Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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 1 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.]

Does anyone have any Argos catalogues?

https://archive.org/search?query=Argos+catalogs

I've only been able to find these ones can anyone help me? This is not a article this is for a project TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TVShowsFan2005. This page is for assistance in using and editing Wikipedia, not anything else. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

where could I ask instead? TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK thanks TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

is there any other places where I could ask? TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, bur for non-Wikipedia projects, help is unlikely. There are also libraries that host reference desks to deal with queries. Look for a major library that has the materials you are interested and also has a reference desk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Or write to Argos. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand why some see Wikipedia as some online search engine to ask about queries mundane as this one, I’m not trying to bite but what in the public image causes people to ask questions like these which occur all the time, just below was a question on how to get an Egyptian passport, certainly not to do with Wikipedia at all. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

they said they didn't have any TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to ask elsewhere, @TVShowsFan2005. This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia, and your question isn't to do with this. qcne (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

is there forums which helps TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No idea, you'll have to use Google and search. This isn't a question for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

OK then TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

loads of them from 1973 to 1999 on this website https://retromash.com/argos/ Agothos (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I've checked there TVShowsFan2005 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

reference sources

hi, can anyone provide advice on providing references from newspaper articles that are behind a paywall. I have jpegs of newspaper articles that I have downloaded but it seems that a jpeg of a newspaper article is not acceptable as a reference. as I cannot link directly to the source due to it being behind a paywall, does anyone have advice on options available. Agothos (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Agothos. You can cite a source which is behind a paywall exactly the same way as any other source (see WP:PAYWALL). The citation templates allow you to specify

url-access=registration|limited|subscription to warn a reader.

A source must be in principle available to any reader, it does not necessarily have to be free and easy (as with offline sources).

If a source is difficult to get hold of, consider quoting the relevant sentence(s) from the source: see WP:FOOTQUOTE.

The resource exchange and the Wikipedia Library are ways for editors to get access to sources they cannot otherwise reach ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

great, thanks for your help Agothos (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Agothos, if your article images have the required information, why not cite the newspaper? You would need to know which newspaper, the date of publication, the article title and ideally the author - and perhaps where it's from if it's called something like The Times, because there's a lot of those - but if you have those, Template:Cite news will be your friend! I've been working on doing just that over on Indrid Cold if you want to see it in action :) Meadowlark (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

great, thanks for your advice Agothos (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Help

Well,I personally have a goal of adding 3 articles every month in Wikipedia.So,Can any editor review my draft quickly.

Draft:Tbeti Monastery TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

No. Sorry. "Look at mine quickly because I've created a deadline for no reason" is just rude. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I just wanted to publish my draft before february 1. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

TheGreatEditor024, the Articles for Creation review process is entirely optional except for very new editors and editors with a conflict of interest. You have plenty of experience. You are free to move the draft to main space yourself if you are confident that the topic is notable and the draft establishes that. Your draft looks pretty good to me. My only suggestion would be to search, perhaps through Google Scholar, for higher quality academic sources to supplement the tourist directory sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

So, Can I publish the draft myself. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

After a lot of thinking, I think I should take your advice as I am confident that the topic is notable. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If it still looks 85% LLM-generated as one of the comments indicates, and you haven't removed the questionable sources I mentioned below, it's likely to be draftified again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thats what I dont understand.I didnt use AI. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're talking about; AIs have gotten so good that we need to use some fairly arbitrary criteria that can accidentally exclude real writing that happens to just look AI or technical; I have had that problem myself off-wiki before. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I am very disappointed in AI.I feel like AI is trying to replace my writing. Even my teacher's at school says that I use AI for assignments.But, I don't. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you using a tool like Grammarly to help with your grammar? A lot (if not most) of those kinds of tools integrate LLMs now. Athanelar (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope,I don't trust it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Because these apps often create mistakes, such as Recognize for recognise,etc. Well ,I know it's because one word is American and the other is UK, but still. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you did use AI, I was referring to one of the reviewer comments. To me it doesn't look AI generated. The only overlap you have with AI is your use of title case in headings, which doesn't mean you used AI, but Wikipedia doesn't use title case. There are some assertions that have no citation, such as the last two sentences of the third construction paragraph. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What's a title case. Btw ,all articles have titles. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Title case is where every word starts with a capital letter. Wikipedia doesn't use title case, we use sentence case in headings, where the only words capitalized are the first word, proper nouns, and acronyms. Look at any article and you'll see this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

But I didn't find any issues .It looks similar to other articles I used.I used the articles Title case and Communist Party of India (Marxist)

I didn't find the issue. Can you please edit my draft and solve it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have solved the issue by adding capital letters to only the first letter of the first word in a sentence and in a proper noun. I have decided to take Cullen328's advice and publish it myself as I am 100% sure that the topic is notable and that I have given sources to all the statements in the draft. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't copy the draft to mainspace, move it. I'll look it over and do it if you can't. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you do it for me. There is a re-direct which has the same name. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

its published.Thanks. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can someone rate it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the lonely planet source TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Btw I rewrote it after the comment was posted. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:There is no deadline. It's commendable that you want a second set of eyes on your efforts before publishing them in mainspace. I'm an experienced editor (and administrator) and even I use WP:AFC occasionally when I want a review of what I've written.

Clean up the formatting. Wikipedia doesn't use title case headings (MOS:HEADINGS). Commas and periods go before the citations, not after. And most important, check your sources for WP:42 compliance (read that link, it's short and sweet). I'm not sure I'd rely on Lonely Planet for a Wikipedia article, for example. Same goes for Wordpress and Flickr.

If you're happy with it after combing through the sources, then move it to mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 I also strongly suggest you not try to meet some kind of arbitrary article creation quota, as that sounds like a great way to end up producing low quality articles because you're rushing yourself. Take your time. One really strong article in a month is far more beneficial to the project than three slap-together jobs. Athanelar (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; and also how do you expect to find a notable subject Wikipedia hasn’t covered yet three times in every month? A better editing goal would be, say, 100 edits in a month, but you need to still be careful not to produce low quality edits. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Simple, all WikiProjects has a section named articles for creation. Just look there. You'll get an idea n what to create. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see anything in the WikiProjects I was looking at like WikiProject Spaceflight; what do you mean articles for creation in a WikiProject? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 03:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)/Requested articles

like this ,Oh I accidently used the wrong word. I meant Requested articles. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't create articles very fast. I take a lot of time to find sources and learn about it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

To add on to what other people have said, what about completing 3 articles a month instead of creating 3 articles a month? WikiProject Unreferenced Articles has a long list (tens of thousands) of articles that already exist that need to be filled out and cited. You're essentially creating an article each time, but the subject is already presumed notable. That might be an easier way to do this, and the WP:URA people will love you. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can try that. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Draft: The Collegiate Church of St. Paul the Apostle (Historic/Architectural significance)

Hello everyone,

I am looking for some feedback on a draft I have been working on: Draft:The Collegiate Church of St. Paul the Apostle.

It was previously declined due to concerns about Notability and Sourcing. Since then, I have updated the draft to focus on its architectural significance and historic status rather than just its ministry. Specifically, I have added:

• Its status as a Contributing Property to the "Thomas Square Streetcar Historic District" (National Register of Historic Places).
• Citations regarding the architect, John B. Sutcliffe (who has his own WP article).
• Independent sourcing from the Diocese of Georgia archives regarding its history.

Could someone take a quick look and let me know if the "Notability" concerns are now sufficiently addressed with these architectural citations? I want to make sure I'm on the right track before waiting for the full review again.

Thank you for your time!

GrafAlpin (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You've already submitted your draft for review. We don't do pre-review review, an AfC reviewer will get to it in due course and will decline it again with appropriate feedback if need be, or accept it if everything is all good. Athanelar (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(You are welcome to continue making improvements while awaiting review, if you think of any. The reviewer will automatically see your most up-to-date version as of the time they do the review.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Athanelar, GrafAlpin. But a tip: an unreferenced claim that X continues its original mission of Y, proudly serving as the standard-bearer for Z reads like corporate advertising. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing from the Diocese of Georgia is unlikely to be considered independent in this context. Coverage of Sutcliffe is only relevant to establishing notability if it's about Sutcliffe's work on this church specifically. However, if it ultimately does fall short of notability guidelines, you may still be able to merge a lot of this information to the page about the Diocese of Georgia or other related topics, and then have The Collegiate Church of St. Paul the Apostle be turned into a redirect pointing to wherever the information is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A more pressing issue is that of the status of your image uploads; at least half of them were clearly not taken when you say they were, and were sourced inline, though you claim them as your own work. This casts doubt on the veracity of your similar claims about the rest of them.

Please address this on Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded them, noting the messages left on your talk page there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

J. Steven Rhodes - somewhat 'casual' comments in Wash Post article seem defamatory

J. Steven Rhodes

source for the J. Steven Rhodes article -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/10/17/ex-bush-aide-quits-as-zimbabwe-envoy/ed794c0f-822f-4932-aad2-f06c481300e3/ includes offhand (and defamatory) statements such as: "There was an incident involving drugs,...That is all we have to say about it." and which the wiki article states as well, "October 1990, following an "incident involving drugs", according to a State department official." This amounts to innuendo - what sorts of drugs - illegal drugs ? The Harare Financial Gazette "alleged that Rhodes was pushed out of his post by "immense political pressure"..." etc. Competing narratives? Which is true? This inclusion in the article is defamatory. Wpcontribuser (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Zimbabwean media outlets are not the worst in the world, but they are unfortunately known for being very far below average. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

(My meaning is that no, the Harare Financial Gazette cannot in any way be said to be presenting a competing narrative, because the Harare Financial Gazette is not competing.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not defamatory, @Wpcontribuser. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources (ones with editors and fact checkers) say about a topic. The statement is correctly cited to the Washington Post, which we view as a reliable source; the Post evidently trusted their informant, since they included it. If you believe it's incorrect, you'd need to contact the Post and have them issue a retraction so we could update the article. Meadowlark (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Blog site as a reference.

I used a site made using weebly for chutney music . The site wholely focus on the Trinidad Guyana Indian themes. Is it reliable or okay? https://trinidadguyanahindu.weebly.com/chutney-music-origin-artists-and-popularity.html ▄︻テ░Blaada══━一 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Basically no. Blogs have no paid fact checkers and no public reputation for truth. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLOG has a more in depth explanation. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

so, can be used? That site is specially made by Trinidad and Guyana hindus for their history heritage. Only downside is it is published on weebly. ▄︻テ░Blaada══━一 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No, can't be used. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

how does this wiki community have any more authority than a blog owner on truth? Digitalgodus (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Because we're on the Wikipedia website and go by the policies and guidelines here. On your blog, things are done as you prefer them. This doesn't mean you have to think of a WP-article or Wikipedian as having more authority than you or your blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Change title

I am working on the page named trywork. The proper name should be "try-works". How could I change that? Kudie924 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls things by the names they are called in the majority of reliable sources. Do you have evidence that there's been a major change in how the reliable sources spell it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

See the talk page, the section entitled "Spelling".Talk:Trywork - Wikipedia I have already corrected the information in the article. Kudie924 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Requested moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio in an article

The article Ignatius Aphrem II has a copyvio of 69.3%. I want to make this article into GA class. Is this copyvio acceptable? if not, can you please give me tips to reduce copyvio?(I've tried a lot) Warriorglance(talk to me) 12:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio can't be "reduced". It has to be removed immediately and completely, and reported. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

But these are facts. Cant i rephrase them in the article? If I start removing them, there would be nothing in the article. The problem here is that the wordings in the article and in the source(website) are exactly the same. What should I do? Warriorglance(talk to me) 13:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It can't be kept, it has to be wiped out.

1. Find every part that is copyvio. Get the URL it was copied from, if that exists.

2. Delete every single word that is copyvio, and include the URL in your edit summary.

Go to the talk page of an admin who seems to be currently active (for example, an admin who recently responded on this page - but I'm not an admin), and report what you found and what you did. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Warriorglance After the copyvio is completely gone, you can rewrite those parts of the article properly if you know how, by using the needed facts from the same place but not copying the structure of their writing or their words. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

WAIT!

@Warriorglance I looked at the details of the copyvio report, and it's not quite as you described at first. This is what's called Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and you CAN fix it, the way you wanted to. I'll send a separate message with more info. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

OK. :)

Here's what obviously happened: Someone who added a lot of material to this article did a lazy job. Instead of looking at the source and then writing for themselves, they copied some things straight from the source, and then tried to cover it up by changing a few words. Pro tip for them: don't do that.

But the copyvio detector is also catching a lot of things it shouldn't catch, such as the titles of church officials (which obviously have to be written the same every time), making the results appear worse than they really should be.

So... when you check the copyvio, it gives you a list of sources, with the worst-looking one first. When you click "Compare" beside an item, find the largest and most solid red areas in the right-hand column (the right-hand side is the original) where the editor copied some real wording from them - something that isn't just ecclesiastical titles and so on. Find where that same wording appears in the Wikipedia article, and change it.

This kind of article can be tricky to avoid copying something, because a church official is often only told about in church sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Ah i see now, But what were you referring to earlier? About deleting? Is it similar to this one? I don't know what copyright actually refers to. Warriorglance(talk to me) 04:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If major chunks of an article turn out to be exact copies of someone else's material, all the major exact copied parts are disastrously illegal. In cases like that, it isn't enough to just delete the copied part - it has to be wiped from the history leaving no trace.

But in THIS case, the other editor was not so much horribly illegal, and more like lazy/irresponsible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Warriorglance, copyright is extremely important here on Wikipedia, so you'll need to know about it. Have a read through the article on Copyright infringement and then WP:COPYVIO, which is focused on how to deal with copyright violations you run across on Wikipedia. Meadowlark (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Help needed: Made COI mistake, article now being dismantled

Hello,

I'm hoping for some guidance after making a mistake that has escalated badly.

Background: I am the subject of the article Matthias Schweger. The article has existed since 2016 and covers my career as a television director/producer in Austria. I wanted to update it with recent career developments (I've since become a certified chef and founded a sake brewery that won an international award).

My mistake: I created an account, posted a COI declaration on the Talk page, and then – foolishly – made a direct edit to the article instead of waiting for editor review. This was immediately reverted by User:ChildrenWillListen for COI editing, which I completely understand and accept.

The problem now: Following my mistake, the article has been significantly cut back:

• A {{notability}} tag has been added
• Content has been removed as "unsourced puffery" by User:Theroadislong
• The article is now much shorter than before my involvement

I feel terrible because my well-intentioned but clumsy attempt to update the article has actually made things worse. Content that existed for years is now gone.

What I have done since:

• I have NOT made any further direct edits
• I posted an apology and comprehensive edit request on the Talk page with third-party sources
• The sources I'm proposing include:
  • Existing Wikipedia articles that already credit me (e.g., Shut Up (and Sleep with Me) explicitly states "directed by Matthias Schweger" and mentions Echo Award nomination)
  • Music & Media trade publication archives (worldradiohistory.com)
  • IMDb director credits
  • WorldFest Houston official winners list
  • Gault & Millau and Gastro.news coverage of my culinary work
  • International Wine Challenge official database

My questions:

1. Is there anything else I should do (or avoid doing) at this point?
2. The Wikipedia article for "Shut Up (and Sleep with Me)" already credits me as director and mentions award nominations – is it appropriate to point out that this information is already verified elsewhere on Wikipedia?
3. Should I just wait, or is there a better way to engage with the editors who removed content?
4. Is there any way to address the notability tag? I co-founded chart-topping music projects (Edelweiss reached #5 UK, #1 in six countries; Bingoboys reached #1 US Billboard Dance), directed award-nominated videos, and have coverage in reliable sources.

