Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

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

Article Ideas for Creation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any interest in biology?

User:EmergentAnarchy/Species articles I have a list of species I'd like to make pages for (mainly plants). Feel free to take some. There's also loads of lists of plants and genus pages with redlinks. List of the largest genera of flowering plants has thousands between each list. And extant eukaryotes are inherently notable. EmergentAnarchy (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah weird.... Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah I mean people who haven't heard of weezer still might check them out if they hear they're inducted into stuff -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 21:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

we just joking with you Userbox-man (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The main article associated with this event has to be of sufficient quality (sourced throughout, no plagiarism, neutral etc); I assume the album is the main article, it's GA so probably meets that criteria. It probably is fine for OTD. Add it to May 14 & OTD, when it gets closer to the date someone looking at the queue should (theoretically......) do a double-check just to be sure. It's another year now lol. Also, OTD is like, the least monitored place of the main page, from my experience. I've seen many worse, hardly cited articles appear, and sets are rarely swapped out year to year so we get the same events over and over. I tried to extend my hand but got pretty busy due to a war. Anyway my ultimate point is that from my experience, I was struggling finding new events with well-cited pages. So anything's more than welcome. There was the 'notability' thing some people believed in (not even really enforced) but with how few articles there are to the point where there has to be repeats in most sets, I think this is the last priority of OTD right now. Good article + variety, imo, most important. jolielover♥talk 08:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

alright! thank you :) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

is it possible to block anyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@UselessAccount20 Your reply is not very WP:CIVIL, and neither is your first reply in the question just before this one. We here are trying to help. Your question is not entirely clear, partly because most editors are not administrators, and only administrators can "block" editors from editing in Wikipedia. So you won't be able to block anyone. Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and being kind in discussions always helps that goal. David10244 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Is it not possible for me to ask any questions?

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

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

Hello again, @UselessAccount20.

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

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

Is this article even true at all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made this edit: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Nice one! the edit removed the battles mentioned, but now comes to the article itself, and whether it should exist or not, ive already discussed this on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military History, and one of the users, @Hog Farm, said that he has already " listed the redirect for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 17" SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hog Farm had already edited the article by adding a notability tag on the article, SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

fastest way to find categories

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

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

Hi @UselessAccount20: if you're not yet using HotCat, you might want to give that a try. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Can it be used on mobile devices, or do I just have to use it in a computer? UselessAccount20 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be used, with difficulty, in "desktop view" on mobile, but not in "mobile view". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

UselessAccount20, I'd dissuade you from attempting to "categorize any article that needs categories". Better to limit yourself to articles in a single subject area. When you've moderately familiarized yourself with the category tree(s) most helpful for that (and thanks to this have sped up somewhat), consider adding a second subject area. (Ditto for a third, etc.) And be sure to read and digest Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

i think I'll do my own thing, thanks

I'll read the Wikipedia articles about categories, but I'd rather you not stop me from doing what I truly want to do UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Please read WP:CIVIL. David10244 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I am not trying to escalate this further, but like how is it uncivil to say that

Like there's an editor trying to discourage me from doing what I want, and I feel like that just ain't fair, I can find out by myself what I should do when placing categories in.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

David10244 asked you to read the civility guidelines because while not the most uncivil thing ever written what you wrote was certainly dismissive and rude, Also you asked for advice with categorization and Hoary gave genuine good faith advice(also good advice to boot), to which you replied in the aforementioned manner. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

what I was asking is that if there were a better way to place categories instead of finding them manually, and the editor didn't seem to completely answer my question unfortunately..

Rather, they were just saying that I should do something else.. that wasn't any advice related to if there were a tool that could find categories, like at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20: Sometimes the answer that you think you want is not the answer that you need. As a very new editor, you really need to work your way up, practising basic editing skills before trying things like categorisation. WP:TASKS breaks down the kinds of editing tasks available in order of experience. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I am continuing to contribute via categories, and I seem to be doing quite well in my opinion...

I'll read that article later, but let me do what I want.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

And I also don't see what I am doing to contribute is a problem to basically every host in the Teahouse.. UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

fastest way to find articles that need categorizing

okay so I am still continuing my journey to help with categories, however it is getting tough finding articles that needs more categories, so if anyone has a easier way of finding articles that needs categorizing, then be my guest UselessAccount20 (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Silesian Railways

Take a look at this article. It is very long, and doesn't seem constructive. I assume it was machine translated from its Polish article, possibly by an LLM or something like Google Translate. After looking at the article's authorship, it seems that it was expanded by a now inactive user named KolS AHK just under one year ago, they made 85% of the contributions to this article, which accounts for over 135,000 bytes or over 108,000 characters.

Could I possibly delete all of this information? I don't think leaving it as it is for another editor to fix it up is a good idea, as it has been left that way for almost a year. So, what do I do? Fortek67 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you can go ahead and boldly delete the parts of the article that seem excessive or that are poorly written. If you think some of the information is important, though, and is sourced, I would leave that in. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My new file

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.

---

My new file :D

SoGuys881 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

SoGuys881, you identify that logo as your "own work". Are you the graphic designer who created it in 1997? Are you the copyright holder? If not, what gives you the right to freely license and upload this image? Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, and I got this from logopedia SoGuys881 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Treehouse TV made it SoGuys881 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

so not me SoGuys881 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

When you uploaded this to Commons you legally declared that you are the creator of this image and are the legal copyright holder. You then declared that, as the legal copyright holder, you released the image for use on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons licence.

If you do not hold the copyright for this image, you've violated copyright law and need to get this deleted from Commons urgently. You've also caused Wikipedia to violate copyright law, by having this image on our website without permission from the true copyright holder. Please do not upload any more images that you do not own the copyright for. Blue-Sonnet 18:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Treehouse TV is pd and Corus is pd SoGuys881 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you know their logos are in the public domain? Can you clarify? Blue-Sonnet 18:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You keep using those words. I don't think you understand what they mean. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Corus likes pd

pd = public domain

treehouse tv is pd SoGuys881 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(PrincessBrideIDoNotThinkItMeansWhatYouThinkItMeansImageMacro.jpeg) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That does not mean that everything that they or their employees does is automatically in the public domain. What about the designer they hired to create this logo - what happened to their copyright? You need to give specific proof that this exact logo is released under the public domain. Blue-Sonnet 18:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It was created by me SoGuys881 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that Treehouse TV commissioned you to create this logo in the 1990’s? You're the person who designed this logo? Blue-Sonnet 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Corus made it SoGuys881 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So by what you're saying, these logos are copyright violations and should be removed wholesale. I doubt that the logo for Treehouse TV is underneath the threshold of originality and the logo for TVO kids is quite obviously over that threshold. You're thus misrepresenting their copyright status. Mind mulliganing on your public-domain claims? (I strongly suggest reading the linked article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another file is thumb|100px SoGuys881 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop uploading files that you do not own the copyright to. Blue-Sonnet 18:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Since 1997 and 2009 are years SoGuys881 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

🙂I created these 2 files SoGuys881 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@SoGuys881: If they were created by essentially copying the old logos, then the copyright remains with the person who originally created those logos in 1997 and 2009, not with the person who converted them into computer-readable image files. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated them for deletion, please do not remove the deletion tags - that will happen after the discussion is complete. Blue-Sonnet 18:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

thumb|100px SoGuys881 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop this before it becomes a conduct issue. Sanctions come quickly on this kind of thing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to notify this thread I have opened up a case on Commons. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone and nominated this file for deletion. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

How did you missed my comment below and the template on the file page and the messages "This page was kept after a deletion request. Please contact the user who kept it before re-nominating.

Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treehouse TV 1997.png– that links to this page." when you went to nominate it for deletion? 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 13:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Please note that while the uploader did upload some copyright violations the original file at the start of this section is pretty clearly below threshold of originality (there have been different variants of it uploaded to Commons and used on Treehouse TV page for years before) and the discussions above started on false terms. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That still doesn't excuse the TVO Kids or Disney Channel logos, both of which are still clearly over the threshold and both of which were posted here as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that doesn't excuse making false claims or accusations. Maybe those further files would never have been uploaded if there wasn't so much nonsense being said. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 13:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Error during image upload

Hello, I am facing an issue while uploading images from my PC. It says "You don't have permission to upload this file". Can you guide me on this, what makes me eligible to upload an image on my draft article. Bhavishjan (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bhavishjan. This usually means that you are not autoconfirmed - either your account is not four days old, or you have not made 10 edits.

At present you have made 15 edits, but when you posted this question it was your thirteenth edit. I don't know when you tried, but is it possible that it was before you have made your tenth edit?

Note that images will not play any part in getting a draft accepted. You may add an image to Draft:Akhuwat_College_Kasur, but I advise you to spend your time finding the sources that are absolutely necessary to establish that the college is notable - sources where people wholly unconnected with the college have chosen to publish significant material about the college in reliable publications (see WP:42). At present, you do not have a single independent source, and there is no chance of your draft being accepted.

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. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

What ColinFine says above. Also: What would make you eligible to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia for use in a draft would be a credible explanation either (A) that the image is in the public domain (in the legal sense of this term) or (B) that the person (whether you or somebody else) who owns its copyright has copylefted the image in a (very permissive) way that is acceptable to Wikimedia (Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, etc). (As the image is for a draft, no claim of "fair use" would be relevant.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Inactivity vs death

Bit of a morbid question and I'm sorry for that, but how do wikipedians know the difference between a wikipedian who has died and someone who has just been inactive for a long time Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

As a general rule, there needs to be some form of external confirmation for a Wikipedian to be marked as dead, either from a close family member or friend or from an obituary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If nothing is given and they just... disappear, they are marked as missing, if they said they were leaving, they are marked as retired, if proof is given that they are dead, like Jéské Couriano said above, they are marked as dead. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats all very sad. Thank you Starlet and Jéské for your answers Goetia [She/They] (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I find this sad too, The Ars Goetia, and sometimes struggle with not knowing what's happened to someone. See User talk:Iryna Harpy#Is there any news on Iryna? for a case in point. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I'm very sorry for your loss I hope Iryna is still alive and just inactive, but it doesn't seem so, I'm new here and I already wish for the wellbeing of many people I've met here. I can imagine how hard it is to not be able to say goodbye or even know if you needed to say goodbye. What a sad thing Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:DWG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you in turn, @Goetia, for bringing up this question. I've had a similar one for a while now, which I'd like to piggyback on yours because it's related. My question:

Are there designated individuals or a group in the Wikipedia world who could receive word of the news when an editor dies? When I went to the guidelines that @Andy Mabbett added — WP:DWG — I didn't find anything specific about that, although there is a Project Members tab.

If there is a designated place to contact, and it could be shared Wikipedia-wide, it could save a lot of guesswork and time on the part of not only editors but also our friends and families. We could include it on a list of our wishes for what should be done when our time comes.

By the way, Goetia, I didn't find your original question morbid at all, considering that passing on is a natural part of life's journey, even if teary. Augnablik (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, mostly close friends of the editors who know personal information about them and are either contacted by the families or contact them. Or people who put the puzzle pieces together and find someone deceased matching the Wikipedia identity, and then verifying with family. jolielover♥talk 07:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Article class upgrade?

Could the Soviet space dogs article be upgraded from C to B class perhaps? I've been working on improving it for some time, In my opinion it meets the criteria for a B-class article now, but since I've made lots of changes to it I might be biased, so I wanted to ask for other opinions. I know I could just update it myself without bothering to ask, but that feels... weird, so please let me know if you think it's okay to upgrade it! Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vicccqh7 There's nothing weird or biased about changing or updating articles even if you're the OP or just an improver. If you think an article meets a certain criterion be WP:Bold and make the change yourself. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 00:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's also not judged very harshly (I've many times seen quite blatant class-fraud, it's common) and no one will fault you for getting it 'wrong'. jolielover♥talk 08:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

For an article to reach GA-, FA-, and I think A-class (which is rarely used), the article must judged by others. I would be more hesitant about upgrading from C to B than say Start to C due to the more strict criteria, but it is also not too grave and, like Jolielover said early, you will not get reprimanded for it if you get it off. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I also do know of an editor that was blocked who was blocked for mass class fraud at the GA-level (I think there were hundreds of articles affected) but that was a very extenuating case. I doubt you would do anything like that, so I would not worry too much. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course not, I just wanted to upgrade one article, I wouldn't do something like that cause to me it's just... why...? Anyway, thanks for the reply! Vicccqh7 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Content assessment on Wikipedia

Hi there. I have recently contributed a moderate amount of content to KakaoBank. I see that it is WP:ASSESSed as a stub right now, reflecting its state from several weeks ago. I was wondering, is it poor form for an editor to assess an article to which they have contributed significantly, themselves?

