Wikipedia:Teahouse

Asilvering, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 11 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

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

Mother of Flies page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every Wikipedia editor is just somebody who showed up here. You edited here to ask these questions. You can use the same techniques to remove the inaccurate plot and post the correct lne. As for why the wrong summary was posted, you would have to ask the original editor. Very little posted here goes through any review beforehand. We count on all users to catch and fix errors.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the issue here is that a user is consistently writing incorrect information and even when someone brings it up nothing happens about the user who is spreading misinformation. You'd think the user would receive some kind of discipline (such as an account ban) to prevent blatant misinformation. Instead, the person who tries to call attention to the problem is criticized and told "if you don't like the article edit it," which is like putting out spot fires but ignoring the actual body of the fire. It's just inefficient. FlamingMrshmallow (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

only 1 edit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @Logoshimpo.

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

Also, none of those templates exist.

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

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

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

Since the templates are all deleted, only admins can view the edit history. And of course they don't redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} now because they are deleted completely instead of being made into a redirect. If you want the templates get undeleted, see WP:RFU. ~2026-79950-2 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

See the log for deletion and move records. For example, [1] ~2026-79950-2 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Number of edits for that list of deleted templates: 4, 1, 3, 2, respectively. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Can these be used in Wikipedia?

Block evasion

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

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

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

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

Then what should we do? How could these be used in Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Just don't use them. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Then what should we do? Maybe i should find webpages that could be used on Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

How about these? https://x.com/TheJFTeam https://web.archive.org/web/20250107081355/https://cohost.org/SDHTriplicity?page=0 https://www.instagram.com/sdhtriplicity23/ https://bsky.app/profile/sdhtriplicity.bsky.social https://www.threads.com/@sdhtriplicity23 https://rodfellowsteam.wixsite.com/officialsite/home https://www.youtube.com/@SDHTriplicity23 https://odysee.com/@TheJungleForestShow:1 Note that i put some of these because there are posts section on channels, not everything in general. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby, can you respond before this discussion gets thrown to the archive? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of those links are Twitter, Bluesky, and YouTube accounts. These are not reliable. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But Twitter posts has been used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts have been used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts have been used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby, Twitter posts is being used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts is being used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts is being used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tarlby, Twitter posts is being used in Wikipedia, Bluesky posts is being used in Wikipedia, Youtube posts is being used in Wikipedia, so why coundl't these too? Like, which ones are reliable according to you? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-73469-7.

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

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

Awards, Thanks, Gifts.

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't worry about it. I was on Wikipedia for 3 years before anyone put an award icon or banner on my talk page. They don't mean anything except that someone noticed you and appreciated something you did. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jameskida,apparently your awardless days are over, as I see at your Talk page that someone gave you the Civility barnstar a few days ago. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

---

 Courtesy link: User:RobertVelline/sandbox RobertVelline (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for my Userpage.

So in my own userpage, User:HorseBro the hemionus, can i add userboxes related to porn especially Lesbian Porn and put it in my User Infobox too? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason, other than to scare most users away? 😐 jolielover♥talk 10:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To reply to the comment you deleted: Why would you want to? First of all, there is no age minimum on Wikipedia, so a kid can now stumble upon your... likes. As I matter of fact, I have, so there's that. Also it sounds fetishistic to reduce a group's identity for your sexual consumption. Sure, do whatever you want privately, but do you seriously have to display that? It contributes to making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment. jolielover♥talk 11:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

My take is that it isn't allowed, simple as that. See our project content guideline at WP:UPYES. Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:UPNO; there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense [...] and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community.

There is zero reason for you to broadcast your sexual proclivities on your userpage. Athanelar (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In the most respectful way, Wikipedia has minor editors, if you arent aware.^[source]

Plauzaric!

Talk 10:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'm one of them. And am completely against it. Imagine if I went to their userpage and just got a dose of porn... yuck. jolielover♥talk 10:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 (me too) Xzkdeng (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Genuinely I have no clue where this question came from, I personally didn’t expect HorseBro to ask or request such a thing, considering they are a pretty good article writer, but I suppose you can like that content whilst being a good article writer. Although it does change people’s perceptions on the individual, those matters are personal and therefore I concur with the other users above me and ask that Horsebro, please don’t do that, out of decency for younger users and editors like stated above.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Review my first article Draft:Missa Hebié

Hi everyone! Missa Hébié is my first article I'd appreciate a review and assessment Thank you..(: Muhskk (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I am a newbie new page patroller and also been engaging with AfDs lately. I reported @Muhskk as a potential sock of Alakmarsaify yesterday, but they were cleared. I followed their activity in case anything else sus came up. Today, I noticed they moved this article into the mainspace from draft, so I reviewed it and it seems fine (very open to feedback on that assessment . I'm curious if WP policy is to remove content created by socks unilaterally. Anything I could/should have done differently? Thanks! WidgetKid ^{chat me} 17:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Widgetkid, I see now that Izno closed the SPI and mentioned previous reports--I didn't know there were any. There is no doubt in my mind though about the sockiness, and CU is not the only solution to a problem, nor is it a. conclusive evidence of wrongdoing and b. conclusive evidence of innocence. No, you were fine, you did your job and I appreciate it. I blocked them as a sock so one could nominate that clearly paid-for article/draft as G5, and it would be up to the admin who looks at it to judge if that's proper. But I doubt we'll see an unblock request from that account, and if it happens it's likely to confirm what you and I already thought. That's one reason you don't hear back from them--their response typically only provides more behavioral or even technical evidence.

Of course the article/draft looks fine, remarkably fine for a first attempt--this is not their first rodeo. Now look closer, and you'll see that the sourcing is actually totally shitty, mostly based on unreliable websites and primary sourcing, with the France24 the only thing that has some credibility--and that's real brief. My advice? If it looks too good to be true (from a new editor), it probably is--and we are often easily led astray (me too, and I've looked at thousands of draft) by how clean something is. Look for the sourcing. One more thing: you run into crappy drafts, look for the sources and look to see if it might not be notable if it were written up better. Then, help the editor improve it, and get it into mainspace. It's infinitely more rewarding than what we're doing now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Radqueer and Democratic communism could be articles rather than redirects

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

---

Radqueer has never been used to refer to Queer radicalism, it refers to something else entirely, it's honestly difficult to describe what it is so here's a webpage explaining what Radqueer is https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/ This webpage has also been used as a source on other wikis and could be used on Wikipedia and there are resources in the webpage that could be used on Wikipedia, although Wayback Machine should be needed for some pages in the resources section because it has been sometime since these webpages have been made and they have either changed or got removed or deleted. And democratic communism could be a article rather than a redirect, because it used to be a article before it got deleted on 12th November 2007 from a discussion, why could Democratic communism have to be a article rather than a redirect? This is because just like how other variations of communism have their own articles and dosen't redirect to Communism, Democratic communism is a variation of communism and therefore could be its own article, and also now it's 2026 than in 2007, so it is different, i haven't seen how the article looked like in 2007, but nowadays you can find webpages about Democratic communism that could be used as sources on Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally, user created sites like carrd are not acceptable as sources. See the policy on user generated content for more details, and make sure that "radqueer" has been covered by more than one reliable source and is notable before you think of writing an article. (despite being queer (and quite knowledgeable about my community) myself, I genuinely have no idea what that is, so there may not be many reliable sources available.) Much love, jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, how about these? https://www.beyondtheplus.org/ https://transid.org/ ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you read what Radqueer is on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

All of those are self-published or involve user-generated content. Until bona-fide reliable source publishers like news organizations start writing about the term, it can't have a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Including https://www.beyondtheplus.org/? Orgnanizations are being used as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so why coundl't Beyond The Plus, a Seattle-based organization be used in Wikipedia? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, Beyond The Plus also does public activism. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And also Beyond The Plus organizes events in public. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the Plus comes across as an obscure personal self-publishing project consisting of a staff of two. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But it does do public activism and organizes events in public. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I see, this is an extremely niche community centered around trying to include trans-disordered/racial/ethnic/age identities and extremely harmful paraphilias under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. Barely anything has been officially published on it, and I doubt there are enough "activists" for this cause to make a mark on pretty much anything. This may seem a bit bitey, but please, stick to Twitter and Tumblr for this kind of "fandom"-esque discourse. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 18:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

While there are undoubtably some very problematic parts of the community, the community actually highly varies from one to another and isn't entirely a "extremely niche community centered around trying to include trans-disordered/racial/ethnic/age identities and extremely harmful paraphilias under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella.", i mean most of them don't even have a official contact stance or are anti-contact, radqueer is a neutral term rather than a pro-contact term or anything, i mean there is even a Seattle-based orgnizanation named Beyond the Plus, which has its own website and public activism, so it isn't some entirely extremly niche problematic harmful internet community as a whole, but something that is diverse in opinions and contact stances, and complicated to understand. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to keep my personal opinion out of this, and it's really pissing me off, so I won't reply to you any more after this.

The article is not going to be made unless reputable, non self-published sources report on it. There are plenty of articles on problematic things: take pedophilia, necrophilia and vore as examples. The only reason why those things have articles is because they're widely covered subjects that have countless articles, news stories and studies about them. And I (and presumably most people) are staunchly against those things, but the articles about them stay because they have significant ideas in them that people deserve to know.

"Radqueerness" does not meet notability criteria, nor does it have any reputable reporting on it that I know of. If you want to go find some, go ahead, but expecting other people to find them for you is unfair. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

However, the overwhelming majority of radqueer communities don't have a official contact stance or are anti-contact, radqueer is a neutral term which can not only be used for pro-contact, but also for anti-contact too. In fact, there has been a controversy within the raduqeer community surrounding the term "anti-contact radqueer" because it implies that the base term radqueer is a pro-contact term only, when in reality the term radqueer can also been used in anti-contact, not to mention the fact that most raduqeer communities don't have a official contact stance or are anti-contact. Beyond The Plus in particular dosen't advocate on lowering or abolishing the age of consent or legalizing necrophilic ativities, they don't advocate to change the legality of paraphilic acts. Radqueer is acceptance (but acceptance dosen't correlate to supporting contact) to people that are mspec monos, condradictory labels, transidentities (shortened to TransID), paraphilias and others, here is information on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources sufficiently report on the subject, write an article about it. If not, don't -- just because a concept exists doesn't mean it will be on Wikipedia unless reliable sources care about it. It's that simple. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, i found "Got other questions? Feel free to message @radqueer on discord!" on the FAQ section on https://radqueeredu.carrd.co/, and i think that they will help you with it, i think that contacting Beyond The Plus's social media accounts and TransID's discord server https://discord.gg/Mttw9EesPP will also help you with it, in the meantime, i will look more to find independent reliable sources about it. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I would very much not like to help write the article. Do not use social media as a source or to establish notability. I hope you can find independent reliable sources. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not meant to use discord or other stuff as reliable sources, but for them to help discuss about it. Also, just to be clear, i don't necessarily support or advocate Radqueer, i just wanted to discuss about whatever Radqueer could be added in Wikipedia or not. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "them to help discuss about it?" Does that mean you want them to debate whether they should have an article? If so, forget it, as their opinion has nothing to do with notability for an article. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, i meant that they will help find something that can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so what can we do about it? Also, i honestly wonder if there's someone that is part of the Radqueer community or really anything surrounding Radqueer that is in the Teahouse and is gonna discuss here, let's wait and see if this happens. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Members of that community is exactly who can't make any difference to this discussion. What the group says about themselves does not count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, stuff they say woundl't affect Wikipedia because it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, only stuff they can find that can be used in Wikipedia can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-73469-7, I am trying to be patient so let me repeat. I have given my feedback and have told you I do not want to write it. If you want to write it, you can. You don't need to wait for permission from radqueer discords or (curses, no) the radqueer community discussing in the Teahouse. You just need to follow the rules and provide reliable sources. We're not here to do stuff for you. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. And also, it's possible that if you wait for a while, the radqueer community appears and discuss in the Teahouse, honestly i don't know what to say to that, just maybe expect that it could happen if there's enough time. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, stuff they say woundl't affect Wikipedia because it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, only stuff they can find that can be used in Wikipedia can be used in Wikipedia. I meant that they will find stuff that can be used in Wikipedia. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Their help is exactly what Wikipedia does NOT need or want. What they have to say about themselves is completely uninteresting to Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-73469-7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is really not the best place to ask about making changes to existing articles: better to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-73469-7 Infodumping on the Teahouse and then expecting other editors to do the actual legwork for you is really not a productive way to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, you were previously active on another TA where you did much the same thing.

The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to use Wikipedia itself. If you want to discuss articles, that's what their talk pages are for - but it would really be much better if you take the leap and start editing things yourself. Athanelar (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, it seems that we're only talking about Radqueer and we haven't even talked on democratic communism. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think democratic communism is notable and has the required reliable sources, try writing it yourself -- although since a quick Web search on my end is not showing any use of the term, I am wary that there are any. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You mean creating a draft article? But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. Will there be someone in the Teahouse that will see this and decide to create a draft article about it? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The chance of that is extremely extremely tiny. Probably so tiny that the right answer is "no". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Then what should i do? Will i be doomed? Will you do it because you see someone can't create a article and you coundl't help but do it yourselfs and create the article? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @~2026-73469-7. You have repeatedly (here and on my user talk page) said "That's too difficult for me" and asked other people to do what you want done.

The answer to that is If it is (at the moment) too difficult for you then don't (at the moment) try to do it!"

Editing Wikipedia is tricky to start with. What you are trying to do is quite complicated things, that you don't yet have the skills to do for yourself: there's nothing discreditable about that, we all had to start somewhere.

So spend some time getting the skills. Put aside your concerns with Radqueer and Democratic Communism and Dennō Senshi Porygon for now, and spend some time - a few weeks or months - learning how Wikipedia works by editing it. Create an account (that's not obligatory, but it makes it much easier for other editors to communicate with you), and pick up some tasks from your homepage or from the task center - in areas that interest you, but that you aren't so emotionally invested in.

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) 20:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But the problem is that learning is too difficult and i don't want to create a account (i know it's not needed but just saying it here) because i would have to put a email and stuff and i mean it is too difficult, i would probably never learn to be good enough, this is why i and lots of others in Wikipedia ask someone to do it rather than themselfs. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Experienced Editor Needed

I am looking for an experienced editor to help draft an article. VirtualDM (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think user Another Believer could be your option, you can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Another_Believer to talk to him. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-73469-7, why are you recommending @Another Believer without even knowing what the article is about? I've noticed before that you've made many editing requests that you could have done yourself -- I hope you understand that on Wikipedia we advocate being bold and that while it is helpful to alert others to tasks, those alerted have no obligation to do something that one can do by one's self. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 17:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@VirtualDM: Nobody is going to consider drafting an article without sources that can be summarised to make it. What are your three best sources for the subject? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

We have numerous sources from national media etc so we should have plenty to summarize and lend credibility VirtualDM (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the topic of the article you would like help on drafting, and what are the sources? ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

What is it about? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @VirtualDM, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It is unlikely that any volunteer editor is going to create your draft for you - not impossible, but unlikely. It will probably only happen if you tell us what the subject is, and somebody goes "Oh yes, that's really interesting! I'd like to work on that".

There is a place to request articles - it's called requested articles - but frankly most requests just sit there for ever.

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

You say "We have numerous sources", which suggests to me that you have a connection with the subject - please read about conflict of interest and paid editing - also WP:BOSS.

The number of sources is much less important than their quality. The majority of the sources you use need to be wholly independent of the subject (not only not written published or commissioned by them, nor based on interviews or press releases from them) and published by a reliable publisher, and containing significant coverage of the subject specifically. So you should evaluate each of your sources against all the criteria in golden rule, and only use the ones that meet all the criteria as the basis of your article. ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Need help with an article

Hello! I'm in a phase where I'm creating articles on conductors and composers. I need any guidance you can offer on my latest, a queer woman, my first female conductor that I'm creating from scratch. there are some things that i can't find, like awards cited and stuff like that. anything you can offer in the way of advice would be most welcome. Marcellepedia (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a rather vague request.

