We don't want to talk to a chatbot. As for the draft; AI generated content is not allowed in articles. Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Most if not all of the cited sources are not independent of the subject of the article and his organization and his spouse. The coverage in The Hindu is an interview with the subject. The second is an interview with a person affiliated with his organization. The third is an interview of his spouse. There are several million architects in the world. The vast majority are not notable. Architects who are notable are the subject of significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources that are indisputably independent of the architect. This is rare. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe one of the reasons it's rare is that architects with high levels of recognition tend to be the ones whose projects have very high budgets. Daring to be different, daring to take on low-cost projects for the good of society, unfortunately entails daring to forfeit public recognition. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Deterrion Johnson

Header added by ColinFine (talk), as I don't think this is connected with the previous item

how is this connected to me ,My Name is Deterrion Johnson Sr Can anyone share information about this page im not geting Authentic valuable information everything keeps getting edited before i get to read it ~2026-40932-45 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry Deterrion, but I've no idea what you're talking about. Could you please be more specific, especially telling us which article in Wikipedia you are concerned about. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia question

I turned the Miss Magix page into a redirect of its TV season Winx Club season 1 because that page was deleted in 2012 for initially being a plagiarized article (but I made it a redirect to the Winx Club season it aired in). A long time ago, SPTI was deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted article for a non-notable subject, SCSI Pass-Through Interface, but on an old account I redirected it to Sony Pictures Television since Sony Pictures Television International is its international division abbreviated to SPTI and Sony Pictures Television is notable.

I created the pages to turn them into redirect pages.

Is this okay with Wikipedia? Unopened VHS tape (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The policies on new redirects are incredibly lax, and as long as they meet the very low bar of "helping a person find what they're looking for" there are usually no issues. I've marked the redirect as reviewed. msk 15:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Since it's lax that means redirect something to the correct topic. If I were to redirect Real-ESRGAN to Image scaling it would make sense. Unopened VHS tape (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If a redirect won't really get used, don't create it. If people truly will often search for "Real-ESRGAN", and if "Image scaling" is the only logical thing they could be looking for, then you're right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it would make sense because people would often search for it looking for AI upscaling models or other resampling methods that don't have their own articles (but are mentioned on Wikipedia) but would be listed in Image scaling articles and its comparison of methods. Unopened VHS tape (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually meant the article Comparison gallery of image scaling algorithms because that is where people would look for the upscaling and resampling models/algorithms. Sorry for the mistake Unopened VHS tape (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem - as long as the actual redirect goes to the appropriate place, momentarily typing the wrong thing didn't matter TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

As a side note, Template:R template index contains many templates that can be used on redirect pages. You might found these useful.

Cordially. Toarin (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding/editing a maintenance template?

I wanted to add to the Dahara Vidya page some signal to other editors that this page has very few reliable citations and some borderline original research (much of the cited material is primary sources). I saw there is already a template about jargon, but I think it should include signals of the sources needing to be reevaluated. What's the best way to do that? Oraclesto (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You probably need the "More citations needed" template. The "Original research" template also exists, but it's for when the original research is obvious and prevalent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Oraclesto: Welcome to The Teahouse. You mentioned that much of the cited material is primary sources. In that case, I suggest you might want to consider using the {{primary sources}} template.
If you go down to the bottom of that page, you will see a navbox list of citation and reliability maintenance-related templates that might also work for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Missing reference / wanting to add more articles

Emeryville mudflat sculptures I am looking at the article on the Emeryville mudflat sculptures and noticed that one of the early artists mentioned in the article has several published sources that are not currently included as references. May I add those citations to the existing article? I have also found some relevant newspaper articles that are not available online (only in newspaper archives or as scans). What is the recommended way to cite or add these sources? For transparency, I should mention that I am related to Wayne Saxton, the person discussed in these sources. ~2026-41011-95 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41011-95, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are related to Saxton, you probably have a conflict of interest, and so should use the edit request wizard rather than editing the article directly.

Offline sources may be cited: see WP:REFB for how.

What would be your purpose in adding these?

Generally, the purpose of citing a reference is to provide a verification for a something claimed in the Wikipedia article; and mostly the claim should relate to the subject of the article, not to anything else.

So if there is a claim about Saxton in connection with the mudflat sculptures that is not supported by a citation, it would be good to add a citation if you have one. Similarly, if you are suggesting adding information about Saxton in connection with the mudflat sculptures. But if you have found some sources about your relative that don't relate to the mudflat sculptures, then the question arises whether they belong in that article at all. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody please unhide the revisions from File:In His Steps (Front Cover).jpg?

File:In His Steps (Front Cover).jpg

Hello. I just PD-ized said file because it was published before 1931. Unfortunately, a bot hid one of the revisions, and the bot operator (Ronhjones (talk · contribs)) passed away in 2020, so I can't call him to unhide the revisions because I was not around during that time period. Trying to move this file to Commons so any help would be appreciated. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 20:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd undelete it if I thought that the infobox of the article "In His Steps" were ready for it. The ISBN and OCLC numbers the infobox specifies are for an edition published in the 1980s. The specified publisher is "Chicago Advance", and the specified year of publication 1897. But the image is of the "[Street] & Smith" edition, published in New York, probably (Worldcat suggests) in 1899. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I undeleted it, SimpleObjects-9ei. But it's hardly any bigger than what replaced it, so I haven't deleted the smaller replacement; and as the smaller replacement is newer, it's this that's still used in the article "In His Steps". Did you see that in his PMLA paper that's cited in the article, Jackson provides a much better quality reproduction of the front cover of a different edition? I didn't read his paper, which perhaps explains which edition this is. (Its cover design is ugly, but I don't think that editions are chosen according to the elegance of their covers.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! And for the PMLA paper you mentioned, yes, probably. For the cover design, this was pretty common back in the late 1890s. Despite being literally marked "fair use" before I modified its description (with the target link... STILL ALIVE?) Anyways, I Google Lens'd the photo and found this higher quality version that could possibly serve as a replacement when it's transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for helping! — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 13:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons questions?