I have gone over the content assessment criteria, and I feel that KakaoBank is currently probably WP:CCLASS. Although I have not yet looked at other financial articles in great detail, I suspect there are probably notable gaps in discussion and/or areas where an additional graphic would be helpful, which prevent the KakaoBank article from reaching B-class. But it would be great to get a second opinion on this, before I even consider assigning my first content assessment grade.

EDIT: I see now that my question is very similar to @Vicccqh7's, just above! Sorry about that. Still, I'd appreciate a bit of individual feedback here, if possible. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is no inherent issue with editors reassessing articles they have worked on between Stub, Start, C, and B-class. If you think it matches C-class then you can change it, at a quick look it has expanded beyond a stub. CMD (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, thank you for the quick reply! I shall reassess it to C-class, for now. NeuroJasper (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If an article is decently long (1500 bytes of actual written text is a common guideline) it's generally best to remove the Stub tag and reassess it as something higher, yes. I would recommend using the WP:RATER script for helping to judge this, too. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the recommendation! I have just installed the WP:RATER script to my custom js page. I gave it a little test, and it seems intuitive enough to use. Thanks again. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

Hey, sorry for asking on the English Wikipedia. But is it allowed to be an editor of the Russian Wikipedia anonymously?

On Russian Wikipedia, articles can be created by anonymous users. I usually create them for redirects. On here I often have to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. That is why I made Геймовёрс on the Russian Wikipedia redirect to Glitch Productions (but English Wikipedia has an article, Gameoverse.) I am not fluent but I do use dictionary resources like OpenRussian and Wiktionary and machine translation (i.e. DeepL.) Also, I have to use a word declension tool (СловоРул or similar), a grammar website, and a dictionary. I'm pretty good at reading Russian Cyrillic because I can pronounce some words in my head. I frequently look at Russian Wikipedia articles, and even English Wikipedia for Russian phonology. I am not Russian or from Russia, but I use a variety of resources to study it. If you can, can you relay this information to Russian Wikipedia translated into Russian? Sorry for asking about Russian Wikipedia here. But i do know a few words and continue to learn with dictionaries. I've been an anonymous user, but I plan to edit the Russian and English Wikipedias. Does it matter if an English Wikipedia editor also edits other languages' Wikipedias or creates redirects, if their grammar can be fixed. I may have broken grammar in non-English languages. Sorry if I asked here. Thanks ~2026-29694-34 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate you asked this in good faith, ru.wp advice is out of scope for the English-language Teahouse. We don't know what their policies, standards, and practices are, and it would be foolish for us to blindly assume them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Edits to various fungus articles

Hey there! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this (I apologise if it's not), but thought it couldn't hurt to try. In patrolling recent changes, I've found a TA making edits to various articles, particularly articles of different fungi. I have found similar past edits under a different TA identifier in some of the article histories. I think the edits may warrant removal based on a lack of citations provided in making them, but I don't know enough about fungi and the content in the edits to evaluate more thoroughly. I wanted to ask if users more familiar with fungi and the general formatting of fungi articles on Wikipedia could review the recent edits. To save on the length of this message, I'll hold off on listing the articles in case my request is more appropriate elsewhere. If the Teahouse works, I can list them in a reply. Please let me know, and thank you for any help anyone can give. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 01:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pikkupapupata, welcome to the Teahouse!

It depends on what the TA is doing and what sort of information they're adding. I'm not much of an expert on fungi either; you might want to bring it up at the talk page of WikiProject Fungi if you aren't sure. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 03:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

The TA in question has been blocked now with their edits reverted, but there are identical edits from another TA earlier in the month that I think should be reviewed (in some instances, they were adding unsourced information about some fungi being edible, which is what raised my concern most). I will visit the project page and see if I can ask for some assistance there, that is an excellent idea.

Side note: fantastic username.

Thanks for your help! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced information that says a fungus is edible is so dangerous, I would recommend removing it right away. If you want a second opinion on that, I'd be happy to take a look (am a biologist though not a mycologist)--you could put the TA or a list of affected pages on my talk page. M kuhner (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, and thanks! I'll make a post right now. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I brought this to the attention of the admin who blocked and reverted the first TA, and they have dealt with this one as well. Hopefully that's the end of the matter. Thank you for bringing this up! M kuhner (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh awesome, thank you so much for helping! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 23:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Translation of the German wiki about Euphrosine Aue into English

Dear all,

Last week I translated the German Wiki about Euphrosine Aue (de:Euphrosine Aue) from German to English. This was rejected the first time around as the subject apparently did not meet Wiki's notability criteria; a decision I found curious, given that a German Wiki about her already exists, and that I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue, who was one of the few women I know of who wrote Latin verse in seventeenth-century Prussia, and was certainly a celebrity in her time, as witnessed by the numerous funeral orations printed in her honour.

I subsequently revised the article by finding new secondary literature, as well as reading the various funeral orations that were delivered about her, adding to the English draft details that are not even in the German version. Logging on today though, I have found that the second draft seems to have been deleted without any further commentary. Again I find this difficult to comprehend: why is someone with a Wiki in another language not notable enough for English? And what were the reasons for deleting my second draft?

Yours sincerely,

SK Samkenn2 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The German Wikipedia, in some areas, has very different policies than the English Wikipedia. They encourage the use of accounts that represent a business, whereas that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia, for example.

You have no deleted edits from your account; did you create it under a different account? 331dot (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and apologies - I have since found the second draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Euphrosyne_Aue). I am still getting used to the backend of the site, hence the error. Samkenn2 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I was given to understand that a certain leeway might be permitted to historical figures typically underepresented in scholarship such as Aue I'm not sure who gave you that impression, there are no special considerations or exemptions to the criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BlueStaticHorse, you declined the translation on grounds that secondary sourcing didn't indicate notability. The draft appears to have very substantial sourcing. Would you be able to elaborate on your grounds for believing this sourcing is poor? I must admit I'm struggling to believe she's not notable. For a 17th Century female poet to have any work still extant, or to be remembered at all, is quite unusual. Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can i remove stubs?

Hello, while i was looking through a List of Wisconsin units in the American Civil War, I saw that some articles have their service been expanded, but the problem is, I see that there is still a stub for these units, can i remove them incase they've been expanded? Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can reassess them and remove the stub tags if they’ve been expanded. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Biography Question

Hi! I was browsing a biography article and came across a inaccurate timeline. Will somebody please lead me through the process of editing a biography timeline? Thanks and have thebest day :) :) :) QueenBeeeeee (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you link the article that you’re asking about, and/or specify what kinds of changes you’re hoping to make? Right now I’m not clear how to answer your questions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, there are a few but let me check back. Oop, now I have another question. Thanks SomeoneDreaming QueenBeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Help editing page

Need help editing page ~2026-29969-73 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific. Wikipedians are not mind readers :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 14:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please check out Editing or Introduction to editing. This should also be relevant: Contributing to Wikipedia. Also, remember to use common sense. Since you did not specify any pages, I have left you with these links. Happy editing! BoxOfThings123 (The inside and the outside) 16:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation Needed, curious

As I am still new to editing wikipedia, I occasionally will use the randomized button on the wikipedia app just to read something new and different, but to also see if there are any articles I come across that I could edit. I am constantly seeing the [citation needed] and I guess I was just curious, is there a general or acceptable amount of time that the citation needed tag would be in place before the information should be removed? Tacotyler (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tacotyler. No, there isn't. Many tags stay forever, because it is much quicker and easier to tag an article than to fix the problem (whether by finding a source, or by removing the information). (And I've often been guilty of "drive-by taggings" myself). ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tacotyler. You can remove unsourced information at any time. A "citation needed" tag is useful when you believe the information is likely to be true and think it deserves to be in the article, but don't have the time to look for a reliable source yourself. See WP:BURDENWAIT for an explanation. 🍅 fx (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Tacotyler, it is important to use good editorial judgment in such situations. Unreferenced content that is implausible or that violates our policy regarding biographies of living people should be removed as soon as you discover it. If the content seems plausible and useful, please attempt to find a reliable source verifying the material and add a reference if you find it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiProjects project resources.

Is it allowed and possible to create a page in a WikiProject with recommended relevant sources as a project resource? LumenArchivorum (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. I recommend you ask other members of the WikiProject if they think it would be useful before you go through the effort, though. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@LumenArchivorum We do what you are suggesting at, for example, WP:CHEMISTRY. Not all Projects are active, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Files for improvement

Is there anywhere like articles for improvement for files? I've noticed that File:Mobile Phone Evolution 1992 - 2014.jpg has high encyclopedic value, contrast, and general technical quality, and I would say is almost featured picture material. However, the one thing that brings the image down is those dreadful shadows around the first half of the phones that show where the old image was stitched with the new ones. I know it is a Commons photo so I'll probably need to ask on Commons, but where? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is commons:Commons:File requests. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FloblinTheGoblin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I suggest C:COM:GL/I. ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot @ColinFine Thank you both! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 18:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Graphics Lab. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo of the Year 2025

I am wondering why a photo taken in October 2023 was eligible to be included in the entries for Photo of the Year 2025? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_29.jpg I also object to the photo in general. A photo like this needs to be put into its correct context, Israel's response to a horrific masacre perpetrated against Israeli citizens, only days before this photo was taken, with over 250 hostages, inlcuding elderly men and women, children and babies. Is there a better place for me to voice my complaints than a "Teahouse" which really should be reserved for friendlier questions? Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DaringDonna. I suggest looking at C:Commons talk:Picture of the Year. Your questions may be answered there, and if not, you can ask there. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not editorialise or 'contextualise' these images in the way you would like it to. I'm not sure why your response to a horrific image of urban destruction is "this really needs a disclaimer so people know it's justified." Athanelar (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No, my question was, why is a photo taken in 2023 eligible for a 2025 photo contest? DaringDonna (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

My page and adding to draft

Hello, my page John Sheehan (Gaelic Footballer From Kerry) is currently in the AfC submission queue and shows a warning that it should be moved to Draft namespace. I’m not autoconfirmed yet, so I can’t move it myself. Could someone please move it to Draft:John Sheehan (Gaelic Footballer From Kerry)? Thank you! Randomjejejene (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:John Sheehan (Gaelic footballer). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 20:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Randomjejejene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so extraordinarily difficult to do successfully that you are strongly discouraged from trying it - see autobiography

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.

In order for there to be an article about you, it would have to be a summary of what several independent reliable sources said about you: not you or your club or the organisers of Gaelic Football, but people unconnected with any of these; and they would have to have published about you, not about your team or particular games. Having found several such sources, you would need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself and your career, and write a summary of only what those sources said.

Your current draft does not appear to have a single source which comes anywhere near the criteria, so it has no chance of being accepted. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

hello there Colinfine, please do your research on the differences between a autobiography and biography. A autobiography is a account written by you about your own life and a biography is you writing a account of someone elses life. I submitted my draft as a biography so therefore did not write about myself thank you, Randomjejejene (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Randomjejejene. I apologise. I misinterpreted "my page" as "my article about me". ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Basic process clarification

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Bike fitting

Ive been trying to create a page defining Bikefitting as a topic. The content is simple and accurate but I cant seem to get it passed off and none of the comments left by those blocking its publication really help me understand what the problems with the article is. Is there a simple to understand guide for us newbies to help us create simple and obvious topics such as this one. Hidden Nation (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Your first article has guidance on writing articles, but given that you're a very new editor, it's really better to get some more experience in other areas of the encyclopedia before you try writing new articles; precisely because it's quite a difficult task. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you just requested for the article to be undeleted; if that's approved, I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can help clarify what the issues are. Just looking at your talk page, it looks the first decline was for sourcing. That means that while it might be a simple and obvious topic (in Wikipedia terms, it might be notable), you need to include more high-quality sources that back up the things you're saying. It's hard to give more specific feedback without seeing the article, but if you'd like, you can leave a comment on my talk page once it's restored and I'll look at it. There will be a link to my talk page after my name. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hidden Nation, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that creating a new article is not a "basic process", but advanced work.

