Wikipedia:Teahouse

I don't know if it's possible or not, but what if like someone made an userbox that just says "this person is using a temp account" or along the sorts. Is it even possible to make userboxes, like at all? ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CREATEUSERBOX 🍅 fx (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

51002,

Well, it'd be possible for the userbox to be created, but usually userboxes are placed on your own user page, and AFAIK TAs generally do not have user pages and aren't able to make them. I might be mistaken, and I couldn't find anything explicitly saying TAs never have user pages, but I've never seen a user page for a TA. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 00:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TAs can have user pages, it's just a bit pointless since a TA can only be active for up to 90 days. Athanelar (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-51002-1 Along with what @Athanelar said, a userbox saying that the user is using a temp account is pointless for another reason--it's clear from seeing the username that it's a temp account. David10244 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, aside from the technical impracticalities, I think it would actually be sort of cool. I know there's some folks who are regular editors that prefer unregistered editing (that one fellow who frequents the reference desk comes to mind), and if that's a point of pride for someone, then a userbox would be appropriate. Userboxes are for fun; they can be redundant with obvious information. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MEN KISSING Yes, you are right about that. David10244 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So basically I'm going to be gone soon? ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you'll just need to either create a new temporary account, or you'll need to register a new account. You'll still be allowed to edit. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-51002-1, @MEN KISSING I presume that 90 days after a temp account is created, and it expires, the new temp account is automatically created, right? I didn't think the user had to proactively do anything when the account "rolls over" to a new one. But I could be wrong. David10244 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-51002-1, yes, you will lose it after around 90 days, but a new TA will be created automatically for you. Nothing is stopping you from creating a user page, even a complex one loaded with your favorite links to articles, user boxes, or whatever. As long as you write down your current TA name somewhere (or keep a copy of your user page offline), when the system flips you to a new one, you can just copy or recreate it at your new one, and keep rolling it forward every 90 days if you want. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good, afternoon. I'm trying to prepare a book with the Wikipedia Book Creator Tool (with intention to get it printed via PediaPress), with several wiki articles about a certain topic, and I have a series of questions:

I would need to exclude from the book some parts of these articles, in order to prevent redundances between them. Would that be possible?

I've seen that there's this "Template:Noprint" or "Template:Hide in print", which could allow to effectively hide content of the articles. However, I'm not sure if this is a good option, and I don't know either how should I put this code to use... Maybe I should make some kind of local copy of these wiki's that I want to include in the book?

Finally, Is there any option to directly upload an image to put it as the image of the front page (right now I can only do it with images that are included in the articles that I picked for the book)?.

Thanks, Dr Camprodon (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dr Camprodon, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Most of Wikipedia may be reused freely (including making new things from it) as long as you attribute the source: see WP:reusing Wikipedia content.

The main exception is that some of the images are not freely licensed. If you want to reuse an image from Wikipedia you need to look at the image's own page (just click on the image) and see what the licence is. If it says "Public domain", you may copy and use it freely; if it says "CC-BY-SA", you may use it on the same terms as the rest of Wikipedia. If it says "Non-free", you would need to investigate the copyright of the source. You might need to contact the copyright holder to ask for permission, or you might not be able to use it at all.

For the mechanics of copying: unless you have your own copy of the Mediawiki software installed, you will not be able to make any use of the underlying Wikimarkup, so your best bet would be simply to copy the articles (or parts of them), and paste them into whatever word processing system you use.

You can download any image, using your browser or app (in most browsers you can right-click on an image, and you'll have an option to download it to your device). You can also search in Wikimedia Commons for images that don't happen to be in an article, or not in the particular article you're looking at. Any images in Commons are licensed for free reuse.

If this doesn't answer your questions, please come back and ask further. ColinFine (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Camprodon, where are you seeing references to the Book Creator tool? This service was shut down in 2021. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello is there anyone there that can talk? Tonk boi (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking questions related to Wikipedia, not general chat. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ye well i need some facts on tanks as i’m researching on them and need lots of facts rn Tonk boi (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, head to the Reference desk, the folks there can probably help you. Or just go to the article on tanks. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the Danish version of the English site Mikkel Rønnow, which is at da:Mikkel Rønnow, so as to cross-populate the two sites with credits, references etc. in common. So far as I can tell, my English login should already be a Unified Login, however I am unable to log in to the Danish site using my English site credentials. Can someone with the know-how please explain what I need to do to edit other language sites in Wikipedia? I also have edits I wish to carry out on the German and Italian Wikipediæ, and am hoping for a one-size-fits-all solution. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"unable to log in"—How? Do you see an error message, and if so, what does it say?

Have you tried logging in on German or Italian (or any other) Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:Thanks for replying. The error messages are as below:

Wikipedia bruger cookies til at logge brugere på. Du har slået cookies fra. Slå dem venligst til og prøv igen. ("Wikipedia uses cookies to log users in. You have cookies disabled. Please enable them and try again.") But I already enabled cookies for this site on Firefox. On other browsers, I get invalid login messages:

Den indtastede adgangskode var forkert. Prøv igen. ("The password you entered is incorrect. Please try again.").

On each occasion I have to fill out a Captcha code, and on each occasion I have meticulously replicated the EN login ID and Password. I double checked these were correct by logging out of the English site, and logging back in using the identical credentials.

I am able to log in to German and Italian sites, indeed, when I go to either https://de.wikipedia.org/ or https://it.wikipedia.org/ I find I am already logged in.Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try deleting all cookies from all Wikipedia and Wikimedia domains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:Thanks again! I switched computers from Mac Pro to Windows, and logged in using Edge using the same credentials, and after getting another "invalid password" message, on a retry got this:

Automatisk oprettelse af en lokal konto mislykkedes:

Din IP-adresse er inden for et interval blevet blokeret på alle Wikimedia Foundation-wikier. Blokeringen blev foretaget af ‪XXBlackburnXx‬. Begrundelsen er Long-term abuse: Due to abuse from this IP range, anonymous/logged-out editing has been temporarily blocked. To request an account created for you, please refer to the guide for assistance.. Start af blokering: 28. maj 2025, 01:27 Udløb af blokering: 28. maj 2026, 00:37 Din nuværende IP-adresse er ####:23ee:1778:1f6e:5d2d:eaac:528b:####. Det blokerede interval er ####:23EE:0:0:0:0:0:0/32‬.

Inkluder alle ovenstående detaljer i forespørgsler du gør. Hvis du mener, at du er blevet blokeret ved en fejl, kan du finde yderligere oplysninger og instruktioner i den globale politik Ingen åbne proxyer. Du kan også diskutere blokeringen ved at lægge en anmodning om gennemgang på Meta-Wiki. ⧼wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-mistake-e-mail-steward⧽

which translates as:

Automatic local account creation failed:

Your IP address has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis within a range. The block was made by XXBlackburnXx. The reason is Long-term abuse: Due to abuse from this IP range, anonymous/logged-out editing has been temporarily blocked. To request an account created for you, please refer to the guide for assistance.. Block start: May 28, 2025, 01:27 Block expiration: May 28, 2026, 00:37 Your current IP address is ####:23ee:1778:1f6e:5d2d:eaac:528b:####. The blocked range is ####:23EE:0:0:0:0:0/32.

Please include all of the above details in any requests you make. If you believe you have been blocked in error, you can find more information and instructions in the global policy No Open Proxies. You can also discuss the block by filing a review request on Meta-Wiki. ⧼wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-mistake-e-mail-steward⧽

This is the standard WP message when one is trying to edit without logging in, which I never do. I do not recognise any aspect of these IP addresses.