I understand I created this mess myself and I'm not looking for sympathy – just practical advice on the best path forward. I want to respect Wikipedia's processes and not make things worse.

Thank you for any guidance.

Mschweger (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is to quit looking at the article and return to doing what you're best at.

The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia and IMDB are not reliable. Trade publications are not independent (they exist to serve you, not to serve the public). Mentions in lists and databases are insignificant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

(Observe that the article about Einstein is in quite good shape - and I hear it has been more than two years since he looked at it!) :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

"The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources."

Not so. Once again, please refer to WP:SELFCITE; also WP:NIS. Non-independent sources are perfectly acceptable for certain types of statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct but NOT for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The statement which I challenged, The point of Wikipedia is to collect the published facts from only the independent reliable sources, has nothing to do with notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mschweger, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you have hit something that quite often happens when people try to improve or update an existing article about themselves, or their friends, or their company.

If the subject actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then the article can be saved. But if in fact they don't, the article cannot be saved, and should never have been accepted in the first place.

From Wikipedia's point of view, deleting an article which cannot be properly sourced is an improvement; but of course for the subject, they're probably unhappy about this. But if it was the case, then the only thing you have relevantly done is accidentally brought a deficient article to people's notice - absolutely nothing you could have done to the article would make it worth keeping.

(I haven't looked at the article, or attempted to verify your notability: if in fact the sources exist, then somebody other than you should find them, cite them, and ensure that the article consists of a summary of what those sources say, not what you say or want to say). ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's important to understand that this isn't some kind of 'punishment' for your involvement. All you did was call attention to the article which evidently was not in a good condition, and now an editor is cleaning it up. I know it's frustrating that "content which was there for years is now gone," but that's how Wikipedia works. The only content we preserve is that which is recorded in sources that meet our requirements, you do not own the article about yourself and unfortunately what you want to tell the world about yourself is irrelevant to our decision on inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

To be honest with you, @Mschweger, from a quick Google search it seems to me that you're most likely to be notable through your work making sake wine — that's what most reliable independent sources talk about. I don't see any news articles etc. on your filmmaking work. Most of the sources on you as a director currently in the article only give you passing mentions, which means that the article shouldn't rely on them, because an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should only summarise existing knowledge on a topic, and not do any of its own research, and hunting through the internet for little scraps of information definitely goes against that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, this good response also highlights one of the less-famous reasons that COI editors are generally unreliable: COI editors, only able to view their own story "through the wrong end of the telescope", very often designate a "primary career" for themselves, and while we most often encounter that in the way they tend to inflate what they see as their primary accomplishments, it can also happen that they under-emphasize things they consider secondary. This could be a conscious branding strategy to try to prop up their "primary career", but it could also be a genuine misunderstanding of the relative value of the things they do.

Note for all COI editors (including corporation COI): You're incapable of judging your own strengths, weaknesses, and influence, because the main requirement for judging those things is to be everyone except yourself. There's no escape from this, not even by asking for input, because (for the same reason) you're equally incapable of processing whatever input you might get - and any outsider you find to mitigate this problem becomes an insider as soon as they get to know you (or as soon as you start paying them, whichever happens first).

I think there are individuals who make a genuine and serious effort to see themselves as others see them; I think they mostly aren't trying to make Wikipedia articles about themselves. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

To be fair to them, their only edit to Matthias Schweger is this. JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"passing mentions, which means that the article shouldn't rely on them"—We should not rely on them as evidence of notability. However, if the sources are reliable, we can safely rely on them as evidence for the statement made, such as a film-directing credit.

"hunting through the internet for little scraps of information definitely goes against that"—that absolutely does not go against our Policy on OR.

Your understanding of how Wikipedia works is flawed at the most fundamental level. Please stop giving advice until you have corrected it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Out of scope of the Teahouse, but, from WP:OR (emphasis mine):

To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in one's own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly.

It doesn't go against the policy explicitly, but I don't see how me interpreting it as being discouraged based on this (or indeed, what I thought was common sense, but is obviously a point of wikiphilosophy instead) deserves such as sweeping statement as my understanding of how Wikipedia works being flawed at the most fundamental level. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The text you quote is shortly preceded by "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." and the first pargraph is immediately followed by "The prohibition against original research means that it must be possible for editors to find a reliable, published source that directly supports any given bit of material." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Andy, this response is much too close to being a personal attack, especially since your reasoning is - in this particular context - merely an academic quibble over how JustARandomSquid chose to word an explanation. If you have a more general complaint about his competence, his being guilty of ignoring this academic quibble (I don't doubt that he's guilty of that) is not a legitimate piece of evidence in that regard.

There are times when your complaint would be relevant. This certainly wasn't one of them. Statements are not relevant or significant simply by being true. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Motives of contributing

What are the common reasons people wish to contribute to content on Wikipedia? Since there is no financial incentive, and paid editing I believe is frowned upon due to conflict-of-interest, what are the common reasons people spend their time here?

They wish to contribute information they may have expertise in ? They believe in the right/principal of providing the global public access to reliable information ? A way to pass spare time in a productive way ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

All of the above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yea, same with me. I feel that, in an age of an unprecedented amount of misinformation, it is our duty to provide a beacon of light, a beacon of knowledge, to bring truth to the lies. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think in general you're mostly right.

Experts don't literally contribute their own knowledge (not directly I mean), but they certainly know where to look for relevant information, and can edit their topic from an intelligent point of view. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

People who do extreme sports often feel a need to continue adding daring and dangerous activities. People who do encyclopedia writing often feel a need to continue adding knowledge and information. The reasons given for these kinds of "needs" are often the types of reasons that just make you have to ask "why" again and again. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We have an article about this! toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 17:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In the spirt of the rule that even Wikipedia pages are not to be used as a discussion forum, I will suggest that a website like Quora to address what motivates people to edit Wikipedia. However, I'm suggesting just doing a search of existing content, don't think hard about your search, and if you want to see more content, just change the wording of the query. The quora search is not some kind of AI thing (though it doesn't seem to be quite as lame as a word search). Anyway, you can type in such inquiries ad infinitum and get all kinds of opinions relative to your question. Fabrickator (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

For me, at least, it's a good way to waste my time when things are boring. Not too sure about others. ^EF⁵ 18:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

xkcd:386 and Cunningham's Law. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

My girlfriend (34) thinks I'm really hot when I (70 next birthday) edit wikipedia. - Walter Ego 19:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Also note that paid editing is not directly forbidden on Wikipedia, you just have to properly disclose it and not introduce any obvious bias (see WP:PAID). In fact, there are several companies whose entire business is paid editing of Wikipedia for Clients without breaking any of the Wikipedia guidelines. 🍅 fx (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have an interest in “niche” topics, such as 19th century children’s magazines, or series once broadcast on the defunct DuMont Television Network. In pre-Internet days I spend hours in libraries, searching for bits and pieces of data on obscure subjects. I want others to have easy access to reliable information on what interests me, so I’ve purchased good reference books, learned how to find reliable web sites, and taught myself how to write competent articles. As a Wikipedia editor I’ve written some new articles, and improved countless stub and start ones. I publish my project, read it over, and feel satisfaction in knowing I did good work, and thousands around the world may someday be informed by what I’ve added to this online encyclopedia. That’s what’s kept me editing for the past 19 years. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Log off

I can't seem to get rid of Wikopedia on my phone. Trying to install Chrome ~2026-66221-2 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-66221-2! Do you wish to delete the Wikipedia app on your phone, or do you wish to close a Wikipedia browser window? ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(they/them) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If your topic really is about logging off, because you're getting ready to log on differently:

First, make sure you have saved all the passwords for all your accounts (every kind, not just Wikipedia) so they won't get lost. And make sure they're not only saved for an app you were planning to get rid of!

Once your entire set of passwords is under your control so you're certain you can't accidentally lose them, you are then much more free to make mistakes or change your mind when installing or uninstalling apps. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Unsure of what to name article

I'm planning to start writing an article about the IDM/EuroMoto racing series, which will use the name EuroMoto from 2026 onwards. I'm not sure what to name it, though. I've seen the official website for it use EUROMOTO and EURO MOTO, with other pages often using EuroMoto. Maybe I should just put it off until the rebrand is fully finished? Kasparkelk (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd reccomend using EuroMoto since it's the modern name and what it is called in normal plain text, not stylisation or branding. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do, thank you Kasparkelk (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice Needed: Paid editting in Kalshi

There's been a slow edit war going on in the article about Kalshi for more than a month now about the tone in which the article's subject should be described. The edits have almost exclusively been done by unregistered IPs, and the nature of them strongly suggest paid editing. Recent examples include: 14jan, 30jan_a, 30jan_b

What would be the solution to that? Should the article be locked for unregistered IPs? Nyraxis (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

edit: please also have a look at Special:Contributions/~2026-65194-8 and Special:Contributions/~2026-33576-0 Nyraxis (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

First things first, if an edit war is ongoing, request protection of that page or try to end it and achieve consensus through discussion. As for the paid editing, visit WP:REPORTPAID. Hope that'll help. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted back to 10 January and extended-confirm protected the article. Change requests can be made on the talk page, and any paid editor requesting a change needs to provide proper disclosure. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

How does one memorize the scale of wikipedia

Got bored and started browsing random internal components and what makes up stuff and my brain was absolutely fried North Yemen (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Statistics for some numbers. How best to commit these to memory is less a question about Wikipedia, more one about memorization. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Another question

Can you get semi protected and extended confirmed rights via temporary accounts North Yemen (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No. Incidentally, attempts at helpfully titled subheaders are appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@North Yemen: By definition, temporary accounts do not belong to registered users and thus cannot get the autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed userrights (or any other userright for that matter). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

question about categories

category

first off quickly, idk where i should ask this, but this was the first place i thought i knew it was ok to ask at.

i probably should have looked more (i apologize for that if so), but can i just make a category like with redirect; not needing the “pages” for creation protocol? thanks in advance :).

ps: i’m talking about wikipedian categories, but all types is an acceptable answer. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 02:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What very exact thing do you want to do, on which article? It's much easier when you say straight out what your plan is, instead of having to figure out what to call it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

[making] a category like with redirect; not needing the “pages” for creation protocol unfortunately makes no sense to me, Tonkarooson. Are you perhaps asking "Can I create a category and populate it with redirects (and not with any articles)?"? And by "wikipedian categories" do you mean "categories of the 'project pages' named 'Wikipedia:'" (as opposed to categories of help pages, articles, etc), or do you mean "categories of the content of Wikipedia" (and not those of Commons, Meta, etc)? -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

“And by ‘wikipedian categories’ do you mean ‘categories of the 'project pages' named 'Wikipedia:'[?]…”

correct, that’s what i meant. i apologize for my misunderstanding. i’m gonna say it like this cause it’s easier for me:

for example, this redirect i made—and many others—have no repercussions. is this the same outcome for categories?

the one i had in mind was “Category:Gynesexual Wikipedians” (or in a different syntax if it like that). Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 04:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

exists but is unused, other than as a "soft redirected category", pointing to Category:Yale University alumni. It points there thanks to Template:Category redirect. Unlike a standard redirect, this conspicuously alerts the reader to a misnaming. But this is the equivalent of redirecting, for categories. I still don't fully understand your question, but I hope that what I write leads you to an answer. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

it’s pretty clear to me, but thanks anyways lol. i guess i could be bold about it. — Tonkarooson • read this pls|edits. 02:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Question about gaming ecp.

I ought to know the answer to this, as I've been here long enough, but gaming the system to gain ecp is something I've never directly dealt with before, and I may be wrong !! Where do I properly report it, and get some confirmation or denial of my thoughts? Thanks. - Walter Ego 05:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Depends. If it's tied to a contentious topic (ArbCom or community-authorised) you can report it at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or at WP:AN/I. All other instances, AN/I is where you go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANI. jolielover♥talk 05:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I just recently unwatched ANI for my sanity. Oh well, thanks. - Walter Ego 05:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Clear cut, currently active gaming can usually go to AIV (or at the very least, that is where I tend to report it). More complicated gaming-like behaviors, or gaming which has been completed and the editor is now editing in ECR topics, should go to ANI or AE. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Or just contact an active admin that you trust. Bishonen | tålk 10:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC).

And who the heck would that be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Set this Wikipedia account private

hello im a temporary account user im just wanted to hear you can you set this account to private with this username "Roblox678956568" but ill not request to permanently delete this account but i wish this account was set to private it means some Wikipedian editors will not able to see it due to private while admins can only see it reason why i would like to make it private is because this account hasn't been active for many months thank you. Hopefully you were happy ~2026-35231-2 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

That is legitimately not possible. No such option exists in MediaWiki to allow for this. (If you're wondering why some usernames are hidden, see WP:REVDEL and WP:Oversight.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. You cannot make accounts private. I'm sorry, but your alternative options seem to be to vanish or disable your account. jolielover♥talk 05:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I understood that they just wanted to replace this temporary account with a real one? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I think they also wanted to make their new account be invisible to everyone except admins, calling this setting ‘private mode.’ Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 10:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise there was already an account called "Roblox678956568" — i thought "Wikipedian editors will not able to see it due to private" was refering to TAIV. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No, what I meant by ‘new’ was this hypothetical new account they’re requesting. Sorry for the miscommunication! Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 10:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hidden accounts would be a really bad thing for Wikipedia. Everyone being able to see what everyone else is doing is an important part of how it works. (And asking to hide while helping to write an encyclopedia is a pretty clear sign that helping was not your main goal.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It's also important for licensing and attribution/reuse of whatever edits they make. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

BBC as an independent source?

Ive added BBC as an independent source to one of my articles. Why has the article been declined? Sarahweh (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Draft:Niklas George? In that case, the BBC article seems to be an interview so is not an independent source. 🍅 fx (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention @Sarahweh the tone of the draft is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or a place to right great wrongs, and it's incredibly inappropriate to present statements like an opportunity that people were robbed learning from, back in school and itself is a disservice to people of Wales, in wikivoice.

Even if the subject of the article were notable, this draft would not be acceptable. Athanelar (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

BBC is normally a reliable independent source, but no source can be called independent during an interview, because the subject is speaking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the reason the movie Zootopia 2 was not screened in Israel?

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.

---

What was the reason the movie Zootopia 2 was not screened in Israel? ~2026-67888-1 (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Meters (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask the Wp:Reference desk. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the reason the movie Zootopia 2 was not screened in Israel?

What was the reason the movie Zootopia 2 was not screened in Israel? ~2026-67888-1 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-67888-1. This forum is for questions regarding Wikipedia, so we cannot help you. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:40, 31 January 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.

How do I delete a redirect?

Or rather, how do I go about getting a redirect deleted, because it seems an ordinary editor can't do it!

I tried asking a few weeks ago at the redirect talk page here, but no response. Yesterday I tried listing all the redirects at the "Redirects for discussion" page using Twinkle, for example [1], but so far it doesn't look like they're going to be actioned.