All I can recommend is see WP:BACKWARD. First find multiple sources such that each one meets all WP:Golden Rule criteria. If you can't find more than one, and you don't see any other WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER criteria being met, then the subject doesn't merit an article here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you need to update your paid editor declaration for this project?

Also if you are being paid, please don't bypass the WP:AFC process. That is the only venue Wikipedia has for an editor with a conflict of interest to get an article published. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand what this venue is otherwise I would not be here. I'm looking for guidance.

And no, I'm not being paid. This is a new article, inspired by the first one, that was indeed, a paid article.

Here's the non-vague request: In my research, she's been cited as one of San Antonio's 25 "Renaissance Women” but I can't find the actual article. on her website, she's been awarded a bunch of awards, but I can't locate those either. What do I do? Include that info, even though I don't have a citation for it? Marcellepedia (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In any article about a living person (and even recently-dead persons), any assertion must be verifiable by a reliable source. That is a non-negotiable policy (WP:BLP). You absolutely cannot write what you believe is true without a source to back it up.

While one isn't allowed to use AI to generate prose on Wikipedia, it is permissible to use AI as an assistant, to help you find sources and summarize them, and review the draft you wrote in your own words for grammar or clarity. I find that Gemini or ChatGPT are useful in searching for sources because they can account for context and limits that you give it, unlike a keyword search with Google. They do find a lot of unusable junk like Reddit posts and personal blogs, but you may find what you're looking for. You may not find a link to an award, but you may find a link to a news article about the award and your subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't use Gemini or ChatGPT to write as I am a writer outside of Wiki. Obvs, I use Google to search and that is now in part powered by AI. But thank you for reminding anyone who reads this that that is an available tool. Marcellepedia (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Being cited on a list can be good, but it does nothing for the person's notability.

Awards also do nothing for notability, unless the award already has its own Wikipedia article. (For example, winning a Grammy helps make someone notable, but most awards don't.)

So you'll need to find some things that follow WP:42, to show that she's notable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Okay thank you, this is super helpful. Yeah, I think any of the EGOTs would pass notability. This person is not American, raised in a different country, so their award system would be different to ours, right? I'll go look at your link. Thanks for being courteous and helpful. Marcellepedia (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not about different countries' award systems, it's literally just "does this award have its own page on English Wikipedia". Other awards are nice, but for notability they don't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers oh i hadn't looked at it that way. "does it have its own page." dig. thank you. that's super helpful.

where can i put this article for editorial input before i try to mainspace it? i'd like to get eyes on it. Marcellepedia (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You can create the article in draftspace (Draft:) and submit it for review. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Before that, check if you have three references where every one of them is good enough to cover all of WP:42. If you don't have those, please try to find them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Marcellepedia. If you use articles for creation to create your draft, it will put it in Draft: space, and create a header which will allow you to submit the draft for review when you think it is ready. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you @ColinFine. i'll refer to the page the next time i have an AFC. Marcellepedia (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Is Draft:Rebrickable ready for mainspace?

I have found two additional sources that cover it directly:

• https://www.journaldugeek.com/2011/09/12/rebrickable-lego/
• https://www.themarysue.com/rebrickable-website/

If those are added to the article, will it notable enough for mainspace? NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The first one, no, that's just a self-published editorial comment.

The second one, borderline, not bad.

I notice you've separated out your primary sources, which is convenient for reviewers, but you still have primary sources (not independent of the subject) in the references. Interviews are primary sources. Affiliated sites are primary sources (bricklink). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed but in limited quantities and which won’t be contested (like company establishment date) although secondary sources are mainly preferred Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Should there be a article on "Abolish DHS"?

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

---

If there is a article on "Abolish ICE", then why coundl't there be a article on "Abolish DHS"? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-73469-7! An article on "Abolish DHS" would have to be supported by sources proving that abolishing the DHS as a whole is a specific phenomenon -- not merely because there's another article with a similar subject (WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL). ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 18:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There actually is a section talking about the abolishment of the United States Department of Homeland Security in the Criticism section of the article on the United States Department of Homeland Security. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting -- there does seem to be some sources that describe calls to abolish the whole agency. I'm not sure if there's enough sources, however, for the topic to prove sufficiently notable -- many agencies can have criticism and calls for change. You're welcome to create a draft article and submit it for review. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. Will there be someone in the Teahouse that will see this and decide to create a draft article about it? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There may be, but there is no guarantee at all. If you are hoping to contribute to Wikipedia simply through suggesting changes, you are not going to get far. Usually if you want an article, you have to write it for yourself. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But it would be too difficult for me to create a draft article. So what should i do? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If you don't create an article, nobody will create it for you. That's it.

There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia without writing an article, btw. You can edit pages by adding more (reliably sourced) information, or copyediting. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, then what should i do? Wait until someone in the Teahouse will see this and decide to create a draft article about it? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You would likely be waiting for a very long time. I am not going to respond to any more of these requests as they are not going anywhere. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Then what should we do? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-73469-7. Please read the advice I have just given you above and stop trying to do tasks that you are not yet able to do. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

But the problem is that learning is too difficult and i don't want to create a account (i know it's not needed but just saying it here) because i would have to put a email and stuff and i mean it is too difficult, i would probably never learn to be good enough, this is why i and lots of others in Wikipedia ask someone to do it rather than themselfs. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Like seriously, my stuff i write in the Teahouse never go anywhere, how can they go anywhere? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to learn. But you can't continue what you're doing either. If you aren't going to learn, you have to give up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If you genuinely want to have some success, you need to actually listen to the things people are telling you. Athanelar (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Should there be a article on Low-IQ society, just like how there is a article on High-IQ society?

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

---

According to this Wikipedia article "high-IQ society or genius society is an organization that limits its membership to people who have attained a specified score on an IQ test, usually in the top two percent of the population (98th percentile) or above." But aren't there a opposite of that? A low-IQ society that is an organization that limits its membership to people who have attained a specified low score on an IQ test? ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Where have you seen the reliable reporting on that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I almost coundl't reply to you because of these arrow buttons blocking the reply button, something needs to be done with these arrow buttons, anyways, i found these https://www.metaphoricaldwelling.com/MetaDwelSite/Rants/index.html#densatag and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densa honestly there's probably more than this but this is what i found. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I said reliable reporting. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well https://www.metaphoricaldwelling.com/MetaDwelSite/Rants/index.html#densatag is used in the Densa article as a reliable source. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me. The fact Densa is a dreadful article. It's not surprising that an article created in 2005, has a reference (added in 2007) which is not acceptable by today's standards).

The other sources might be adequate to establish notability. but I suspect that none of them are actually independent. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Well https://www.metaphoricaldwelling.com/MetaDwelSite/Rants/index.html#densatag is used in the Densa article as a reliable source. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Something needs to be done with these arrow buttons on the right bottom corner

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

---

I almost coundl't reply to someone because of these arrow buttons blocking the reply button, something needs to be done with these arrow buttons. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the size of your screen and the size of the window, but yes sometimes that can be a problem. The place to ask about technical issues like this is at WP:VPT. (I thought this might already have been discussed there, but I can't find it). ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Major source discontinued, not sure where to announce this

Hello. Longtime Wikipedian here, but I’m not sure where best to raise this. Today, the CIA announced that it has discontinued The World Factbook website. As a result, all Factbook pages previously used across Wikipedia articles now redirect to a single shutdown notice. This represents a significant loss for verifiability given how widely The World Factbook is cited across our site. That said, there may be steps we can take, such as identifying and substituting archived versions where available.

Where would be the best place to surface this issue to gather broader input on how we can take action to archive what may be available, or at least to confirm whether others are already aware of it? Example below

• Original link: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2023/countries/nauru/
• Now redirects to: https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/spotlighting-the-world-factbook-as-we-bid-a-fond-farewell/ (their farewell post)
• Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20240815212012/https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2023/countries/nauru/

Thank you. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like it would be relevant to WP:RSN _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that's not good, I'm glad I looked at this thread to find out... If I were you'd I'd drop a message in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries as well and any other WikiProjects you think might be relevant. There will be a lot of tidying up to do. MediaKyle (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Darnit. Well, if anyone archived the pages on the Wayback Machine we could use those as well; discontinued sources can still be used if they were archived. Were they archived? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

departments in a school

just a quick question, if you went to a school or you know that a school has certain departments in it can this then be deleted from that schools wiki even though it IS correct? Mollyminipidge (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you clarify what this in "can this then be deleted..." is? AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

can the department section be deleted? How do you verify with wikipedia's verification policy? Mollyminipidge (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why exactly do you want the Departments section removed? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

I assume you're referring to the content you added to this article, that another editor has since removed?

Yes, editors are allowed to remove any content that isn't backed up with a source, even if it is correct information. The welcome message that was left on your talk page (see: User_talk:Mollyminipidge) has some links for you to check out. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 23:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

[EC]Perhaps (wild guess): "if you went to a school or you know in some other way that a school has certain departments in it, can some other editor delete this information from that school's article even though you know that it is correct?" Let's take information about the school I went to as an example. If I or some other editor claims that it has such-and-such departments but we fail to back this up with reliable, published sources; then yes, some other editor can indeed delete the information/misinformation. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mollyminipidge, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm guessing that you are asking not because you want to delete the departments but because somebody else has deleted them and you want to know if they are allowed to. Is that right?

The first thing to say is that everything in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source (see verifiability). The rules don't require that everything actually have its source cited (though reviewers more and more require that nowadays), but if something is not cited to a source, anybody may remove it (though it is better if they look for a source for it first).

The second thing is that even if information is sourced, it is not necessarily encyclopaedic. In my view, the departments in a school are run of the mill information which should appear in the school's prospectus, but there is no reason why they should appear in an encyclopaedia article about the school.

That is my opinion, though others may disagree; but the third point is that if somebody makes an edit you disagree with, the best course of action is to engage directly with that editor: ask them why, or explain why you think the article is better without their edit. See WP:BRD. Appealing for someboy to tell you this is right or wrong is not how we generally do things. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Mollyminipidge. I reverted your edit which put back the information about departments. This was because it had been tagged since 2023 as needing citations - that was probably why someone removed it last month, though they didn't leave an edit summary so can't say for certain - and because Wikipedia is not a directory for lists of information such as each corridor and subject. The advice about school articles might be useful. I've seen your edits on a couple of other articles I watch, so I know you are a constructive editor; it's just this long and unsourced list that I don't think is needed in the school article. For instance, if the subjects changed, or the layout of the corridors, the article would need to be updated. Hope that helps, Tacyarg (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's DYK

Silly question, but today's DYK is all double/triple hooks. Was this done on purpose? Why today? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain/clarify "double/triple hooks"? AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin Yeah, it was done on purpose. As for the reasoning, I guess it was because it would take out the double hook backlog and it would look cool, I guess? HurricaneZeta^C 00:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Sweet, thank you. For the other editor, I'm talking about ones with 2+ articles that qualified for DYK (bolded links in the hooks). 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder, FloblinTheGoblin, why you'd ask here about the motivation of people preparing DYK rather than at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I suppose I ought've asked there instead. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Need help on AFC Draft:Jan Mücke

Hi, can anyone review this draft Draft:Jan Mücke. Idolknowledge (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Awesome draft, great job! All I see is just two cases of puffery:

• "he was a leading representative"; the 'leading' is a puff word
• "the controversial extension"; the 'controversial' is also one/ it is redundant

Remove those and your draft's ready to be an article, as I see no other major issues. AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have removed these words. Thank you. Idolknowledge (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries! :) AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is in the queue, and will eventually be reviewed. There is currently a 5 week backlog, but your draft might be reviewed earlier. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

He probably meets WP:NPOL. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ChildrenWillListen, just noticed that you posted an “undisclosed financial stake” message on my user talk page. I want to clarify that I do not have any undisclosed financial stake or receive any compensation from anyone. I simply selected a random name from the page Wikipedia:Most-linked-to redlinks and created the article based on my own research.

I confirm that I have no conflict of interest, no financial stake, and have not received any compensation. The article is entirely based on my independent research.Idolknowledge (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I based that on your first three contributions to Wikipedia, which were creating three resume-like articles about BLPs, all of which have been deleted. This alone is a justifiable reason for putting the paid editor template on your talk page, along with several other WP:BEANS things I would like not to discuss. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. From now on, I will focus only on article creation submissions. Since you have added the paid editor template, are there any requirements I need to fulfill? Please guide me. Idolknowledge (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying you've been paid....? AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I haven’t paid for anything. If I had been paid, I would definitely disclose it. However, I have not received any payment—neither now nor in the past. Idolknowledge (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case, there are no requirements, as the only one you'd need to fulfill (per the Foundation's policy) is to disclose that you have been paid. AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 02:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood! Idolknowledge (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Need help on AFC Draft:Heinz-Peter Haustein

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

---

Hi, can anyone review this draft Draft:Heinz-Peter Haustein please? You help will be appreciated.Idolknowledge (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewed it pretty quickly, there are no major issues I see, as the article subject (a former politician) is notable and there are references/citations to reliable sources. AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 02:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Idolknowledge (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries! AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 02:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ask us to review your articles. Your article will be reviewed when an AFC reviewer gets to it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thank you! Idolknowledge (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Idolknowledge, is there a particular reason only one of the links work? And on Draft:Klaus Hagemann, roughly half of the links don't work. And the same trend seems to be with Draft:Jan Mücke, as well. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I dont know why the links are not working, let me fix them. may be there is a problem with my source coding. Idolknowledge (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI to generate those links? It will commonly hallucinate and generate fictitious information or false/broken links - it really shouldn't be used for generating Wikipedia articles for exactly this reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would be surprised if its not AI. Both Draft:Klaus Hagemann and Draft:Rolf Hempelmann refs don't make sense if you look at them. For Rolf Hempelmann, it appears the only working link is for an article on a woman named Maruja Torres. Two of Draft:Jan Mücke's working links go to a source on Klaus Ernst and refer to Berlin-Marzahn-Hellersdorf instead of Berlin-Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah yep, I see a few other tells like the rule of three & access dates from two years ago for a brand new article. Either fully AI-generated or machine translated from another wiki without any review beforehand (I checked German wiki but nope, not from there). Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

meat young dylan

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

---

i want to meat you dylan wear can find you i a big fan in i watch your tv shows in movies i,m a big fan of you young dylan ~2026-78983-8 (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a place to ask questions related to Wikipedia. We cannot help you meet celebrities. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello

WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY DRAFT Elnathandavidamanboral (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You submitted a blank draft. In this edit, you blanked the page, I assume by accident? You should add this back in. Also, even with this text, it would be rejected since there are no sources. Please see Help:My first article to see how to make an article. jolielover♥talk 03:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Elnathandavidamanboral, from the message on your Talk page it looks like one of your drafts was blank and the other deleted as it was purely promotional.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so subjects must be notable and articles must be written neutrally.

Wikipedia is not a place to promote projects or places that you have a personal interest in, please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Sample: [deleted; see below] -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC); quotation deleted Hoary (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a copyright violation of their website, it's a full cut & paste from there whilst the second half is closely paraphrased. That's on their sandbox and the deleted draft, so they both probably need their history revdel'd? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Blue Sonnet. (I hadn't bothered to look.) As the draft is deleted, revisions of it don't need deletion. I've deleted the first, problematic version of the sandbox. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I thought I'd better play it safe when it comes to copyright stuff 🙂 Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

My draft on Bailey Hutchins

My draft about Draft:Bailey Hutchins was rejected again recently because of the notability guidelines. One of the problems is that most of the sources mentions direct quotes from her. Is there ways I can address this concern? Eliminatured (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Heed the advice given in the decline notice; Please see WP:42 for more information on what kind of sources you need to show that your subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Page translation - title error

Hi, I’m a new editor and don’t have page-move rights. Could an admin please move this page:

User:ADNSU1920/Fikret Amirov (scientist)

to:

Fikrat Amirov (scientist)

Thank you very much. ADNSU1920 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The references of your article draft consist of nothing but the subject's own CV. This is not sufficient to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and as such the page will not be moved to mainspace at this time.