In a nutshell, I am unable to login to the Danish WP from any browser on any OS on any device. I can however log in to English, German and Italian WP sites as Editor from any OS, any browser, any device. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is as you say the standard 'account creation blocked' message. Unlike dewiki and itwiki, your local dawiki account hasn't been created so it affects you. If can access another (unblocked) IP range for a few minutes, you could try that. Admins on dawiki could also attach your local account for you, if you can contact an active one (da:Special:ListUsers/sysop), perhaps on their enwiki talk page - tell them to use da:Special:CreateLocalAccount. Alternatively stewards such as User:XXBlackburnXx can also technically do that, though I'm not sure about the dawiki policy for that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, once you find an unblocked IP, use the opportunity to create an account everywhere while you can, using m:User:Krinkle/Tools/Global SUL. Don't be startled if you get about 25-50 automated "welcome" messages for a about week. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz:@Suffusion of Yellow:Very helpful, thank you! Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisdevelop: i’ve forced an account creation for you on da.wikipedia, so you should now be able to edit there. Please let me know if you encounter any other issues. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@XXBlackburnXx: Thank you, all the more with your being on a Wikibreak! It logged me on instantly, and saved me hours, if not days of communication with the Danish side. Now all I have to do is figure out how to edit (carefully) in Danish. Thanks again. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

This page has no archives listed on its talk page, but I discovered that a talk page exists for the old version of the page here, and that talk page has archives, as you will notice.

However, the old talk page and its archives only cover conversations from 18-20 years ago. There is a gap in the revision history which suggests that the Bellatrix Lestrange (character) page was redirected for many years, and then reborn as Bellatrix Lestrange. If that's not what happened, then there are years of talk page archives missing.

Either way, I'm wondering what the best way is to link the old talk page and its archives to the current talk page. I would assume that the old talk page becomes an archive page itself. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange (character) to Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange/Archive 1. Looks like there was a bit of a mess with redirects/merges/swaps/renames etc., and at some point the old talk page got detached from the article. As far as I can see, it was a redirect for quite some time, so there's no actual archives missing. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I appreciate it. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryOtter and Rchard2scout: I've history-merged the Bellatrix Lestrange (character)Bellatrix Lestrange (character) page with Bellatrix Lestrange, so the history of the development of the article at that title can all be tracked in one place. I've also moved the page that was recently moved to archive 1 to Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange/Archive 2 to make way for a move of Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange (character)/Archive 1Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange (character)/Archive 1 to its original title, Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange/Archive 1. The old page was moved to the title with "character" (along with its talk/subpages) using the page swap method, which is useful in the case of overlapping history, but not so much in cases like this. I think all the page history/archives are in as good a position as possible now. Graham87 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for your help. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make "subst:article for deletion" collapsible? I tried to add it to Princess Maria Ludwiga Theresia of Bavaria and it ended up huge. I've only nominated one other article before (see Maria Elisabetta Carlotta of Savoy), and I don't know what is wrong. OliviaRigby (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OliviaRigby,

Are you referring to the fact that it had a lot more text than AfD notices usually do?

I'm pretty sure the extra text you were seeing was just some instructions, which only briefly display while the AfD page itself is still a redlink. If you go through with the process in its entirety, then the AfD notice will look normal.

You can also try and use Twinkle to automate the entire nomination process. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 03:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, got it now. OliviaRigby (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very new at editing Wikipedia so apologies if I’ve messed up. Full disclosure I posted on reddit asking for the best way to get help and they suggested here.

I had an odd interaction with the subject of a Wikipedia article, which involved him very strongly insisting he didn’t write his [own wiki page.](Chaz Stevens) Obviously I looked that up and while he hasn’t edited the page himself, it did seem off.

Basic History: He paid someone to [create the article initially](User:Ubiquitouslarry) and [it was deleted in 2020](Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Stevens). It was [recreated](User talk:ST47/Archive26#Chaz Stevens WP:REFUND to userspace) in 2022 by the current main editor. It has been tagged 'advert' and 'puffery' in 2024 but the main editor removed the tags.

Other people have edited and deleted things from the page but (based on a quick check of the page history) it looks like all the photos relating to the subject, the main article text and the references were done by this editor, [who mentions having been in contact with the subject by email](User talk:GRuban/Archive 15#Chaz Stevens, 2025)

My impression is that he is emailing the editor news articles, photos and asking them to [make changes to the page on their behalf](Talk:Chaz Stevens#Edit request from subject) to edit his own page by proxy.

I’m reluctant to post on the talk page because this is outside my ability to address and I’m conscious that my POV is not neutral (following interactions with him on reddit). I’m also worried he will react badly if his page is altered (he does not like criticism and seems to consider his wiki page a status symbol) and I'm not sure how to deal with that.

Is this shady or am I misunderstanding? and is there way to get someone with fresh eyes to step in? SquidPosting (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

related:

User:GRuban - Rob Walker (journalist) - https://rwalker.medium.com/an-interview-with-my-wikipedian-a05926b04c94#.13pql36lk

~2026-20418-87 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SquidPosting, welcome to the Teahouse! Do note that Wikipedia does not use markdown for syntax.

Conflict of interest editing is, by default, pretty shady. It is not completely prohibited, however, as long as it is fully disclosed and scrutinized by uninvolved editors carefully enough. I wasn't able to look around too closely, but I do get the impression that any conflict of interest editing happening on the current version of the article has likely been in good faith.

Still, it never hurts to be sure, so a fresh set of eyes looking at the article would be a good idea. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 13:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Squid! I'm the "main editor" referred to. Yes that is how COI editing is supposed to happen; the subject asks an uninvolved Wikipedia editor to make changes, and the editor does or doesn't. The article by Rob Walker that 2026... linked to above describes the process reasonably well. (Though it's been 11 years, wow.) I'm not involved with Chaz Stevens (or Rob Walker, or most of the tens of other people I've written about) other than thinking his story is interesting and notable, and he has sent me considerably more edit requests than I have implemented. Maybe half the people I write about send me edit requests for the articles about themselves; the edits I make are mine, not theirs. If you think specific parts of the article about Stevens are puffery, say so, probably on article talk, and we'll discuss and come to some agreement. That's how that is supposed to work too. I don't bite. I don't know how Chaz Stevens is on Reddit, but I, personally try to be reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored puffery tags that GRuban previously removed. The article appears overly detailed and promotional to my eyes. GRuban recently reverted what, again to my eyes, looked like some good clean-up. We can take this to the Talk page, but additional editor input would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See you there. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there's such a tool or script as one I was thinking of just now: basically, it takes your defaultt recentchanges filter and picks a random diff of the 50 or whatever that are loaded to send you to so you don't have to manually go through them and can instead use it like a diff slot machine. When I am looking for vandalism to revert it can get kind of tedious to click on each diff I want to look at EditWarCriminal (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EditWarCriminal, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've a feeling that WP:Redwarn can do something like this, but I don't recall the details. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still clicking on diffs, you should check out WP:POPUPS. You can identify if it's vandalism 98% of the time by just hovering your mouse. It also enables one-click reverts and performs other types of magic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know of a tool with "random edit" functionality, but I use WP:WikiShield that shows a live feed of all new edits by your filters and allows you to revert them very quickly with one keyboard press. It does require WP:Rollback permissions though, as do most similar automated tools. 🍅 fx (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a new Wikipedia editor and I'm hoping for guidance. I attempted to create a draft article about myself (Draft:Christine J. Gold) which was deleted under G15 for self promotion. I am a published author (Intuition Saved My Life, 2021), podcast host since 2019, and have been featured in multiple independent publications including Edmonton Muse Magazine, Reignelle Magazine, The Earth Healers Podcast, and Haunted Road Trips Show. I used AI as a drafting tool but personally verified all content. I understand this was a mistake and I'm willing to rewrite the article entirely in my own words.

My questions are: 1. Can the deleted draft content be retrieved so I can rewrite it? 2. Would a Teahouse volunteer be willing to review my independent citations and advise whether I meet notability guidelines before I resubmit? 3. Is there a volunteer who could help me create or co-create the article to avoid the autobiography and AI flags? Thank you so much for your help posted at 20:29, 2 April 2026 by ChristineJGold

ChristineJGold Hello. Please read the autobiography policy; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, though not absolutely forbidden. You could solicit co-editing at a relevant WikiProject(maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Biographies), but please read the scam warning, you may be contacted by scammers.