Is there perhaps a speedy deletion template similar to those for nominating articles for deletion that I could add to the redirects? Barry Wom (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think no action will happen? Minimal/no discussion means it will be deleted as nobody has objected (could be relisted, and then deleted too). There is speedy deletion for redirects, see WP:RCSD, but like with articles, there is specific criteria to be fulfilled. jolielover♥talk 12:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The speedy deletion tags for redirects seem to be much more restrictive than those for articles, so I guess being patient at the discussion page is my best bet. Barry Wom (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Unable to add personal information

Hi, i am nit able to create or load my personal Wikipedia infor on this platform Oginji (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oginji, I've added a header for your comment. Try clicking on the (currently red) link to your name in your signature. That will allow you to create a user page, where a limited amount of information about you can be placed (see WP:UPYES). Please don't try to create an autobiography as that is unlikely to succeed. Reply back here in this thread if you run into more problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I change my username

Very self explanatory 67mangotuffphonk (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Visit WP:UCREQUEST. AdmiralCarl (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd definitely want to change that too. Good work, by the way — feel free to branch out from the suggested edits at some point and contribute to what you're interested in! JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding content without a citation

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.

---

Is it true that you must always add a citation, and inline as well, for every piece of added content, at the very moment that the content is added to Wikipedia? If the content added is reasonable (clearly not vandalism), and has not been challenged, is that problematic to even add such content in the first place? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

See Special:PermanentLink/1335894088#User:Iljhgtn for background. As I said before, WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis in original). voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Which I agree with, that is where the burden lies, but what I am asking about, is what is the "rule" (barring WP:IAR of course) around adding content which an editor knows to be verifiable, but for whatever reason has not chosen to add the inline citation to the content at the moment of publication (might add later, doesn't have the book handy, any number of reasons...), what is the rule around that? Is it impermissible to ever add content without having the inline citation ready at the moment you hit publish (or very shortly thereafter perhaps)? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not the situation we're dealing with here. The circumstances of this discussion are articles that you wrote months ago and which you removed the content from in recent days instead of adding the sources that you read at one point. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The content was subsequently challenged only very recently as a direct result of the AP application (presumably), and therefore at this time I felt it best to just remove the challenged content. Per WP:BURDEN, is it not acceptable for the party responsible to find the sources needed for verification to choose to either remove the challenged content, or, to add the citation to demonstrate verifiability? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts This is my question in regard to "V and BURDEN" which you answered with below, " is it not acceptable for the party responsible to find the sources needed for verification to choose to either remove the challenged content, or, to add the citation to demonstrate verifiability?" Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

'Is it impermissible to ever add content without having the inline citation ready at the moment you hit publish (or very shortly thereafter perhaps)?' - Yes, it is impermissible and would be a violation of WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN), until a source is added that backs up the unsourced information. Why would we add content that has no sources to Wikipedia, that amounts to WP:OR. @Voorts is absolutely correct here, and follows the policy to the letter, as it should. There is no other logical way to answer your question, @Iljhgtn. 11WB (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Content is unsourced all over Wikipedia which has been added since its inception. Such unsourced content can of course be challenged, which gets back to the "likely to be challenged" rule, at which point it is either removed, or a source is found. If either of those two things is done, then the WP:BURDEN is met. Am I missing something further? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"and follows the policy to the letter", please show me where it says, and quote, exactly that a source MUST be added AT THE TIME content is added to Wikipedia. @Tarlby if I am being inarticulate, please help. I am not trying to "win" any argument here by the way, other than to understand if I am misunderstanding this, where exactly it says what some here claim is "to the letter" spelled out. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

'All content must be verifiable.' WP:BURDEN 11WB (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@11WB Yes, what does "verifiable" mean? Am I taking crazy pills. Capable of being verified. All content added should be and must be verifiable. Therefore it must not be published unless it is known that a WP:RS exists. In full and complete agreement with that! And yes, that means that if at all possible, the RS should in fact likely be added at the time one hits publish, but I do not believe that is required, and some in this discussion such as @Tarlby seem to agree. I've been around long enough to see this discussed before several times, I really just wanted to see if somehow I'd missed something, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Maybe the real question should be to the community, "What does 'All content must be verifiable'" mean exactly?" Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, it looks like even I misread V. All content must be verifiable, i.e, to a general reference. It's just that quotes, material that will likely be challenged, material that is challenged, and contentious material require an inline citation. Sorry! toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes I too saw that line. I can read it. I just was asking if "All content must be verifiable" means that everything always needs a source added at the time of publication. If so, then why do we not just say that? Maybe this needs to be added to WP:V and WP:BURDEN then for clarification? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why you feel the need to pick apart an easy to understand sentence. It makes clear that any content added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. That doesn't mean later, it means now. If it isn't verified with a source when it is added, it's OR. This is pretty black and white. 11WB (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Because when I look up the definition of "verifiable", I see, "capable of being verified". Meaning, capable (possible), of being (state moving towards), verified (authenticated somehow).

It is just how I read those words. I try not to just blindly accept the first thing I hear, but I really try and understand it. There are several parts to this, one is the meaning of "verifiable" (in time relation to the verification), and also the "likely to be challenged" necessity and requirement to cite inline. Trying to further understand what everyone thinks what level of discretion is permissible there. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable means that a quality source exists though. And again, YES, I agree that it likely SHOULD be added right at the moment of publication... I was just saying it did not seem to me (and is still a bit ambiguous) about it being required immediately. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit, I can move this conversation elsewhere if that would be helpful. Maybe to the WP:V or WP:BURDEN talk pages? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Move this somewhere else. The Teahouse isn't for discussions like this. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 21:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I would advise against restarting this discussion anywhere else. I think your question has been answered, @Iljhgtn. 11WB (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In my experience: yes it is true. Even a piece of information looks reasonable, it may still not be real, and some vandals get a kick out of adding such false content, as well as by subtly altering things like numbers and dates that have been cited, hoping that no-one will actually check them against the source.

Ideally, everything (other than the extremely obvious) should be verifiable through a citation to a published source. For minor and uncontroversial data, this need not be a Reliable source independent of the subject, but there must be one.

If you don't add the citation at the time you add the content, how long can the interval be? How long is a piece of string? What happens if you're called away before you cite, and forget to do it? Most articles are monitored by people who have them on their Watchlists, and if they see an addition that remains uncited for very long, sometimes mere minutes and sometimes even quicker, they may revert it in full accordance with Wikipedia's policies. You would then have to re-add and cite it, having wasting your and other's time.

A minor exception to having to "add a source" is if the added content is already contained in a source already cited for something else in the article, in which case the added material can be cited to that source. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, it has to be verifiable, but we seem to be getting hung up on "verifiable" as a word. If something is "verifiable", it may be verified now, or later, as long as it is verifiable, and an RS exists, is it against the rules of Wikipedia to add the content EVER without having that source immediately ready and cited inline at the very second one publishes the content. That, and that alone really, is the question. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As the policy states, material that is [not] likely to be challenged does not need a citation. However, someone removing the uncited material because its uncited immediately makes it challenged, and material whose verifiability has been challenged must be removed. So practically, cite everything that is not universally obvious. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why I say that it is a best practice (really, really, really good idea) to cite everything inline to an WP:RS, but it is not required, especially if, as you say, the content is "[not] likely to be challenged". Then an editor might be able to add it later and is following our WP:PG? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

By policy, yeah, but there's always going to be someone who'll challenge it eventually. If you think something is unlikely to be challenged and then it ends up... getting challenged... you happen to be wrong. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"Likely to be challenged" is a fairly low standard. If there's a 51% chance that someone could challenge the content, you must provide a citation. In articles about legal cases, I'd say there's a >51% chance that someone will challenge unreferenced content. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you cite the WP:PG for me please where that "must" requirement is made clear? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

V and BURDEN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby at least seems to be reading it as I am interpreting it, if I am not mistaken. Also, given that months or years in some cases went by, and that the articles had gone through new page patrol, that it was reasonable for me to conclude that the material was not overly "likely to be challenged"? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

To say that adding sources to verify information is 'not a requirement', is completely wrong and is actually quite a dangerous mindset to have. If the information is backed up by a source, there is no reason at all to just "wait until later". That is just lazy in all honestly. If it's a draft fine, but in mainspace, not acceptable. 11WB (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Conversely, and correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe it would be considered problematic/non-constructive editing behavior to do what I believe is called "drive-by" tagging where one goes and adds "citation needed" tags to all the various lines of content that may not be sourced across varied articles on Wikipedia. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If it is a requirement, then I am just looking for the WP:PG within WP:V or WP:BURDEN which states that. Whether it be dangerous or not is secondary to the fact that we should first establish where in our policy is it required. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You are suggesting temporary unsourced information is acceptable. Basically, in your view temporary OR is acceptable and tagging such content is, according to you, 'problematic/non-constructive editing behavior'. This is the opposite mindset of what an NPR should have. 11WB (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn I don't the policy can be more explicit than saying Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. The folks who tag articles with citation needed tags or remove uncited material are just following policy, calling it unconstructive and a misinterpretation of policy as written. Sohom (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am saying people that do that across thousands of articles in a spammy way could be potentially engaging in problematic behavior as I understood it. That is all. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This question has spread to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where I saw it.

Teahouse hosts may find it helpful to familiarize themselves with WP:Glossary#verifiable and WP:MINREF.

Toby is correct that when the policies require inline citations for four kinds of content, the polices are not requiring it for anything that isn't any of those four types. WP:LIKELY is meant to be a simple probability concept (your best guess about whether there's a 50% or higher chance of the content getting a {{citation needed}} tag or otherwise a genuine WP:CHALLENGE), not a case of "well, I could imagine a person being too ignorant to know whether the capital of France really is Paris but still smart enough to slap a fact-tag on it" kind of thing. The likelihood of any challenge will obviously depend on the popularity of the page and on the contentiousness of the subject.

That said, as a purely practical matter, it's usually faster to let the Wookiee win. If some officious editor declares that every single sentence requires an inline citation, it's usually faster to add a bunch of ref tags than to convince them that they're wrong about the policy requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Whether a citation is required for content that is already in an article is distinct from whether an editor is required to add a citation when they add new content. You should not be advising editors at the Teahouse to tell new editors to do something that can get them quickly blocked: adding new content to articles without citations. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

We almost never block people for adding uncited non-vandalism content at all, much less "quickly". Have a look at Special:Log/block if that's news to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, if you are unsure if something will need a citation, provide one.

There is one general exception that I am aware of: some uncontroversial pieces of common knowledge, such as "the sky is blue" usually will not require a citation as per WP:BLUE. You still should provide citations in the main article, as well as where you are explaining why something is the way it is, where readers from different cultural backgrounds may not have the same knowledge, or has any possibility of being misinterpreted or challenged (See: WP:DOCITEBLUE.

In regards to the lead section of the article, it should briefly summarise only content found within the article, and thus even if a citation isn't in the lead, it should be in the body of the text and thus the statement is still sourced. If the material is likely to be challenged, especially in regards to contentious topics and Biographies of living persons, citations may still need inclusion in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE.

Ultimately, information must be verifiable, requiring citations for claims within the texts. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:48, 31 January 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.

why they call him kanye if his name is ye

like on wikipedia fr why do they call him kanye if his name is ye 🤔🤔 John Marston III (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @John Marston III. He is more famous as "Kanye" than "Ye". Sources refer to him as Kanye, so that's what we should do too per WP:COMMONNAME. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

We follow the what the consensus is among WP:RS. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Scrolling text

So, how do you do scrolling text? I want to learn how to do it so I can use it for my userpage. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 21:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're asking how to scroll on a page, if you have a computer mouse, just roll the scroll circle in the center up or down, or if you don't, use the mouse on the screen, click and hold on the vertical bar on the right of your screen, and move the mouse up or down. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean text that scrolls across the screen, but thanks. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem, but could you clarify what you mean by scrolling text? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Text that moves from left to right/right to left across the screen. I saw it on someone's userpage (I forgot who's), and a humour page. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I have no idea in that case. I'd recommend trying to remember who's userpage, going to their userpage, and viewing the wikitext in source mode. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

trying to find the humour article. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Found it! It was Wikipedia:CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?

and it was

Marquee

text! Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps they are referring to a gif image ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a complicated CSS way to do it that is probably impossible to implement in wikitext as it requires an external stylesheet. And now I have to go cry in a corner and mourn the loss of the <marquee> tag. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't it still work, for now at least? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it probably depends on what browser you're on, but it's been mostly phased out by now. It hasn't worked for me on Firefox for many years now. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Im on chrome Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 13:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Mother of Flies page

Hey, so this is maybe weird or maybe how Wikipedia always runs, I don't know. The page for the movie Mother of Flies contains a bafflingly inaccurate plot summary. It's so detailed yet so wrong I had to look into why and on the talk page someone else had already brought it up. Cool! But then the editor who posted the original plot summary got extremely defensive in suggesting people point out exactly why the summary is wrong. And listen, I know this is an indie horror flick of low importance, but it's a much shorter trip to explain what the summary has right - a girl has cancer, her dad goes with her to visit a healer. The entire rest of the summary, and it's a detailed one, is totally wrong. All you need to do is watch the movie to see that. Instead of changing anything, this editor is just being belligerent, deflecting, or insisting others make the changes. And dude, OK, but they made the page. Why would someone make a page on a topic they literally know nothing about? Even if they didn't use ChatGPT to generate the summary, and it looks like they did because of how wrong they are, what's the point? This editor, Sundayclose, has edited thousands of pages here, and they are both hostile and factually incorrect. They are literally making more work for someone else, it would have been more helpful to say nothing. So how can I, or anyone, trust that any of the things this person is editing? I looked them up and there have been a number of incidents in the past with people having issue with this editor. They do not take criticism, they're openly hostile and it is clearly beyond doubt to anyone who knows the subject matter that they are entirely wrong in this case. Maybe someone else can look into it and stop this person from having a baseless power trip on a random movie page. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-69402-5, @Sundayclose was not being "hostile" or "factually incorrect". They were telling you that claiming stuff doesn't make that stuff true and that you (and the other users who participated in that discussion on the movie's talk page) that you need evidence to prove that the plot was AI-generated. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I never actually said it was AI generated, that was another user. I said it was blatantly wrong and later suggested it looked like it could be AI generated after asking for how they came up with such an incorrect plot summary if they had seen the film and receiving no reply other than to suggest I fix it myself. Short of giving you a link to the movie to watch it yourself I am not sure how you'd like me to prove the plot summary incorrect otherwise. To be clear, my specific issue at this point is that this editor is posting clearly incorrect information and expecting others to fix it. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

If you and those other editors who participated in that discussion have no evidence or source to prove or found your claims on, please do not make them. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This is going to sound sarcastic, but I swear it isn't. We're talking about a film I saw and that literally anyone can watch. What would you suggest I source for the plot of a film? How many film pages have actual citations for a sources here? Looking around there are few because the info comes from literally watching the movie. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone can watch a film, for example people in poverty, and I did not imply the use of a source only. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I guess my issue here is it seems like the consensus, even from my friend Sunday over there, is that if I want this fixed I should do it myself. And while I appreciate that can-do attitude that Wikipedia is based on, community and all that jazz, I think my bigger issue is the forest for the trees thing of the fact that I shouldn't have to fix it. Like, why was a totally incorrect summary posted in the first place? And why is it being defended by the person who posted it? This is weird, isn't it? If your kid's teacher told them Hamlet was about a pig and you told them it wasn't and the teacher kept saying it was unless you can prove otherwise, isn't that odd to you? Of course you could read Hamlet to your kid, but why is it your job now? Why did the teacher make up such an easily disproved lie? Keep in mind, I was the 4th person to go to the page for this movie to address this issue. It seems like this is just being dismissed as "ah well, feel free to change it at your leisure" and that seems like a poor way to run things. Clearly I'm no editor around here, I'm just a dude who showed up but man, this can't be an easy way to steer a ship. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"if I want this fixed I should do it myself" is the precise definition of Wikipedia:Be bold. As for "I shouldn't have to fix it, see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@AdmiralCarl - As far as I'm aware, the source for plot summaries IS (and ought to remain) only "watch the movie", "read the book", etc as the case may be. You seem to be doing the equivalent of demanding a source for the solution to 2 + 2. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify, not an actual source (such as a journal or website). AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 00:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

