Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1269: Difference between revisions

I have done multiple types of things in Wikipedia by know and i am now interested to see how can i make/push an article to a good or featured article status to use my new found experience. I have layed my eyes on a biography article that has multiple repetition of content, unclear seperation of content and non-countinous (regarding text flow) text, and i am intersted to know how can i make the article better. Speciffically, exactly are there any specific guided schemas that are considered good (I know the existense of manual of style!), but my question is what makes something good (refering any pat to follow), and any advice you have to offer on that. Thank you anyone in advance! Mant08 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mant08, I’d recommend starting by reviewing WP:CLASSES to see what can be done to improve the quality of your contributions. Generally, for an article to be featured or listed as GA (Good Article) class, it must contain a broad and diverse variety of information on the subject from a wide range of sources, taking into consideration multiple viewpoints and covering the topic to the extent that it could be used as a high-quality point of reference for a specialist in its field. Let me know if you have any questions! I might ask that another editor point out anything I’ve missed in this description.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Thank you for your answer and being open to help! Mant08 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a musician named M.G Hkh from Zimbabwe. I have several media features (e.g. 263Chat, NewsDay). How can I get help to create a neutral Wikipedia article about me?” 77.246.52.180 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If you meet the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN, you might be eligible for an article. Note that we require coverage in what we consider reliable sources. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and be sure to read WP:SCAM if anyone offers to do this for you for payment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 16:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andy,

Thank you for your response and for explaining everything clearly. I’ve reviewed the information about WP:NMUSICIAN and I believe I meet the criteria.

However, I’m not very experienced with creating or editing Wikipedia pages. I have several reliable sources — including articles from 263Chat, NewsDay, and Heart Entertainment Magazine — that cover my music career and releases.

I would like to know if there is any volunteer here who could help me create the article using those sources, since I can provide them all.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

M.G Hkh 77.246.52.53 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Andy ,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am seeking assistance in creating a neutral and well-sourced Wikipedia page for Zimbabwean musician M.G Hkh, born Prince Peter Moyo on October 18, 1997, in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. I have compiled a comprehensive list of references that cover his life, career, music releases, and online presence. Below, I have categorized these sources to facilitate your review:

Instructions for Volunteers

Prioritize the bolded sources for establishing notability and creating the main article content.

Use music/streaming links solely for verifying discography and release information.

Ensure the writing is neutral and factual, avoiding promotional language.

Properly cite sources with author, date, title, publisher, URL, and access date.

If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Prince peter Moyo

(Redacted) 77.246.52.48 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions; I’ll bear them in mind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 21:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Andy. I really appreciate your time and response.

I’m not familiar with how to create or publish a Wikipedia article myself, so I would be truly grateful if someone could please help me write or create the page for M.G Hkh (Prince Peter Moyo) using the reliable sources I’ve already shared.

I’m happy to provide any more information if needed.

Best regards,

M.G Hkh (Prince Peter Moyo) 77.246.52.48 (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Do us a favour and get rid of the chatbot, please. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

was using a chatbot just to help with drafting ideas, but I understand that edits and comments need to come from me directly. I’ll make sure of that going forward. Nomusamutandadzi (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

only need a volunteer who can help me create a Wikipedia page about M.G. Hkh. I don’t know how to do it myself. I have resources from newspapers and streaming platforms, and I can provide all the sources as references. 77.246.52.37 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Which M.G Hkh get a Wikipedia page

I don’t know how to create a Wikipedia for M.G Hkh but he got all the source that requires in to get a Wikipedia só any volunteer here can write for him then l can provide the reference 77.246.50.217 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this his full name? If not then search his full name in the search bar, then it should come up with a red link that you can click on and make a new page. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

KeyolTranslater IP users cannot directly create articles as you say. They need to use the Article Wizard. We also usually advise against new users diving right in to creating articles. The user has also indicated they don’t want to write it themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes you’re right, my bad. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

77.246, I’m not sure who “M.G. Hkh” is or what they do, but you’re unlikely to find someone willing to write an article for you. If you have evaluated the relevant notability criteria(for notable people or more narrow categories like a notable musician) and truly feel that this individual meets the requirements, and you have gathered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of them that are not interviews, press releases, and announcements, you can use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

We already have a thread above: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Requesting an musicians article for M.G Hkh. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how to create it am requesting for a volunteer to create abd publish it for me and l will provide all the bpm newspapers source 77.246.50.217 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you go on about the work of your career as if Wikipedia did not exist. You’re not likely to find anyone to do this for you here. There are also good reasons to not want an article about yourself. If you are truly notable, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose on their own to write about you. That’s the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that makes sense. Could you please point me to the best place to learn more about how notability is determined and what kinds of coverage would qualify? I’d like to understand the process better. 77.246.50.217 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You would need to meet at least one aspect of the definition of a notable musician. Coverage must meet the criteria listed at WP:42. It shouldn’t be interviews, press releases, or annoucments of your activities(like releasing music or concerts). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

M.G Hkh has been covered in several independent and reliable publications. For example, [Name of Magazine or Website] published a detailed article/review on [date], and [Another Source] also discussed their work. These meet the criteria for significant coverage under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. 77.246.55.238 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t communicate with junk AI responses. Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Any volunteer to create a page for M.G Hkh

I got all the reference l can provide for the volunteer who is willing to to create a page 217.15.117.127 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, you can add this to WP:Requested articles. Find the subpage most relevant to this topic. Thanks! jolielover♥talk 05:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how to create Wikipedia page that why am asking a volunteer to do it for myself all the references l have M.G Hkh qualify for a Wikipedia page as a musician 217.15.117.127 (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately M.G Hkh does not meet the requirements in WP:GNG nor those in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You’ve asked this twice previously. The answer isn’t going to change. Please go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I’m making a page for VIA Kaskad and got a notice that the source I was trying to add is blocked. Anyone know why, and if there’s a way to appeal/get around this?

cheers, Afghanka (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I would have a look at WP:RSP – it’s likely listed there along with a reason. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick to respond! Afghanka (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Might be blind but I don’t see it. Afghanka (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It is at WP:SSFN, in “State-sponsored fake news sites”. Xzkdeng (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ! Afghanka (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020 § State sponsored fake news, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § news-front.info, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites. —Wasell^(T) 14:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Where could i git streaming platforms in Wikipedia 41.123.103.16 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Commons:Category:Videos is a good start. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it true that stars are rocks that can glow at night but in the morning they disappear.? Glenton james (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Since they are balls of gas, like they are superdense clouds of fire, balls of fire, if I put it very simply, every glowing object has a luminous intensity what we call its glow due to the heat it produces, that is energy it emeanates, so thing is look at it like this, the Sun is our nearest star, so naturally it would seem brighter since it is at a lesser distance to the Earth and intensity of the body remains same, but the observation depends on the distance, hene the sun glows brighter and its glow makes all other stars disappear Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up my mind..😉 Glenton james (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have questions about encyclopedic topics, rather than about Wikipedia itself, you should ask them over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk fx (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Better still, simply read our article about stars. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Stars are not rocks that can glow at night but in the morning they disappear but instead are spears of gasses like hydrogen and helium that perform fusion and produce heat. In the morning they do not disappear but their glow is overpowered by the sun’s glow so we don’t see them.