I can't see your deleted draft, but I'm guessing that, like many new editors who embark on this challenging task, you have written what you know about the subject.

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.

The job of writing an article consists of, first, finding independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the specific topic of the article; and secondly, summarising what they say. If there are not sufficient such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've undeleted the draft. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Based on the draft, I can very clearly see why this wasn't approved. @HiddenNation: It seems like you've found at least some sources, but you also have whole sections of the article that don't cite anything. I'm wondering if you wrote this article first from what you knew about bike fitting, and then tried to find sources that match it. As ColinFine said above, that's backwards of the process that you want. If you want a better chance of having this approved, you'll want to start with the sources, and then write down only what those sources have to say.

If you've already done that--great! In that case, you'll just need to show your work a bit better for the reviewer. For each major point you're making in the article, let us know which source you got it from. (You will see articles that don't have consistent in-line citations, but it makes the reviewer's job a lot easier when you do. I'd make especially sure to do this in the benefits section. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Article Declined

I spent 5 days working my butt off to get into Wiki. I cannot meet the requirement of inline sources. I gave all I have. I give up. Malinn66 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Malinn66, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that that is a common experience for new editors who plunge straight into the advanced work of trying to create an article without first learning how Wikipedia works.

If you wanted to become a car mechanic, would you build a car from scratch as your first project? And if you tried to, would you expect to understand the feedback you got from experienced mechanics?

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) 21:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you looked at Help:Referencing for beginners? You currently don't have a single inline citation, so I'm not sure you understand what's being asked of you. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you Tommy Hunt? Only you've uploaded his artworks and described then as your own work.

If you are, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If not, he will have to give permission, per c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Am i allowed to edit while drunk

Is there a rule against this? Merasmous (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No, but it’s quite discouraged. Though, there is a humorous essay about this.. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If this is a serious question, see WP:DRUNKEDIT. The rest of us on the internet can't know if you're intoxicated, stoned, over-medicated, under-medicated, or in any other condition that affects your editing. We can see and assess what edits you actually make, and disruptive editing will be noticed and dealt with. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I am a aware of this. Merasmous (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep a notepad next to you and write down things you want to edit on Wikipedia. Or use your personal sandbox instead.

Go back to the notepad/sandbox and make the edits when you're sober to see if you think it's still a good idea.

You're probably going to miss things out, maybe misspell some stuff etc. so come back to your ideas in a few hours after you've had some sleep. Blue-Sonnet 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I help on the teahouse?

I want to help editors on the teahouse. How do I join? AZenit3 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you’re talking about being a host, you need to meet a lot of requirements like having a certain amount of main space edits, BUT you don’t need to be a host to answer questions. I myself am not a host. I recommend getting at least some experience before answering questions, however. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, where do I get experience? AZenit3 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Editing articles, reading the policies. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 23:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

oh. Well, I've done the latter a lot. Former, not as much. AZenit3 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you need things to edit try joining a wikiproject (I'm currently trying to revive Wikiproject feminism if you want) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I already participate in many. How do I find things to do within them? AZenit3 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Each wikiproject is different which ones are you in? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Military History (aviation and land vehicles task forces), Rocketry (seems to be dead, no one's done anything on the talk page since 2025), and Spaceflight. AZenit3 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If rocketry is inactive you can attempt to REVIVE the wikiproject if you want

Wikiprojects will typically have a to do list:

• Wikiproject spaceflight's to-do list: [2]
• Wikiproject Military History's to do list: [3]

If you are unsure where you want to start you can always ask on their respective talk pages Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Military history, AZenit3? Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks. Military vehicles? Look in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force for the string "needed". (What I wonder is: You say that you participate in many WikiProjects. For any that isn't moribund, how do you not find things to do within it?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't know where to find them in the WikiProject. AZenit3 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wikiproject spaceflight's to-do list: [4]
• Wikiproject Military History's to do list: [5]

Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I would highly recommend gaining more experience before continuing to respond to people. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. AZenit3 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Newcomer tasks or Wikipedia:Things to do, you can also check out things on the Community hub tab & ask your mentor if you need help.

Try to only answer questions here if you're absolutely 100% sure of the answer.

Have fun editing! Blue-Sonnet 02:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Reasoning for archiving topics on talk pages

A while ago I agreed with a user on the Hokkaido [talk page] about moving a massive table of ALL of the villages to another article or something. 3 days ago it was removed/archived without a change to the article. I still think the table should be moved because it takes up like 1/4 of the article, but mostly I just want to know why the topic was removed. Thanks! Aperture LENS (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If a discussion is inactive for too long on a page, it will usually be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Either way, I've moved that list to List of villages in Hokkaido for you. AZenit3 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much! It was removed by a user. I guess it has been like a year at this point. Aperture LENS (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

AZenit3, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia when forking the article. Please do as such, as in its current state List of villages in Hokkaido is a copyright violation. WP:PROSPLIT may also be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oooops... What should I do then? AZenit3 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The pages I linked to have guidance on what to do. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Aperture LENS. Not about your question, but you don't need to use a URL to link to any page in Wikipedia. To link to a talk page you just type [[Talk:Hokkaido]] (which displays as Talk:Hokkaido).

Similarly for project pages [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] (or the shortcut [[WP:Help desk]]) for WP:Help desk. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Does [[Talk:Hokkaido]] have the revision easily accessible? Or is there a way to link directly to the individual revision/revision history of the page? Aperture LENS (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Help plz?

I tripped Abuse Filter 1157. What does this mean? AZenit3 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Generally, tagging of socks should be left to SPI clerks, Admins, and Checkusers. This filter just logs if someone not in one of those groups tags a sock. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I was going through Wikipedia:SPI, and I saw this case was closed, and nobody had tagged the sock master User:Md. Shahid Ullah Bhuiyan, so I did it... AZenit3 (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Its best to just let the clerks handle that. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember that next time... AZenit3 (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3, you asked just earlier, #How do I help on the teahouse?, and were advised to gain more experience first (and I agree). Identifying and reporting sockpuppets is a more advanced skill than editing content, and you definitely should not try to do the work of an SPI clerk. Please take things slowly and stick to editing content in your areas of interest for now. WP:TASKS is a list of the kinds of editing and maintenance tasks that always need attention, sorted according to editor experience. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I did that yesterday. I only noticed the filter today. AZenit3 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised my above comment is very confusing.

Yesterday, I tagged that user. Today, I started the topic above, and noticed I'd tripped some kind of filter. I triggered it on 00:31, 18 May 2026, which was yesterday. AZenit3 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing sources for a song

Can Apple Music be used as reference for a new single or a song if no other sources mentioned the release of the music? ~2026-29893-73 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think so. Just don't take band descriptions from it. AZenit3 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3 Please don't supply an answer that you are not sure of. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are referring to using Apple Music to create a new article, please don't do that. Apple Music is an unreliable source due to it being self-published. Apple Music doesn't confer any notability, and, if you solely use Apple Music to create an article, it will likely be deleted. If you are referring to using Apple Music in an already existing article, I would refrain from doing that. If there are no reliable sources talking about the single/song, it is likely not worth including in the article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29893-73: WP:MUSIC/SOURCES is WikiProject Music's guide to reliable sources – there may be sources there that can help you. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

automated edit of numerous articles

The project group i am in have made many draft articles wih numerous categories, but they are not draft categories. How do i automatically make the categories draft categories? it would be incredibly tedious to do it by hand. Merasmous (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Wrap them in the {{draft categories}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User keeps deleting edits and retroactively deleting entire sections

Have encountered a situation where user has deleted verified updates to a few songwriter pages, specifically updating discographies. The discographies look like they have all been active for at least five years. Not only are the updates deleted by one user, but they have gone out of their way to delete the entire sections, despite being accurate, verified and follow all of the rules of WikiProject Discographies. When asking why they were deleted, instead of specific suggestions to "fix the problems", have been met with hostility, wild accusations of running multiple accounts (I do not) and stopping just short of "name calling", troll like behavior. How can I get these pages at the very least back to where they were a week ago? Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Who are they, and what pages? I can Twinkle Rollback them for you. AZenit3 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ilsey Juber - entire discography has been deleted.

Suzy Shinn - entire discography has been deleted.

Anthony Rossomando - discography updates have been deleted. Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you aren't sure why something has been removed, look at the edit summary. If you still aren't sure, ask the person who reverted your edit (usually on the Talk page of the article, by pinging the other person.

In this case, @Drmies has left clear edit summaries to explain why you edits were removed. Blue-Sonnet 02:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't rollback edits unless you're sure of what you are doing - they might be legitimate edits but you need experience to be able to understand that. Blue-Sonnet 02:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Either way, I took a look at the edits. The other user is established, and seems to have removed them in good faith, not to mention all of Muppetgraybies' edits seem to be flagged with potential BLP violation, so I decided against it. AZenit3 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I agree these shouldn't be rolled back and appear to have been removed legitimately. Blue-Sonnet 02:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. It's nice to know my judgement in reversion isn't fundamentally flawed :) AZenit3 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Curious why a discography should be deleted entirely when it has been on the page for many years? Seems deleting something that has been around and had multiple users updating, with verification, does not feel constructive, feels destructive.

User comments were:

"That's not how it works and you know it--you are clearly not new here", I am literally brand new to Wikipedia editing, and asked for constructive criticism to fix the issues, and accused me of burner accounts which I do not have.

When I asked for feedback, the only reply was "LinkedIn or Wikia may be the thing for you".

Re Ilsey Juber "unverified resume information. nice looking table, but how could have have "uncredited" information, unverified. " - , All Music is listed as a credible source via WikiProject Discography guidelines, can we not fix the "citation" and not just delete the entire table?

Re Suzy Shinn "this is nothing but a resume, and it's all unverified" - Again, Discographies are well within Wikipedia guidelines as acceptable.

Re Anthony Rossomando " none of this is verified and its encyclopedic value is highly doubtful. one of the two notable songs is already mentioned in the text; put the other in the text as well, cause there's no need for this resume table" - Again, completely within Wikipedia guidelines.

If I need to do something to fix the citations, would love to do that.

Songwriting and Production discographies are very common on Wikipedia and everything has met the standards of WikiProject Discographies. Muppetgraybies (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Muppetgraybies, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has huge amounts of information, and even articles, which should not be there by our current standards, either because they were created long ago when we were more concerned with getting information in than with its quality, or because somebody slipped them in under the radar.

Having been here for a long time is absolutely not a consideration in considering whether something should be removed. (For this argument in the context of whole articles, see LONGTIME). ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, appreciate the insight. Still feels like the person who deleted the updates and then after the fact decided to delete whole sections was a power move and done out of spite. But will move on. Thanks again Muppetgraybies (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Those "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tags are just because a filter was triggered. It doesn't mean they are BLP violations or vandalism. False positives happen frequently. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I still thought it was a bit unnecessary to add the entire list of all the songs they've done. That belongs more on an album's page rather than a BLP. AZenit3 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

All well within guidelines from

Infobox producer discography

WikiProject Songs

WikiProject Discographies

Producer and writer discographies link to the appropriate page (for the song or album) within the discography if the page exists, as was done so in the updates. Muppetgraybies (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You are amazingly well-informed (even if incorrectly) for someone who claims to have made only a few edits. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not well informed, but the articles for some random artists I found did include a discography, as described by Muppetgraybies. Some also have a filmography table too.