So you agree that the one and only source necessary to write a movie plot summary is "I watched it"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing to that. I am saying that making a claim without evidence doesn't make that claim true. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The evidence is "I watched it". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The person can't watch you the movie, to prove to you that they watched it. Merely saying "I watched it and this isn't what happened" IS your sufficient evidence. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-69402-5. Wikipedia always has and always will have factual inaccuracies. That's a foundational and completely natural problem a project like Wikipedia has; it can be edited by anyone. The only quality control available is random people who happen to care about something. You seem to care, so you have the power to fix it. Or you can just leave it incorrect, if what you say is true. Whether you want to trust that any of the things you see on this website is up to you and you alone. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 00:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh my God. I appreciate how much this is making me laugh, but you guys have to see how absurd this is, right? Like if someone posts that Andre the Giant was 6'9" and you know he was 6'10" and can prove it, awesome! Inaccuracy averted. This person made up a whole detailed movie! Just a whole movie from start to finish. That's weird! That's so weird! I can't stop laughing at this so thank you again for that but man, there is a line between factual inaccuracy and this guy writing some kind of detailed fan fic and it's up to intrepid film viewers like me to set it right. I feel like I'm being recruited into some sort of half drunken army against my will. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so you want to leave the plot full of inaccuracies? That's great for you. Now who do you exactly expect to fix it? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You're killing me, man. This is like walking into a house and watching a guy kick a hole in the wall and then having you come and ask me why I'm not fixing the hole in the wall. I mean...yeah, I see the problem. I for sure see the problem. I just feel a bit put upon here. I regret watching this movie now, I regret the actual, truthful knowledge I have in my head. It's like a curse all of a sudden. How dare I know this thing! ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well in this analogy, I wasn't the one who kicked a hole in the wall and I also don't know how to fix walls (because I've never heard of this movie in my life). You're the one who can fix the wall, so it's a benefit for all of us if you fix it. Not like we can force you though. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, I am clear as day on how this work but, for my own sanity, admit it. This is weird, right? Assume I am 100% correct in my position. If this was something you stumbled on, you'd scratch your head over this for a second or two. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, this is how all wikis work. Anyone can edit it, break it, and fix it. I don't know how else you thought wikis like Wikipedia worked because that's how it has always been. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not that part, just someone purposely starting a page that never even existed before and then filling it with inaccurate info. Then defending the inaccurate info. That's weird to me. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologise for the forceful tone of my previous comment but I'm saying that continuing to discuss about the inaccurate plot will not make it accurate. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I got you. No worries. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-69402-5, I recommend you quit complaining about the inaccurate edit summary as it will go nowhere and fix it yourself. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the forceful tone really necessary? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 01:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds forceful in tone but at it's heart it's a recommendation. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"against my will", for the second time, please note Wikipedia is a volunteer project and no one is forcing you to participate. Again, see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm wallowing in the absurdity of this whole, weird situation. Grant me leniency in my word choice. ~2026-69402-5 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I think maybe one thing that's missing here is that there's so many inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Some are genuine mistakes, some are deliberate, some are AI hallucinations. We're not surprised to hear that you found one! When one is found, if it's an easy fix, another editor stumbling upon the thread might come to fix it. A plot being wrong isn't really easy - we'd need to have watched the movie and feel up to the task of summarizing it. Or we could just remove the plot section, and hope that our claim of 'this is wrong' is believed over the previous editor's claim of 'this is the plot', but that also means we have to trust that you are in fact right (because we have no idea, and you and the other people on the talkpage could be trolls or sockpuppets, and you would be amazed at how tiny and dumb things can be and still turn into a massive edit war).

So everyone's suggesting that you - who have seen the movie, and noticed the problem, and felt it's important enough to mention - can fix it. You don't have to! No one has to. But you're currently the one in the best position to do so. If you don't, someone will eventually. Today, tomorrow, five years from now...it's always a work in progress. Meadowlark (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Teeboom/sandbox

Since I want to make a wiki page for my 10 year old business, I started the process today, but got this reply:

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited was Draft:Kūr Wellness Studios, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

Can someone here help me solidify my draft in a way that's not biased and help me go live? Teeboom (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

To be very blunt, it is highly unlikely that your business meets notability criteria. This is not via any fault of yours; most businesses don't, just like most people don't. It's not about merit or worth, it's about independent media coverage.

Anything that you control is not independent. DS (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Teaboom The most relevant piece of advice/feedback I can give you is that Wikipedia does not host articles about subjects merely because they exist. They have to meet our criteria for inclusion, which in this case would be WP:NCORP. Athanelar (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This subject IS “Notable”

Draft:Danny Cummings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I have absolutely NO connection, personal or otherwise, to the subject I wrote about, but the DRAFT:Danny Cummings has been declined twice (by the same editor) for “notability” concerns. This British musician was a member of the first Western pop art to play communist China; he has been the subject of at least two long, independent/non-promotional, feature interviews; he has composed music that has been used in feature films and TV programs; and has been a member of top-charting ensembles….all of which I referenced in the article. By my count there are at least 20 Wikipedia pages that would redirect to this musician’s Wikipedia entry were it to be published, and so for all of those reasons, I am frustrated that the one editor who reviewed it keeps saying this musician doesn’t meet notability guidelines for a musician. What to do? It’s very frustrating! Thank you all. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an independent interview; the subject is speaking.

A person's volume and quality of work may go unreported by reliable sources.

Membership in an ensemble does not equal having one's individual story told in reliable publications.

Wikipedia's use of the word "notable" is not supported by real-world usage of that word. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings: I used Wikipedia:Notability (music) as my guide (this was recommended to me early on by another WP editor). I quote from it: Guideline #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" [check! My draft Refs #6,#23]; Guideline #4, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [check! My draft Refs #20, #41]; Guideline #6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." [check! Numerous draft Refs and also On Every Street; Dire Straits; Mark Knopfler; Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 et al., see also Wikipedia's own definition of "ensemble" and "band": Musical ensemble and Band (rock and pop); Guideline #10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." [check! My draft Refs # 24-27, #38, see A Shot at Glory (soundtrack) and The Princess Bride (soundtrack). I hope I have provided enough proof that this musician passes guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Despite what User:45dogs says, I have no COI but it appears this musician is the ONLY member of Dire Straits who does NOT have a Wiki entry, so I attempted to draft one. Simple! Thanks very much. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Star Mississippi, who rejected the draft, and Theroadislong, who declined it. These are both different editors who reviewed your draft, not the same editor. If he is talking about himself in the interviews, then they aren't independent. Other Wikipedia pages redirecting to this artist doesn't necessarily mean he is notable. The draft needs to either meet the notability standard for musicians or the general notability guideline to pass as being notable for an article. 3 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage is usually the standard for the general notability guideline. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @45dogs

Wanda believes I do not "comprehend" her message, because she disagrees with my assessment and does not realize that more sourcing isn't better, therefore the edits weren't addressing the declines. For someone without a COI, she's very focused on Cummings and only Cummings. I don't have anything further to add to what I said at User_talk:WandaL1710#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Danny_Cummings_(December_22) and nothing Wanda says above makes the situation different to a month ago, which is why I saw no path to notability. I'm declining to engage further here but if an established AfC editor thinks my rejection is no longer relevant, feel free to remove it. Star Mississippi 03:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

When an editor fails to (or refuses to) comprehend the meaning of "independent sources" on Wikipedia, then frustration often results WandaL1710. But experienced Wikipedia editors who work on a wide range of articles in many topic areas are not going to change their assessment just because the editor who does not understand complains repeatedly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings: I used Wikipedia:Notability (music) as my guide (this was recommended to me early on by another WP editor). I quote from it: Guideline #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" [check! My draft Refs #6,#23]; Guideline #4, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" [check! My draft Refs #20, #41]; Guideline #6: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." [check! Numerous draft Refs and also On Every Street; Dire Straits; Mark Knopfler; Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 et al., see also Wikipedia's own definition of "ensemble" and "band": Musical ensemble and Band (rock and pop); Guideline #10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." [check! My draft Refs # 24-27, #38, see A Shot at Glory (soundtrack) and The Princess Bride (soundtrack). I hope I have provided enough proof that this musician passes guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Despite what User:45dogs says, I have no COI but it appears this musician is the ONLY member of Dire Straits who does NOT have a Wiki entry, so I attempted to draft one. Liking a band is NOT a COI and noting that one of its members does not have an entry on Wikipedia do not preclude drafting one. Thanks very much. Cheers! WandaL1710 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have neither said nor insinuated you have a conflict of interest with this artist. I would appreciate it if you didn't falsely attribute words to me. I can look over this draft, but I am prone to believe what Star Mississippi and Theroadislong have said, since they are both competent AFC reviewers. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings: Yes, you are correct, this ediscussion thread got a wee bit convoluted and it was User:Star Mississippi who claims I have a COI, not yourself. Still, I kinda resent the implication. As I said above, liking a particular band or ensemble AND noting that one of its members is the only musician to not have an entry on Wikipedia do not, in themselves, negate any reasonable attempt at writing a draft and improving Wikipedia. That's all. Thanks! Cheers. WandaL1710 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

My review, per what you have said:

Guideline 1: ref 23 is an interview with him, about himself, and so isn't independent. Ref 6 might be sigcov, but its a bit borderline.

Guideline 4: ref 20 doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 41 says he was part of this one show. This appears to be referring to an individual show, not a international concert tour or a national concert tour.

Guideline 6: No references provided.

Guideline 10: ref 24 doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 25 and ref 26 are both user generated, and so aren't reliable. Ref 25 also doesn't appear to mention him at all. Ref 27 doesn't seem reliable (seems like a fansite) and also doesn't mention Danny at all. As for ref 38, I don't see how this relates to the guideline at all.

Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I reply to each of these? WandaL1710 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, please see my responses to others here. I hope I have proved my subject's notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music). We can agree to disagree on this matter but I've now given concrete examples of how this subject/musician undoubtedly passes those criteria. I thought the Teahouse was a place for friendly discourse over Wikipedia matters. Please don't "bite the newbie." While I have tried very hard to steer away from the Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, but I am truly trying to understand how musicians Jordan Fish and Phil Palmer qualify as "Notable" and have entries. I do wish someone would concretely demonstrate to me how they "qualify" and then I would understand. Or perhaps it's just the roll of the dice as to what Wiki editor was awake when my draft was submitted? Seems arbitrary to me, kinda. Thank you, peace. WandaL1710 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, I realize they are different users/editors. As for interviews (and I referenced two different ones), interviews specifically about a particular musician (and not his/her band) is a criterion under "Notability." I referenced two such interviews, both by drumming/percussion outlets, these are not self-promotional or self-published or press releases. I see NO requirement that it be "three" sources, as you say ("3 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage is usually the standard for the general notability guideline"), only that it be "multiple." Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles states, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.." Again, I am not seeking an editing "war," but I correctly applied the guidelines for notability. Those guidelines MUST be applied evenly to all entries for musicians and, again, please let me point you to other entries Jordan Fish and Phil Palmer and I wish someone would tell me exactly how these two qualify when my subject does not. Thank you very much for your comments and review, I am merely trying to learn why those sacrosanct guidelines are applied to my draft subject but not to these others. Cheers. WandaL1710 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, GNG doesn't explicitly say that it must be three. I said it is usually the standard because that is generally what people aim for; see Wikipedia:Multiple sources. As for your point on the other articles, please see WP:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. They could very well be non-notable, in which case the correct course of action is to delete them. What it doesn't mean is that another non-notable article should be published. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (music) makes no mention whatsoever of interviews, and interviews cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Citations

My question is about citations/references. I have some citations for a page but they are only linked through subscription based websites, so they are not easily accessible. Essentially you cannot review the citation without having a membership. Is it acceptable on Wikipedia to use a citation that has been saved from the subscription website and upload it to archive.org, so that it can be viewed freely? Thebigsixth (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as those websites meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and they stay available somehow (not suddenly disappearing), then the fact that they're pay sites is OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. And although not necessary, it is greatly appreciated to archive the website on an archiver such as archive.org, so that editors of the future can verify the information if needed. jolielover♥talk 04:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thebigsixth, the relevant policy language can be found at the shortcut WP:PAYWALL, which is a section of the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Google search engine issue

Hi, when I search Rahgir (musician) on Google, the talk page appears instead of the article. The article exists, so I’m wondering if this is a redirect or indexing issue. How can this be fixed? Qhqofficial (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, the page is not patrolled yet; see WP:NPP for more information. This basically means it has not been marked to appear in search engine results. Once a person checks the article and marks it, it should start appearing. There is no way to speed up this process as it is manual and done at the time of our editors. jolielover♥talk 04:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Qhqofficial (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What if a talk page proposing a larger change gets no replies?

basically title. I'm suggesting expanding the focus of an article. But the article is not very frequented, and there is a very real chance noone responds within near future. What do I do then? Saeleriela (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The essay WP:BRD might be helpful there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Saeleriela If it's practical, and if it makes sense under the circumstances, try to break any large change into smaller components, based on the idea that if anyone (maybe even you) is not satisfied with a certain part of what you do, it's simple to revert just that part.

There's no rule mandating my suggestion, and in the end it's fine either way; what I said is merely convenience. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

More advice at WP:SILENCE. In this context, the "near future" is taken to be about a week. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

mentor link permission error

new to wikipedia. on Help:Getting started there is a your mentor link which redirects to Special:EnrollAsMentor which displays a "Permission error". this seems wrong. not sure where to post this, since the talk page is protected. what can i do? ndalliard (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That link seems to mistakenly lead you to a page for experienced editors to sign up to be mentors, which you aren't, hence "Permission error". Depending on what you're looking for, you might find it at your homepage. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ndalliard, welcome to the Teahouse. The link was added yesterday and is indeed wrong. I have changed it to Special:Homepage#growthexperiments-homepage-module-mentorship. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you both for the help ndalliard (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

how to tidy up my talk pages?

Hi :)

what a great concept of a group that helps editors!

i have a question about my talk page, i have a lot of discussions and that looks messy, is there a way to organise and "clean my house"? Happypenguins82 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I assume you'd want something like Help:Archiving a talk page. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

this seems like exactly what i needed. thank you :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Help on an AFC draft

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

---

Hello, Just submitted this draft to AFC Draft:North Texas Performing Arts. I need help reviewing the draft for minor errors. COI already declared. Thanks! 💀 Kavento ( talk · contribs ) 13:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kavento we currently have a large backlog of 1800 submissions, so this may take a while before a reviewer can look at your draft. Please be patient and allow the draft to go through thz formal WP:AfC review process., So in the meantime feel free to continue improving the draft. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks mate, cheer! 💀 Kavento ( talk · contribs ) 15:00, 1 February 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.

info boxes/tables

hi again :)

can someone explain how to add an info box or a table please? or both if possible... i tried adding an info box, and failed miserably.

i appriciate the effort, many thanks in advance :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 Sorry to hear that you're having some trouble adding an infobox and a table, Here for full guidance on infoboxes please see Help:Infobox and for tables see Help:Table. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

super!

thank you so much :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Full NYT Page and Financial Time Article not Suitable Coverage ?