The draft was deleted as LLM written; you could request it be restored at WP:REFUND if necessary, or have it emailed to you. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChristineJGold, to your second question: An article would need to be based on significant coverage in sources that are both reliable and independent. Please digest WP:42; once you've done so, you may wish to post links (here, in this thread) to three (but no more) sources that each satisfy all three of these criteria (significant coverage + reliability + independence). -- Hoary (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new to wikipedia so this may be a stupid question, but when are you meant to use abbreviations?

I was adding wikilinks at an article for a submarine, and i saw that Washington had been abbreviated.

"Ports visited included Seattle, Wash., during the city’s Seafair Festival and Esquimalt, British Columbia, Canada."

would it be normal to abbreviate Washington to Wash.? How do you determine when a shorthand is needed? Geminitoast (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Geminitoast: The relevant guideline is MOS:STATEABBR: "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand for the full names in normal text." Deor (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank for the help :) I'll go change that Geminitoast (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Geminitoast: You might want to use "Washington, United States" to match the following "British Columbia, Canada". Bazza 7 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Teahouse, I'm seeking guidance after a series of improvements to the article Ricky K. Patel were reverted on 31 March 2026 by editor Zackmann08 with the summary "Massive dump of ai content." The edits were intended to genuinely improve the article — specifically to: Replace unreliable citations (amazon.com, marketersmedia.com press releases) with coverage from established outlets Remove the {{unreliable sources}} maintenance banner that currently appears at the top of the article Add factual content supported by reliable secondary sources The reliable sources I found and intended to use include: Two articles from the Miami Herald (a major regional newspaper) covering notable legal cases the subject was involved in Coverage from Law.com / Daily Business Review about a significant civil lawsuit News articles from St. Thomas University (official university news site) covering the subject as an alumnus A local TV news report from WSVN 7 News (a Miami NBC affiliate) A candidacy statement from The Florida Bar official publication I posted a full list of these sources on the article's Talk page: Talk:Ricky K. Patel#Request for editor assistance: improving article with reliable sources. My questions are: Is there a proper way for me to request that a neutral experienced editor review these sources and help restore/incorporate the improvements? Are there any WikiProjects (Biography, Law, United States) whose members I should ping for help with this article? Is there anything procedurally I should do before attempting to re-add this content? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. ~2026-19815-43 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you think this AI-generated comment was going to help your case in proving that your edit was not AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, adding all the new information first and only then trying to add the citations is not a good idea: it means that for at least a period of time it is present in the article without proper referencing. It would be better to formulate each new piece of information together with a correct citation in, for example, a sandbox, and insert them into the article 'in one go'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@19815 Please read WP:NOLLM. You are not allowed to add text generated by a large language model to articles except in very narrow circumstances.

And please do not use LLMs to generate talk page messages. If you have concerns with an article, then we want to talk to you about it, not your chatbot.

Furthermore, if the sources were found by your chatbot, they might not support the article content, or worse, might be hallucinated. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does the "On this day" section handle holidays that don't fall on the same day each year, and how is this situation handled on day-of-the-year pages in general?

For example, I was just looking at the page for Hanuman Jayanti. This year, the holiday fell on March 31-April 1. However, last year it fell on April 11-12. It's not on any of the associated date pages for the 31st to 1st, so I was wondering how holidays like these are dealt with? Are they never included on these articles/put on the front page at all?

Sorry if this is a silly question or not phrased well, I'm a new editor. InTheseOtherWorlds (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good question.

If a significant event happened on some variable-date holiday, then that event still corresponds to a calendar date, and it would be associated with that calendar date, rather than the holiday. The holiday association would be done in the description of the event.

Examples would be lunar-calendar dates such as Easter, or "nth weekday" dates such as Thanksgiving in the US (fourth Thursday of November). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense! Then, items such as Easter could be added to the front page even without being on the date page? InTheseOtherWorlds (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the front page? An Easter event would be added to the "on this day" page, but tied to a specific date. For example, Easter falls on April 5, 1942. And indeed, the first entry under April 1942#April 5, 1942 (Sunday) mentions that it's Easter. For an "on this day", the item would appear on April 5 every year, regardless of whether April 5 is Easter, but would still point out that the event occurred on Easter. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, i'm just wondering is there any way of viewing the history of deleted pages? Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could become an administrator.... Hoary (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can find revisions of deleted pages on archive.org. Otherwise, as Hoary says, administrators are able to view deleted history. Revisions suppressed by an oversighter are not viewable by normal administrators regardless of whether the revision is deleted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a page that you're interested in, let me or another administrator know, and I can tell you general things about it that don't involve a lot of effort, like how many revisions there were, when was the first or last revision, whether a particular editor contributed, and so on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacksonvil Us non-admins can often get some info on deleted articles, by clicking the article's redlink. For example, try Günter Bechly or Suzanne Olsson. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacksonvil, Hoary, Anachronist, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: non-admins can see just about everything about deleted edits besides their texts and edit summaries. The easiest way is using a script, as described at wikipedia:viewing and restoring deleted pages § Viewing metadata of deleted revisions. Graham87 (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is Levant 1RR restricted as a PIA page? If not, how do you request to get a page to be protected indefinitely with 1RR and be part of PIA? I think it should be, and I am surprised that it does not seem to be unless I am mistaken. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn The best place to ask for increase or decreased page protections is at WP:RFPP. If there's a specific case to be made for a page and disruption incidents, you could request arbitration enforcement in the form of page protection at WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a way for me to upload images in this question but the image in question is the photo for Weezer's the Gathering promotional photo, i would like to add it to Weezer's page as the new image but i don't know if I'm allowed to -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 03:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Uploading images. A promotional photo is likely copyrighted, in which case it cannot be accepted for upload unless the copyright holder releases it under an acceptable free license. WP:CONSENT has a template for the mail that needs to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation to grant permission and release. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weez3rforever Ooo, I don't listen to much music, but I like that band!

As Anachronist pointed out, the answer is probably no. If you don't know the license for a picture, and it's not a picture you created yourself, you almost certainly shouldn't upload it. The image is probably copyrighted.

I'd like to elaborate, however, that there are some situations in which we're allowed to use a copyrighted image. It depends on what purpose the image would serve, how important it would be to include, and if it's possible to instead use a free alternative. For example, we're allowed to have a picture of Bart Simpson on Bart Simpson's article, but only because there's no possible image we could create or use depicting him that wouldn't be owned by Fox. See WP:NFCCP for the requirements for non-free usage. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm silly. I was thinking of Ween. I'm afraid I have no opinion on Weezer. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 04:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a drummer, Weezer songs are fun. I enjoy playing to "Beverly Hills (Weezer song)". It's a simple groove with lots of opportunities for creative fills that aren't in the released recording. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, i am a drummer! I'm an amateur though, thanks for the idea! I will certainly try that out !!

i usually play to Undone (the Sweater Song) but variety is always good :) thanks again -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see :( unfortunate but i understand and i won't break the rules by uploading it anyways -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, only the copyright holder (typically the photographer, or the band if the photo was a work-for-hire) can release the photo. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did the Minerva skin get updated? The collapsed headings feel much smaller/closer together on mobile now 🍅 fx (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a notability guideline on serial killers or mass shooters? I know that WP:RGW exists, but what do we do there? It seems clear to me that it directly incentivizes mass shooters towards the goal of infamy and notoriety in perpetuity if they get a Wikipedia page. Is there any essay on this? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:BLP1E, and while it doesn't extend to shooters who died during their attacks, the general consensus is still similar enough to it that it's a good summary of how they are treated. The vast majority generally just get a section in the article on the incident if they aren't independently notable for anything beyond the shooting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking about shooters who died during their attacks. Such as Adam Lanza perhaps, who I think does not merit notability at ALL due to WP:ONEEVENT, but I just wanted to check if there is some essay or guideline that I am missing. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 06:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because many people on the AfD happening right now seem to think that he (and many others like that) are notable somehow, I don't see the case for it at all. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 06:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn WP:CRIME also applies. A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

So, mass shooters should generally be covered on the article about their shooting, not on a standalone article. Athanelar (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought, but then it seems like there are lots of articles about mass shooters? Only one has an AfD up right now that I know of, Adam Lanza, but there are other mass shooter articles, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Stephen Paddock, and many others. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 08:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Columbine shooters for one have been subject to a lot of discourse and psychological assessment etc which probably gives them notability beyond merely their role in the shooting. I would imagine it's the same for many particularly high-profile shooters. Athanelar (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For @Joyous!