you can read more at stars :D. But the Teahouse is not meant for questions that are not related to wikipedia so use google instead 🙂 Lutitium (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lutitium: Spears might be confusing. I think you meant spheres. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes thanks:D Lutitium (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

but i really want to know that are they rocks or not…? Glenton james (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

They are not. @Glenton james qcne (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, friends. I’ve recently taken an interest in topics related to childfree living, and I am working on a biography for the solo-aging expert Sara Zeff Geber. I’ve worked on this for at least 5-6 hours. You can find it on my sandbox page; I’m feeling not-so-confident that it’s a good article yet. My concerns are as follows:

• The Personal Life section is long and depends heavily on a single, not-great source. I’m not sure what I should do here – is it way too long? Should I cut it down to a single sentence or two?
• In the Career section, I’m worried that I’m trying too hard to establish notability and am overdoing mentions of appearances and credentials.
• The second sentence feels long and awkward to me, but I’m not sure how else to concisely build that information.
• Am I including the right categories along the bottom?

Note: I’m in the process of reaching out to Geber to arrange for a headshot for the article.

Any guidance to make this better would be very appreciated. LaesaMajestas (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

One bit of guidance is to write the article yourself. It looks like an AI had a heavy hand in it. If you did use an LLM to help you, at least it seems that you’re thoroughly checking its output, which is a good thing. The personal life section has a lot in it about her career path, and those elements could be moved up into the career section, or removed completely. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think it’s AI generated? I wrote the entire thing by hand (look at the revision history for evidence of all the edits I put into it as I went). I did ask ChatGPT to review it when I was done, but only to spot check 2-3 things (like a spelling error, or a spot where I could make the language more neutral). But literally 2-3 small things.

Thanks for the advice about the career section. I did wonder if I should add an Education section and cut all of that out of the personal life section, but it seemed so hard to extricate from the narrative (it seemed like educational milestones guided the choices to move, for example) that I wasn’t sure how I’d make that happen.

Either way, thanks for reading it over. I’ll sleep on that and see what I can do to tweak it tomorrow. 🙂 LaesaMajestas (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t say it was AI generated, I said that an AI had a hand in it. ChatGPT loves to insert headings in the redundant form “X and Y”, like “Awards and Recognition” or “News and Media” (it particularly seems to love the word “recognition”, which is often redundant). AI likes to use platitudes like the subject “had been featured in…” rather than saying what the subject actually did. It also doesn’t know that Wikipedia doesn’t use title case in headings.

That said, you did exactly how people should be using AI on Wikipedia: to check work you’ve already done. I found it refreshing to see; the AI seemed to be there but only as a collaborating assistant, not as a primary author. And that’s how it should be with AI. Congratulations. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah – so this will probably clear it up. When I first started the article, I was a little unsure of how to do the strucutre and approach overall, so I made a sort of amalgamation of pieces of other articles of people similar to Geber in the field – So that’s where the title case came from. The line “had been featured in…” was also an artifact from the original copy/paste – I didn’t think of a better way to word it.

Thanks for your gudiance. Very appreciated. 🙂 LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LaesaMajestas, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My general advice would be, Be guided by the independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

The Podcasts are primary sources, and so are acceptable sources for the fact that she made them; but if no independent source has talked about them, should they really be in the article? (this is an editorial decision for you and anybody that reviews the draft). Note that such sources cannot contribute to establishing notability: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you – I really appreciate the advice, and the time you’ve taken to provide it.

I’ve been trying very hard not to build content off of Geber’s website, articles written by her, or direct quotes from her. But wouldn’t common sense say that a PORTION of the facts about her (such as being adopted, losing her home in the Tubbs Fire, getting her BA in psychology at West Chester University, or working as a flight attendant) come, at best, from a source somewhat close to her? How would an even more detaced source be more credible/useful when reporting matter-of-fact things?

Regarding the podcasts, I was referencing the article on Maddy Dychtwald when I wrote that, where an almost identical approach is taken. Should I just remove all references to the podcasts and say something like “Geber has also been a guest on various podcasts, and has spoken at numerous events, such as” and list the events she spoke at? I did understand that I wasn’t establishing notability with those references.

Thank you again. LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note that interviews are generally primary sources, and sources that are simply asking the subject for a quote on an issue doesn’t constitute significant coverage of the subject. The problem here is the quality of the sources. What would you say are your three best sources, all of which are independent of Geber, provide significant discussion about Geber, and are published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, 100%. Geber has many articles where she’s quoted and/or referenced for part of the content of an article (such as a recent Kiplinger’s article) that I did not use in this draft.

Regarding the sources you’re mentioning, I guess I don’t really know? Before writing, I looked at the articles for peers such as Maddy Dychtwald, Ken Dychtwald, Teresa Ghilarducci, Vicki Robin, Frederick Vettese, and Carolyn A. Brent, and the sources on those articles don’t qualify for the criteria you’re mentioning pretty much across the board. Should those articles be deleted, or am I just not seeing something correctly?

I do think it’s problematic that I leaned on the 100 Redwood Circle newsletter so heavily for information about her personal life, but none of that is really what makes her notable anyways.

With a few more tweaks, do you think this article would be OK to go live? Is there just not enough to go to publish? I’ve noticed in the page history that several editors went in and made improvements, which did feel like they felt like it might be OK as a start?

Again, thank you so much. LaesaMajestas (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

How Daddy fassam (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article, but we strongly suggest gaining experience by improving existing articles before you attempt a whole new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 21:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you’re doing well.

I recently wrote a Wikipedia draft titled “SMKBUD4 Incident”. Unfortunately, it was declined with the reason that it reads like a news article.
I understand that Wikipedia requires a neutral, encyclopedic tone, but I’m having trouble figuring out how to improve it properly.
Would you be willing to review my draft and share some advice on how I can make it meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and neutrality? Here is the link to my draft: Draft:SMKBUD4 Incident

I’d really appreciate any guidance or suggestions you could offer.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

From,
StudentEdit1347 StudentEdit1347 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Bare urls: Your citations are all what is known as bare urls, ie you should go in and add the name of the author, the title of the article, the newspaper, location where it’s published (if that’s not in the name), date you accessed it etc.
• Inline citations: Your citations are not lined up with the fact(s) they support. To reuse a citation: in visual editor, either copy and paste it, or choose reuse. If you’re using source editor, you need to repeat the name of the citation, eg. <ref name=name></ref>
• Article title: The title of the article is not user friendly.