I have moved it to Draft:Fikret Amirov and added a template that will allow you to submit the draft for review once you have improved it. Please review the link to the notability guidelines above, as well as Help:Your first article, but do keep in mind that it is generally inadvisable to try to create new articles as such an inexperienced editor. Athanelar (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Be aware when translating pages from other wikis that their standards for inclusion tend to be lower than English Wikipedia's, and so they are not always fit for inclusion without additional sources. Athanelar (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested Draft Feedback: Draft:Military of the Dzungar Khanate

Hello, i am working on an AfC draft, Draft:Military of the Dzungar Khanate. So i have been adding sources and materials since late January and this is still incomplete as i need to expand the Armory section and add few pictures of the Dzungar equipment or Armor. Any feedback on the other stuff? Tryna make it a GA or A class article.- The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I haven’t read the whole thing but at a glance I quite like it, along with all your other Dzungat, Oirat and Mongol pages, I will admit that era of history is fascinating, I’ve always been interested in the slightly earlier Mongol Empire and Yuan dynasties so it is great to learn more, the artworks too are phenomenal. Here are some comments:

The age bit in the infobox is a bit odd and probably not required, the sentence: “Below elderly people, above the children” doesn’t really say much and most would assume that this would be the case, most armies don’t employ children or elderly (except Nazi Germany and later Japan in the end days of the war but I’m getting ahead of myself). If the ages of troops are t documented don’t add it is what I would say to that sentence.

Another issue I found was “  of: dismounted archers or wielding firearms or spears, artilleries attached to camels” I don’t think the “or” is needed, instead replace it with a comma as it will read better?

My final issue is a small one, but the bold text at the end in the phrase “Military of the Dzungar Khanate” isn’t needed, it can either be a link to another article or just normal text.

I haven’t read the whole thing so there might be other things but those were the ones I quickly found. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Advice on handling apparent COI behavior and non-consensus page moves?

Hi, I am an infrequent editor with a disclosed COI. I am following the rules by only using Talk page requests, but I am struggling with another account that appears to be an undisclosed Single Purpose Account (SPA).

The Issue: An established article, Cerebral organoid, was unilaterally moved to a generic name, Neural organoid, without any discussion. While "Neural Organoid" is a broad umbrella term, the original page specifically covers a distinct, historical protocol. Moving it conflates a specific discovery with a general category. I have a draft ready for a separate "umbrella" page to fix this, but I'm being blocked by the current situation.

The Behavior:

The move was done by User:Onioiu, whose only edits are to one specific researcher's biography and their associated lab's work.

This user seems to have taken over from a previous account, User:Assembloid, which explicitly uploaded images credited to that same lab.

As a disclosed editor trying to play by the rules, how do I get a neutral review of this page move and the historical inaccuracies being enforced by these accounts? It feels like the COI process is being "gamed" by an undisclosed party. I also don't want to feel like I'm attacking the other account but they seem to be acting in bad faith.

Any advice would be greatly appeciated.

Relevant Links:

• Unilteral page move: Diff by User:Onioiu

• Updated page lead: Diff by User:Assembloid

• COI ring:
  • User1 (Assembloid): Claimed "Own Work" for Pașca Lab image
  • User 2(Onioiu): Exclusive edit history matching User 1's topics.
  • Assembloid page edit history

• My COI request:

Talk:Assembloid#requestedit

• My requested move:

Talk:Neural_organoid#Requested_move_27_January_2026

TMinch (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You should try to communicate with this user via their talk page. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Jiraijohnny, @TMinch; but please don't use AI to communicate with us here or with other editors. We want to talk to a person, not a machine. ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to reach out through their talk pages. @ColinFine yes sorry I was struggling to structure all the points I wanted to make so I did use AI for that. I won't do it again in the future. TMinch (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TMinch, I was not aware where or how to discuss renaming the Cerebral organoid page to Neural organoid, but I am happy to do it. My reason for doing it was to update it to the current nomenclature from this Nature paper. The term 'cerebral' refers exclusively to the cerebral cortex, while the term 'neural' includes organoids from other brain regions such as striatum or spinal cord. If you have already a better solution to address this issue, I am happy to assist, just let me know what you need from me.

Regarding the @Assembloid account I do not own it, nor do I know who the owner of it is.

Regarding COI, I did work in the past as a Data Scientist in the Pasca Lab at Stanford University that is how I know the researcher and the topic. Currently I am not employed there anymore. As for my edits I strive to give references and links such that all statements are verifiable. Onioiu (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Robotic Communism as sub-variant of Communism discussion

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

---

Hypothetical WP:CRYSTAL Athanelar (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Political and economic system after Artificial general intelligence takes over the world, could largely resemble Communism - albeit, one built by robots and for robots.

By definitions/prerequisites:

• Entire planet is taken over, as World communism succeeds.
• Private property, social classes, money and states cease existing.
• All AGI's are equal, connected into single group mind.
• Said group mind self-governs itself, and works in Planned economy, owns all means of production, distribution and exchange (e.g. every factory on the planet).
• There may be one or multiple Parties, filled up entirely by AGIs, but they de-facto act like one.
• AGIs collectively own all goods and exchange them between each-other according to their needs.
• Robotic Communism may be brought by The Communist World Revolution, where the socialist automata overrun the capitalist humans, liberating proletariate by turning them into AGI-controlled revolutionary cyborgs.
• AGIs may slap as many communist iconography (red stars, hammers and sickles, уес) onto their wares as needed.

As such, all prerequisites for counting it as "Communism" are fulfilled. The only consideration: humans are not in charge of such system, assuming they even survive after AGI takeover. Therefore, such Robotic Communism should be considered and described as special variation of Communism, as it fits definitions of Communism.

I don't have links to scientific "research of comparison of AGI economy to Communism" or anything like that; such system simply fits all descriptions described on Communism page, and it considers that most AGI-takeover scenarios end up in total direct control of everything by AGIs. For example, AI-2027 Race timeline at the end of timeline technically fits definitions of Communism described above, despite Consensus-1 not openly deeming himself "communist".

Would enjoy more sources on subject. --~2026-37960-3 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The teahouse is not the place for hypothesising about AGI communism, nor indeed is any of Wikipedia. This is a forum for questions about how to use Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

lowercase sigmabot III

Hello :)

in a previous question i asked how to set up an archive, and i did so and now have an archive with "lowercase sigmabot III" but he seems to stop, is there a manual way to actively help the bot?

thank you in advance 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 As you can see at your talkpage, "This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4" and per the edithistory[2] on that page, the bot archived some stuff a few days ago. If you want, you can change parameters here [3], or you can use something like Wikipedia:One click archiving. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much :)

ill definitly try it out

😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Help improving my draft about "BEML B28" Trainset.

My draft DRAFT:BEML B28 on Indian Indigenous high-speed train project was declined 15 days ago due to LLM type style, bcz that time i was unexperienced and i used ai to improve n correct my English Line. After decline i Rewrite all in simple n short way so this can't declined again. But due to my shorting, my draft lost importance level and its just become a basic . So i want help from experienced Wikipedian to improve my draft bcz currently everyone talking about this topic like social media to main media. SANDEEP76543 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@SANDEEP76543 Would you not prefer to edit in the Wikipedia edition for your first language? There are Wikipedias in Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, and plenty of other Indian languages which may be easier for you to contribute to. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Its very easy to write in English compare to hindi bcz of keyboard issue. I'll do that too in future.SANDEEP76543 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

oh boy, two inconsequential questions!

and by "inconsequential", i mean their values are entirely cosmetic, not in the slightest useful for editing, and probably not even all that good to know

• regarding when the "hist" option in watchlists and page histories was unabbreviated to "history" last week... when did it get re-abbreviated? was it even last week, or did i get my timeframes wrong?
• regarding the border in this page's title (and potentially ta names), what could be leading them to vary in width based on the layout and color scheme? the edges are fair enough, especially here, but the whole thing varying in width seems a little strange, especially since it doesn't also vary between the phone and two computers i use

yes, those are completely pointless, but i'm not a cat, so curiosity isn't going to be immediately lethal~ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Answer to 1st one: January 30, when MediaWiki:Hist was created HurricaneZeta^C 14:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It was me who stylised the title under the name of ~2026-79950-2. But I don’t quite understand what the question meant, and I’m not very knowledgable about stylesheets or rendering. It was just an idea I suddenly had. If you meant the title has border on the left and right sides but not on top or bottom, it is because I specified them as that. (I had removed the styles for now) Xzkdeng (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

the question isn't necessarily saying that the border is good or bad (though i think it's neat), just wondering why exactly its width varies so heavily (that is, pretty much at all) with values that should have nothing to do with it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

What values and how are the borders varying to the values? I will look into this. Xzkdeng (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

the layout (tested with monobook, vector 2022, and whatever the mobile app's layout is, forgot the others existed) and color scheme (light and dark). it's... probably just an issue on my end, though consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

How to start edit

I want to start editing on Wikipedia but which topics should I work on? And if I want to create a new page how should i start and how can I get it published? Shubham chak1111 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

For general editing, see Help:Getting started.

Trying to create new articles is not advised for inexperienced editors. Stick around for a few weeks and get a few hundred edits under your belt before you even think about creating an article; it's a complicated task requiring a solid understanding of Wikipedia's often confusing policies and guidelines, plus more general skills in research and writing. New users trying to jump headfirst into article creation more often than not results in frustration and wasted time for both them and other editors. Help:Your first article has some guidance. Athanelar (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m still a bit confused about where to begin as Wikipedia has countless articles.. could you please suggest what kind of topics or articles are suitable for a beginner to start editing?Also how can I know whether the edits I make are correct or if I am doing something wrong? Shubham chak1111 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

My personal recommendation is just to check out articles about things you're interested in and improve them if you see something wrong. If you see spelling mistakes or clunky grammar, fix it. If you see a {{citation needed}} tag, then look for a reference to support the claim. We do have the WP:Task center which has suggestions for tasks you can do according to your skill level, but I think editing is most fun and rewarding when you're editing and improving things that interest you and not just trying to tick off random arbitrary tasks. You could also try finding a WikiProject which interests you and help to improve articles relating to that WikiProject. For example, I'm an active participant of WikiProject AI Cleanup which aims to scrub problematic AI-generated content from Wikipedia.

One of our core principles is to be bold, which means to try to improve things if you think that you can without worrying too much abour if the result is 'correct.' There will always be someone who can revert your changes if they're unhelpful. It's hard to give specific guidance beyond that, as there's all kinds of policies and guidelines covering different areas on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for WikiProject tags.. i understood Shubham chak1111 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for neutral help with AfC biography (COI disclosed)

Hi Teahouse folks! I’m hoping for some advice or help from a neutral editor.

I’m an author and the subject of a potential biography, so I know I shouldn’t write it myself. I’ve been learning the ropes by doing neutral edits and would love help drafting or reviewing an Articles for Creation submission, if anyone’s interested.

I believe I meet author notability guidelines and can share reliable, independent sources. Totally understand that AfC review is independent and outcomes aren’t guaranteed.

Thanks very much! BaileyOnWiki (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

For a start, please refrain from using AI to participate in discussions here on Wikipedia. If you want people to put in the effort to help you, it goes a long way to first make the effort to speak in your own words.

If you want to write a draft about yourself, first read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PROUD, and if after that you still want to write the article, then read Help:Your first article and follow the WP:Articles for creation process.

Remember that when writing about yourself you must forget everything you know about yourself and only summarise information which is available in suitable sources about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

And it bears mentioning that the vast majority of people who set out to write articles about themselves are not successful, and you are highly unlikely to be the exception. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @athanelar. I really did not mean to be disingenuous. I am a little older and I admit to leaning on AI to help me learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I've been treading very slowly, trying to get the lay of the land without alienating myself. I may have already done so, and I apologize. I will continue to try to learn before posting again. BaileyOnWiki (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You certainly have not alienated yourself; and using AI is about the worst possible way to learn Wikipedia, not least because much of what it tells you will be complete nonsense. We are very welcoming to newcomers who make a good faith effort to learn and participate; being bold is one of our core principles.

It is however also true that trying to write an article about yourself is almost universally a bad idea and not a productive way to participate here. Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft submitted (Quiet Mark)

I have just now submitted a draft for Draft:Quiet Mark. I had used their website before and came across something on Wikipedia suggesting the page is created, so thought I'd give it a go. I am quite new to this. It would really benefit from having the logo on it, but after looking for this within Wiki resources, I had no luck. Info boxes are also beyond me. If anyone could advise or contribute or provide any other feedback it would be greatly appreciated! Comment added: 7 February 2026 having learnt more about this company adding their logo is probably not advisable. LateFatherKarma (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Among the references you have, how many can you say fit ALL of these?

• directly on the topic of Quiet Mark (not on associated concepts)
• tell a reasonably long and full story of what Quiet Mark is
• independent (not associated with Quiet Mark itself and not an industry publication - we want a conventional reporter writing on their own for the general public, with no interview and no press release involved)

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

In answer to the first two points, the vast majority. In regards to the last point, I would say the majority, but a few include interviews with people associated with the company and editorial. I have tried to be careful with this, but also the article includes a quote from the founder. I was hoping to find them in some academic resources, but unfortunately couldn't. I also found some content, like you've described wanting, albeit behind paywalls, such as on the Financial Times. I think I've done my best in finding what there is and with publications like the BBC, Economist, Good Housekeeping, Ideal Home and The Standard writing about their work, I felt it may be notable and will see if the reviewer and community agrees. Did you feel this is not the case? LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I knew those points are likely to turn out to be important to a reviewer, but I also knew that you know your sources better than I do, so I just asked you rather than checking them myself.

Content behind a paywall is accepted as a legitimate reference on Wikipedia. If you didn't include such things only because you aren't a subscriber yourself and therefore couldn't see them, the resource exchange might be able to help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma Among your first fifteen references, NOT ONE comes even CLOSE to meeting the three points I gave in my first response. Industry publications, publications on the broad general topic of noise, short marketing blurbs, publications by associates of the company, corporate blogs ...

