Wikipedia:Teahouse

PhoenixCaelestis, 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

Merry Christmas

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 just want to wish you all merry Christmas. I hope you enjoy your holiday and have good time with the people you love. ObamaForever2008 (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Echoing Merry Christmas back across the miles, O.F., and in return sharing a thought that resonates with me and may with other wordsmiths: that the one whose birth is celebrated today has also been called The Word. Augnablik (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik! Happy holiday! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry Christmas and a happy and blessed 2026 Ajron Bach (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ajron Bach. Okey! (Iluziya7 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry Christmas! And Happy Holidays! (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

And to you, my friend Ajron Bach (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You too! ~2025-42519-93 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas even though I don’t really celebrate it. 2025 is coming to a close soon, and I wish all of you the best of luck next year. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌™ :) 15:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ty dude merry Christmas happy holidays! Bps2 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bps2. Congratulations to you too! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Merry (late) Christmas and happy holidays :D FelixGao0 (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@FelixGao0! Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! (Iluziya7 (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

happy new year :D wishing everyone a wonderful 2026 Shadestar474 ^(talk) 20:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I wish you for a best time! (as a temporary account|he/him) ~2025-43569-93 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

notability

Hi, I'm having a hard time with my main project, which has the Italian musician Luca Formentini as a subject.

Draft:Luca Formentini.

Given he is active in a niche as experimental ambient music is, it is impossible to find his name on magazines and websites such as Rolling Stones and Pitchfork.

The reviewers keep asking for more notability references while I think my draft contains many, those which should be enough to start the page at least, like multiple major music printed magazines and important music websites from Europe and USA.

I keep looking for references to add but when I find and add them it looks they're never enough of good. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: Your first column of references all share a title, "Luca Formentini", which is not the title of the actual underlying links (most of which are album reviews). I will also note we do not cite iTunes/Apple Music (online storefront) and AllMusic is unusable (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano thank you so much for helping me tracking the weak points of my submission!!!

I adjusted the title on the first column of references, finding a better correlation and erased the link to Itunes, while I kept the Allmusic link as I found it on some of the musicians I checked when I prepared my first draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennesz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Hecker) no problem to erase the Allmusic link if needed though. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

From looking at what you've just written here, and then looking at your draft, it seems like you probably don't know that Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability are quite different from the way you've used that word. Those are important to know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I'm willing to learn, thank you for your advice.

However when I check the criteria for notability I think we have what is needed as:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself > Yes, many important websites are talking of his work and about him as a musician.
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart > This is impossible with the kind of music he's playing. Ambient and Experimental will never appear on a national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.> Again this should be contextualized as above.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.> I see the note that shows this has bee debated and probably not considered applicable. I think this is correct, given the current situation and the music style.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).> certainly yes! the Australian Extreme has a long time reputation and important catalogue, the American Curious Music has published albums from very relevant musicians, Soundscape Productions, Dark Companion all have an impressive catalogue. No way they can be considered marginal players in this context.
6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.> Sure! He has collaborated with very important names in the international experimental and ambient scene such as Holger Czukay, Robert Rich, Markus Stockhausen, Steve Jansen.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city> Yes, many local newspapers and Italian magazines cites him as a relevant name in the local and national scene. Focusing just on the latest articles the last review published by Rumore magazine which scores his latest album 80/100 and says "...that confirm Formentini as a secluded yet necessary voice in contemporary sonic research." or Blow Up that scores the same album 8.2 and says "Unmissable"

I think this is a lot for a musician that is active since more than 20 years in a small but relevant music style.

Thank you for your help! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Which three sources would you say are the best ones for showing his notability? We want to be able to say "These three sources already tell his story; we have no need to add anything, because just these three are enough - they've written the article for us." TooManyFingers (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If I had to pick from those online they would be: https://www.15questions.net/interview/luca-formentini-about-creating-silence-and-tapping-sonic-energy-field/page-1/

https://www.chaindlk.com/reviews/12271

https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2021/11/molecules-by-luca-formentini-new-album-intra.html

or https://extrememusic.com.au/artists/luca-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The first one does not show notability, because it is Formentini himself speaking. The third one is announcing an album of his, and includes links to all of his media and gives an interview quote - not sure about this one. The last one seems to have been written by him or by a publicist, also not showing notability.

So if you take the second item, the third item, and nothing else, do those give the full story of his career? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers well, no, the two you suggest are not enough to give a full story of his career. Any advice?

By the way, I just discovered that Gino Dal Soler (one of the most historical writers on Blow Up magazine) listed his latest album within his top 5 albums for 2025. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Being listed doesn't show notability either, unfortunately.

The problem now appears to be that you have far too little good material to start writing an article. Independent publishers have not been telling Formentini's story, so Wikipedia will not tell his story either. Unless you find several major stories about him, written by reporters alone, with no publicist, no interview, no press release. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:SIGCOV

Things like being mentioned on a list of top albums would be considered a passing mention, not suitable for establishing notability even for the album itself. In order to demonstrate that the musician is notable, you need significant, in-depth coverage.

The exception is if they meet any of the criteria in WP:NMUSICIAN that would allow us to presume notability; however, even if we presume this person is notable, you would still need to find enough coverage in secondary sources to base an article on; which passing mentions of "top 5 albums" still doesn't accomplish. Athanelar (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thank you again for your help in interpreting Wikipedia's rules, let me take the chance to ask you if an interview on a major Italian music magazine such as Rockerilla would count. Also, given we're talking about the crossing point between music and art, what about the publishing of his work on a catalogue released by a museum of contemporary art and/or a catalogue of an art exhibition he's been invited to participate?

Thank you! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are kind of a tricky one, because depending on the publication, the fact that a person was interviewed may well indicate notability, but the problem is that you generally can't actually include most of the information from the interview (because it's a primary source which we only permit certain information from)

So, if he's been interviewed by a major publication it's a good indication there should be other, better sources available to substantiate his notability. The kind of sources you're looking for are summarised in the golden rule.

As for his artwork, that would fall under WP:NARTIST. Namely what you're describing would fall under point 4, which says;

[an artist can be considered notable if their] work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So the question is whether the instances in which his art has been published would qualify as a 'significant exhibition' or 'several notable galleries or museums' Athanelar (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar this brings things to a very high level of subjectivity which can become very much debatable. Luckily Wikipedia gives room to artists who are not just those accepted and celebrated by mass critics or media and gives room to outsiders and more niche art explorers whose work is important because of the quality of the feedback and attention it is able to deserve. Art is sometimes happening and developing out of the reach of major radars and this is what allows it to grow honestly and genuinely, allowing the cultural growth of the society, which is so much needed.

I will try find those catalogues and interviews, hopefully they will help to give a better read of the notability his work deserves. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If you show what he deserves, it cannot help.

An article on Wikipedia is like the old saying about getting a bank loan: you can only get one if you prove you don't need it. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Yes, that makes sense. What I wanted to say is that I'm surprised all the references I've been showing still don't validate his recognized value.

Hopefully the latest message I sent a few mins ago will finally prove his importance as a sound artist and composer is recognized by independent and qualified sources. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar and @TooManyFingers I found the catalogues of some expositions, in which different curators talk about his work and about the artwork on display. In the specific these are:

2025: Meccaniche della Meraviglia, site-specific sound installation "We Don't End" catalogue https://www.lacompagniamassetti.it/shop/arte/meccaniche-della-meraviglia-19/

2023: Water Light Festival, site specific sound installations on peter Fellin and Alik Cavaliere Artworks https://www.brixen.org/waterlight/en/installations/past-editions/water-light-festival-edition-2023/franzensfeste-wlf-23

2023: Musil museum, sound installation for Pietro Gardoni artwork https://www.musilbrescia.it/it/news/dettaglio-news.asp?id=844

2023: Franzenfeste Museum: site specific sound installation on Peter Fellin artwork https://www.franzensfeste.info/ausstellung/im-dialog-mit-peter-fellin-2/

2021: Polvere, video and sound installation "Art Spaces" as mentioned on Corriere della Sera and Bresciaoggi

By checking newspapers I also found a (half page) article on Bresciaoggi which is clearly not an interview but a report of his last activities. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If those are the best references available, then I would say the artist has insufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. None of those provides in-depth coverage. None of them devote more than a couple of sentences to the artist; some of them do no more than mention his name. We would need sources that discuss the artist in-depth; perhaps an entire article several pages long discussing his life and works. Just brief mentions like these do not support notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Thank you for your reply. I believe there may be a misunderstanding.

The links listed in my previous message were references to printed exhibition catalogues, not the full sources themselves. They were provided in response to a specific question about art-related documentation. I can scan and upload selected PDFs, or make them available in an online folder, should that be helpful for evaluation.

The draft currently under discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luca_Formentini

In addition to the online sources already cited in the draft, there are multiple in-depth articles in printed music magazines and newspapers that discuss the artist’s work and career at length. Unfortunately, I am unsure of the preferred way to present such offline sources for review, and I would appreciate guidance on how best to make them available for consideration. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker here you can check some articles on newspapers and the pictures of two official catalogues published by the institutions which organized the exhibitions where he was commissioned site-specific artworks.

There are much more available if they can be useful.

@Athanelar and @TooManyFingers any advice from you?

Thank you all and enjoy the last hours before the beginning of the new loop around the sun! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Why does this say "Luca Formentini shared Wikipedia Dox with you"? That's where the name of the Dropbox account owner goes. Does he know you're using his name in this way? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

to nobody's shock, it seems this has just been revealed as a concealed attempt at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY... Athanelar (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Athanelar and @TooManyFingers, I disclosed my COI at the beginning of the project as required. I have made known that I know him and this is why you see his name on the dropbox folder. I just asked him to provide the scans of the documents, just because it looks like they could help to evaluate notability. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

As a side note, I had no idea until just now, that Silvia Dalle Montagne (or Luca Dal Lago?) first submitted a draft of this article five years ago. A determined editor. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers It's Silvia here, I can prove my identity if needed.

And yes, as you can easily check this is my first project. The reason behind this is that I know him as I know some other names working in the same musical genre and I was surprised to see them and not him, while they have the same if not sometimes less notability than him. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if this caused any tension; I will step back from any further involvement and leave the evaluation entirely to uninvolved editors.

Let me send you all my best wishes for a serene and positive 2026! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Clearly you've continued to misunderstand Wikipedia's concept of "notability". These last batches of publicity material you've sent are mostly interviews (sometimes disguised interviews) and announcements.

Notability means independent coverage (the reliable reporter is all by himself, he has no interview quotes to work with, and no concert or album to announce), and it means the subject's history (not only his latest project or two at the time of writing).

In all of this publicity material, we keep hearing and seeing Formentini do the talking. The Rockerilla piece has a title that, in this context, becomes almost a cruel joke just by changing one letter: "Luca Formentini in continuo dialogo con se stesso". That is the problem, throughout. It's all too much of Formentini talking to himself; others have apparently not been talking about him very much unless he tells them to.

This all may change in the future. I suggest setting this draft aside completely, and then coming back to it in 2030 - hopefully by then there will be much more to work with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone should be proud to share the stage with Markus Stockhausen - I'm aware that this is not something done by just anyone. But being "that guy who was with Markus Stockhausen" is not notable, unless publishers independent of you have told your story in great detail - without your help, just because they wanted to. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers ok, I will keep looking for good sources, but I doubt there will be the chance to find one that will give a comprehensive story of his work. The new album has just been published so there will be something new probably.

Not the answer but I found this before reading your last message:

this is what Paul Roland says about his collaboration with Markus Stockhausen: "Luca’s soundscapes, as can be heard on their latest release for Dark Companion, Rêverie, are an emotional journey into the dark side of the soul. Together they converse in a shared musical language, alternating deep exchanges with gently tender moments to produce music that feels very much of the present yet—remarkably—also undeniably enduring, a music that calls for repeated listening. It is a wholly spontaneous method of composition that borders on alchemy. Call it art music, or better yet, free spirits at play."

Original link is here: https://www.folkclub.it/it/concerti/36/stockhausen-capra-vaccina-mortazavi-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding collaborations, see WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:INVALIDBIO

Mere proximity to someone notable does not confer notability. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thank you for pointing this out. However we're not talking about proximity, we're talking about sharing art production (music composition in this case) and signing it together as a single artwork (album). I think this is different than inheriting notability. Additionally we're not talking about an occasional event with a single artist, but with repeated events with different composers and performers. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia is different. Wikipedia uses the word incorrectly, so I understand your frustration. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether you deserve recognition. All that matters is being the subject of major publications that decided to cover your history, with no prompting or influence from you. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

(I think it probably helps to emphasize that this is about explaining a person's history - not announcements.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers thank you for putting more and more light on the many issues I'm finding that, yes, I can admit, are frankly quite frustrating. I sometime feel like there's something weird going on as the quantity and quality of references I'm providing is way deeper and wider than many of those I find in many other similar articles. I'm aware I can't make comparisons, but this is what comes to my mind. This submission is now becoming a challenge as I don't want to become the reason why this musician is not getting the recognition I (and not just me) think he deserves. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Wikipedia intentionally waits until the person already IS fully recognized. We follow. We intentionally refuse to lead. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers and @Athanelar experimental music has one undoubted reference: The Wire (magazine) where the musician was cited a few years ago. I was able to find a part of the article online here: https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/94593/spread/5 Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

didnt cite Da rules Fun81 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image versus navbox image for George Washington article

Hi everyone. I'm looking for some general guidance on lead image selection for biographies of historical figures, specifically in the article on George Washington. The current lead image is a long-standing, widely recognized Gilbert Stuart portrait, while another Stuart portrait painted from life during Washington's lifetime is currently used only in a navbox in a small, cropped form. I'm trying to understand how experienced editors typically weigh recognizability and long-standing use against contemporaneous execution when deciding what works best as a lead image, and whether it's ever appropriate for different images to serve different roles, such as a recognizable portrait in a navbox and a from-life portrait as the lead image. I'm not trying to force a change, just to better understand common practice and expectations before deciding how to proceed- Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with a Martin Dempsey - Wikipedia entry

I would like to get in touch with whoever edited this Wikipedia entry: Holli Dempsey

The reason is, Holli is my (late)uncle's grand-daughter ( my second cousin).