Why isn’t removing that, for the articles referenced by Muppetgraybies, vandalism exactly? ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I...

Hiiii!!! Hope yall are having a great day. If this is possible, how do I look back at my history of the articles I have browsed. Thanks :):):):) QueenBeeeeee (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or if it can be done on the site, but at least in the Android app, you can click the "Activity" tab at the bottom of the screen. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 02:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you looking for a particular page? Also welcome to wikipedia! :D Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @QueenBeeeeee.

If you mean looking at your browsing history of Wikipedia articles, I don't think believe is a way in the website version. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Aww, thanks @The Ars Goetia. :D !! And thanks for your advice @ColinFine QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a followup for how do I...

What's up @Ars Goetia? To answer your question previously, there was a specific article from India that was a musician. Unfortunately I do not remember the name. BYE :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry let me rephrase that. There was a specific musician from India, that popped up during edit recommendations. Better? Sorry about the first time. :D Have a great day!!! QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh your fine! But if you couldn't find it in your browser history and didn't edit it then I'm afraid that its unlikely we find it. Don't worry though if it was just a recommended edit just keep editing and you'll have the same impact. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok!! Thanks @The Ars Goetia!!!! Bye :D :D :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How to post a contribution

Hello, I’d like to ask about contributing content to Wikipedia.

What is the proper process for creating and publishing a new article on Wikipedia?

I would also like to know:

• What requirements does a topic need to meet before it can be accepted?
• How can I avoid my article being rejected or deleted?
• Are there any guidelines for writing neutral and verifiable content?
• Can I create articles related to a company, website, or brand if I provide reliable sources?
• Which types of references or citations are considered trustworthy by Wikipedia editors?

Thank you for your support. Tranngocanhvn (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tranngocanhvn: You should read the following first: WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMCHAT. Then, read the summary of our content and behaviour guidelines at WP:Everything you need to know. You need to read these yourself – do not try to get an AI to summarise them. After you have been editing constructuvely for a few months, you might then start thinking about creating a new article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Tranngocanhvn, what's the relationship between the subject of the article you hope to create, and yourself? -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Single-use plastic page?

I've been reading a book about single-use plastics (Plastics, Beth Gardiner, 2026) and I was surprised to see there isn't a page on single-use plastic. There is a "disposable product" page with a section on single-use plastics, but it seems like single-use plastics warrants its own page given the widespread environmental impact (esp. marine ecosystems) and efforts by the fossil fuel industry to promote single-use plastic products. There's a "marine pollution" page, but that's also different than just single-use plastics.

Should I start gathering info to make a page? Any reason not to? It will probably take me a while. I've got to finish this book and probably another one. Naturedata (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If it's really notable enough for it's own page with good sources mentioning them I see no issue WP:BOLD Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Naturedata (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Naturedata, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would guess that there are enough high-quality sources establish that such a topic is notable, and so, there could be an article.

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) 09:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, thanks. I was curious about how disagreements are handled, so thanks sharing the BRD link. Now I'll need some experience. Thoughtful discussion it sounds like. Naturedata (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I second ColinFine's advice of getting a feel for editing, but I agree single-use plastic could very easily be its own article. My suggestion would be, should you end up writing it, to make sure it's an impartial overview of the topic, including why and how it's developed and used, rather than straight criticism. I worry that sources like Gardiner's Plastic Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil's Biggest Bet would lean toward criticism and polemics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah for sure. I recognize the benefits and need so I'd find more sources. ...when I get around to writing it in a month or two. Thanks. Naturedata (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want when you start writing It I'd love to help it sounds like a fun article to make Goetia [She/They] (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool. I'll let you know once I've written a first draft. Naturedata (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No review for my Wikipedia draft

Hello,hope you are having a great day! I’m looking for help with my draft on Wikipedia (AfC submission). It has been waiting for review for about 2-3 months. I have improved the article by adding more independent sources, improving citations, and making the tone more neutral. I have also already requested a review once, but it is still not getting attention. Could someone please check if there is anything still preventing review or acceptance, or advise what I should improve further? Thank you and have a nice day!✨ Draft:Avril Herng. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your draft has already been reviewed and declined twice once on the 27th of February 2026 and again on the 2nd of march 2026 as it is not written in a neutral tone/POV and doesn't have enough reliable secondhand sources Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Goetia, thanks for your feedback. I’ve made revisions after the two previous reviews, including improving the neutral point of view and adding additional reliable secondary sources. Please let me know if there are still issues I should fix before resubmitting. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about the end of my expertise, I'm not very good at writing BLPs if you want more precise help on your draft I suggest looking for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wish you the best of luck Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all! Thanks again for the information and hope you have a great day ✨ Samanthabeth89 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You too! Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

First, on "literary style", we're told: Herng writes primarily within the mystery genre. Her novels feature young protagonists and investigative themes. Interviews have noted that her reading interests include both contemporary and classic fiction. My own reading interests are first rate. This doesn't mean that my own "literary style" (?) resembles theirs (or even that I have what could be called a literary style). What have book reviewers and others who know what they're talking about (and who aren't related to Herng or her publisher(s)) written about her literary style? Secondly, what you describe as "Author Avril Herng Official Photo" you also describe as your "own work". Can we infer that you're paid for your work in Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hoary,

Thank you for the feedback.

Regarding the point on literary style, you are correct that the previous wording may have overstated the point. What I intended to convey was simply that Avril Herng writes primarily within the mystery and thriller genre, featuring investigative themes and young protagonists, rather than making a broader claim about her literary style based on reading preferences. I will revise the wording to make that distinction clearer and ensure it reflects only what can be supported by reliable sources.

Regarding the image, “own work” refers to the fact that I uploaded the file myself and/or hold the rights or permission to publish it under the stated licence. It does not imply paid editing on Wikipedia. I disclosed my conflict of interest in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines because I am connected to the subject of the article and wanted to be transparent about that relationship. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Samanthabeth89 "Own work" means that you created the original image yourself, and you are allowing its reuse (and that you own the copyright, so that you can release it for reuse); it does not mean that you uploaded it. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Samanthabeth89 Which is to say, your "and/or" makes your statement incorrect. "Own work" does not cover the case where you simply uploaded the image and don't own the copyright. David10244 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @David10244

Thank you for the clarification. I understand now that “own work” specifically refers to the copyright ownership of the image itself, not simply uploading it.

May I ask how I should properly amend the licensing/source information in this case? Also, if it is not corrected immediately, would it pose a significant issue for the article or file? Samanthabeth89 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You should request deletion of the image from Commons and worry about it later. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images are a "nice to have", not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your connection to this young girl? I would consider very, very carefully about creating an article about any minor. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be written by an LLM/chatbot. If it is, please note that we really need editors to communicate in their own words. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated the image for deletion at commons as an apparent copyvio of this website (others exist with this image, too). JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Awaiting for a Re-review of my draft article

Hi all, I recently resubmitted my draft article Draft: Avril Herng and I am currently waiting for it to be re-reviewed. I received feedback that the sources may not demonstrate sufficient notability, even though I have included multiple reliable Malaysian news sources such as The Star, Free Malaysia Today, The Sun, and others. I would appreciate any constructive advice on how to improve the draft so that it meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for a biography. Helpful guidance is welcome. Thank you. Samanthabeth89 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

[This is a continuation of "No review for my Wikipedia draft", above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)]

The draft has already been reviewed and declined twice three times in the last 24 hours. Samanthabeth89 posted similarly at WP:BLPN in an effort to get attention, but failed to follow or accept the feedback. Plus, she has continued editing the draft despite the stated COI. JFHJr (㊟) 18:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Resubmitted at AFC. Again. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Declined again for lack of substantive improvement since the last submission. The issue here is not actually the wait time. JFHJr (㊟) 19:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Questions on a reverted edit of mine

Hello, I am new here, and I have some questions on this edit that I made on the MD900 Explorer page. I added the SRCA as a former operator of the MD900, but the edit was quickly reverted. The editor that reverted it told me that the website that I used as a source in my edit was made with Wordpress, and that I can't use blogs as sources. My questions are:

1. The website that I cited (www.aeroboek.nl) is already used as a source multiple times in the page, therefore I assumed that there would be no problem. So why was my edit reverted?
2. The website had images of the MD900 in SRCA livery, shouldn't that be enough to verify my claim?
3. There are Youtube videos showing the MD900 flying in SRCA livery, can I cite one of those videos as a source?

Thanks, YankeeZulu (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For your 3rd question it would be helpful to check out these links Wikipedia talk:Videos as references, WP:NOYT, Wikipedia:Video links

Long story short: Video links especially from youtube are very iffy Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Reverted you. Perhaps they can kindly address your first point? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

1 - aeroboek.nl is very clearly a self-published source - just look at the about-us info. Just because it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it's right. WP:SPS

2&3 - user-contributed images and videos, e.g. on sites like aeroboek, youtube, flickr, etc. are user-generated sources and are not reliable. WP:UGC 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topics

Hey my dear all respected editors i recently started taking Wikipedia editing more seriously and have been reading a lot of the important guidelines and policies. One thing I noticed after a discussion with another editor was that some contentious-topic areas require extended-confirmed access (500 edits + 30-day-old account) My account is already around 4 months old, but I still havent reached 500 edits yet...So I wanted to ask is there any issue if I complete the remaining edits more actively in a shorter period of time as long as the edits are constructive and policy-compliant? Or is there any informal expectation to gain those edits gradually over time instead of quickly? GovHP (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@GovHP: Thanks for having this question in mind. Contentious topic restrictions exist to protect the encyclopaedia, and the hope is that new users will gain practical experience by spending some time editing in less contentious areas. The relevant guideline here is Gaming the system, and § Gaming permissions in particular. It's best to approach all your editing with the goal of improving the encyclopaedia, rather than aiming to reach extended-confirmed or other permissions. In my opinion, while people might feel very strongly about certain contentious topics (that's why they are CTs), they are rarely time-sensitive, so taking the long road to EC shouldn't feel like a disadvantage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I understand your point now i dont want to rush just for permissions. Ive actually started learning more about maintenance and anti-vandalism work as well especially around vandalism detection AI-generated content and Twinkle-related guidelines. Im still editing mostly from mobile so Im trying to learn the practical side step by step first before getting involved in more sensitive areas. Appreciate the guidance. GovHP (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Article appears to be full of hoaxes

this article Saint-Avertin brings up a lot of big names, such as Thomas Beckett and Henry II. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and the article has remained this way since 2012, when this edit occured: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint-Avertin&oldid=476640411 The user who made this edit has a number of warnings on his talk page. there's no citation for any of this and i couldn't find any reliable sources backing up any of the "information". I did find some websites that make the claims, but they are of no notability and their reliabily is dubious. Do i just delete all of it? Merasmous (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Merasmous, the problematic wodge of text is rather older, dating from this edit of 2010. I'd revert the article to the immediately preceding version (a mere stub), being sure to supply an informative edit summary, and then in two tabs, or two windows, open your freshly resurrected 2010 version and the bulky version that immediately preceded it. Copy anything that's relevant, useful and sourced from the bulky version into the old stub. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No edits yet (since 12 March), Merasmous. My reply above made certain assumptions, notably that you'd understand "revert" in this context and would know how to revert. If you're baffled, don't hesitate to say so, and somebody (very likely me) will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

done Merasmous (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not done, Merasmous. All you did was revert to the sixteen-year-old version. This of course lacks the pile of junk (good so far), but also lacks constructive updates made since then (e.g. to specifying the mayor). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How to edit on wikipedia

How do you edit on Wikipedia? ~2026-30044-06 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You might start by reading and digesting Help:Introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You could also try The Wikipedia Adventure!

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to but in but yes definitely. All of this was very helpful when I first started. Welcome to Wikipedia @~2026-30044-06 happy editing!!! :D :D QueenBeeeeee (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible to Remove English Link from Interlanguage Link?