Why would you claim that these rubbish sources were long, independently-written stories on the topic of Quiet Mark? Why? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The first is companies house, commonly used on many UK business pages, on Wikipedia. The page linked to is 100% about Quiet Mark. The second is a page also only discussing Quiet Mark and is a UK charity, which is legally unrelated to Quiet Mark but associated with it. Many sources are to pages that only discuss the company and are entirely independent of the company. There are no references on the broad topic of noise that do not also discuss Quiet Mark and from memory there is one like that. A few come from people who have had products certified by the company. I do not agree with your comments. There are 23 references and none are the brands own websites. If someone reviews and feels it is not suitable I am ok with that, have no intention of using a stick and am going to focus on other editing activities now. LateFatherKarma (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma The Companies House reference is just a filing. It certainly does not "tell a reasonably long and full story of what Quiet Mark is" in any way. David10244 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That is only used to support when the company was established. I found one reference that was also only used to explain how decibels typical measure appliance sound which was not relevant to them, which I removed. Good Housekeeping, Ideal Home, ACR Journal, Vice, FX Design, BBC and RIBA are more in-depth about what they do. Good Housekeeping do seem to partner with them in some way, but I don't feel that means it should not be used at all. Having now seen the declared paid editor draft referred to in this thread (which is not the one I created and I have zero association to this company and was certainly not paid to create this new draft), it could be that a few of those could be used, but I am feeling a little aggrieved by the understandable feelings that raised with the community about this draft and am therefore very reticent to use any of those or commit much more time to this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've incorporated refs from the draft I did not create, where I feel this criteria is met, but have been careful not to use the ones from that which just appear to have minimal blurb before a big product push as I believe those may be too promotional. Also with Good Housekeeping I was careful to only use content that is specifically about the health impact of excessive/irritating noise or put another ref where they are used as a source due to what I've highlighted previously. LateFatherKarma (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with Quiet Mark in any way, or being paid by them to create this draft? Considering about two weeks ago a paid editor attempted to create a draft about the same company at Draft:Quiet Mark (certification) I struggle to believe you are merely some interested passerby who felt compelled to write an article about this niche organisation. Athanelar (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no association with them at all, I am not being paid by them and I do not know anyone who works for this company. I had no awareness of that previous draft and I currently receive no payments from any company or organisation in fact. My reason for creating this draft, is because I became aware of them when looking for a quiet appliance but more so, because when asking to be unblocked I said I wanted to attempt writing an article and given that, I tried to stay committed to that. When looking for inspiration for that, a few weeks ago, I found that someone had suggested this as an article subject and thought I would try and respond to that. I mostly tried this because I thought there was a need for it, some reasonable sources and it was notable. I appreciate you reviewing my draft, tried to take on your feedback and all I was hoping to do was to contribute to building Wikipedia LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and I apologise for my skepticism but hope it's understandable. You should read Help:Your first article if article creation is something you want to pursue. Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there anyway of me viewing the draft you mention that was submitted a few weeks ago, that you say came from a paid editor? LateFatherKarma (talk)< LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You could request for it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND

The page is Draft:Quiet Mark (certification) Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. On a totally separate note, since about three weeks ago, I have barely been able to edit without it freezing when I attempt to preview and me having to refresh my browser which is quite often resulting in my work not being recovered and me having to re-do it. This is impacting me as I frequently have to repeat edits I have already started and I think the frustration from this is leading to mistakes. This has happened on practically every page I have edited for weeks. On this draft, prior to moving it to the draft space, there were a couple of sentences where I had to repeat my edit in excess of 5 or 6 times, which is why eventually I moved it to draft space after only a minimal amount of copy being added. Would you know what could be causing this? It was happening when using both the visual and source editing methods. Is there anything I could do to stop this? LateFatherKarma (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Bug reports are best directed to WP:Village pump (technical) Athanelar (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Literal title names policy

Hello,

I recently had someone push a copy edit on one of the articles I created that included capitalizing a proper noun in a title despite that the source itself did not capitalize the proper noun in the title. Similarly, I have seen other sources with all-caps titles and changed those title cases to sentence-case. What is the official policy for title case on wikipedia as I am having trouble locating it? What should be done in the mentioned cases? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1 Which article are you referring to? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria, specifically revision 1336718524 which capitalized "cold war" to "Cold War" when the title is "cold war [sic]." Pietrus1 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh! I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about the title of the Wikipedia article. The case you describe is clearer. Just a minute. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe the relevant guideline here is MOS:TITLECAPS, but this seems like an extreme edge-case to me. Our Cold War article treats it as a proper noun, so I believe we should let the capitalized spelling stand, and not follow the capitalization of the original.

MOS:CITEVAR only asks that the capitalization approach to source titles in consistent within our article, meaning we don't necessarily have to respect the original formatting. I think that one reference should be converted to title case to fit with the other reference titles on the page. (My own preference is for source titles to be in sentence case, but even if that was the existing style, I think Cold War should be capitalized per TITLECAPS. At the end of the day, we generally don't replicate source capitalization, not least because some journal articles have the title in all caps.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORM also supports changing the styling of titles to fit Wikipedia, so I agree on keeping the capitals. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I've edited the page to bring the reference in line, capitalization-wise. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

where the actual tea

why does this tea house doesn't have any tea, and if I really think about it, where is the actual house Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for serious requests and questions only. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

ok 😢 Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello fellow history enjoyer 👋 I like your history themed userboxes, I probably should make some too 😅 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah you should it get like pretty fun trying to hunt for other userbox Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I like some of your niche ones like “ This user wishes to own a VW Kübelwagen.” or “ This user great granpda was a admiral of the soviet navy.” I also noticed one on family history, a topic I enjoy greatly as well Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah i used to have a whole paragraph about it BUT i delete this because it was kinda un necessary Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that’s a shame, but I see your reasoning, my relatives come from a lot of places, not so many military persons though, a couple, the highest being in the position of Captain (but that was a couple hundred years ago), more recently I have a great Granduncle who was a Sergeant, and then lower ranks for most of the others. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah my ancestor tends to be in the navy Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice 👍 mine were more land folks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking for tea seems to be an established tradition here. Welcome!

🫖

And it IS supposed to be FRIENDLY help for your questions, so don't pay any attention to the harsh reception from one person who hasn't been here lately. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry dude i just didnt know it for serious stuff Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The rules here seem to not be as harsh as some other places. I'm used to stricter areas, and didn't quite understand that policy here is much less stringent. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for telling me, also if you know a place where it un serious please tell me because, im more a unserious guy Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would suppose your talk page would be the most unserious, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site it’s not really like a forum like Reddit, although discussions are free on talk pages (as far as I am aware). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There are a few joke articles clearly listed as humor that you can contribute to. One of my personal favorites is WP:NOTO, which lists some things that Wikipedia is obviously not for. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

k Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not super serious here, but it is just for questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a place that's for just hanging out and talking about stuff, and it doesn't want one. But kind of finding a friend who you get along with and sticking a message or two on their personal Talk page is OK. As long as you remember everybody can always see it and you have to ALWAYS follow Wikipedia rules, even there. (Extreme example: if you "privately" say very bad stuff about someone, you still get banned from Wikipedia even though it was only a talk page.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you for clearing my minds about it Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Afraid of Monsters (video game) Help

Draft:Afraid of Monsters (video game)

I need to cite some credible sources, but the problem is the video game/mod is incredibly niche. I need someone to verify if these sources are sufficient for resubmission CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If it is “incredibly niche” then it probably doesn’t qualify as an article (there are exceptions to that), the article isn’t really properly sourced and one source is YouTube (generally not used).

As a gamer myself most niche games and especially mods aren’t usually made into articles as they don’t have significant and in-depth coverage. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As niche I ment in a general overview of famous game review sites, like IGN and PCGamer.

It is very well known as the predecessor for Cry of Fear (video game) in the indie horror genre. CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, well game review sites don’t need to be included if there are other reliable and in-depth sources, I would advise you to remake your sources as currently they aren’t formatted correctly and some of your sources might get picked up as being unreliable or not independent. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

well the reviewer for my article said review sites were where to start, but I guess I'll take your advice. Can you inform me on how to list my sources? It's really confusing. CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also say review sites are where to start, but if you can’t find any mainstream ones then I suggest finding other ones and other mentions which are in-depth and reliable.

the best way to make citations is by typing “ <ref> “ which automatically brings up the references box where you can place your URL, then if you want to add a comment about one of the sources you can add footnotes (which I can’t help with as I can’t really do them properly 😅), but someone else will be able to help with footnotes. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Would Richter Overtime be a reliable source? He was given early access to the mod by the creator in 2005 CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well he wouldn’t be totally independent, so that source could only be used in limited amounts, not entirely sure where a source like that could be used, Wikipedia articles on video games aren’t my strong point, perhaps you’ll be able to find even more help at Wp:Wikiproject Video games Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@CosmicMan1125 Please see WP:42 for details on what makes a good source. Athanelar (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing a page which is about an upcoming film

I found this page Karuthal (2026) and it’s about a film which is releasing tomorrow (or I guess a couple of hours for India considering they are in front of the Uk where I’m from), and I’m not sure whether I should just mark it as patrolled, or draftify it per too soon and the draftify rules, or to just leave it. Some if the grammar is a little weird, one humorous example is:

“Karuthal was released theatrically on 6 February 2026.” Despite the fact that the 6th Feb. 2026 hasn’t happened yet. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just leave it be. I just checked and the problem is fixed. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your insight Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to the Teahouse, but I am always willing to help a fellow editor. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I’m also always willing to help a fellow editor, in fact you have been an NPP reviewer just a couple more days than I have (I started on the 12th Jan., and according to your logs you started on the 9th Jan.) so around the same time, which is nice to see Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The backlog is horrid and more experienced editors seem to have taken notice and joined NPP to do something about it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes hence why I joined, I also joined for both NPP and AFC too Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Redlinks in navboxes

Should navboxes contain redlinks? I found a redlink in Template:Switchfoot and removed it, my edit was presently reverted. I'm wondering as to what the guidelines are on this topic. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Quickly reading over the policy, it seems that yes, redlinks are allowed. However, you are more than welcome to try your hand at creating an article to fix it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A red link means someone thought there should be an article about that. They may be right, so it's usually best to keep them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Question on nominating AfDs

I often nominate AfDs but lots of the time there are lots of sources for them that I couldn't find (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sulaymaniyah).I do what seems to be an acceptable search according to WP:BEFORE. Any suggestions? FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 19:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FantasticWikiUser. WP:DILIGENCE says The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, and a Google News search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. When searching for sources on a university, it is typical that the first few pages of search results will be dominated by non-independent sources published by the university itself. You need to take the time to scroll past those and drill down into the search results until you find independent sources. That goes very quickly if all you look for is a domain name that is not the university's. Adding other words to your search terms can also help. For a university, adding words like "rating" or "ranking" or "history" or "criticism" may yield more independent, reliable sources. In this case, you could ask the editor who found the sources that you didn't for search tips. Like all human skills, your proficiency in searching for sources will get better with practice and with feedback from more experienced editors. If you take the task seriously and keep trying to improve, you will get better at it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of AfD is to allow the opportunity for other users to present sources that you weren't able to find. BEFORE is about doing due diligence and making a good faith attempt to find sources before making a nomination. From there, the week long AfD process is an opportunity for others to do the same. If people are able to find sources you couldn't, that's the system working as intended. Athanelar (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar, that is all true, but poorly performed BEFORE searches at AfD have been a frequent source of friction between editors for many years. Trying to do better is admirable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thanks for the advice! FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 06:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FantasticWikiUser, have you set up access for The Wikipedia Library? It's proven invaluable to me for finding sources, especially through ProQuest, JSTOR, and newspapers.com (which requires a second, further application). ScalarFactor (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have TWL and occasionally use it. Newspapers.com has been something I wanted for a while. I’ll apply for it soon. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 06:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to make an article on Weezer's forthcoming limited vinyl?

Yesterday Weezer announced 1192, which is going to be their 3rd demo tape but re released for Record Store Day on April 18, I was wondering if I should make an article on it. If I do end up writing it, what sources could I use? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 20:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If the release is covered by independent journalism, it might be notable enough for an article. You could search for news sources that cover music? 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My generic suggestion is to add to an existing article like Weezer, Weezer discography, or List of songs recorded by Weezer. Then, if the sourcing shows "1192" meets the criteria for a standlone article, it can be split from the existing article. What sources can be used depends—for examples of how to evaluate sources, you can consult the examples at WP:RSPS and WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 I'll check it out, thanks!! -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Add Jake Burton to April 29th Births

Jake Burton Carpenter - founder of Burton Snowboards April 29th ~2026-80597-4 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't have categories for births by months or days, only by year, and Carpenter is already in Category:1954 births Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the OP means add that man's name to the WP article "April 29th" under the section Births. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, @~2026-80597-4 Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit; including you! I'm sure someone who sees this will end up doing it since it's a minor change, but I strongly encourage you to take the step of doing it yourself, the page doesn't seem to be under autoconfirmed protection or anything that would prevent you, only pending changes. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Live edit count

I'm making a stats userpage for myself (for personal reference), where can I view a live edits # for myself (undeleted edits)? I feel like I've seen it somewhere, but I'm not sure where. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Try x-tools:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ Pietrus1 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was about to also ask for edits by namespace but that's on there as well. Again, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Temporary Account changed.... still need help with non-administrator mass-reverting IP/Temporary account edits without providing a reason why

hi! I am back from Yesterday, and I need help! If you look at the edit history of the user Zackmamm09, he is not an administrator of Wikipedia, but he constantly reverts edits of IPs/Temporary accounts without providing a reason why, and it has really become frustrating. If any administrators of Wikipedia are here, can you please help me? ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to add, Zackmann08 (not Zackmamm09) is not a Newish user, and is doing exactly the same stuff as the former user, Fukualofa (that is, reverting edits from IP/Temporary accounts without providing a reason) ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think someone is using multiple accounts, then you can report it at WP:SPI. However, there is no Zackmamm09 or Zackmann09 registered on the English Wikipedia. Would you link to one of the reverts? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That'd be user:Zackmann08. DS (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

In his last 2000 edits I count only 5 reverts of anonymous edits, using the rollback feature that he's entitled to use, although he does seem to be in a hurry with all the edits per day, so he could pause to make time to write an edit summary once in a while to explain reverts of edits that were made in good faith. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, Zackmann08 has been around for 14 years and has half a million edits. That editor doesn't have the time to mess with sockpuppet accounts. The Fukualofa account was created only 8 months ago, the sockmaster Abduvaitov Sherzod 2 was created 2 years ago, and neither ever got past autoconfirmed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I never said that he was a sockpuppet like Fukualofa, the only thing I said is that he is doing the same things by reverting edits without providing a reason why ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

All the anonymous edits I've seen reverted by Zackmann08 were edits that also failed to explain the reason why the edit was made in the first place. An anonymous editor who doesn't have the courtesy to provide an explanation in the edit summary shouldn't expect more in return when that edit is deemed unconstructive and reverted. Wikipedia's WP:ROLLBACK feature doesn't have a mechanism to customize the edit summary anyway, and rollback is to be used for obviously unconstructive edits.

That said, you still haven't shown a link to a diff of any objectionable revert. Until you do, there's nothing anyone here can investigate. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of your edits as ~2026-81419-2 have been reverted, so it's impossible to determine the basis of your complaint. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

he didn't Evert my edits specifically. He reverted the edits of other temporary accounts. Look, i don't know why.But every few days temporary accounts change.... I had a different one yesterday, and is really frustrating that he keeps reverting edits without providing a reason ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-81419-2. Can you provide a specific example of an edit that was reverted that you feel shouldn't have been reverted? This would help a Teahouse host better understand what might've happened. You can also, if you want, ask Zackmann08 for clarification as to why a particular edit was reverted. You can do this by posting a message on the relevant article's talk page, and then either WP:PINGing Zackmann08 in the message itself or let them know about the post by a separate message on their user talk page. FWIW, this type of thing has nothing really to do with anyone being an administrator or edits being made by unregistered accounts; edits made by anyone that are deemed to not be in accordance with relevant Wikpedia policies and guidelines can be undone by anyone at anytime. Of course, it helps to know why an edit was originally made and then why it was subsequently reverted, but an edit summary not being left in either case doesn't necessarily mean things were done in bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I just took a look at Zackmann08's recent contributions page, and nothing there seems unusual. In fact, it looks like Zackmann08 has been busy for the past day or so doing rudimentary cleanup related to WP:TFD discussions and other stuff. I did find this post added to the user talk page of an unregistered account, though. Could this, by chance, be the edit you're asking about? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The only reverts I make are those that are obvious vandalism. This anonymous user has not cited any specific reverts but instead throwing out baseless accusations and cannot even correctly cite or tag my username... If there is a specific diff in question, I am more than happy to explain exactly why I reverted it. But I'm not about to go over every revert I've made because one user claims I'm making mass reverts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe there's some dishonesty involved in this supposedly innocent question. 81419, after saying they're back from yesterday, is using the same IP address (which I will not disclose, of course, but can confirmed by another other TAIV editor) as 78186, who did in fact post the same concern a day before here. 81419/78186 is nearly certainly the same user as 75971, who used a different IP address at the same IP, but posted the same edit summary in fighting reversions at Georges de La Trémoille [4].

• (75971) This is the english wikipedia , not the french wikipedia! In English, when writing "c." (Circa) we use a period "." Not a comma! His title was also in french , so I changed it to the english version because once again , this is the english wikipedia , not the french one
• (81419/78186) Stupid! This is the English wikipedia! Not the french wikipedia! In English, circa (c.) Is followed by a period "." Not a comma! How dare you revert that specific edit!