I need their assistance to produce a profile for my late uncle, who was a distinguished Irish TV & Major feature film & Theatre actor/ Opera Singer/ Television Presenter (bi-Lingual) etc etc. I am a supporter of WKP and have donated many times ( modest sums as I am pensioner!). Thank you for your help. ~2025-43689-58 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-43689-58. Wikipedia articles are collaborative projects written by often hundreds of editors. The Holli Dempsey article has had 76 editors over the years contribute to it. If your late uncle meets our criteria for inclusion, at some point a volunteer editor will create an article about them. Please stay away from anyone claiming to be able to write an article in exchange for money, this is a scam. qcne (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They are allowed to make a page themselves I believe, just with reliable sources and declaring a COI. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Allowed, true, but for people writing about themselves the failure rate is extremely high. People want to write many things they know about themselves, and being disallowed from doing that - being forced to write only what the public already knew anyway, without adding to it - is frustrating for most people, and often leads to anger and blame. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I don’t condone it, but if they did it really well and with evidence only I guess it could pass. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a big part of the problem, actually - they do have evidence! They have the wrong kind of evidence, mountains of it, and they're offended and hurt at being told they aren't allowed to present any of it. (Father's papers, that unpublished autobiography, treasured awards from non-notable organizations, ...) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Shame they can't just publish said autobiography. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It would cost them money, and after all nobody would ever read it. So they come to where it's free, and where they think it might be read by someone. That's my guess, anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I know. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about the non-notable evidence, personal evidence and evidence which doesn’t matter who isn’t reliable, sadly people try and try and try to get their pages published. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article Holli Dempsey is, I'm afraid, one of the thousands and thousands of articles we have that are seriously substandard, and would not be accepted if it were submitted today. The problem is that a Wikipedia article is not a "profile" - i.e., what the subject or their associates wish people to know - but an encyclopaedia article about the subject. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

That article does not, as far as I can see, have a single source which meets the criteria of being reliable, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of her (see golden rule). I shall be tagging it for problems, and see if I can find suitable sources - if not, then I will nominate it for deletion.

I realise that if this happens this may be upsetting for you that it was your question that brought it to my attention; but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, an article about somebody is no part whatever of their "online presence", and promotion is forbidden. Wikipedia is edited and managed by volunteers, and many tasks that we would like to have covered (such as reviewing and improving or deleting sub-standard articles) rarely get done.

As for an article about your uncle: unfortunately, there is no reliable way to find somebody to write an article for you, or to help you do so. You can submit a request to requested articles, but in honesty, most requests sit there forever. You can ask somebody who began an existing article if they are willing to look at it (that article was begun by an editor who goes by the name Theroadislong in 2016 - though they are now a respected reviewer of new articles, and I don't think they will thank me for bringing that one to their attention!) but there is no guarantee that they would agree.

You could also ask at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject, such as WP:WikiProject Television or WP:WikiProject Theatre - there you will find editors who have an interest in that topic, and your request may strike a chord with an editor who is interested in your uncle. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

But on the whole, if you want an article writing, the most likely way to get it to happen is to write it yourself. Unfortunarly, writing a Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult activities for a new editor, and even harder if you have a conflict of interest (as you would appear to have, given your relationship). Despite what Keyol Translator said, you are permitted to try. What matters most is whether or not the independent reliable substantial sources about Martin Dempsey exist or not: if not, then no article is possible. (That is the same question as I will be asking as I look at Holli Dempsey).

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.

You mention that you have been a supporter and donor: thank you; but that has no bearing at all on what happens inside Wikipedia. Fundraising is entirely the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation, and nobody editing Wikipedia has anything to do with it, or knows who has donated and who has not.

Finally, I should repeat Keyol Translator's warning: there are people who try to sell their "services" to create article for payment, and having posted here you may be approached by these people. They have no standing in Wikipedia, though they are permitted to operate if they follow Wikipedia's policies for Paid editors: but most of them are scammers (see WP:SCAM).

I'm sorry I couldn't give you a more encouraging answer. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

More than happy for you to take Holli Dempsey to WP:AFD, it's my impression that it would likely survive, but I have no strong attachment to it! Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If it were at WP:AFC now it would be an easy straightforward accept. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong A straightforward accept? @ColinFine thinks it doesn't have a single good source. But, the process can play out... It is unfortunate that many people think that Wikipedia is closer to social media, when it is trying to be an encyclopedia. It's also unfortunate that, with millions of very old articles, we can't easily find all of the substandard ones. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

re Holli Dempsey...WP:NACTOR says they are notable if..."the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions." Take it to WP:AFD if you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Tangential to ColinFine's You mention that you have been a supporter and donor: thank you; but...nobody editing Wikipedia...knows who has donated and who has not: when I saw a pensioner, I thought it prudent to make a general note: please do not donate if you aren't in a place financially to do so. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Great info here for a newbie like me. Thank you. CROWLSYONG (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Where art thou, Renaissance art wikipedians?

I would like to find wikipedians that contribute to the topic of Renaissance Art (ideally Italian, but the more general topic will do). I've looked in Projects / Visual Arts but did not find anything close. Other than stalking users from Talk pages, any suggestions? Jp1008 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Italian Renaissance, I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy could help. It might not, but I don't doubt that there'd be at least a few members there who cover this topic. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Hello! You are very active on the English Wikipedia, I admire you, you are great, keep it up, thank you for your contributions! (Iluziya7 (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

WP:WikiProject Arts and WP:WikiProject Italy perhaps ? ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME 15:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jp1008: within WikiProject History there is a suggestion of a possible task force on renaissance; maybe you could join that project and help kick-start the TF? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Another point of view: whatever group you'd really hope to find, don't worry about finding it, and don't try to revive it; just start doing the work such a group ought to do! People who are interested might not see you in a tiny corner waving a tiny banner, but they will notice your good work, eventually, and become more likely to help.

I mean this as a way to prevent you from bearing the heavy load of running a group that has few members. When a group is large enough, the load of running it becomes worthwhile. With small numbers, it's just a burden. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Our talk page isn't super active but the museum project wikipedians still are on the whole, happy to help on renaissance stuff if you want to ping me to a discussion or six @Jp1008 Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Star! Jp1008 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

New Year's happy birthday world 🌎 you 2026

Hello! Editors and communities of the English Wikipedia! Today is a great day, New Year's Day is widely celebrated on Wikipedia, and perhaps all over the world, as a global holida! Never tire of developing and protecting Wikipedia! We wish you all a happy New Year 2026! We appreciate every edit!😍 Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: Happy New Year! 2026 will mark Wikipedia's 25th anniversary! Yup, a quarter of a century of existence, I don't think Jimmy Wales ever thought that this project would last past its first year, let alone 25 years. Let's hope that this 25th year of Wikipedia's existence will be a great one! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Oh, so be it! I believe Wikipedia will last forever! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC))

Me too! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, its been 25 years since this has started? Guess I chose the right time to join.

(happy early new year) Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Thank you, thank you, and may you be blessed! Now 2026 has arrived! (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

You too lol

(It was already 2026 for me when I said that) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Me to! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@72011copperfan2, @SignedInteger, @Starlet147, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you. Today is the first day of 2026, January 1st. Can you imagine? Let's all imagine, this gives me some great motivation, great, may this year be a good one for you on Wikipedia and in life! Good luck to you all! Thank you! 🌍👋 (04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)) Iluziya7 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

2026! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@72011copperfan2. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

@Starlet147. Okey, Thanks, 2026 New Year's happy (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC))

Happy New Year all! Ajron Bach (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

My article needs help

I need help getting my article, 2022-2023 United States flu season more popular. It shows up if you look up the full title, but I need to insert the flu image template like the other flu season articles. I need to get this article to the top page and more popular. Ben639457 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would you want a seasonal flu article to be popular? It's boring. Of course it's important, yes, but still it's going to be boring no matter what you do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A common way for people to find your article is linking it on other pages. Your article is an orphan,--meaning no other page links to it--and I tagged it as such. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I link other pages? I thought I already linked several. Ben639457 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you linked several pages in the article you created, but no pages link to the article you created. For the article to stop being an orphan, you need to do the same thing, but with the article you created on other pages. I would give some recommendations on where you could link the page, but the article is too specialized for me to find anything. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I linked it on “flu season” is this what it needs? Ben639457 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is great! Some other people helped you out, so it is now linked on Flu season,2017–2018 United States flu season, and 2020s in medicine. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

When will it stop being linked as an orphan? Ben639457 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? It isn't an orphan anymore. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The 2022-2023 United States flu season article says “this article is an orphan” if you go on it. Ben639457 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I mixed up your article with the 2024-2025 when I stated what linked to it. Secondly, the orphan tag was removed. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks Ben639457 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse?

What is the Teahouse I just signed up so I do apologize if this makes me sound dumb or uneducated. 😅 WikiDignity (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No, not at all! The Teahouse is a place for anyone to ask any questions they may have pertaining to Wikipedia, especially but not only beginners, so it’s perfect for you if you have any questions. :) Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 23:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

what are those little profile badges by people's names? WikiDignity (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place for supposedly "dumb or uneducated" questions (which yours isn't!) about how to use Wikipedia, so asking "What is the Teahouse?" while on the Teahouse is oddly perfect.

There's also the Reference desk for questions about the actual content of the encyclopedia, like "Where can I find out about extinct elephant-like animals?". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That was… oddly specific? Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 00:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I did intend for it to be oddly specific, since if you only want to look up elephants, you just type Elephant in the search box at the top of the page and you're done. I've never used the Reference Desk, and I'd only go there if I'd had no luck doing it the easy way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Irving Johnson (ship)

Irving Johnson (ship)

This article is actually about a pair of 'twin' ships, both run by the same sailing program and named after a husband-and-wife sailing team, Irving Johnson and Electa Johnson. It seems off for the article to live at the name of just one of the two ships - for one thing, judging by the quality of their own wikipedia pages Exy is if anything somewhat more notable! But I'm not sure what the right title would be to have a single article for both ships (The Irving Johnson and The Exy Johnson?) and I definitely don't think they each need their own. The Los Angeles Maritime Institute, which runs them, redirects to the ships' page, so I can't merge them there!

And not only that but I couldn't even figure out the right noticeboard to ask such a question, so here I am at the friendliest place on Wikipedia. What do you think, teahouse? Vary | (Talk) 06:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I think, considering the nature of your question, you're probably at the right place, or at least not the wrong one.

The person who created the existing article about the two ships hasn't been seen here for years, but as soon as they had put up their brand-new article, they also set up a redirect, so that people searching for "Exy Johnson" would also find Irving Johnson. It seems clear to me that they thought that was an acceptable way of dealing with the situation. I can see that it's possible to disagree with their plan, and I don't even know if their redirect is still working the way they intended.

Is there a particular thing you would like to see done, to improve the way Wikipedia handles this? (I have no authority, but I flatter myself enough to think I might be asking a useful question.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: A note about the redirect, Exy Johnson redirects to Electa Johnson, not Irving Johnson (ship) or Irving Johnson. Checking the ship article, it appears that back when this was first made only Irving had a page so the piped link is now inaccurate, so I've changed that. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 08:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Vary | (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think what I'm looking for mainly is an idea for an article title that would correctly identify the subject of the article - not a single ship but a pair. The article title should be what the article is about, right? It's not about the Irving Johnson, it's about the twin brigantines the Irving Johnson and the Exy Johnson. Would that be it, maybe? Twin brigantines Irving Johnson and Exy Johnson?

If there was an obvious stylistic solution I would just be bold and move the thing, but I'm not sure what it would be or where to ask. Vary | (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Background color

Hello everyone! Tell me what's the 'Red color equivalent' of #9EFF9E (green background)? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 09:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Akshadev! This website has hex codes for various shades of red. But since you asked what the red equal to this specific Green hex-code is, would #FF9E9E help? (#9EFF9E is Mint Green, whereas #FF9E9E is "Rose bud", it might not be the one you want though.) If it isn't, then again, check the website I linked to see what could work. Hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 11:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It is helpful. Thanks! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 11:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And keep in mind that not all web browsers will display all shades. There should be a list of "web friendly" shades somewhere. Koriodan (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's main typeface

I'm writing about Wikipedia's main typeface, because I can't tell whether the first letter of, say, Ilabrat is a capital 'I' or a lower case 'l'. In some typefaces they're the same, in others, not. For example, a capital 'I' or a lower case 'l'. A drastic solution would be for wikipedia to use a different typeface. A more reasonable one would be for the main typeface to be an option, a 'setting' if you like. In fact, I don't know wikipedia well enough to know that it isn't already; is it? If not, there's probably no mileage in my suggestion, since wikipedia has managed well enough up to now. And also the fact that it should be possible to tell from the context, or failing that, copying the text concerned to a document and changing its typeface. Nick Barnett (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You can change this in your browser, or alternatively through one of the CSS themes in the settings. Koriodan (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hullo Koriodan -- yes, Michael mentions five skins in Preferences; I've tried them; they do lay the page out differently, but they all use the same basic typeface. If skins and CSS themes mean the same thing, that leaves your suggestion of changing it in my browser.

However, googling reveals that "there is no built-in option in Safari 26.1 to directly select a new font type". I have no experience with CSSs, but I expect the change I am looking for is a very small edit of a CSS file from one typeface name to another, isn't it? Can you give me a bit of a clue, a bit of a shove in the right direction? Nick Barnett (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

On the page Help:User style, if you scroll down to about the middle, you'll see "Samples". In the first large box of samples, you can copy the very last item in it, labelled "Change all text to the font Avenir" - just copy that entire line and all the way to the } at the bottom of the box, making sure you do include the } itself - and add it to your CSS as described in other parts of that article. (Change the word Avenir to whichever font you mean to use, of course.)

In addition - and this one has helped me in the past - somewhere not too far below "Samples" is "User CSS for a monospaced coding font". You can add that on a separate line in your same CSS.

Those should provide a start, at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts TMF, but . . . what a fucking rabbit hole!!! I have to use command line to find where Localsetting.PHP is, and then edit that to allow a CSS, BUT NOT WITH A NORMAL EDITOR, I have to use Vim or Notepad (which I do not have). I have to create a User page, and then a Usersubpage. I have to store a CSS file there, and edit in this from Samples:

.mw-body h1, .mw-body h2 {

font-family: "Avenir"

}

And then clear my cache and restart?

And then spend how long trouble shooting, because this is all a level or two above my paygrade?

What a carry on, just to distinguish between I and L . . .