However, that said, this article will not likely qualify for an article on Wikipedia. The incident only happened recently so, as the reviewer has pointed out, it’s not possible to tell if it’s a single passing event. It will probably be years before it’s obvious whether the incident has had significant cultural significance. Suggest you consider posting it at Wikinews but first look to see if someone has already posted about it first. In which case, you might edit the article. MmeMaigret (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 10:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @StudentEdit1347, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks – at least – learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don’t follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The technical move request to publish the draft was malformed and removed. I would have submitted to AfC for the creator, but it has not substantially changed since the last decline. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

i need to use the wiki in car 172.99.145.234 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

i need use Wikipedia in car no internet 172.99.145.234 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Check out Kiwix. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

And meta:Internet-in-a-Box Polygnotus (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

My father recently wrote a 140 page thesis on the first chief of intelligence of the USAF. How do you recommend I adapt that into a new article. His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man, from where he was born, his father’s profession, ofc his military career, and into his affairs. This will be my first time writing an article, where do you recommend I start. How do I submit my hundreds of sources? Thecommunityhelper (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you recommend I adapt that into a new article? (Edit: I am pretty tired today) C (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article and WP: Referencing for beginners; but it is advisable to get some experience of improving existing articles first.

Maybe your father has the sources listed electronically, in a citation manager like Zotero? That would save you a lot of grunt work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thecommunityhelper, in “His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man”, is “article” a sleepy typo for “thesis”? Either way, your father wrote a thesis. Has it been accepted for a doctorate or similar? If I came across dozens (let alone hundreds) of reliable sources that promised to be usable for an article I was proposing to create or augment (or expecting/hoping that somebody else would), then submitting them anywhere in Wikipedia seems an odd idea, though I could put them in the talk page of the relevant article (or draft). (See a very much shorter example of such a list here.) What one definitely shouldn’t do is simply dump a list of putative sources as “Further reading” (or, worse, within “Citations” or similar) near the foot of an article (or draft). — Hoary (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thecommunityhelper Seems like that could have copyright implications. Is your father’s thesis published online? If so, what’s the url? (@Billmckern: TCH is proposing an article on George Clement McDonald.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s possible to use the thesis as a source as long as it’s not the only source. I made use of Mark Calhoun’s thesis on Lesley J. McNair as a reference for the Wikipedia article when I overhauled the article several years ago. There’s a template for citing a thesis. Add “|page=” when using it, and use the appropriate templates for your other sources, and I think you’ll should be in good shape. Billmckern (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to read it! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WizlolAP3AqDvRtuRKiI8Epb7sAvei29/view?usp=sharing

It will be posted through Air University later on. I wish that there were a way to share downloads through the Teahouse, but whatever. He took a trip to USAFA to gather hundreds of sources, ranging from articles to physical WW2 letters. George McDonald also has his page on The Air Force website, but I think that his hundreds of sources will suffice. Do I need to drop those sources to wikimedia one-by-one? Thecommunityhelper (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

(1) I would recommend that you go to requested articles page and add Macdonald’s name. An article can be drafted now based on what is publicly available (2) When your father’s thesis is published, you can come back. An article can cite the thesis as a secondary source. There is no hurry – GCM has gone this long without a page and he will still be notable in 6 months or a year. (3) A page on Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on Macdonald even if your father’s thesis going into more depth. They’re two different media. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Could someone make the article Quandale Dingle, it was a meme from years ago and it doesn’t have an article. 2A04:CEC0:C014:A2E8:D49C:CAE7:7B15:19D1 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately that meme does not appear to pass WP:GNG so it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is an article about Brain rot. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I’m new here and would like to request that an article be created about Tova Laiter, a film producer and executive.
I’ve disclosed my connection on my user page and added a request under “Requested articles → Film producers.”
Here are a few reliable sources that provide independent coverage:
– [1]
– [2]
– [3]
Could someone please review or advise on next steps? Thank you! WiciLici4 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @WiciLici4! Article requests can be posted over at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You also haven’t disclosed your connection on your user page? You don’t have a user or talk page.

Create your user page and use the {{User COI|Tova Laiter}} template. It’ll look like this:

If you’re acting as a paid editor, make sure you specifically disclose that as per WP:PAID Athanelar (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

hi I am working on my draft article, and I added insta post link of KMF ,

Then a thought came in my mind that in future it (post) may be disappear, then how someone can check that it is true or false.

Now I am asking can I put whole statement in Quote with ©️ emoji for WP:V 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem you are trying to prevent is known as WP:Link rot, and there are automated measures in place to deal with it. Including a quote in the reference footnote is still helpful, but it should be a small part of the post and not the whole thing, for copyright reasons. Perception312 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, we do not add that copyright symbol to anything written in Wikipedia’s voice. A large majority of material on Wikipedia is copyrighted, although much of that content is also freely licensed. A free license does not eliminate the copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

My username is an archaic hanzi (Chinese character) for five (𠄡), a character outside the Basic Multilingual Plane. I’m also wondering how others would be able to create a talk page for my user if they’re not an admin. The following pop-up appears when trying to create the page:

“Creation of this page (User:𠄡) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry .*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the [[Basic Multilingual Plane]] are useful in titles on the local or global blacklists.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

• Any administrator can create this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators’ noticeboard or open a new edit request.
• Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
• If you wrote any text, save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page.

Thank you.”

I know I should follow the instructions, but I don’t think this is such an important matter to request in the noticeboard. It’s also not an article, so I think maybe the steps would be different? I’m not sure what to do. Will I have to change my username?

The links would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:𠄡 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:𠄡 . 𠄡 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve created your user page and talk page for you, so you and others should now be able to edit both. If you no longer want a user page, you can request its deletion by putting {{Db-u1}} in the page using source editor. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi 𠄡, welcome to the Teahouse. It’s an impractical username for an editor at an English wiki. I suggest you create another account with a name which can be understood and written by English-speaking people, unless you plan to mainly edit the Chinese Wikipedia or other wikis in Chinese. You only have three edits. Then it’s easier for both you and us to just abandon the account and create another than to request a rename. With the current name you can get problems again if you want to make talk page archives or user sandboxes (test or draft pages for edits), or use certain tools which create a page in your userspace to keep track of something. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The above is how your post looks for me, in desktop view on a fairly standard Android device. Now imagine a talk page conversation between two or more users whose user names display in the same manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 07:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Open Letter from Lars Ek – Cultural Contributor Seeking Transparency

I am Lars Ek, a Swedish accordionist, composer, lyricist, poet, and cultural ambassador. Over the course of my career, I have contributed to the preservation and promotion of Nordic accordion music through performances, publications, and educational outreach.

My work includes:

• Over 200 musical recordings published on YouTube
• Original compositions, poetry, aphorisms, and books
• International tours and TV appearances in Europe, the USA, Hong Kong, and Italy
• Founding the Frosini Society, dedicated to preserving artistic accordion traditions
• A strong presence on social media, with thousands of followers engaging with my cultural content

Despite this, my article on Swedish Wikipedia was removed, and my attempts to contribute have met resistance. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality. My concern is not about personal promotion, but about preserving a documented cultural legacy that spans decades and continents.

I respectfully ask editors to consider the broader context of cultural relevance. The accordion holds different status in different parts of the world, and its role in Nordic music is significant. I believe Wikipedia should reflect this diversity—not by lowering its standards, but by expanding its understanding.