I edited the article Grand Theft Auto VI to remove an Interlanguage Link, because the English Wikipedia link redirected to the same section of the same article the link was in, potentially confusing readers. I'm wondering if there was a better way to do it, which could have potentially kept the other language links, but removed the English link. How would I do this properly? LaurenIpsumDolores (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LaurenIpsumDolores, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You could use a (deprecated) H:FOREIGNLINK, that would look like [[:fr:Zenglen|]] and display as Zenglen, though there is then nothing that shows the reader that this is going to a French article, which is not ideal.

If you do use this, make sure you start with the colon (":"), otherwise it will link the whole article to the French one and display nothing inline.

If you left out the pipe ("|") at the end, it would display as fr:Zenglen, which would have the "fr" appearing, but I suspect that most readers would not realise that that indicated the article was in French. It might be the best solution, though. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Add |display=1 to the template instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Doubt on sources for my trial reduction for my Sandbox list

I'm trying to add reliable sources for my edit requests for my proposed trial reduction of normal geography articles of WP:CT/SA as per my sandbox. Altough I've already added my citations to districts in the sandbox and reliable sources about news updates on suburban pages (Andheri, Girgaon Chowpatty, Juhu, New Town, Sikkarayapuram, Girgaon, for more see article talk page at 'edit request' section for noticing my sources I have to add for reliable), and I have to look for more better citations for other tourism articles listed in my sandbox, also states, govt. bodies/regions, cities (since Smart city or 2021 seemed incomplete or unreliable in major city articles as per the AN, I am looking for PCA or better reliable source that can be added newly), so that my proposed trial reduction from indefinite to temporary could be finalized. Also, I'm confused that for towns and cities (PCA), to add whether the main page with download links, PDF or CSV or a District Handbook. What should I have for them? Satipem (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Revert edit question

Hi everyone, I accidentally deleted an infobox in the article United for Latvia. I published the edit, not knowing about my mistake, and now I cannot undo or revert it. Can I get some help? Powerplay11 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, Please feel free to try again.

You might find it helpful to preview your edits before saving them Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to What do I do?

Hi, so I've been having a discussion with the experienced editor on their talk page, and they have told me something that I cannot believe can be true, and I would love a second opinion to understand the rules. I made one real revert (what I consider a revert) and second one, which I thought was just a mistake on their part (I did not realize that red links are sometimes allowed, so I removed the link). They reverted three times.

They then said that "all of your edits [my edits] would be considered reverts" and "Removing content is likely considered a revert." They then gave as an example an edit that someone had made in August of last year, which I deleted. Is this really a revert? I think it would be so onerous to have to go back through the history for nearly a year to figure out if I'm allowed to edit it or not... Slava570 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:REVERT, Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, so removing content is technically a 'revert' of the edit which added it, yes.

However, I'm not really sure what you mean by I think it would be so onerous to have to go back through the history for nearly a year to figure out if I'm allowed to edit it or not... If you're allowed to edit what? Athanelar (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Meaning, I deleted something, and then it turned out it was added to the article nine months ago. How far back in the history of the article do I have to go back before I can delete something? Or are just all deletions reverts? I think that makes it very difficult to edit. Slava570 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Specifically a revert is an edit that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. Can you please provide a diff of the edit in question? I will say that it's really best to err on the side of caution here and not argue with other editors about whether what you did was a revert but if you post a diff of the edit in question I would be happy to give a third opinion. There is no time limit over what counts as a revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as you're not engaged in an edit war, there's nothing wrong with removing content, as long as you have the proper reason. The other editor you're dealing with shouldn't object to you removing some content that was added by a third, uninvolved editor nine months ago. Yes, it is ultimately a revert, but no, that revert isn't a problem. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Scottish Rugby Union Logos

Could someone please help update the Scottish Rugby Union logo. The current logo doesn't have the trademark 'R'.

The updated logo can be taken from Scottish Rugby's website here: https://scottishrugby.org/wp-content/themes/scottishrugby/assets/img/logo.svg?1234

Thank you. Christiancannarellasru (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure question before submitting a new article

I am a new editor considering submitting an article through Articles for Creation. I have a professional relationship with the subject — I do website development and maintenance for him — but I have not been specifically compensated for creating their Wikipedia page. Before submitting, I want to make sure I use the correct disclosure template. Should I use {{paid}} or {{connected contributor}} given my situation? KlipperNate (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Connected contributor. Paid is used when you are paid to write the article. Connected is used when you have some connection to the subject, like you.CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, users who are (or who expect to be) compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing repetitive info for closely related species

I am new to the site, so apologies if this is a silly question. I am planning to expand the article of a species that is within the same genus of a species whose article I recently worked on. I would like to mention in both species' articles that they have spiral-shaped large intestines. Would it be gouache to cite the same source on both species' articles, or should I cite a unique source for each species? Babacoote (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now realized that I said gouache instead of gauche. How gauche of me. Babacoote (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Babacoote.

If the source specifically confirms the information for both species, then by all means cite it in both articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the ceasefire in the 2026 Iran war actually only de jure a ceasefire and it is de facto a limited war?

I meant that just like in the infobox of the Wikiepdia article of Gaza war, the 2026 Iran war is de jure in a ceasefire, but de facto is in a limited war. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Same with the 2026 Lebanon war. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Make sure to mention Greater Israel in the 2026 Iran war, Gaza war, and the 2026 Lebanon war. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, anon! The Teahouse is a place to get general help about editing Wikipedia--topic-specific questions like this are better asked and answered at the talk pages for the articles in question. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not in this circumstance. I imagine those talk pages are already abuzz with XC users thrashing out details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské CourianoAlso, i wrote it in the 2026 Iran war and 2026 Lebanon war but it was removed because you have to have a certain experience in editing in a Arab-isreali conflict articles. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské CourianoSo we’re gonna discuss i here on the Teahouse. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I want to edit articles that are random or articles that are in different topics. Like, Arts, Sports, Entertainment, Games, etc. Is that possible or allowed? 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, as mentioned above you are allowed to edit different topics. If you want to find a article in a specific topics you may want to look through articles listed under that topic. If you just want a completely random article you can hit the random article button, should be ALT X if I remember correctly. Happy editing! - Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @7SecondSurgery, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It certainly is. But please remember the fundamental Wikipedia principle of verifiability. You should not add information just because you know it is true: you need to be able to support this by citing a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I'll remember that. Thanks! :) 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not letting me make redirects

Wikipedia isn't letting me make pages. It keeps showing a "Your First Article" page and it's frustrating me. Why does it keep making me see this? MrDNERAD (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MrDNERAD, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your account is not yet autoconfirmed, so you cannot create pages in article space, even redirects.

Once you have made ten edits and your account has existed for four full days (96 hours) you will be able to.

In the meantime, you can propose a redirect using the redirect wizard. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Shawn Tibbitts I'm a new editor trying to get help with article focus

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m working on Draft:Shawn Tibbitts. I’m not sure whether this counts as a conflict of interest, but I have been to his restaurant before and I posted on the draft talk page that I know the restaurant owner. I’m trying to be careful and follow the rules. One editor said the draft was unclear because some of the coverage was more about the restaurant than the person. I revised the media coverage section so it summarizes what sources say about Shawn Tibbitts’ background, cooking, and community work, instead of listing media mentions. Could someone please advise whether the draft is now better focused on the person rather than the restaurant, and whether there are any obvious issues I should fix before resubmitting? I’m not asking anyone to approve it, just looking for guidance as a new editor. Thank you. Tacomamarket (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

An odd proposal that I'm not sure is possible but here goes

Would it be possible to add another tab for articles called 'Forums', where people can discuss the article subject without violating WP:NOTFORUM? Currently the biggest forum site is Reddit and they've been involved in a myriad of controversies. Accessible, free forums that don't take all of your personal information would be genuinely huge for a lot of people. Plus, there's a large amount of edit filters and precautions already, so the need for constant moderation is very limited. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This would be better for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This would be unlikely to get support. Most editors specifically want to avoid turning Wikipedia into social media or anything resembling it, especially since it wouldn't help with the collaborative environment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is what's termed a "perennial proposal", DollarStoreBa'al. Please don't propose it yet again, at least until you have read, have carefully considered, and are able to concisely and persuasively refute "Allow discussion about the topic of the article" (a dismissal of the proposal). -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s why I didn’t push further. I didn’t actually know about those but I did eventually find them and saw how common it was. Honestly, I kind of expected this to go nowhere, but tried just in case. Also, this is just me signed out because I’m too lazy to sign in on my phone. ~2026-28001-91 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined for appearing AI-generated — request for feedback

My draft at Draft:Klover Products, Inc. was declined in January for appearing AI-generated. The original was written by a freelancer I hired, and yes, it probably was AI-assisted. I rewrote it myself and it was declined again for the same reason. I'm an engineer by background. I'm starting to wonder if the way I naturally write — organized, structured, fairly clean prose — is just going to keep tripping the AI flag regardless of who actually wrote it. A few things I'd appreciate honest input on: 1. Is there a realistic path forward for this draft, or am I better off waiting for more independent coverage to accumulate before trying again? 2. If experienced editors look at the current draft, what specifically reads as AI-generated versus just well-organized? I'd genuinely like to know what the tells are so I can either fix them or accept that my writing style isn't going to clear that bar. 3. I have a disclosed COI as an employee of Klover Products, with the {{Paid}} template template on my user page. I'm submitting through AfC. Is there anything else procedurally I should be doing? Thanks for any honest feedback. I'd rather hear it's not going to work than keep spending time on submissions that get declined. PdTerp (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

In order:

1. You're probably better off stripping it down to the studs and starting from scratch, with an eye to WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of your sources appear to be routine coverage, which doesn't help for eligibility. I'll likely do a Bastard Helper From Hell assessment as a follow-up to this post.
2. We have an entire page dedicated to explaining how AI unwittingly outs itself as an author. I'd recommend giving it a read, then looking back over your article. I will say the promotional tone does not help (as AI tends to be at best vaguely laudatory of the subject).
3. No, you're doing what you should be doing in that regard.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

As promised, the source assessment:

• https://www.kloverproducts.com/ - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://www.npr.org/2014/10/25/358662327/from-the-stadium-to-your-stereo-behind-baseballs-biggest-sounds is a non-sequitur. The source itself is about sound production for live sporting events and would likely otherwise be a poor fit for this article anyway.
• We can't use the PDF of the website (copyright violation). The article itself wouldn't help for eligibility (wrong subject); a review of a company's product is generally not going to be considered coverage of the company proper.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/07/10/fox-sports-revamps-mlb-all-star-production/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop of one of Klover's products, no discussion of the company.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/07/10/the-mlb-all-star-game-promises-sound-surprises-for-all/ is a non-sequitur. I will note that it's very likely all these non-sequitur sources were provided by the AI as sources to support the article out of a mistaken belief that they'd be acceptable. AIs understand as much about how Wikipedia works as I do about the inner workings of a Dyson sphere's power-generation mechanics.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2012/10/04/turner-fox-gear-up-for-mlb-postseason-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2014/10/22/world-series-sound-is-all-about-more-microphones/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/07/14/sound-for-recent-u-s-opens-promises-new-approaches-for-postseason-baseball/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/03/17/a-9-in-parab-to-capture-the-music-of-march-madness-audio/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). This article is more about sound production at sporting events; neither Klover or the parab the article is ostensibly about are discussed overmuch.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/10/05/mlb-postseason-preview-three-networks-gear-up-for-big-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/07/13/politeness-pays-off-for-canadian-onfield-audio/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop via product, no discussion of Klover. (noticing a theme?)
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/09/15/football-sound-improvements-are-incremental-now-rather-than-monumental/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/content/entry/2399/when-it-comes-to-parabolic-mics-larger-is-not-always-better looks okay.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/09/08/nfl-continues-to-extend-boundaries-in-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/03/03/march-madness-promises-tons-of-sound/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• We can't use https://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews/250000/klover_products_celebrates_successful_ibc_debut (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). This appears to be some form of native advertizing.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2024/01/12/nfl-playoffs-2024-broadcasters-to-bring-out-their-audio-games/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.ibc.org/create-and-produce/klover-pushes-parabolic-pickups-for-social-distance-reporting/5838.article is 404-compliant (redirects to website homepage).
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/10/06/mlb-postseason-2021-tbs-preps-for-big-sound-wild-card-game/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://www.sportsvideo.org/2015/09/04/fox-sports-readies-encore-other-enhancements-for-nfl-coverage/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Klover.
• https://wisconsinlife.org/story/meet-the-janesville-microphone-maker-capturing-kicks-and-goals-around-the-world/ is fine.
• https://sites.duke.edu/ddmc/2022/10/24/audio-engineering-society/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject) and is otherwise borderline as it is effectively a listicle.
• https://www.radioworld.com/tech-and-gear/parabolic-microphones-for-radio doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Review of a specific Klover model; no discussion of the company proper.
• https://www.broadcastbeat.com/klover-products-even-the-audio-playing-field is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page).
• https://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2018/07/klover-parabolic-collector-microphone.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Review of a product, perfunctory discussion of the company.