I think I'll just pass on all that. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nick Barnett Also, a variety of "skins" are available: see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. There is a "preview" function that allows you to check how the main page would look with each skin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is actually a slight height difference; Ilabrat vs lIabrat, the capital I is slightly shorter than the lowercase l, but I get that that doesn't exactly leap out. Athanelar (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nick Barnett: there is a way to change wikipedia's font, but i would not fault anyone for not finding it.

in the top right of a page, you'll see "[some number] languages". click it, and a dropdown will appear. in the bottom right of that dropdown, click the small settings icon, then click "fonts". now you can change the font to ComicNeue, OpenDyslexic, or the system font. ltbdl (hypnotise) 13:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia penetrated all directions?

Hello! Are there articles on Wikipedia about all (world directions)? (Iluziya7 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7, hello! What do you mean by world directions? If you are asking about topics which Wikipedia hasn't covered yet, then you can find ideas here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean all areas of the world, such as education, art, etc. (Iluziya7 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Hey @Iluziya7! Wikipedia is a work in progress, so the answer to that question is always going to be: No. The very nature of Wikipedia requires editors to accept that we won't ever be able to cover every single topic that is notable enough for inclusion. But if anything, that just means there's always more to add or improve, and that's a good thing, I'd say. A common but apt comparison would be Sisyphus. One must imagine Wikipedians to be happy. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger Understandable, thank you for your answer! (Iluziya7 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Just wanted to say the Sisyphus reference made me giggle 🤭 Happy New Year Sydalee Rose (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles about trains, aviation, and motor vehicles, which amply covers "sideways pretty quickly"; sloths, turtles, and snails represent "mostly sideways, slowly"; Brownian motion for "lots of directions very very fast but not at all far"; arithmetic, which is "arguably straightforward"; moles and gophers for "slowly down-ish"; various political controversies provide "much too far to the left or the right"; oil drilling for "straight down as quickly as practical under the circumstances"; rockets, taxation, and that movie with Ed Asner and the boy and the balloons for "up"; and, finally, relativity for "this all depends on your frame of reference anyway".

Oh, plus Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which in terms of directions ought to take care of "Please follow the". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42. Yes, is that so? (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@TooManyFingers help I died laughing- that was hilarious Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 21:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Clemens Christian Poetzsch

Hello, I would appreciate some neutral guidance from experienced editors. I have been working on a draft biography (Draft:Clemens_Christian_Poetzsch), which has been declined multiple times at AfC. At this point, I am not seeking help with rewriting or promotion, but rather an independent assessment of whether the subject can realistically meet WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO based on currently available sources. I would be especially grateful for advice on whether it makes sense to continue developing this draft, or whether it should be set aside until stronger independent biographical sources emerge. Thank you for your time and guidance. Vikynet (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vikynet. We hope your Wikipedia project will be the best! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

The last message you received on that draft was not the same as the others. It was a final rejection, saying nothing can be done to save this draft and that further work would be only a waste of time. I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Any guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Vikynet (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vikynet! Firstly, you should link the draft using these characters: [[]]. Example: Draft:Clemens Christian Poetzsch. Secondly, the draft was declined several times for reasons explained by comments left there by AfC reviewers. One particular point was that the draft appears to have been generated by a large language model, something Wikipedia strictly prohibits. It is probably too soon for someone like this to have an article on Wikipedia if they can't pass the notability guidelines for musician biographies. Lastly, the draft was completely rejected, this is an extreme option AfC reviews only take when it is absolutely needed, and it is pretty much a signal that the draft's potential is dead in the water. I'm sorry to say that, but that's just how it goes here sometimes. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to ask for practical guidance on the next possible step, rather than trying to revive this draft. My question is specifically: how to find an independent editor who might be willing to review my list of 12 independent sources in English and decide whether the subject is suitable for an article Thank you for your time. Vikynet (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The only next step is to give up. I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It's discouraging but I do agree. Just move onto something else, or get yourself a nice cup of tea and relax instead. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Why is the article being rejected? (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: As stated in the draft's comments, it was rejected after being declined several times due to a lack of improvement or effort by its author to tackle the issues that the AfC reviewers raised when they declined the draft. This is, as I mentioned earlier, an extreme option only reserved for when it is really needed and is usually the end of the line for a draft. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Or does the article violate Wikipedia rules? (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7: It could be both, the reason stated on the rejection notice is: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I believed the sources I used were independent and reliable, and I was genuinely trying to follow Wikipedia’s rules as carefully as possible - so it's not about lack of effort at all. With the German Wikipedia, for example, the same approach worked without any issues. But I accept that different language editions apply policies differently, and I’ll take this as feedback for the future. Vikynet (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedias in other languages have different rules and guidelines independent of the English Wikipedia, so a comparison to the German Wikipedia is irrelevant here.

I rejected your draft because you failed to address the concerns of reviewers after six declines, and I explicitly stated that retaining the AI slop in the draft destroys its chances of being published, there is no path forward by continuing down that road, and it would need to be rewritten entirely from scratch by a human. You can still do that. Go through your sources and keep the ones that meet WP:Golden Rule criteria. Then you write the article based only on what those sources say, without AI help. If the article is just a handful of sentences, that's fine, as long as each source meets every WP:Golden Rule requirement.

I also note that you removed your conflict-of-interest declaration here, and I am curious why. What is your affiliation with Clemens Christian Poetzsch? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the current draft is considered unsuitable and that further revisions along the same lines are not productive. I accept that any future attempt would need to start from scratch and be written strictly from what qualifying independent sources explicitly state. I reviewed comparable articles prior to submission in order to follow established practice, but I was not able to achieve a result that meets the English Wikipedia requirements anyway. Given the current sources, I see that seems this topic does not yet meet the requirements for a viable article on the English Wikipedia. My intention is simply to avoid taking any steps that could limit its chances in the future.

To clarify the points you raised:

– the conflict-of-interest declaration was updated due to a change in my professional situation and was not intended to remove relevant information;

– I have no professional, financial, or personal affiliation with Mr. Poetzsch. My interest is purely editorial and relates to understanding how English Wikipedia standards apply to contemporary classical and jazz musicians.

I appreciate the direct explanation of the requirements. It has helped clarify the practical limits of what is possible at this time, and I will keep this in mind in any future contributions. Vikynet (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Will anyone else be able to publish this article in the future? Or the topic is permanently rejected? Vikynet (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

It really is permanently rejected. That's what the latest notice with the big stop sign is for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

... not strictly true. If he wins a major music award then he would certainly be notable enough for Wikipedia. The current issue is that the sources do not show notability, despite many attempts to stretch them to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it could be too soon for this article to exist. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it really considered too early, given a career spanning over 30 years, 12 released albums, performances in several European philharmonic halls and Jazz Festivals, award-winning work on film soundtracks, and recognition with an Opus Klassik award . All of these details are documented in independent, reliable sources. I am not trying to argue; I am trying to understand why this cannot be presented on Wikipedia. Vikynet (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you present any sources that cover those things that you mentioned? No, really, I mean it. You mention all of this and yet the sources for the draft do not show enough notability. If you did add sources that mention these things, then as @Michael D. Turnbull said earlier, they're just not enough to prove notability. If not, find the sources in question and add them. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have several articles to prove notability, however maybe it's really still not enough. The career is developing faster than the media coverage can follow (my main sources were Womex, meetheartist, leipzig.travel, acloserlisten.com, brnodaily.com, www.loudandquiet.com). Vikynet (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intentionally and firmly committed to following behind the media. We wait for them, because they are our sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers. You are very right, thank you for your kind words! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

On Wikipedia, a person's story is told only by the sources. Other knowledge, other facts, other explanations, can't be included.

Number of albums, length of career, time spent on stage, prove that he is a musician. But just proving he's a musician is not the point.

What's needed is just three sources, three very special sources, that all must follow every one of these requirements: (a) they're independent of the subject - he is not involved in helping to create them, not even by having information sent to the reporter by someone else; (b) Wikipedia recognizes them as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's own rules; AND (c) they have already written the whole thing for you; together, these three sources must be SO complete that you would be satisfied to just stick them together and say "Here is the article - I don't need to add one word".

Do you have sources - just three of them, no more - that you believe are good enough to BE the whole article, with no input from anywhere else, so that you could say to us "Just read these, I have nothing to add"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this so clearly. I truly appreciate your patience and the directness of your explanation. I understand your point. At this moment, I cannot confidently say that I have such sources that would, on their own, fully function as the entire article in the way you describe. I see now why this is the key issue. Thank you again for your openness and for outlining the requirements so precisely. This helps me understand how to approach this more realistically in the future. Vikynet (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vikynet. This idea will make everyone more active! Thank you! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I am neither the first nor the last person to face these issues, and it is important to clarify them before working on or submitting other articles. In this sense, it is good that this discussion has taken place. Vikynet (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The best way to summarise it is that, while it seems counterintuitive, notability on Wikipedia is not really about what the subject of an article has done, but rather what people have said about it already. What matters for our purpose is whether the subject has received enough significant coverage to give us enough material to write an article, not whether the subject has actually done anything particularly important. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia’s notability is based on significant independent coverage rather than on the subject’s achievements themselves. At the same time, in the field of music and contemporary arts, independent coverage is often primarily analytical or interpretative rather than biographical or fact-heavy. Additional sources: dougthomas.co.uk/with-clemens-christian-poetzsch, www.dougthomas.co.uk/the-soul-of-things, londonjazznews.com/, cutcommonmag.com Reviews and critical essays tend to focus on style, artistic context and reception, while concrete biographical facts usually appear in interviews or official materials, which are considered non-independent. This creates a practical tension: independent sources establish cultural relevance and reception, but they do not always provide enough factual detail to stand alone as a complete article. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia recommends bridging this gap without introducing original research or relying on non-independent sources. Vikynet (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The simple fact is that for that exact reason, the vast majority of musical artists don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. It's exactly as you say; for most artists, secondary sources are interested in their work, not the artist themselves. That's why WP:NMUSICIAN does have somewhat of a carveout for people with particularly widely-known work, but generally notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the fact that somebody's work has been discussed or platformed is not always evidence that they themselves are encyclopedically notable. There's no 'bridging that gap,' it just is what it is. Athanelar (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right of course. And I'm right too, depending how you look at it. Poetzsch himself is not somehow banned from ever being mentioned on Wikipedia. But it's also necessary to be clear that there is no possible way to write about him here, unless a lot of brand-new and very major coverage of him gets published in the future. Using the sources that now exist, the chance of success is zero. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

My interest here is primarily methodological. This is not the only contemporary musician I would consider writing about, and this case has been a helpful illustration of how the process works in practice. Anyway still there is a possibility, that some future independent coverage will resolve the issue naturally. Vikynet (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I shift wip published (and rejected) articles to my draft space

I am looking for insights on: How do I shift wip published (and rejected) articles to my draft space? I was translating an article and published it - but it's not really ready to be published yet. It was nominated for speedy deletion.

Any insights are welcome thank you! I&I22 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @I&I22! I moved the article in question to the draft space, since per Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, this is probably the correct thing to do. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: I should note that this won't always prevent its deletion, and that it may still be deleted. I apologise if that does happen, but I did try to help here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7@SignedInteger Thank you so much for your help and support! Great I will continue to work on it until it is ready. It would be so awesome to have the option to choose saving a translation in drafts instead of just jumping into publishing. Not sure how to follow up about that though....thanks again and Happy New years 2026!!! I&I22 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: Happy New Year! And good luck with your draft, assuming that it doesn't get deleted, which I hope that it doesn't. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22. You are doing a wonderful, good and wonderful job, thank you and we wish you a Happy New Year 2026! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

@Iluziya7awww that is so kind of you! Well, I care a lot about protecting cultural legacies. I am very mediocre as an editor and basically fail my way to success hahahah o bbboy. Eventually it all works out. Very kind of you to encourage my imperfect attempts at being useful. I don't know what to say as am so ordinary. Thank yououuouou, I&I22 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22. It's true, you love Wikipedia so much, so learn Wikipedia rules like a pro! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

I think failing your way to success is (at least in some sense) the only way to success. Learning how to prevent certain kinds of failure from happening again is always a good thing, as is making improvements to strategy, but still ... if you don't put yourself open to failing, then you accomplish nothing. Sometimes a person succeeds on their first attempt at something, but the risk of failing was still with them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingersyessssss! It's quite anarchistic and experiential learning and I enjoy the process! thank youou for sharing your thoughts and providing encouragements I&I22 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: I removed the notice, so you don't have to worry about it being deleted anymore. Good luck with your draft! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@User:I&I22: It would be so awesome to have the option to choose saving a translation in drafts instead of just jumping into publishing. For proposed article "XYZ" you could start directly at "Draft:XYZ". Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic. You're right! (Iluziya7 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Are you using the Content Translation tool to translate? If so, it does save your work in the tool, so if you haven't finished, you can do that. Or if you have page mover rights (I don't remember if that's autoconfirmed or extended confirmed) you can hit publish and then immediately move page to Draft:Title as explained above. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming I was in the content translation and then manually adding my own translations, but it was incomplete and only saw the 'publish' option, not a 'save draft' option. I do not think that I have page mover rights as yet, not sure...someone else kindly moved the page for me though. I like to offer translation, so am wondering how to avoid this misstep in the future - beyond copy pasting to sandbox. I will figure it out! Thank you so much everyone :) I&I22 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22, 'publish' really just means 'save work' - it is supposed to make it clear that when you press that button, your work becomes visible to everyone on the internet (if they know where to look anyway). It sounds like you accidentally made a draft page in the 'main' namespace, so it looked like you were saying it was a finished article before it was ready.