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.

---

 Courtesy link: Draft:Amandine (watch journalist)

Hi everyone 😊

I’m fairly new to Wikipedia editing and recently submitted a draft biography that was declined due to concerns about demonstrating significant independent coverage.

I’ve since revised the draft to improve inline citations and to more clearly present independent secondary sources, including a full feature profile in The New York Times, coverage in the Financial Times, and Swiss national press.

Before resubmitting, I wanted to ask for a bit of guidance from more experienced editors: does the current sourcing and structure seem sufficient to meet notability requirements for a biography of a living person, or are there areas I should strengthen further?

Thank you so much for your time — I really appreciate the help and the work you all do here! MandydeTonnerrre (talk) 15:46, 1 February 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.

Is this song notable

Pottiye Kettiye" is a viral political parody that gained massive popularity during the 2025 local body elections in kerala.

Here are the key details about the song:

• The song, officially titled "Pottiye Kettiye Swarnam Chembayi Maattiye," uses satire to refer to the Sabarimala gold loss case. The lyrics also mentions Unnikrishnan Potty, an accused in the case, and mock political figures regarding alleged theft and the conversion of gold to copper.
• The tune is similar to the famous Lord Ayyappa devotional song, "Pallikettu Sabarimalaikku.
• This is the song
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9j_FmvSGs.
• This song was even accidently sang by non-keralite pilgrims from tamil nadu,karnataka, etc as they thought this song was a devotional song to Ayyappa

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Kerala Police registered an FIR against the creators following complaints that the parody "mutilated" a sacred devotional song and hurt the religious sentiments of Ayyappa devotees.
• its Political Impact: even though it was not written for any party, it was widely used by the udf and bjp in their election campaigns and they even played during protests outside Parliament in New Delhi

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This parody went through a lot of controversies. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well @TheGreatEditor024, has it received significant coverage in reliable and high-quality, independent sources? That is the crux of notability in WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. HurricaneZeta^C 16:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It received more than significnt coverage. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Many national news channels reported it TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"Significant" meaning there are several long detailed publications about it? Or just hundreds of little mentions? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well many news channels reported the case registered by kerala police. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Any multi-paragraph discussions of the song itself? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

yes but I tried to post it here but it says that the website is blocked banned idk.I only used

The Hindu, NDTV,Social News XYZ,etc

It affected LDF chances in kerala=

Case=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/viral-anti-left-spoof-song-parody-pottiye-kettiye-sabarimala-gold-theft-complaint-filed-9830155

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/a-political-parody-set-to-the-tune-of-an-ayyappa-devotional-song-triggers-controversy-in-kerala/article70407473.ece

INC against case=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/congress-dares-kerala-government-to-arrest-creators-and-broadcasters-accused-of-politically-parodying-ayyappa-devotional-song/article70415428.ece TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

affected ldf chances=https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2025/Dec/15/how-an-ayyappa-parody-song-boosted-the-udf-campaign TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You know what.Ill create the draft and you say if its can be accepted or not. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Please look in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to make sure none of your sources get a bad mention on that list. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay Thank you. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Just don't let an AI write the draft for you (like countless newbies do here) or it will be declined. You can use AI to help you find sources, but you need to write about what those sources say yourself. See WP:NEWLLM. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait, we can use AI to find sources. I didn't know that. I used to waste at least 2 hours to find sources. Btw , Thanks. And don't worry, I won't use AI in my draft. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just be careful. If a simple Google search cannot find good sources because you need context in the search, AI can help, but you must check each source it finds against WP:Golden Rule. The AI often returns unusable sources such as Wikipedia, Reddit, press releases, the subject's own website, tabloid newspapers, sources deemed unreliable per WP:RSP, reprints, and so forth. But you can talk to the AI to narrow down the kinds of sources needed. I did this when I wrote Star of Pure Land. It found a bunch of sources, several of which were reprints of one Associated Press article. After several tries the AI had to agree that there were only two unique sources meeting my criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay Thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Trouble creating user id

I’m trying to create an account but the user ids I’ve put in keep coming back as invalid ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Binz32

Schveibinz32 ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-71055-3 Better, stick to one location, as you have already asked this at the Help Desk and the volunteers who respond won't want their time wasted. You can look at existing usernames via Special:Userlist to check for duplication or too-close names. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that tip ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I clicked on the user lists but all of them are blocked with just exclamation marks. I looked up the user ids I wanted to use and nothing very close came up ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The list starts with the exclamation marks but goes on to other names if you put something into the search box. For example this search starts at "Binz", which is near the name you suggested in your Help Desk question. I don't know precisely how close a name has to be to be refused now but I would have expected "Schveibinz32" to be OK. Please indicate the precise error message you are getting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure you are trying to create a new account at Special:CreateAccount and not logging in? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Something decidedly screwy is going on. I tried creating an account with the name "Schveibinz32" and it says the name was already in use. And it is, created 1 Feb 2026 with no edits.

@~2026-71055-3 Try logging in to that username with the password you set. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The account was created after the name was posted here so it could be the poster, or anybody else testing it. The fact that it could be created strengthens my suspicion that the poster never actually tried to create it but just tried to log in without having an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Need help with AFC draft

Hello, I would appreciate a review of my AfC submission at Draft:No Packers No Life. Thank you. Yalzorneem (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission has already been reviewed, and declined. Please see the advice there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What Andy says. But if some point in the advice is hard to understand, feel free to ask here for an explanation. Incidentally, I suspect that RangersRus' "The reception is quite poor" might baffle. I'm pretty sure that in this context "poor" means "sparse" and not "unfavorable", but RangersRus may care to clarify. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that in this case "poor" would probably mean "sparse" or "lacking something". Perhaps the small amount of material in that section makes RangersRus think it's not worth having a section heading just to put these two little sentences under it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my comment because I see you ended up completely removing the "Reception". I want you to add "Reception" header and under it, I want you to add 2 or more reviews by professional critics. Professional critic reviews are secondary independent. Here is another documentary film Melania (film). Please pay attention to the critical response under Reception and hopefully this gives you an idea about what kind of critical reviews is needed. RangersRus (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft

Does Draft:Alexander Astridge look like it has potential to be an article? I've submitted it for review with AfC, but I know reviews there can take time. I’m very open to edits or suggestions from more experienced editors, particularly around structure, sourcing, or expansion.

If anyone is willing to take a look before or during the AfC process, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you! Alpineskiingfan123 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft does have potential but from a BLP perspective most sources currently focus on his sporting results and events rather than providing broader biographical coverage. It may help to add more independent secondary sources that discuss him in a wider context (background, significance, or impact), which would strengthen notability and BLP compliance. QuickRevert (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion!

I’ve added some background context to the Early Life section using an additional independent source. Appreciate you taking a look. Alpineskiingfan123 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve noticed that as well..but some of the articles lack deeper biographical detail. That said, there is at least one independent biographical source, and it’s likely the AfC reviewer will comment on whether additional depth is needed. For now, it’s probably best to wait for the AfC feedback and improve the draft based on that. QuickRevert (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Alpineskiingfan123, unfortunately at the moment I'd have to decline - you are looking for sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42, and interviews don't count as independent. Most of your sources are interviews. You can use those for biographical information, but what you really need is sources that talk about him but do not rely on information from him or his friends, family, coach, etc. Being a young sports star from an unusual country/sport combination means a lot of sources will see interviews as the best way to go, but sadly that's not the case for Wikipedia's purposes. You can find more information at WP:ATHLETE. I hope this is helpful! Meadowlark (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

AFC submission necessity

Hello. I have started to create articles, more and more especially during the last months, after gaining experience in other areas, like the easier tasks of copyediting or removing advertisement-like information, or the most challenging deletion process. Because I see that almost all of my drafts are accepted, 10 right now without major issues, and due to backlogs that make the review a very lengthy process and without a major review of each draft in detail, I believe that it is better from now on to just move my drafts to Wikipedia:Mainspace. Now, I have 4 drafts waiting review, I regularly check my drafts for notability, and I try to make articles beyond stub-class, with as much detail as possible. From now on, I believe I have to just use AFC submission only for something that I feel blocked and I need some specific feedback or review. Also, if there is anyone to ask questions and guidance in general, now and in the future, on how to make articles in the top Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings, I would appreciate this help. Let me know, thanks! Chiserc (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Chiserc. The Articles for Creation review process is entirely optional for experienced editors like you. If you are confident that a draft you have written is about a notable topic and written in compliance with Wikipedia's Core content policies, then you are free to move it to the main space of the encyclopedia yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I will do this from now on. I may ask for a more detailed review on a draft, especially if I intend to make top contributions, or even good articles. Thanks! Chiserc (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You could also let the review process run its course for your current submissions, because sometimes it's good to have another set of eyes on it. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, after all. I once spent a year or so with a draft, totally rewriting it at one point about a related more-notable topic, based on suggestions a reviewer gave me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Chiserc, the only time you must use AfC is if you have a conflict of interest with a topic - if you're happily writing about things that catch your attention rather than anything you're involved in, then you're totally fine. If you start your articles outside mainspace, you can also use the AfC helpdesk at WP:AFCHD for help with the draft without necessarily going through the AfC process.

For GAs and FAs, it might help to have a look at the criteria and assessments for those - WP:GACR, WP:GAN, WP:FACR and WP:FAC respectively. I enjoy peeking in from time to time, so you might enjoy it as well if you're thinking about getting an article up into the top ratings! Meadowlark (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Asked for clean up then threatened?

So, turns out I like doing cleanup and have been involved on the clean up project page. Because of this, several accounts have reached out to me asking me to help clean up several Korean BLP's that read as promotional or cvs. I'm going through and removing items in the text that are already listed later in the page or on linked pages.

Removing information that reads as WP:Everything is getting me threatened. Advice? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

We're working through it, but goodness. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm

People making actual threats should not be tolerated for one second. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, threatened with being blocked as a vandal. Not physically threatened. Attempting to work through it with them. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Coffeeurbanite For the situation you're now describing, yes your approach is right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

He was warned of vandalizing the page not threatened. He began delete info from long existing page. Илона И (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Илона И, that is not vandalism. Read through WP:VANDAL. Edits that are attempting to improve Wikipedia are never vandalism, even if you disagree with them. You should be discussing with other editors on the article's talkpage instead. Meadowlark (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I discourage you from working through it; threats should be summarily blocked, not dealt with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I have them blocked? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Was it threats, as in threats? Or was it an "I'm calling the WikiPolice!!" type of thing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's actual threats, use the link I already gave TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if you're not certain they were serious, do that anyway TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have not even glanced at these edits.

Most editors can't block other editors. The most they can do is request that those other editors be blocked. The editors handling such requests consider each such request.

"If you persist in [doing XYZ], I will have you blocked" can be called a threat. If XYZ is constructive, the threat will turn out to be empty. Ignore it. If XYZ is destructive, well, stop doing XYZ. Either way, the threat isn't obviously problematic. (What prompts the threat may or may not be.) If there are differing interpretations of XYZ (or if XYZ is a misnomer), attempt to discuss. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The difference is (if I can call it this) "Wikithreats" vs "real threats". If someone makes what I'd call a Wikithreat (such as "I'll get you blocked", "I know Very Powerful People", and so on), the proper response is to snicker and continue. If someone makes a real-life threat, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, getting them banned really is the only acceptable outcome. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, Coffeeurbanite wrote at 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC) that they had been "threatened with being blocked as a vandal". Thus not what you'd call a "real threat" (which incidentally is not terminology I'd recommend, as threats to block for goofing off on Wikipedia can be very real). -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I imagine they mean threats that present a real danger, as opposed to just loss of editing privileges. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

When I see "[something I did] is getting me threatened" without qualifying information, which is what was in the first message, I assume they mean threats of physical harm. Getting "Me" threatened is something it would never occur to me to say under any other circumstances. And it's made clear on Wikipedia (as it is in many other places now) that every physical threat, even if ludicrous, is to be dealt with the same as a serious one. Anyway, I'm glad it wasn't that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted revisions?

genuine question, why are edit revisions sometimes deleted in the edit history? for example the articles on Nelly Furtado and Michael Middleton if you go to the edit history , it shows crossed out stuff which means that the edit revision has been deleted. But why does this happen? ~2026-71453-6 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:REVDEL. Usually for copyright reasons (if someone pasted in a blatant copyright violation), or for legal reasons (if someone wrote something obviously defamatory). Sometimes particularly egregious vandalism (such as replacing the entire article text with slurs) is deleted too. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, WP:OVERSIGHT is used for cases where REVDEL isn't enough, such as for cases of doxxing. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 03:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Only one area used for info

I forgot what its called but i keep getting rejected because im not citing evidence or whatever. Even though I got ALL of my info from one website. Also, it keeps saying my article reads as an advert and not an article. Which its not. Evant79 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide which article? AdmiralCarl (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a Draft, I have completed writing for the upcoming "Norwegian Aura" for Norwegian Cruise line. Though, I dug far deep into the web and Re-submitted with major changes to the text and references. Evant79 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's Draft:Norwegian Aura. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft will be decllined again, because you have absolutely zero sources that are independent of the topic.

Please read WP:Golden Rule. It's a short, easy read. Do it right now. It tells you what we expect in a draft to show the topic is notable.

If you cannot find any sources that meet the three simple WP:Golden Rule criteria, then it is WP:TOOSOON for this ship to merit an article here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Routine example, Evant79: Aura represents an evolution of the Prima Class design and builds on the success of earlier ships in the series, such as Norwegian Prima, Norwegian Viva, Norwegian Aqua, and Norwegian Luna.

• No source is provided (let alone a good one). Why should the reader believe this?
• "B represents an evolution of A": Why not "B is a slightly revised A"?
• What does "B builds on the success of A" actually mean? (To me, it reads like vacuous brochure-speak.)

--Hoary (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I think I'm just going to abandon this one. I'm too deep into a hole and can't come out. Thanks all for the help. Evant79 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries. AdmiralCarl (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to delete it, you can tag the draft with {{db-g7}}, or simply blank the entire page, and an administrator will come along and delete it. You can always recover it again when the topic is notable, by posting a request at WP:REFUND.

Or, you can just let it expire, because I have un-submitted your draft, so it will be automatically deleted after six months of inactivity, after which you can still request restoration at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:TOOSOON. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft submission query

I am attempting to submit a new draft for review. When I click on the "Submit draft for review" tab it goes to another page (white background with a blue tab titled "Submit draft"), but when I click on the tab nothing seems to happen. I the return to the draft page and update (purge), but it still says "This draft has not been submitted for review. I've been attempting this for several days now to no avail. Please advise on next steps.

Thank you for your attention to this matter Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly someone with the technical knowledge will solve the problem with the button that isn't working.

My comment has to do with the sources you've written this draft from - almost every one of them is an announcement or a bio page. They're not wrong, but they're also not good enough to support an article - and the reason is that announcements and bio pages are only forms of advertising. They don't tell the history of your subject; instead, they tell us the messages he wants us to hear.