I remain committed to improving the article with reliable, independent sources and proper formatting. I hope to collaborate constructively with the Wikipedia community to ensure that cultural contributions like mine are documented fairly and transparently.

With respect, Lars Ek LarsEkMusik (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Swedish Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies. You will need to address this on the Swedish Wikipedia with the Swedish Wikipedia community, using whatever processes they have to do so. If you have done that, and they were not persuaded, there isn’t anything more you can do.

I do not know about them, but we strongly discourage people from editing about themselves per the autobiography policy. We don’t want to know what people say about themselves, we want to know what others say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There is lengthy discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1268#New article about Swedish accordionist Lars Ek, and a declined draft, in English, at Draft:Lars Ek. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 10:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have my draft here: Draft:WorkWave

I’m not sure how to update it so it seems less of an advertisement. Is it the sources or the language used? Any help is appreciated. Mgorman32 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome @Mgorman32, please read WP:COMPANY. Since WorkWave does not meet the requirements it is not fit for inclusion.

Also note that those awards are basically fake. Best in Biz Awards is a pay-to-enter business awards program founded by someone who worked in corporate communications… So they pay money to get meaningless awards they can brag about. Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I hadn’t realized the awards we paid for, good to know. I’ll try to see if I can find any notable sources for WorkWave but my guess is I likely won’t be able to. Appreciate the help! Mgorman32 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:FAMOUS🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Writing a section on the use-case for a decentralized operating system

Hello,

I would like to add content to a wiki page about the intended use-case for an open-source, decentralized operating system based on first-hand sources by the OSs creator and developer, whose authority on the subject is documented and verified. The use-case would be strictly based on the intentions that the developer himself, in no uncertain terms, set out when making the OS. Sources would include: 1) the academic paper about the OS, 2) personal interviews, 3) in-person conferences, 4) essays and 5) online documentation about the OS. The developer has made it very clear how and why he designed the OS to be used in this use-case, but this information is not necessarily found in the same place. So my goal is to compile this information together and write out the use-case as a section on the OSs wiki page.

The use-case itself is not speculation and direct quotes from the developer can be sourced and attributed for all axioms and arguments.

Furthermore there are a number of second-hand sources about the OS I may mention in the use-case, such as: 1) recent online discussion from within the OS community 2) expert opinion pieces on the operating system and 3) Testimony from individuals who worked with the original developer directly.

The page as a whole is technically involved and therefore quite lacking in active contributions, so I would like to expand it based on the intent for how the author made his OS to be used. Turdbit (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You don’t need anyone’s permission to edit an article. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial and review how primary sources may be used. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Turdbit, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with what 331dot says; but it sounds to me as if you may be veering into original research (or at least, synthesis).

A Wikipedia article should summarise what independent sources say. If a source presents an argument or a conclusion, Wikipedia may summarise that argument or conclusion; but it should not advance any argument or conclusion that is not clearly contained within a single source; nor should it present any argument or conclusion which is synthesised from material in more than one source. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Combining science and religion using metaphysics plus mathematical and physical tools

Hello I am new and my aim is to unify religion and science together using quantum physical concept like QFT, Uncertainty Principle, De Broglie’s equation, Schrondinger’s Wave Equation and also The Theory Of Relativity, I notice that whenever the topic of metaphysics or subtle realms or dimensions come up, a religious connotation is attached to it… For instance the multiverse theory and whatnot, I have my thoughts on these, and I AM NOT BIASED in the slightest, I would like to approach everything scientifically, so how do I go about it? Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your question?

If you already developed your theory, write a self-published article or a book about it, or publish it in an academic journal if it’s scientific enough. Unfortunately, you can’t write a Wikipedia article about your own theory until there’s a bunch of other sources talking about it. fx (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Dhritiman Bhattacharyya, the relevant content policy is No original research, which, among other things, forbids editors from writing articles about their own theories cited to their own writings. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you suggest a journal where I might be able to publish it? Like just the name or website URL? Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dhritiman Bhattacharyya Try WP:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot pal! I have joined Wikibooks maybe I can help out over there Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

IMO the best first step is to write a shorter article/blog post on the topic and get people’s feedback on it. LessWrong could be a good fit for you – if your theory is actually novel and interesting, the audience there may appreciate it and give you some insightful discussion on it. And if it’s not, they’re more likely to give you constructive criticism instead of just calling you stupid or whatever.

WikiBooks is specifically for books/guides. I’m not familiar with the guidelines over there so I don’t know if writing about your theory is allowed, but even if it is, I think it’s not the best venue to first introduce your ideas to the world. fx (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

How do I flag a new starter article to the greater Wikipedia community as something that could use additional editorial eyes and input? Is that done here or at another board? Started this page: 2025 Pentagon press pass forfeiture and would love to get more people interacting and also would like to start a 2025 Wikipedia Culture Wars article to discuss investigations aimed at Wikipedia. Xkeylimepie (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You can post a neutral notice on the relevant WikiProjects and or editors if they are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 06:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xkeylimepie Some guidance at WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Xkeylimepie (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I just want to know what I can do to fix it, it’d be amazing if someone could help me out, I’m making a series and tried to make a page about it but it got declined Draft:Bunnyverse, I wrote it in 3rd person EbunnyGAMING (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m afraid there is nothing to suggest that your topic is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello,
I recently uploaded the school logo at File:Castle Park High School logo.png, and as this is my first time uploading a non-free file, I wanted to confirm that I followed policy correctly.
I based my upload on the guidance at WP:WPSCH/AG#IB (specifically the “Do include” section) and on WP:NFCI, particularly point 7. : (Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school). I selected “This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use” and “This is a logo of an organization.”
I provided the source — Sweetwater Union High School District – School Logos.
Could someone please review the file and confirm that it meets Wikipedia’s non-free content policy and fair-use requirements? I simply want to make sure that I have done everything properly. And have not mistakenly violated Wikipedia’s copyright policies. Thank you kindly, Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Issac I Navarro, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It looks to me as if you’ve done everything right with the logo. (NFCI:7 is not relevant: the meaning of “school” there is sense 5 of wikt:school, which has nothing to do with educational establishments. But NFCI:2 applies.)