I recently discovered that he was the actor for Clyde on BEAST after comparing him & another role he played on Zip Zip in the English Dub (Washington the Fox) the video was on YouTube & it was called Once Upon a Spacetime which was the introduction of the game. They sounded similar to each other & I told some of the other members of the BEAST server on discord. If you compared their voices, wouldn't you agree with me?

- @RaccoonLover67 05:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to Compare with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-8JMSsmvII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWtq3jesdCY RaccoonLover67 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if this message is specifically intended for @Joyous!, it should be posted on User talk:Joyous!, not here. 🍅 fx (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Didn't know! Sorry! RaccoonLover67 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RaccoonLover67, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a classic example of original research, which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article.

You need a published source stating that an actor was in something, in order to say so in a Wikipedia article. (For uncontroversial factual information like this, it would not have to be an independent source). There is also the separate question of whether the appearance is important enough to be worth mentioning: see WP:UNDUE. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I already heard it from @Joyous!. I was saying if one of you there asked if he did on Instagram then that would likely get full confirmation!

For the separate question

I've been waiting for 2 years/months to find out who voices who, so have thousands of other people who played the game & heard the characters' actors during the matches! So it's mainly 100% important to them! (Including me) RaccoonLover67 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my draft Draft:Teuida was declined because it looked like LLM content. I rewrote it myself this time with independent sources. What should I do before resubmitting? Crispbiscuit (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crispbiscuit: I rewrote it myself this time with independent sources. So, if you believe that the draft is ready now, just submit it for review and you will get feedback directly from the AfC reviewers there. Also please read WP:NEWLLM. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 08:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'll resubmit now! 🤗 Crispbiscuit (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question-- what happens to ANI's that have been archived without being addressed by an administrator? Do they get added to a backlog or is this to say that it wasn't worthy of attention? I judged the issues to be quite serious. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask this would probably be- ANI- but is there a specific matter that has prompted your question? 331dot (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I'm not sure what you mean, I'm probably using the wrong terminology. There doesn't appear to be a place at WP:ANI where I can ask this question. The specific incident I'm referring to is this one (I thought it would be bad practice to promote it). It was archived by lowercase sigmabot III, which appears to be operating outside of its stated purpose? Joko2468 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archive diff here. Joko2468 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just open up a new discussion asking about the first, just as you did here. The bot may have made an error, I'm not sure. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great thanks! Joko2468 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an edge case as we discuss new policies on AI-generated imagery on Wikipedia.

I work for an organization who hired a photographer to photograph one of our colleagues, who is the subject of a Wikipedia page. That colleague subsequently asked me to use that photograph as her page's main image. My organization (through me) is the copyright holder for that image, so I followed the proper steps to upload the image and document its rights status. So far so good.

The next day, the photo/article's subject sent me a version of the photo that she edited with AI to change the background and asked me to use that instead.

Where does that fall? She's not the rights holder, so I don't think I'd upload that new version. I, as the rightsholder representative, could recreate the edits, but it doesn't look like the Wikipedia community has come to something approaching consensus on AI edits that are 1) substantial in terms of % of pixels changed but 2) unimportant to the meaning of the image. The image's subject (the person) remains unedited; only the background has changed.

I also feel like a COI declaration would come into play once a rightsholder is making artificial changes requested by the subject, but that might be a separate issue. Akwhitacre (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Village pump (policy), but as under US copyright law (Wikipedia and Wikimedia are American companies), Assuming that copyrightable works require a human author, works created by humans with the assistance of generative AI might be entitled to copyright protection depending on the nature of human involvement in the creative process (from the US Congress) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 13:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright, the licence under which the image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (assuming it was accepted there) is one that allows derivative images to be made.

The next question then is what changes were made? You say "change the background" - if it was to simply make the background, say, white, or decrease its brightness, no new copyright is created, and the image can be uploaded,

If the background was modified more significantly—for instance, to change it from Paris to New York—then that would create new copyright if done by a human, but (as explained above) it may or may not do so if done by AI. However, we would not want to use a misleadingly-modified image on Wikipedia.

In short; we likely can't answer the question without seeing both images side-by-side. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article in the draftspace, Draft:Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation and saw the potential to bring it to the mainspace. I worked on it on 8 March 2026 and my contributions can be seen in the article history. Today I received a response from a reviewer that my draft submission has been rejected, saying that an article already exists in the mainspace, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation. Upon checking, I found that it was created on 19 March 2026 by an another user by lifting the exact same content. While I am happy that my contributions and sources provided helped bring the article to the mainspace, I am wondering whether this constitutes bypassing the draft submission process? Does this mean that, as an editor, if I find a well sourced draft still waiting for review, I can create the article directly in the mainspace and bypass the review process? 456legendtalk 13:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that users with autoconfirmed rights and above can go straight to article creation. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 13:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an autoconfirmed user and believe that an article should be moved to the mainspace, you may create it yourself, although it is recommended to move the page, not copy/paste the content. BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 14:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @456legend, the AfC process is entirely voluntary (except for in some scenarios, such as conflicts of interest); that means that any experienced editor can move drafts directly to mainspace themself if they believe it's ready. That said, this was a WP:CUTPASTE move, which is not how page moves should be performed. I've requested a history merge, so that you and the other draft authors are attributed correctly in the article's history. nil ^nz 14:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much! 456legendtalk 14:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to get feedback from more experienced editors on how I offered suggestions for significant revisions in the Kristyn Getty Talk page. Anything you'd recommend doing differently in this or future cases involving substantive edits? RangerNathan (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RangerNathan,

Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked over your suggestions. I have two recommendations.

First, and this is the main piece of advice I have, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, you must provide adequate sources that verify all your content. I see you did so for the Recognition section that you edited, but not for the main Discography section. Otherwise, an other editor will have to try to find sources that back up information that's already there, instead of starting with reliable sources and then extracting adequate information; or worse, you'd be creating a useless edit that has no reason to be in an encyclopedia.

Second, since this is not a protected page and there is no ongoing edit conflict that specifically requires edits based on consensus, I would recommend just going ahead and making those edits directly. If you'd like advice about your edits, or the opinions of other editors working on the article, state it clearly in your post here at the Teahouse and on the article talk page as well.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this feedback @Paolo Roland Self! Regarding the Discography, is there a standard for preferred, independent sources? Artist or label-controlled sources would be the simplest solution there, but my hunch based on what I've read is that those aren't considered independent enough. Would it be appropriate to cite streaming or other commercial platforms as sources demonstrating that those recordings exist as listed there? RangerNathan (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm glad to help. To answer your question, I don't honestly know. Wikipedia:Source doesn't give guidelines for music sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (music) isn't helpful either. I would recommend asking the friendly folks at the Wikipedia:Help desk for help with this, or you could ping a more experienced editor. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the scandal Schapiro was involved in, where she committed the govenmnet to lease 1/2 a billion dollars of office space that the SEC didn't need, is not cited in her bio. The bio seems to be a fluff piece that also does not affress the conflicts of interest she had when head of NASD and simultaneously sitting on the boards of publicly listed companies, nor the many other questionable actions of this former "friend" of Bernie Madoff.