Is the teahouse also for questions on Commons, Wikidata, etc? Tomas Guus (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Such questions aren't forbidden here, not least because many people are unaware of the distinctions between en:Wikipedia and Commons or whatever. But the question to which I'm now responding shows that you are aware of the distinctions. As Commons and Wikidata have their own help desks, staffed by people knowledgable in those areas, it would be beneficial to ask there, not here, about a Commons or Wikidata matter. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

-- to which you. Tomas Guus, might very reasonably respond "When you say 'ask there', where exactly is 'there'?" Please see Help:Reporting issues on other wikis. (Here, "wikis" is used loosely, to mean "other Wikimedia projects". These "projects" include, but aren't limited to, other Wikipedias.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 10:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to make an article about a band, but Wikitia already made an article about them. What do?

For context, I was looking to see if the Swedish metalcore band BITE DOWN had an article on them here, but I have found that Wikitia, basically Wikipedia but made by verified writers and editors, made an article on them already. So, I want to do the same thing, but here on Wikipedia.

Now the question is, do I borrow off of that article without directly copying it? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

No, TheOutlaw223, I'd say that the question is of why a Wikitia article should be taken as a reliable source. (Spoiler: It shouldn't be.) Yes, Wikitia claims that it's "an encyclopedia by verified editors", but I haven't noticed an explanation of what, if anything, this means. Unusually, this particular Wikitia article doesn't appear to have been lifted from Wikipedia but instead appears to have been made in a single edit by "DebbieSchlegel"; I suggest that she's no more "verified" than (as a random example) I am. Please see "User-generated content". How you would normally use a reliable source without directly copying it is to summarize what it says. But a Wikitia article isn't a reliable source. ¶ What to do? You could create Draft:Bite Down (band), but before doing so please read and digest Help:Your first article. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Usually another encyclopedia is better for helping you find sources than providing content. However, Wikitia uses an open license so you could actually rip content without worrying about plagiarism issues by following WP:COPYOPEN. Also, the end of the article on Wikitia has the following statement:

This article "Bite Down" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles taken from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be accessed on Wikipedia's Draft Namespace.

Is it actually? If they ripped it from a draft Wikipedia article, I can't find the deletion log.

You're probably going to have to clean up the text and citations (there's already some rotten links) and perhaps prove to the notability police that it's actually an article worth having here. It does look like some of the sources are more than just self-published or auto-generated pages: Tuonela Magazine might be notable? Good luck. Hamolton (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft review request: Crushed Butler

Hi! I just submitted a draft for the 1970 British proto-punk band Crushed Butler in my sandbox at User:Arsenijbenx8/sandbox. Since the general queue can take a while, I was wondering if a volunteer editor here could take a quick look to review it or share feedback. Thanks! Arsenijbenx8 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why does jumping the queue seem good?

Also, please be aware that it's not a queue - it's a pile. Editors tend to choose to focus on the ones that are top quality and the ones that are obvious fails, so the best thing you can do now is aim to be in one of those two categories. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers is right on the matter of extremes. This was an obvious fail. I removed what I presume were copyright violations. (The presumption may be mistaken. Feel free to persuade some administrator that I'm wrong.) I then declined it because we already have the article Crushed Butler. If I hadn't declined it for that reason, I'd have declined it for its lack of independent sourcing, or for the bulkiness of its quotations. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

what is independent sourcing? i own Crushed Butlers Compilation album there where liner notes inside writen by darryl read who was a part of the band, is there something wrong? Arsenijbenx8 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Thats where i got all the info from) Arsenijbenx8 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Independent sourcing means that on Wikipedia almost everything you write has to not come from the band (or whoever you're writing about). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Arsenijbenx8, Neutral Milk Hotel is an article -- a "featured" article -- about a somewhat obscure pop group. I haven't read it carefully, but a quick look suggests that miscellaneous minor bits within it do come directly from band members; however, these are very clearly attributed (not only in references but also in the body text) to those band members; also they don't amount to so much. Where the body text doesn't say something along the lines of "[band member] later said that", "according to [band member]", or similar, readers of the article can assume that what they're reading comes from a disinterested source, one that's specified in the reference that's attached. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Tiktoker

Hello, I want to create an article about a Tiktoker I like. I would like to ask if there is a minimum follower requirement for a Tiktoker to have their own article? Thank you. Kolotin 611 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kolotin 611: Welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia subjects have articles when they are shown to be wikinotable. Follower count has no bearing on wikinotability; reliable sources (that are independent of the TikToker) must be used to demonstrate said wikinotability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Kolotin 611. Metrics like numbers of followers have nothing to do with eligibility for a Wikipedia biography, except to the extent that those numbers motivate coverage of the person. What is required are references to reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of this person, and that devote significant, in-depth coverage to the person. And the article would neutrally summarize that coverage. Please read WP:NPERSON. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to write this kind of article, because you know so much about this person and you're not allowed to say any of it; you can only repeat what reporters have already said, and even then only reporters who haven't talked to the TikToker and are not friends with them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kolotin 611 Wikipedia articles about TikTokers aren’t based on follower count, but by notability. Which TikToker is it? ~2026-41369-39 (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

help submitting draft for gabi glitta

Draft

Gabi Glitta Gabi Glitta is the stage name of Australian-American media personality and rapper Gabrielle Rose Grecko (born June 5, 1989).

