Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

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

Article Ideas for Creation?

Hey all! After editing some articles I've been challenged by some people I know to create a new one entirely! Overall I'm just trying to find a good topic right now and figured I would reach out to see if anyone here had some ideas. Anything y'all have been meaning to write about or wished there was an article for? I'll be doing my absolute best to research then create the best article that I possibly can, not just trying to put minimal effort in. Any and all ideas are appreciated! I may not even select one here, just looking to brainstorm if possible. Thank you! JT U26 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Requested articles has quite a lot for you to look through if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As a disclaimer: Requested articles are not very well maintained, and many topics there might not be notable. If you're interested in Canadian topics by chance, I do maintain the requests board at WikiProject Canada, and every topic there is confirmed to be notable. MediaKyle (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The other piece of advice I've been given is to just find something your interested in. If you've ever seen something and thought "odd that his doesn't have an article" or something like that, go back to it. See if it may pass the notability guideline(s). That's how I got my first draft started, and while it's not finished yet, I would say it's pretty close. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are interested in a specific area, check for a WikiProject on that area. They may have a list of articles they would like to see. For example, WikiProject Chess has a list of Grandmasters who don't have individual articles and it would be very natural (if one is a chess geek) to pick one of those. This is a good way to make sure your topic is notable, and save you sweating while it goes through review--I just did this with a chess article on a less well known player, and I was biting my nails! (It did get approved but I really had to dig for sources.) M kuhner (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@JT U26: Here is a link to drafts that are expiring. Before jumping to creating an article, why don't you see if you can rescue one of more of these and get it/them accepted. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

i want a article on forest "Yeo" sterling, i put in my own request, shouldn't be too hard. im new and dont want to try making my own article yet though Bob the 67th (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Resubmission: Making Reader Expectation Approach neutral and properly sourced.

Hello Team!

I am attempting to make my article on the Reader Expectation Approach neutral and encyclopedic with proper sourcing. I resubmitted following two declines for NPOV and essay concerns. I revised to remove promotional language, distribute attribution throughout, reduce primary source citations, and restructure Core Concepts section around four principles corroborated by independent secondary sources (Lingard 2022, Kraus 2025). Do you have any other suggestions?

Thank you for your work!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This one? Draft:Reader Expectation Approach

It does not work for me to give one sentence on the Reader Expectation Approach followed by two full paragraphs on the academic credentials of the person who wrote it. If I were to visit this article I would be looking for information on the approach, not the author. I would rearrange to put the emphasis on the Approach--the first para under Structural Principles would be a much better start. You might consider putting some of that material in the lead (the un-sectioned first paragraph). I'd put the Background after the description of the Approach itself, and consider whether there is too much of it relative to the amount of material on the Approach.

The constant "Gopen contends" etc. makes it sound like this is a one-man show. It would really help to find an explanation by someone else. A slight improvement would be to make it clear at the top of Structural Principles that this is all Gopen, so you don't have to mention it every time.

Has there been any published critique of this method or comparison to other methods? That would make the article feel a lot more solid. I think this is the most critical point. It's all very well to publish a book, but is anyone talking about it? (Given how closely the Approach and the books are coupled, you could look for a serious academic review of the books--might find something useful there.)

I will not second-guess the page reviewers, but these are things that might help.

M kuhner (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed critique! This is actually helpful information! This is my first Wikipedia article and your specificity is what I need to get it right. Deeply appreciated!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, @Rewagoner, I can see from your userpage that you have been paid for your edits by Dr. Gopen, and it's clear this is tainting your ability to write neutrally. You will notice that our article on Newton's laws do not begin (or in fact mention at all) Newton's educational background or qualifications in order to justify their content to the reader.

The standard you have to meet, just like any other article, is notability. In this case, that means you would do well to find examples of other papers critiquing or reviewing Gopen's research, because Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. We need to see what other people have written about this "Reader Expectation Approach," we can't accept an article full of what Gopen has written about his own ideas; Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.

I can see that you're simultaneously trying to get a draft published about Gopen himself. Regarding both that draft and this one, please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and relay the contents therein to Dr. Gopen. Please ensure that both of you understand that Wikipedia is not a place to publicise or promote oneself or one's research, and that the definition of 'promotion' is often wider than you'd think. Athanelar (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Your linked information was helpful. My employment situation aside, I deeply respect Wikipedia and strive to uphold the establish standards. I sincerely do not want to write in promotional tone and I think that you are correct that this is a broader definition than I was aware.

I have found three sources for describing the REA framework and I believe they are independent and reputable: two from peer-reviewed journals by scientists that use the method and on from an unaffiliated author and science communicator discussing REA principles in his book on communication.

I think the confusing part for me is that I am supposed to use my own words to describe what other people have written about the subject. Is that correct? So, I think that I did that. Do I also need to say, for example: "Lingard describes the principles of REA as..." (Lingard being a secondary source on the material) or do I just describe the principles themselves as they are written in the primary literature? Is there a difference between how I am expected to describe the framework itself and how I am expected to present the ways in which it is being evaluated? Basically, when do I need to quote the primary and secondary sources or reference what they each said and when do I use my own words? Sorry its taking me awhile to understand these details. I have difficulty with these kinds of written instructions—but once I nail the method, I can become quite accurate with it.

In cooperation, Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than direct quotations, most of the article should be a summary in your own words of what is written in the secondary, independent sources. You can see more about the expected style at WP:SUMMARY. Direct quotes may still be appropriate in some cases to illustrate a point, for example. Athanelar (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I think I'm figuring it out! I added many secondary sources today and summarized them! I appreciate you! Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have just declined Draft:George David Gopen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Thank you for your feedback. I have discovered many more peer-reviewed articles on Gopen's influence in writing across disciplines and added them to the reader Expectation Approach (REA) article and a sampling of them to the George D. Gopen article. I removed some of the lesser reliable sources, have a look?

Thanks again for your hard work!

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see any sources there, which meet all of the requirements at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the notability criteria. I have revised the article substantially since the initial submission and would like to address the sourcing directly.

The article currently contains the following independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of George D. Gopen.

Heaney (ref. 7) — Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney credits Gopen by name in the acknowledgments of The Testament of Cresseid and Seven Fables (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), p. xvii, stating that Gopen's prose translation helped him persist with the work at a moment he might otherwise have abandoned it. This is an unsolicited acknowledgment by one of the most significant literary figures of the twentieth century, in a book from a major independent publisher with no affiliation to Gopen.

Alda (ref. 15) — Alan Alda discusses Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach by name across multiple pages (pp. 134–136) of If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? (Random House, 2017). This is independent coverage of Gopen's work by a prominent public figure in a book from a major publisher.

Legal Writing Institute, Golden Pen Award (ref. 6) — An independent professional organization's named lifetime achievement award for contributions to legal writing, received by Gopen in 2011.

Lingard (ref. 2) — A peer-reviewed article in Perspectives on Medical Education devoted entirely to explaining and demonstrating Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach, crediting him as its creator throughout. Published by Ubiquity Press/Springer. This is not a passing mention — REA is the subject of the article.

Reynolds & Thompson (ref. 11) — A peer-reviewed study in CBE–Life Sciences Education evaluating REA-based writing instruction, naming Gopen as the creator of the framework under study. Published with open access via PMC.

Riebe (ref. 4) — A peer-reviewed law review article in the Gonzaga Law Review applying Gopen's reader expectation theory in depth to bar exam writing pedagogy.

Dankoski et al. (ref. 12) — A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Faculty Development reporting on a faculty writing program at Indiana University School of Medicine built around Gopen's framework, with Gopen named as a co-author of the study.

Petersen et al. (ref. 10) — A peer-reviewed article in Neuroscience Letters identifying Gopen's Reader Expectation Approach as a best practice for teaching writing in STEM fields.

Samaraweera et al. (ref. 5) — Peer-reviewed IEEE conference proceedings proposing the application of Gopen's reader expectation principles to source code readability.

Kinnunen et al. (ref. 14) — Peer-reviewed EACL conference proceedings describing an automated writing tool built on Gopen's REA principles, crediting him as the theoretical foundation.

Schmolke et al. (ref. 13) — A peer-reviewed article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution citing Gopen's principles in guidance on communicating ecological models to policy audiences.

Kraus (ref. 3) — A peer-reviewed article in the Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association crediting Gopen with reshaping scientific writing.

I acknowledge that refs. 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are institutional, self-generated, or affiliated sources and are used only to support specific uncontested biographical facts such as dates and positions, not to establish notability.

Taken together, refs. 2–7, 10–15 represent twelve independent, reliable sources — including a Nobel laureate's published acknowledgment, a major public figure's book, a lifetime achievement award from an independent professional body, and ten peer-reviewed articles across six disciplines — that discuss Gopen and his work directly, substantively, and independently. I would respectfully submit that this record satisfies the requirements of significant coverage in reliable independent sources under WP:42.

I welcome any further specific guidance on what would bring the article up to your standards.

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Gopen seems to have an unusual view of how people understand English prose. Maybe this accounts for so much of the draft being hard to understand. This first sentence of the "Reception" section is an example. Maproom (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it is not Gopen writing this. I am doing it on my own so I'm not influenced by his opinion. I appreciate you pointing out that awkward sentence structure. I shortened it and hopefully it will be easier to read.

Rwagoner Rewagoner (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rewagoner, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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.