You have two usable sources. The AI did you dirty by pulling up a tonne of sources that hardly discuss Klover or its products. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input.

Would this be considerd a worthwhile source?

https://www.ibtimes.com/klover-mik-parabolic-microphone-changing-game-3779471 PdTerp (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@PdTerpI don't know. Your message dosen't describe what Klover Products, Inc. is. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Any citations for ru sib

Hello. I am Arenghtqru888, and I have a draft for Siberian Wikipedia. So far, my only citations are the discussions to delete and close the article and wikipedia of ru-sib. I'm pretty sure 4 citations are not enough. Is there any other sources I can use? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

We cannot help with matters unrelated to the English-language Wikipedia; each project has its own policies, standards, and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that they're asking about writing an article for en.wiki about ru-sib.wiki, not writing an article for the defunct project itself. That having been said, the article only cites primary sources at the moment, which would suggest that it falls short of notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What other sources are there? Arenghtqru888 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Arenghtqru888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

If there are no sources that each meet all of those criteria, then the subject is not notable, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a fascinating tale, Arenghtqru888, if only a very minor one. How proficient are you at googling/duckduckgoing/etc for potential sources in Russian? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

can barely find source, no russian understanding, no iq for translation Arenghtqru888 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I check if a page got deleted?

I can't find Barebow but the page existed just yesterday Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars Goetia The notice on the page Barebow says exactly why it was deleted. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see the notice thank you, Barebow is a pretty common form of archery but I was worried it might have been deleted for somehow not being notable and I've had the page linked on my userpage forever now, if someone just used AI and thats why it was deleted than I can remake the page from scratch no problem Goetia [She/They] (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it was deleted because it was AI-generated, not for any notability concerns. If you find it to be notable, feel free to make the page again. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 20:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It's very surely notable I'll put it on my list of articles I'll make when I'm not busy Goetia [She/They] (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

festival page

trying to get a page for a local festival approved, but a lot of the celeb and press stuff is only on social media which doesnt really count as reputable sources, so any tips? Jenbul13 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's not any good sources outside social media, it may just plum fail the event notability standards. Sorry. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

there are other links, like local news. it was on local radio and local telly but theres no links to show it other than reshared socail media posts. there is a link to a colab with a museum, some celebrity, etc and a few reviews on websites, woulf google reviews count? Jenbul13 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Local media likely doesn't count towards notability, see WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:ROUTINE. Google reviews also do not count, either for notable or as reliable sources. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What would? Its even got Hollywood celebs attached…. :0 Jenbul13 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (events)? That should give you a good idea. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have but equally my adhd makes it challenging Jenbul13 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Essentially, it's not realistic for Wikipedia to have an article about every time a local area has a festival of some sort, especially since articles are supposed to cover subjects in their broader historical context. If you're interested in film festivals in general, there are a lot of articles about bigger ones at Category:Film festivals that you can contribute to. Or if it's the local area you're interested in writing about, there are articles about Penistone at Category:Penistone that you might be able to find sources for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo question

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bella_Maclean.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

• Is there any evidence this photo is "Own work"? It's been around for 5 months but the uploader simply said "Her IMDb picture" which strikes me as odd if they own the copyright.
  

Edit: I have nominated the file for deletion. Thanks everyone. Handsome Ellis (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, seems unlikely to be own work. It's definitely from the IMDB page; unfortunately that doesn't say who owns the copyright or what the license is so it's difficult to tell. I'm not really familiar with where IMDB gets its images from, so it's possible that it's free, but likely a copyvio. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 21:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Could be; but doubtful. A reverse Google Image shows this dating before August 2025. The Times and The Sunday Times posted it on April 4, 2025 [6] with photo credit given to photographer "Pip Bourdillon" - website; and the Times Culture posted it on Instagram April 7, 2025. So for the "uploader" to give a date of August 9, 2025 with a description as "Her IMDbpicture" does not add up. I would place it up for deletion. Maineartists (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If the image's status is ambiguous, it must be assumed to not have an appropriate copyright. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

To template or not to template?

Since WP no longer allows an "Expand Article" template, what would be recommended for this article Rosedale Diner that just went up? In relation to all the other diners that have significant history coverage and expansive article content: List of diners, a defunct diner that was once on Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives (along with over 800 other places in 19 years) seems a stretch. Is it notable for inclusion or just a poorly written stub article? It seems that the See also links create a notability by association; which is circular without the actual notability. Yes? Maineartists (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're questioning the notability of a subject, you should start a discussion at AFD (customarily at least 24 hours after the initial creation of the page to allow time for the creating editor to add content). You can also ask the article author, etc. for their notability justification if you're not sure. I mostly agree with your assessment, but I want to add that if the closing of the diner generates enough coverage, it could still be notable (as in the case of Technoblade, whose article was only created after his death). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem that the creating editor has a habit of this style of article: Lunch Lady without drawing upon WP:GA. I'm still questioning the notability since there are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) that fit the simple criteria of either being given an award or featured in some way in the media. Is this all it takes to get an article at WP? Seems a bit promotional at best. The particular aforementioned seems to only be famous for closing. At least with this Toronto, diner: Lakeview Restaurant has some notoriety associated with it. I probably won't place the above up for AfD. Seems to slippery a slope and too big a can of worms to open. Maineartists (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Certain editors have a bad habit of creating as many articles as they can, regardless of whether they're helpful contributions, to add to their article creation account. This is an ongoing problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As Duke Ellington once wrote and Ella once sang: "I'm beginning to see the light". Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Curious about a blacklist

Hi all. I'm working on a page for the Core Contest and ran into an issue when publishing one edit on account of a link to Vision IAS. I won't post a link on that account, but have not been able to find any previous discussion for the blacklist, so am just curious as to its origins. I'm aware that it's an Indian training academy, I assume for a government or university entrance exam. The document itself is innocuous, though, just talking about the history of trade in the Arabian Sea. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it than that, though. Any help is appreciated.

All the best, CSGinger14 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

A common reason for a site to be blacklisted is because someone was spamming links to it (usually advertisements). That would be my first guess: your innocent document is suffering from being on the same site as a spammed advertisement. Any possibility you could get access a different way? Might someone else be hosting that document? There are a few Help Desk postings that suggest one can petition to have a site removed from the blacklist, but that sounds like a fairly challenging process. M kuhner (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it was added to the blacklist last year after years of promotional spamming. If you want to use a particular link that you believe is reliable you can always ask for that specific URL to be whitelisted. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the template "Infobox military operation" a better choice?

Hello, I was just browsing when I noticed Operation Aphrodite. To be honest, I'm not particularly impressed with any of it but I don't know enough (and don't really care enough) to fix most of it.

Regardless, I was hoping someone could let me know which of these templates would be preferred for this page:

• Template:Infobox military operation
• Template: Infobox weapon

It is difficult to tell given that the current template makes use of the "warhead" field to include the kind of weapons used in the operation.

Thank you for your help! JordyGrey _talk🧸 22:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something obvious, the Manual of Style page on infoboxes doesn't say anything about strictly needing one or the other. Seeing as the article seems to be focused on the operation itself, I'd personally lean towards the military operation infobox, but maybe it's best not to remove the current weapon infobox, in case the information isn't easily reformatted into prose nicely nor covered aptly in the military operation infobox. Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 23:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the military operation one and just left the other alone.

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 00:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are there categories like "C-class- Women" or "Low-Inportance Women"?

Why do these categories (low, mid and high) exist and on what kind of scalable standards are they being based upon? Xeon0309 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Xeon0309 they are categories for WikiProjects - in this case, WikiProject Women. The 'class' categories are governed by grade and the 'importance' categories are governed by priority assessment - I couldn't find the scale for WikiProject Women specifically but the typical scale is linked above. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I think the wording is very dehumanising and highly irritating, especially in the context of a so called "WikiProjectWomen". Can these categories be changed freely or is consultation necessary? Xeon0309 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a Category:Low-importance women. Nor is there a Category:C-Class Women. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There are C-class articles. They are mostly very good indeed. I dream of having one of my creations (many about women) rated "C-class". Doug butler (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes there are. Check the box and the bottom of the talk-page. Talk:Róisín Murphy Xeon0309 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think the wording is rather off. Just imagine categories like "C- Class Men in Parenting" or "Low -Importance Men in Contempory Dating culture" for example. No really nice nor objectiv, I would guess. Apparently the categories seem to be compiled of separate tags. I don't think this is a very good way to categorize people. Xeon0309 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are parsing the category names incorrectly. For example, Category:C-Class Women in music articles the "C-class" modifies "articles". The class is a judgement on the article, not the subject. That is why this kind of category is kept on the article talk page, and not on the article itself. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Like quality-wise or importance-wise? Xeon0309 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You can follow the category trees up to Category:Articles by quality and Category:Articles by importance. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This categorization is used site wide to grade articles and isnt just about people (for example a wikiproject for rocks Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals still uses this ranking) It is in no way meant to be sexist in fact wikiproject WIR and wikiproject feminism also use this categorization for articles for inprovement Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars GoetiaJust because something isn’t meant to be offensive/problematic, dosen’t mean it’s okay in a sense that it is unintentionally offensive/problematic and may unintentionally enforce the idea that some women or women are “lower-class wise”. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As Duncan already said and so did I the ranking is not ranking the women it is ranking how well made the article is

For example if an article was just 1 source and "Jane doe is a famous musician"

Thats a far worse article than one with a bunch of sources and multiple bodys of text

These articles both about women are simply not the same level of quality so they are ranked to show the difference in the articles quality not the subject

Did I explain this well? Goetia [She/They] (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as the specific concern here is the framing WP:WikiProject Women in music's category (noting that WP:WikiProject Women and others stopped using these ratings a while ago), this would be best brought to that project's attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Music. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Xeon0309 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's in no way in relation to a woman personally! We are not grading women here, just the articles! It is helpful, since I could browse 'C-class' articles and try to bring it up to a B-class- aka, make the article better, maybe by introducing sources, rewriting content more neutrally, etc. jolielover♥talk 14:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly this thank you jolie Goetia [She/They] (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, checking the talk-page, I presume that it is about the "importance", like the cultural importance of certain persons? Xeon0309 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am new to wikipedia and the wording struck me immediately, and I am not the feminist kind of guy. The categorization of articles in a logical and handy way is a rather complicated affair, I guess. But I am curious, how it works. Xeon0309 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles are inanimate and do not need to be humanized. They're either well-written or not well-written, and they are classified accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Networth in biographical articles?