What you can do instead is use the WP:Article wizard, which I'm pretty sure automatically puts things into the 'draft' namespace and gets the Wikipedia code set up for you. The other option is that you can create a page by searching for "Draft:Subject" (replacing Subject with what you're writing about), which will tell you the page doesn't exist, and from that you can create a new draft. So for example I'm interested in writing an article about artists called the Numina Sisters, so I would put "Draft:Numina Sisters" in the search bar and then select the red link Draft:Numina Sisters. If you choose this second option, you'll need to put {{subst:submit}} at the very top of your draft so that you get the magic submission button to show up. Once your draft is ready for review, you simply press that button and your draft will go into the review pool. Meadowlark (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

YahooOoOooo thank you @Meadowlark! This info is gold. Love all this learning and sharing of knowledge. Much thanks and to you too @SomeoneDreaming. Very cool community Wikipedia is! I&I22 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@I&I22: Oh, and here's another place where your potential articles could go: Help:Userspace draft. Unlike regular drafts, userspace drafts usually aren't deleted if an editor doesn't edit them for a while (aka 6 months). This is what the articles I make usually start off as. This still allows you to submit it for review as well. Of course, feel free to choose between a userspace draft and a draftspace one. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

aha! Thank you for clarifying this @SignedInteger. I was a bit confused re these different spaces - I have always created work in drafts spaces and once I had copy pasted some collected text, quotes and was told off that it was plagiarism, even though I thought it was a "private-ish" draft space. So now I understand what was going on a a bit better thank you. I might copy pooaste all these hot tips to my user page, as I remember how to do everything better when it's in these conversational contexts. I will de-activate the tags/pings of you all though. I&I22 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no private space on Wikipedia. Every page can be read by everyone who knows where to look for it. DS (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

super! thank you for this @DragonflySixtysevenYesss, I rather thought that privacy doesn't exist here, which is just fine. I&I22 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely go ahead and put them on your user page, @I&I22 - mine is full of useful links that I often need to find!

In terms of copy-pasting things, we can't have that anywhere on Wikipedia unless it's a very short quote and it's properly attributed. It sets Wikipedia up for legal trouble so we are very, very strict about it. You could try Google Docs or just a word processor on your own device to keep copied text or quotes in. A few useful links: WP:QUOTE, WP:CLOP, WP:COPYVIO.

Another super useful tip: you can often find policies or guidelines you're looking for by typing WP: in the search bar and then a word that relates to what you're looking for. So I found the quotation policy by typing WP:QUOTE. You could try, for example, WP:DRAFT to get more information about that! Sometimes people will say things like 'per INDY' or 'not a RS' or '3RR' and you can use the WP: search to find out what they're talking about by searching for WP:INDY etc. Meadowlark (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oooo very useful @Meadowlarkre: WP searches ! and these other wps - great, ok noted re: copy-paste en masse advice. ha! already added the text but will now edit so not your words- just links. thank yououuoo I&I22 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

In the content translation tool I believe it saves automatically. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Mixing Citation Styles

I've just expanded the article 1826_Red_River_flood, including a number of per-sentence citations to the exact page. The prior authors of the page used in-line citations, but I'd like to use the sfn template since it could lead to consistency problems to do inline citations for every source.

Is what I've done on that page acceptable practice? What would be best practice in this situation? WarpdriveEngineer 17:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is exactly what you need for this one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Lengthy but comprehensive, thanks! WarpdriveEngineer 18:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the same response I got when I gave my friend a printed copy of Wikipedia. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you copy a Polish page pl.wikipedia.org to an en.wikipedia.org

The subject Stefania Niekrasz escaped to London and made many contributions that should be acknowledged and added to her file ~2026-34883 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-34883. I don't think this is in line with Wikipedia's rules! Because Wikipedias' rules are not all the same! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

i suggest stop trying to give advice at the teahouse for now. You have very little experience so why try to give advice? Your answers are often wrong or misleading. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

oh you were blocked from the Teahouse a short time ago, nevermind Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-34883, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sometimes it is possible to translate an article from another Wikipedia into English (and if this is done you must attribute the origin properly: see WP:translation).

But in many cases an article in another Wikipedia article does not have adequate sources. (English Wikipedia is more careful about this than many others). If this is the case, then a translation into English will be a waste of time, because even if suitable sources exist, you will in effect have written the English article backwards: an article should be written from its (reliable, independent, secondary) sources, not from anything else.

If you are considering translating an article from another Wikipedia into English, start by evaluating each source cited in that article against the criteria in golden rule (note that non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria: see WP:NONENG). If you have several sources which meet all the criteria in that page, then it is worth considering the translation. Otherwise, you should treat this as a competely new article in English. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Non-free use

I read the non-free use policy, and it was kind of confusing. So, I'm asking here instead. If I wanted to use the cover of the Bleachers' single Modern Girl in an article under non-free use, would I be allowed? As far as I can tell, it:

1) Has no free equivalent

2) Is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material (advertising music).

3) Is only one item

4) Has been published (as a single on Spotify, by the artist on Twitter, etc.)

5) Is encyclopedic.

6) Meets image use policy

7) Will be used in my article on the song

8) Increases understanding

9) Will be used properly

10) Will be described properly

Does the cover art have to be specifically mentioned in the article? I have not been able to find any independent criticisms of the art online. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin! The album cover needs to be included in the infobox of the article or at least featured in the article in some way, it also has to be of a low resolution. To give an example that I've made, The Sixteenth Sheep, which uses a 295x300 image of the album cover. Also, it doesn't have to have its own section, unless there is coverage that merits it. It just needs to be featured on the article proper. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sweet. How low is considered low resolution? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: 300x300 pixels appears to be a sweet spot. Although, I recommend that you look at Category:Album covers for other examples. It really depends on the image itself, but if it looks relatively fine at 300x300, then that is probably what you should resize it as. I should note that to resize album covers, I use Paint.NET, but you can use whatever program you feel like. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin For future reference, when you upload non-free images, you don't have to bother with resolution, bots will take care of that eventually (a few days). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that when I've uploaded a non-free image larger than that, a bot comes along and rescales it. I don't know if that still happens, it's been several years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes it still does do that. File:HaSela HaAdom Radio Record.jpg is a non-free image that I uploaded that was in a much higher resolution at first but then a bot resized it. It wasn't resized to 300x300 but 315x317 isn't that different, so pretty much the same size. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

no submit tab

Hi! We have a discussion with an editor @Robert McClenon on the DVR page about an issue with a draft that previously had a re-direct tab. The tab to "submit" is not loading for me and I was wondering if anyone can help with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg

Thanks in advance! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm reading your question correctly, but I've submitted Draft:Winston Weinberg for you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352Thanks! I appreciate that. I saved the draft, but there was no button to "submit" it. The blue one, the one that usually appears on the page when you save a draft. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Kelob2678 added the button right after you posted here. If you can't find it next time, you can try the draft submission wizard. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 got it. thanks again! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

How to edit a citation?

I was adding citations to Émile Muller and all the sources I found were in French. For the first two the Magic Wikipedia Citation Thing™ added "(in French)" but for the last one it didn't. This is probably not a big issue but it's irking me and I have absolutely no clue how to edit the citation to fix it (I'm absolutely hopeless with technology and VERY new to Wikipedia). If somebody could fix it or tell me how to fix it that would be amazing, thank you! Violetlamprey (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Violetlamprey: I added the tag as well as translating the source's title. You should probably see Help:Introduction for basic editing tips, if you haven't already. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Violetlamprey (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

RfC

Has this discussion reached enough of a non-consensus stalemate to warrant filing an RfC? If so, can you help me find a neutral wording for the question? I’m thinking “Does the use of Crisco as a lubricant by the homosexual community have due weight to be included in the article?” FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tea House

Who are you? I'm related to Herb Gilbert and Have information about him. Lineage origin and following.

I Spole to Herb Gilbert Jrs Daughter Yesterday. I'm her Grandchild who used to be a Police Officer

Who are you? ~2026-43463 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, we can't accept "this is my family history, I know it" as a source. If you have anything published that you could point to, that would be helpful. DS (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Herb Gilbert and his son Herb Gilbert Jr. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

User Page

How do I create my own userpage? I'm so confusedd.. Also Happy new year to whoever sees this

DangerousEagles (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@DangerousEagles You have created it, it's at User:DangerousEagles. You can see its edithistory here:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't you, that was @Orwell reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

However, you should not create other editors user pages, like you did at User:RosinJohn. That type of message is for the User talk page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

My mistake.. I did not mean to create her page i just needed to give that warning thing DangerousEagles (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Dont worry, we all make mistakes here. Just note this mistake permanently, this would help in future. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a chaos at History of books. Orwell'sreader (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A temporary account is a vandalising the page, somebody should ban the account immediatly. Orwell'sreader (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Orwell reader I reverted the page to the last stable revision before the vandal. Greedycell (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Orwell reader if they continue to be a problem, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Orphan page and lack of links

A page created for my professional music appearances (Lazarus Steel (singer)), has been flagged as orphan and not having external links. I have actually added several links from news and to (I was at The Voice of Germany, and also play at The Grand Jam) stating and showing independent news articles, as well as internal Wikipedia links.

yet my page is not available … what should I do? who can help me?

thanks Lazarus Steel ~2026-47863 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your page is available and in the main-space. The word orphan means it hasn’t been put into any categories and isn’t linked to other pages. Here is the link —>Lazarus Steel (singer). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47863 @Marcosdreher, please remember to log in when posting.

There's a couple of things you should be aware of. First, you uploaded your logo to Wikimedia Commons. When you did that, you signed away many of your rights - you agreed that anyone can use it for any reason as long as they credit you. Mostly this is not something individuals or companies want to do, but of course that is your choice.

You uploaded two other images, both as 'own work'. Were you the one holding the camera and pressing the button in the photograph? If not, you must immediately go to Commons and have it deleted. Likewise if you did not paint the painting yourself, you must immediately have that deleted. You can ask the photographer and artist to upload their work to Wikimedia Commons, but they need to be aware of the rights they are giving up by doing so.

You also need to stop editing the article; as the subject, you are not permitted to edit directly in most cases. The page WP:ABOUTYOU will be a good guide for you. If there are changes you want to make, please do so via edit requests - more information on that page. It would be a very good idea to use the article's Talk page to provide links to any reliable sources you have on your work, since unsourced information is likely to start being deleted very quickly. Meadowlark (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, the picture and painting were literally made by me (digital painting) as well as the design of the logo, but How do I then add a picture to the article if the pic is not in "Wikimedia Commons"? Marcosdreher (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a tricky question! You can add pictures that are hosted on Commons, and also pictures hosted here on English Wikipedia. However, both places have rules. On Commons, all images must be under a copyleft license, which means basically that anyone can use them for any reason - including commercially - as long as they credit the original artist. I imagine you would rather not have anyone printing and selling your art! So you will probably not want to upload it to Commons.

However, on English Wikipedia, there are very strict rules. Since you are alive, we can only have non-copyrighted images of you, and they have to go on Commons - so if you're happy to upload a photo of you that you took to Commons, we can use that. We can host some non-free content - there is more information at WP:LOGO (about logos, surprise!) and more extensively at WP:NFCC. Other people are much better at copyright than me, but I don't think your logo would pass the non-free content criteria because it does not meet Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. To have the art and the logo on your article, I believe you would need to host them on Commons, but as you now know that would mean surrendering some of your rights irrevocably (unless you have the files deleted before anyone downloads them to use, which is why we suggest deleting them immediately if you want to keep all your rights intact).

Copyright is very complicated. If someone contradicts me they probably know better and you should listen to them, but that's what I'd advise you to do for the moment. I hope that helps a bit! Meadowlark (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

very very enlighthening, indeed not as easy as I thought... am now trying to delete the images on commons, but still not as easy as I thought... many many thanks for your help, and happy new year! (sorry I forgot earlier) Marcosdreher (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well! I've tagged the logo and art for speedy deletion on Commons and linked to this thread, which I hope will be enough evidence for an admin on Commons to delete them shortly. If you see this before they're deleted, you can override my tags with your own by going to the image pages, choosing 'edit', and changing this:

{{speedydelete|G7 - per uploader on en-WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Marcosdreher-20260103131500-Meadowlark-20260103120100]}}

to this:

{{speedydelete|G7}}

It should be right up the top and easy to find. That will tell the admins there that you, the author and uploader, definitely want them deleted (rather than them having to come over here to check I'm actually doing what you want). I've left the photo of you alone since it sounds like you're happy to keep that, but if I'm wrong you can just add the speedydelete tag to that image too by using the edit button as I described above.

If you have any more questions or concerns, my talk page is always open as well as the Teahouse and I'll do my best to help you out. Happy editing! :) Meadowlark (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

kickstarter link?

Hello,

how can i add a link to kickstarter? it is a reference for how much money was made in the final kickstarter (i have another secondary source that mentions the successful kickstarter campaign, but doesn't give the final amount raised) For this page: Draft:Unihertz_Jelly_series

Thank you Tioseafj (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Kickstarter is blacklisted, so I suggest you use the other source instead. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

May I ask whether AI has been used for this article (Draft:). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had used it to create the software/hardware specification tables-- i am still in the process of checking those against the sources, so they might currently have errors. I also used AI to fix the grammar and wording. But I did write it from sources originally. Is that allowed?

Additionally, part of the text is copied or paraphrased from the currently existing article Unihertz_Jelly. I planned to merge this article to it. The reason why I thought I should use the kickstarter source is because that part is already used in the current article, but it won't let me copy that paragraph and source intact. Thank you. 10:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Tioseafj (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NEWLLM. Articles cannot be written from scratch using an LLM on Wikipedia. The way I have used AI is to help me find sources and summarize them, but I use my own words to write things, after thoroughly checking the AI's sources (and eliminating most of them because the AI finds a lot of junk).

If any secondary source reports anything about Kickstarter, you could cite that. You could try asking at WT:WHITELIST for a hole to be poked into the blacklist to allow linking to a specific Kickstarter page, but the request is unlikely to be accepted if there are ways to avoid citing Kickstarter directly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

First Wikipedia entry

I've drafted an entry on the late theatre and movie scenic artist Tony Strong, who died a little over a year ago. Since it's the first time I've written a piece for Wikipedia, I'd be grateful for any help in getting it right.

Here's what I've drafted: Draft:Tony Strong. APK7 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @APK7, without comment on the draft, I've removed the content from here and added a link to your draft instead - this is the preferred method. Meadowlark (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A totally unsourced Draft wont go far.

You need to do some basic research on "writing your first article" for wikipedia - something you clearly haven't done. Walter Ego 11:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a very helpful answer. Asking that question here is part of that research, no need to WP:BITE

@APK7 Help:Your first article might be useful. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Egomaniac! If you'd troubled to read to the end of my draft, you'd see that I have in fact quoted several sources.

Happy New Year

Philip APK7 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your sources are not formatted as they should be, so are easily missed (I have now tweaked the formatting slightly, for clarity). Please see WP:Referencing for beginners.

Even with them, you have several paragraphs which are entirely uncited.