Until you get some better sources - which means not bios, not interviews, and not announcements, but long real stories written by the reporter alone - I don't think this will be accepted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I will look into it and adjust citations accordingly Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nthabiseng Modise, I tried pressing the button and ended up at a page asking for more information, so it's definitely something on your end. However, I can make it submit on your behalf, so I've done that. If you have this problem again, put {{AfC submission}} at the very start of your draft and it will very helpfully auto-submit itself. Meadowlark (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your assistance, thank you Nthabiseng Modise (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we trace edits via their contents?

I've run into this a few times. I find a piece of information on an article that is either unsourced or out of place, and I check the edit history to try to find when it was added. I can't find it by searching manually.

Are there any ways to track edits by what text was edited or the length of the edit? For instance, an edit length greater than +10, or an edit that contains the word "duplex"? SenshiSun (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a browser extension that can tell you who added a particular bit of content to an article, if you are using a desktop browser. See mw:Who Wrote That? Meters (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Or use “Find addition/removal” at the top of the page history. - Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Find addition/removal" is also known as Wikiblame, and it definitely does what you want, @SenshiSun. Put in a word or phrase and it will offer up the diffs where that word or phrase existed. From there it's very simple detective work. Meadowlark (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Meadowlark, Meters, and Arjayay! I appreciate it. SenshiSun (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Declined Draft - Feedback on Updated Version

Hi everyone.

My first draft I submitted for AfC was declined for peacock language and too many sources. I can understand this feedback and appreciate the editor for taking the time to read through it. For transparency, this article has a COI tag.

I have gone over it and thoroughly reviewed the article and made updates. I want to abide by Wikipedia's publishing guidelines, so was hoping someone could please read my new draft and confirm if it is now strong enough to submit for AfC, if there is more I can do or it's a lost cause.

I appreciate I have a COI with this article but I would like to note I have been actively working on edits throughout Wikipedia as I am committed and believe in what Wikipedia is working toward. I do understand however the difficulty with COI articles but have strived to only keep it to information that has been shared by third-party news sources.

I appreciate everyone's help and efforts. Many thanks in advance.

Boyd2703 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI to generate the content by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know about you but it seems promotional in style, I can’t fully comment on it as business drafts aren’t my expertise, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate that and your time to review.

I suppose this is what I am finding difficult as well, as I am uncertain as to what element is 'promotional' but understand this could be how it is interpreted. I have purposely focused on information that is all publicly available and reported by third party sources and is simply the 'facts' of the business.

Thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Promotional language is usually what the company wants to promote, so websites sponsored by the company or the company website itself can include big, bold and flowery language. Wikipedia requires the facts from independent sources, which usually also discuss the facts (unless they have a bias od are being paid, then they aren’t independent) for example:

” Saltus provides investment management, financial planning, pension planning, and tax and estate planning services. It provides financing and operation support for advisory businesses through its Partnership Programme” this although linked to something sounds a little promotional, the use of the word “provides” can sometimes indicate that, although I’m not sure how I would change it and I’m the the authority on matters like these so I can easily be corrected. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

That makes sense! I have avoided using sources from the company website and don't have any sources that were sponsored by the firm either. I like that flagging about the word 'provides' and understand what you mean. I'll go through and see what I can change when it comes to explanations like this.

Thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your welcome, a quick tip is that if it sounds like it would be on a LinkedIN post or on the company’s website then that is promotional (most of the time, although it here probably are the odd exception such as true facts etc.) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Boyd2703 Promotional means the kind of information expected by bosses, investors, and customers. A Wikipedia article cannot seem like it was written to give that kind of information. If the boss is angry that the article doesn't represent his company properly, and if the article fails to attract any customers, then the article is probably not promotional. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

While that is one definition, I think that is particularly narrow; my definition would be, "content designed for possible customers instead of researchers". VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I used to leave bosses out of this as well, but for many of the people who come here asking for help because of promotional writing, their boss is at the root of the problem. They are stuck trying to reconcile [what they know their boss wants] with [what they hope Wikipedia will accept], and it makes sense to tell them directly: what their boss wants is not going to happen. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your help and insights.

Yes, I can definitely see where that would create an issue! Whilst I work for the business, I will say my boss has no say/has not read what I have written. This is an entirely independent project. I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines completely.

In saying that, seeing everyone's replies makes it seem like it still reads promotionally and I will go back through and see what I can change/edit or if it's a lost cause currently.

Would you say the sources are in line with Wikipedia's notability? They are all third party news sources (no paid sponsorship etc.) and I have ensured I haven't used any from the website. Boyd2703 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It might help to think of it as "What would my boss have to say if they DID read it?" It doesn't automatically have to include negative content, but it should if there is negative coverage in sources - not just the ones you've currently included, but any sources that can be found that meet Wikipedia standards. Any valid criticisms or public issues the company has had in the past would probably come up - the types of things bosses like to bury. Even if those don't exist it should stay neutral. If the answer to "Would my boss like this" is yes, it's probably promotional. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, that makes sense!

I feel like I have kept to the facts and only provided information reported on by third-party news sources. I like this nuance and will go back through and read my article through this lens.

Many thanks! Boyd2703 (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! No, I didn't use AI to generate the content. After the first draft I did a thorough review myself and edited everything I thought could be an issue based on the feedback. Afterwards, I asked AI to identify if there was any further peacock language and to highlight the words/sentences. From there, I went in and reviewed/altered the wording to what I thought was straight forward and in no way promotional but didn't allow AI to generate the content.

I recognise I am still learning, so appreciate if this was a wrong course of action. Thanks for your question and help! Boyd2703 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as you write the actual words yourself and don't generate or copy them, using it for suggestions only is acceptable use (See: WP:NEWLLM). We see a lot of generated content - including in comments like this, not just articles - so sometimes formal phrasing and grammar starts to sound suspicious. AI is trained on real people's words, after all, and some people's normal writing style (especially neurodiverse) is more like it than others. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft is now located at Draft:Saltus 2. HurricaneZeta^C 14:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Boyd2703 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Krishna Burugula

Krishna Burugula

Hi, Does this Notable? ~2026-72209-0 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Well it seems like RangerRus believed he is a notable actor and film maker, so that is how he is notable. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

how to create my wikipedia

my name is TABISH ALI “I am a professional singer who has participated in Indian Idol Season 13 and Indian Idol Season 16. I would like to create my own Wikipedia page. Could you please guide me through the process of creating a Wikipedia page and let me know the necessary steps to effectively showcase my achievements and experiences?” TabishALI2003 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. If you are notable somebody else will write an article about you, I would strongly suggest you don't do it yourself. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

TabishALI2003 Wikipedia is not the place to "showcase your achievements and experiences"- you should do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi and blessings your way, I am also trying to figure this same question out. I don't understand what determines if someone has a page in this encyclopedia or if it is all just a bias oligarchy running things yet. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Notability is determined by how much coverage there is in UNBIASED secondary sources about the subject. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@TabishALI2003, @Digitalgodus:

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Until enough people unconnected with you have chosen to publish enough material about you to base an encyclopaedia article on, anybody who tries to write an article about you is wasting their time. (This is roughly what we mean when we talk about them not being notable).

Until you have enough editing experience to understand important Wikipedia policies such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, promotion and reliable, independent, secondary sources, then for you to try and create any article will probably be a waste of your time.

For almost anybody, trying to create an article about themselves will be a waste of their time. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Help me

I lost my account via forgetting to save the password it didn't have an email Morocco18134alt (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you lost your password and did not associate an email address with your account, your account cannot be recovered. You are free to continue using your new account, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You can also edit the user page of your original account to mention the change of name. Another possibility is to return to a browser / device on which you accessed that account in the past and see whether it stored the username/password combination locally. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Normal Nia (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is "the truth"; see WP:TRUTH. It is up to the reader to examine the sources provided when determining what it is they think about what they read. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Without getting too philosophical, Wikipedia is no different to any other source; how do you know that anything is "true"? What we try to do is present information from what are generally considered WP:Reliable sources, and cite those sources so you can read them and make your own mind up. - Arjayay (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Normal Nia, Arjayay is correct. If you like, you can read Reliability of Wikipedia and see if you find it, and its references, plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

How to start a encyclopedia topic

I am trying to be more understood and in between social media, and my blog, there are news outlets interviews conducted on my user page here on wikipedia bio and I want to discuss theroetical physics math meta and more but I need some direction to push me in the right direction, as I do not understand how to get anything done on this community. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Digitalgodus: The first thing you have to do is change your name to something else that isn't a name of your website. You may do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. You can then start with simple stuff like fixing typos and removing promotional content from articles. Note that Wikipedia isn't a social media site and we don't host interviews here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, as per WP:Forum, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We do not discuss topics, other than to agree what information, taken from WP:reliable sources, should be included in our articles. - Arjayay (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

i plead the first on my user name. Your personal feelings that come out into your mind about my user handle are not relevant to this discourse. Digitalgodus (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not their personal feelings, it's policy - specifically WP:PROMONAME. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And besides, First Amendment rights don't apply to private platforms like Wikipedia. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The Constitution restricts the power of the US government. Wikipedia is not affiliated with the US government, so it doesn't apply. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Digitalgodus. Answer this for me first; do you want to create an encyclopedic article about your blog, or do you just want another venue to promote it? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

COI question—writing Wiki article for a client

Hey there! Full disclosure: I am a content writer at a digital marketing agency and one of our clients has asked if I'm able to create a Wikipedia article for their company. I am super new to Wikipedia, only created an account today, and I've done some research about COI, but would love some expert input if possible! Is this just a no-go, or am I able to draft the article so long as it adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality, notability, and other guidelines? I'd be happy to give more information about the company and a list of sources if that's helpful. Thanks! Looshsprout (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Looshsprout. It is possible to create an article for your client if you abide by the policies. Relevant material can be found at WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:AFC. Good luck. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You are required by the Terms of Use to disclose paid editing, see WP:PAID.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client. In short- most in your position fail in their efforts, especially without prior knowledge and experience. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles. However, if you have gathered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your client(not interviews, announcements of routine business activities) that shows how the company is notable in a Wikipedia sense, you may use the Article Wizard to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Looshsprout.

In addition to what others have said, I'd like to make two further points:

1. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. That last sentences especially applies to anything your client knows, says, or wants to say about themselves.
2. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Eastern Name Order question

I received an email from an editor who asked me for help with an article about a Chinese professor, Xu Jianbin. The correspondent editor wants to change the article so that the name of the subject is displayed in the usual English-language style. They want to rearrange the name to Western name order, which would be Jianbin Xu. I have looked at the article, and I see that the name in the lede sentence has been reversed and so is in Western name order, and the title is still in Eastern name order. I know that inconsistency should be corrected. I am inferring that what the emailer wants is assistance in moving the article to retitle it.

I think that the emailer is making a good faith mistake in asking to westernize the name, and the title should be left as is and the lede sentence restored to Eastern name order. However, I have looked at the Manual of Style, and I didn't see where it says to use Eastern name order for academics in Hong Kong (because I didn't see where it said what form of the name to use). Maybe I was looking right at it and didn't notice it. I can't find the instructions on when to use Eastern name order for Chinese names.

So I think that I have a two-part question:

• 1. Where are the instructions on when to use Eastern name order for Chinese names?
• 2. How should the name for this person be presented?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I expect that "Make it match the reliable sources that are in English" should at least be part of the answer, if not the complete answer. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the name in the lede to Xu Jianbin and added the {{family name footnote}} template, which adds a footnote explaining In this Chinese name, the family name is Xu. Athanelar (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the lede. I thought that was what should be done, but wanted additional opinions.

I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Ordering. I am not entirely satisfied for two reasons. First, it was not obvious, starting from the MOS, where this guideline was. It was too hard to find a useful guideline. Second, it describes Eastern name order without calling it Eastern name order, which would be a helpful link.

So I understand that if reliable sources in English use Western name order, a move/rename might be in order.

I will leave the article as corrected and let the matter drop unless the originator, who is mistaken in good faith about name order, raises the issue again. Thank you again. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

only 1 edit?

what sort of edits if more than one edit where made to the following pages:

• Template:25 biggest cities of Norway
• Template:42 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:30 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:40 most populous cities of Norway

Logoshimpo (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Logoshimpo, could you clarify what you mean? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} or were there more than 1 edit? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Your comment is unclear. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

how many edits were made to these templates or were they just redirects? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Logoshimpo.

I don't know what you mean by "What sort of edits"?

Also, none of those templates exist.

Do you mean Template:Largest cities of Norway or Template:25 largest municipalities of Norway? These are different templates; and I can't find the other three at all. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They were all previously deleted, so I suppose they're asking what the edit history of those templates were prior to their deletion. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

that's correct. what is the edit history of the 4 templates i listed? did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}}? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

which 3 are you referring to? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They seem to have had some connection to block-evading "Amss125". Why do you ask? -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

i'm interested to see if the templates had been moved from one template to another. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Can these be used in Wikipedia?

Context: I have a idea for a Wikipedia article on SDH Triplicity. Context on what SDH Triplicity is: SDH Triplicity (formerly known as The Rodfellows from 2014 to 2021 (with this name being the most commonly known outside the community), and The Jungle Forest Gang from 2021 to 2023) are a group of anthropomorphic cartoon characters created by Dan P. Lyons. There was also a movie made in 2020 called The Rodfellows Movie. It never had a widespread release on movie theaters, but there is information spread online (i think it came from someone on the chat on a Saberspark twitch stream if i remember it correctly, but i honestly dont know) that said that it did actually played on a local theater they went there. I know that many of these probably coundl't be used in Wikipedia, but i'm just here to confirm that there is a IMDB page and many IMDB-like websites that have this movie, a Rate Your Music page, and there was a DVD release (There was a page online where you could buy the DVD but it no longer exists, the only two concrete proofs it even existed, other than it being mentioned on few wikis, is a now-defunct link https://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00ZWFJ1G&pp=1 which has a archive in the Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20230121034447/https://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00ZWFJ1G&pp=1 and a DVD rip on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vts-01-1_20220121 ), and even Plex, a streaming service has this movie. https://darrenalex2000.wixsite.com/sdh-triplicity https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12716012/ https://www.csfd.cz/film/924518-the-rodfellows-movie/prehled/ https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/1394370/?utm_referrer=www.google.com https://watch.plex.tv/cs/movie/the-rodfellows-movie https://en.kinorium.com/2407377/ https://rateyourmusic.com/film/the-rodfellows-movie/ ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the poor quality of sources here, it seems unlikely that the topic would pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Which ones could pass and be used on Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

None of them would be suitable for Wikipedia, see reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-73469-7.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Unless you can find several sources of that nature, no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Awards, Thanks, Gifts.

Hello,

There is something I’ve noticed on many user profiles—some editors have awards, thanks, or trophy-style achievement icons. I’ve been editing Wikipedia for more than seven months now, but I haven’t received any awards yet.

I wanted to ask if there are any specific tasks or types of contributions that lead to receiving these appreciation awards or trophies. If so, I would kindly appreciate your guidance on what kind of work I should focus on to earn them. Jameskida (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

None of them are official, so it's "oh, Jameskida did something cool! I think I'll give him one of those award icons!" DS (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jameskida. Most of the awards have no official status. You can see the various kinds at WP:Awards. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok i got it and thanks for your time. Jameskida (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Completely Understood.. Jameskida (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I know that BarnStars can be received and given by anyone. But like you… I’ve always wondered about the rest. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Trying to 'earn' anything through your editing is a bad road to start down. Expect no reward for your hard work and you can't go wrong. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A simple “thank you” from another editor is always nice and been enough for me. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I honestly had no bad intention or beieng greedy. I was just curious because I saw tasks on some pages where the page creator or other people ask for help to fix things. I thought that by completing those tasks, people earn those award things. Thanks for clearing me out that these awards has no official status.