Is it common or well- advised to put the "estimated net-worth" into an article about a living person? Where do you put this within the overall structure? Xeon0309 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't put it in unless it is very notable to the person and important (eg. elon musk) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is rather hard to grasp where or for whom it would be appropriate. BTW do PR -Team of so called VIPs (Elon, Rosalia, Donald J. etc) edit the articles of their employers? Xeon0309 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Xeon0309 How would you keep that updated, say, over the next 10 or 20 years? This kind of changing info at least needs "as of (date)" if it does get added. If I wanted to know this info about someone, I would use a search engine instead of looking to an encyclopedia. David10244 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well reasoned. So it would have to be checked for accuracy on a regular basis. Xeon0309 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Insert button not showing

My account is verified and I am on mobile. Lime-fish22 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've never noticed the presence of an "insert" button, Lime-fish22. What does it do? (What kinds of insertions does it make, or what kinds of insertions are you currently unable to make?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lime-fish22: VisualEditor has an "Insert" button in Desktop. I don't see it in mobile but don't know how it usually works. You can insert a template by typing {{. You can switch to desktop on "Desktop view" at the bottom when you view a page but not during an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently the insert button allows you to insert pictures. I just want to be able to add pictures Lime-fish22 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

TAs and vandalism

If a TA does vandalism what should I do moving forward (after reverting) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Goetia! If any editor, not just a TA, vandalizes, warn them on their talk page. 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be so honest I didn't know TAs had Talk pages, good to know! I'll send a warning Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Usually you make the month and year the title of the section (e.g. May 2026). Twinkle does this automatically and makes reverting vandalism and warning users a lot easier. There are other vandalism reverting tools like RedWarn but I do not trust them as a Twinkle user :P 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 01:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know what to put there, will note that for the future. How do you use twinkle? I've heard a bit about it Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle allows you to do stuff like reverting, reporting, and deleting faster. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Twinkle. Used twinkle till getting rollback, then I switched to CVPI. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks yall I'll give it a look Goetia [She/They] (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle and Ultraviolet (RedWarn's successor) is a good combination in my opinion. I use Twinkle whenever I would like to provide a custom edit summary, Ultraviolet for common reverting reasons, and mediawiki rollback for most vandalism. RedWarn and Ultraviolet pretty much just provide a lot of quick buttons for common revert reasons. Twinkle is a very good general purpose tool, though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll check them all out I've really been liking Twinkle so far. Thanks dogs Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Over linking? One link per mention?

Hi Folks, I'm just getting back into editing and reviewing an article I wanted to work on years ago, League of Left-Wing Writers, and noticed a lot of over linking in the page. I reviewed the manual of style, particularly MOS:DUPLINK which states "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there".

I was always under the impression that the first mention of something with a page should be linked, but if the page is long enough multiple links may be necessary. On a shorter page such as League of Left-Wing Writers, would removing the extra links to pages like the Chinese Communist Party, Kuomintang, and various writers mentioned be appropriate? DyinRich (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes that would be best Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I will make some edits! DyinRich (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:4 May 2026 Khartoum International Airport drone attack

What’s the soonest this draft can be reviewed? I created it about the May 4 drone attack in Sudan’s Khartoum International Airport. ~2026-30288-68 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that some reviewer will review it mere _______ from now. (Insert one among milliseconds, seconds ... fortnights, etc.) Chances are that its use of "bare URLs" will reduce their enthusiasm for doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@HoaryI mean, the Sudanese civil war in general has way less interest than the 2026 Iran War and the 2026 Lebanon War. Despite the fact that nearly 25 million people are affected by a famine caused by war, and a genocide currently happening in Darfur. Media don’t talk about it. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general lack of interest in this civil war. But I don't see how this general lack of interest is related to the difficulty in enticing anyone to review this draft. (If you want to speed up the review, then one step you could take is to provide the references more informatively.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary: I just refilled the rest of the bare URLs (12 bare URLs). ~2026-30379-59 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You've improved the references. Thank you. But I have to say that the improvement seems half-hearted. I've re-improved a few. Ah, I notice the name ReFill: that explains. (I re-improved "manually" -- didn't you notice that "ReFill" does a feeble job of filling in what's missing?) Should I do all the others as well? (Couldn't you?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There are thirteen discrete references. I've redone one of them. Perhaps you can do the other dozen. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I label a sentence as 'confusing'?

Hi there, I recently noticed on the big year bird-watching competition page that the 'World Big years' section is a little confusing, specifically this sentence:

"Because Dwarshuis primarily used the IOC Checklist and Strycker the Clements Checklist, their totals are not fully compatible, as the IOC checklist lists a greater number of species. However Dwarshuis and Strycker have both compiled checklists for each list."

I want to create a small label for the "checklists for each list" sentence to list it as 'confusing' or unclear or unfinished or something, but I don't know how to do that. Specifically the part that is confusing for me is: what do the checklists do? The article doesn't elaborate - but then again I'm not a birder. Maybe I'm just missing something very obvious? Cornonthehunt (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really understand what this sentence means either (although I don't have much context and I'm not a birder either). You can use Template:Clarify if you like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 03:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Cornonthehunt (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cornonthehunt: you can also take a look at the other templates listed in Category:Inline cleanup templates. There is quite a lot of them, and sometimes it can be a bit fiddly to figure out which one fits in any particular situation. But I agree that {{Clarify}} is probably a good choice for this. --Gurkubondinn 03:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm, alright. Thanks for the extra resources Cornonthehunt (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome? :) --Gurkubondinn 04:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

-]!! Cornonthehunt (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It didn't send but I was trying to send a smiley face.. sorry lol thanks again! Cornonthehunt (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Editor blocked on another language Wikipedia

I'm after advice about how to proceed with concerns about an editor (who I prefer not to name right now) here on en.wikipedia who has been blocked for problematic behaviour and subsequent sockpuppetry on another language Wikipedia. Reading their WP:ANI equivalent entry on that Wiki shows me that their behaviours here are similar. So a couple of questions - does an editor blocked elsewhere (including for sockpuppetry) have the right to edit here at all? Should I decide to take them to WP:ANI here, should I reference their history on the other language Wikipedia, or does WP:FRESHSTART apply (cross-wiki) and therefore there should be no reference at all? I'm starting to think that doing nothing about this editor isn't an option but would like advice on where I might go next. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless an account is globally locked by a steward, merely being blocked on another Wikipedia does not automatically mean they cannot edit here; in fact, here we sometimes ask people to edit another Wikipedia to show that they can follow its policies and be productive, to use as evidence of the same in a future unblock request here. However, if a user is repeating behavior that got them blocked on another Wikipedia, yes, that is relevant towards being blocked here. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will think on what to do next. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Antarctic settlements fix

In Wikipedia and elsewhere, it is said that the two settlements in antarctica are Villas las Estrellas and Esperanza Base. Howeveg, this is technically wrong. It is actually Villa Las Estrellas in Base Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, and Fortín Sargento Cabral in Esperanza Base. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, they’re not inside reaserch stations but right next to. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-29981-55, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have improvements to make (or suggest) to a Wikipedia article, the best place to bring it up is on the article's talk page. Make sure you have a reliable source to cite for any new or changed information. ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineThe spanish wikiepdia article for “Fortín Sargento Cabral” (which for some reason dosen’t have a article in the english wikipedia and instead has Esperanza base, and the english wikipedia considers Esperanza Base as the same, even though these two while related, are different) has four references, actually three, because the first reference is coordinants.

, which for some reason is not in the english wikipedia and instead there is “Esperanza base” even though these two while related are different, ” ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-29981-55. You can carry on talking about the details of your concern here if you like, but it's not likely to achieve much. Probably most of the people reading this page, like me, have no particular interest or knowledge about Antarctica.

I have directed you to a place where people with that knowledge and interest are more likely to see it. ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFineWikiProject:Antarctica is inactive, which WikiProject for this topic is active? Outside of the talk pages of these articles. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with the talk pages? Hi, I'm Popingry! (FKA Max) |Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@PopingryPeople don't go to talk pages of these articles, so they are not active. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

But if you create a new section on a Talk page detailing your concerns, it will be notified to those who have the article on their Watchlists, and some will likely want to respond. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the article template for construction project under construction?

What is the article template for construction project under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

While it's under construction, it should be a draft, not a mainspace article. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A project under construction can still be notable, for example High Speed 2 or the White House State Ballroom. I don't think there's a special template. The HS2 article uses the "status = Under construction" parameter within {{Infobox rail line}}. I guess some other infobox templates have something similar. Something like Symphony Park doesn't use anything special but just says the thing about construction. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What is a article template at the po of the article for a bridge under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be just plain old Template:Infobox bridge. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZzuuzzWhat is a article template at the top of the article for a bridge under construction? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There isn't one. The article lead will make it sufficiently clear that it is under construction. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZzuuzzLike the english equivalent of this template seen in the russian article “Автодорожный мост между Приморьем и КНДР”. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZzuuzzLike the english equivalent of the russian template “В этой статье описывается запланированный или строящийся, но ещё не построенный объект или здание.

Информация может меняться по мере поступления новых данных о ходе строительства.” ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia is a separate project with its own templates. They do not necessarily have equivalents in other Wikipedias. You could always make one yourself but I don't think that's necessary. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"Information may change rapidly" is not really applicable to bridges, or the enwiki context, though I stand to be proven wrong. {{current event}} is the closest thing, but I doubt I would recommend it. We don't really do that here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZzuuzzHow about Template:Update? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"This template can be used to mark entire articles or sections that contain outdated information." -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not a infobox. That's more like the template. Its purpose is to mark articles that need work. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI meant that my idea of Template:Update is to update the article by putting new information that already exists out there, but not in the Wikipedia article, hence updating the article. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case, by all means, go ahead and add said information. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotYou mean adding the Template:Update or adding new information into the article or both? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You could definitely do both, yeah. Add the new info, and if you think it still needs some updates, go ahead and put the tag on it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI added the Template:Update, the article is "Khasan–Tumangang Bridge". ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

👍 Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotWhat do you think about my other edits i did? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotI meant my other edits in 20th May 2026, not the previous days with my questionable behaviour. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They all look alright to me. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotYou think so? Take a look at every edit i did outside of the Teahouse. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not going to take the time to look at every edit you've ever made. I did look at a few, and they look good. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotDo you want to fix my edits or not? Perhaps if others look at my edits on 20th May 2026. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there's no need to fix them. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ehrman

Is ehrman a Jew ~2026-30313-46 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

uh, maybe check the refererence desk? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 12:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ehrman is a self-described agnostic atheist. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondPerhaps they meant Jew as a ethnicity and not a religion? ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Who meant that? Please cite the source you are talking about. You have just added an uncited statement about someone's religious beliefs into an article repeatedly after being reverted; that isn't productive. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondActually, i said that the user (2026-30313-46) perhaps meant Jew as a ethnicity and not a religion. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry! I mixed you up with the other TA. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondNo worries, anyways, i think we should both consider Jew as a ethnicity and a religion. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@MikeycdiamondI meant not that a Jew person would be both, but that we should considering either ethnicity or religion or both. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Professor Bart D. Ehrman (presuming that's who you mean) was raised in the Episcopal Church, so has certainly never been religiously Jewish. In the last few years, I have watched many of his YouTube talks and interviews on his own channel and as a guest on those of others, and have never heard any suggestion that he might be of ethnic Jewish descent (which I would have found mildly interesting, having Jewish relatives by marriage, and hence would have remembered).

Ehrman/Ehrmann is a German name. Some emigrants to the USA may have been German Jews with the name, but most will simply have been German. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Need help moving AfC draft to Draft namespace

Hello. I submitted an AfC draft and it is currently awaiting review, but it remains in my userspace because my account is not autoconfirmed and I cannot move pages. Could someone please help move it to Draft namespace with the correct title while preserving history? Current page: User:Srivp2012/sandbox

Requested title: Draft:Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan

Thank you. Srivp2012 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Srivp2012 (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazingThis article might be biased, i think that’s a important thing that must be mentioned. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. Initially this draft has been declined for the improvements related to the source or say notability. I will try my best to do the needful as per the suggestions of the reviewer. Srivp2012 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Could Critterz be mentioned in article “Marché du Film”?

https://variety.com/2026/film/global/critterz-agc-1236736009/ ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be mentioned in the main Marche du Film article, but you might be able to find a place for it in 2026 Cannes Film Festival. As long as it doesn't seem promotional. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotWell, it was in article 2026 Cannes Film Festival, but it got removed. So where would i put it? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, if it got removed by another editor, it may be best to leave it out. It looks like they've explained their reasoning on the article's talk page. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotThen where to put information on Critterz? How can it be on 2026 cannes film festival article or marché du film article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For now? It shouldn't be on either article. If you can perhaps reach a conclusion on the talk page you were conversing with another editor on, you might be able to put it somewhere. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lotThen what could i do? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For now, jack squat. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Putting this source on article “the powerpuff girls (franchise)”, What to write?