"The Guardian, 4 9-24" is not a good citation - Is that 4 September or 9 April? Which page or URL? Which article title? Who wrote it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:Golden rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with sources for an article

Hello, I need help with why my draft wasn't accepted as an article. i cant find sources on revenue and profit, so i cant make one without making an estimate which probably is far off. I am a new article creator, but I couldn't find good or sources going in depth on it. I only have 3-4 sources I can work with and they aren't going in depth. Do you maybe have ideas how I can improve my article with only those few sources? This is the article: Draft:Trekpleister. Hallohellohillo (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see the golden rule. If you can't find a minimum of three sources which satisfy this rule, you probably don't have enough material to create an article. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

but anyway, how cant this draft be an article, yet the dutch version has less info yet is accepted? same for the french one Hallohellohillo (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Because every different language's Wikipedia has different rules - the English Wikipedia is commonly considered to be the strictest, so it's harder to have articles accepted here unless you have good sources. You might have written your draft backwards, which means writing down what you know about the subject and then looking for sources. This usually doesn't work very well! A Wikipedia article is written by looking for sources first, and then summarizing what they say. This also means that if you don't have enough good sources, you don't waste any time writing a draft that won't be accepted - that's extremely frustrating for everyone involved. Meadowlark (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

no i didnt write my draft backwards, i looked for the sources and typed what they said. i only realized there wasnt good enough sources at the end. Hallohellohillo (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, as it says on your decline notice; Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. I have restored the decline notice. Athanelar (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Reason for moving a page

Hello!

I want to move a stub article that misspells someone's name. The correct spelling redirects to the incorrect spelling. So I want reverse this: I want to move the article to the correct spelling and then have the incorrect spelling redirect to it.

When I move the page, should I use "Swap two pages ([[WP:SWAP]])" as the reason? Or should the reason be "Misspelled"? Also, would moving the page accomplish this correctly?

Thank you in advance for your help! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 18:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The WP:SWAP reason is meant for a process that only editors with extended page-moving rights can carry out. "Misspelled" is a good option, or you can just write your own custom explanation.

Moving a page will change its name, but not its contents. If the article still uses the old spelling in its prose, image captions, etc., those will need to be updated separately. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Chao Garden, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In some cases it is possible for ordinary users to move over a redirect; but I suggest you put in a technical move request, so that whoever carries it out can make sure everything is right. ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In this situation, I would tag the redirect with "{{Db-moved}}", wait until it is deleted, and then move the original page to the correct spelling. Once you move it, the old spelling will automatically become a redirect. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend doing this manually as it seems simple, but you'll need to move the redirect first to open up the title. Koriodan (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If you do not have extended page-mover rights, moving a redirect will always leave behind another redirect, and the title will be no more "opened up" than before. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden Which article has the misspelled name? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TooManyFingers, the article is Marie-Marguerite Carreaux de Rosemond, a French painter. This source says that Carreaux is actually a popular misspelling of her name, and Carraux is actually correct. The corresponding French Wikipedia article about her uses the correct spelling.

I appreciate everyone's advice here, but admittedly I'm not bold enough to make this change myself. And I'm hesitant to file an official move request, because she seems to be widely known by Carreaux? Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 04:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it right to say that several top-quality English writers have all been misspelling her name for years? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden I ask because if that is true it may be better to keep it wrong on English Wikipedia for some time, to help the people who have already seen it spelled wrong everywhere else. However, if the correct spelling has begun to "catch on" among the latest reliable English sources, then there's more reason to consider changing it now. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers You make a good point. Yes, I think she is definitely more widely known by the (alleged) misspelling across English sources. And in that case, I think it does make sense to leave the page alone. Thank you for your help! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to strongly insist that I'm not an expert on this. :) (especially not on the particular case.) So instead of considering me the final word on it, just take my information as one more thing helping you decide what you might do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'll keep an eye on this topic and perhaps reconsider in the future. Thank you again! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 06:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable sources repeatedly used in BLPs

Recently I've come across a batch of articles using unreliable sources like classmates.com, familysearch.org and imdb.com to cite personal details, (DOB, place of birth, etc.) about living people with imdb the most frequently appearing. None of these sources can be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP and imdb is even listed at the perennial sources page as unreliable, (though acceptable to be added to external links sections). Is there some method of blacklisting these so that people can't use them as citations? I considered the spam blacklist, but these aren't really being spammed as such, just grossly misused. I take BLP very seriously and I think we need some way to prevent misuse of unreliable sources beyond manually removing them when people happen to see them. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Balph Eubank! What you're asking is for these sources to be marked as deprecated, but this requires community consensus first, and I think it is unlikely that we'd deprecate IMDb as it does have its valid uses as a source. Perhaps it can be deprecated for BLPs (which is fair, I don't think anyone would argue against that) but that's it. The other two should also be deprecated for BLPs, but again unless I am mistaken this requires community consensus first. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Take them to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I've now done that. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank, although it's not what you're looking for, you can use insource:"classmates.com" (or whatever) in the search to track down all the articles - I go on a bit of an IMDB rampage every now and then. Apologies if you're already aware of this - it's a useful tool so I wanted to make sure you knew. Meadowlark (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image versus navbox image for George Washington article

Hi everyone. I'm looking for some general guidance on lead image selection for biographies of historical figures, specifically in the article on George Washington. The current lead image is a long-standing, widely recognized Gilbert Stuart portrait, while another Stuart portrait painted from life during Washington's lifetime is currently used only in a navbox in a small, cropped form. I'm trying to understand how experienced editors typically weigh recognizability and long-standing use against contemporaneous execution when deciding what works best as a lead image, and whether it's ever appropriate for different images to serve different roles, such as a recognizable portrait in a navbox and a from-life portrait as the lead image. I'm not trying to force a change, just to better understand common practice and expectations before deciding how to proceed- Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Auspiciouswastaken, this is a Manual of Style sort of issue, so the best general guidance should be at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images. However you mention that the current lead image in that article is "long standing", that doesn't often mean that it is the repeat victor of multiple discussions as to which image to use. Though a quick check of the article talkpage will sometimes reveal that. The more common reason is that many years ago one or more editors thought that this was the best image we had available, and if you look at the images and their upload dates you might agree with them, whilst still thinking that there were three better images uploaded in the last five years (Wikimedia commons has grown much faster than the English Language Wikipedia over the last couple of decades). So my advice is if in doubt or you want to be cautious, look at the talkpage and the upload dates. Replacing an image with one that wasn't available to us when the first image was chosen does not mean you disagree with the decision of the person who added the current image. Using an image that they chose not to use is different and you might want to start with a discussion on the talkpage. Reasonable people will disagree on aesthetic issues, is it better to use an image that faces into the article? that depicts the subject at the height of their career? As for using different images in navboxes and the lede, not every image works equally well at every scale, the lede image might have far more detail. Or it may simply be that there were two images available and one was used in the lede and the other in the navbox to avoid the duplication of using the same image twice on the same page. ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

"Sanitized CSS"

i tried to apply templatestyles to one of my userspace pages and it threw an error saying it must be "Sanitized CSS". How do i make it or access it? does an admin need to approve it? Is it an issue with the CSS itself? Is it a MediaWiki issue? The issue i was working on is no longer relevant because i found a different way to do it, but I'd to know how it works for anything i do in the future. The page i was trying to fix was User:ItsReallyAlex/non-binary stripe/styles.css. The page currently has no purpose because i replaced it with inline CSS in User:ItsReallyAlex/non-binary stripe. ItsReallyAlex [they/them] • [talk] 20:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

HI ItsReallyAlex. It can only be changed by interface administrators. You can use {{Edit interface-protected}} on the talk page to request it. If you create a .css page as a subpage in the template namespace then it automatically gets Sanitized CSS and I think keeps it if you move it to your userspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro

Moved from Draft talk:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro/Requests for third opinion

Hello team,

First of all, I want to thank you in advance for reviewing this. The reason I am reaching out is to request a third opinion regarding the articles for creation submission for Alvaro Núñez Alfaro (Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro).

The draft was declined due to concerns about the writing style perceived as LLM-generated. Since then, the draft was rewritten using neutral, concise, encyclopedic language and relying exclusively on independent, reliable sources.”

The subject (Alvaro Núñez Alfaro) has received significant coverage in outlets that include Forbes France, Corriere della Sera, Sports Illustrated, ABC News / Good Morning America, and NBC Los Angeles, among many others. Also, I asked for some guidance at the AfC Help Desk, but there has been no further reviewer feedback after the initial response.

I would appreciate if I could get an impartial third opinion on whether the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and tone requirements, or if any specific further adjustments are recommended.

Draft link: Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro

Appreciate all your help and support on this.

Happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNAtlanticWriter (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just as a note, this is a slightly different request than the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_December_25 which is why I moved it here since AFCHD has already fielded the question once and they're specifically looking for a different group to look at the page. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. OP, the threshold for passing the draft process is that Draft:Alvaro Núñez Alfaro would survive a deletion discussion. That depends mostly on sources: have multiple secondary sources independent of the subject that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight written in-depth about the subject? My own initial search did not seem promising: neither interviews ([2], [3], [4]) nor repackaged press releases ([disruptmagazine.com/how-super-luxury-groups-daniel-tzinker-and-alvaro-nunez-are-disrupting-real-estate-marketing/], [5]) are independent of Alvaro Núñez Alfaro.

Only two sources in the draft fulfill the independent, reliable, secondary source criteria: the GMA/ABC source and the Sports Illustrated one (the rest are authored by the subject himself, a Forbes puff piece (WP:FORBESCON), two interviews). The GMA one is kind of borderline, as it doesn't cover Núñez Alfaro himself in-depth, as it is focused more on his completion of the challenge.

So I am not convinced of that the subject meets the inclusion criteria at this moment, and the page is consequently not likely to survive a deletion discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to come and ask about your draft being rejected for sounding like an LLM wrote it, you probably shouldn't use an LLM to write your question... Athanelar (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

dealing with talk page disruption?

On the 15th of december, Talk:soyjak.party was semi-protected by Mfield because of disruptive editing. I still think that this talk page has a lot more disruption than usual, what should I do?

thanks wikipedians! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If the page needs more protection, you can request this at WP:RFPP. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

done! thanks claudine ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Stats on Wikipedia

Hi, I am trying to find the approximate number of Wikipedia biography articles for people(Both Living and Dead, basically all). I would like to see the total number of Wikipedia articles on particular professions, Can you help me how to look this up? For example, I know that of the 7.1 million Articles, around 2.1 million are human biographies, but how can i find more info by specifying it further by profession, country, gender, ethnicity etc? Codonified (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try looking for an applicable category; e.g., Category:Carpenters has 58 pages on various carpenters. Athanelar (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking for academicians, mathematicians, scientists engineers to be specific,

And when I go to such categories, there are more sub-categories, the problem is that it is impossible to count,

Like I did something similar to what you said, and it took me months to tally and estimate the final number, The most I get is 200k articles of Mathematicians, Scientists, Engineers, Academicians, Professors(Only STEM ones), and basically anyone who has contributed to science and maths in any meaningful way.

Also i realized that a lot of these Biographical articles im trying to tally may not be included in those categories, this makes the number even more than the one I stated Codonified (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, there's no way for Wikipedia to automatically categorise and tally articles; so unless people add those articles to categories like Category:Mathematicians then we simply have no way to keep track.

If categorising people is something you're interested in, you could always work on doing so, perhaps with help from WP:WikiProject Biography. Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

PetScan, Quarry, or perhaps even Wikidata:Request a query? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with infobox template

Hey! I'm trying to add a module to an infobox template of mine – that is, I'd like my template to consist of a part which I made myself and one below it that already exists as a separate template. I am very new to creating templates. Does anyone know how to insert this module? I have absolutely no coding experience, so could this be done without Lua? I can show an example of my progress so far, so maybe someone can point out where I went wrong, as the module currently doesnt work:

{{Infobox
| child = {{Yesno|{{{embed|no}}}}}
| title      = {{{Title}}}
| label1     = Any label
|  data1     = {{{Any data}}}
| label2     = Another label
|  data2     = {{{Another data}}}
|  header3   = Separate module should go below:
| module4 = {{Infobox any example
| child = yes
| image = {{{Any image}}}
| caption = {{{Any caption}}}
}}
}}

Of course, this is just an example, but I'm wondering if my format is wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated! Rockfighterz M (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the best place for technical questions. Athanelar (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Although in this case, Template talk:Infobox might be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Company hiring Wikipedia article writer

I saw a job posting for someone to write a Wikipedia article about a particular company. I've seen that in the past as well. I guess I'm wondering if something like that should be reported somewhere? Or would that just be addressed after the page is posted, if it sounds promotional? Bleepbloop678 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there already an article about this company? If so, it might be worth bringing this up on the article talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Bleepbloop678, although many or most editors frown on paid editing, it is not forbidden by policy. Paid editors must make a full disclosure as described at WP:PAID and are expected to fully comply with policies and guidelines, especially the Neutral point of view and restrictions on conflict of interest editing. They must also submit a draft article to the Articles for creation process. You can keep an eye out for a new article about the company. But the mere existence of the advertisement is not a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit been undone.

I tried updating the YouTube stats of Lana Condor, as it had not been edited since 2023, and was outdated. I am a new editor, and it was my first time editing a page. The information i had was directly from Lana Condor's verified YouTube channel. From what i have gathered, it was undone because 'it did not appear constructive', and i think that is because i did not have any other sources to back it up - other than the direct page.

(As you can probably tell, i am very new to this, and *not* a pro. I'm also sorry if what i say is not entirely understandable, English is not my first language, so i'm trying to translate this as best as i can.)

Like i said earlier, i think i know why it was undone. Yes, because i did not have a secondary source, but - through a little bit of research - i also found out it may have been undone because the numbers should not be there at all, since they are constantly changing. I do not know if that is a fact, but you'll see my suggestions for this confusion to be cleared up under.

I noticed that the YouTube statistics were already present in the infobox since 2023 and tagged as “needs update”. I only updated the existing figures using the official channel.

If YouTube statistics are no longer considered appropriate on the page, would it be better to remove the entire YouTube info section instead?

I was redirected here from the message i got to inform me that my edits had been undone.