It follows that almost nothing written, published, or commissioned by Gopen or any associate of his is relevant to the article - and nor is anything that you know about the subject, unless it happens to be covered in one of the independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Perfect! I think I'm getting it now! I found tons of secondary sources today! check it out! Rewagoner (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, one small funny question, how do you cite text in a notelist? The template you click on does not have any space to cite. Is it only available in source editing?Welovecontributors! [talk] [contribs] 23:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed your <big>....</big>. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking about. Each of the notes that are currently a, c, d, e (and more) within the article Mechanical Turk cites one or more of the references: what's now a cites 7 and 8, et cetera. (This was done by editing the source; I have no idea whether it would also have been doable with the visual editor.) Is this similar to what you hope to do? -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also doable with the visual editor using the "Reuse" tab. Reuse is about the only thing I use the visual editor for! M kuhner (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw: you don't have to use reuse. You can just copy and paste the citation. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Using named references is even better and very easy; then you can use the same source as many times as you like without having it appear repeatedly in the reference list. Meadowlark (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors! You have to look in source editor to see what reference style they're using, eg {{Sfn|Standage|2002|p=95}}. But you don't need to use source editor to insert it. You can format the citation in a notes app for example and then copy and paste {{Sfn|Standage|2002|p=95}} into visual editor. Visual editor will convert it. Mme Maigret (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Long waiting time for approval

i had submitted an article for review and it has not been reviewed for about 3 months now ~2026-26055-12 (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26055-12: If you mean Draft:House of Treasures Ministry, it was never submitted for review. I have added a button to help you submit it when you're ready. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Actually, it was submitted in February, until the tag was removed in this edit in April. I don't know whether @~2026-26055-12 is User:FikiMasilela, who originally declared their COI and drafted the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello - yes - it was submitted it February then I edited it in April ~2026-28786-15 (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

When you removed the tag a month ago, you also removed the article from the review queue. The review queue is dependent on the review tag because it adds the necessary categories for reviewers to see the draft. Without those categories, it is impossible for draft reviewers to know you wanted your draft reviewed. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, there's a HUGE AFC backlog as well. That's probably why. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In its current form it will never be accepted being AI-generated. Catfurball (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much - how do I fix this? I did run it through an AI platform to improve it and have tried to reduce this by reediting - what do I do next? FikiMasilela (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, in this situation the best thing to do is WP:TNT. You may find the essay WP:BACKWARDS helpful in explaining a good approach to take. Keep any sources which are of the best type and work from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@FikiMasilela Running a draft through AI usually makes it worse rather than improving it. David10244 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

How do i archive some of my talk in user talk? TBB (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Archiving a talk page and/or Help:Archiving (plain and simple). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 22:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Would you like me to set up automated archiving for you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That helps, yes. TBB (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, and I archived a couple of sections as a test. A bot will do the rest shortly, and will do so regularly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.😄 TBB (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft Article

I have submitted a draft Draft:Adv Owais Pechkar. I feel strongly that the subject Adv Owais Pechkar is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and as a new editor, I have concern that I have not mastered encyclopedic style and citation formats. I have reviewed a good number of articles on artists in Wikipedia over the past years not from this account last year I lost my account and hope that this resubmit is successful in terms of relaying content and citation. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Mustanglover654 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please Check this Draft:Adv Owais Pechkar and help me improve this if it's not Mustanglover654 (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. The reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. If you are looking for co-editors you might try the India WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mustanglover654 Please be sure you don't remove the previous decline notice and comments left by reviewere, as this is important information for subsequent reviewers. Athanelar (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you added it to the mainspace. But, I don't think that the subject deserves its own article. I am moving it to the draftspace. Also, Please use inline citations. And, read the afc comments in the draft. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I would urge you to not try and move it to mainspace again. The AFC process if the benefit of the article; if the article is in mainspace and does not survive an WP:AFD and is deleted, it's much trickier to bring that article back from the dead. When an article is declined in AFC, you still have the ability to make continual improvements until it would survive an AFD. But don't resubmit until/unless you feel you've fixed all the problems, because if an article shows little improvements, eventually it will likely become rejected, which is the end of the road. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Mustanglover654 has been indefinitely blocked. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving modules

Hi, how can I safely move a module, since its related article has been moved? I wanna safely move Module:Adjacent stations/Koleje Wielkopolskie to Module:Adjacent stations/Greater Poland Railways (as Koleje Wielkopolskie is now Greater Poland Railways). If I would move it normally, could that break any articles that use the module in the Adjacent stations template, or would it automatically redirect it? I am doing this with all other Poland rail operator modules since their articles have also been recently moved to their English name. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The articles would continue to work without any changes since the redirect still points to the right module. See how Henderson railway station has links to Module:Adjacent stations/Auckland Transport even though the module has been moved to Module:Adjacent stations/Auckland One Rail. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Titles of works - podcasts

Hey there, just a quick enquiry about MOS:TITLE. Would podcasts fall under the Italics, Quotation marks, or Neither section? My assumption is it'd be MOS:MAJORWORK under "audio albums", but I'm unsure. Tiny Toast (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I ask this due to the lead section of Dan Koch (a page I encountered whilst patrolling random pages). Tiny Toast (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I would lean towards making the titles of serial podcasts italicised. The Anthropocene Reviewed is an example. They are after all a form of the evolution of the radio serial. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Igbo people

Howdy am new here can someone help me update the population inside the info box of the Igbo people page if you check the resource that support the number it puts it at 41 million not 39 million please and thank you very much. It seems i can't edit the page. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Y Done. Thank you. (FYI: the reason you can't edit it is WP:page protection. Next time, you can make an WP:edit request to have it updated instead of posting here. Just be very specific about what you're looking to change, to make it as easy on the person changing as possible.) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

alright thank you very much, still learning how this place works. Bonde maxx (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

How can I improve this draft

Hi, I started Draft:Daniel Rush, can somebody please tell me a way I could make it better?

Freakydentist411 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The main issue you have is sourcing; one source merely documents his results, and while I can't read the other due to a paywall, it seems like an interview with him, which would not be an independent source. A Wikipedia article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

How do I go about uploading a picture to an article? Running4glazeddonuts (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Had this question when I started editing. Images needed to be taken from Wikimedia Commons. I say you should take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Awesome - Thanks for your help! Running4glazeddonuts (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I had this question before and made the mistake of trying to add a random image off the internet into an article Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Running4glazeddonuts, to clarify, adding an image that is already on Wikimedia Commons tp an article is the easiest way, but it is not the only way. Another way is to take a photo yourself and upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license, and then use it. Another way is to find an image that is in the public domain and add it to Commons. To greatly oversimplify a complex area, if an image was first published in the US over 95 years ago, it is almost certainly in the public domain. An image created by a US government employee as part of their job is in the public domain. There are very limited situations where a low resolution version of a non-free image is allowed. These are uploaded to English Wikipedia, not Commons. The strict standards are described at WP:NFCI. Starlet147, please be aware of this as well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Yeah, I know, I uploaded photos before. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 11:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I am in the Legal field

Good morning.

I am in the legal field; I use this site as a reference for EVERY case I work on. As a Judge it is critical to have a technical verified definition (I.E Encyclopedia Britannica, OED) that MUST be contrast against "Real life".

I recently had to decide as a critical tipping point how a layperson would acquire as website, underhanded from her company. The payment was for a renewal; in this renewal the Victim had the domain registrar reallocate the given domains to herself. Judge MMaya (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem I have with this being denied is as a matter of point, yopu have many "how to's". This "how to" should be an exception to your rules.

In my humble opinion, I had my administration team do the actual work but kindly consider this point. Judge MMaya (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As someone in the legal field you have far better resources available to you than a layperson-edited encyclopaedia that verifies jack and shite. We don't do how-tos because we are an encyclopaedia, and we wouldn't provide how-tos for matters that have legal implications even if we did. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There are no special considerations to our criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

To be concise, Judge MMaya, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This is a matter of policy, and is not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleting Drafts

Hello! Is there a way to delete drafts? I tried looking for a delete button, but couldn't find one. I was on my "contributions" page. Thank you. MatKFan1 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has already been deleted; but if you missed "G7", please see Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#G7, -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Need Feedback

Hello, i just made an article about the 101st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops, i've just created it, but im not sure if i did well on it, i would like an experienced editor to review the article and give me feedback on it, thanks. SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some experience, SomeRandomGuy3523, but I have none in (and next to no knowledge of) that area of history. I'm unlikely to be alone in this. Perhaps post a message similar to the above in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I manually revert

Sock

I manually revert in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencia,_Bukidnon&diff=prev&oldid=1354048912 can you give me a barnstar? Maryayas (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not really how barnstars work. Barnstars are just a show of appreciation from another editor; they're not something you request. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 01:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleting a Sandbox

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

---

I tried writing db-author (I put {{}} around it) for my sandbox and it didn't work. It works on drafts, though. MatKFan1 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I just fixed it Maryayas (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox removed by ercheck Maryayas (talk) 02:27, 14 May 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.

Need help improving my article

Hi, my article in progress (Draft:Joey Kopec) was declined. Is there a chance I can get help so I can make improvements so it can get accepted? Thanks for the help. TheLegendaryBigC (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The comments that came with that decision are pretty clear. You need a source (actually, a couple of them) talking about the subject of the article in some detail: not an interview with him, and not routine statistics. The last source in the current draft is the best of them, and it's just a bare mention that he got an award, in an article that (despite the title) is not particularly about him.

If no one has written about Kopec in detail, you are not going to be able to make a satisfactory article.