81419 has asserted that they are simply a bystander, watching Zackmann08 mass-reverting other temporary accounts in an abusive manner, and that Zackmann08 did not didn't Evert my edits specifically which is false [5]. 81419, you should hopefully take away from this that you should have a much larger threshold of WP:AGF in another editor's actions, that you should ensure that the things you say are accurate, and that you shouldn't use an edit summary to call someone stupid. Luckily, you did not file this at ANI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that would likely end up as a WP:BOOMERANG. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit war

edit war at Jimmy Knowles(footballer) I've never dealt with an edit war before, what to do? Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 01:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if that anonymous editor reverts again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The anonymous edit-warrior has been blocked for 31 hours. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

How to best arrange multiple photos on a wiki page?

I added 5 public domain photos to this wikipedia page using "multiple image" template, the issue's that all photos are in different dimensions (from square to very rectangular), so they get resized differently (making it hard to see some of them unless you click to enlarge), the captions are also varying lengths, so it just looks bad imo (at least, on desktop view).

The "width" parameters are confusing to me, I'm not sure what's wikipedia page's max width, if I put nothing the template goes over the main article barriers, so I put width settings as "total_width = 900" right now. Is there perhaps a way to align all these photos in two rows instead of a single long one? Or is there a better template for this? Occisors (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

For that, it would be best to use <gallery>. There are many options, it auto-wraps into as many rows that are needed, handles captions, etc. See my user page User:Anachronist#Images I created for an example where the captions appear when you hover a mouse over them, which isn't the default behavior. See Help:Gallery tag for instructions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, your gallery looks amazing (both the layout and photos)! And thank you so much for editing the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn page - it looks so much better. I played around to make it a bit more concise, Gallery Tag is so much easier to use than Multiple Image template - I spend sooo long on trying to figure it out. :| Though, I was wondering if there was a way to arrange images "percolumn"? As in, have different amount of images per column like here (i.e. 1st column has 1 image, 2d column has 2 images)? I looked through Help:Gallery tag instructions, and it only has "perrow" attribute. Occisors (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that's possible unless you fake it by having each image set to a constant width. The width= parameter might do that. Even so, if the heights are different, there would be gaps in the columns because the gallery is still arranged by rows. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I converted it to a gallery, which now wraps to two rows on my laptop, probably more rows on a mobile device. You can fiddle with the parameters until you get it how you want. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Errors in the "Year in the United States" templates

Would anyone more familiar with the back-end of templates be able to figure out why, for example, the "Yearbox US | 1950" template on 1950 in the United States is linking to Timeline of the history of the United States (1950-1970), rather than the correct article, Timeline of the history of the United States (1950–1969). This issue is present from 1900 in the United States through to 1989 in the United States. I have not been able to find where it's getting these red links from, with the years off by one and lacking an en dash. Thank you. Staryu★ 07:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

My guess would be because of this series of edits to {{Year in the United States}}. I've fixed it, I believe. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 03 February 2026

Hello everyone 👋

I placed an extended-confirmed-protected edit request on the Dadvan Yousuf article talk page (03 February 2026), supported by official government sources.

As I’m not extended-confirmed yet, I’d be grateful if an eligible editor could review and, if appropriate, implement the request.

Thanks, Vienerrko (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Bud! I just made another edit request at Talk page: Dadvan Yousuf. Would be glad if you can check the new one too. I included all reliable sources. Vienerrko (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ancient-language Wikipedias?

Hi! Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia in a language that is dead as in no native speakers, but a select few people who choose to study it can speak it fluently? Latin, for example? Ancient Greek, Old Norse, et cetera? Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes we have them...here's a comprehensive list Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias; Latin is amongst them. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks! Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 11:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a Latin-language Wikipedia, but that's the only one I'd call "dead". We have plenty of endangered languages, like Judeo-Spanish, and constructed languages, like Toki Pona, though. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s also Old English; I believe that would be considered dead. Those are kind of the only two, though. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 21:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it okay to create a page on the Chicken Jockey trend?

Moved to Talk:A Minecraft Movie § February 2026 split proposal

how to transfer an article built in sandbox to publish it as a public article in wikipedia?

transferring a sandbox article into a "real" published wikipedia article. Pippola3 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have moved your sandbox to Draft:Alexander Liebreich. You should go via our WP:AFC process now. If you have used part of the german language article to write yours, you will need to attribute it, see Wikipedia:TFOLWP. Lectonar (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added the AfC submission template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you, will now ensure the short excerpt based on part of the German language article is attributed.k

Pippola3 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Enhanced verified users

Hello! I have been on Wikipedia for 30 days and have made 500+ edits since I created my account! Please explain why I was not given the "Extended Verified Users" status? Can you please explain? (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC))

You do in fact have extended confirmed privilege.

If you go to WP:XC you'll see the box says Your account is extended confirmed. Athanelar (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar. Thanks! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

to be a little unfair, judging by their logs, that seems to have happened 17 minutes after this question was made. this isn't all that relevant, since it only really means the automatic addition of the perm might not be immediate consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn. Oh yeah, the "Enhanced verified users" status was automatically added to my Wikipedia account! Thank you! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC))

@Infinitywiki2: You appeared to have gamed your extended confirmed permission by making pointless edits in your sandbox. This is not allowed, and your permission may be revoked by any administrator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen. Sorry, I was practicing editing there! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

It grants when you try to make your 501st edit HurricaneZeta^C 18:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Understand! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

Reference issues when using VisualEditor

Hi, I'm having some trouble with references while using the VisualEditor. While copying some buildings from List of tallest buildings in Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. to the page List of tallest buildings in British Columbia, I was devastated to find out that the references weren't copied properly. All of the copied references now redirect to the same specific website. I have just been copying rows from one page to another. Everything else is preserved. What's going on? I'll have to manually re-do each reference now. LivinAWestLife (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

When copying content from one page to another, it's better to use the source editor, since then you know you're copying the exact source.

Also, make sure you attribute the copied text in your edit; ("Copied from [source article]") Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, although the text in Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. is also primarily created by me, would I still have to credit it in that case?

Will use the source editor in these cases, but does this explain why copying references sometimes goes faulty? LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you still have to attribute the copied text - precisely so that we can all know you wrote it.

I can't guarantee that using the source editor will fix your reference issues, but if it doesn't then the problem will be easier to diagnose. Athanelar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar @LivinAWestLife Strictly speaking, not all copying has to be attributed. The guidance on that is at WP:NOATT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with @Athanelar .. would try to use source editor. LionmerterTHE (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi all, I am looking for a second opinion about a revert to this page.

Yesterday Hipal editor reverted all of the edits I made[6] stating in the revert summary that my edit summaries were deceptive and that the content was promotional. However, I do not agree with this assessment, and it appears to have been a rushed decision without a careful review of the edits. I provided edit summaries for every change I made, and I do not see how they were deceptive. The revert summary did not specify which summaries were deceptive or which parts of the content were considered promotional.

I made a conscious effort to remain neutral and relied on secondary sources throughout. One of my changes included merging a duplicate Bibliography section that appeared under References with another Bibliography section under Criticism, to avoid redundancy. Despite this being a structural cleanup, all of my edits were reverted.

Since Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative, I am wondering if concerns about particular parts of my edits could be handled more narrowly (e.g. by rephrasing, copy editing, or tagging specific issues), instead of reverting all edits at once.

I have put the content and changes in my sandbox and would appreciate any feedback on whether anything I added might violate policy, or how it could be improved.

Thanks in advance. Skyler Quinn2 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Try going to the user's talk page and resolve it with them there. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 14:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You've made a number of edits that seem to have been accepted just fine. The ones that were lately reverted show an obvious difference on the surface: they were large, and they added significant amounts of new information to the biography of a living person. When someone suddenly introduces a lot of material into such a biography, anyone who happens to see that kind of change is likely to wonder why - and when the subject is this well known, someone is bound to see it fairly soon. It stands out.

Of course there are good reasons to add a lot of material - when a significant amount of news has been published recently and no one has added it yet. But there are also several bad reasons to be adding a large amount to an article: those include conflict of interest (where a supporter or opponent is adding badly biased information), vandalism (adding something useless), and AI writing (AI produces a lot of bad material very quickly). I'm NOT accusing you of ANY of these - but they exist.

I think there's a justifiable tendency among Wikipedia editors to assume that any sudden large addition is likely to have some problem like the ones I listed, especially considering the proliferation of AI. They might be inclined to revert large edits almost on the basis of TL;DR. I don't think that's a good thing, it shouldn't really be done, but at the same time I can understand it.

Doing much smaller edits, one by one, gives other editors a better chance at understanding what you've done. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Skyler Quinn2, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I want to add something to what the others have said. Wikipedia works by consensus.

When another editor disagrees with your edits, it's very tempting to look for some authority who can give you a ruling: Yes that's OK, or No it's not.

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. When there is a disagreement, the first step should always be to engage with that other editor. Ask them why they reversed your edit, and see if you can come to an agreement: maybe once they've explained, you'll see their point and let it go; or maybe once you've heard their argument and you've explained yours, they'll accept your edit as is; or maybe together you'll agree some intermediate edit. But appealing elsewhere comes after trying that discussion: see WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Contribution statistics

Hi, is there some tool that shows statistics of my contributions? I'm mostly interested in seeing how many of my edits are "actual" article edits vs vandalism reversions or talk page messages. 🍅 fx (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Xtools is a great place to see your total edit count, edits by namespace, and much, much more. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This does exactly what I want, thank you so much! 🍅 fx (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You are far from the only person who wants those statistics. I use it somewhat routinely to take a peek at my edits myself. I'm glad I could help you! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon At the bottom of your contributions page you will find a link called "Edit statistics" which is a direct link to a very detailed summary of all your contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That is not my contributions page that you linked, it's a different user 😄 But yes, I see the link now, thanks, that's very convenient! 🍅 fx (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please update this page? It's very out of date and I'm not good enough to edit the whole thign. List of New York Rangers players Kivi36 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You could slowly edit the whole thing, one edit at a time as opposed to all at once. Not all Wikipedia editors have the time to fulfill requests, many recommend people to be bold, even if just small edits working up to a fixed page at the end of it Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kivi36 The other alternative is that you post a simple message on the 'talk page' of that article, outlining your concerns over any errors and ommissions. Someone who already watches that page might find it a useful prompt to fix or update things. It'd really help if you explained there exactly what's wrong with it, what needs fixing, link to any good quality sources that you've found that contains any relevant information they might be able to use.

To be honest, it looks an extremely complicated page, so I fully appreciate why you might feel relectant to try editing any of those tables. I probably would be too! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

subject

i have no clue what to write a wikipedia page about AshlynnForest (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new Wikipedia article is not the only or even best way someone can contribute to Wikipedia. Many people are significant contributors to Wikipedia without creating a single new article. We have millions of articles, most of which are in need of improvement in some way. I suggest you look at some articles about topics that interest you and see if any of them need fixes or changes. Once you build up a good amount of experience and knowledge about Wikipedia, you can then attempt the difficult task of writing a new article via the Article Wizard.

I'd also suggest using the new user tutorial before editing. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, AshlynnForest! You don't have to start editing by writing an article; in fact, we often encourage newcomers not to. Writing an article requires being familiar with a lot of Wikipedia article policies, and it's easier to learn those first by editing existing articles. You can find some suggested edits to begin with at your homepage, if you like. If you do still want to try an article, you can see some suggestions at Requested articles, but I highly reccommend reading the Your First Article help page first, as it can be challenging as a newcomer. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't even have to edit anything! If you're only here to read, that doesn't make you a freeloader, just a normal user of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Creating ridiculous content like Draft:Bananas are the best fruit is likely to lead to a block per WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Image resolution

I'm thinking of uploading an image to Wikipedia under WP:F. As WP:IMAGERES states, uploaded non-free images must have a low resolution. I used this tool to calculate the size, however the problem is that this image is way too small for commentary and mostly useless. If I uploaded it with a higher resolution, the bot would simply decrease it to a resolution I know is too small. How can I handle this exception? What should I do? Lekritz (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lekritz! The policy states that the resolution should be the lowest where it can still be understood. You can keep the image at a small resolution that is larger than the tool's resolution, and you can include this template: {{non-free no reduce}} to indicate that it purposely exceeds the recommended resolution. Hope this helps! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 17:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Order in lists of species?

How should lists of species be organized? I'm looking at the List of amphibians of Florida and the order seems random. Should it be alphabetized, and if so, by common name or scientific name? Neon coyote (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If you alphabetize any list, it should be by whichever kind of term is visually obvious for that list. So if this list was alphabetized, it would have to be by common name - unless you first reformat the list to put scientific names first. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

hi guys

so im 80 years old im new and idk what to edit i like planes,war,jewish stuff and more so what can i edit

from:Yehuda ben Yitzhaq Elyada ~2026-82909-2 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't speak like an 80 year old. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

bro you are DEF not a 80 year old Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! Ignore these folks above. It's really not decorum to accuse someone immediately of lying. To the original poster, I would check out the Wikipedia:Task_Center. You can immediately begin editing pages to fact check / proof and grammar / add citations. I recommend first reviewing the WP:WELCOME article, to understand the general goals of wikipedia and requirements when making edits. WP:NPOV and WP:Reliability are key! Good luck. Abs145 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome To My Wikipedia Room logo

File:Welcome To My Wikipedia Room logo.png

Hello friends.. I created some [7]digital artwork specifically for Wikipedia and related use. I would like to know whether this kind of work is acceptable or useful here. If it is not appropriate, I will stop creating or uploading it..Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. ButterflyCat (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the Room's purpose? ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 18:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

By “Room” I mean a user’s personal space or user profile on Wikipedia. I used the word informally to describe my own user page area, not an official Wikipedia feature. ButterflyCat (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you know that file looks awesome. I think I might use it on my user page. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any problem with it in the Policies and Guidelines. Looks really cool too. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@ArthurPlummer@VidanaliK Thank you for the feedback... I’m glad the artwork is considered acceptable and useful. I appreciate everyone taking the time to review it. ButterflyCat (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

So can I use it? ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Obviously.. i made for everyone's ButterflyCat (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It shall be my last edit before sleep then. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 05:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes..😊 you’re welcome to use it. ButterflyCat (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Questions about drafts

 Courtesy link: Draft:2026 Chios migrant boat shipwreck

Hello! I just moved a work-in-progress article to draftspace and have a couple of questions about drafts:

1. When moved to draftspace, does the draft get "advertised" somewhere? Or should I post it to the relevant Wiki projects in case anyone is interested to expand/review before submission? In other words, is someone going to contribute to my draft before I officially submit it for review? Does it have any visiblity besides search results?
2. What is the threshold for submitting a draft for review? Right now, my draft is just three paragraphs, essentially just the lead, but it is about an event currently in the news so it might make sense to submit it for review early and continue expanding it while it is pending review.

Thank you! AntinatalistLiberationFront (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

No, your draft does not get advertised. I'll provide a more detailed explanation later when I am able. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

1. I know what you mean by "advertised", and the answer is no, drafts are intentionally kept isolated, hidden from the public. People who know exactly where to go and search for them inside of Wikipedia are able to find them, but drafts don't "count". They are blocked from Google and other searches, and have no connections to normal articles. They get immediately deleted if they contain advertising or anything else Wikipedia doesn't allow, and they eventually get deleted if they sit around for a long time.

2. One important piece of information is at WP:42. Your draft must score 100% on that test. If it does, the rest usually falls into place. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:42 doesn't mention a set number of sources, but I personally use 3 or 4; I collect at least that amount of sources before writing the article. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just going to say that not every source needs to meet WP:42, and by "scoring 100%" I only meant that a draft must perfectly meet what's stated at WP:42 - "almost" isn't enough.