Kind regards, Novasillah (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. From what I can see, the change of total views from 27 million to 4 million is likely what resulted in your change being reverted. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Questions on citations

Hello, I’m doing the “tutorial” and I’m being prompted to move on from copy editing and linking (but I’m not ready!). Sometimes in articles one will come across a citation needed tag. At what point can the whole sentence or paragraph be removed? Is there an agreed upon time limit? For example, if a citation needed tag has been there for 2 years - and if I can’t find any sources - is it appropriate to just straight up remove the unsourced information? I have read the Citing sources page but I couldn’t figure it out. Can you give me a black and white example of when you would just straight up remove something that’s unsourced? Thanks so much. Itsaclarinet (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Itsaclarinet. This is a question without an easy one-size-fits-all answer. For example, we are more stringent about unsourced claims in biographies of living persons than other types of articles. The nature of the unsourced claim also matters. You should be quicker to remove an unsourced claim that a living person was arrested in a barroom brawl than that the person graduated from a known high school in their verified home town. When you say you can't find sources, that raises the issue of how thoroughly you are searching. Do you have access, for example, to historical newspaper databases, or are you just relying on a simple Google search? How skilled are you at writing search queries that separate the wheat from the chaff? How high visibility is the article? An article about a medical topic is held to a more stringent standard than, for example, a biography of a lesser known artist who died 300 years ago. In the end, it comes down to good editorial judgment, which is probably the most important skill of a productive Wikipedia editor, and the most difficult to quantify. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks very much. Itsaclarinet (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

May I trouble you with an example I’ve found? The tutorial prompted me to Shōnen Gahōsha. There is a citation needed tag on the statement “Its current president is Isao Imai.” I could not find a news article or anything like that. Then I went to the company’s website and translated it to English and the President is, from 2024, Satoru Imai. The Japanese version of the article also has Satoru. So, reading about primary and secondary sources, is it ok to cite their site for something straightforward? Is it an issue if the site is in Japanese? Thanks again! Itsaclarinet (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Itsaclarinet, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for Wikignoming.

Yes, that kind of information can be cited from their own website. See WP:ABOUTSELF for the criteria to consider.

Having said that "current" is not a useful word in any Wikipedia article, unless it is qualified by a date: I suggest you reword that as well. See MOS:NOW. ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks for these links, Colin. Itsaclarinet (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating a navbox template

I've been thinking of creating a navbox template to use in some pages that I'm contributing to, but I don't really know exactly how to create one. I already have the code figured out, and it works in the sandbox, but how can I bring it into the main template namespace for use in regular articles? Below is the template:

Zach1055 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zach1055. You can save the code in Template:Urban rail transit in Algeria and write {{Urban rail transit in Algeria}} in the articles. Try to avoid redirects like Oran tramway and Sidi Bel Abbès tramway in navigation templates. It breaks a feature which displays it as bold text in the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the help. Zach1055 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeking clarification about MOS:EDITORIAL

MOS:EDITORIAL states that words like "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while" are not recommended to be used in articles in pursuance of WP:NPOV. So what other words should I use when stating two facts that contradict one another? Astley101 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

No, Astley101, it says that words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Yes, may, possibly. Various words may imply various relationships. So watch these words. (Indeed, watch all words.) I've used all of them and don't remember anyone complaining. You needn't fret about this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! I initially thought that the guideline discouraged these conjunctions for all statements (even those that are actually backed by sources). Astley101 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Astley101 It IS true that there's a common problem strongly related to what you asked: the conjunction itself must be backed by a reliable source, if it implies a relationship between those facts. For example, if a source confirms two facts without treating them as opposed to each other, we cannot make those facts sound opposed in the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I see, Thanks :) Astley101 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete Information

This guideline page seems to be carelessly written and is also incomplete: WP:Editing Your Own Page. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your link. I agree that page is useless. Apart from anything else the title implies that people can have "their own page" which is not correct. You are very welcome to improve it or make a suggestion on the talk page; that is how Wikipedia works.Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I read this and this and it seems to me that disclosing the COI hardly matter because editing your own page is simply not allowed 'without following strict rules'. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also I would like to be reminded of how much freedom an editor has, even with COI disclosure, when he touches article related directly to him and his in-relation. A user I noticed seems to seems to be editing his and his relatives articles, though mentioning his relation in summmary. Orwell'sreader (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Orwell reader, and welcome to the Teahouse

Does WP:FAQ/Article subjects answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Well I spent a lot of time reading about the subject on guidelines pages, forums and talk pages. I think I have very much idea about "freedom on COI". Yeah, thanks for asking. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a guideline; it's merely an essay. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Noticed that, but later. Blame my eyes. Orwell'sreader (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Wikipedia:Editing a page about you; but it would probably be better to redirect it to Wikipedia:About you.

Folk might also be interested to read the quotes at User:Pigsonthewing/About self. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I remove/add the copy edit tag?

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and want to try out the Guild of Copy Editor's Backlog elimination drives for January 2026 but I have no idea how to remove or add the relevant tags (eg copyedit, GOCE, in use, etc.) as instructed here in the main drive page. Thank you in advance :) Girl so confusing (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Girl so confusing At the top of any article when you see a {{copyedit}} tag, tag usually something like {{Copy edit|date=January 2026}} in the source code), you can remove it and replace it with the {{Goce in use}} tag. Remove the {{Goce in use}} tag once you have finished copyediting. That's all your good to go to next article. on how to record your work please follow Instructions for participants CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Girl so confusing (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleting and republishing other people's work

Happy 2026. It happened that I added a large (and very laborious) table to an article. A user completely deleted it, putting the page in draft mode. So I drafted a list with the table, and at the same time that user created the same list in the mainspace, using the code he deleted from the original page.

Result: my draft was rejected because the page (written by that user) already existed.

It's a bit frustrating, because I don't get any credit for the work I did, since the page now appears to have been created by him.

I'd like to know: besides being frustrating, is this also unfair? Sinucep (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

When that user created List of OSCAR satellites they put in their edit summary "Created list from article", so (while they're not very specific) they did attribute the origin of the list to the OSCAR article.

Unfortunately, you don't own anything you produce on Wikipedia, no matter how much effort it takes you, and you should expect no thanks or credit for your hard work. Ultimately the list you created is in mainspace and does have its own article, so who cares if you're 'credited' for it? Your work is on the encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is designed to symbolically recognize the work done by users. Aside from that, I think it would have been much more appropriate if the user, while I was working on the article, had written in a talk space: "Why not make a separate list?", instead of deleting and copying-pasting without any discussion.

Also, the fact that he put my page in draft mode: others must use draft mode, and he doesn't. He wouldn't even look if the page he's publishing already has a draft.

Personally, I would never act that way. Sinucep (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Which page did they 'put in draft mode?' OSCAR (satellite) is in mainspace, and in fact it's Rangasyd (the other editor) who put it there. Athanelar (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There are still guidelines which should be followed. WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Splitting are the two relevant to this topic. @Sinucep, if you feel inclined, you can request (on their talk page) that the other editor attribute the table to your article (see step 5, #4 on WP:Splitting). – Quinn ΘΔ 14:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Quinntropy, I'm glad I learned about these gudelines. There's a lot to learn in a community as large and diverse as Wikipedia's. It's just as important to respect the efforts of others as it is to ask that others respect yours. Amen ;) -- Sinucep (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Or you can request an admin to do a history merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Khorly and the drone strikes

I hope this is the right place to ask for some help with this.

Recently, an editor created an article for the Ukrainian village of Khorly (currently under Russian occupation). According to Wikidata, the article exists in a number of non-English Wikipedias. However, the English Wikipedia article cited a single source that was about the drone strike in the town and not the town itself, so I moved it to Draft:2026 drone strike in Khorly. And this is what the article looked like at time of moving. An administrator then deleted the redirect (because it was a redirect to draft space).

Now, editor User:Sajnovics is telling me (via email) that they found sources and so on. And to be fair to them, they have apologised for calling what I did vandalism, I think that is important to say. They also seem to think that I am in control of the article and that I deleted it. I tried explaining to them on their talk page (User talk:Sajnovics) and on the talk page of the draft (Draft talk:2026 drone strike in Khorly) exactly what had happened and what they could do to accomplish what they want. It seems as though I am not explaining it the right way.

Could another editor please try to explain to them what moving, deleting, creating, draftifying means on Wikipedia and how articles are created and titled? This is a new editor and I am in no way asking for sanctions (which is why I am at the Teahouse), I just need help explaining how things are done on Wikipedia. I tried my best, provided links and so on, but to be completely honest I don't want to spend any more time on this.

Thank you.

@Sajnovics: You can ask as many questions here as you want. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an article titled “Khorly” (Kherson Oblast, Ukraine, various spellings, in Ukrainian Хорлі, Russian Хорлы) in seven languages: Armenian, Chechen, Chinese, Minnan (Taiwan), Romanian, Russian, and Ukrainian; the articles in Russian, and Ukrainian cover the latest events in the village under the entry and not in a separate article.

The English "Khorly" entry was moved by TurboSuperA+ to "2026 drone strike in Khorly" (draft), a lemma that does not exist in any other language, which I criticize here: events related to a location belong in the article about that location, as in the Russian and Ukrainian articles and, in future, probably also in articles in other languages.

I don't understand why TurboSuperA+ didn't just mark it as a stub for other editors and why he doesn't want to revert the renaming of the lemma.

TurboSuperA+ has no objection to me creating an English article entitled “Khorly”; I do object according to relevance criteria to an article entitled "2026 drone strike in Khorly" being created. I could easily write a few dozen articles on similar drone strikes that took place last year in Ukraine and its Russian-occupied territories, always with reference to a location.

I don't now have questions, but I have a suggestion: revert to the article "Khorly" as it was, mark it as stub, and omit draft "2026 drone strike in Khorly", I agree to edit the article about the location in a timely manner.

Sajnovics Sajnovics (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

In short:

1. replacing entry "Khorly" (settlement) with "2026 drone strike in Khorly" (draft) violates Wikipedia:Notability (events)

2. there are entries for the settlement of Khorly in seven languages.

3. there is no entry for “2026 drone strike in Khorly” in any language.

4. in the Ukrainian and Russian entries, the 2026 drone strike is handled in the entry for the settlement under “History”, others will follow.

What should I do? Sajnovics (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

First, stop referring to what is done on other language Wikipedias. Each language is a separate project, with different policies. What happens on other Wikipedias has no bearing on what should be done on the English Wikipedia, and any part of your argument based on what is done on other Wikipedias will generally be ignored.

Right now, the article contains one short sentence about the village, and the rest of the article is about the drone strike. So as it stands, the title seems appropriate. If you wish to make the article be about the village, you could start by expanding the draft with sourced information about the village. CodeTalker (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Objection:

1. A typical Wikipedia entry links to Wikipedia entries in other languages; in this case, seven entries that refer to each other; renaming an eighth entry makes no sense.

2. Replacing the entry “Khorly” (settlement) with “2026 drone strike in Khorly” (draft) violates Wikipedia:Notability (events): this drone strike is one of thousands in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and no particular repercussions are foreseeable. Sajnovics (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, IF an article exists on English Wikipedia and IF an article on the same topic exists on other Wikipedias, then the English article will link to the other languages. That does not mean that the existence of articles in other languages is a reason to have one in English. There are many articles in other languages that don't exist in English. WP:42 explains the criteria for article creation in the English Wikipedia. You will see that it says nothing about articles existing in other languages.

2. Yes, you're probably right about this. If there is not significant coverage of the drone strike, and there is not significant coverage of the village, then the article should be deleted. However, the criteria for articles on populated places is more lenient than for other subjects; see WP:NPLACE. If the village is "legally recognized", it may warrant an article even lacking the coverage that would be required for articles on other subjects. This should be resolved before the article is moved back to article space or deleted. CodeTalker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Newcastle KB United statistics page

I believe the highest home attendance figure is incorrect, Easter 1978? v Sydney Olympic attendance was 18,368.

I believe your quoted highest attendance of 16,000 is incorrect, Easter I believe 1978? Via Sydney Olympic attendance was 18,368. ~2026-70807 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-70807! Can you cite a source for where you got that figure from? That would help since we can't just add figures we ourselves made. If you can, then this will be corrected. Although I should note that I did check the Newcastle KB United article. It says this in the supporters section. (without any sources cited):

"Newcastle KB United set many crowd records during their time in the NSL holding the record for the largest crowd to a domestic game in this country until the formation of the A-league. This record was 18,367 against Sydney Olympic in April 1979, a year when their average home crowd exceeded 10,000."

This makes me think that you were off by a year, so, find a source for this claim, because I doubt that this isn't the exact figure that you are referring to. If you can't, I'll find it myself to help, but thanks for bringing this to our attention. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Wrote a movie synopsis for the first time, any comments?

I have edited the page We Bury the Dead to add a summary. I watched the movie yesterday so I thought it made sense to write a synopsis from memory. I have read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and some other pages that it links but I'm still curious if my synopsis is too long or not, any comments? I don't want to copy-paste the entirety of the synopsis here so go to the We Bury the Dead page if you want to check it out. I understood the idea of cutting out not fully necessary information, but We Bury the Dead is a movie that places a lot of emphasis on "minor" moments so I tried to still include things that I felt were "significant enough" while still cutting out a lot. Chompylover2011 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chompylover2011: I'd say to rename that section to "Plot summary", but honestly aside from that, it's pretty good! I think that you did a fine job here, maybe some fat could be trimmed, but overall, it's not that bad. Plot summaries are always where the prose has to shine, and I think you did a good job there, too. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much! Someone already renamed the preceding section to "Premise" so I don't know if I should still rename it to plot summary, but thank you very much for the advice and kind words! Chompylover2011 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

If i get flagged for vandalism will reputation be hit. (This vandalism wasn't purposeful but i made a mistake that definitely could have come off as vandalism by ClueBot) MrEdits1 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dont do it again, you'll be fine. I didn't look btw. - Walter Ego 16:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@MrEdits1 As long as you understand why ClueBot flagged it (so you don't have to go through that again), and you're always honestly trying to make Wikipedia better, then you're fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding content and reverting of content added to wiki

I've notice that pages are semi - protected and just wondered why, I have seen through the history notes on certain pages that certain user were reverting cited content and they reverted leading to edit ward just because they disagreed with the content published. So for clarity and I hope you guys don't mind me asking is content only allowed on wiki that is found on the internet or is content allowed from published content, including magazine, newspaper articles that maybe not on the web.