I think that the article has a lot of material in it which is not encyclopaedic and should be removed. I haven’t looked closely enough at the references to decide whether or not it appears to meet the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I am looking over the page now, I have added Template: Generated from: Under construction, as of now to the page Castle Park High School, I plan on doing as you suggest and trimming not encyclopaedical substance. Also work on it’s layout per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

On the 2026 Women’s European Volleyball Championship page, the Europe map doesn’t include Baku so I added the city on the top right like the way Kairat is displayed in the Champions League map. However, adding the map unnecessarily adds a bunch of grey space below the map. Is there a way to have the Azerbaijan map without adding unnecessarily grey space.
 ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ILoveSport2006, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have no idea about this, but if you go to WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop you’ll probably find somebody who can help you. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It was a bit of a strange question. Thanks for replying. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

For example, would it be allowed to upload an image of someone’s corpse? 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming there was an encyclopaedic reason to do so and the images available thru Wikimedia Commons wouldn’t suffice, yes. Uploading gore for the sake of gore, though, isn’t going to fly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We already have many images of corpses, for example Category:Corpses of war victims – Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Recommend implementing WP:DENY. The mobile editor has been opening up mutliple RMs, in the last few hours. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How to make a table in source editor, please help me. Godzilla12491 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Godzilla12491, have you digested Help:Table? And if so, then what help do you need? — Hoary (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Godzilla12491 This is a good use for a personal sandbox (e.g. at User:Godzilla12491/sandbox) so you can practice and show us your progress if things go wrong. Click on the currently red link to make your sandbox page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This one:

File:Screenshot 20251026 210439 Chrome.jpg Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Tournament points table Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This one, check in the points table section, im kinda new Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Just edit that article and copy out its source code and paste it into your sandbox. Then you can experiment with changes for that or any other article where you need a similar table. Make sure you don’t change the existing table by editing it and save/publishing the result in its current location. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, i found an article with no context and references. (link)

Thanks. Versions111 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111 Thank you! I have changed it to a WP:DRAFT so that the author can still work on it. It appears to be about a Spongebob Squarepants song. Polygnotus (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If I got one of my off-wiki friends (who is a minor) to join Wikipedia, and I end up editing the same articles as them because I’m helping them learn to use Wikipedia, but we avoid involving each other off-wiki in disputes/controversial areas, do I need to disclose knowing them in real life? I’m concerned that then by extension I would need to follow WP:GFYE to preserve their privacy. lp0 on fire () 22:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire No, I don’t think that you do. Just be aware of WP:MEATPUPPET and avoid ganging up on other editors from the two accounts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! lp0 on fire () 22:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

And how do I make one? Rupert likes music (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rupert likes music See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rupert likes music Hello! Just visited your UP: I don’t think it’s appropriate to “advertise” Spotify links on your userpage! Maresa63 ^Talk 10:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll get on it now, I can still recommend them though, yes? I will admit ta full link to them was a bit much. Sorry! Rupert likes music (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I’ve been using AI on Wikipedia for about 4 something months now. I love using AI on Wikipedia. It makes long edits feel easy. Of course, I always fact check the information, and add links. And, I just let a bot fix the disambiguation links I add sometimes. I want to ask: is anyone fine if I partially use AI in my articles. It is kind of to late because I have already worked it hundreds of times. I want rollback rights to. Do I have the experience in undoing edits to get the rights? If so, how many edits will I need to get rollback, and submit my case for the third time? CostalCal (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you stop using AI, I have reverted two of your recent edits which added AI “summaries”. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CostalCal. Artificial intelligence should not be used to edit Wikipedia, as it is known to hallucinate and make up sources as well as information. We have an essay on LLMs if you are curious.

I am sure your edits have been in good faith, and you have not meant any harm, but I strongly advise you to write yourself and not use AI in editing. If you are concerned about your edits needing to be reverted, I took a glance at a few of them and they seem to be largely alright. If you have any major concerns still, you could post somewhere like the AI Cleanup noticeboard to let others know and allow them to help revert, if you so wish. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this, AI should not be used for Wikipedia, considering it has and can make ideas up, or agree with what the user asks even if it is factually incorrect. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

On the question of rollback; please review the instructions given at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Rollback is primarily for editors who participate in counter vandalism. Your edits show no use of Twinkle, Redwarn, or Ultraviolet. I would recommend you first focus on cleaning up your contributions however, to ensure they are free of the various problems using AI/LLMs cause. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The amount of work you put into verifying LLM nonsense could just be put into writing it. We are here to write articles for fun, not use automated pattern simulators do things. A lot of the fun of this SI writing those long grueling articles. Ive spent hours researching and writing new articles and improving others. What would be the point of using a generator to do that? Metallurgist (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it loses the charm and human aspect. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It may lose the charm, I don’t know. Yes it loses the human aspect. But you didn’t mention the important part: AI can never tell the truth, because it has no idea what that is. I guess I’m in a small minority when I say I think anyone using AI for anything on Wikipedia – even drafts, even discussions – should be permanently banned after their second offence, and anyone twenty times merely suspected of using AI should be banned too, but an encyclopedia full of lies is bad, even if the lies are arguably accidental. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you, I’ve asked AI simple questions to test it and it got it wrong, it is unreliable and should only be used for calculations and data collection, nothing creative or anything about humans, for AI isn’t a human and therefore does not understand us and our immense history. I think they should be banned as well, it would be horrible if this site was filled with AI photos and text. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I asked Google why Liquid Death was in some weird size like 19.8oz, and the obnoxious forced AI said because it was larger than 24oz cans. Metallurgist (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I am extremely anti LLM. Should be immediate block. The problem is people admit to using it now. If it were banned totally, they may hide that, and it can be difficult to prove. There are numerous articles showing how people are falsely challenged in academia for use of AI. But, in many cases, it is obvious. Metallurgist (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors! I want to fix the wikilink of {{User ISRO}} from Indian Space Research Organisation to ISRO. How do I do that? Or can you do it in the first place? Please ping me while you reply so I can get notified. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 15:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Akshadev I made the change to the template on your user page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: This is certainly not the solution I want! It is still grammatically incorrect (as it says, “This user supports the ISRO). I’m actually looking for a permanent solution, and that is rename/edit/move the template/userbox. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 15:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Akshadev If you edit the original template page at {{user ISRO}}, then you will alter its use for everyone else who has that template on their user page, which they might not like. Hence I only altered it on your page. You can tweak what is now on your own page to achieve any wording you like. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The Indian Space Research Organisation was changed to ISRO by a majority vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves. So whether people like or dislike the template change shouldn’t matter much. I am going to rename it to This user supports ISRO. If there is a separate voting process for template renaming then I will surely apply there. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 15:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, thanks for the help! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 15:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull All I had to do is put ‘ISRO’ in the wikilink ([ISRO|Indian Space Research Organisation]). This is what I was looking for. Ignore everything I said one paragraph above. Keep helping and happy editing! 🙂 – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I’m new to this so apologies for what may be a duh question… If I notice that some figures are out of date (and there are more up to date figures on the webpages cited), is it ok for me to just update them and publish? Like the number of students at a college dating back to 2020-2021, for example. I’m not yet clear on when I should be making suggestions on the Talk page vs just going ahead and publishing edits. I want to make sure I follow proper etiquette. Similarly, if a cited webpage no longer provides updated figures for numbers that are mentioned in the article, can I just remove that sentence? Stephcard7155 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Stephcard7155! You can be bold and update articles, as long as you include a citation on your addition to a reliable, published source. Make sure to also write in an edit summary explaining what you are updating and why. As for sources that no longer verify the information: yes, either remove the information, find a new source, or check for archived copies of the source that still verify it. qcne (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

When can requested moves be procedurally closed, and is there a template you should use? I don’t think you have to wait at all to close them, right? —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 20:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Recently I was reading the article about the city of Niš in Serbia, and in the introduction I came across the following text:

After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city was liberated in 1878 and became part of the Principality of Serbia, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.