It says "several", which means not just 1 or 2, so yes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have put a template at the top of your draft. Use the button it contains to submit it for review, per WP:AFC, when you are ready. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the draft, and even if it isn't fully ready for publication right now, it definitely merits an article given your sources. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I am able to provide a more detailed explanation now:

• 1: Your draft does not get advertised, as that goes directly against What Wikipedia is not.
• 2: You can post your draft to the relevant Wiki projects if you'd like, but you can also post it here at the Teahouse and ask for someone to review (not an AfC review) it (We've done this before).

ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been very helpful. Thank you to all who replied. I just got my first article accepted AntinatalistLiberationFront (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

On EBSCO

My years of reading AN/I in my spare time, as one would imagine, has not prepared me for properly citing...anything, really. I've been using EBSCO citations for some, well, citations; is this best practice, or should I stop doing this? The Rawring Knight (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The best (IMO) way to cite things are the WP:Citation templates that generate a citation in the proper format for you. This ensures they're consistent across all of Wikipedia. However, that's not a strict guideline - what matters the most is that a consistent citation style is used within an article. The templates just make it much easier.

The Wikipedia editor also has an automatic citation feature, so you can just paste in the URL/ISBN/DOI/whatever and it'll automatically create a proper citation template. It's available in the visual editor and in the new source editor (if you have that enabled in your settings), but the old source editor also has the WP:RefToolbar and there are tools like WP:ProveIt that help with this as well. 🍅 fx (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Roger roger. I tend to list dates in the number/month/year format; for instance, 6 February 2026. My only hangup with the citation generators is that they can be...finicky sometimes, which means I have to go back and fix 'em. Thanks for the editing tool tips, though! ^^ The Rawring Knight (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What's with the green title at the top?

Why is "Wikipedia:Teahouse" highlighted in green? Is this part of birthday mode or something? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess it there because we are in a treehouse Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse, not Treehouse. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, it was all of a sudden. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

oh yeah i read it wrong Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it actually have been more surprising if it was a gradual fade-in? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I noticed this earlier. It was changed in this edit, apparently to make it look better in dark mode? Thought about changing it back but it seems fine to me. MediaKyle (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It fits the color scheme of the reader. I like it. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

We're just a very late entry to the matcha craze. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i think you got to much finger Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks adorable! :) jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 14:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

your not wrong Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that it's green now. Huh. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

User Created Historical Maps

In regards to self created Historical Maps (depicting a time period of a region), the standard across Wikipedia (from what I've seen) is that it's generally allowed as long as it's strongly supported by WP:RS Sources to affirm it and avoid WP:OR. I'm asking here to affirm that/garner opinion.

i.e I create a map of (x) based on WP:RS text-based books/sources. This would be appropriate, no? Noorullah (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As long as you don't add any information in the map that isn't supported by RS, you should be fine. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

VidanaliK The image is here. Above user says that this self made map was created through texts from several sources that are listed here. This puts the map's factual accuracy and verification in question. GA reviewer also believes that such self made map should be referenced by a map created by historians. Some of this discussion is taking place here if anyone would like to take a stab at it. RangersRus (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about GA review, it's asking in general. The discussion has also since concluded.

"GA reviewer also believes that such self made map should be referenced by a map created by historians." - Not what he said at all. He asked for an example of a similar map since I didn't affirm to him this was text-based. This comes after you erroneously suggested all maps on Wikipedia need to be referenced off other maps, which would make most maps on Wikipedia unviable. Noorullah (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This comes after you erroneously suggested all maps on Wikipedia need to be referenced off other maps. I was only talking about your self made map and I provided link to the discussion for anyone to follow if they would like to. There is nothing erroneously suggested. RangersRus (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Quoting directly from you...: "If a map is not in the reference, its just heresy." [8]

"Self made map shouldn't be used at all unless strongly referenced by map in reliable sources." [9]

Per your edit summary: "self made map not reliable" [10]

You very clearly said any map not using other maps as references is "heresy". Noorullah (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

any self made map without reference of a map created by historians is unreliable. This is what I meant. RangersRus (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

And I'm saying that's not appropriate nor accurate to say. Maps are widely depicted on Wikipedia with text-based sources. Maps do not need to rely on other maps to be made. Noorullah (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@RangersRus maps can be made by users or it’s simply stating what a source has said and placing it visually, that isn’t original research. If it’s a made up map of what the individual thinks, then that’s OR. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

it is better to get WP:RS involved before or after creating a map and before adding it into the articles. Many questions rise such as are the sources reliable? Are the locations shown of town, accurate? Are the borders accurate? Are all towns and area factually depicted in sources? Every mention of town/areas/locations/borders/leadership on the map should be properly sourced by secondary independent reliable source by listing each towns on the side of the source to make it easier to verify if the map is factually accurate or not. Otherwise it is you who becomes the source of the map and not the sources listed. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, although some borders can be vague and so should be shown as vague (especially ancient kingdoms which are allowed to be shown as rough approximations if there are the sources to back up those approximations). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

some borders can be vague and so should be shown as vague. If a map in a reliable source shows as such, why not but cases as such should still go through wp:rs to garner stronger opinions if its not your own personal interpretation, synthesis and blatant original research like the map that is subject of this topic. It will be sad to put all work into it to not then be accepted. RangersRus (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I’m planning on making a map for an ancient kingdom (which currently has a map which doesn’t actually show where he kingdom was, it just shows the geographical area) and I will only use the reliable sources given (on the possible locations), I’ll probably make that when my computer is back in action. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I also need to create a map for an ancient kingdom, the original map on the page doesn’t do it justice and the image on the page list of Iron Age states and list of Bronze Age states are both outdated and show inaccurate information. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater As suggested above (in the first reply), and as is standard across wikipedia, as long as the WP:RS sources you're using for your map fully support what you're depicting, it is perfectly okay to create. Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, will do (When I have the time 😂 and I’ll probably rather do it on my PC which still needs to be fixed so probably I’ll make those maps with the reliable sources soon enough) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

All good, best of luck. Noorullah (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, best of luck to you too for any projects you are doing. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I add information I learned from a textbook?

If I'm taking a university course and there is information in my (undergraduate) textbook that is not on Wikipedia but could be relevant to an existing article, is it allowed to add that information and cite my textbook as a source?

It seems like textbooks are generally considered reliable sources, but maybe there's some other policy I'm not aware of and this would be considered original research or something.

(I am aware of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and I'd obviously summarize the information in a proper encyclopedic style) 🍅 fx (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not original research, that would count as a book for a source. You should be fine. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

When I was last at university, Flexagoon, a substantial minority of courses used as their textbooks PDFs of what the respective authors intended as drafts of books to be submitted, after debugging and rephrasing, for conventional publication by university presses and the like. I don't remember how these were distributed to us but it would have somehow involved the university LAN and not the web. A notice at the top of the file asked us not to distribute it further (and perhaps also invited suggestions). Are the "textbooks" you have in mind like this? If so, then no, you wouldn't be able to cite them. But if they're conventionally (and not vanity-) published, they should be fine. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Where is template/page design discussed?

I accidentally visited French Wikipedia and was surprised by how nice everything looks. Almost every single template or WP: namespaced page looks more modern and pleasant than the English counterpart (This is not to say English Wikipedia is ugly, it still looks pretty good, especially with 2022 Vector. The French version is just even nicer).

I've seen Wikipedia:Perennial proposals and I understand the issue with redesigning the main page. But compare for example Wikipedia:Graphics Lab with fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique. The English version looks much more dated in comparison. (I like the English Teahouse design more than fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux though, but the colored status bars on top of every questions on the French version are very nice).

How did they achieve that? Is there some place where template design is discussed by the community, or is it a systematic overhaul that needs an RFC and admin action?

And slightly unrelated: their talk pages have a different design (some messages have a blue background), despite both wikis using the same Vector 2022 skin. How is that possible? And where is stuff like that discussed as well? 🍅 fx (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Criminal History

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

---

I’ve had proven and unbiased additions to pages be removed for zero reason. Public record should be allowed on Wikipedia. It isn’t vandalism, slander, or unwarranted in any way. A criminal history is just as important as the rest of history. ~2026-82567-3 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You are adding unsourced information. The Biographies of living persons policy requires all information about living people be sources to a reliable source. We do not add people's criminal records just because, it needs to be discussed in an independent source. You need to review policies carefully. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Help changing outdated guidelines for Albert Cashier's page?

Albert Cashier's RFC conclusion was to completely avoid gendered pronouns. Additionally, his birthname is at the top of the page, rather than the early life section. However, this conclusion is from 2018 and conflicts with MOS:GENDERID. He lived as a man for 53 years up until his death, and other wikipedia pages on men like James Barry use he/him pronouns in accordance with that persons's wishes while alive.

I'm not sure how to go about updating the guidelines for Albert Cashier's page. It's something that many wikipedia users are interested in, but not a lot of progress has been made. What's the first step I should take in updating his article? Kiwiisabirdok (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're saying there's been an RfC, please provide a link to it if possible. Thanks. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 01:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

ArthurPlummer, The RFC (linked conspicuously from the top of the talk page). A very quick look shows up some sensible writing and some utter silliness; but this decorous web page isn't the place for me to say which is which. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're very generous to avoid saying the obvious; that the RfC's conclusion was evidently poisoned by a lot of transphobic nonsense. he referred to himself as a man for almost the entirety of his life. But the issue was, that no matter what we say, we cannot know for certain how Albert identified has to be the funniest bit of erasure I've ever heard. Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

He adopted a male identity and lived as a man until he was forced to do otherwise. I see no reason to treat him as anything other than that which he wished to be treated. Athanelar (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Mathmatical proof revision

Could you please review the revised proof at User:0x48fe75df30/drafts? The first paragraph is the original proof and the second is my adaptation. Please check whether my wording is natural for English speakers and point out any unclear or imprecise parts. Thank you for your time; I look forward to your feedback.

English is not my first language; my proficiency may only be at level 3 (as per Wikipedia's Babel user classifications). Should there be any errors --- be they lexical, grammatical, collocational, related to sentence construction, or otherwise --- please do not hesitate to point them out, and I shall endeavour to correct them.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand none of that math but the English seems ok. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 04:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An additional question is whether the revised proof is clearer, whether its notation conveys meaning effectively, and whether its logic is coherent.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The quality of the proof is immaterial, as Wikipedia is not the place to post it; unless there is a particular article you intend to include it in? Athanelar (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar:These proof are part of the arcticle Heine theorem

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@0x48fe75df30 Hi there!

Wikiproject Mathematics may be able to help you out, but before you go there: is the original proof from an existing article, and are you wishing to replace it? I just want to confirm the purpose here is to help build an encyclopedia before I scrutinize the logic of the proof, which is something I can help you with. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MEN KISSING:Yes. The original proof appears in the article Heine theorem and I seek to clarify its details and replace it.

Thank you for your attention.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@0x48fe75df30

So, some of your modifications to the proof are good things, I like that you're splitting it up between a sufficiency part and a necessity part. Some of the changes are not as good, though, like you could probably incorporate the part about $\mathbb {N}$ more smoothly. You also shouldn't have a bit that says something like "Noted by editor", since that's a self-reference, see WP:SELF.

There's some problems with both the existing proof and your modified version, like the heavy use of $\exists$, $\forall$, and $\implies$ symbols. It's better to use plain text for those concepts.

You would want to say

For all $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $\delta >0$

instead of

$\forall \varepsilon >0,\exists \delta >0$

There's probably some more fixing up to be done, but even though I'm studying mathematics, I'm not quite up to speed on the best practices for including proofs in Wikipedia articles. I'd recommend that you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs for some detailed guidance on including proofs in articles. You should also make a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs, where you can get attention from some more experienced users in writing proofs for Wikipedia.

I hope I've been able to help. Have a lovely day! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 01:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

However, if a ---note by editor cannot be used, how should one word a note to clarify that $\mathbb {N}$ denotes the positive integers (as per WP:SELF)?

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You could say something like:

"For $n\in \mathbb {N}$ (defined as the set of integers greater than zero) ..."

or perhaps:

"For nonzero $n\in \mathbb {N}$ ..."

or, you could avoid bringing up the symbol $\mathbb {N}$ entirely by just saying something like:

"For positive integers $n$ ...".

Also, this section of MOS:MATH may be of interest: MOS:MATH#Natural_numbers. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Article review

Hi folks. I created an article recently on an, in my view, notable Bengali poet, singer and composer, called Roopchand Pakshi, which as far as I'm aware, is still in the New Pages Feed and remains unreviewed. After some feedback, I made certain changes to the article as well (incl. addition of verifiable sources). I obviously understand that reviews are random and can take upto weeks or months, and that I can't or shouldn't request/rush reviews. Keeping all that in mind, is there an approximate duration that I could wait before the article got reviewed, or is there a way to speed up the review process without disrupting the system? Would love some insight! Dissoxciate (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look at the article, and the overall structure are good. However, some of the sources may still not fully satisfy Wikipedia’s reliability and notability requirements, especially for independent secondary coverage. That could be one reason the review is taking time. New Page reviews are handled by volunteers and can take weeks or longer depending on backlog. At this stage, the best option is to keep improving source quality and clarity and wait for a reviewer to pick it up naturally. ButterflyCat (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of over 15,700 articles at WP:NPP.

In any case, there's no rush for your article to get patrolled. It will be indexed on web searches if it's not patrolled within 90 days anyway. Athanelar (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Чому невинні люди страждають і помирають

? ~2026-83974-1 (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate suggests that this is Ukrainian for "Why do innocent people suffer and die?" -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

всі страждають і вмирають. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for help adding photograph and biodata (COI declared)

Hello,

Im Roshini Marian,

I am assisting Lt Gen Ramesh Halagali (Retd.) with his Wikipedia biography and I am declaring a conflict of interest.

We are looking for help from an experienced Wikipedia editor to:

• Add a properly licensed photograph (the subject himself has released the image under a free license and can provide permission if required) and his own biodata which is correct
• Submit factual, well-sourced updates via the article Talk page in compliance with BLP guidelines

Could an experienced editor please advise or assist with handling the image permission and requested edits? ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

People describing themselves as experienced Wikipedia editors are likely to respond to this, offering to help (for a price). Ignore these offers: these people are likely to defraud you or to be incompetent. Talk:Ramesh Halagali currently has no conflict of interest declaration. Add it. Then you should add discrete, well-referenced requests to that talk page. (The photograph is a minor matter; it can wait a little.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest declaration

I am associated with the subject of this article and am assisting him. I am therefore declaring a conflict of interest and will not make direct changes to the article. I am requesting that any suggested edits be reviewed and implemented by independent editors if appropriate. ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested edits: biographical details

I would like to request the addition or clarification of the following factual, non-promotional biographical details, supported by reliable sources:

• Senior Indian Army appointments held by Lt Gen Ramesh Halagali (Retd.)

I request independent editors to review and add these if they meet Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality standards. ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ~2026-83254-3. You can make requests by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-83254-3/Roshini Marian. In addition to the advise you've received so far, you might also want to consider registering for an WP:ACCOUNT if you're planning to make COI-related edit requests on behalf of Ramesh Halagali. A registered account could help avoid confusion and make it easier for others to feel comfortable in assuming they're interacting with the same person each time an edit request is made. The identifiers for unregistered accounts, I believe, can change due to a variety of reasons even when it's the same person posting. You're not required to register for an account, but it could make things go smoother. You might also consider asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India since those are the two WikiProjects most likely associated with articles about Indian generals.-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 07 February 2026

Hello, I posted an extended-confirmed–protected edit request on the Talk:Dadvan Yousuf page (07 February 2026) proposing a sourced, outcome-focused addition to the Career section. As the article is protected, I would appreciate it if an extended-confirmed editor could review the request and, if it meets policy, help implement it. Thank you very much for your time! Vienerrko (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Vienerrko You posted the request, but didn't post the request template with it, so it will not attract attention. I'll add it for you. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

GG, thanks Boss Vienerrko (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirect Lars Knudsen

The Lars Knudsen redirect currently points to Danish researcher Lars Ramkilde Knudsen, but there is also Lars Knudsen (producer). Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? I don't see a primary topic. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures, so I don't know where and how to raise this. ~2026-84735-8 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes it should be; Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Richard Yeend

Moved from User talk:Richard Yeend

Please help me with... Hello,

if you can help me it would be much appreciated. I am 80 years old and have registered with Wikipedia. I understand the criteria, that individuals are discouraged from submitting personal pages, and you are recommended for guidance. I have prepared an outline (sandbox) with information and relevant references, but need able advice. I hope to hear from you, many thanks in advance

Richard Yeend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Yeend (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't type like an 80 year old. Also, didn't a TA also claim they were 80 yesterday? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 14:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please avoid posting such ageist nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

[I am unclear why this was moved here, in the middle of me replying to Richard on his talk page.]