I feel it's important that as new editor on here no content should be removed or reverted by any user or admin unless correctly proven its not factual. If I'm wrong on this then some help would be great. but after reading wiki protect page and according to wiki Reverting. It clearly states reverting a user edit tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion.

Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

So for example if I posted content from a newspaper article from 1987 yet this was not found on the net and may be not published in other countries is this allowed. because what I've seen looking through numerous articles users reverting correctly published content without even providing and explanation and this I believe really needs to discussed and clearly put into wiki legal code of conduct. Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be available globally. They also, however, do not need to be free or easy to access; if you want to verify a source that is only in a library in Alaska, you need to travel to Alaska to do so.

Please also read WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Member thank you for your response so does this mean in simple terms that if edit is submitted it should not be reverted by an editor until that editor correctly disputed the content, Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guinnessdrinker32 No. That something is cited does not necessarily mean it should be in included in a specific article, there are several factors that might be relevant. It's factual that Barack Obama is rather tall, but that isn't mentioned in that article per WP:PROPORTION (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States though...). In simple terms, if you add something (new editor or not), and someone reverts you, first see if you understand why, perhaps you agree the reverter is WP-right. If not, you try to discuss the matter with the reverter. More at WP:BRD.

And yes, having your edits reverted can feel unpleasant, I think most editors will agree with you on that. But it's part of life on an open wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Song article help

Any credible resources I can use to find song length, producers, songwriters, b side, etc. info? Most articles don't cite a source on it as far as I can tell. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: Unless an editor requires you to, it is generally assumed that the source you got the basic song details from is the song's own liner notes/credits. See MOS:ALBUM for more info about this. (I know that you are talking about a song, but the advice there also applies to songs as well). _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also if you need to find reliable sources, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Yes, this is about songs, but the sources there can apply to songs as well as more often than not the sources here also cover songs as well as albums. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FloblinTheGoblin. For uncontroversial song information, you can use primary sources or even the slipjacket itself: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label qcne (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

US PD-tagging

Hi. I need help in figuring out how to figure out the appropriate US PD tag for the image Recueil. Portraits d'Allal El Fassi, homme politique marocain (XXe s.) - btv1b85299742.jpg. The image is in the public domain in France and was taken in the mid 50s. It's for the page Allal al-Fassi. Thank you in advance Mayouhm (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mayouhm, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think, since you uploaded this to Commons, you'd get better answers there, specifically at C:COM:Village pump/Copyright. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Advice on creating an article for Tennyson Schad / Light Gallery (COI Disclosure)

hello i am a new editor who got off to a bit of a rocky start but i would like some help creating an article on Tennyson Schad and the light gallery , I have a conflict of interest as my wife is Tennysons daughter, im unclear if i should work with an editor or try and create the page my self in AFC , or if there was an editor in art history or photography that would be willing to help?

Tennyson was a first ammendemnt lawyer who founded the light gallery in 1971, It was the first NYC gallery to exclusively represent Modern photographers as fine artists, Artists like Harry Callahan , Aaron Siskind , Garry winogrand, and was recently subject of a show at the centre for creative photography in Tuscon.

References

• Institutional Archive (CCP):

• Expert Commentary (Charles Traub):

• Exhibition Record (Fine Books & Collections):

• Legal/Professional (Norwick & Schad):

• Art Market History (Gallery 98):

References

Hoping too find someone too help and if the legend that is @qnce is intersted that would be amazing

Best Mark Mann Mark Simon Mann (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You can join a Wikiproject, such as Wikiproject:Law to find other editors willing to help you, or if Tennyson branched out into more art projects/photography projects (founding an art gallery as you mentioned) then you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography or one of the Art Wikiprojects. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you, its definitely more about the art gallery and photography Mark Simon Mann (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

So Wikiproject Photography and perhaps some of the art ones, although I’m not in any of the art ones so unaware where the art gallery would fall into. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you I have done that Mark Simon Mann (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

would you suggest that i go straight to AFC or wait for help? Mark Simon Mann (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be good to draft an article, and then I’ll look at it and see whether it is good for AFC, then an reviewer will check it, and you can always go back and edit it. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you , i will ping you when i think i have something reasonable to show you.. Mark Simon Mann (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi after doing some research ive decided that it would be better if the page was the "light gallery" with details of Tennyson woven through , ive created a draft in my sandbox User:Mark Simon Mann/sandbox and added what i believe to be quality sources , if you could take a min to review and guide me if its ready for AFC best MarkMark Simon Mann (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Text borders

Hey, so does anyone know if it’s possible to use wikimarkup to create a border around text? Not a background, a border, like the edges of the letters are a different color than the insides of them. I’ve checked WP:Signature tutorial (even though I’m not using it for a signature, I thought I’d find something helpful there) and Help:Wikitext, but didn’t seem to find anything.

Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 01:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This can be done with CSS in wikitext. For example, <span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 0.25px blue">example</span> produces example. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; that’s exactly what I needed. This is probably gonna make me sound uneducated in wikitext, but I didn’t know it could include CSS. That’s interesting. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

repeated links

in the geoguessr article, under "History", in the 1st paragraph, it has a link to the google streetview article. in the 2nd paragraph it says google streetview again but no link. is this right? i don't know. ~2026-82424 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

im not sure but I believe so

) User of thy name (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-82424 Yes, that's correct. We try to only link to other Wikipedia articles once, the first time they're mentioned, and even then only when the internal link would be helpful. For example, I was recently editing an article about a particular pharaoh which linked to pharaoh (correct - it gives context on who this fellow was) but then later linked to king to refer to him (incorrect - he was not a king, and king is a pretty well known word anyway).

@User of thy name, please only answer questions if you're sure you know the answer. It can be very confusing for new editors when they get unclear or conflicting information. Meadowlark (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-82424, "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there. Other mentions may be linked if helpful, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and hatnotes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

why is this unconstructive

creating a new page. getting error that it is unconstructive. what am I doing wrong and how can I fix it?

Extended content

Southwest Children's Center

Southwest Children’s Center, P.A.^[1] is one of San Antonio’s oldest, privately owned, and physician-operated pediatric clinic, established in 1977.

Services

• Newborn care
• Well child visits
• Sick visits
• Same day appointments
• Weekend availability
• After hours availability
• Holiday availability
• Online scheduling
• Telemedicine
• Patient portal
• Breastfeeding/lactation support
• Immunizations
• Adolescent care
• Behavioral and mental health care
• Birth control
• Circumcision
• Ear Piercing
• Sports physicals

Hours and Locations^[1]

SWCC Medical Center

HOURS: Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm

ADDRESS: 5282 Medical Drive, Suite #310, San Antonio, TX 78229

PHONE: (210) 614-8687, FAX: (210) 614-7529

SWCC Hill Country

HOURS: Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm

ADDRESS: 7903 Calle Rialto, San Antonio, TX 78257

PHONE: (210) 614-8687, FAX: (210) 614-7529

Physicians^[1]

Tina Boylston, MD, FAAPShannon Austin, MD, FAAP

Krista Vizuete, MD, FAAP

KaraLin Root, DO, FAAP

Tiffany Ponzio, MD, FAAP

Shelly McNair, MD, FAAP

Greg Hanson, DO, FAAP

Sarah Alpini, DO, FAAP

Liz Vazquez, MD, FAAP

Elizabeth Yust, MD, FAAP

Kimberly Henrichs, MD, FAAP

Rachel Gravel, MD

Shannonatswcc (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shannonatswcc It reads like a directory entry, not an encyclopedia article, and is unreferenced. ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. What you've posted shows no objectivity and reads solely like an advertisement. Any business must meet WP:NCORP and is subject to all other guidelines regarding neutral point of view and being free from conflict of interest. Given that this gives the impression you may be affiliated with the business you're trying to promote, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. – Quinn ΘΔ 04:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You addition is formatted like an advertisement of the clinic rather than an encyclopedia entry, and it has no WP:Reliable sources. A similar article to compare against might be Seattle Children's Hospital. This clinic probably just isn't WP:notable per our notability requirements (WP:Notability (organizations and companies)). Also, your username implies that you might work at SWCC. You should disclose your WP:Conflict of interest if you have one. I highly recommend reading the essay WP:BOSS as to why your clinic probably won't have a Wikipedia article if you were directed to write the article by your management. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sir where is my article?

can someone find my article pls? Prasadpaturi (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This one Draft:Dennis Manjunath? Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the one which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnan Vasant? There is still a draft for it sitting at Draft:Krishnan Vasant. Lectonar (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sir why delete?. how to appeal pls? Prasadpaturi (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Prasadpaturi: It was deleted because it didn't pass the notability guidelines. Instead of trying to appeal it, I recommend working on the draft that you have instead. You should read the AfD discussion on it to see what you did wrong with it the first time. Good luck. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 08:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sir can you help me add more source? I already tryed pls help once Prasadpaturi (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Since this person is an Indian cinematographer, a good place to start would be here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources, this provides a list of sources that can be used for Indian-cinema related articles and how reliable they are. Of course, there's also the general list of reliable sources but that one isn't focused on India in particular. You can still look through there for Indian sources for help. The problem isn't just adding more sources, it is adding more quality secondary sources that offer a good amount of coverage of this person. What I mean by "good amount" is that either the source focuses on them, or at the very least mentions them enough to be considered "significant coverage". An example of something that does not fit into this is a source that only mentions this person once and that's it, that's not coverage, that's just a mention. Lastly, the sources need to be independent of the subject matter, so interviews for example are not independent of the subject matter because they involve them, they're also not secondary because of this. I hope this helped. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 09:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou sir. I check 10 other cinematographer and they all have interviews only sir Prasadpaturi (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You haven't linked to those articles you looked at...but on Wikipedia, anyone can create or contribute to articles. This means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists or is based on not enough sourcing on another page. That other articles exist with "only interviews" is more of an argument for deleting the other articles too, but not for your article to be kept. The "other stuff exists" argument is essentially about deletion discussions, but the direction is clear, Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Unneeded Hyperlink

On Kevin MacLeod's wikipedia article, there's a sentence talking about the prolific use of his music, "The media that featured his music varies much, from Martin Scorsese's 2011 film Hugo to pornographic films." The pornographic films part with the hyperlink being a naked couple is completely unnecessary and explicit for the sole reason of explaining the reach of his music and any child who looks up the youtube music guy could stumble across this part and I find that abhorrent. ~2026-86744 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t censored I’m afraid, there is no policy of censoring based on what could offend someone. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and mentioning that Kevin MacLeod’s music has been used in adult films is acceptable as a factual statement. However, you are right that a graphic or explicit hyperlink is not necessary to make that point... A reasonable solution would be to remove the explicit link while keeping the text, or replace it with a non-graphic, general reference. You can suggest this change on the article’s talk page so other editors can discuss and reach consensus... Hope this clarifies the issue. Jr·NTR (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikilinks are to facilitate greater understanding of terms and topics that our readers may not be familiar with. So, we wikilink the names of lesser known cities but not London, Tokyo, New York or other "world cities". Since a large majority of literate English language speakers are familiar with the concept of pornographic films even if they don't watch them, that wikilink is not necessary. If reliable sources mentioned that his music was in a specific pornographic film that is the subject of a Wikipedia article, then a link to that specific article would be appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, although a wiki hyperlink isn't usually accepted as a main main source but definitely a hyperlink to the pornographic film itself should be fine. Then I would assume that the link would take you to the IMDb or the website that you can download the film. Also there is a music production information Link that I could get if anyone is still interested. But honestly just a link to the film rather than the unnecessary explicit scene in the film would be more appropriate. I don't agree with censoring Wikipedia at all but there is a difference between censorship and understanding responsibility for inappropriate information. This is why we edit articles on here, not to censor but to provide knowledge and understanding responsibily. Sydalee Rose (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a bit of a stupid question, but could you please answer it?

I am interested in editing horse racing-related documents, and I would like to establish a task force under the horse racing project with creators who are interested in similar fields as me. I'm thinking of delving into just one area.

What I'm curious about is if I want to open a task force, do I need to first get permission from the top project creators before opening the task force? This part is not detailed in the guide... I'm sorry I'm a beginner. Coperacchio (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure how to but perhaps look into creating a Wikiproject, which is the “task forces” for certain topics on Wikipedia. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was this -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces Coperacchio (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see, well I’m not sure how those work, but it appears it’s a branch of a Wikiproject, so if you find a Wikiproject about sports, or horses, or racing, then you can probably create the task force from the relevant Wikiproject. Someone else should answer and help you through it. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

KeyolTranslater, if you are "not entirely sure", then please refrain from trying to answer. Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing already exists. Coperacchio, you do not need to ask for permission, but your effort will only be successful if you can find several other editors interested in participating in such a task force, and then actually joining in to do the work. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did realise that after and edited my responses, just trying to help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Lost edits / overwrite due to concurrent editing. (report submitted)

This sort of computing error thing has happened before, and it doesn't happen to me alone. This guy's edit[6] accidentally just fully undid my edit here[7] because we edit at the same time overlapping each other. My edit here also [8] unintentionally undid this guy's edit here.[9] This kind of issues seems to happens frequently when many people are editing at the same time on popular articles, and it's inefficient if we keep often undoing each other's edits unintentionally. Hence it be nice if you could relay or lodge a report to whoever is charge to finally fix these computing bugs. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Have any of you had the same issues? I doubt I am the only one noticing it tho given the lack of answers to my question here - I am assuming the Teahouse is probably unable to handle this overly technical question. Probably should reach out to more advanced coding community instead but did not know where to go. I have later found this link [10] and I am going to also assume that is the correct place to make the report. I wrote this bug report below 👇, and submitted it. I think the reason we have these bugs is possibly because nobody even bother to report them. Or they reported them and it's proven to be impossible. Either way, I done my part.

Copy of submitted bug report; Lost edits / overwrite due to concurrent editing (Case ID - T413829) - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T413829

Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):

I made this edit here[11], which unintentionally undone another editor's earlier work here [12] only several minutes earlier. I made another edit here [13], and less than a minute later another editor's edit - [14] unintentionally reverted my edits when they tried to add in their own edit.

What happens?: There are unintentional overwrites due to concurrent editing on high-traffic articles. I observed multiple cases where edits are silently undone when two editors saved around the same time, without getting a clear edit-conflict warning.

Usually when there's an edit conflict, the site occasionally informs you there is one. But other times, it doesn't inform you and your edit simply override/revert the previous editor's edits.