Specifically, the word “liberated” caught my eye. In a historical context, the term “liberated” carries a value judgment, doesn’t it? It implies that the previous rulers of the cith were inherently oppressive and unjust and that subsequent control was inherently freeing or positive. While I’m sure that is indeed how some view it in this specific example, I’m unsure whether it’s a neutral description of what happened: it feels kind of subjective rather than objective. Would it not be more appropriate to phrase it like this:

After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city became part of the Principality of Serbia in 1878, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.

Decided to ask here in Teahouse before I consult the talk page, to see if there is even merit in my question.
Curious to hear your thoughts as someone who isn’t well-versed with Wikipedia’s editing guidelines, cheers Havzali (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t want to say that liberated is never proper–it might be okay in other articles if that’s what most reliable sources use, and I can see it being appropriate in a case where a city was originally part of Nation A, was taken over by Nation B, and then was shortly thereafter returned to Nation A–that return from being taken over could be described as “liberating” the city. But in this example, I think your rewording is better. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming I agree 100%, I can definitely see there being appropriate uses of the word, especially in the circumstances you describe. In this case, 400 years is a long time and I’m sure there’s more neutral words like reconquest to signify change in ownership. Havzali (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I think in this case you can be WP:BOLD and go ahead and make the edit you suggested! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think your proposed change is better, I concur with the other editor here that you should be bold and change it. Athanelar (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The source uses “liberated”, altho it is a Serbian source. I would suggest looking for sources that have a different wording before doing that. I am taking an educated guess that you are Turkish and can bet that a Serb editor would take issue with that. Balkans issues are on the Contentious topics list and requires more delicate handling. Perhaps propose it on the talk page and do some research to see if other sources dont use that term. This is a good manual of style question tho. Looking at other examples, there is Liberation of France as a whole article. And a number of concentration camps are recorded as being liberated. Metallurgist (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Aloha! I am the information manager for USINDOPACOM’s Pacific Multi Domain Training and Experimentation Capability (PMTEC). Given our activities and mission, as codified in the U.S. Pacific Deterrence Initiative, I believe PMTEC warrants a Wikipedia page. After reading Wikipedia guidelines, I believe I should not be the one to create it.

Is that correct? Any advice on how to get a page established, and if it is established would it still be a conflict of interest to edit it? Mahalo for your input and guidance. Tai Indo (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tai Indo, welcome to the Teahouse!

Thank you for being proactive regarding your conflict of interest. It’s true that COI editors are strongly discouraged from contributing to articles.

For the subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it must meet either the general notability guideline or the corporation notability guideline.

The subject warrants an article only if it meets one of these criteria.

You may submit an article request, but other than that there’s not much else to do except wait until the article is created organically.

If you wish to create the article yourself, you can go to WP:AFC and submit it there, where it will be thoroughly reviewed by an experienced editor for common problems with COI editing before it’s published live. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check out both of the notability links you provided, and if warranted, submit an article request for now. Appreciate your response! 199.211.150.27 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As I assume you are an employee of the US military or serving in the military, you would be a paid editor under our rules. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. 199.211.150.27 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

And whatever information you write in a draft or article must be based on previously published sources. So something that you know, that is not published, should not be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want to write the article yourself:

1. Make sure you disclose your COI on your user page. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for guidance on COIs and how to disclose COIs and paid editing (which yours would be considered as)

2. Create the article as a draft first. (something like Draft:Pacific Multi Domain Training and Experimentation Capability Follow all the guidance in WP:YFA regarding article standards, notability, verifiability etc.

3. Once you feel your draft is fully-formed, submit it at WP:AFC for review. Again, make sure you note your COI. The article will be reviewed for both normal wiki standards as well as any issues arising from your COI, and if the article is suitable for Wikipedia it will be approved and created as a main article.

Alternatively, you might consider instead getting the info about PMTEC added to the already existing USINDOPACOM article as a section there. If you want to do that, then discuss your proposed addition/edits at Talk:United States Indo-Pacific Command first as is expected of COI editors. Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that guidance. Adding to the USINDOPACOM article is a great idea. Tai Indo (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tai Indo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo all that other editors have said in reply – including, particularly, acknowledging you for disclosing your connection with the subject.

But I would add something a little stronger about experience: 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) 12:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Very wise advice, as I am learning through this process. I definitely need to spend time on Wikipedia before attempting this. I appreciate the thoughtful guidance. Mahalo! Tai Indo (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that there are two accounts which have extremely close ties to one another, I want to open an SPI, but I am not sure how to do this as I have never done one before. I believe that there is historic evidence of one of the accounts being run by now a new account opened and then not disclosed. I know you are allowed to have more than one account, but you must disclose all ties to which accounts you have, right? Anyway, I was not sure if this is the appropriate venue to ask about this as well. Sorry in advance if it is not. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Hello! I would recommend asking my brother Asilvering or Izno. Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering is your brother? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Spiritually/metaphysically. Like a comrade. Polygnotus (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, I would recommend using Twinkle for opening the investigation; in a person’s contributions, you can open a sockpuppet investigation in the ARV button. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases might have useful information to consider; but basically, just present evidence in a simple way, using diffs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I’m pretty new to wiki, but I noticed that the article on transfeminism has some serious shortcomings. I tried to put in some summaries of some recent developments in the theory, but a lot what I want to include comes from a self-published source, the substack and essay collections of Talia Bhatt (https://taliabhattwrites.substack.com/p/the-third-sex, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trans_Rad_Fem/ItUi0QEACAAJ?hl=en). However, her works are cited positively in academic sources that would be considered reliable (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00497878.2025.2565492, https://www.proquest.com/openview/df481a7d1f9fb07c2a1c37f561419b9a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y). Does being cited by reliable academic sources, make these essays themselves reliable? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The short answer is no. If her self-published works are cited by reliable sources, then maybe, but this would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It’s better to report what secondary sources say. Her own self-published work hasn’t undergone peer review, so it would be considered less than reliable for verifying statements of fact, but could be used to attribute quotations to her. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the rules around reliability strike me as overly limiting here, when it comes to topics of political theory. If Bhatt is the one coming up with these theories and putting them out there, and these theories are being accepted into the the reliable discourse on the topic, and cited by reliable sources, shouldn’t wiki be able to source directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak? I understand the need to stick to more robust verification on topics that have a less subjective nature, but if Bhatt is influencing the theory, then shouldn’t the wiki article on the theory reflect that? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this. This is a political ideology, after all, and Bhatt is a political theorist. Her works and writings have been praised by authorities within the field, too. Shes quite influential, as sparrows outlined. I don’t think it would be violating Wikipedia’s neutrality rules or anything to take directly from her writings. She is, after all, the one coming up with this stuff. Missmonstergirl (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, that isn’t how Wikipedia works. Self-published material that has been referenced in secondary sources is fair game to cite. Self-published material that hasn’t gone through peer review, however, is just original research on her part, and can be mentioned only with attribution, not as statements of fact that imply the consensus among the community of her peers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

So I’m a little confused here. what would qualify material for being “referenced in secondary sources”? and how is that different then the situation with the essays I want to cite? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If a secondary source reports something that Talia Bhatt wrote, then that could be cited to report something that she wrote, because it’s a secondary source. If you are citing Bhatt directly, then you cannot state her assertions as fact in Wikipedia’s narrative voice, you must attribute the assertion to her. However, I have difficulty seeing where this would be necessary, because determine what assertions are important enough to include in an article (other than mundane things like age and birth date for the purpose of verification) cannot be made by the personal whims of any Wikipedia editor, they should be based on secondary sources. If the essays you want to cite are noted by other sources, then cite them. Otherwise, why would you cite an essay? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you offered an example to evaluate, and the context in which you plan to use it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Flockofsparrows420 You’re basically questioning how WP works. From the horse’s mouth is a “primary” source. You must cite a[n] independent reliable “secondary” source. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The easy solution is to just cite the secondary sources where possible.