=== Career === Grecko first announced her rebrand to "Gabi Glitta" in August 2017, ahead of her planned rap debut. In 2025, the Herald Sun reported that Edelsten’s widow had launched a career in the music industry as a rapper, with an EP titled GABI GLITTA.

Grecko operates the Instagram account @gabi_glitta, where she posted about the Herald Sun coverage in February 2025.

<code>=== Personal life === Gabi Glitta is the former wife of Australian businessman Geoffrey Edelsten. She was previously known professionally as Gabi Grecko.

<code>=== References ===

References

Sources:

1. Nine.com.au, 21 August 2017, "Gabi Grecko reinvents herself as Gabi Glitta in preparation for her rap debut"
2. Herald Sun, 2025, "Gabi a rapper? It's all Grecko to me – Edelsten’s widow reveals guilt of final days as she launches career in music industry"

-- ~2026-41380-91 (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:YFA and WP:AFC. WP:NMUSICIAN is also important. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File unable to export to Commons

Hi all, I was trying to export File:Habeeba Hussain Habeeb.jpg to Commons so I can add this into the category I made on Commons but its saying unable to move due to the license. From what I understand, the file has a CC 4.0 license. Unilandofma^Talk 07:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Presumably, {{presidencymv}} isn't recognised by the export tool. Remove it, do the export, then re-add it on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Just tried that but it did not work. Unilandofma^Talk 10:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How to edit full page on source editing on mobile?

There is a button in the visual editing, but there isn’t a button in the source editing, so i can only edit the lead section. How can i edit the full page on source editing? ~2026-40827-18 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve read i have to use the three dots button, but on some articles there aren’t this button. ~2026-40827-18 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have to first go back to reading the article normally, to see the three dots menu. You can't access whole-page editing while you're already editing one section. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I meant in some articles the button isn’t there at all even when normally reading it. ~2026-41382-49 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that I was confused. I don't understand how that would happen. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Review request for Draft:Nigel John Henry

Hello, I have created a biography at Draft:Nigel John Henry and have submitted it through Articles for Creation. For transparency, I knew the subject and have tried to write the article in a neutral, well-sourced manner. The subject was the co-founder and chairman of Fusion Group, a British property developer and philanthropist who recently passed away. I've tried to ensure the article is neutrally written and supported by independent reliable sources. If an experienced editor has a few minutes, I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and let me know whether it appears ready for the main encyclopedia or if there are any significant issues I should address before formal review. Many thanks. Deanleslie90 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I see it has now been declined, but there's a clear path to fixing it if you're willing. The way to do that is to start again from the beginning without the benefit of knowing him and without the benefit of any information that's been provided to you. It needs to be the article that a random stranger would write if given the task, and the random stranger has been cautioned to not include any piece of information that seems as if it might have come from the subject or anyone associated with him in any way - even avoiding publications that seem as if they might have been influenced by the subject. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much. i'll do my best and send you the next version. Deanleslie90 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Tone is totally inappropriate "Henry celebrated his 60th birthday in 2024 with family" really! It reads like a eulogy NOT an encyclopaedia article. Total re-write required. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Deanleslie90 There's just too much there. I have removed most of the unencyclopedic content and done a basic job of cleaning up and restructuring the article. I haven't checked your secondary sources so I don't know if you have sufficient; for that, refer WP:42. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

What is Churisim

Maybe I am taking the name wrong, I read this in some deletion discussion, what is this churisim? ~2026-41472-22 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41472-22, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is only a guess, but might it have been churnalism? ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

correct what is this explain in sample way plz ~2026-41472-22 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-41472-22,

From the Wikipedia article linked by @ColinFine:

Churnalism is the production of low-quality or unoriginal news articles, generally by paraphrasing other sources or press releases to avoid the need for time-consuming research or fact-checking.

Churnalism is often the result of understaffed journalists who do not have the resources for original news-gathering and checking sources. Because it can quickly be churned out (and thus is less expensive to produce), churnalism has become more common due to the revenue lost with the rise of Internet news and decline in advertising, with a particularly steep fall in late 2015. The term is a portmanteau of "churn" and "journalism", referring to the perceived "churning out" of content by the press; its creation has been credited to BBC journalist Waseem Zakir. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Means desk posts and media posts, we also consider them in churnalism, right? ~2026-41472-22 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I've seen churnalism published under someone's name in an effort to launder it. And churnalism also includes literal fake news such as native adverts, advertorials, press releases, and vacuous clickbait "lifestyle" articles of no substance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 14:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Searchbox Thumbnails

How can I mark an image to be used as the thumbnail for an article in Wikipedia's search engine? I can't find anything in the MOS that describes how thumbnails are selected. Gebble (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The thumbnail is usually the first image in the article, so moving the image to the first location usually sets it as the thumbnail. For more information, you can see MOS:IMAGES. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gebble. I think it's a bit more complicated that @Chorchapu implies.

Displaying a thumbnail is I believe done by a MediaWiki extension that is installed in the mobile app, but not in the browser version: unfortunately, I've been unable to remember the name of the extension and find it (I hope somebody will come along and add that information).

I believe that the extension displays the first image in the article which meets certain requirements: one of them is about the size of the image, and I think there is one about licensing as well. I'm pretty sure that you cannot directly control the choice of image, except by making sure the desired image is the first one in the article that meets the requirements. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble @ColinFine I think you might mean the PageImages extension. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @TooManyFingers. I noticed that in the list of extensions, but since it appeared to be about all images on a page rather than selecting one, I didn't look at it further. I'll know next time.

@Gebble, please see mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice for how it decides which image to use. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I as well have learned something new today. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't known - I was just lucky to stumble across the other extension that calls upon it, SearchThumbs, which says in its description that PageImages is required. That two-extensions setup might make each of them a bit harder to find, I'm not sure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It still seems sort of fuzzy though. For the case of File:Sadeqain.png, is it because this image is under fair use licensing? Gebble (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Where do I locate music appropriate page suggestions again

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.