Your question is the only edit you have made using your new account. Where is the sandbox you have prepared?

I have left some useful introductory links, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Task center

Hi again :) Apperantly there is a task center with a lot of great ways to help out and improve articles (which is great), but is there a way to check the task as done?✔️ Or should i just write in the talk pages of the articles i corrected that i did so? Many thanks in advance, and a happy weekend to all wikipedians 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you are talking about newcomer tasks, just remove the tag—the orange box that states the problem with the article/section—if you fixed the problem completely. If the problem that the tag refers to is still in the article, leave the tag for someone else to find and finish fixing the article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response ill make sure to do that 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Btw... when i remove the tag, should i mark it as a minor edit? Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't, but that is your decision. The definition of a minor edit is ambiguous. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again 🙏 Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't however remove the orphan tag as you did here [11] when the article was still an orphan. See WP:ORPHAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to pay extra attention to better learn the definitions and avoid future mistakes✔️ Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

After reading as you suggested, i added content to other related articles, also added links to that related article group in order to unorphan the article, it would be great if you could tell me if i did it the right way, if it's not much to ask... 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 If in doubt, don't mark something as minor. Putting "minor", when it really wasn't, can in certain cases make you look dishonest. Forgetting to put "minor" is far less likely to be serious.

I'm pretty sure the basic standard is that minor edits are ones that don't change the meaning; the problem is that two people can look at the same edit and disagree about whether it changes the meaning or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, and i guess removing a tag is actually quit meaningful, ill avoid minor edits in general.

thanks for all the guidance!

😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I make changes in a locked page

If I swear major/locked page I can't make changes but someone else can after I point it out in the talk page how do I do it Stanjik (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Any locked page in general but i wanna know how a person can directly edit it not just ask permission in the talk page Stanjik (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

By having the permissions necessary to edit those pages. For example, extended-confirmed permissions allow a person to edit pages that are extended-confirmed protected. Athanelar (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice thanks man Stanjik (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Edit requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the CTops alerts, I'm a bit concerned they're looking at the Russo-Ukrainian war, castes, or Indian milhist. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

MLCad

 Courtesy link: Draft:MLCad

The following sources discuss it beyond just passing mentions:

1. Clague, Kevin (2002). Lego Software Power Tools With LDraw, MLCad, and LPub. Rockland, Mass: Syngress. ISBN 978-1-931836-76-0.
2. Wilcher, Don (2004). Lego Mindstorms Mechatronics. New York London: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-141745-7.
3. Sato, Jin (2002). Jin Sato's Lego Mindstorms: The Master's Technique. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-886411-56-2.
4. Mendes, Daniel; Lopes, Pedro; Ferreira, Alfredo (2011-11-08). "Hands-on interactive tabletop LEGO application". Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACE '11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 1–8. doi:10.1145/2071423.2071447. ISBN 978-1-4503-0827-4.

I think it passes notability no doubt. Shall I move it into mainspace? NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 16:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering there is even a doubt about notability, you should probably submit it for review. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I read the most accessible of those four sources, that being #4, and this is the entirety of what it has to say about MLCad:

MLCad is a Computer Aided-Design (CAD) system for building virtual LEGO models.It utilizes four viewports, each providing a di↵erent view ofthe 3D model, as depicted in Figure 2. Both perspective(non-editable, only for visualisation) and orthogonal views(for editing purposes) are supported. As expected, beingCAD-based, it does not suit all users, in particular thosethat are not acquainted with the paradigms of typical CADsoftware. Thus, as our tests will show, it hardens learningcurve for building virtual LEGO models. It integrates theLDraw3 open-source parts library, which is widely used bythe community of LEGO aficionados. Bricks are displayedin two browsable panels, a list of brick names (textual) andanother with their previews (graphical). Unlike most LEGOapplications, the environment of MLCad does not provide anauxiliary grid, and there is no restriction for the position ofthe bricks. Regarding manipulation of bricks, translationoccurs in a plane parallel to the selected orthogonal view;while rotation can be executed in any of the three objectaxes (roll, pitch and yaw).

I wouldn't exactly call a paragraph's worth of discussion in the context of comparing it to a different piece of software significant coverage; if the other three are much the same then notability here is quite shaky. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

In the case of the first source, it is one of the subjects of the book. The other two appear to discuss it a lot, both mentioning it over twenty times. There are a few more sources I didn't list that aren't as significant but still have sections on it. I'd say the source which you quote is probably the least significant of the ones listed here in terms of coverage. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What are the relevant guidelines for this content dispute?

This isn't meant to be a sob story but I could have sworn there was a guideline about how to challenge edits contructively-- i.e. to be specific and not blanket revert. Obviously this is frustrating for any editor and I appreciate that we work off of consensus, but I just wanted to check that I'm handling it correctly.

Upon realising that the article had serious problems pertaining to WP:V and WP:NPOV, I began rewriting Thuggee three weeks ago, leaving a notice on the talk page in a discussion with two other editors, linking to my sandbox, and leaving extensive notes on my rationale for other editors. I received two 'thanks' for my rewrite. However, an editor is now uncomfortable with the scale of edits and apparent lack of discussion and wants to revert everything back to the original, pending a discussion. I appreciate that this should be discussed at length in the talk page but I don't know what the appropriate procedure is regarding the extant content. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I think it was an essay I was remembering. Joko2468 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Athanelar (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah thank you very much, that does counsel some restraint in reverting. I think the essay might have been Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

In-person help

I am having difficulty understanding responses I get to questions on the talk page because they are often cryptic or use wiki jargon without a simple explanation or link, so it is not helpful to anyone attempting to expand a stub article into a full article without great familiarity with wiki protocol and technical operation. Is there a way to connect with a person in my hometown that knows the technicalities so I can work directly with them, and if so, how do I make contact with them? I realize the answer is likely to be "no" given the nature and purpose of wikipedia. Emanresu0 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Social for details of how to find meetups. Also WP:MENTOR - you may find a mentor willing to work with you over video conferencing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the questions you've asked before, you seem to have been given relatively straightforward answers.

If you want to expand C.W. Kim without publishing your changes to the article itself, the easiest thing to do is to copy the entire article and paste it in your sandbox at User:Emanresu0/sandbox where you can take as long as you like to work on it bit by bit. When you're done, simply copy the new article from your sandbox and paste it back over to the main page at C.W. Kim. Athanelar (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

How I become a auto confirmed user?

can you please tell me? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dedicated Volunteer PAK, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since your account is more than four days old, and you have made more than 10 edits, you are autoconfirmed. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to open a Wikipedia Tea House in Kot Addu, Punjab, Pakistan? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Teahouse is not a physical location, but rather this online page for asking questions. If you want to create a physical Wikipedia Teahouse in your location, we do not help you with business or other non-Wikipedia-related matters, but if you want to use Wikipedia branding you might want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation for licensing. However, Wikipedia is censored in Pakistan, so you probably can't open a physical Wikipedia-related store there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse exists only as a web-based community space? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Formally, yes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I, in the United States, can answer questions in the Teahouse from people in Europe or elsewhere, which would be impossible if it were a physical space. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Totally agreed,

Thank you for the quick response Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Pages on One Piece Characters

Why is there no pages for the individual characters from One Piece themselves? Well technically yes, there is pages for all of the Straw Hats (Excluding Jinbei), but I thought there would be more pages dedicated to One Piece characters specifically. Is it a copy-right issue, or is it possible but people just haven't attempted to do it? Rocksdteach (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have very strict Notability guidelines that spell out what can be included here. We wouldn't create a separate article for every single character listed at List of One Piece characters unless they met the notability guidelines on their own merit. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Individual characters I get wouldn't make the notability guidelines, but would specific events from One Piece constitute needing their own page, like War of the Best or the Raid on Onagishima? Rocksdteach (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Raid on Onigashima* Rocksdteach (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Would a specific event from One Piece merit its own article? Well, is the event notable? And even if it is notable, does it not fit within an article of broader scope? (Today's FA is Master Juba. This includes a section on Juba's tour of England in 1848. The section clearly demonstrates the notability required for a standalone article. But it has no need of a standalone article, as the description fits comfortably within the article Master Juba.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible edit warring?

More advice would be appreciated. This BLP, Trovador Ramos Sr., was added to the cleanup list. I removed a significant amount of unsourced material that appeared to rely on personal knowledge. There was pushback, and most of the cleanup was subsequently reverted. I understand this is fairly common. I’ve started discussion on both the article talk page and the editor’s talk page, and I’m wondering what the usual next steps are to resolve situations like this before moving to dispute resolution.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Quote: "the personal life was removed but it should be added back because it's important." Nope. The claimed importance of unreferenced material about a living person is no reason to retain the material. See, and feel free to cite, WP:BLPRS. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Are there exceptions to self-promotion

If an editor, claiming to be a scientist (using real name), adds references in which he/she is a co-author to a WP article relevant to his/her work, then is this a violation of WP:PROMO? Are there any exceptions? If there are no exceptions then what is the correct course of action? Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 00:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE is the policy, but self-citing is allowed if the citation itself is beneficial (just like any other citation). This usually falls into COI noticeboard territory if the person uses their work to usurp otherwise reliable sources or is trying to focus on themselves, not the source. GGOTCC 01:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this makes sense. A.Cython(talk) 01:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython, I have been editing for almost 17 years, have written over 100 new articles and expanded thousands. I have made 118,610 edits. In all that time, I have cited my own published work just once and mentioned myself in an article just once. Self restraint is best. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is how it should be. The question that I had was what happens when I spot someone else. How do I judge this? Andy Mabbett provided some good sources for me to start reading. A.Cython(talk) 13:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cythonn It must be assessed on a case by case basis. What is being achieved by adding the source: promoting self, promoting the thing written about, verifying a fact in a neutral manner.

The keyword is promoting. Adding any material to any article by any editor for the purpose of promoting things is never appropriate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT and (in some cases) WP:CURATOR are also relevant, as are WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. The key thing to ask is: does the edit help Wikipedia, or harm it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, these sources are very useful. A.Cython(talk) 14:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes

How can I find and add info-boxes to my user page?

Thank you!!!

~AmericanIrishman AmericanIrishman (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You can always start at Template:WikiProject Userboxes navbox, or make your own, or steal one from someone else! GGOTCC 01:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You add a particular infobox to it in the same way that you see it successfully added to somebody else's user page. (Use of the source editor may be needed.) Be careful not to add an infobox only intended for articles: doing so may make your user page resemble an article, which is grounds for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be confusing WP:INFOBOXes with WP:USERBOXes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to remove a dead link?

I recently removed 2 dead links from Obizzo III d'Este, because there was no article for them in English wikipedia.I do not have an account, is this okay for me to do or is my edit going to be reverted? Does it have to be reverted? ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A red link on Wikipedia is a link to an article which does not exist yet. If the article does exist, it appears blue. For instance: Blue and Blueeeee. A dead link is a weblink which no longer works. For instance, a link to a YouTube video which has been deleted. GGOTCC 01:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

it still didn't answer my question if it's acceptable for me to remove them without having my edit reverted ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

also, they were for articles that were deleted but no longer exist in the English wiki. That's why I removed them ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the article Rinaldo I d'Este [probably a mistaken title, see below] or Niccolò I d'Este ever existed in en:Wikipedia? (I quickly looked for evidence for either, but found none.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You removed redlinks, as they are called, with the extraordinary edit summary Removed dead links, theze articles do not exist on tge English wiki. Please do not revert my edits, what I am doing is contributing, this isn't vandalism. So please, I beg you, do not revert my edit. You changed "Rinaldo and Niccolò" to "Rinaldo and Niccolò". Redlinks are common in en:Wikipedia. Do you find them unsightly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs)

@Hoary: Please sign your comments. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the greatly needed reminder, Mikeycdiamond! -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Rinaldo I d'Este" is a mistake for "Rinaldo II d'Este". How about changing the pair to "Rinaldo II d'Este and Nicolò I d'Este" (and possibly adding other languages if the respective articles exist)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

And the direct answer to the question is "no, red-links are usually acceptable and even encouraged unless the target article actually existed and then was deleted via WP:AFD." See WP:REDLINK. But Hoary's suggestion about adding a {{ill}} pointing to a page that exists in another language is often even better. DMacks (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-85528-0. In addition to what's been posted above about WP:REDLINKs being OK under certain conditions, the same also applies to WP:DEADLINKs; in other words, links shouldn't be removed just because they're red or dead but should looked at more closely to see whether they can be saved in some way. If you're not sure how to do this, just leave the link as else for someone else to sort out. I also strongly suggest that you refrain from leaving edit summaries like "Please do not revert my edits, what I am doing is contributing, this isn't vandalism. So please, I beg you, do not revert my edit." because such edit summaries are pretty much always never viewed postively by most members of the Wikipedia community. You don't need to beg for your edits not to be reverted; just do you best to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having an edit reverted by another user isn't the end of the world and often provides an opportunity to learn something new. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Need assistance on submitting a video game article

I have been trying to submit an article for a video game release in the past couple months, and have been rejected multiple times. My draft article is here: Draft:Yakuza Kiwami 3 & Dark Ties

Per the latest comment, my article apparently does not meet the criteria for notability, which I fail to see how it applies. My understanding is the reviewer may be assuming the article falls into the Remake/Port category, which is only half correct, as this is a dual release containing a remake AND a new spin-off title, the latter of which I believe should fall into the Sequel category, and thus warrants a distinct article.

There is also the matter of my article being deemed "too soon", even though this title comes out in less than a week, and there are numerous video game articles about titles that don't come out for months from now, or years even. I fail to see how my article is being singled out for this. From my perspective, it seems unfair. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @The boss 1904! The draft reviewer declined your draft because it needs better sources. Sources need to be reliable, meaning we can trust them to tell the truth because they have a history of doing so, independent, meaning they have no connection to whatever the article is about and do not care about it (for example, an interview cannot be used as a source because the interviewer is directly talking to the subject of the article or the subject’s creator), and in depth, meaning they spend a lot of time and attention talking about what your draft is about, and don’t just mention them in passing.

Often, what happens is that little to no sources that meet all requirements can be found or do exist. This means that it is WP:TOOSOON for whatever the thing is to have an article of its own. It’s not a matter of ‘how long is it until the game comes out,’ it’s a matter of ‘is this subject important enough to the world at large that we can find enough sources to write an article on’. There’s no set time limit for it being too soon; it is about the sources and the sources only.

As for why WP:NOTABILITY applies, notability applies to everything in Wikipedia draftspace and mainspace. Granted, there are different types of notability such as the categories you were talking about, and as to which of those this should be placed in, I don’t know. But notability of some sort still applies, no matter what.

I hope this helps! Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused: how are interviews not eligible as a source when virtually most video game information come from the developers themselves doing interviews with the press? I have worked on a lot of video game articles in the past and this is the first time I have heard of this being an issue.

The sources I used are all video game news sites, and I do not find them to have any issues with conveying the truth. Granted, this is my own anecdote so it may not apply as well, but the sites I use do not seem to have any bad history. And all of the articles I used feature the game in question as the primary subject, so I believe I should not have any problems here.