If I say “X is true” and you cite that, that’s WP:OR and doesn’t meet wikipedia standards.

If a number of reliable secondary sources conclude that “X is true” and part of their evidence is citing my initial work, then it makes much more sense to just cut out the middle-man and cite those secondary sources rather than citing my initial assertion with the asterisk that it was affirmed by secondary sources.

If the information you want to include is described in reliable secondary sources which cite Bhatt’s work, just cite those rather than Bhatt directly. Athanelar (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pedant, but wouldn’t this be putting the middle-man in?

Anyways, yeah, that’s what I’ve found too, although now there’s another whole dispute on the talk page because the article is talking abt both trans studies in feminism (trans feminism) and transfeminism, which have similar titles but are different things, and have overlapping areas of concern but do not share opinions. Missmonstergirl (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The point of putting in the middle-man (or -woman), by deliberate policy, is that the middle-person in question should have no personal or professional connection to the originator of the information (eliminating any Conflict of interest), and what they say has been published by a Reliable source, i.e. one that exercises fact checking and editorial control, so that the information is not WP:Original research, which Wikipedia does not host. Such sources are Secondary sources, and Wikipedia is, by design, a Tertiary source that is based mainly on summaries of independent secondary sources.

This is, in Wikipedia’s collective view and experience, the best way to prevent bias, imbalance and outright false information appearing and persisting in its articles. Sometimes this may exclude valuable information presented by a Primary source until others qualified to assess it have published about it, but that is the price of maintaining the reliability of the material that Wikipedia contains. I hope this clarifies things. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

A few months ago (?) I was working on a Wikipedia article about the Cypher System RPG by Monte Cook Games. Consensus was that the game is not encyclopedic enough for the creation of such article.

Not long time ago MCG ran a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for the new edition of the game. It reached a level of 1 million dollars. Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? Or maybe it is meaningless in the big picture?

Best wishes! Kaworu1992 (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? I don’t see how it would do so directly, Kaworu1992. But it could well make the game newsworthy. If it did, then I suppose much of the “news” would be little more than recycled PR junk and interviews with the people behind Monte Cook Games. Very little of this would be usable in any way. But reaching a million might also lead to publication of intelligent material from reliable sources; and if so, then this might might be informatively and helpfully summarizable and might propel the game to encyclopediaworthiness. — Hoary (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kaworu1992, what makes something notable isn’t what primary sources like Kickstarter say, it’s entirely based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources say about a subject. If multiple publications (like those at WP:RSVG) critically report on it, then it has a good chance at meeting our inclusion criteria. Nil🥝 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, helpful Teahouse hosts,

I have run into a problem and I don’t know where to go to get an explanation or solution. I use a laptop and at the top of the screen there is a pulldown menu with tabs like “Page”, “User”, “More”, “Edit” and “TW”. For some reason today, the tabs moved around from the order they are normally in (left to right). When you edit as much as I do, you can get used to all of these tools being in the same places all of the time. So, is there any device or page that has information on how to reorder the tabs to where they usually are? I’ve tried dragging them around (no good) and looking into Preferences. If anyone has a clue, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Hm, that is difficult to diagnose without a screenshot. Is it possible you zoomed in too much, which thanks to responsive design can turn a horizontal list into a vertical one.

Try pressing Ctrl-0, this should reset the zoom level to the default. Holding down Ctrl and pressing the plus sign zooms in, and minus zooms out. Hope that helps. If not, maybe you can upload a screenshot somewhere? Polygnotus (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect Liz used incorrect terminology and isn’t actually seeing a vertical pulldown menu with tabs but is just seeing normal horizontal tabs, some of which activate a vertical drop-down menu when clicked. The reported problem is only the horizontal order of the tabs. Some of the mentioned tabs are made by gadgets which run JavaScript in your own browser after the page has loaded. It varies in which order scripts are run and this can affect in which order the tabs are displayed. It varies for me between reloads of the same page. I don’t know a way to fix the tabs in a specific order. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for using inaccurate terminology in my initial post. What PrimeHunter described is what is happening to me. Over 12 years though, I have dozens and dozens of scripts installed so figuring out which one might be causing this would be a very big challenge.

I have noted two things today that might be pertinent in solving this problem and that is, I’ve noticed in some screens, the tabs have a different order so it’s not a static change. Also, on some of these screens, the order of the tab has gone back to what I’m used to. The main glitch which prompted this note here is that I’m used to the TW/Twinkle tab at the far right. I use Twinkle for so many activities throughout the day, it’s just a hassle to go looking for it rather than moving the cursor directly to the same place. I also have had the same order of tabs now for years and years so I was wondering what would suddenly cause them to move around.

But given your advice, I’ll see if there is a script that has been recently installed. Thanks for giving me your best guess of what the problem might be. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You might want to experiment with the order in which the scripts are listed, on your .js page(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 08:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:World Camel Day

Hello Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing),

Thank you for your message and for bringing the paid editing disclosure policy to my attention. I want to state unequivocally that I have no financial stake of any kind in promoting World Camel Day or any related topics. I am not being paid, nor have I ever been paid, for my edits on Wikipedia.

My motivation is purely academic and advocacy-driven. I am a researcher and advocate focused on sustainable agriculture. My work centers on promoting the camel’s role as a key animal for food security and adaptation to climate change in arid regions. I saw Wikipedia as a platform to share this important, factual information with a global audience to raise awareness, not for any personal or financial gain.

I apologize if my edits appeared promotional; I am still learning Wikipedia’s complex policies on neutrality and notability. I understand now that I must demonstrate the topic’s importance through independent, reliable sources rather than personal advocacy.

I would be grateful for your guidance on how to properly develop the Draft:World Camel Day article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I am committed to learning the correct process and contributing constructively.