For reference: https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2011/07/sec-chief-agrees-to-give-up-facility-leasing-authority/34329/

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42006911

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-denies-request-to-unseal-finra-documents/

Shapiro appointed Mark Madoff to the NAC at FINRA ~2026-20431-68 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss that at Talk:Mary Schapiro. thank u <3 nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As mentioned, the article talk page is the best place to discuss this. If this involves alleged criminal activity or misconduct, please be aware of WP:BLPCRIME. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a new editor and I have submitted my first AfC draft: Draft:Miriam Mattova. She is a Slovak-Canadian model (former Miss Slovakia 2012, Miss Universe Bikini 2013 winner) and antisemitism activist whose grandmother survived Theresienstadt concentration camp. The draft is sourced with references from Fox News, the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, the National Post, Harper's Bazaar, L'Officiel, and other international publications. I would really appreciate any feedback on the draft before it goes through review — especially regarding notability, tone, or sourcing. Thank you for any help! Juraj190 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are asking for a pre-review review, we don't really do that. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that the Vron Ware entry mentions her being married to Paul Gilroy, but neither her age nor the existence of her children (with Gilroy). Is this a policy or just an oversight? I’m blocked from editing thru October 2026. Tova2014 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are blocked, but you aren't blocked if you posted here. If this isn't the account you were blocked under, you need to return to your original account and get unblocked before you can participate here under any account. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Age is considered controversial enough to require a source per WP:BLP. The children would also likely require a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I searched extensively about her on internet but could not find her date of birth. Maybe she never revealed it. Dead astrologer (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tai O currently includes an image from 2013. I have a more recent image from 2024. I feel like my image shows the current state of the town better, however, the 2013 image has a somewhat better composition for encyclopedic purposes. Would it make sense to have both images in the article, maybe with captions "Tai O in 2013" and "Tai O in 2024"? 🍅 fx (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the image to the article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have added the image to the History section. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template to setup a new Talk Page? rootsmusic (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of templates, detailed on Wikipedia:Talk page layout. Usually all you need is a {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can be easily added with User:Evad37/rater, and maybe a {{Talk header}}. -- Reconrabbit 19:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an article at User:CowersLane217!/sandbox and would be glad of advice on (a) what, if anything, to change or add (b) how to move it to publication. Thanks! CowersLane217! (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have placed the draft at Draft:Akilagpa Sawyerr(Draft space is the preferred location for drafts and it can be accessed via the Article Wizard) and added the information to allow you to submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A question, you are claiming that File:Akilagpa Sawyerr.jpg is your personal creation and that you hold the copyright, but the subject has been deceased since 1948. Did you take a picture of a picture? 331dot (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture is from 1882, it's over 140 years old, so it certainly wouldn't be the "own work" of any living person. @CowersLane217! you really need to update the information on the image page, explaining where the image came from, and why it would be released under the license you chose. That isn't your picture. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some minor formatting to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of style. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - much appreciated. The photograph came from looking through my grandparents photograph albums - they died in 1939 and 1947. This particular one had A.J. Sawyerr 1882 written on the back and was the only African in more than three albums so I was interested to know more about him - hence my research and the article - the first I've done for Wikipedia. The photo was taken by a commercial studio - Leopold Dubois in Poitiers, France - who seem no longer to be active. I've looked through the Wikipedia notes on copyright but find it difficult to know where this one would fit. Any further advice? CowersLane217! (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A photo that is 140 years old is likely not under copyright anymore, but you need to work with the editors at Commons to change the information with the image so it does not indicate that you are the creator and copyright holder.

Images are a "nice to have", not a requirement; if it's easier, you can just request deletion of the image for now and re-upload it later if and when the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CowersLane2171: That's a great story, thanks for sharing it! You should write that on the image page. When I upload an image, I typically put a detailed description of how I created it (or in your case, found it). Instead of that free license currently on the image page, a possible public domain template might be c:Template:PD-old-70 but it's best to describe the situation at Commons:Help desk to get the best advice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If he was born in 1883, how can he be depicted—as an adult—in 1882? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the note on the picture isn't the date it was taken, but simply a description of the subject, estimating the birth date as 1882? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it's someone else with the same name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that photo is from later than 1882 and yes 1882 doesn't necessarily indicate when it was taken, A J Sawyerr weren't his initials, even if the photo sparked the research. Sawyer's name was Gosford Collins Sawyerr or G C Sawyer - the name he was admitted to the bar with. Sometime after 1907, he took the name Agilapga and possibly even the middle name Osabramba. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CowersLane217! could you take a picture of the reverse and upload it? Nakonana (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The file description includes: "Photo taken by Photographie Leopold Dubois in Poitiers, France" If that is on the full image, or its reverse, a picture showing it would be helpful. I have started a discussion of the image on Commons, at c:Commons:Village pump#A. J. Sawyer?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now published, at Akilagpa Sawyerr (lawyer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone! I’ve recently started editing Wikipedia and I’m interested in helping expand stub articles. I was wondering what the best practices are for turning a stub into a more complete, well-developed article. Specifically, how do you decide what sections to add, how much sourcing is enough to move beyond stub status, and are there common mistakes beginners should avoid when expanding stubs? Any tips or examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! SellsSoAmazing (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Welcome to Wikipedia! These are the sections you can include Biographies include Early life, Career, Personal life Places would have History, Geography, Demographics Organizations could have Background, Activities You can improve the articles step by step. When it comes to sourcing, there’s no fixed number of references required to move beyond stub status. The only thing that matters is that the information should be supported by reliable, independent sources that gives significant coverage to the topic. A few common mistakes that you should avoid such as adding poorly sourced, unsourced and sources that only mentions the topic once. Don't copy from other websites as it violates copyright. Don't write in a promotional tone, Wikipedia is neutral. Also, Don't make many sections that contain little content. Instead, improve and expand one section at a time. You can also refer Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for begineers TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’m interested in improving articles about religion, especially topics that are controversial or have strong differing viewpoints (for example, doctrinal disputes or historical criticisms). What are the best practices for ensuring articles stay neutral and well-sourced without favoring one perspective? Are there specific guidelines or examples I should follow when dealing with biased sources or conflicting scholarly opinions? DellGloss174 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply] Basically the policy is WP:NPOV. That is, don't state a religious viewpoint as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Attribute a viewpoint to a source. For example, instead of saying "Muhammad is the final prophet" you would say "Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet" and cite the statement to a scholarly source. Doctrinal disputes or conflicting scholarly opinions should be described dispassionately, without WP:UNDUE weight given to either side, and without WP:FALSEBALANCE given equally to minority viewpoints or opinions, depending on what reliable sources indicate the consensus is. Criticisms should be described directly, without a point-counterpoint format. That is, if a section is describing criticisms, you just describe criticisms, and not the apologia from the faithful to explain those criticisms, but you can cite scholarly sources to put it into context. For example, Muhammad is criticized in modern times for pedophilia because he consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old, but there is ample sourcing providing the context that this arrangement was not considered unusual in Muhammad's time, there are still countries with pre-teen ages of consent, and this marriage went unremarked for centuries by Western scholars, until only recently it became a "criticism" that has prompted modern scholars to engage in revisionist history. I hope that helps. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply] Not really related to the question but I think the Muhammad pedophilia thing is also complicated by the Islamic claims of their morality being objective and Muhammad being the moral examplar. It's difficult to take refuge in "the times were different" moral relativism when you've spent the past centuries denouncing relativism and have claimed direct knowledge of the moral law through its divine author itself. That's not something I see being brought up often, weirdly enough. ~2026-20594-49 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply] Maybe that wasn't a good example for me to bring up, but it's the first one that came to mind. There are many others in criticism of Muhammad or criticism of Jesus that I could have looked up instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

In the Harveian Society of London article, there is an award recipient mentioned. I was going to revise the tone, but wanted to confirm the award recipient before I did so. I was unable to find any mention of this award recipient online and am not sure what to do now. Would appreciate any advice!

Harveian Society of London

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobert26 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, post your comment in the article's talk page.