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/powerpuff-girls-fosters-home-for-imaginary-friends-reboots-1235318832/ ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Could this https://x.com/Fyre_flye/status/1579590490462515201 also be put in this article? To put info that Lauren Faust is working on it. ~2026-29981-55 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I added info that Lauren Faust will be working on this reboot, with this source https://x.com/Fyre_flye/status/1579590490462515201 added. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone want to fix it or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for such messages: if you have to post them at all, they go on the talk page of the article you want edited. I see in your logs that you were just blocked for disruptive editing at the Teahouse. I strongly recommend not starting that up again. M kuhner (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhnerThere is a difference between my today's posts on the Teahouse and previous posts on the Teahouse. Today's posts on the Teahouse are not disrputive, if i'm correct though. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want something added to an article:

(1) If you are able to edit that article, just add it yourself.

(2) If you are not able to edit the article, or are unsure if your proposed addition is correct, post on that article's Talk page and ask other people working on the page to help. They will be your best helpers because they are familiar with that article and interested in the topic.

Putting this in the Teahouse will not reach the right people. Please use the article's Talk page instead. M kuhner (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29101-67 Twitter/X is not generally considered a reliable source, except in some circumstances and with judgment. Anyone can say anything there. David10244 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29101-67 Meaning, you need a better source than that before you can add the information. David10244 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Can this X/Twitter account be put in article “Boku no Pico”?

https://x.com/bokunopicoweb It claims to be producing a new episode with a tentative title 「ちことぴこ(仮題)」for 2026 release date. ~2026-30064-68 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-30064-68 WP:SOCIALMEDIA states that information from these sources is valid as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, It does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and that the article is not based primarily on such sources." Do with that what you will. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCaversCan someone write it and use this account as a source in this article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCaversI added it into the article. Do you want to fix it or not? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you added the information and source, why would I need to fix it? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCaversI just asked if there is a need to edit it ot not. ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCaversHow about someone else adding other posts by this account to this article? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as it's relevant, they could do that, yes. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29101-67 Saying "Do you want to fix it or not" sounds kind of rude. The people who read these pages and give help are volunteers, doing this on their own time. David10244 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Accessing an article

I can't find the place to type in the name of the subject I want to consult. How do I get to it? ~2026-30338-39 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be at the very top of the page. Are you accessing Wikipedia from a mobile device? Toast1454_TC 16:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Need Help with Creation

Hi All,

I am trying to create the article about Kalina de Moura, she is a great indie filmmaker who is making global impact with her films, and now she is also part of animal rights movement. There is alot oc great things so far, and just like any celebretity I think, she earned her space with wikipidia now. However, I am confused with the rules, I tried my best, but , it seemed we still did not provide the write stuff. Can you guys help ? Thanks. Frances2025x (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, your contributions surrounding this artist seem to indicate a conflict of interest. Are you in any way connected to this filmmaker? Pyrrhic victor (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Notability. You must find sources independent of her (not a personal website or the like) that provide significant coverage (not just a quick mention). If you cannot find any sources like that, the subject is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia (which is not a reflection on the person; I'm sure she is wonderful, but if she isn't notable, she can't have a page). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 17:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Frances2025x irl notability is not the same as notability for Wikipedia purposes. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, the subject needs to be the subject of significant (ie in depth) coverage (eg. a feature article, more than 200 words) in two or more independent (unrelated to the subject, including employers or schools), reliable (ie reputable) sources. Alternatively, the subject needs to meet the criteria for presumed notability. Suggest read WP:42 and WP:NCREATIVE. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Art

creators drawing digital ,painting ECT Grompkw (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@GrompkwCan you explain it more? ~2026-29101-67 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Grompkw. Do you have a specific question? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Worried I did something wrong...

Hello, it's me again. I've been here a few times with questions, and here I am again. To put it simply, I'm worried I might have "overdone and overthought it" when it comes to editing this Soviet space dogs article. I've been working on it for months, making lots of changes and decisions, and, well, this page isn't very high traffic, so I haven't been getting any feedback or responses on my edits or the talk page. I tend to overthink a lot, and I'm worried that some of the changes I did were too bold or straight up wrong or unnecessary. I did all my edits in good faith, but I'm still new here and this is the first article I've been working on. I've made around 40 edits to the article, so the edit history also looks kind of messy which bothers me too... Could someone take a look and give me some feedback or advice, or tell me if I should change something? I want this article to be the best it can be, but I don't want it to look like I'm taking ownership of the page or something like that. Sorry, I know it's kind of weird, but I would like to be sure that I'm doing it right. Vicccqh7 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about the edit summaries. It's totally okay for one person to put a lot of work into an article and dominate the edit summaries for a while. It's not WP:OWN unless you are discouraging others from contributing, and I see no signs of that. Talk page looks fine.

I enjoyed reading the article; I like the balance between plain facts and reported analysis. Two critiques: (1) What are the little superscript non-linked numbers after cites in the Training section? (2) The article is long enough that a bit of overview near the start could help readers. I thought I was at the end and then there was another section I wasn't expecting. Just one line indicating the article is divided into sub-orbital and orbital flights could help. You could add a count of dogs involved in sub-orbital and orbital flights to that line as well, giving the reader an idea how much material is to follow. (It's an impressive amount of material!) M kuhner (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'm so happy to hear that! Now for the points you described:

1. The small numbers are pages for the source cited before, that's how I learned to cite pages at first, and I had some trouble using "sfn" for that specific citation, I think because there are multiple authors, but I'm not sure, so I did it using "rp".
2. I'm not quite confident and not sure how to expand on that properly, and honestly speaking, I am also quite scared about the whole citation and synthesis thing, I don't want to make any claims that aren't supported below or anything of that nature, although I remember reading somewhere that lead sections usually shouldn't have citations (or they don't need to be there as long as the facts in lead are supported below), I don't know how it applies in practice. And by "one line indicating the article is divided into sub-orbital and orbital flights" do you mean it literally? Like, a simple sentence saying "this article is divided into 2 major sections: sub orbital, and orbital...")? Or do you mean something else? I would like to improve it more, but for some reason this feels kind of underwhelming. Perhaps you could help me or do it in my stead if you have some free time, if it's not too much to ask?

Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried to do it myself, and...you're right, it doesn't fit very well.

I'm biting my nails on the exact same "no citations in lead" thing, so I feel for you!

Counting the number of dogs listed in the article, as far as I can tell, should fall under WP:CALC and not be original research. But it doesn't fit in your lead, so probably this was a suggestion that doesn't quite work. M kuhner (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

How can I edit categories?

I was reading Category:The Doors and I noticed something missing, and when I tried to edit the subcategories didn't appear and nothing else either. How can I fix that?

Freakydentist411 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't edit the category. Edit the page that you want to put into the category, and then it goes into the category automatically (not necessarily instantly--might take a little while). Just add Category:category name, in double square-brackets, to the very bottom of the page which should belong to this category. Subcategories will take care of themselves. And don't feel bad about this--I am able to answer this question because I did the exact same thing (tried to edit the category) about 2 weeks ago! It is not obvious. M kuhner (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!

Freakydentist411 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Can you please add the "Parkdale railway station" article link to the recently created Simple Wikipedia page of the same name please? I don't know how to translate it (so it says 3 languages [Urdu, Simple Englsh, Bahasa Indonesia] and I think only extended confirmed users (I am auto-confirmed) can only do it... Rioooooooo9 (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If, after logging in to WikiData, are you unable to edit the WikiData record, Rioooooooo9? -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't get how WikiData works, and the instructions and the extended confirmed things are a little too complex for me. Can you summarise it? Rioooooooo9 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Help!

I can't find a reference on Google, can someone help me, I haven't made anything yet. EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

references! EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References for what? Help: Referencing for beginners might answer some questions you may have. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration. I CHECKED GOOGLE EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources at all, it may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But you could ask at the Reference Desk. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration EndermanSurfgo (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find references for Draft:1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration, I wonder why you created this single-sentence stub, and why you did so just 13 minutes before asking for help, EndermanSurfgo. (Incidentally, conflagrations are usually called fires.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Mmm if only I had references EndermanSurfgo (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@EndermanSurfgo You chose to describe the draft as the 1889 Saint-Sauveur Conflagration and, if that's what you're googling, this might be the issue. I did a google search for Saint-Sauveur fire 1889, which brought up 3 viable hits on the first page and Gemini (ie the AI blurb at the top of the search page) suggests it might be more commonly referred to as "The Great Fire of Saint-Sauveur". I also looked for Saint-Sauveur incendie 1889 which brought up different but also useful links albeit in French. Another reason to reconsider the name of your draft is that there is already a Great Fire of Quebec City (1866). Since your topic is historic, suggest try limiting the google search to "books", try Google News Archives which has lot of old Canadian papers including the Montreal Gazette, and if you're in QC, you could ask a local librarian for help. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft feedback before submission

Hi! I have a COI with this subject and would appreciate feedback on whether the draft meets Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards before I submit it. Appreciate all feedback! Alansmithh (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansmithh/sandbox Alansmithh (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alansmithh I think you might struggle with Wiki-notability. Suggest peruse WP:42, WP:CORPTRIV, and WP:WWIN. Mme Maigret (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you will have issues with notability. While the first few articles have nice sounding titles, when you go into them, they are essentially interviews or press releases--there is little sign of independent analysis. It will probably be necessary to search further for independent, substantive coverage of the company. The rest is either background or WP:CORPTRIV.

There are also sourcing issues. The second half of History is unsourced. The second and third sentence/paragraphs of Operations are unsourced. It is tough to avoid this when you are writing about a topic you know well, but everything MUST be sourced (you can have sentences in the lead without citations, but the supporting source must be in the rest of the article and clearly identifiable).

The two citations which are about "sneakers are collectable" seem like straining for sources a bit. That part is also very choppy: why not put them in the same paragraph? Why bother with a section on finances with only one sentence?

Finally, I hope that the short paragraphs are not a sign of having used an LLM here. If you did, rewrite it. Wikipedia is very unwelcoming of LLM/AI text. If you used an LLM you will also need to check every single statement to make sure the source actually supports it--I didn't see any problems in a quick review, but more will be needed. M kuhner (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Self-referencing (circular) link?

RAF Ansty
At the end of the #History section, there is a dubious RAF unit, No. 2 Basic Flying Training School RAF which links straight back to RAF Ansty. This circular link is worrying enough, but there is more. The citation supposedly supporting the existence of this unit and the dates (aviationarcheology.org.uk), does not in fact mention this unit at all. I cannot even follow the methodology of the existing situation, let alone remedy it. I'm guessing I have been bamboozled by a redirect. TBH I feel a little out-of-my-depth here, and I might settle for the simplest solution which is to un-link the unit on the RAF Ansty page. But that still leaves the re-direct as a loose end. What is your advice please?

Two notes of caution;

1. there is also a No. 2 (Basic) Flying Training School RAF, which legitimately links to a current RAF training unit.
2. there is also a No. 2 British Flying Training School RAF, which has its own issues (because it's not actually RAF !)

Any or all of the above might be abbreviated to 2 BFTS, which I am happy to say is a red-link, and it can stay that way!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader The link is only circular because of a redirection. If I understand it correctly, there was a flying school at the base that might warrant its own page. (In fact, a lot of pages link to "2 Basic FTS"). But there is no page so the flying school redirects to the base. You can either delete the internal wiki-link since it's circular or leave it so that, if a page is created for the flying school, the link works.

As for the second (Lancaster, California) flying school "2 British FTS" this seems like a red herring. It is also a redirect because it doesn't have its own substantive page. Mme Maigret (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)