---

While my piece was being rejected yesterday - I also got another message with 4 other music pages that suggested to me that my content was appropriate for those 4 pages & to submit the content there - but today when I am looking for them - I'm no longer able to find them. I thought I had just hit another tab, but apparently not. How do I find those 4 invites again? Patriciacunliffe (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Georg Glockemeier: Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Günther, Leipzig & Wien 1936. (Auf Grundlage der Volkszählung 1934.) (in German)

How can I best edit the page History of the Jews in Vienna? Specifically, there is a table there that lists "Jewish contributions to Vienna's economy (1934)". The source for the figures presented in that table is Georg Glockemeier: Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Günther, Leipzig & Wien 1936. (Auf Grundlage der Volkszählung 1934.) (in German). This source is unreliable and deliberately presented figures to sow hatred against the Jewish population of Vienna. I put a note to this effect on the page, which was undone by one of the Wikipedia editors, "because it did not appear constructive". What is the best way to get the figures removed or at least the source identified as unreliable? It does not seem very constructive to me to present those figures as truth. (I came across the page after having read a book that presented these very statistics as true figures. But they seemed so unlikely (given that just 9% of the Viennese population was Jewish at that time) that I started to look more carefully at the source material.)

Below a summary of my dialogue with Google AI about this.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SUMMARY: SOCIO-ECONOMIC REALITY AND PROPAGANDA IN INTERWAR VIENNA (1934–1936)

1. Historical Classification as Propaganda

In historical scholarship, Georg Glockemeier's book Zur Wiener Judenfrage (1936) is objectively identified as a work of ideological, anti-Semitic propaganda. Major international repositories, including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), explicitly categorise this text within their collections alongside Nazi pamphlets and historical hate speech literature. In this specific historical context, the term Judenfrage ("Jewish Question") was used to frame the presence of Jewish citizens as a societal problem requiring a political "solution."

2. Reliability and Manipulation of the Data

The baseline figures used by Glockemeier—sourced from the official Austrian census of March 22, 1934—were statistically accurate in their raw form. The Austrian government utilized reliable, modern tracking and enumeration methodologies at the time (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). However, the source is classified as propaganda because these accurate data points were fraudulently manipulated and interpreted to falsely demonstrate that a minority population (comprising approximately 10% of Vienna's residents) completely dominated the capital city (Glockemeier, 1936; Wikipedia).

Historians demonstrate that the text serves as a classic example of "weaponized statistics" through the implementation of several distinct techniques:

• Definitional Shifting: The official census tracked demographics strictly by registered religious affiliation (Konfession) (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). Propaganda writers weaponized this data by conflating it with racial Nazi theories, selectively ignoring or including tens of thousands of secular, converted, or intermarried citizens to fit their narrative (Wikipedia).
• Geographical Isolation: The publication isolated specific statistics from the city of Vienna (approximately 176,034 Jewish residents) to manufacture a narrative of an overwhelming demographic takeover (Glockemeier, 1936). In doing so, it intentionally omitted the fact that the Jewish population across the entirety of Austria accounted for a mere 2.8% of the national total (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934).
• Omission of Historical Context: The high concentration of Jewish individuals within Vienna's liberal professions, such as law and medicine, was the direct result of centuries of legal exclusion under the Habsburg Empire (Wikipedia). Because Jewish people were historically barred from owning land or entering state civil service bureaucracy, families heavily prioritized independent, university-level education (Beckermann, 1984).
• Statistical Distortions: Within the published tables, vague "up to" thresholds or maximum ceilings (≤) were applied to certain arbitrary sectors (such as the scrap metal trade or candy shops) instead of providing exact counts (Glockemeier, 1936; Wikipedia). Furthermore, high percentages were displayed for highly localized niche markets—such as advertising bureaus—to inflate the perceived scale of ownership beyond what the low absolute raw numbers actually represented (Glockemeier, 1936).
• Selective Omission: By focusing exclusively on roughly 35 handpicked sectors where Jewish business owners maintained a visible presence (Glockemeier, 1936), the author completely concealed the remaining 80% of the broader economy. This hid massive industries—such as heavy manufacturing, agriculture, transport, and public utilities—where Jewish employment was virtually non-existent due to structural barriers (Silverman, 2012).

3. Independent and Non-Jewish Sources on the Economic Reality

To verify the actual socioeconomic landscape without relying solely on the archives of Jewish organizations, historians utilize three independent, non-Jewish data streams that confirm widespread poverty and systemic unemployment:

1. Official Government Census Volumes (1934): The comprehensive publications from the Austrian state statistic bureaus prove that the overwhelming majority of Viennese Jews were registered as Angestellte (salaried white-collar clerks) and Arbeiter (manual wage laborers), rather than wealthy business owners (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1934). During the Great Depression, consumer retail and textile sectors collapsed first, triggering disproportionately high unemployment rates among these Jewish wage earners (Silverman, 2012).
2. Nazi Asset Declarations (1938): The most direct non-Jewish refutation of universal Jewish wealth comes directly from the administrative records of the Nazi regime following the Anschluss. Extant records from the Vermögensverkehrsstelle (Asset Transfer Office) reveal that over 60% of the Jewish population in Vienna was so impoverished that their global assets fell below the mandatory registration threshold of 5,000 Reichsmarks (RM); they were legally exempt from filing because they possessed virtually nothing (Austrian State Archives (ÖStA), 1938).
3. Municipal Records of "Red Vienna" (1919–1934): The non-Jewish, Social Democratic city administration maintained meticulous municipal registries for public housing and relief allocation. These public documents prove that the Jewish populations in the working-class 2nd (Leopoldstadt) and 20th (Brigittenau) districts lived in the exact same overcrowded, state-subsidized public housing blocks (Gemeindebauten) as non-Jewish laborers and depended heavily on municipal winter relief subsidies (Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, 1919–1934).