Thanks All i understood everything loud and clear. @~2026-19602-0 @ColinFine@Athanelar@DragonflySixtyseven Jameskida (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Important Update

Greetings, Some people keep reporting the fact that Wikipedia is yet to have an article on KOD Ajayi.

It will be appreciated for a public figure of such influence to be featured as soon as possible. Thank you. ~2026-73286-2 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, luckily for some people, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, and if they can find good sources of information about this KOD Ajayi figure, they can make an article themselves. Athanelar (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-73286-2, and welcome to the Teahouse

Wikipedia is entirely organised and edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose: there is nobody who assigns jobs, and nobody has a particular job unless they choose to make it their job.

This means that there is no reliable way to ask for a particular article to be written. There is a place to ask (Requested articles), and you're welcome to ask for it there: but in all honesty, most requests sit there forever.

So unless you are going to do an amazing job of getting people interested in working on an article about KOD Ajayi (which you haven't done so far: I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this who has never heard of them), nobody is going to come and say "OK, I'll research an article about him".

So, if you want an article written in Wikipedia, the most effective way is to do it yourself.

But there are problems: writing an article is probably the most challenging and difficult task there is for a new editoor. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

Secondly, writing an article starts with finding suitable published sources, because A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. If suitable sources do not exist, then no article about that subject is possible, whoever writes it.

Thirdly, the fact that you are asking for an article about this person makes me wonder if you are connected with the person, or even whether you are that person. If you have some connection with them, then Wikipedia regards you as an editor with a conflict of interest: that doesn't mean you may not try and write an article, but it makes it even harder to put aside absolutely everything you know about the subject, and just summarise what the independent sources say.

If you actually are KOD Ajayi, then writing about yourself is so monumentally unlikely to succeed that you are very strongly discouraged from even trying: see autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Some people keep reporting the fact that Wikipedia is yet to have an article on KOD Ajayi. Where do these people keep reporting this fact? (And what has been importantly updated?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

My websearch on the name turned up at least four apparently different people, none of whom seemed likely to meet Wikipedia's required standards for Notability (which means "well-documented", not "important") and none seemingly more prominent than the others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

infographics

Hello again :)

Is it ok to upload infographics i created using Canva, or Procreate?

many thnks in advance.

Happypenguins82 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Happypenguins82, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've noticed we don't actually provide tea that often, so here you go: 🍵

Now to answer your question, yes, plenty of Wikipedians upload self-created infographics. While the usual software of choice is Inkscape, Canva or Procreate can work just as well for illustrating a concept as long as its neatly formatted and would work well in an encyclopedia. A useful tip for adding an image, or any content, is "would the article be improved by adding this?", and "if I proposed this to be included in Encyclopedia Britanica, aside from space issues, would they consider it?". Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't use any of the images provided by Canva. Almost all of these images are copyrighted and ineligible for Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. You can use Wikimedia images, your own images, text, and any of the basic "elements" things (you cannot copyright a square, circle, or polygon). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

roger👍

ill use only my own creations made from scratch

thank you so much for all the clarifications :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You can also use images from Wikimedia Commons I believe, or any images under a free Creative Commons license, as long as those are properly credited when you upload your infographic. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

oh thank you so much for the warm welcome and the lovely tea, it goes well with my fresh home made cookies, try them and tell me if you think i added too much sugar 🍪🍪🍪

ill take your notes to carefull thought, im working on an article that could really use some infographic to better explain certain biological structures. Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A useful tip for adding an image, or any content, is "would the article be improved by adding this?"

I would modify this a little: ... "would everybody else agree the article was improved by adding this?"

Most of the time, the person who is offering to add something would be thinking "Of course it would improve the article! Otherwise, why would I even be offering it?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, forgot that part there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

btw if the infographics i create would resemble the ones that exist in the article sources, is that ok? or considered as a copyrights violation? Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the relevant point is that they can't claim copyright on a concept, but they can claim it on a picture. But I don't know the practical applications of that distinction. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ill open a new question with copyrights as the topic, just to be extra careful.

Thank you very much for the helpful guidance :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

ill make sure to keep that in mind. Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Request: Move AfC draft from userspace to Draft: namespace

Hello! I have an AfC submission in my userspace sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FleurTdeFrance/sandbox The yellow box says "This page should probably be located at Draft:Paul Deheuvels (move)", but when I try to move it, I get an automated filter error (new editor restrictions on page moves). Could a helpful editor please move it to Draft:Paul Deheuvels (or the appropriate Draft: title) for me? This will help with the AfC review process. Thank you so much! FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The filter is working properly. Per log entry 43321929, you were trying to move Talk:Paul Deheuvels to Draft:Paul Deheuvels instead of moving your sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear why you are doing this as we already have an article on Paul Deheuvels. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(I am Paul Deheuvels daughter. He died Friday)

Extreme events happen: earthquakes, tsunamis, finance, lottery game, meteor... these extreme events were my father's specialty. Before heavy computers, only maths could address the problem. Even with computers, you can't always calculate properly the extreme. There needs to be strong references for mathematicians and industrials who are confronted to these problems. I offer them in my draft.

The current text is erroneous. The last editor removed "emeritus" and replaced it by "retired" for instance, which is false.

The bio details are not that important but why not? Many mathematicians do have them (Laurent Schwarz for instance). The last editor left for my father the high school Lakanal...

I am not a doctor in maths but I think that only two lines for his scientific work is weak. Thanks for reading! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It has already been moved to Draft:Paul Deheuvels, FleurTdeFrance. From there, it's going nowhere. If you have no conflict of interest, you are free to improve Paul Deheuvels. I note that on your user page you say "I sometimes edit articles related to my family members and follow Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guidelines." If you do have any kind of conflict of interest with Deheuvels, you should instead make suggestions on Talk:Paul Deheuvels. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have made them on the Talk. I am his daughter, so I am forbidden to make them directly in the page. See my previous comment on why math readers could modify it!

Talk:Paul Deheuvels

Thanks! FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new draft, its better to use {{Edit COI}} on the talk page to propose new additions. This makes it easier for each bit to be refined when added, and makes it easier for volunteers to make sure the suggested edits are in line with policy. Currently, we would have to ensure the entirety of Draft:Paul Deheuvels is up to standard all at once to replace the article with it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello 45dogs and other editors,

Thank you for the helpful advice — you're right that proposing changes incrementally via {{Edit COI}} on the talk page is a better approach than replacing the whole article at once. I appreciate the guidance and will follow that method going forward.

I'll start by proposing small, well-sourced additions (e.g., basic biography details, honors, a brief summary of research areas) one at a time, with clear references.

For reference, my sandbox draft (which I won't push as a full replacement) is still here for comparison if needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FleurTdeFrance/sandbox

Thank you again for your time and patience.

FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you help point out what needs to be fixed for submission

 Courtesy link: User:RobertVelline/sandbox

Extended content (of draft) HurricaneZeta^C 23:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Robby Vee

Robby Vee From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Velline, known by his stage name, Robby Vee, is an American singer, songwriter, recording artist, and guitarist who is in the Rockabilly Hall of Fame and the Iowa Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.[1][2] 

Biography Vee was born Robert Velline, named after his father, Bobby Vee, a famous singer in the 1960s. He has been performing his unique style of rock-n-roll music for years on tour with the legends and architects of rock-n-roll, sharing credits and stages with artists including Carl Perkins, Bo Diddley, Albert Lee, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, Sir Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Dion, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice, The Crickets, Dick Clarks Caravan of Stars Rock n Roll Shows and his father Bobby Vee to name a few. Throughout his music career, Vee has received many positive reviews. Radio-TV editor of Billboard magazine Claude Hall wrote, “If this guy had been around during the era of Elvis, he would have given Elvis a run for his money.” Vee formed the “Rock-n-Roll Caravan with Strings & Things” to celebrate the American Bandstand ‘feel good’ era of rock-roll and Rockabilly music, honoring his father Bobby Vee’s Legacy.[2]. He has had many successful albums through out his career spanning over decades. Vee has captured the attention of audiences and respected industry professionals both Nationally and Internationally with his 2025 release “Shake It All Up!” debuting in the top 200 at #183 on the AMA Radio Album Charts and over 250,000 weekly streams of his 2024 singles “A Forever Kind of Love and Good Morning.” In 2023 Robby Vee’s Vinyl Album Release “Double Spin” featuring the single “BUZZ" reached #91 on the Modern Specialty radio Singles Chart. Accolades Robby Vee has been referred to as the “Prince of Twang” and as a “Neo-Rockabilly Artist” for combining the roots of his rockabilly heritage with the new sounds of today. In 2015, Vee was honored by the Senate of the State of Minnesota with a “Senate Resolution” honoring his life, art, and legacy and recognizing his involvement with charities. Vee is currently an Artist Spokesperson for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America, “Artist Raising a Voice For Care.” Vee’s Blue Moon Blue Project featuring the song “Blue Moon Blues” was written for Alzheimer’s awareness and is featured in his shows. Also in 2015, Vee was inducted into the Rockabilly Hall of Fame alongside his father, Bobby Vee, including a “Second Generation” artist recognition. In 2022, Vee was inducted into the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame by the IRRMA. He is also recognized by the American & Canadian Rockabilly Hall of Fame. 2004 Vee performed at the prestigious Royal Albert Hall, London, England, as an ‘Honorary Cricket’ (Buddy Holly & the Crickets). He is also featured on The Crickets “The Crickets & Their Buddies” 2004 release. Vee headlined the weekend slot at the Surf Ballroom’s Winter Dance Party Tribute Concert in Clear Lake Iowa that same year honoring Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens & J.P. Richardson (the Big Bopper). In 2020, Valens' sister, Connie Valens, invited him to perform at the Ritchie Valens Lunch-in. For the third time, Vee headlined the largest Car Show in America, “Back to the 50s,” in 2022. 1995 & 1997 Vee performed at Paul McCartney’s Buddy Holly Week, Live Streaming to over a million subscribers in 1997. In 1996, he performed at Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 22nd Sydmonton Festival and in 1998 he performed for Webber’s 50th Birthday Party at Andrew Lloyd Webber’s home outside of London, England. As a co-writer, musician & singer Robby Vee contributed and performed on many Bobby Vee records, including Wink of an Eye (Platinum Collection Rockabilly Stars The Everly Brothers, Bobby Vee & Gene Vincent Vol 1), Adobe Sessions, Whatever Happened To Peggy Sue (Tim Rice, Bobby Vee & the Vee), Down The Line, I Wouldn’t Change A Thing, Last Of The Great Rhythm Guitar Players & UK 90 and We're Going To Be Friends, Rockin' Legends Pay Tribute to Jack White (Vocal Producer/Arranger for Bobby Vee). Vee is a Founding member, Songwriter, Vocalist, and guitarist for the Rockabilly group The Vee’s. Records include Bigger Than Ed “Really Big Shoe,” Vee For Victory (Single/ Limited UK Release), Two Weeks Later, The Vees (EP), Crash Boom Bang It Out, Moon Dog House Party, and Nashville Sessions ‘Limited Release.’ Discography Robby Vee & Beej Chaney (Shake it all up..!), Double Spin (Vinyl Edition), A Forever Kind of Love/Good Morning, Double Spin, Vee Hall, Blue Moon Blue, Viva La Twang, Liquid Love, Bop, Early Years with the Vee's, Vee sings Vee (Robby & Bobby Vee), SINGLE: 'This Love', SINGLES: Champagne Lane & Permanently Temporary. Film, TV, and Streaming Dedications (Robby Vee Acoustic Live Stream for Alzheimer's Foundation of American Fund Raising), Catch Me If You Can (movie appearance), Keep It Rockin' On and On (featured song from the movie "Don't Let Go"), Whole Worlds Rockin' (Jazzercise Theme Song), Walk Right In (National Commercial for Great Clips), Paul McCartney's "Rock & Roller Dance Party" (Roseland Ballroom New York City NY, Live Stream), Garmin Products (Paul Douglas Weather App Theme Music), Live at The London Palladium (Andrew Lloyd Webber Production for Archive), Tell Me How (NPR Spotlight Performance), Pat Boone’s, Easter Seal Telethon, Cotton Club (WCCO-TV CBS, Evening News Performance & Intro Theme Song), Robby Vee Music Video- A Forever Kind of Love, Robby Vee Music Video- Buzz, Robby Vee Music Video- Good Morning

, Robby Vee & Bobby Vee Music Video- The Man In Me
, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Small Town, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Vacant (Shake It all Up), Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- We're Open All Night, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Give Mn Your Heart, Robby Vee & Beej Chaney Music Video- Straight On

References____________________________________________________________________

https://www.albertleatribune.com/2023/07/rockabilly-performer-and-son-of-bobby-vee-coming-to-albert-lea/

 External links Website
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7UCpFh8hJoI&feature=youtu.be 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1VBsw4gBg  https://youtube.com/watch?v=IEtcQMdRMaY 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5jy_v0ubLLA&feature=youtu.be 
RobertVelline (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RobertVelline (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that there are three MoS:PEACOCK language instances (words in bold are peacock): many positive reviews, many successful albums, and and respected industry professionals and that too many sentences and paragraphs have no inline citations to a reference to a reliable source. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

can you tell me what i need to put sources on?

The 3 bold Mos:PEACOCK need to be removed? ~2026-73372-0 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@RobertVelline @~2026-73372-0, practically everything requires an inline citation, and all of the draft's content must come from those sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise, how else can we trust what the draft says? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they do. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RobertVelline, and welcome to the Teahouse! I noticed we don't provide actual tea too often, so: 🍵🍵🍵 :To answer your question, I took a look at the draft in question and it cites no reliable sources. Reliable sources, specifically independent secondary sources that cover the subject in significant detail (see WP:42, the Wikipedia version of the answer to life, the universe, and everything) in order to a) verify facts about the subject, and b) prove that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on it. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability to help you with proving the notability of the subject, if it even is notable. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

hellllllllo

can anyone tell me why my draft got declined and what i need to put sources on

Draft:Jon Zherka

thnx :) Gamb33ro (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

i mean like specificall what needs to be improved Gamb33ro (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to show that people who don't know him and don't care about him have published major stories all about him, in major trusted publications. You also need to wipe out all the information that comes from him, or from people who know him. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gamb33ro. It looks like all four of your sources are affiliated with the subject, so there is no evidence this person is notable or we can reliably trust the draft. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/ZherkaOfficial hes got 200k followers on his twitter and 160k on his youtube,https://www.youtube.com/jonzherka ill add it to the draft, Is that enough? Gamb33ro (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you actually read the links I gave. WP:N especially. So no, that is not enough. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

okay, i think i understand now. I'll grab some articles about zherka and find if they can verify any info, if they;ll can ill add them, and then ill come back and ask if this is enough. Thanks so much! Sorry for not reading the hyperlinks, i mean i just did but sorry for not doing it at first. Gamb33ro (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There i added and linked some sources Gamb33ro (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:UGC. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To add to that "are affiliated with" part; on Wikipedia, reliable sources need to be independent of the subject of the article. For example, the U.S. government as a source to write an article about the U.S. Constitution is not independent as the Constitution is the government's charter and the document that established the government, therefore, it is not independent of it as a source. AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

how do i do this sorry @Tarlby there we go Gamb33ro (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Lynch44, who declined the draft. Like others have said, Popularity does not guarantee notability. What determines notability is the number of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Twitter posts aren't reliable per WP:UGC. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

trying to get a draft reviewed.