You might contact his school and team (if you haven't already) to ask if they are aware of any independent coverage. You can't use what they've written themselves as they are not independent, but maybe someone has a file of clippings. M kuhner (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help for Newcomers

Hi everyone. As a new member, everything seems so hard and confusing on Wikipedia. I know some simple editing, like adding links, inserting words, and citing, but I would like to learn how to make new articles. Are there any articles, websites, or videos that are good for beginners? MatKFan1 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

how to make new articles → Help:Your first article

You could try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure as well which will strengthen your knowledge of editing basics.

A comprehensive list of help guides is present at {{Basic information}}. randomdude121    02:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Help:Your first article provides a step by step guide. SenshiSun (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MatKFan1 and welcome!

It's typically recommended (and I second this recommendation) to get some experience by making edits to existing articles first. There's many fields you can explore! This is a good spot to start (I got some of my editing experience from working on articles here too): Wikipedia:Community portal/Open tasks. You could also take The Wikipedia Adventure if you haven't done so already.

If you do decide to create an article, check out these guidelines first. They'll get you started!

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Best way to set up a source assessment table?

I have a page with 49 sources, and I'd like to put together a source assessment. I found the code for automated SAT generation (just pulling all the sources from the list), but adding the import code to my common.js doesn't do anything. Is there another method I can use besides doing 49 sources by hand? SenshiSun (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun, the page you are trying to import from (User:SenshiSun/SATG.js) doesn't exist. Are you trying to import User:DannyS712/SATG.js instead? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I have updated the page, and will bypass the cache tomorrow. SenshiSun (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you. I misunderstood the instructions. SenshiSun (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

To Do List question

Hi! Does wikipedia have a dedicated place where there are articles that must be edited, or some sort of backlog forum? Thank you! Powerplay11 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Powerplay11! The Community Portal has a Help Out section at its bottom with links and suggestions for edits on specific pages. There's also the Dashboard which has specific discussions and requests, while the Task Center gives multiple task options sans with specific pages. 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 03:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There is also Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and its monthly sub-pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What to do about unsourced info that's already in the page?

(Page I'm editing is Italian Owl)

If the page I'm editing already has a lot of unsourced/poorly sourced information on it, should I remove it and leave only reliable information, or leave it be in the hopes that someone can find a citation? Littlebees23 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if it's relatively uncontroversial information, or information that you're reasonably sure could be true but just needs verification, tag it with {{cn}}.

If it's information which is at all controversial, extraordinary, or you have any doubt that it could be true, then better to stay on the safe side and remove it entirely.

If you have the time and the access, it's often worth having a quick look through the references that the page does cite, just to make sure the information isn't in one of those and the previous editor just forgot to cite it while summarising info from that source. Athanelar (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

(P.S., this only applies to articles like the one you're editing which are not biographies of living people. For those, it is very important that every factual claim be referenced to a reliable source, so any claim you find which does not have one must be removed) Athanelar (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of my new article.

I recently submitted an article for review and this is my first article on wikipedia. While submitting, by mistake I submitted it to the mainspace. Later I moved it to draft workspace where it was supposed to wait for review. Today I have received a message that says that my article is nominated for speedy deletion as it is a redirection from the mainspace to the draft space. It was a genuine mistake as a new member. What should I do for my artile to not be deleted? Iniyan Gunasekaran (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Iniyan Gunasekaran, and welcome to the Teahouse! No need to worry; your draft wasn't nominated for deletion, but instead a redirect to it was. When a page is moved, a redirect is created from the old name to the new name. However, redirects across name spaces aren't allowed, so when a page is moved to draft space, the redirect that was created from that move is nominated for deletion. All that is to say: your draft is safe! nil ^nz 06:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Iniyan Gunasekaran, your draft still exists at Draft:Indicus Paints and you can continue working on it. If you have a financial connection with this company, please disclose it as required. See WP:PAID for details. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou. Iniyan Gunasekaran (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thankyou for clearing it out for me. So, I can still wait for a review of my artile in the draft space? Iniyan Gunasekaran (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your Draft does already have a 'review waiting' template added, so I'm afraid it will be a case of simply waiting for a volunteer to review it and offer feedback. Articles about commercial companies aren't always done very quickly I'm afraid, and - at a very quick glance through it - yours does appear to be very promotional in content.

There are no significant links to independent sources that show this business has been written about by mainstream bodies, other than the inevitable insider business magazines. If you can find some that do, please continue editing your draft and improving it by adding them. Otherwise, I suspect it will fall into that group of many millions and millions of wonderful and successful commercial businesses around the world that simply fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for NOTABILITY.

Meanwhile, do continue honing your editing skills by perhaps working on existing articles that interest you - there are so may ways new editors like yourelf can help improve this encyclopaedia. It's not all about making new articles! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is no reason you shouldn't continue to improve the submitted draft while it's waiting for a reviewer. You haven't set it in stone, and no-one will look at it until someone does choose to review it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request on hospitality company draft

Hello. I rewrote a previously declined draft article about PRISM, the parent company of OYO, to improve neutrality and sourcing. The draft is currently in my sandbox, and I would appreciate feedback before resubmitting it through Articles for Creation.

Thank you. Aakarshit Arora (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You're asking for a pre-review review; instead of duplicating process, please resubmit the draft for feedback.

If you are associated with this company in some way, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. I have placed more information on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Aakarshit Arora The version in your sandbox doesn't look any better than the declined draft. If you were to use named references correctly, you would realise that you have very few reliable sources. The Indian ones look like churnalism to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topics templates

Hello! There's an article about a non-binary person that doesn't have the relevant CT template, and I'd like to add it to the article's talk page. Before I do, I wanted to see if an administrator needs to do that, or if I can do it myself. I couldn't find any information one way or another about who can add CT templates, so figured I'd check here. Thank you! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 08:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pikkupapupata See instructions at the top of Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. Anyone can add the template but only admins can enforce it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There it is! Thank you so much for your help! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 08:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

My organisation's out of date Wikipedia page

I work in the press office at De Montfort University in Leicester. I am exploring ways in which we can appropriately bring the very outdated De Montfort University (DMU) Wikipedia page up to date to make it better reflect DMU as it is today. I notice that the stats are drawn from a 2015/16 annual report, and there is a lot that is very old and many new developments - like new campuses, a change in DMUs United Nations hub chair topic, and so on - are not mentioned. I realise there are issues related to being a DMU employee who is paid to do this as part of my job. I wonder whether you have any advice as to the best way to do it in-house - i.e. me - while ensuring the content changes remain neutral, independently source, correct and credible. Any views gratefully received Regards

Justin JustinDMU (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @JustinDMU: first, you should make a paid-editing-disclosure. I've posted instructions on your talk page User talk:JustinDMU.

Then, as a paid editor you're not allowed to edit directly the DMU article, you instead need to be making edit requests via the article's talk page, or by using the wizard at WP:ERW. I suggest a series of small edits, rather than one massive rewrite, and please make sure to support your requests with reliable sources. Independent editors will then assess each request, and action it or else let you know why that couldn't be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing has given you sound advice. I would like to add that it is possible that your office may now be contacted by scammers, see the scam warning for details. Any help you receive here will be free. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend following the advice on our edit request information page. Go to the talk page of De Montfort University, create a topic, and click on source. Once you are there, paste the following:

{{edit COI|summary=Add Short summary of requested change here}}

• Specific text to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
• Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
• References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST

I would recommend also declaring the COI (conflict of interest) on your user page and explaining the nature of the COI in the reason for change section. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. JustinDMU (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @JustinDMU, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In addition to what others have said, please note that Wikipedia's purposes are almost certainly very different from yours. While it is helpful to an encyclopaedia for articles to be up to date, that comes way down the list of importance after being well sourced to reliable indepedent sources.

For uncontroversial factual information like numbers and dates, non-independent sources may be cited; but your view of what developments have been important in the last ten years is of little interest to Wikipedia, unless wholly indendent commentators have talked about them (and been published in reliable sources).

What makes it so difficult to edit Wikipedia with a COI is that you essentially need to put aside everything that you know about the subject, and stick only to what independent sources have said about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Translation

There is an article in English on Wikipedia about me, Karl Nerenberg. I translated a shortened version of that article into French and posted it on French Wikipedia. Folks involved with wikipedia then took it down, because, notionally, I had authored an article about myself, wch is not permitted. I did not, however, write the article. I merely translated a truncated version of an article written by someone else. Is that forbidden? Karl Nerenberg NerenbergKarl (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are separate entities. Each Wikipedia language edition governs itself, creating their own rules for that Wikipedia. I would recommend posting this question on the French Teahouse, or their equivalent. You will likely find people there that can explain French Wikipedia policy far better than any of us. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The French equivalent of this page is at fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect, informal name.

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.

---

Hey, I'm wondering if it's acceptable to create a redirect for the Trosia nigropunctigera, since it has an additional informal name, that being the Strawberry cake moth. The article appears when searched for on a browser, yet there does not exist a redirect within Wikipedia to that article. Seeing as most redirects to the scientific name are based on the "common" name and the informal name isn't mentioned in the article itself, I'm reluctant to follow through with the redirect creation, - wouldn't want to waste some maintainer's time with a redirect that might not be necessary. LithyLithium (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems good to create, if you are confident the term is used then a redirect is useful. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 16:29, 14 May 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.

"Collapse of Russia", "Collapse of Transnistria" and other related articles idea.

In the Russian Wikipedia, there is a article titled "Распад России". Which could be translated/titled in four ways.