4. Internal Jewish Sources on Poverty and Welfare

The internal administrative registries and annual audits of the Jewish community itself corroborate and add granular detail to this severe socio-economic crisis:

1. Charity and Payout Registries of the IKG Wien: Preserved annual reports from the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien show that between 1934 and 1936, nearly 30% of the registered Jewish population in Vienna was completely dependent on communal welfare, emergency financial aid, or free soup kitchens to survive (Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP)).
2. Class Stratification by District: Internal demographic surveys indicate that Vienna's Jewish population was deeply divided by socio-economic class. The absolute majority belonged to the working-class proletariat (artisans, tailors, shoemakers, and petty traders). A significant portion consisted of Ostjuden (refugees from Eastern Europe fleeing WWI fallout) who experienced severe destitution in Leopoldstadt and Brigittenau, while only a small, highly visible elite resided in affluent districts like the Innere Stadt or Döbling (YIVO Institute; Beckermann, 1984).
3. The True Nature of Business Ownership: Financial Ledgers from the communal relief agency Wirtschaftshilfe demonstrate that the vast majority of Jewish-owned enterprises were micro-businesses, such as single-room family shops or artisan workshops (CAHJP). These self-employed individuals frequently earned less than factory laborers during the Great Depression and possessed zero structural influence over Austria's macroeconomic framework, which remained under the control of heavy industry and state monopolies (Silverman, 2012).

---

Complete Bibliographic References:

• Beckermann, R. (1984): Die Epoche der Skrupellosigkeit: Über die Erpressung der Wiener Juden durch die Nazis. Löcker Verlag, Wien. [Accessible via the Findbuch.at Database].
• Bundesamt für Statistik (1934): Die Ergebnisse der österreichischen Volkszählung vom 22. März 1934. Bundespressedienst, Wien. [Historical overview sheets available via Statistik Austria].
• Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP): Archival Holdings of the Israelitische Kultusgemeinde (IKG) Wien, 1930–1936. Records of the Wirtschaftshilfe and communal welfare distributions, Jerusalem. [Accessible via the CAHJP Online Portal].
• Glockemeier, G. (1936): Zur Wiener Judenfrage. Verlag Johannes Günther, Leipzig & Wien. [Archived and categorized under document control number irn521945 at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM)].
• Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA): Archival records of the Vermögensverkehrsstelle (Asset Declarations, 1938), Vienna. [Accessible via the Archivinformationssystem of the ÖStA].
• Silverman, L. (2012): Becoming Austrian: Jews and Culture between the World Wars. Oxford University Press. [Cited via the academic repository of the University of Illinois].
• Wienbibliothek im Rathaus: Handbuch der Stadt Wien & Kommunale Berichte (1919–1934). Digitized municipal records of "Red Vienna", Vienna. [Accessible via the Wienbibliothek Digital Portal].
• Wikipedia: History of the Jews in Vienna. [Accessible via the English Wikipedia Portal].
• YIVO Institute for Jewish Research: Interwar Austrian Jewish Demographic Surveys. New York. [Accessible via the YIVO Online Archives].

Ioberski (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ioberski, bring up the matter on Talk:History of the Jews in Vienna (which I notice was last used six years ago). There, make the point that you (and not "Google AI") have made above. Be sure to ping the user who reverted you (WikipediholicRat), just as I am pinging you in this message. Do not cite "AI"; instead, cite reliably sourced historical facts. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 20:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

NEED ONLY ONE ORIGINAL DRAFT TO WORK. TOO MANY DRAFTS CREATING MANY ISSUES

I do not know how to move about here. Fancy created draft to help me, but as I insert the citation back( my orginal 60 citiations)the citation # continue increase from # 60 . I am not adding a new citation but only re- insert . Also there was two artcles in one article the citiations are under highlighted area and in the other as normal. If I can get back the draft I submitted on July 20, that cam help to over come this problem. Please let me know. Th VinowardRos1950 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @VinowardRos1950, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid your question is very unclear to me.

The draft you have been working on has been moved several times: you moved it (inappropriately) to mainspace on 20th, and @Fancy Refrigerator moved it to Draft space the next day, but retained the very long title. Then @Dan arndt moved it to Draft:Sanctuary of Our Lady of Marutha Madhu today. These are all the same draft, with different names: you don't have to worry about the moving: just use the latest name (link above).

But on 21st you made an edit where you added over 68,000 bytes to the page, and I suspect that you somehow copied all the text (including headers and citations).

Given that a major reason for declining the draft is that much of it appears to have been generated using an LLM (which is not allowed), I think any attempt to fix your current draft will take much more time and effort than starting again, writing in your own words - not using an LLM at all - a summary of what the sources say about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@VinowardRos1950: Welcome to The Teahouse. While ColinFine has addressed some glaring issues with your draft, I suspect you're asking how to re-use a reference so that it uses the same footnote number as the first time it was used. In that case, please read WP:NAMEDREF. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Colin, Thanks for being kind to help me understand the situation better Please let me know whether ) I need to delete all what is the draft ( there is two drafts - orginal and duplicated drafts from Fancy ) then 2) work under the simple title suggested by Dan.