Thank you for your understanding. Raziq2007 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Pigsonthewing:. jolielover♥talk 06:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Raziq2007 Hello! “Advocacy-driven” is also a potential problem from the WP-pov, and the results can be very similar to WP:COI related editing. Please take the time to digest WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1263#article_about_myself_has_been_dropped, draft at Draft:World Camel Day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Raziq2007 Your draft has no citations whatever. You appear to have written your draft WP:BACKWARDS. Please read that essay. All article content must be based on reliable sources, not on what you know. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There’s no need to address your comments to me – anyone can respond here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 08:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The draft was AI-generated, with hallucinated references (all but one). — DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors! I’m trying to move two categories at Wikimedia Commons (this one and this one) but I have no idea how to proceed. I am seeking your guidance (of course in a simple and understandable way). And yeah, don’t forget to ping me so I can read your reply. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 16:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Akshadev: Commons has a help desk at c:Commons:Help desk. Please ask there, and specify what names you want to move each category to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 19:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have asked for help but no one has responded yet. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 11:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please be more patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Two longstanding editors just changing the lead to whatever they feel like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_Declaration_International&action=history 2A00:FBC:EE98:E96F:E994:EA7D:92A0:7DEF (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If users are persistently edit-warring, first issue a warning on the user[s’] talk page[s], then escalate to WP:ANI if the disruptive editing continues. Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar It is four against one, and the IP is on the losing side. @2A00 etc. Sorry bud the WP:CONSENSUS is against you. Polygnotus (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Read upon consensus, as meant on Wikipedia; and follow our dispute resolution process if you still think you have a case once you have done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I need to to create my Article Richard Agi (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Agi What are the 2 WP:GNG-best sources about you you know about? If there are no such sources, there is no chance an article about you will “stick.” You should also consider Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn’t necessarily a good thing. If such an article is accepted, you’ll have no control over it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If you refer to the page you drafted at User:Richard Agi/Sample page, please see our page on writing about yourself.

As written , the page is wholly unsuited for publication on Wikipedia, not least because it lacks the required inline citations, but also because it is written like a hagiography. There is no evidence that the subject meets our basic requirements for inclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There’s no need to create an article on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FAMOUS. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Advice for adding image of my own Optic Nerve Hyperplasia for either the article on ONH or the other on Strabismus

I have ONH, and was born with a turned-in left eye (Which was quickly corrected). I’ve managed to take a photo of my eyes, showing the difference between the ‘healthy’ right eye and the affected left eye, which is slightly off-center. As the title suggests, I don’t know which Article to add. I’m still kind of new to editing and stuff, so I don’t know if i can add the image. I’d like to have some advice on what to do, as I don’t want to add/edit anything without permission Raine Foll (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like optic nerve hypoplasia doesn’t have an image, so yours could be great! To add it, I would recommend starting by uploading the image to Commons. Once you’ve done that, you’ll add the image to the infobox by putting the file name under “image” and adding alt text under “alt” and caption under “caption.” Or if you’d like, tag me and post the Commons link, and I can add it to the article for you.

Thanks for your help! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s really great that you did that; thank you.

Could you also please upload a version without the text captions? That way, it can be used in articles about ONH in Wikipedias in other languages than English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Earlier, I asked here about where I could get help or suggestions on an essay I wrote WP:OAFA. Someone suggested I try WP:VILLAGEPUMP, but I’m not sure which section would be best. I also noticed a link to WP:PEERREVIEW, but most of the requests I checked there seem to be unanswered. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend sticking it in your userspace. It doesn’t appear developed enough for the Wikipedia namespace. The best essays develop very very slowly over time. They are an idea you have in the back of your head for years, and you can’t get rid of it. Polygnotus (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I don’t even think I’ve been on here for years… Do you think the article has potential though? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The essay? No, because it is 2 distinct ideas, neither fully fleshed out:

• Solve problems once and for all, which is too hopeful, people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a ‘binding’ decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid.
• Occam’s razor for solutions for problem, which can be a good idea, but that isn’t an iron law. In some cases picking the most minor solution will ensure the conflict keeps festering, and you need bigger guns.

So I would recommend sticking it in your userspace and keep it in the back of your head for a few years. Then rewrite it. Polygnotus (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a ‘binding’ decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid. But the point is that it will decrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely. But yeah, I’ll move WP:OAFA to my user page and delete the mainspace one. Thanks! Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You will need to contact Seawolf35 as they were the person who rejected your draft. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon Was this comment in the right section? Polygnotus (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s meant for the section below (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Dargah_Ustad_E_Zaman_Trust) I apologize. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The title “once and for all” conflicts with WP:CCC; RfCs can be overturned, and moratoriums are never indefinite. The rest of the essay is redundant with WP:DR. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should’ve clarified it better in the article. As I explained to someone else in this page, But the point is that it will decrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried checking articles such as Wikipedia:Moving a page, but I’m still not sure about when an article should be moved to draft because it’s incomplete. For example, the article Death and state funeral of Fatima Jinnah does not cite any sources, and has other problems. Should that be moved to a WP:DRAFT because of that? What explicit error means you should move it there? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: as you can see from its history, the article has been created and then edited several times within just ten minutes, and by one user only – its creator. I guess nobody simply noticed it, neither at the time of creation or later, and so it slipped in and stayed here. But now, when you brought it into public attention, it will likely get deleted. —CiaPan (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why deleted though? And should I request deletion? And are you sure I shouldn’t move it to a draft incase the author plans on adding citations? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CiaPan. I think there’s a better way of going about this without being needlessly critical, and which allows @Wikieditor662 to help the user correct their mistakes. I can imagine that an event like this would be covered by a number of publications, the majority of which would be in Pakistan but a number of which I suspect could be found abroad. They need to provide sourcing to support the information you’ve written here, that’s the principal issue. There’s otherwise nothing to support the notion that this event is extraneously relevant and deserving of a separate article; as to the draft space requirement, it’s not yet credibly sourced and thus doesn’t meet the criteria for inclusion in the public space. To Cia, I think it would be best to explain this to the user (@BritPak4709) in question, but if it nonetheless fails to meet the criteria for a separate article, that it be merged to the Fatima Jinnah page. Additionally, though the tag was added by another user, this doesn’t look AI generated to me, it’s just not perfect standard English. I think a number of editors are too quickly conflating vague wording or sentences that lack an argument with AI, which is frankly a bit rude to those who have put in the time to contribute, even if they didn’t do so entirely properly. I’ll add my piece to the deletion discussion, but wish you all the best otherwise.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed the message about the AI thing.

What do you personally suggest? That it be deleted? Moved? Or remain but with just a citation needed template? Or something else maybe? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662. My thinking is that it be noted as having no sources with Template:Unreferenced until they have a chance to defend their claims. If another editor has even a half-decent argument for moving it to draft space I’d be inclined to agree with them.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I’ve just had a conversation with an administrator about it, it went like this:

The article is brand new; give the author some time to work on it. If the article is clearly not ready for the mainspace but likely notable, then if it remains unsourced and is no longer actively being edited it can be draftified. If the article isn’t notable after a thourough search for sources then AfD is the venue to go to. CoconutOctopus talk 16:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the author first have it sourced before putting it into the mainspace? Should I draftify it now or only after it’s been a few days where the author hasn’t edited anything? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

They should have, but there you go. Any time after an hour of no edits is acceptable per WP:DRAFTIFY. CoconutOctopus talk 16:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

From what they said, draftifying it sounds like a better idea. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

How long does it take so I vanish? Afghanka (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

*Looks around in astonishment*

Who said that?!? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 17:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)