I would say that it's better to remove it as there is no reliable source that supports the statement. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the ^{[citation needed]} template. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Established in 1954, the William Harvey Memorial prize was initially open only to students from the William Harvey Grammar School.

In 2026 Ollie Osborn was the grateful recipient of this prestigious award. Scoobert26 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, What help do you need. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just copy-pasted your comment from Harveian Society of London#William Harvey Memorial Prize TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatEditor024 I'm wondering if they intended to nest this under the previous question? MmeMaigret (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't see the previous question when I was replying to this comment. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guuuu5 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can become a host by clicking on the become a host button, but you need to be "An editor who understands how Wikipedia works", "Helpful to new people, with a clear and friendly manner", "Familiar with the Teahouse project", "Someone who has been here for at least 30 days and has made around 500 mainspace edits", "Happy to follow our simple 'host expectations'" and "Already tried answering one or two questions before signing up as a host?"(all quoted from host start.) Other than that, you don't really have to JOIN the teahouse, even to answer questions. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 19:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It occurred to me just now that I have never actually joined as a host, even though I am here often answering questions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't joined hosting because I haven't met the requirement. I guess I could be considered a waitress here? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 13:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What requirement haven't you met?

If you're a waitress, then I'm probably the busboy. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

500 MAINSPACE edits, considering my hobbies of userbox making and vandal-fighting, that's why I don't meet that criteria. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between TM:Circular and TM:Self-reference cleanup templates? Why do we need two? To me, they seem to serve the same purpose. I am considering filing a TfD. If a TfD is recommended, which one should be kept? I personally prefer the circular template, and they both have ~300 uses that would need to be subbed out. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloblinTheGoblin. They are for different things and should not be merged. TM:Circular is for cases where page A cites page B as a source, and page B is a Wikipedia article or a page which copied its content from Wikipedia. This is disallowed by WP:CIRCULAR. TM:Self-reference cleanup has "reference" in the name but it's not about citations. It's about inapproriate mentions of Wikipedia in the article text, e.g. an article which says "This Wikipedia article is about ...", or "See also these Wikipedia articles: ...". See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have submitted a draft article (Draft:Sazzad Ghanem) about a Bangladeshi parkour athlete and content creator.

The draft has been improved with reliable sources and neutral tone. I would appreciate any feedback or a review when possible.

Thank you. Sazzadghanem (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sazzadghanem; Welcome to Teahouse: If you believe your draft is ready just submit it for formal review and you will get real feedback from reviewers there. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 21:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sazzadghanem: This would not pass review because it violates WP:BLP. You have made assertions about yourself that are not cited to reliable sources, and you have made assertions about parkour in general that don't seem to be related to you, although you may be described in the cited source. You should correct these problems before you submit it for review. I have placed a button at the top of the draft for you to submit it, when you believe it is ready.

Why, exactly, do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Nearly all attempts at writing autobiographies fail. It's best to wait until someone who has no association with you writes an article. Whether that happens next month or 50 years from now, it shouldn't matter to you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ^{[citation needed]} template to all statements that do not have sources. You can find sources and add it to your draft. But, I don't think it would be passed because it violates WP:BLP. I also feel like your article does not prove that the subject is notable .But, you can try if you want. Just like @Anachronist said, "Nearly all attempts at writing autobiographies fail." TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could anyone guide me in citing a table Im working on (User:Vicccqh7/sandbox)? Im using 2 sources for the table but some details vary between them (like one source having entries that the other source doesnt list or different names etc.). I dont really know where exactly to put the footnotes so that it is clear but also easy to read and without clutter. Should I put them at the end of every row like I did now? Or should I just put them in some places, like every 5 rows, or make a separate column with the references or something? I want to use source 1 as primary and source 2 as a supporting source, since source 1 is more recent and lists more flights. I just dont know how to format it so that it makes sense. The most "accurate" way would be to cite each cell, so that all the info is sourced, but I think that would be a huge mess, so I was planning to cite only the end of an entry, but Im worried it might be not enough or confusing. Please take a look at my sandbox and give me some feedback. NOTE that this is an early stage of the project and is nowhere near being ready to publish, but Im looking for some advice as I go. Thank you in advance! Vicccqh7 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicccqh7. If the refs are for a row and not just a cell then it's common to have a ref column like List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers. The source code says class="unsortable" in a sortable table to avoid a sort button. It says {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} to produce Ref. which allows a narrow column and displays the full "References" on hover. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me an example to look at. This might be a better way to sort it, but wont it look a little "goofy" if Im only using 2 sources interchangibly? Vicccqh7 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicccqh7 It's hard to know how to answer you without knowing more.

In row 6:

• 25 January 1955
• Linda (Лида) Rita (Рита)
• R-1E
• 100
• Linda recovered safely, Rita died

What information is attributable to footnote 1 (Turknina) and what is attributable to footnote 2 (Burgess)? MmeMaigret (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

basically the whole row 6, the date, dogs, rocket, outcome etc., I just put it at the end because I assumed it would look messy if I added the same footnotes to each cell in that row (and did the same for the other rows). I added a footnote in the "altitude" column, because I know all the info in that specific column comes from source 1, but I cant do that for the other columns since source 1 and 2 vary in some cases. Is there a better way to do it? Vicccqh7 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take the approach of citing the whole column if its only one source Im using for that specific column, and citing at the end of each row - source 1 and 2 if both sources say the same thing, but only in some cases, for example where the dogs died, and only source 1 if the other source has different information or the mission was successful (in harsher words, less notable/routine) Vicccqh7 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that might have sounded as if I made my decision already and didnt need feedback anymore but I am still looking for advice! Vicccqh7 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicccqh7 That seems like a fair enough approach.

If you're worried that it might be a bit misleading if you don't say source 2, for example, has contradictory information, you could add a note after the citation. eg. [1][note 3]. MmeMaigret (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guuuu5 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this user, who wrote Draft: Two dollar mouse is almost auto-confirmed. When are we going to increase the threshold for auto-confirmed accounts? MmeMaigret (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPR is thataway. Athanelar (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind maintaining the threshold but redefine the criteria, say, 10 mainspace edits over 5 days, with a distribution of edits over multiple days rather than occurring all at once. Same for Extended Confirmed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally of the mind that article creation needs to be protected by something a bit more stringent than autoconfirmed. We could keep autoconfirmed as-is for the sake of semiprotection, but I do think we need to add another, stricter permission between AC and ECP behind which we gate article creation outside of AfC. The idea that the average editor is ready to create articles directly into mainspace after 4 days and 10 edits is laughable (and easily disprovable, I should think.) Athanelar (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly, @Athanelar. But as you said yourself, WP:VPR is thataway. ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hoist with my own petard. I've created a discussion about the idea at WP:VPR#A new system of permissions for article creation, do feel free to weigh in. @Mmemaigret @Anachronist you may also be interested. Athanelar (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He can try to move it to mainspace all he wants. This is a very easy AfD candidate at best if he's foolish enough to do so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey at least he's declared a conflict of interest. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give you special thanks for using the petard phrase properly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry that no one actually answered your question. Wikipedia doesn't have profile pictures per se, but if you wanted to you could put an free image from the Commons and put it on your user page(after you create it). You cannot use copyrighted images, such as random images from the Internet, however.

Hope this helped! PolarClimates (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to let you know What wikipedia is, and what it is not. I noticed your drafts appear to be about things that you have an idea about, or things that happened to you personally. Please note that Wikipedia is for encyclopedic, notable content. Also note that it is hard to create an article. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, I would recommend contributing to existing articles first.

Before you do anything else though, please read the guide for new editors, and everything else I have linked. PolarClimates (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to create a bot that is like ClueBot NG where they fight vandalism. Unfortunately, I do not have much coding experience, and when trying to copy the source code was really confusing. All the stuff at WP:CAB is also complicated.