Thanks. VinowardRodd VinowardRos1950 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Dan's one, and don't change the title again (especially never remove Draft: from the beginning). If that copy is missing good parts from the other ones, you may copy & paste the other good parts into it. If you request here for someone to delete the other copies, they will easily do that for you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

how to locate my biography article that was declined and needs improvement?

how to locate my biography article that was declined and needs improvement? Rizos01 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rizos01: I found it in your edit history: Draft:Robert_Shenk RudolfRed (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Rizos01, have you read and digested "#Status of biography article about Robert Shenk"? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 20:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Drawing attention from other authors

Please advise on how to invite other authors to view an article published in my sandbox CitationLedger (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Currently you have never edited your sandbox, but assuming you're speaking hypothetically, if you want to create and submit a draft for review, you should use the Article Wizard. If you just want others to view your sandbox, you may link to it here, like User:CitationLedger/sandbox. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Article moved to draft and need help

Hi there. An article I wrote about a theatre company that has been in the world 30 years, and in its own theater for 10 years got moved back to draft. The admin who did it was nice, but said it needed more sourcing to prove notability, even though it had way more sourcing than almost every article about similar companies (some have just a link to the subject's site!), so I don't get it. But OK, I want to make it better, and I've added more, and and I'm trying but now I'm worried it has too much sourcing. What's the best way to find nice people to review and help? I'd love constructive crit.

Anyway the admin said "When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back." and I would move it back but just don't want to get smacked back again and not know why so... anyone who can help with crit would be great. Thanks in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mopco_Improv_Theatre PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

even though it had way more sourcing than almost every article about similar companies (some have just a link to the subject's site!), so I don't get it. —you may want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That is awesome and yes, fitting. And I will read again. So I still ask for help on the article's merits. And yeah omggggg the amount of times I've tried here and walked away and come back. I went to the Wikipedia conference and was there when the gunman came in, and I ran out the door. I feel I am making efforts! PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PaulieZiegfeld, and welcome to the Teahouse.

For any editor that doesn't have a solid record of creating articles, I recommend not moving a draft to mainspace yourself, but submitting it for review. That may take some time, but you'll get feedback, and an opportunity to learn how to meet Wikipedia's criteria. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Yes I think my last article was solid, and I got overconfident. I will do in future. PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi!, looking at the article I also am kinda puzzled by why it was draftified, although it is short. I think it would be suitable as a Start class, or maybe a C rated article. Robloxguest3 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Asukite ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 22:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Robloxguest3, the move to draft was based on the state prior to recent improvements (revision), which was lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (note that I cannot view this one, which is paywalled and not available in internet archive.)

@PaulieZiegfeld has done a good job adding additional sources since then, and this was actually on my watchlist to check again (I've been trying to watch the articles I draftify lately). I think its safe to move it back.

PaulieZiegfeld, for the record, autoconfirmed users (which you are) can move pages they created back from draft to mainspace if they disagree, and you can always ask me on my talk for help as well, I don't bite. The main thing to watch out for is that moving an article back without improving it can sometimes result in it being submitted to WP:AFD. Thanks for taking the time to work on that, keep it up :) ASUKITE 23:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow this is so helpful and really kind. Thanks you so much. I really am still learning and your kindness and attention to my work and questions means a lot. I’m very careful but not expert! Thank you again. 🙌 PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Changing article reviewer bar of "possible issues" section

Greetings, I am simply asking of a technical improvement in the Wikipedia article reviewer bar, which would often show previously deleted in the "possible issues" section. However, of nearly all the times this notification has popped up, it was due to a prior redirect page being deleted to make room for the new more comprehensive individual article. Can we make it such that prior deletions due to WP:G6 does not show up as a warning in the article reviewer bar? Or would there be any technical issues that make it not possible? Thank you. Pygos (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pygos, Welcome to the Teahouse! I would suggest moving this discussion to the idea lab, or to the proposal board.Robloxguest3 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Pygos (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

NP! good luck and happy editing. Robloxguest3 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on an AfC draft before review

Hello everyone! I recently submitted an Articles for Creation draft for review and would really appreciate any feedback before it reaches an AfC reviewer. Over the past few revisions I've worked to strengthen the article by adding more independent reliable sources, improving the neutrality of the writing, trimming unnecessary or promotional content, reorganizing the structure, and tightening the citations to better align with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. I'm not asking anyone to approve the draft—I'd simply be grateful for any constructive feedback on whether there are still policy, sourcing, or notability issues I should address. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:N%C3%ABse_Vdes_(Mirud_song. Thank you for your time! ~ Pulseoraus (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You're asking about Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song). One tip for you: read, digest, and implement Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I read the Citation overkill essay as you suggested and implemented the recommendations by consolidating repetitive citations and improving the overall citation layout while maintaining verifiability. I really appreciate you taking the time to point me in the right direction. Pulseoraus (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pulseoraus There are still 40 references in the article and they are haphazardly placed en masse at the end of each paragraph instead of being properly distributed. All of your edit summaries to the article are also clearly AI generated, which I suspect is the origin of the issue here. You must not use AI to generate any text for articles. Athanelar (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I will correct references. But please, explain how you came to the conclusion that this LLM generated and why was the tag necessary? Please review the history, multiple independent editors who have 7+ years of experience joined in and edited the article as well after my first draft. I doubt those editors used LLM on the article. It is not LLM and you are wrongly classifying it as such. On user profile i have it notated from the start of my account that's what I fight against. What led you to decide this is LLM? I'm curious and would like some advice. It is not LLM or AI generated as you stated. Absolutely not. ~~ Pulseoraus (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edit summaries to the draft, like this one, are so fully riddled with AI signs that there is absolutely no chance some type of AI tool was not involved. I have no idea who these editors with 7+ years of experience you're talking about are, you are the only person who has made any significant contribution to the draft. Athanelar (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on an improved AfC draft

Hello everyone! I recently made substantial improvements to an Articles for Creation draft that had previously received feedback from reviewers. I worked on expanding the independent reliable sourcing, reducing promotional language, improving neutrality, reorganizing the structure, consolidating citations in line with the Citation overkill guidance, and addressing the issues previously raised on the draft's talk page. Before the draft is reviewed again, I'd really appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if there's anything else I should improve—whether that's sourcing, neutrality, formatting, notability, or anything else. I'm not asking anyone to approve the draft; I'm simply looking for constructive feedback so I can continue improving it. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrian_Hadribeaj Thank you very much for your time and any suggestions! Pulseoraus (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There is room for significant improvement in how the citations are written. Some of the ones in Albanian are marked as such, others are not. Dates are often missing even when easily found in the article. All of the links do work, however. I didn't check source/text consistency since so many are in Albanian, but I hope you've checked that carefully as it's a huge problem in LLM text.