1. "Collapse of Russia".
2. "Dissolution of Russia".
3. "Collapse of the Russian Federation".
4. "Dissolution of the Russian Federation".

The third title could be the most appropriate title, but i don't know. As the title suggests, it is a detailed article on the hypothetical subject of the collapse of the Russian Fedetration, no need to say more. I also thought of a article that could be titled "Collapse of Transnistria", which would be a detailed article on the hypothetical subject of the collapse of Transnistria. I thought of it because Transnistria is currently in a crisis and there are articles on the subject of the potential collapse of Trasnistria. I know that there is a article titled "Reintegration of Transnistria into Moldova", but while related, is seperate from the collapse of Transnistria. Might as well have a articles on "Collapse of Abkhazia", "Reintegration of Abkhazia into Georgia", "Collapse of South Ossetia" and "Reintegration of South Ossetia into Georgia". Either have "Collapse" or "Dissolution" in their title. Same thing with Transnistria in that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in crisis and there are articles on the subject of the potential collapse of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and reintegration into Georgia (I'm sounding like a broken record there, but i wanted to elaborate there). What do you think about my ideas? ~2026-29114-83 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Since those articles are about future events without a defined date they likely will not be created. See here. Toast1454_TC 16:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a article titled "World War III" in the English Wikipedia. ~2026-29114-83 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-29114-83, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In English Wikipedia, 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 several people have independently published in depth about a hypothetical set of events, then it is possible there could be an article on those events, based entirely on those published studies. (It could not, for example, discuss or theorise or conclude anything which was not directly in one of those sources).

Otherwise, there cannot be such an article. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

In "Распад России", there are 134 references and 18 further readings. For "Collapse of Transnistria", there are these sources that are already used in "2025 Moldovan energy crisis"

* https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2024/10/11/7195994/

* https://tv8.md/ru/2024/11/28/parlikov-o-riskakh-prekrashcheniya-postavok-gaza-v-pridnestrove-mi-gotovimsya-finansovo-podderzhat-region/270567

* https://hir.harvard.edu/transnistria-russias-next-battlefront/

* https://pism.pl/publications/russian-interference-nearly-overwhelmed-moldovan-presidential-election-referendum-vote

may as well find other articles. For "Collapse of Abkhazia", "Reintegration of Abkhazia into Georgia", "Collapse of South Ossetia" and "Reintegration of South Ossetia into Georgia" there are these articles that can be used as sources

* https://en.rua.gr/2024/08/20/abkhazia-and-south-ossetia-may-return-to-georgia/

* https://caliber.az/en/post/abkhazia-s-return-to-georgia-preconditions-and-possibilities

* https://www.intellinews.com/georgian-reintegration-of-abkhazia-and-south-ossetia-not-likely-350158/

* https://eurasianet.org/georgia-aims-at-better-future-with-breakaway-abkhazia-and-south-ossetia https://besacenter.org/the-crisis-in-georgia-and-prospects-for-restoring-its-territorial-integrity/

* https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2023/09/28/7170374/

* https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/georgia/ocha-georgia-briefing-notes-abkhazia

Also, there's this article

* https://traveltramp.substack.com/p/abkhazia-the-tragic-story-of-georgias

which i don't think can be used as a source in Wikipedia, but just in case, i put it here. I also have a idea for a article titled "Humanitarian crisis in Transnistria". Might also have "Humanitarian crisis in Abkhazia" and "Humanitarian crisis in South Ossetia". There are articles about it that can be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. ~2026-29114-83 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding citations to tables

I need help to add a citation to this page , in the table: Row (Column: "Container"): "", Column: "Mozilla Firefox". But it's in a table, and I'm not sure how to add a citation to that. By the way citation: ""Support for the HTML5 <video> and <audio> elements including native support for Ogg Theora encoded video and Vorbis encoded audio. (Try it here!)" - Mozilla Firefox 3.5 Release Notes"

I'm still very new to editing on Wikipedia.

Thanks! NoriAndris (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you using Visual Editor? Source editor is best for editing table.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 17:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page for San Francisco Film Commission

Hi all, I am drafting a new page about the San Francisco film commission. There is an interesting history behind the department and its incentive programs in the past and in the present. I want to include a list of movies/shows filmed in San Francisco under the incentive. Can anyone give any suggestions on this page? Is it suitable for Wikipedia, is there a better format I should take like just a list or something, or any advice would be helpful! This is my first Wikipedia page. Allieaard (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing you'll have to do to Draft:San Francisco Film Commission, Allieaard, is to remove external links from the body of the draft. Rightly or wrongly, I infer that "Other Notable Productions Shot in San Francisco (2000-2024)" – which, if retained, should be "Other notable productions shot in San Francisco (2000–2024)" – weren't "participating productions". If they didn't participate in the "incentive" that the draft is about, then why list them in the draft? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood, is there a better place to put external links. I think they should be included. Allieaard (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If they're appropriate, Allieaard, external links can go in references, in notes, and even listed under "External links". (The article Jindřich Marco has external links in all three.) See also Wikipedia:External links. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Rural cemetery

Rural cemetery is notable but can not get published due to requirements for secondary resources?

First time editor - been trying on behalf of our cemetery board to create a foundational article on Wikipedia (Draft:Redford_Cemetery) about our beloved, historic cemetery. With each decline (3 so far), we revise to address all comments and then a new decline comes along with new concerns not received before with little explanation. Most recently, we're being asked to add secondary, interpretative, analytical, evaluative materials with majority and minority view or legal analysis (secondary resources). By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries. We don't want to give up - we just need some specific guidance beyond general statements and links to very broad guidance. Can an experienced reviewer explain what policy issue is still preventing acceptance and some suggestions for resolution? Thank you so much for anyone willing to offer more direct guidance. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

IntrepidWanderer, I wonder whether the list of the interred would be appropriate, even if referenced. (Perhaps others here will give their views.) And the body of the article seems digressive. Sample: In 1926, the City of Detroit annexed a portion of Redford^[10] which included approximately 7 acres on the Eastern portion of the cemetery. This began along a line 200 feet east of the center of Telegraph Road (US 24) which became a paved two-lane road that year. In 1936, Telegraph Road was expanded to four lanes and in 1963 it was expanded to the 6-lane, divided highway with median crossovers that we know today^[11]. As a result, the dividing line between Redford Township and Detroit is roughly 200 feet East of the middle of the center northbound lane. (Incidentally, if dimensions are worth providing, then they're also worth providing for non-Americans, many of whom are likely to be rather mystified by "acres" and "feet".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Metric measurements are best included by using {{Convert}} (but can be entered manually if you find that more convenient).

The list of burials should not be included (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTMEMORIAL); list only burials of notable people. It is acceptable to say something like "the graves of 23 WWI servicemen and 43 from WWII", if sourced.

However, if there are no secondary sources about the cemetery, it is not, by (Wikipedia's) definition, notable. Remember, though, that source do not have to be online, books and old newspapers can be cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I've now removed references to over 100 veterans as non-notable, removed many details of how the cemetery evolved over the past 200 years, and removed references to measurements. IntrepidWanderer (talk) IntrepidWanderer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntrepidWanderer "By their nature, those kind of published materials often don't exist for rural, historic cemeteries." If that's the case, then (as Andy says) the subject is not notable as Wikipedia defines it, because independent, published sources are exactly what makes notability in the Wikipedia sense. Being beloved doesn't actually factor into notability, sorry to say. David10244 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, thanks for your reply. I hope we are beyond the question of notability given we've now found and added several secondary resources and most reviewers have suggested it is notable given several factors including it's status as a Registered Historic Site, notable burials, and it's interplay with early pioneers. I think what's tripping things up here over the past four months and 3 reviews is our initial efforts to submit a larger piece given limited knowledge as a first time editor. It has since been reduced by 80%, simplified, revised based on reviewer feedback, and further bolstered with additional secondary sources. Hopefully, it can proceed. IntrepidWanderer (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War

Anyone can create scheduled 2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War similar 2025 timeline of the Somali Civil War and 2024 timeline of the Somali Civil War QalasQalas (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Many people could have, QalasQalas, but nobody did. A vacuous "timeline" was created, but it was rightly moved to Draft:2026 timeline of the Somali Civil War. It has remained vacuous since then. You might consider adding (referenced) incidents to this draft, and, when the result can reasonably be called a timeline, submitting it for review. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

yea, absolutely its lacking meaningful content, so I should have rewritten similar written pages Thank you. QalasQalas (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite a few MOS:INFOBOXFLAG violations

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Hi all, long time lurker here. During my random wandering on Wikipedia, I noticed that File:BJP_Flag.svg has been used quite liberally in the infoboxes of biographies. This seems to directly contradict MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but I'm not sure what to do here - there must be a better way than just manually go through each article. And is this something that needs fixing at all?

LkL-70547 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to request a mass edit, you can look at some place like WP:AWBREQ. ScalarFactor (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

My Career Page!