What should have happened instead?: When you edit an article, it should be able to detect any edit conflict and inform the user flawlessly. It should obviously not let you undo other people's work if that is not even your intention. I think an improved warning system may help resolve. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Lack of answers should not be taken as evidence of anything. But you're right that the Teahouse is probably not the right place for this kind of technical discussion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about a resubmitted AFC draft

I previously submitted a biographical draft to AFC, which was declined on December 25. Since then, I’ve revised the article and resubmitted it.

While it’s under review, I’d appreciate any general advice on things I should double-check at this stage.

Draft: Draft:Manuel Sans Segarra

Thanks very much for your help Supraconciencia (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Supraconciencia: First, to link to other Wikipedia articles, use these characters: [[]]. Example: Bread. Second, two of the sources have errors related to their ISBN number, so you should fix that. I'm not too sure what else to say about the sources (though, I don't think you should cite the books he made as sources, instead, you should add their ISBN number to the selected works section) but that's all I have to say here. Good luck. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 10:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback.

I’ve fixed the internal links using [[ ]] (for example, linking near-death experiences to near-death experience), corrected the ISBN details, and removed the books as sources, listing them only in the “Selected works” section as suggested.

I also removed an unpublished work to avoid any forward-looking content.

Much appreciated Supraconciencia (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Your article states he has been associated with views describing a form of consciousness that is not limited to brain activity, which he refers to as “supraconsciousness”

Given that your username is 'Supraconciencia', am I correct in saying you are connected in some way with the subject of the article? If so, you need to declare this. Athanelar (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not connected to the subject of the article in any way.

My username reflects an interest in the topic, not an affiliation.

My edits are made in good faith. I would of course declare any conflict of interest if one existed. Supraconciencia (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

absurd citing

I was looking at this page when I noticed that a sentence uses book to cite personal info. eg. "She married Athel Cornish-Bowden in 1982 and had one daughter." Orwell'sreader (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Orwell reader. I think that it meets WP:ABOUTSELF, which is the relevant policy for this sort of situation. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 13:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

References

A different way to give time frame

For some people it's difficult and rather time consuming to figure out how long ago 350BCE was, so I thought I would suggest putting in parentheses how many years ago a "philosophy" was created. I hope this makes sense. It's my first time making a suggestion:) Sydalee Rose (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Sydalee Rose! Could you give a link to the article in question? Judging by the date, it is probably related to ancient Greek philosophy, but a link would help here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 11:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for answering so quickly 🙂

I feel a little dumb but I don't know how to link the article. It is an article on Toaism and Loazi. If that helps. I've been a hardcore user of Wikipedia for years but I've never asked a question. I've noticed when historical articles are dated it doesn't say how many centuries ago it was and I'm autistic and have a hard time processing dates that are written like that. Basically my brain says I'm supposed to count backwards at some point but I don't know what point or if it's even right. I don't want to be a bother though if it's not an issue for anyone else it's fine don't worry about it. 🫠 Sydalee Rose (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sydalee Rose: Well, firstly, I must state that I can relate as I am also autistic. But secondly, here's a good tip, the best characters to use when editing Wikipedia are these four: [[]] (for linking articles, for example Taoism and Laozi) and {{}} (for templates, although you're probably not going to put in any just yet, this is still worth introducing you to)

With these in mind, if this isn't about the two articles I linked, you should be able to link the article you talked about earlier now. Again, the characters used for linking articles are: [[]], and to give another related example: Tao Te Ching. Hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 12:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

A helpful link: Help:Cheatsheet. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

lol Tao Te Ching let me know if I did that right? Sydalee Rose (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

hey yay I did it!!! Thank you for your help 🩶 Sydalee Rose (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, in case it's helpful for the future, the point at which you start 'counting backwards' is 0 CE/BCE. BCE means before common era, so any BCE number is that many years before 0CE, that's why you count 'backwards.'

In other words, to get the number of years between now (or any CE date) and a certain BCE date, you just add the BCE date to the CE date.

Taking 350BCE as an example, to get from now (2026CE) to 0CE is of course 2026 years, so in total we've now travelled 2026 years back.

Then to get from 0CE to 350BCE is another 350 years back, so we add that to the 2026 and we've now travelled 2376 years, so 350BCE is 2376 years ago.

The higher the BCE number, the further back in time. Athanelar (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar @Sydalee Rose ... keeping in mind that 0CE doesn't exist. It probably helps to imagine that it does for the sake of calculations like this, but 1CE follows directly after 1BCE. The zero point is like an imaginary line between those. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't generally include the number of years ago for information like that. Which is: are you going to update it annually so that it remains accurate? -- Avocado (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

My citations.

I'm the Chair to The South African Nature Conservation Investment and Development Trust. We are doing the Cry Our Rhino campaign, a walking campaign I started using my walker and wheelchair for Black Rhino preservation. I haven't been interviewed nor cited on this yet. I've been cited 1809 times on Academia.edu, however, it's for my work and articles done on Hydroponics, botany and ecology, not in line with this campain as yet. I hope it can already be considered as an article. It's starting to build momentum already.

Academia.edu Ruwart de Jong (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ruwart de Jong: Firstly, you clearly have a conflict of interest, you should disclose this ASAP. Secondly, you should try to write your draft in a neutral and formal tone, and to avoid it sounding like an advertisement. There's a lot of formatting issues there as well, I'll fix those for you, though. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 12:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ruwart de Jong: After taking a skim through the draft article, which is this one, the language used here is clearly promotional and would not be accepted by AfC reviewers. There are also no proper inline citations, which are a requirement as well. Again, I recommend to change the language used here but also highly recommend that you disclose your COI now. As for inline citations, see this: Help:Referencing for beginners. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 12:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ruwart de Jong Note: Also GPTZero has confirmed this articles AI generated content and its not considered under policy. Use of AI assistance alone is not prohibited.

However, if the editor has a conflict of interest (COI)—for example, a close connection to the organisation described—this should be disclosed per WP:COI, and editing should be done cautiously.

More importantly, the article currently reads as promotional and lacks independent, reliable secondary sources, which raises concerns under WP:NPOV and WP:RS. These issues should be addressed regardless of how the text was written. The recommended approach is to rewrite the content in a neutral tone, remove advocacy language, and support all significant claims with high-quality independent sources. Jr·NTR (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ruwart de Jong. It sounds to me as if you are trying to use Wikipedia to tell people about your campaign.

However laudable and inspiring your campaign may be, that is still, in Wikipedia's terms, promotion, and forbidden.

Only if several people completely unconnected with you and the campaign have chosen to publish in reliable publications in-depth material about the campaign (not quoting or based on your words or the words of anybody associated with the campaign) will a Wikipedia article on the campaign be possible; and such an article should be based almost entirely on what those independent commentators say, not on what you or your colleagues say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating a draft

how do I create a draft, and submit it under circumstances? BeachGoer10 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

To create a draft, click “Create” at the top of Wikipedia and choose Draft, or go directly to Special:MyPage/DraftName.

Write your article in the Draft namespace and add reliable, independent sources. When it’s ready, click “Submit for review” using the AfC submission button at the top. A volunteer reviewer will check it and either accept it, request changes, or decline it with feedback. You can keep improving and resubmitting until it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines.

If the topic is close to you personally, make sure to read about conflict of interest before submitting. Happy editing! Jr·NTR (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@BeachGoer10: There's also your own user sandbox that can be used for the same purpose. Good luck! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BeachGoer10, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

25th anniversary

Had Wikipedia reached its 25th anniversary yet? ~2026-92091 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

15 January 2001 is when the English Wikipedia was created, so we're still a few days off. – Quinn ΘΔ 13:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The importance of leaving an edit summary

Good afternoon everyone at the Wikipedia Teahouse,

What are the rules about leaving an edit summary? I think I read somewhere that you should leave it but I have neither been asked to leave them nor been required to. I just get a little box after hitting submit which I sometimes fill out if I think the change might be weirdly seen.. is this required? Am I messing up? My friend who introduced me to Wikipedia said you don't care about edit summaries but he also said he's gotten in trouble before so I don't really trust his judgement (˃ ᗜ ˂). Tovarishch Yuri 🏳️‍⚧️🇷🇺 13:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Edit summary. In short: yes, please leave one...it's both helpful and polite. Lectonar (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Tovarishch Yuri 🏳️‍⚧️🇷🇺 13:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@TovarishchYuri: Not every edit will require a summary, but if you feel like leaving one, then do! The goal of edit summaries are to summarise what you did and why you did it in a few sentences. Now they're not always required but they are helpful for other editors. Things to avoid: Don't write too much, don't write too little. Examples: "I did this change because blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" (I'm not going to type something that long, sorry) or "Major changes." Instead do: "I made some changes and fixes to the infobox" or "CE" (these are the initials for copyediting) or "Added a source to this paragraph". Hope this helped. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Tovarishch Yuri 🏳️‍⚧️🇷🇺 13:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

An incorrect message appears in the category and I can't remove it

Hello, I created the category Category:Paleface Swiss EPs earlier, and I just noticed the warning "This category contains albums by Paleface Swiss EPs", which is incorrect because it indicates a page that doesn't exist. I tried adding the template {{Catmain|Paleface Swiss}}, and instead of the new warning replacing the old one, it appears below it. I would appreciate help in resolving this problem. Jvbpds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jvbpds: I fixed it for you. It should have a proper link now. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger Thanks! Jvbpds (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Section linking

Tried to check MOS, but I was confused. If I'm linking a section of a page in that same page, specifically in this revision, what should the link display? Should it be "(see Geography)", "(see § Geography)", "(see Navajo Nation § Geography)", or something else entirely? Or should I just leave it as an unlinked "(see text)"? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: What you are describing is called an "Anchor", which is explained here: Wikipedia:ANCHOR. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, but my question is what should the link say. Like, how should it be presented visually to the reader? Or am I just missing the part of the anchor page you're talking about? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: I think the "see § Geography" one works, as usually the anchor should only show an article's name if it is linking to another article. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you for teaching me how to use anchors, now I can link the particular paragraph where it mentions it. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Reference not found

I notice a reference that points to a source that cannot be found, should anything be done? MrEthqn (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@MrEthqn Replace it with working source please or Internet archives. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MrEthqn. Additional advice can be found at a help page called Wikipedia:Link rot. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary content in infobox

hi, so on the article of Charles V of France, in his infobox it lists "Jean de Montagu" as his (possible) illegitimate son, but this has been debunked and any other mention of it was removed from wikipedia. I didn't want to remove it myself because it may be seen as vandalism or disruptive editing (even though that's not my intention). Can someone please remove that specific name from the infobox? Thank you.... BTW, there is no need to keep it there if there is no further mention of it anywhere else. ~2026-98921 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you clarify where this debunking took place? DS (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

An AFD and a Merge discussion at the same time

There seems to be an AFD and a Merge proposal for "2025 Kolkata Messi 'GOAT' event incident" at the same time. I have already commented on the AFD and I soon realized there was a merge proposal too for this same article. The templates for both were posted on that article until an editor removed them here: [15] [16]. What is done in these situations? WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@WhatADrag07 Thank you, already Restored the Active WP:AfD temp. merge arguments are allowed inside WP:AfD So removing both not right way. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

template:England rugby league coaches

I have made a mistake & overwritten a template that I had previously created in my sandbox.

How can I get this latest edit backed out.

The above article has been overwritten with my new article Deeside Dragons FC. Help, please! Robinson Drinkald (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Robinson Drinkald  Done Restored. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Article declined

My article was declined and the reason is "Article needs citation to determine noteworthyness." What does it mean? how can i improve it ? My article is Draft:List of King of Mask Singer episodes (2026) PurpleTenshi (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @PurpleTenshi, 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.

An article won't be accepted unless you cite several sources matching all the criteria in WP:42. And if you can't find several such suitable sources in the first place, then an article on that subject is not possible.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @PurpleTenshi! What this means is that the subject matter of the article does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Television related articles due to a lack of sources. Furthermore, it does not pass Wikipedia's policy on verifiability as it does not cite any inline citations at all. To mitigate this, I recommend searching for secondary reliable coverage of this season but it might be too soon for this one since it doesn't appear to have even aired yet.

Also as @ColinFine said in his own comment, you should probably avoid making your first article for now, it is not an easy task at all, especially for a newcomer. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead detail and length

Hi all,

I recently had one of my articles reviewed by another editor for Good Article status. I found it really helpful to have a fresh set of eyes on my own work, so I wanted to return the favour.

In my review of the editor's article, I largely gave it a rubber stamp and made a few minor suggestions about the copy. The only potential GA issue I flagged was the lead, which I felt was too long and detailed relative to the rest of the article. To me, it goes beyond a “quick summary of the topic’s most important points” and includes the level and type of detail you would normally expect in the body of the article.

I’d appreciate a second opinion on whether the length and level of detail are compliant with MOS:LEAD and summary style. The author pushed back strongly on my suggestions, asking me to “review by the criteria rather than suggestions for general improvement.” CounterpointStitch (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CounterpointStitch. In my opinion, the lead is an appropriate length for an article of this level of detail. It is four paragraphs and usually, up to six paragraphs is considered appropriate. It also seems to do a good job summarizing the body of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion bar thing

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.

---

Im trying to remember the template that makes a line to the left side of the page when the replies have gotten too far to the right. I always forget what its called.

It would connect these two paragraphs. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

{{Outdent}}, most likely. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, thats it. Already purple linked cause Id used it before ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Talk page not a forum

Hello there, why are talk pages still not a forum? Where is discussion appropriate at? ~2026-10251-8 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You can ask questions about topics at the Reference Desk, but even there Wikipedia is not a forum, and you should use other websites or mediums for discussion forum purposes. Talk pages aren't for forum purposes as the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia -- and we don't want excessive space for distractions. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 22:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss specific shortcomings of articles and to make specific actionable proposals to improve articles based on specific reliable sources. Also, every substantive conversation on Wikipedia ought to be about improving the encyclopedia broadly defined. There are countless websites and social media platforms where people can shoot the breeze and pontificate. Wikipedia is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of BBC

How reliable is BBC, compared to others? ~2026-10251-8 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-10251-8! This is not the place to ask that question (at least I think it isn't, could be wrong here), but according to Wikipedia's own discussions about the BBC's reliability, the answer is "generally reliable". _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is rarely the only place, but it is always a suitable place for newcomers to ask questions about Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)