The most obvious probable relic of LLM is the paragraph starting Hadribeaj represented Albania in national and international competitions. This whole paragraph is hopelessly vague. You have specifics in your references, please use them! What did he compete in, how did he do? What national titles did he win? M kuhner (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhnerM kuhner, thanks again for taking the time to look over the draft and for the helpful feedback. I went back and made the changes you suggested. I rewrote the section you pointed out to include the specific competitions, titles, and medals instead of the more general wording, and I also cleaned up several of the citations. If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if there's anything else you think could be improved. Thanks again for your help. Pulseoraus (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

In the para we're discussing, there are several claims and each should have its citation attached to it, not all piled up at the end. Still could use more dates in the citations, for example the one that starts with "Snajperi" has a date in its copyright statement but none in the citation. We should probably take this to the draft Talk page if you want any more comments--feel free to post there and ping me.

Totally not required, but if there's a source for how his second name is pronounced, it would be a nice thing to add: many readers (including me) will have no idea! M kuhner (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Ranch9613

{{Template:User talk:Ranch9613}}

Ranch9613 (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ranch9613, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Now, what exactly do you mean?

• If you want to join others who repair grammatical errors, you can see here to adopt a typo: WP:ADOPTYPO
• If you want to change grammar between British and American spellings, see here first: WP:MOSS

If you're looking for something else, please say so! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:2025 MSG Prime Minister's Cup – Men's team squads

Hello, this is my first time posting here. I’m asking this question because I’m not exactly sure what the problem is.

1. I searched for articles regarding the source, but these were the only ones I could find. 2. None of the national football associations have properly functioning official websites, so the only way to find information is through social media.

I would like to ask: is this post still considered unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? 2015yyj (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You can review the draft here; I would appreciate it if you could check it and provide feedback on anything that might be missing or needs improvement. [[1]] 2015yyj (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

2015yyj, as you know, 2025 MSG Prime Minister's Cup – Men's tournament already exists, which you can expand. I see no need for a spin-off article. A new article that relies on content that can only be found on social media simply does not belong on Wikipedia. We summarize sources that are both independent and reliable. Football association social media accounts are not independent and unless you are certain and can prove that an account is official, their reliability is questionable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@2015yyj, I tried to find reliable sources for your draft, but couldn't find any. I don't think this subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I would advise you to try improving and expanding the 2025 MSG Prime Minister's Cup – Men's tournament article if you are interested in the subject. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem adding a photo to Heywood Hardy article

I used the Upload Wizard and copied the 'PD's and words used by previously added photos but a problem is being flagged up. Where did I go wrong? BFP1 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I added a photo using Upload Wizard and all the PD's and words used when existing photos were added, but a problem has been flagged up. Where did I go wrong?

I may have added this question before but I could not see it added to the list. BFP1 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi BFP1, If the file you're asking about is File:Homewards. Oil on canvas. Signed Heywood Hardy (lower left). The title inscribed verso.jpg, then you uploaded that file to Wikimedia Commons, which means you probably need to ask about it over at Wikimedia Commons. It looks like the file was tagged as not having a valid copyright tag by a Commons administrator named c:User:Yann. You can post a message at c:User talk:Yann and seek clarification about the file's current status. The deletion tag might no longer be applicable since you've subsquently added a copyright license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I have contacted Yann on Wikimedia BFP1 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Need a clean slate to rewrite

Dear Volunteers, I need a clean slate to rewrite the article. My article was declined because I used google tool to eliminate spelling, grammar errors. The reviwer who reviewed my article then converted the article to a draft and I have two forms of text now . It creating a mess for me to work on this. Can someone eliminate both so that I have clean slate. I was advised to keep the revised new short title. The Sanctuary of Our Lady of Marutha Madhu. Thanks for your help VinowardRos1950 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@VinowardRos1950: you only seem to have one draft, Draft:Sanctuary of Our Lady of Marutha Madhu, which you originally created in your sandbox, moved from there to the main article space, from where it was moved to drafts.

You can rewrite the content as much or as little as you wish, just don't delete the previous AfC review/decline which must remain there until the draft is accepted. And on that point, I would very much recommend that you do put this through the review system rather than moving it into the main article space again yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

In your editing window, there is stuff put there by reviewers, and there is stuff that you put there yourself. You must keep everything that was not originally your own work, exactly as it is. But you are free to delete all of your own work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear TooManyFingers, Thanks for your prompt response and clear direction. I use only one finger from each hand when typing or playing the piano and thus very slow in typing while others use all their 10 fingers making the music a pleaure to listen. VinowardRos1950 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

How to expand stubs

Hello!

I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, and last time I made edits I was in a trance and I now remember nothing of how to edit. I would like help arranging information and citing sources in a stub I'm expanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dichrostigma_flavipes

I am using the visual editor.