Briefly...it is my 60 year career (I am now 95 years old) in Film- Televidon and Theater.!)...and I am pissed. A friend who is/was a certified contributor to your site decades ago..was a fan who found me, and as a favor...and with much work...found me and created (researched and wrote) my Wikipedia site. He was not paid and took the time and patience to compose the site page...all confirmed by mostly MY PERSONAL "SCRIPTS and photographs" which have since then, been sent to Emerson University and reside there among their Personal History archives. Since then, my fully (nearly as I'm not dead yet)_complete history resides in their "Special Collections".. Every singel episode of the signifiicant number of TV show appearances have no "reviews" as do other appearances of my 6 decades career, have no reviews available. Please , let me know how one olld performer manages to get a printout of their life's work? You can chack around youtube/Sylvia Lewis Career Bio/ but your demand at t his point is not possible. It has been on your site for decades now,, and no onehas questioned my pages' honesty and viability. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST I DO NOW --ASK MY DEAD CO-WORKERS TO CONFIRM THE VIABILITY ~2026-29254-77 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-29254-77, please indicate which page you are talking about 🍅 fx (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that this is Sylvia Lewis. DS (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29254-77 If someone contacted you by email asking you to confirm the page was yours, it wasn't someone from Wikipedia. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29254-77 Please tell us who is the "you" that made the "demand" and how did they contact you? There has been a comment at the top of Wikipedia's article Sylvia Lewis since 2010 pointing out that it would benefit from additional published sources. If you know of such sources, then it would be possible to add them at Talk:Sylvia Lewis for others to incorporate in the biography. If you don't have such material, then don't worry, no-one is going to delete the article. You might also like to provide some pictures from your career, assuming that you have some which can be suitably licensed for use in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

What does this BLP subject actually want from us? Am I being obtuse, because the posts here are very unclear. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 11:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Walter She's asking how does WP suggest she confirm the veracity of the information on the page about her. (The page was created years ago by a Wikipedia editor who reached out to her and confirmed the material, which has since been sent to Emerson University and is in their personal history archives.)Mme Maigret (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also point out that Ms. Lewis is 95. She may have misinterpreted the "BLP Sources" warning at the top of the article about her. DS (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Tone-fixing in articles

I found a huge chunk of promotional content in the article Richmond Sockeyes while following some newcomer tasks. Could anyone help fix the tone in the long paragraphs, especially in the #PIJHL History section, or give me some help articles to fix tone? Much appreciated! Garethphua (言) 02:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Garethphua I just revised the lead. My advice is to break the task into smaller tasks. Do 1 paragraph at a time. Suggest do 1-3 paragraphs a day. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi how do I link interlanguages together?

Here are the 2 articles on the same topic, but in different languages. Thanks (:

• Comandos de la Frontera
• es:Comandos de la Frontera

-- Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You might be able to find help here Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article). Happy editing! Garethphua (言) 03:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 The linking is done on Wikidata. The necessary edit was made today, so you should find that each article now has a "1 language" link present. See the edit history at wikidata:Q116264713. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you this is perfect :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

New Article

I want to add a page for Forest "Yeo" Sterling, he is mentioned in Dudley W. Morton's page, but doesn't have his own page. i only have a book to cite, DIVE! by Deborah Hopkinson. Bob the 67th (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You might find something useful at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm let me see what I can do. Coding is not my specality. Historyguy1138 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bob the 67th There are plenty of mentions of Sterling and his book at newspapers.com. For example Los Angeles Evening Citizen News Mon, Apr 11, 1960 ·Page 14; The Berkeley Gazette Wed, Apr 13, 1960 ·Page 18 and others around 1960. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Best welcome templates

Which welcome templates do you think will most likely make a user advanced the fastest? ~2026-29052-60 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say Template:Welcome graphical is the best template. CostalCal (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

To become "advanced" you need some passion and time, I don't think welcome template will have much influence on that, but that's me. I use Template:Welcome because I like that it's simple and short. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this a too-close paraphrase?

In the article Guianan warbling antbird the Description section seems very, very close to its first listed source (Zimmer et al. 2020). But as a novice editor I'd like a second opinion. Could someone take a quick look? It is just one paragraph. M kuhner (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The Description section and much other material was added by @Craigthebirder: in June 2024. I myself am not a Birds of the World subscriber, so cannot view the source text, but perhaps you and Craigthebirder would like to discuss the matter and agree on whether more recasting of the article text is called for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There are only a limited number of ways to paraphrase and still include all of the information. But feel free to edit as you see fit.Craigthebirder (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a problem that comes up regularly. In general, species descriptions use standardised vocabulary in order to avoid confusion. They are deliberately intended to be usable by the entire scientific community rather than copyrighted information. The further our text migrates away from the official species description, the more likely it is that we are misleading our readers. For that reason, paraphrasing of sources should not be encouraged. If the source says a bird is brown with a white streak don't say it has a light-coloured mark on a dark-tan background! It's as bad as reporting that Norwich is 98.68 miles from London because we're worried that if we say it's 98.69 miles, "98.69 miles" is a close paraphrase of the true value. Elemimele (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate the help in understanding where the line is. M kuhner (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sort AfDs

Hello!

How do I sort an AfD page after creating a deletion discussion page? Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting AFD discussions are usually done before the AFD is started. When I create deletion discussions, I use Twinkle. If you don't already use it, I would highly recommend it. While I am sure there are other people at the Teahouse who can explain directly how to sort discussions, you don't have to worry about it. If you would like to, that is fine, but there are people at AFD that sort all of the discussions. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I have seen editors sort after an AfD has begun as well. Re Twinkle: I believe you meant to advise me about starting an AfD with the help of Twinkle? _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Twinkle allows you to sort the AFD before you create it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You can also use this userscript after creating the AfD: User:Enterprisey/delsort. There's also a manual way but it's really annoying. InfernoHues (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

godzilla x kong supernova

You guys took long so I edited it don't block godzilla x kong supernova danny Steven's us the hero just like in tmdb cast list check it for yourselves

time hours ~2026-29158-06 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

So you have made this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

What do I do?

Hi, I'm new, but not completely new.... I'm having difficulty dealing with something. A user with 140,000+ edits has posted on my talk page that I'm engaged in an edit war and that I'm not adhering to NPOV.

This is the second time he's done this. He also did it back in January or February or so, and after that, another editor gave me a barnstar and said I was acting civilly the whole time.

What he posted was very threatening and I think it is a form of bullying. I shouldn't have to be scared of editing in good faith. This is in relation to the Never again page. I don't need or want any help with editing the content there, but I need help in figuring out how to get him to stop trying to intimidate me. There were several back and forth reverts yesterday (I reverted him twice, and he reverted 3 times). He mostly ended up with what he wanted, with the exception of the short description, which he has allowed so far.

Today, I looked at the page again, and made two more new edits, which I fully stand by as high-quality npov edits, and I can explain more if anyone is interested. After today's edits, he posted those messages on my talk page, but he has not reverted the edits (thankfully).

I don't want to have to file some kind of report every time I happen to come across him, and I know this will inevitably happen again as we have some overlapping interests and he is an extremely prolific editor. Slava570 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Please follow the guidance at WP:Dispute resolution to deal with the content dispute between the two of you, which seems to be the core of the problem. Athanelar (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... I read over the page and just decided to post on his talk page for now. I appreciate your response... I think this can be archived now (or whatever the procedure is...) Thanks again Slava570 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

good luck bro Nerd-in-history (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Elections notability

Are there any sorts of special guidelines for whether or not an election is notable? I've been looking for a WP article mentioning it, but can't find any. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot Probably WP:NEVENT is the nearest guideline beyond the usual WP:GNG. The problem is that elections cover everything from the US president to a local council in a tiny municipality, so it is certain that not all elections will be notable. Do you have a specific case in mind? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I was mainly thinking on regards to Draft:1874 New York City mayoral election. I'm leaning toward a no on that one. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a tough call, given that the infobox shows that virtually all other NY mayoral elections have articles and at the time in 1874 it probably got plenty of coverage. I found over 2,000 hits for ""new york" mayor election wickham" at newspapers.com, for example! e.g. New York Daily Herald Sun, Oct 11, 1874 ·Page 9 Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll decline it for now - While there's definitely a lot of content that could be added, it needs to be added to show notability and thus get accepted. I appreciate your help! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

amature rugby club

hi guys, im working on an article page for the historic preservation of a rugby club its very amature but love the idea of the data and historic events being documented. every score has a source from a third party. events all retold with articles from news outlets and individual coverage from journalists or youtube channels. i listed myself as a COI for the article. any suggestions or things i should know? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Central_Florida_Claymores_Rugby_Football_Club thanks again guys! CarlosLavayenCFL (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CarlosLavayenCFL.

I'm afraid that the chances of an amateur sports club meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability are rather small.

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.

As far as I can see, you have not got a single source that meets all the criteria in WP:42: most of them are primary sources, and the only ones that are independent (the newspaper articles about the plane crash) do not even mention the club, much less contain significant coverage of them.

Without several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42, no article is possible - sorry.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

would I be allowed to edit the "On This Day" for May 14th for this?

• 2026 – Weezer's self-titled debut album is inducted into the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress, which is one of few alt rock albums to be preserved in this way.

^ this is what I had typed out, but I don't want it to be reverted, so I'm going to ask before I do to make sure that I can safely add it without it being reverted -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about the main page, the items that go in the OTD there have to be approved and then go into a queue. See WP:OTD.

You could just put it on the article for May 14, though (with a reliable source, of course) Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you! I will do that -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm i wonder if your a weezer fan Nerd-in-history (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

i love weezer lol -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 23:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not so sure... maybe they're a Weez3r fan, but I've never heard of Weez3r. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What hatnote should I add to the Power conferences article?

I asked this at the talk page for the article but didn't get a response within the last six days, so I will copy my message here verbatim.

"There is already a WP:HATNOTE about "Power five" redirecting here pointing to Power five (disambiguation). However, I think more disambiguation is required as "Power 4" redirects here as well, and that can refer to an IBM microprocessor or a Slayr song. How can I add this to the hatnote without causing unneeded clutter or confusion?"