Hi. Im trying to get a draft reviewed. It should be a simple page...It is referenced by a bunch of other wikipedia pages...So the organization in question Ardsley Curling Club wanted to make sure that they had a page for those links to land on. Draft:Ardsley Curling Club (ACC)

It was reviewed a couple of times the first night it was created January 27th ...and rejected because of insufficient references. At this point the references have been added....AND a bunch of other stuff was added and cleaned up.

Yet no one has looked at it in days. The review queue has moved from 1400 to 1900.

What can i do to get this page reviewed and (i assume) approved.

Thanks in advance. Paul10583 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing to try. Just wait. It might be in a minute, it might be in a month or two. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Paul10583 Please disclose your COI on your user page, for better visibility. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review?(related to the Olympics, perhaps?) 331dot (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I dont understand what you mean about disclosing my COI on my user page...Do you mean that i should explain what conflict i have with the Ardsley Curling Club on the paul10583 page?

And yes, the Ardsley Curling Club president (whom i know) would like to get the page up before the olympics because the have current and past members who are known olympic names...who even site the Ardsley club on their olympics pages.

TY Paul10583 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Paul10583, you post the additional COI notice on your user page (i.e. Paul10583). -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You assume approved? That's quite an assumption, Paul10583. Better than just waiting, spend these frustrating minutes, hours, days or weeks getting a grasp of how references work. (Tip: You add the reference immediately after the assertion that it supports.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for commenting...AND thanks to the person who actually looked at my draft and told me what was mechanically wrong with my references.

Now i can put the citiation in the correct place so they can be clicked on AND i need to have a more historical third party reference for the history/existence of the club.

So at least i know how to proceed.

-paul Paul10583 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It's improving rapidly, Paul10583. But read carefully. I mean, the first sentence (and a bit?) reads: The Ardsley Curling Club (ACC) is a curling, club started in 1932. is a dedicated-ice curling club in Westchester County, New York, about thirty minutes north of New York City. Grammatical oopsie. And if you don't specify either where in NYC (its center, whatever that might be? It's northern edge) or whether you're assumed to be traveling by car, bicycle or whatever, the distance is very unclear. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for reading the draft and giving advice and catching some of the awful grammatical oopsies I missed on my last submission. This can be very overwheming. Im finally getting a hang of it (i think) :D Paul10583 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

COI editor – no responses to {{Edit COI}} proposals on deceased father's stub article

Hello Teahouse volunteers,

I am the daughter of Paul Deheuvels (article: Paul Deheuvels) and have disclosed a clear COI.

The article is a short stub. I have made several small, sourced {{Edit COI}} proposals on the talk page (e.g., updating lead for death date, adding honors list, brief research summary), but they have received no responses or action yet.

The actual page of Paul Deheuvels is false (retired instead of emeritus; bio limited to high school and college; two lines on scientific work). He is an academician, elected member of ISI, ISS and corresponding member of the Real Academia, because of the scientific work (for which I provided links).

Talk page: Talk:Paul Deheuvels

I would greatly appreciate if an experienced editor could review one or two of the proposals and either implement them or explain why not. I'm happy to make any adjustments.

Thank you for your help!

FleurTdeFrance (talk) FleurTdeFrance (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that your father passed away 4 days ago. May his memory be a blessing. I must ask, though, would that not mean that he no longer holds those elected positions?

Do you have sources that say these things? Preferably independent ones, as the article already has a template tag regarding excessive primary sources?

Unfortunately, if not, there is little we can do. I know a significant amount of things about many Wikipedia article subjects (including biographies) that aren't in the articles themselves, but because these things aren't independently and/or reliably sourced, I can't add them. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly declaring your COI, FleurTdeFrance. You ask for many changes. Here's the most compact item (Proposed additions:academic work): Several math scientists refer to their invitations to foreign universities, which I propose to add on Paul Deheuvels page. It allows to follow the paths of ideas and communications. This isn't a clear request; rather, it's a rationale for and description of material to be added. It expects some other editor to read the description, imagine what it might entail, decide if it should be implemented.... But most other editors who might be interested in implementing suggestions are hurried. You may, if you wish, provide a rationale for the addition; but in order to greatly increase the likelihood of acceptance you should provide the material to be included (complete and of course referenced, so that it can be added verbatim). Incidentally "Several articles about similar mathematicians include XYZ, so this article about a mathematician should include XYZ too" is not a strong argument. In principle, you should instead cite a policy or guideline, but in practice attempting to do that is hard work. So I suggest instead that if you appeal to precedent you should point to precedent in one or more featured articles (as these have been rigorously checked and are supposed to be representative of the best in Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

This is the text I mention to complete the strictly academic work:

Beyond his scientific contributions, Paul Deheuvels played a major role in structuring statistics in France, notably by founding and directing the Laboratoire de Statistique Théorique et Appliquée (LSTA) at Université Pierre et Marie Curie from 1980 to 2013.

He supervised nearly numerous PhD students, many of whom have become prominent in academia and industry. He held visiting professorships at institutions including KU Leuven (Belgium), Università degli Studi di Torino (Italy), Columbia University (1989, 1999), and Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands). FleurTdeFrance (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I will post the rest in the talk about the page of Paul Deheuvels Talk:Paul Deheuvels FleurTdeFrance (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I have posted them all in Talk:Paul Deheuvels FleurTdeFrance (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

References

FleurTdeFrance, when you write

"Académie des Sciences".

I first thought that you meant

"Paul Deheuvels". Académie des Sciences. 23 January 2026.

(Note the needed information that I have added to the latter.) But I couldn't find all the information on it that's attributed to it. (I simply searched within it for "columbia", "leuven" and "louvain", and found none of the three.) I'm pretty sure that the information appears on Deheuvels' CV, to which the page links (and which I didn't bother to digest). But if the reference is to his CV, we're saying "He did this, and our reason for saying this is that he says he did it." And this is unsatisfactory. (Yes, it's inconceivable that a distinguished Professor Emeritus would stud his CV with fiction, but we don't rate credibility by age or eminence.) So you need better references.-- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. You are absolutely right that for now, I haven't found precise other sources about visiting professorships. The information below are summed up on the Academie page, but also in The Festschrift.

The text could suppress that part for now and would become:

Beyond his scientific contributions, Paul Deheuvels played a major role in structuring statistics in France, notably by founding and directing the Laboratoire de Statistique Théorique et Appliquée (LSTA) at Université Pierre et Marie Curie from 1980 to 2013.

He supervised numerous PhD students, many of whom have become prominent in academia and industry. FleurTdeFrance (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Should I make a new article? Treaty of Fort Laramie (1858)

Is the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1858 notable enough to make an article of? I saw articles for other treaties of fort laramie but never the one in 1858. Dekryptab!e (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dekryptab!e, and welcome to the teahouse! Since I realised we don't actually serve tea that often, here you go: 🍵🍵🍵

To answer your question, you would need to browse, say, Google Scholar and see if there are at least 3 or 4 reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject in significant detail. See WP:42, Wikipedia's version of the ultimate answer to the life, the universe, and everything. From that you can deduce if that is notable enough. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Cite Error

Draft:Norwegian Aura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Cite Error - Named reference was invoked but never found." Any fixes? Evant79 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that you copied from another article; please don't do that, it can lead to confusions like these. You need to go to the article you copied from, click on that source you used to take you to the references, go to the first instance of that reference (marked a), and copy that so that it actually defines the reference. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Evant79, welcome to the teahouse. I presume you are talking about Draft:Norwegian Aura. The draft is filled with instances of invoking references (like <ref name="CruiseMapperAura" />), but they aren't defined. To define this one, you need a reference that looks like <ref name="CruiseMapperAura">(ref content)</ref>. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Article ideas

Hello, teahouse. I was here, I think last year? I haven't been on in a while. But anyways, I was hoping to actually commit to an account for once (I've recently been banned on scratch for a misconception/account mixup, with no apparent appeal method) and was hoping to fix my internet rep before I become a YouTuber by building some cred online. So, I was hoping someone could give me an idea for an article that either doesn't exist yet or is so arbitrary or obscure that nobody will care if I make a duplicate. Thanks, @Notsharediplol Notsharediplol (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like an inexplicably complicated plan to get unbanned from a semi-popular coding website, and I'm not sure how creating a Wikipedia page links to it, but nevertheless it's good you are asking rather than forging ahead.

1) Editors and reviewers will know if you have created a duplicate of a page that already exists, and your page will be deleted very quickly. That is not a good idea.

2) There are lists of possible articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles, where people can ask for another editor to create an article. It would be good to look for requested articles that you have a pre-existing interest in, because you'll have a notion of whether or not the subject of the request article is actually notable etc.

If you have questions or ideas let me know. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This whole plan doesn't make sense. It doesn't improve your cred at all to do any of this, because nobody on other sites is going to believe "that was me on Wikipedia, I swear!" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

And "Hey look, that guy who got banned has also worked on some no-name crap on Wikipedia, so he's OK after all" is never going to be said. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Notsharediplol Also, at sort of a deeper level, cred doesn't come from your actions. It comes from the guesses people make about why you acted the way you did, and from how your actions affected them. Treating people badly in one place, and then trying to "work that off" by going to a different place and treating some different people better, ... well, if I do something to you so bad that you kick me out of your house and tell me to never come back, are you really going to change your mind if I later act OK to someone else, and I call you and tell you I was nice to them? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Formatting codes

Where is the page on Wikipedia which shows how to do Wikitext ? Italics, bold, bold+italics, bullet points, etc ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Possibly Help:Wikitext#Format and Help:Wikitext#Common_templates? You can also click on "Source" instead of "Visual" when editing a page and it will have bold, italic etc. on the top left corner above the text box. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

draft

I got blocked from publishing drafts on my... well draft, I listened to what the moderators said and more than doubled both the sources AND content of the page, as well as corrected some less formal writing, however it's being "automatically" blocked from being updated. I cant keep this tab open forever and I want to publish my draft which i've been working on and move onto other work. They blocked it because I didn't have enough sources, however now I do so can someone please help me

Draft:Jon Zherka Gamb33ro (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend you ask to be unblocked. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

AdmiralCarl, they aren't blocked. Its filter 614 stopping them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I've pushed the edit through. There wasn't a need to be worried, since it was stopped by an edit filter, meaning the content was saved as a log entry. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was able to publish the edit. Gamb33ro (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Wish the draft gets approved! AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

<3 Gamb33ro (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gamb33ro Your draft contains a lot of what he says about himself. You basically need to wipe all of that, and put only what reliable publishers want to say about him. For example his religion and the details of his ethnicity: they can't be mentioned unless publishers have said them in their own words (without getting prompted by him). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, wouldn't him saying hes catholic and Albanian be permitted under WP:BLPSELFPUB? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

My concern on BLPSELFPUB is part 5, which says an article can't include too much self-sourced material. Otherwise you're right. (I think this one may have way too much of it.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Not only did you not heed the advice in my decline comment, but you actively removed it.

I will repeat here what I said there: my strong suggestion to you is to give up on your draft for now. The odds of someone managing to successfully create an article as their first ever action on Wikipedia are astronomical.

It is patently obvious at the moment that you have no idea what a good source should be, or how to demonstrate notability; and that's fine, nobody would expect any differently from an editor whose account is literally a day old. Stick around making smaller edits to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works for a while. Creating new articles is literally one of the most difficult tasks here. Athanelar (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Spam and defamation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In here, and many other subjects, there are many un registered ppl spamming and defamationing (is that the word?) Wikipedia, saying "Exactly. A mouthpiece for propaganda and the incitement of hatred. Among the so-called “editors” and “authors” of Wikipedia there are now far too many biased pseudo-intellectuals, people with nothing in common with humanism. And Wikipedia protects them." when it's literally them, it's pretty bad for Wikipedia's name as that page is literally advertised. So I think that stuff like that should be removed as it is false. CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 05:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the vulgar and purely disruptive edits. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:41, 3 February 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.

Your thoughts?

What do you think of this section? MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is it there? Isn't it only saying obvious things? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean?

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

help me to create article

hi i am new here, in technology, i seen one my insperation who is called harsh vardhan (ai evangelist), seems no wiki for him, but he is notiable person can anyone write article or help to me wiki article for him? RajBlr01 (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent review of a draft biography (COI declared)

Hello,

I have prepared a draft biography in my user space and have declared a conflict of interest, as I work as an administrative assistant for the subject.

For this reason, I am not submitting the draft myself. The draft is fully written in an encyclopedic tone and is ready for review.

I would appreciate it if an independent editor could review and, if appropriate, submit the draft via Articles for Creation.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Dieter Jaksch

Thank you very much. Psonmez (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You are allowed to submit a draft for a review, that is one reason for the review process.

I have placed the draft in Draft space at Draft:Dieter Jaksch and placed the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for a review. Draft space is the preferred location for draft submissions and can be accessed via the Article Wizard.

However, your draft is completely unsourced. We need to know where you are getting your information from so it can be verified. Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn about referencing.

As you are employed in relation to the subject, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and for moving the draft.

Just to clarify: I have declared a conflict of interest, as I work as an administrative assistant for the subject, but I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, nor is Wikipedia editing part of my employment. I therefore understand this as a close connection rather than paid editing.

For this reason, I am trying to proceed carefully and involve independent editors in both sourcing and submission.

I am currently collecting independent secondary sources and will list them on the draft talk page shortly.

Thank you again for your guidance. Psonmez (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Essentially it doesn't matter if you are paid directly for editing Wikipedia or not...you can call it a close connection (sounds a bit like lawyering around imho), but as User:331dot does, I think we are in PAID territory here, and it should be declared accordingly. Lectonar (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

To avoid any ambiguity, I will add a paid editing disclosure in line with the Terms of Use, even though I am not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. I appreciate the guidance and will proceed accordingly. Psonmez (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Psonmez. The subject of the draft is your boss. If you succeed in getting an article published, that will be good for your career, because you are behaving like an ambitious self-starter. Make the paid editing disclosure. Your approach to writing the draft is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable article is to gather up properly formatted references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Then, all you need to do is neutrally summarize what those sources say. At this point, you are writing what you know personally about your boss. That leads to many problems, especially with the core content policy No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

As you are employed by the subject, see also WP:BOSS. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand the points raised under WP:BOSS and related policies. I have made the appropriate disclosures and have stepped back from directly drafting the article text, leaving sourcing, summarizing, and submission to independent editors. Psonmez (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is going to do that, the draft is entirely promotional and unsourced, it is down to you to edit accordingly and submit. Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Food and list articles

Can I create a List of Armenian dishes article (similar to List of Greek dishes and List of Philippine dishes etc.) even though List of dishes from the Caucasus already exists and includes Armenian dishes? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Advice needed: rolling sharpeners as article or as addition to existing article

Heya, I’m considering writing an article about rolling sharpeners, a sharpening tool for knives. Since there are articles about other sharpening tools such as sharpening stones, honing steels, or razor strops, I was wondering whether it would be deemed notable? Or would you rather edit the section „mechanical sharpeners“ in Sharpening to also include rolling sharpeners? L0ll0Bi0NDa369 (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)