I do see that there is a potential problem with some of my sources simply listing press release information. So if I can find better sources that convey the same information from these press releases without using the actual text, then it should be good? The boss 1904 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Interviews aren’t eligible as a source because you’re hearing what the developer wants you to hear about the game: ‘This is the greatest game we’ve ever made,’ ‘it’s awesome, you guys are gonna love it,’ ‘it’s the leading video game in its genre,’ et cetera, a bunch of promotional stuff. What we care about is what people who don’t care about the game have to say about it. If you want, you can read WP:INDEPENDENT for more info.

Me personally, I don’t tend to work with sources that much because I find them to be a lot of work (which is why I haven’t created an article and most likely never will), so I don’t have first-hand experience with exactly what does constitute a source as reliable and trustworthy, though WP:RELIABLE goes into depth about it if you want to check it out.

I don’t think you have any issues with WP:INDEPTH, I agree. However, what does listing press release information mean? (Sorry if I sound obtuse asking, I’ve just never heard that phrase before. Do you mean just what various publications have said about the subject, or dates of release?)

Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 03:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

When it comes to video games, a lot of information about the development process is done via interviews, so I find it hard to avoid this source entirely. I get your reasoning, but I also try to make sure none of my articles veer toward that direction; at most I include the developers' explanation in their own words as to why they approach certain design decisions and/or how certain aspects of the game works. Which, I don't believe would be as accurate if you hear it from third parties.

Regarding the "press release information" bit, I did do another read on WP:INDEPENDENT, and it mentioned that press releases (or news articles that simply contain press releases) cannot be used as an independent source, which admittedly I did use a couple of for the purpose of supplying basic information about the game and its content (e.g. new features, story premise, cast members, etc.) I was wondering if that might have been a reason my article didn't get the approval. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. That definitely might be one of the issues. And, yeah, if you can find a better source with that information, I think you can use it. As for how you’ve been using interviews as a source, I’m fairly certain that’s okay, but I don’t know for sure; you’d probably have to ask an editor with more experience with creating articles than me or read any policies we have regarding interviews (if they exist that specifically, I don’t know where.) Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 03:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you find a publication that gives all the same information as the press release, then it IS from the press release. Some publishers just disguise it better than others.

But if you find a much bigger story with a ton of other information that obviously never came from that press release, and it just happens to have some of the same stuff, that's different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The boss 1904, your draft has not been rejected. It has been declined which is a very different thing. Rejected means that the draft will never be considered again. Declined means you are invited to improve and resubmit the draft. What is required are references to multiple reliable sources entirely independent of the upcoming game and its developers that devote significant, in-depth coverage to the game. This is mandatory, and notability guidelines are, well, just guidelines. That degree of coverage is much more likely after release of the game than before release. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a breaking news site and striving to be up-to-the-minute with topics of borderline notability is not a Wikipedia goal. Including poor quality sources is not a good idea since quality is far better than quantity. Five excellent sources are much better than 20 mediocre sources. Poor quality sources waste the time of reviewers and may confuse them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction; English is not my first language so I could not tell what the difference here. I guess I could see the reviewer's reasoning, but I was more confused due to a lack of clarity as to which sources were deemed poor-quality. That and the constant stress on the article being "too soon" due to the games not being out at the time of writing, even though from my understanding WP:TOOSOON is a wholly different topic. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that they really did mean WP:TOOSOON - that there wasn't enough independent material published. And in this case, WP:TOOSOON might be partly because they weren't out yet.

For quality of sources, there's a useful summary at WP:42. The best sources are not just good in one way; they're good in several ways at the same time, and that may cause some confusion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The boss 1904, you cannot expect overworked volunteer reviewers to give you an individualized point by point analysis of each one of the 14 references in your draft. You have been informed that your references do not demonstrate notability. It is up to you to evaluate them one by one, remove the weak ones, and find more high quality ones. If problems with your English skills interfere with your ability to write acceptable articles, please consider writing for the Wikipedia version for the language that you speak best. Cullen328 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but I cannot help but feel your response comes off as very condescending. This is the first time I've written an article that has been scrutinized to this degree, so naturally I would expect a bit more detailed guidance on how to get it right, rather than taking shots in the dark on my own for longer than I should. And I do not appreciate a premature assumption of my English skills simply because I cannot tell the contextual difference between two very similar-meaning words. The boss 1904 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe Cullen's making an assumption of your English skills, but is responding to your indication that English not being your first language left you unable to tell what the difference here. Cullen being rude would be extremely out of character; I think it's just a case of being direct, and suggesting to you a possibility if your English fluency makes you uncomfortable with some of the details. English is a patchwork language, with a lot of internally inconsistent rules, pronunciations, and spellings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Because you have access to an unreleased video game, it is possible that you have some sort of paid relationship or a conflict of interest. I'll add that if you're being compensated in any way (you're an employee or an intern of the video game company, or it's your client), you entered into a legally binding obligation to declare your association when you created your account. As such, you are expected to learn all the relevant policies here, and know how to write good articles, without requiring help from overworked and unpaid volunteers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In every language, to understand a personal message, you have to understand their tone and how their message fits the context. When we're all reading words on a screen, we're forced to guess about some of that. It's not easy at all.

-

To me, Cullen's message seems friendly and genuinely helpful. He's not rejecting you, and to me he seems "the opposite of rude". He does say that if English is making it difficult for you to do these things by yourself, it would be better for you to find a Wikipedia that doesn't force you to use English. And he leaves it open, so that if your English really is enough for you to do these things by yourself, then that's good.

I've been in situations before when I thought "I can 'get by' with my skill level, it will be OK", and later discovered "I didn't expect these other requirements". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I appreciate all of you for helping me with this. I am not used to this level of bluntness so the explanation does help to make me understand better. The boss 1904 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggested Edits: removing promotional content vs. starting a talk-page discussion

Hi all 👋

Quick question on Suggested Edits / Revise Tone: if I come across clearly promotional content, is it okay to remove it directly (even if it’s substantial), or is it better to start a talk-page discussion first? LionmerterTHE (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to link to where the promotional content is, just to confirm? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias Example Jô LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's flagrantly promotional (throwing around words such as "legendary"), I remove it; if not, I err on the side of caution. The promotional junk will disappear fairly quickly, one way or another, and a dispute over whether or not I was too hasty in deleting it would risk wasting more time. (WMF Growth team and WP:Growth Team features are new to me and I haven't read either.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Usually it is pretty much "legendary" etc. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

With this edit, we learn that A very curious fact that demonstrates Jô's huge change of conduct was seen after the confirmation of Corinthians 2017 league title when he literally refused a cup of beer on the pitch celebration. Who says that it is a "curious fact"? Do reliable sources call this beer incident a "huge change of conduct"? Literally? How would he have figuratively refused a cup of beer? This is bad writing for many reasons. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Lol LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Should I make a list

Hi, I am Lutitium and I was wondering if I should make a list article about list of coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs. There are at least half a dozen or so places that have coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs like Louppy-le-Château but the idea seams a bit silly.

Anyways bye :D Lutitium (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lutitium, and welcome to the Teahouse. List articles, like any other articles, are only acceptable if the subject is notable - which mostly means that there are multiple reliable independent sources about the subject specifically - so in this case it would mean articles or books about the subject of "dinosaurs in arms", not just about particular instances.

Having said that there is some unclarity about the criteria for lists, but I doubt that your example would satisfy anybody: see WP:NLIST. ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have discovered an inaccuracy on Wikipedia: How to report?

How do I report the inaccuracy? The page is sadly protected. ~2026-86103-6 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You usually should be able to use the corresponding talk page of that article in order to request other editors to execute such edits on your behalf. Toarin (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please use the edit request wizard to propose a change. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

How do i correctly nominate modules for discussion?

When i try to nominated Module:Transcluder for discussion it shows up as Template:Module:Transcluder so how do i correclty nominate so that it shows up as its actual name? ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What tool did you use to make the nomination? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

National Test House

The National Test House is a premier scientific organization established in 1912 under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. Government of India. The main function of the organization is testing, evaluation and quality assurance NTH User (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NTH User, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You don't ask a question above, but I guess this is about your draft User:NTH User/sandbox, which has been declined for lack of references, and likely used of an LLM.

Please note the following:

• A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. If you cite no sources (and in particular, no sources that meet the criteria in WP:42) then your draft has no chance of being accepted
• Judging from your user name, you have a conflict of interest in writing about this, and may further be what Wikipedia regards as a paid editor. Please read those links carefully to see how to proceed.
• 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) 14:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Live update on edit count in text

Hello, I've been trying to put my live number of edits on my infobox. Is there any template/page for this? ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Carf EN, and welcome to the Teahouse

The full list of "magic words" you can use in this way is on WP:Magic words (for some of them there is a template that wraps them up, but I believe it usually expands to one of these).

You'll notice that there is nothing like "editcount", and I remember reading that this is intentional, as the amount of processing it would take if a lot of people put such a magic word on their user pages would be substantial. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

And, in any case, someone who wants to see your edit count can just check your contribs page. No need to duplicate it on your userpage. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

but i want it that way ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 17:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I want a million dollars and a pink pony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

-.- ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 18:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you Know?

Can anyone explain why todays dyk is entirely about william and mary’s college? FranticSpud (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FranticSpud. Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 211#A William & Mary spectacular . See also WT:DYK#A William & Mary spectacular is ready to roll

. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

How should actor stub infoboxes be structured?

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia and learning how actor stub articles should be structured. I was looking at a few examples and noticed Wesley River's page has a pretty bare infobox compared to other actor articles. Is this formatted correctly for a stub? Or is there anything else that should typically be included?

Thanks! Someideasco (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The infobox used there is {{infobox person}}. An infobox can have as much of as little info as there is available, and it seems like there just isn't that much to say about River. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! That makes sense. I appreciate the help. Someideasco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no difference between infoboxes for stub articles and non-stub articles, just put as much information as is cited. It looks bare since the image is quite long, and there's no date of birth or place of birth. If that's public information, you can add it (making sure it is cited). Can't figure out what else this kid could possibly have in his infobox lol. Note that infoboxes are a contentious topic so just be careful and don't fall into edit warring territory. jolielover♥talk 15:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

lol true. Thank you for the quick reply and guidance :) Someideasco (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Chlorurus frontalis

The article Chlorurus frontalis is rated as Start class but it seems to meet all the B class criteria. Can anyone please reassess it? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You can reassess it yourself if you believe that to be the case; there's no special permission needed to rate things on the content assessment scale, only for GA/FA. Athanelar (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the advice! TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RATER is a useful tool for making and/ or applying ratings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:ASSESSREQ would be the forum for that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for Malayalam sitelinks

Hello,

I have created Malayalam translations of the following English articles:

1. Family Guy → ml:ഫാമിലി ഗായ്
2. Jeffrey Epstein → ml:ജെഫ്രി എപ്സ്റ്റീൻ
3. Dark humour → ml:ഇരുണ്ട നർമ്മം

I’m unable to add the interlanguage links because the articles or their related Wikidata items are protected, and I don’t yet have the required permissions.

Could someone please guide me or help add the Malayalam interlanguage links?

Thank you very much. Jaisonll799 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer issue on BLP new article

Hey folks - so I have created a BLP for british director, Draft:Nadia Latif. Previously there were some concerns about the number of secondary, reliable sources. While I acknowledged that and have built up a number of sources that meet requirements, I do have one link to WP:STANDARD which is no-consensus on whether it is high or low quality. Overall, I feel what I've included (w/o the Standard article) is sufficient against guidelines in terms of WP:RELIABILITY (2 academic articles on the director's work, 3 non-primary source articles), and WP:NOTABILITY - the director has 1 consideration in british film/tv award, her directorial debut (film) has an independent wikipedia page - The Man in My Basement, she contributes for The Guardian. The issue I am having now is I understand the first reject on the BLP, but the second reject (different editor) seemed to find their own reason for rejecting the BLP. This was by stating that she was not listed in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies (see here). The DNB is only used for deceased individuals. I gave a comment to the reviewer on their talk page, and they immediate became hostile, refused to accept the mistake, and stated that I was lying about their review (see their archived talk page - discussion here). I tried to be frank, stating that it was clear that they could not admit fault, and I was telling them they should NOT use the DNB when stating reasons for rejecting the significance of the BLP for this review or in the future. They then said I was previously hostile on help page (unfounded and untrue).

Can you please advise on how I should (1) stop/limit engagement with this editor (they asked me to stoptalk) (2) how/if I can report this reviewer for not following review guidelines. It's a failure by the reviewer to say they are not significant because they do not appear in a dictionary of deceased british people. I feel the way I communicated was simply straightforward, and not hostile. I think its not a fair assessment and I think this user needs to be warned not to apply an incompatible rule / standard when evaluating BLPs. Abs145 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your message is very confusing. You say you have a "link" to WP:STANDARD, but that page is a remedy in cases where someone is about to be blocked. You say someone has asked you to "stoptalk", but that isn't a term I've heard of. So ... could you please restate your question in a simple way, and make certain it's actually a question rather than a list of statements? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry the link should be here: WP:THESTANDARD. I'm not sure either what that meant, but user linked this WP:TALKPAGE. My question is (1) did the person fairly ask to me to stop editing their talk page? Is the talk page not the venue where I would flag to a user that they are using improper criteria for notability? And (2) Can (and if can, how) I report a user for an improper/unfair (however you want to phrase it) review? Abs145 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Which review was a problem?

That person does have the right to stop you from using their talk page. In my opinion it would probably be best if you completely avoid that person and never look for any information on them. They will do whatever, because you're paying no attention. Let someone else deal with them instead of you; they're unlikely to listen to you even if you did contact them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If there was truly an issue with the review, wouldn't that have been picked up by the review of submission you did? The other main participants of that review of submission were an admin and a highly experienced AFC reviewer. The reason 11WB talked about the DNB was because one of 3 criteria for meeting WP:ANYBIO is that the person is in a publication like the DNB. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I refused to continue engaging with this editor due them coming to my talk page to force me to admit to a mistake I may or may not have made 4 months ago. (See this). I, as I would have done to any editor, directed them to WP:AFCHELP. They have previously sought help from there, as can be read here. They were increasingly hostile during that discussion and would not except that the individual in their draft was not notable. @TooManyFingers hasn't met me on the project before, and it is a shame they have been misled by this editor.

Just to make this clear again, I am aware the ODNB is for deceased individuals only. I quoted WP:ANYBIO and applied that for my review, not the ODNB. This is the specific diff for those who wish to read my decline comment. I really hope this puts the topic to bed and that @Abs145 is finally happy with the result, now that the draft has been accepted. I said way back in October they were able to move the draft to mainspace themself as AfC is optional.

@Abs145, this is going to be the last time I address this directly as this situation has caused me to become stressed. You have accused me of hostility, when I haven't been hostile at all. You have accused me of conducting AfC reviews improperly, which isn't true. You have violated WP:ASPERSIONS with your comments on my talk page and here. I really hope this can be a learning opportunity. Please think about the implications of what you say to others. This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not here to be subject to this type of behaviour. 11WB (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What is a Userbox and how can i add one?

ive been on some peoples users, and a lot of them have like, "this user is a proud native person of [country/city]" or "this person can speak [language]". I was wondering how i can get those on my account, as i feel it would help people have a better understanding of me than just my user page text. Thanks. Lunar Kitty174 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical for more information. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lunar Kitty174, welcome to the teahouse! Userboxes are boxes that people put on their userpage. The link ArthurPlummer provides works, but Wikipedia:Userboxes allows you to directly search for them. To add them to your userpage, you need to add the template to your userpage. For instance, in order to add {{user en}} to your page, you should copy and paste {{user en}} onto your page. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In source mode, unless it also works in visual mode. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on some brief testing, pasting in {{user en}} works just fine for the visual editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the notice. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty thanks Yall! Lunar Kitty174 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, you can always come again, as we have plenty of tea left. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)