Any input is appreciated! nameless⁷³⁵⁷ 18:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There's not currently a Power four (disambiguation) page, so you could create that and then add it to the hatnote on the article. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Trying to get a company on wikipedia

I know I went about it the wrong way. I just tried to submit a very basic, not very interesting couple of paragraphs for LazyOne, inc which is an apparel company.

I was rejected, and while I think some of the rejection came from what a crap job I did with the initial draft (I was taking an iterative approach where I planned on adding more once I had an approved article since I worried that it might take many hours to research how to get an article written and then have it get rejected anyway).

But it seems like writing about a commercial company is also kind of frowned upon as promotion. Yet I see a page on Vermont Teddy Bear Company, and Hatley (brand), which is a competitor...so maybe it was just the "way too draft" of a draft that I submitted, or is there something else that I am missing? Wadeolsen (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by sources wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it. Just documentation that the company exists or the mere reporting ofits routine business activities is insufficient.

Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the notability criteria, just as most people do not. Do you have any independent sources that discuss this company? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand...I actually do have some intersting things I wanted to mention. For example, there are a lot of interesting considerations that companies need to take into account when designing children's pajamas since there are flamibility considerations. I was going to explain that within this article since LazyOne has dealt with this quite a bit, and it might be intersting to explore. But maybe it isnt. Either way, it was with this understanding that Wikipedia might not be a "place to just tell about a company and its offerings" that I included examples of other companies. They are longer and more imformative, so perhaps I just need to add more meat to mine? I will try to keep it neutral. Not biased. But I thought it was important to have a listing.... Wadeolsen (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

To write about your company you would need at least three independent, unsolicited reliable sources that discuss what in their view makes your company notable.

Please read WP:BOSS; I will be frank, most company representatives fail at attempts to write about their companies, especially without prior editing experience. It's not impossible to succeed, but the odds are not good. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are employed by this company, that must be disclosed per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's dangerous to use "I see an article that's like this" as a guide to what's acceptable on Wikipedia. You might find it helpful to sample a day's worth of the WP:articles for deletion board; watching that makes it apparent that there are a lot of business articles that are created, last until someone notices them, and are then summarily deleted. It's much better to read up on what's needed for an article, so you can make one (if the company is notable enough) that will actually last.

Please note that you can't write about your own knowledge of the subject, even if you are an expert. If you want to write about flammability you'd need to source it with published material on that topic, not your own expertise. M kuhner (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Wadeolsen (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

your contempt towards some French candidate to presidential election

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.

---

you contempts towards some French candidates to presidential election as you qualify their websites of "vandal, unapropriate, Block evasion:"Disruptive editing ".spamublock}} Sockpuppet unsourced content".Sock puppetry ; that proves that wikipedia is not neutral, nor free, with no respect for democracy, and political oriented! RivagesdeFrance (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the French Wikipedia, that's an entirely different group of people. But if you're on Wikipedia to promote a political candidate, then blocking your account is what's supposed to happen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see why Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" when de facto control is relegated to cliques of entrenched power users with all sorts of pretexts for banning anyone they don't like in their back pockets. How free and open, or encyclopedic is this project after 25 years, really? Even after all these years, essential articles can't be trusted, and new eager users are driven off yet sketchy manipulation campaigns are tolerated to the point where state-sponsored troll farms like the IDF and Russia find it laughably easy to circumvent the official guidelines and the unwritten rules alike. Just stick to the script, cite deliberately obscure and unverifiable or out of print texts, lace your article with weasel words and passive voice...This isn't an encyclopedia at all and never will be. Wikipedia and its crabby self-appointed middle managers should at least be accurate about what this site really is and stop pretending to care about "neutrality" and tone, as if neutrality is even possible, let alone desirable. Not every issue is bland and objective-looking to the milquetoast enlightened centrists and trolls that run this place ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@RivagesdeFrance: "Block evasion" is a valid reason for a block on any Wikipedia regardless of circumstances. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 21:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, UK royalists don't need any primary, coz theey have no presidential election, lol! RivagesdeFrance (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

They still have to elect their ministers of Parliament, which have far more power than the British Crown. Are you here to do anything other than promote French political candidates and flame everyone else? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The Crown is a giant landlord and also heads the Church, and the monarch does have veto power and ability to dissolve Parliament de jure, no? Not to mention their inexplicable level of privilege and the crass cottage industries built around ogling the idle rich. They must have SOME power, otherwise Mr. Doesn't Sweat wouldn't just get shuffled off to a corner with a slap on the wrist for heinous crimes on private islands... ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 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.

what am I supposed to do bro

i made an account today, so cool amirite

however, I feel like I need to do something that benefits both the WikiReaders and WikiEditors to warrant an account.. so like what should I do??? UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You could be right, UselessAccount20. Don't feel obliged to do anything. Just read articles that interest you. When you find some part of an article that reads strangely, stop and think hard about how you could improve it. Then think a bit harder. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Geninuely how does this help at all

I know I can make minor edits, like typos and all that stuff, but what I'm asking is that what should I do that would actually benefit basically everyone, like I actually want to make major edits..

Idk bro this feels like you don't wanna help me at all on my situation ✌️ UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to do anything. But if you want to make contributions, you can write a draft of a new article, check out Wikiprojects on topics that interest you, or get involved in behind-the-scenes work like cleaning up vandalism. Check out Help:Introduction too, there's plenty of tutorials on editing there. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for actually helping me bro ✌️ UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Creating new articles is really challenging, though, so probably not where I'd start. Checking out the WP:Wikipedia Adventure is a good way to get a sense of policies. And then Wikipedia:Task Center sorts tasks by how challenging they are. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @UselessAccount20, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

By far the most valuable thing anybody can do to improve Wikipedia is to find existing articles that lack independent reliable sources (see WP:42) for some or all of the information they contain, and find and cite those sources. We have thousands and thousands of articles that are seriously lacking in this way (mostly because they were created long ago in prehistoric times when we just wanted to get Wikipedia populated with articles).

Unfortunately, this is often one of the most challenging tasks, so not many people spend much time on it (myself included).

Ideally, somebody would

• Find a reliable source for every piece of information in an article, and cite it. (In most cases the source should be independent and secondary, but there are limited cases when a primary source is acceptable).
• If no source can be found for a piece of information, remove it from the article (even if you know it is true - the criterion is verifiability, not truth
• If there are essentially no reliable independent sources about the subject, nominate the article for deletion.

If that challenge appeals to you, go for it! But read WP:verifiability, WP:REFB, WP:42, and WP:BRD first, and remember to explain what you're doing in the edit summary, so that people won't see text removed and think it's vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @UselessAccount20 and Welcom to the Teahouse. I've added a Welcome message to your talk page that has some helpful links. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

talk page archiving

hiya! a while ago I tried to add archiving to my talk page but it didn't work and I think created a few archive pages that were blank. could someone help me set this up correctly? thank you. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 23:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your archiving system and moved the talk topics incorrectly archived to the correct archive. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 00:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

is it possible to block anyone

I've always wondered if I can uhhhh block people... And by that I mean like blocking on social media, where basically nobody can see my stuff, replies, etc UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And if it were possible, that would make collaborating with other editors incredibly difficult if one of those users happened to be in a discussion you were in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

But what if... If the user who blocks someone cannot join the discussion for anything that the blocked user is in? Wouldn't that like, solve the issue? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Look at it from the reverse position: If the blocked user enters a discussion that the user blocked them is in, who deserves the siteblock? The blocker for trying to screw over someone who has good-faith arguments, or the blocked for trying to contribute to a conversation they can't see the entirety of? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 I might have misunderstood what you are asking, but blocking people on social media does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. And yes, you can block people on social media. Wikipedia is still not related... David10244 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

if u don't understand what I'm trying to say, then perhaps you should reply to anything that you are unsure of..

Like I know you are tryna help, but this doesn't help me at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Everything you write on WP is public, there is no way for you to stop other people from reading it if they find it. Even if you delete a comment you've written, people can still read it in the page history. There is no "private space" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there a way to like remove page history to prevent anyone from seeing what someone edited? Would it be possible to use that tool to theoretically "block" people for preventing viewing the messages of a person? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, UselessAccount20, if one editor adds libelous (or similarly problematic) material, then certain editors (called "administrators") can revert the offending edit(s) and hide the affected version(s) (other than from "administrators"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:OS exists, but I don't think that helps you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the salient question is why, after 14 edits, you're asking this question? Have you had a dispute with another editor? Athanelar (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it not possible for me to ask any questions?

Anyways, uh no I don't have anything against editors or nothing like that, just wondering that if Wikipedia somewhat has the same thing going on like other websites, and I don't seem to find a way to block anyone at all... UselessAccount20 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 When you say "block" on WP, people will probably hear that as WP:BLOCK, it's our jargon. We also have something called WP:PROTECTION. You can WP:MUTE people, and use WP:EMAIL. But you can't write "secret stuff" on WP, that's not what this website is for. Journalists (and of course redditors, instagrammers etc) can see what you write and write about it in their articles: WP:PRESS 26. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @UselessAccount20.

This question really is about whether Wikipedia is like social media (in that particular way).

The answer is no, Wikipedia is absolutely not social media: see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and any editor who spends much of their editing time on anything else is at risk of finding themselves blocked (in the way we mean it here). ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

how to make trust worthry content and sorry for editing your page

how do I show that I know it's true but it's not on a website because even if I just change selected to drafted for NBA it gets reverted Helloit'smetoday (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look through your edits and I think you're asking how to add a source? You've been given links to a few information pages, these show as blue text and you need to click on them to read the guidance page.