Thank you in advance! Thunderslate (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thunderslate Wikipedia is all about summarising sources and citing them. Google scholar has several hits on that insect, so please go ahead! In a moment I'll add some other general links to your talk page, Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible outdated guide regarding Lang-xx

Hello for a eighteenth time! It seems that some guide appears to still be mentioning {{Lang-xx}} instead of {{Langx}}: for proof, I came across Hostun, Armenia in Special:AbuseLog, and the initial revision used these now-deleted Lang-xx templates, so maybe an admin forgot to update some part of the newcomer's guide. Before that, I came across an article of an Israeli politician and came across the exact same problem: {{lang-he}}. I never heard of any of Wikipedia's guides nor completed any of them (I just started editing with no assist), so I have no idea what is still mentioning {{lang-xx}}. Should this still go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello SimpleObjects-9ei and welcome back to the Teahouse!

I found this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Lang-he which indicates that the Lang-he template is still in use on some wikis, though not necessarily on Wikipedia. It's understandable that someone might try to use it. One would hope that they immediately realize the template by that name does not exist and they will search and find the {{langx}} template to use instead. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I made an advanced search for possible guide pages (i.e. uses a {{lang-*}} template) gave me these:

Extended content

Be careful with this search-result link, since it uses a regex on around 200,000 pages: [2]

Results:

• Module:Lang
• Module:Lang/sandbox
• Module:Lang/data
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation
• Module:Lang/utilities
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Gallery
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell
• Module:Lang/documentor tool
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)
• Module:Lang/data/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 161
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/January 2013/GAMO
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AM
• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2020-07
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1078
• Module:Lang/documentor tool/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/April 2018
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82
• Portal:Soviet Union/Intro
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 25
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 3
• Portal:Philosophy/Selected article/5
• Portal:History of science/Article/13
• Portal:Soviet Union/Selected biography/5
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arado E.381/archive1
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 13
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75
• Portal:Communism/Selected biography/38
• Portal:Middle Ages/Selected biography/4
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/5
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/2
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/2
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/4
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/3
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected article/3
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/1
• Portal:Poetry/Selected biography/15
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13
• Portal:Serbia/Selected bio/August
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/5
• Portal:Georgia (country)/Selected biography/4
• Portal:Society/Featured biography/25
• Portal:Soviet Union/Selected biography/2
• Portal:Jazz/Selected biography/6
• Portal:Ireland/Contribute
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 18
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon
• Portal:Turkmenistan/Selected article/1
• Portal:Serbia/Selected bio/April
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 15
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immediate Action Unit
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendery
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nazi Germany
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle/Archive
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rai Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatian Spring/archive1
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Kulua
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Republic of Guria/archive1
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cukiger
• Module:Sandbox/Ivan Štambuk/lang-ex-helper
• Module:Sandbox/Erutuon
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Podokesaurus/archive1
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 21
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Information/Intro
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 August 25
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Related Projects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject China/User requests
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 April 24
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 January 12
• Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Balboa Creole French
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 August 23
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 October 28
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/January 2011
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 August 14
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 August 11
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/April 2011
• Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 552 dump
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantynopolitańczykowianeczka
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/December 2010
• Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiFundi Content/Help:Write a Wikipedia article about a school
• Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests/Fulfilled/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June 4
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice/sandbox
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/May 2011
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RaBOTnik
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/June 2011
• Help:Books/Feedback/Archives/2016/November
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Log/2010-08-27
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review/Johny Mera Naam
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Log/2010-02-08
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Help:Write a Wikipedia article about a school
• Module:Lang/sandbox2
• Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/langx
• Module:Lang/configuration
• Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/test
• Module:Lang/langx
• Module:Lang/configuration/sandbox
• Module:Sandbox/Erutuon/Unicode
• Portal:Saxony-Anhalt/Article of the Month/Archive
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 8
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 27
• Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2024/Red Sea with a sea of red
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1203
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 214
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Po Methodist School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive/Featured Eurovision Article Archive/2023/July
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Fast article reviewers
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 June 16
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 17
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 267
• Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing/Examples/Aleftina Evdokimova
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Development Initiatives Institute (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tairex Agent Hospital
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/05
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Xu
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hö'elün/archive1
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan Lai So Chun Memorial School
• Template:Lang-x/doc
• Template:Lang-zh/doc
• Template:Wu-style tai chi lineage
• Template:Old Chinese
• Template:Lang-zh/testcases
• Template:INSEE
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil in Love (opera)
• Template:Lang-x/doc/parameters
• Template:Lang-x2/doc
• Template:Old Chinese/sandbox
• Template:Language with name/testcases
• Template:Lang-Deva
• Template:Lang-ka/doc
• Template:Lang-rus/doc
• Template:Lang-sh-Cyrl and Lang-sh-Latn documentation
• Template:Lang-mnc/doc
• Template:First Council of the China Television Artists Association

LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Use of ISSN vs. ISBN

I have a reference that I wish to add.. It is a journal/magazine with an ISSN. I note that the citation template uses ISBN. Can ISSN be substituted without generating an error or should it be omitted entirely? Oldsilenus (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The template called "cite magazine" has a place for ISSN. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The template "Cite journal" also provides for ISSN. Although as DOIs (for specific journal articles, as well as other uses) have become widely used, ISSNs seem to have diminishing utility. Yes, there are cases where an ISSN would be helpful; but when I don't see how it would be helpful, I skip it, and I don't think that any other editor has ever complained. And an ISBN isn't an ISSN or vice versa. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I seldom edit and have forgotten much that I once knew! Oldsilenus (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Is creating a Standalone List necessary?

Hey there, I was trying to exapnd Verykool's product releases, but according to GSMArena, they released 149 phones. I was wondering on if I should only list out notable phones or just create a standalone list as to not bloat the article with 149 entries. Carlosfruitcup (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, (often), expanding a product releases section is just not a good idea. A complete catalog is not the point; the article is to tell the history of the company so people will understand, not to fill out lists. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're adding, add literally 2 or 3 items that you think it's insane to not show, and forget about the rest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)