How do I do this? Пямвӑл21 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Пямвӑл21, as a brand-new editor without much coding experience, you should not be trying to create a Wikipedia bot at all. Finding the instructions at Help:Creating a bot "too complicated" is a sign that you are not ready for this task. What did you want this bot to do? It's quite likely that the features you want to see are already available in an existing bot or other tool. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making a bot without much coding knowlege sounds like baking a cake without much flour, eggs or sugar - I don't think there's a way around it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wanted to use the code from ClueBot NG and modify it. Is that possible? Пямвӑл21 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The code is licensed so you could do so but I don't recommend vibe coding here, which is what you appear to be suggesting. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia has a strict WP:Bot Policy. Please read it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm translating the frwiki article fr:Jubé de la Cathedral de Strasbourg (Rood screen of Strasbourg Cathedral, GA over there) to English. Does this fit WP:NBUILDING, considering there's a good amount of bibliography dedicated to the rood screen.. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 08:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the correct link for you fr:Jubé de la cathédrale de Strasbourg. Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How am I able to add a number to my userpage, which displays the amount of edits I've made? ~2026-20933-05 (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a "permanent" account, a username, first. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking on a temporary account since Wikipedia logs everything you do.

I've made a permanent account, what now? Dajidjwaij3i21j31231231 (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned with the quality of your contributions rather than your specific edit count; that said, I know there's a way to do what you describe but I'm not sure what specifically it is, though I'm sure someone else here does. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dajidjwaij3i21j31231231 If there was a way to do what you want, it would be via Magic words but there isn't one for that. See WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1171#User edit count for some details. Note that if you install this "navigation popup" tool, you'll be able to hover over a username in talk threads and elsewhere to see how many edits a user has made, including for yourself. That's how most established users do this. I note that 331dot has 206,451 to my 18,185! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dajidjwaij3i21j31231231, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a facility that people ask for from time to time, but it has not been provided because it would require your user page to be updated every time you accessed it, which would put a load on the servers for something that would give no advantage to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get autocomfirmed, even when i reached 4 days and 10 edits (as of now i have 20 edits) Balintkaistryingediting (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should be. What makes you think you're not? 331dot (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

since it says that i dont have it in View User groups. Balintkaistryingediting (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a full four days(96 hours) 331dot (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

maybe thats the problem, thanks for the help! Balintkaistryingediting (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia uses UTC, that might be why. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 13:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Balintkaistryingediting Your account was created at 17:46 on 31 March in UTC, so you'll be autoconfirmed at the same time today, i.e. in about 4 hours from this post. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a section to the Clitoris page, specifically a sub-section under 'Function' to describe the function and role of the clitoris in labour and childbirth. As the Clitoris page is vulnerable to abuse it's protected, so I've not been able to make edits directly, instead I've written out my proposed text in the 'Talk' section, but I can't figure out what needs to happen next to have this approved or receive suggestions for edits before it's approved. Can anyone help? Thanks and best wishes PAM2026 (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You need to put {{edit semi-protected}} at the top of your request, this will draw attention to it as a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've given that a try (on the Talk page) PAM2026 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please help me restoring all the archived discussions on my talk page to normal? I don't want them to be in the archived format anymore. 456legendtalk 13:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:456legend. Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:456legend/ shows four archives of 150 kb in total with number 28 to 31. Do you want to stop using archives and have all of it moved back to User talk:456legend, or do you just want cleanup so the archives are numbered normally from 1 and linked in the archive box at top of User talk:456legend? The numbering from 28 happened because you wrote counter = 28 in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, I would want all of them to be moved back to the usertalk. 456legendtalk 17:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: I have moved everything back to User talk:456legend as requested and deleted the archive pages and archiving instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be wise, as you have several pages of archives.

Merging them will make one page that, if it is not too large to be used immediately soon would be.

That said, your archive pages are a mess, and I would be happy to help you fix them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page now has 161,946 bytes of markup and 102 subsections. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Internet radio § Request Edit: Chronological Split and Detailed Addition to History (1996)

Hi. I'm a former journalist and I’ve spent months (years to be honest) gethering and tracking down numerous sources from TV news and archives through National Library of Scotland, BBC, STV and British Newspaper Archive.. even The Wayback Machine.

My focus for the moment is on adding an entry to the "Internet Radio" page with the first UK on-line only internet radio station licensed by MCPS (1996) which is not in the page while I figure out how to create a unique page.

I tried to post an edit request on the talk page, but because I use NotebookLM to archive and search all my notes, scans and docs for my book I made the mistake of asking it to help with the complicated Wikipedia markup (I'm an older user and the code is a nightmare).. anyway I got flagged as a bot it was reverted. i get why because of the way I posted it, but the content is genuine as is the research and sources... I screwed up with the style of the request. Duh!

Is there an editor here who might be interested in 1996 Scottish Internet radio history and has a wee while to help me out? (I know! It's a bit niche)

Or is there a better place that here to ask for assistance?

Anyway, I have the scans, the archive numbers etc etc. I don't want a help file to read.... I've tried that and buggered it all up anyway by trying to be too exact. I just need help to format this request so this piece of Scottish history isn't lost.