Pretty much every claim on Wikipedia must be verifiable to anyone else who reads it. This is done by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that independently confirms the information you've added.

If you can't find a reliable source for the claim, it's usually best to leave it out of the encyclopedia article. Blue-Sonnet 02:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

but some stuff is plain wrong and I can't change it Helloit'smetoday (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC) and most likely I'm right I play piano I've had played many of his songs and if you go to all my stuff you can tell by just learning it by hands on experience

@Helloit'smetoday Yes, some stuff is wrong on Wikipedia. Sourced information is more important than what you know to be true. See WP:NOTTRUTH. David10244 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Helloit'smetoday We don't know who "he" is, or what "his songs" are, since you didn't tell us. David10244 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

edit sorry if that sounded rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloit'smetoday (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this article even true at all?

Hello, i came across this article about the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873), and I'm wondering if this is real or not, since I'm not sure if they were ACTUALLY mustered in 1873, and that it claimed they fought in multiple battles in the Civil War,keep in mind, there's already an article for ANOTHER 27th New York Infantry Regiment, need an experienced editor to check on this, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy3523, the article has a curious history. (Consider this edit, for example.) This "1873" article started as a write-up of the subject of today's article 27th New York Infantry Regiment. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeRandomGuy3523, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article of the 27th New York Infantry Regiment that it was "Mustered out May 31, 1863", and then "reformed following the Civil War to replace the 3rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment that was disbanded." That re-formation was presumably in 1873, after a 10-year gap, as the 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873).

I can't speak to US 19th-century military practice, but I do know that in the UK, when a regiment or Corps was/is disbanded, a few members of the Officers' Mess (which may in itself be a legal entity with often valuable assets and property) usually remained nominally on its strength so that it could if necessary be reconstituted as the same regiment with a continuity of its history, including retention of its former battle honours.

I agree that both articles could make this clearer than they currently do, and I would not argue against them being merged, with suitable redirects created. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly knwon as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Hoary@SomeRandomGuy3523@~2026-27434-43 It certainly needs work as, as written, a regiment active from 1873 fought in battles in 1862. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

suggestion: i think 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment (1873) should be merged with this article: 27th New York Infantry Regiment. SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklist Milwaukee Band -Not on wiki site yet

Hi, I am trying to make visible the Blacklist Band article for the Blacklist Milwaukee Band. Is there anybody who can help me? Blacklistband (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I will try  Helloit'smetoday (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklistband, you asked about this at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blacklist_(Milwaukee_Band). You got two responses, indicating what you'd have to do to your draft in order to make it eligible to be an article. Since then, your draft hasn't been amended in any way. Did you see the responses? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not know it needed to be ammended. No I did not see any responses. Any help on your end would be appreciated. As I was the original drummer and founding member still alive, the article itself is accurate and correct. In fact, the bass player Rick and I still play together to this day. Blacklistband (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blacklistband Click the blue link just above that points to your question, and the answers, that are at the Help desk. The blue parts of the answers are links to more info. Click those links and try to digest the info there. David10244 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Blacklistband, yes, what David10244 says. (You now have three responses there.) As for the claim As I was the original drummer and founding member still alive, the article itself is accurate and correct, you seem to be proposing some degree of dependence on what Wikipedia oddly terms "original research". But doing so isn't permissible. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Need some help with sources

Hello! So I had a recent page rejected, Draft:The Mon Valley Independent, and the reasoning was for no qualifying sources. Now I believe I understand the qualifying but I most just want a second opinion. Just to give some more specific details, the source I am referring to is the 5th citation, from the WVU website. Of course any other feedback on the article would be great as well! Thank you in advance! Tacotyler (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tacotyler Per what I see at [2], it seems to me that this source [3] is not independent of the subject, they are writing about "their own". So, while it won't help with WP:GNG, it can probably be used as a WP:ABOUTSELF source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You are totally right. I probably should’ve realized that when I noticed the link had the word “testimonial”. Thank you for the help. I think I was able to find another source, but now I am worried it lacks significance. I feel like once I finally find one that matches all the criteria I will finally understand, still just am curious if you could confirm the source fits all the criteria. It is under citation 6. Thank you again for your help! Tacotyler (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tacotyler, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that the TribLive article is largely based on quotations (ie interviews) from the personally of the MVI, and so is not independent.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Login verification broken again

Have tried to log in several times, it keeps asking for a validation code that it isn’t sending. Yes, I’ve checked spam. No, it isn’t there. I’d ask at Help talk:Email confirmation, but it’s semi-protected. Anybody know what’s wrong? ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Just.....why? Why would the page that is for new editors be semi-protected? Just delete the damn page now, it's completely useless to literally everybody who would need it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EDIT IT.

Sorry about that. Not sure what SuperMarioMan (the person who originally semi-protected it) was thinking. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same reaction when I saw it was semi-protected lol. ~2026-29577-68 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The log indicates it's protected to prevent test edits, which seems to be the bulk of edits to that page. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd. Why would anybody put test edits on that page? Either way, the page being semi-protected makes it quite useless now to a good chunk of people that are going to be using it. Why is it still there? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is copy+pasting a passage with a citation allowed or to be avoided?

Was fleshing out a few silent film stub pages, Back to Liberty and The Lost Express, and found synopses for these two films on the AFI catalog. I pasted them into a plot synopsis section in block quotes while adding a citation to the specific webpages at the end. I believe adding the sections for the two does not constitute plagarism since I gave the citation, but am I correct? Furthermore, is using the other sites summaries ok/within wikipedia style, or should that not be done? If it shouldn't, I am more than happy to take out the passages and just put in "no plot" tags on both pages, just wanted to get another opinion on it LincolnMagnus (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That depends on the copyright status of AFI. Personally, I'd say copy-and-pasting is a bad idea. Even close paraphrasing is stronlgy discouraged. It would definitely be best if you could rewrite it in your own words. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, ok LincolnMagnus (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

can I have help because I'm working on Vivaldi

i need people to vote on it before it gets taken down in the trust worthy content it says you can vote on it so vote for it Helloit'smetoday (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:COMMUNICATE and start a discussion on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has at least 14 pages named "Vivaldi". We don't know which, if any, of those you mean. Also, if someone is proposing to delete a page they will have given reasons. Fixing the reasons would be the best way forward. (Not enough reliable sources? Add some. Breaks rules? Fix that.) M kuhner (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)V

@Helloit'smetoday, what do you mean when you say 'you can vote on it'? Do you mean the little numbers you see in Contributions and History pages - like this one for Vivaldi? Those numbers show how much data was added (green, +) or removed (red, -) in an edit, that's all.

You keep trying to put information about Spring being used in Grow A Garden, and people keep removing it. If someone removes your edit, you need to go to the article's talk page (Talk:Antonio Vivaldi) and explain why you want to add that information as well as offering a good source to verify the information. WP:RS has more information about this. If you just keep adding the same thing without trying to discuss it, sooner or later you will be blocked so you have to stop. Adding something repeatedly when people are removing it is called edit warring and it's something you want to avoid! Meadowlark (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

it is Antonio Vivaldi-helloit'smetoday.

How to speed up getting a draft reviewed?

Hello, is there any way to expedite the process of getting a draft reviewed? It says it might take up to 3 months to wait. Do we really need to wait that long? Thanks for answering. Jane1289 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 You seem to have already done what it says in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" part of the submission box at the top of your draft, so I think you'll just have to wait. As a WP:PAID contributor, some of the volunteer reviewers may be less inclined to prioritise your drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 First of all, you need to be more specific about your paid editing disclosure; please see WP:PAID. Simply saying "I sometimes engage in paid editing" is not enough; you need to disclose exactly who is paying you and for which edits. For example, I presume your 16,000 byte expansion of The Golden Dream was a paid edit; you need to disclose that in the edit summary when you carry out edits like that. You similarly need to specifically disclose that Draft:Diego Quemada-Diez was created in response for payment. Otherwise, you are on a fast track to being (rightfully, at this stage) accused of undiscloswd paid editing. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The important thing to realize is that reviews are done by volunteers, for whom this is a hobby.

If your draft isn't on a topic that particularly interests anyone, then you'll have to wait for the people who are motivated more by making sure that every draft gets reviewed. DS (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can sources be repeated?

Hi! I'm trying to improve articles like Trans-Canada Highway and XZ Utils backdoor, but many of the sources are cited multiple times within one page, like, for example:

This source is used 4 times on this page.

Are we allowed to repeat sources? In the case of the latter, I'm finding a sparse amount of sources, but I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks! --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 18:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Which source is used 4 times on this page? You haven't put it in your message. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just using it as an example. --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite sources multiple times in the same page! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheAuroraBorealis. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for how to cite the same source in several places in an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks! --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I’m new to Wikipedia, and I never read the guidelines yet. Can you please explain on what is Wikipedia, right now? MiniuteHour409 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

We can't possibly do this as well as those guidelines do. WP:About would be a great place for you to start. If you like to learn things by doing, you could try the game version WP:Adventure. M kuhner (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Could someone help me review my essay?

Hello. Before posting my essay to the "Wikipedia:" namespace, could you guys review it? I'd be happy to hear your advises. (And note: You can edit it however you want if you think it would be better with the way you think) Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I did a quick read through your essay, and it is good. I think it can be improved, but it is good. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Birthay boy We already have a much better essay Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. I'm not sure that yours adds anything. I would also point out that your grammar is very poor. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, but I want to say that WP:CREATELEAD generally focuses on how to create lead, while this one is about articles which lacks overview (near but not same). Maybe a merge could be done, I am not against it, but I just wanted to point out this. I agree with you about the poor grammar, it should be fixed (and I will fix it). Thanks again for the review! Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

various questions by a TA

Hatting disruptive questions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

---

How long does it take until a edit is searchable in Wikipedia search?

How long does it take until a edit is searchable in Wikipedia search? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant a new edit. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users think i'm a certain user, because of a same topic, despite that same topic being popular

I'm talking about The Rodfellows Movie, which has garnered 408K views on a saltydkdan video. A previous user had used this as a excuse and now people think i'm them. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Question: if a person admits they're the same user, will they get blocked or not?

Question: if a person admits they're the same user, will they get blocked or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant the same person that did block evasion(s). ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Has something prompted this question? Its always best to be honest and deal with the consequences. Those who do are looked upon better than those who don't. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you would look at spaces where i (~2026-29101-67) talked, you will get a answer. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@331dotIf you would look at spaces where i (~2026-29101-67) talked, you will get a answer on why i have promted this question. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-29101-67.

I don't wish to appear unkind, but you are asking for help, and when people ask you to be more specific so they can help you, you tell them to go and look for themselves. Do you think that will make people more likely to want to help you, or less?

At least tell us which article or page you want us to look at, and if it is a discussion on a talk or project page, which section of the page. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineThen people could help me and also, the saltydkdan video has 408K views, that's a lot of people, meaning there are multiple people in wikipedia, and that other user used it as a excuse to keep block evading and keep disrputive ediiting. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means.

I have no idea what "the saltydkdan video" is or why its number of view is important.

If you want help, explain what you are asking about in a way that your readers can understand. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

They are angry because no one is believing their excuses to convince people that they are not the same person as another blocked temporary account. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they will likely be blocked after saying they are the same person. So will the person who doesn't disclose they are blocked once evidence shows that they are. A person who admits it will find their path to returning to being an editor in good standing a lot shorter and smoother than a person who, for example, continually evades their block because they have an obsession with The Rodfellows Movie and then tells people they're a new user even though it's a very simple task for many editor to click on the TA and the history and see that it is not true. Hopefully this example answers your question. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbsBut what if it's a coincidence? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The connection of town, both on Wikipedia, editing the exact niche content, same approach to getting their edit, same block evasion, same mistakes in spelling and grammar, same spamming of the Teahouse, same excuses when caught, same fibs, and same randomly editing in other sections, means that your question is moot because it's not a coincidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbsAlso, the saltydkdan video has 408K views, that's a lot of people, meaning there are multiple people in wikipedia, and that other user used it as a excuse to keep block evading and keep disrputive ediiting. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What is TA?

What is TA? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Where to put this in article "2026 Cannes Film Festival"?

https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest asking on Talk:2026 Cannes Film Festival, where people with knowledge of and interest in the article will see it. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineBut it is not that active. What to do to make it more active? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineMake the chat active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we have a discussion on the usage of iMDB?

In Wikipedia:Cite iMDB, it says that "IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications." I believe that my edit falls in the disputed category, rather than innapropriate category. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant my edit with The Rodfellows Movie. And also a source of the whole talk of me being a user that did edits. Although it is noted that saltydkdan video has 408K views, which is the same excuse this user did. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users say my edit is disruptive. My edit is not disruptive. Disruptive means "causing problems, stopping something from continuing". My edit isn't problematic and dosen't stop something from continuing. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Users each have different opinions. It is simply my opinion that my edit is not disprutive, as i've written above. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No SoGuys881 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881Athanelar wrote that you're not helpful. I think we need other users to talk about it. You can still talk though. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881It's not meant to hurt your feelings, it is a opinion by Athanelar. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Other my conversations in the Teahouse are not active, what do to to make them active?

Other my conversations in the Teahouse are not active, what do to to make them active? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that english is broken. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

idk, reply to them? i dont know either Arenghtqru888 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Arenghtqru888But what should i write? Also you can talk to me about a more imprtant issue, users think i am another user that did disruptive edits. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I dont know, I'm new here too Arenghtqru888 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

you’re making disruptive edits right now - ie this continued flooding of this page with new sections. Please desist. Morwen (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I am keep posting because i want to talk to people in order to prove i'm not that other person. I don't want to be disruptive. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenI am keep posting because i want to talk to people in order to prove i'm not that other person. I don't want to be disruptive. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenAlso, i broken english to hurry. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a break and stop posting. I’m sure someone will look at this in due course and deal with the matter but this isn’t a chat room and you cannot expect instant responses. please consider this a warning. Morwen (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@MorwenYes, and also make the talk chat in the talk page of 2026 canned film festival active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there other people that have heard about The Rodfellows Movie? Write yes if you know it

Are there other people that have heard about The Rodfellows Movie? Write yes if you know it ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 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.

Consolidating additional questions by the same user; feel free to expand the hat. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Which template is for a article that needs to be urgently rewritten?

Which template is for a article that needs to be urgently rewritten? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup rewrite works for that purpose. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, i added it to the "Hare and Wolf" article. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Reference in "Too Many Losing Heroines!" and "Traditional animation"

The reference for the text "he closing sequence for the first episode of Too Many Losing Heroines!, was made using cel animation shot with an 8mm film camera, marking the first time a new cel animation has been broadcast on television in 10 years and 9 months." ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

And in the same text in the article "Too Many Losing Heroines!". ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I've shown you how to do it, be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the article template for improving worldview instead of only information from and things from the western world?

What is the article template for improving worldview instead of only information from and things from the western world? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Try Template:Globalize. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

i just so happened to found this template before you commented, but i don't know, is there a similar, related but different template? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Like, rather than perspectives from people from different countries, it is instead information of stuff in other countries. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The foot of that template mentions template:Geographical imbalance which may be closer to what you had in mind. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Should the text in the Draft Critterz article be changed?

From "computer-animated" to "generative AI"? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I added "generative AI" in this draft article rather than just being a computer-animated film. Not sure if my edit is good enough. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, there will be a first-look of Critterz at the 2026 Cannes film festival. Also, the 2026 Cannes film festival is taking place from 12 to 23 May 2026, which is happening right now. So it's worth to look at the 2026 Cannes film festival for updates. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Where should i put this news source from Variety https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ in the article "2026 Cannes film festival"? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I added it in the (Top) section of 2026 Cannes Film festival (it's called the lead section, or the lede, if i'm correct). I geniunely didn't know where to place it, nor how to write it. But i wanted to add information with a source from Variety surrounding Critterz. So i made this edit. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine: you have followed the first part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle cycle, by Boldly carrying out your edit to 2026 Cannes Film Festival. If someone disagrees that it improves the article (or if it isn't Cited to a Reliable source, they may amend (by moving it somewhere else, for example) or Revert your edit (hopefully with an explanation in their Edit summary, which i notice that another relatively new editor who reverted you failed to add), after which the two of you can Discuss the the matter and come to a mutually agreed Concensus.

This is a standard way of working on Wikipedia. The project is necessarily complex, and nobody works on it without making mistakes, which can always be corrected by another editor: honest mistakes are part of the learning process, and their correction should not be taken for an admonition unless they are made repeatedly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

unsure if I put something in the right section

on the article Kermit the Frog, I put in the music video for weezer's Keep Fishin' since Kermit is in it, but I'm not 100% sure if it goes into the internet section, his discography section, filmography, or guest appearances on television. could someone help me? I don't want my edit to be reverted. please and thank you in advance -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 22:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, that looks like the best spot to put it, but another editor may very well move it at some point in the future. Thanks for your contribs! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

talk page archiving to wrong page

I have Lowercase sigmabot III installed on my talk, but for some reason it always keeps archiving to User talk:Dantus21/Archive 8 instead of User talk:Dantus21/Archive 1. What am I messing up here? Dantus21 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dantus21,

I think it's because you have the "counter" parameter set to 8 instead of 1. Try changing it to 1. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 23:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! I'll try doing that. Thanks for letting me know. Dantus21 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

About indexing

Does it always take 90 days for a new article to get indexed by search engines? Are there other ways that new articles get indexed? Mintcookie810 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles get indexed after 90 days or after they have been marked as "patrolled" by a new page patroller. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Help with writing an Article

How do I request help with writing an article? I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? DS (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

fastest way to find categories

yall I have finally decided on what I shall do, and that is basically trying to categorize any article that needs categories, however..... I have an issue

It's a bit time consuming finding categories for an article manually, and I wonder if there was like a tool to find categories kinda automatically UselessAccount20 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:MILFLAGS and historical flags in military infoboxes

Hi, I'm in a dispute about whether historical national flags should be displayed in a military conflict infobox. The other editor is citing MOS:MILFLAGS and argues that when there are only two belligerents the flags are redundant because they don't differentiate among several parties. My reading is that "differentiate among several parties" is given as one example with "for example" and isn't meant to be the only case where flags are useful. I also think the fact that MOS:MILFLAGS warns against anachronistic flags suggests the guideline's authors saw historical flags as carrying real informational value beyond just the country name in the text. The article in question is the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Both belligerents have well documented historical flags for the 1895-1896 period so there is no consistency issue. Am I reading MOS:MILFLAGS correctly here, or is the other editor's interpretation the right one? Any advice would be appreciated. Habeshakira (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)