Many thanks

HighlandWriter

~~~~ HighlandWriter (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HighlandWriter, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Looking at your User page, it immediately struck me as written by an LLM, and GPTZero concurs.

Please note that the use of LLM-generated text is forbidden in articles, and discouraged anywhere else: anyone engaging with you wants to hear from you, not from a machine that almost certainly does not understand Wikipedia's policies. Thank you for writing the message above yourself.

I'm not going to offer to work with you on this, but I'll give you some general advice:

You may already know this, but writing a Wikipedia article is very different from journalism. 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.

So, first, are all your sources independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the station? (See WP:42)

If you have several such sources, then an article is posible. Set aside everything that you already know about the subject, and write a summary of what those individual sources say about it.

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) 14:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColinFine Many thanks for your reply, your warm welcome and your advice.

I was a journalist and my writing is structured and clear because that was what I used to do... corporate and political journalism/documentation - . If GPT thinks clear and factual equals AI... then I guess I'm a bit screwed! .. or need to dumb it down.

"Please note that the use of LLM-generated text is forbidden in articles" ---- Couldn't agree more. I do not use LLM tools for writing.. why would I, they can't write for ****!

"So, first, are all your sources independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the station?" ---- Absolutely! I have physical documents and archives from many sources that meet the rules of wikipedia that you highlighted for me in your reply.

"Set aside everything that you already know about the subject, and write a summary of what those individual sources say about it." --- that's what i did, I just posted it to the "Internet Radio" talk page incorrectly, as I said, that was my mistake.

I will now dumb down the COI on my userpage that my mentor gave a "thanks" for and made two minor link edits just the other day. It'll probably still be flagged by a machine... but wasn't flagged by my wikipedia mentor.

If anyone in here can help with my original request I would be most grateful? HighlandWriter (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask for help is here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HighlandWriter We tend to be generalists here. I suggest you post briefly at WT:WikiProject Radio, which has over 100 page watchers who might be interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull I checked that and it looks exactly where I need to go. This is just the dram I needed... much appreciated. HighlandWriter (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your request to the article's talk page, as you had fixed the LLM-style formatting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing - Sir, I can't thank you enough for your assistance (tips hat). I was really starting to get more confused than I was before I started. I hope I can learn from this and continue with my archives and research. Again, thank you!! . .there's a beer in the fridge for you whenever you want it!! HighlandWriter (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, now I have to declare a CoI! ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the quick and correct way of publication of the wikipedia page? Professor Srikanta Pal (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be writing an autobiography, which is discouraged on Wikipedia.

Nor do we host articles about every professor; only those who meet these criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstood. not an autobiography. Firmly agree that every professor doesn't deserve to be referenced for thir routined work. At the same time Wikipedia being the most relied database must not miss any great contibutions made by an individual, that has helped the world of science and technology, though not been serving / associated witha any pedigreed institutions. Professor Srikanta Pal (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an autobiography, which would mean that you're not Srikanta Pal, then you need to immediately request a username change, following directions at WP:UCREQUEST. Your current username would fall under WP:MISLEADNAME, which is extremely serious and may require an immediate block until your username has been changed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You submit it to the AFC review queue, and then you wait until a reviewer gets around to it. There's no special way to make the process unfold any faster — and certainly not by preemptively putting it into categories while it's still awaiting review, which you continued to do even after being advised on your talk page more than once to stop. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So. I want to withdraw my submission from the AFC submission at the moment. I want to reedit to conform to your requirements. I firmly believe that Wikipedia should acknowledge and thus include this inclusion too. Please send back my submission to the sandbob edit page "Professor Srikanta Pal". Thanks . Professor Srikanta Pal (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. several scientific developmental contributions that have wide imapact and thus helped the researchers and acdemics communities calls for wikipedia's reference too. Professor Srikanta Pal (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If given significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. several scientific developmental contributions that have wide imapact and thus helped the researchers and acdemics communities calls for wikipedia's reference too. Professor Srikanta Pal (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

basic peoples living in russian federation currently ~2026-20988-59 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coherent question here, either a factual one (see instead Wikipedia:Reference desk), or one about using and editing Wikipedia, which is what this "Teahouse" desk is for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Russia might be helpful? Athanelar (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Simple question!

I was looking at Communist Party of Spain and noticed that the lead seemed a little too long for me. Is it adequate to tag the article with {{lead too long}}? If it is I'd like to be the one to do it :)

JanManisijun (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD tells us that in most featured articles the lead comes out to about 250-400 words, so we can take that as our 'ideal.' The lead of that article comes out at 482; so it's a little on the longer side, but I wouldn't say it's overly long or worth tagging. Athanelar (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you :)

JanManisijun (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar@JanManisijun

I do wonder about leads that state the obvious: "The Communist Party of Spain is a Communist party in Spain' ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is of no value to the reader and can be eliminated. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a version of Wikipedia in Kalaallisut? I can't find any. It's my native language Saamik Qwulut (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Greenlandic Wikipedia was closed a few months ago due to inactivity: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Greenlandic_Wikipedia&oldid=30176768 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 04:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean, sorry? Saamik Qwulut (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Wikipedia in your language is no longer available. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 05:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can contribute to Greenland-related topics in English Wikipedia, instead. (See Wikiproject Greenland) Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could also contribute Greenlandic lexemes (words), and labels for items, to Wikidata, if you wish. For instance, d:Q122 has the Greenlandic label aggusti; and here are examples of Greenlandic lexemes. As well as making them freely available in general, in time this will enable Greenlandic content to be generated by Abstract Wikipedia.

You may also be interested in the meta:Celtic Knot Conference, which covers indigenous languages in Wikimedia projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone go on my User Page, and click edit, to see if my notice works? Balintkaistryingediting (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me (: enbi [they/them] • [talk] 11:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It works. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if i can, how do i color Text (in wikitext)? Balintkaistryingediting (Info, Talk, Contributions) 14:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! You can either use CSS which works like this:

<span style="color:purple">Cool purple text</span>
which will display as Cool purple text, or you can use a template called {{color}} like this:
{{color|blue|Fancy blue text}} which displays as Fancy blue text (you can change the colour and text with either). I'd recommend using the template because it's easier to type out and more beginner-friendly. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 14:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Balintkaistryingediting (Info, Talk, Contributions ) 14:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Balintkaistryingediting The final part of your signature is very unfriendly as it uses pale text on a dark blue background, which is difficult to read. I know that you wish to experiment with colours but you need to make your signature readable. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bring ing that to my attention! I fixed it now! Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 17:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Colour contrast. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to wish you all Happy Easter ~2026-21005-04 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! Balintkaistryingediting (Info, Talk, Contributions ) 14:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions. I haven't read every single bit of the guidelines, so here we go:

1. Are upcoming authors allowed on articles if they haven't published their book yet?
2. Since the site is an encyclopedia, is any author, like me (I'm writing a book), allowed an article?
3. Are not-very-popular authors allowed to make separate articles about their books, and if yes, are those works allowed to be described in their main article?

I eat stairs (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. One at at time

1. "Upcoming" anything generally does not merit an article, see WP:TOOSOON. A subject must have already arrived and be noticed in order to receive the coverage in independent reliable sources that can be summarized in an article. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first; it follows the coverage, it does not lead the way.
2. Please review the notability guidelines for authors. Any author must be shown to meet this criteria in order to merit a Wikipedia article. Given the advent of self-publishing, where almost anyone can publish anything, no, the mere act of writing a book does not merit someone an article.
3. Popularity is not relevant; books must be shown to meet the definition of a notable book to merit an article. Books can generally be mentioned in an article about the author- but it is possible for a book to merit an article but not its author, or an author to merit an article but not their books.

331dot (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @I eat stairs, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To add to 331dot's answer:

For almost all authors who haven't yet published a book, and for many (probably most) authors who have published a book - the answer is No.

Your questions suggest that you have the common, but utterly wrong, idea that Wikipedia is a place to write about yourself and your work, and so bring it to a wider audience. Promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia - and that word has a wider meaning than usual. Basically Wikipedia is not interested in what you want to say about yourself and your work, whoever you are: it is only interested in what others, wholly unconnected with you, have published about you (and unless several people have independently done so, it will not accept an article about you).

Also note that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so extremely difficult to succeed in that trying to do so is strongly discouraged: see autobiography.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be very mindful of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What was that template for quoting someone/something that produces green text?

Basically it does the same thing as {green}, but it wasn't called green. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{tq}} is the one. Athanelar (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I put {{collapse bottom} at the bottom of the amendment text here, it fused the rest of the article together. Delcoan (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't collapse article content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Delcoan: Template:Collapse bottom#Usage says: "{{collapse bottom}} should always be placed on its own line. Do not place any characters before the template on this line." PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I am allowed to collapse article text, or no? Delcoan (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Delcoan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Template:Collapse top says Do not hide content in articles. This violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Scrolling lists and collapsible content and Wikipedia:Accessibility guidelines. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not. ~2026-21117-63 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, newbie here!

I was looking at recent edits and I noticed that Wilmington General Hospital was getting edited a lot by a temp user. The edits they made were seemingly good faith, I checked it out, reformatted the page, added some categories, ya know the spiel.

However, when I looked at the edit history, it appears that the temp user in question has complained on this page using a different temp account, and changed the page from a redirect to a full-fledged page, removing the redirect and adding information.

I wanted to know if I should be telling someone about this on a different part of Wikipedia or doing anything to remedy the fact. I know that there is probably a process to making the article an actual article, and from what I've learned so far the temp user in question, @~2026-20934-20, is acting very boldly.

If I should just ignore and carry on with my not-so busy day, also let me know

JanManisijun (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific process to make the article an actual article. If this new article is well referenced and well written then nothing should be done. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you ! JanManisijun (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of having a Conflict of Interest (COI). I want to clarify that I am not an employee of Major League Table Tennis or any of the teams, nor am I being paid. I am simply a long-time enthusiast, table tennis fan and competitive player with a deep interest in the sport. I realize my enthusiasm may have come across as promotional, and I would appreciate guidance on how to make my tone more neutral. I’ve also contributed to a few table tennis related pages and I am working on a US Table Tennis Hall of Fame article I do not want to run into this issue again.

The page was also flagged as 'self-published.' While I relied on official league data for technical accuracy, I do have access to independent media coverage (such as CBS Sports, Butterfly and Deadspin). Could a host help me understand how to better prioritize these external sources over the league's official site to satisfy the 'independent' requirement?" Last but not least, the article was listed to delete because it did not meet the notability requirement. I believe the league meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) due to significant coverage in independent secondary sources. For example, the league has a national broadcast deal with CBS Sports Network and has been covered by ESPN. Additionally, many of the players are international competitors with significant careers. I have a list of these independent citations and would like help integrating them to prove the league's 'encyclopedic significance' beyond just the official league website.

Thank you in advance Mel496 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I correct bad markdown and malformed citations? Ancaruh (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]