Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi,

My first attempt was rejected and I wonder how I return my article to my sandbox to try again, please? Simon J Garrett (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Simon J Garrett. You draft is at Draft:Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, which is the best place for it. (It could be in your sandbox, but there's no reason to move it there from draft space).

If you haven't already seen WP:BOSS, I recommend you read it, and show it to your colleagues.

Also note that if somebody approaches you offering to write an article it is probably a WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Coln,

Thanks for replying. I take it from your kind reply that I can edit it in drafts in the same way, presumably, as I did in the sandbox. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the Boss and Scam references. I'm not being bullied into anything, thankfully. I see dozens of other think tanks on here, and the organisation definitely deserves a page so I will stick at it, and no, I won't be falling for anyone offering to do it for me for cash. Apart from anything else I have too much pride (haha). Simon J Garrett (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again, @Simon J Garrett. You certainly can edit the draft where it is.

I wasn't supposing that you were being bullied: it was rather that I suspected (and still suspect) that you and your organisation have a (very common) fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.

Your use of the word "deserve" implies that you believe that a Wikipedia article about your organisation is in some way for its benefit.

While obviously many organisations (and other subjects) do get some benefit from Wikipedia having an article about them, that is no part of Wikipedia's purpose, and if an article is accepted, you and the organisation will have no ownership or control whatever of its contents. You will be welcome to make edit requests, but it is never up to you or your colleagues to decide what is in the article: it is up to uninvolved editors according to Wikipedia's policies.

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 it happens that those independent commentators say things about the organisation that matches what you would like to say, great. If they leave things out: tough. If they are critical, or even nasty: tough - that's what goes in the article, and you won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

And if there are few or no places where independent commentators have written in some depth about the organisation, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it (that's what the jargon word "notable" is about). "Deserve" doesn't enter into it (and neither does worthiness, by the way).

And the fact that in writing the article you will effectively have to forget everything you know about the organisation and stick to summarising what the independent commentators say is what makes writing an article even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest than for other inexperienced editors.

I'm sorry that this sounds so negative; but the fact is that people in your position rarely succeed. My advice to you is that you put the whole idea aside, at least until you have gained some solid experience in editing and improving Wikipedia articles where you don't have a COI, and learnt about some of the principles and policies of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Colin,

Thank you very much indeed for taking the time to come back to me. It really is very kind. I had managed to miss this reply as Athenalar had also responded below, for which my apologies. As I mentioned to him, I've looked at the entries for a number of other think tanks and can't imagine that they've been written by people at random, rather than the majority were produced by people with a vested interest, or else why write them at all? How would anyone know about The Institute for East West Strategic Studies or The Intergenerational Foundation? Indeed, as I mentioned in my reply to him, there are even examples where editors have suggested that pieces were indeed written by contributors with "a close connection to the subject." Genuinely, all I want to do is to meet the same criteria that allowed all those other think tanks to have approved entries, and I can't seem to find a common thread where they have succeeded where I am failing, but, I shall persevere. Simon J Garrett (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Simon J Garrett Make sure you see WP:OTHERSTUFF, which was also linked in this thread. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Simon J Garrett The other articles might never have been "approved", especially if they were created before sourcing standards were what they are now. David10244 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, I will, I'm working my way through it all. Simon J Garrett (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

the organisation definitely deserves a page Simon, I wrote an essay about this sort of thing that might benefit you; it's at Wikipedia:No special considerations, maybe give it a read.

In a nutshell, you must understand that everybody who comes to Wikipedia trying to write an article about their organisation, particularly in the case of charitable or community organisations, obviously fully believes that the work their organisation does is so important/lifechanging/inspiring/[insert preferred buzzword] that they simply must have an article in our encyclopedia. But that's rather like demanding that a museum serve you coffee because coffee serves a very important societal function. It's not merely that the argument is 'wrong,' rather that it's just a complete non-sequitur; the function of the museum is just completely unrelated to serving coffee, regardless of how important coffee otherwise is for the general running of society.

Whether something 'deserves' a Wikipedia article or not is based entirely on whether it meets our criteria for inclusion for that particular topic; in this case WP:NCORP. These criteria are generally totally unrelated to whatever amazing deeds the organisation might have been involved in, or whatever incredible work or research they might support. Athanelar (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Athanelar,

Thank you so much for taking the time to come back to me on this. I've read your essay, and also What Wikipedia is not. I've also gone away and looked at a number of the entries on here catagorised under Think Tanks Based in the United Kingdom. I have to confess the latter excursion has left me even more baffled. My piece was rejected on the basis of insufficient evidence of corporate notability. It included significant references from a number of national and international media from The Observer and The Guardian to the New York Times, the register of Parliamentary APPGs and even GB News. I found quite a few examples of pages for other think tanks where these kinds of citations were completely lacking. I've also seen a number which have notes appended saying things such as, "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources," or "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject," and yet they have all been accepted. I have complete respect for the fact that you have strict rules for admission, and clearly, having such a regime is one of the things which makes Wikipedia a respected and valuable place to be. I want to obey the rules and produce something which does "deserve" to be here. On the above basis, I am really struggling to work out how. I've had it explained to me that external agencies and individuals claiming to be able to have articles accepted are generally scammers, and anyhow, I really want to manage this myself. I note in my rejection that "live help" is available, but I don't want to presume that someone would have the time to go through my draft line-by-line, so any advice on specifics as opposed to concepts would be really appreciated.

Once again, I really do appreciate you taking the time when you must be drowning in people writing inappropriate submissions. Simon J Garrett (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

To say and yet they have all been accepted is just not true; anybody with an account older than 4 days who has more than 10 edits can publish an article directly into mainspace without it being 'accepted' by anybody, and that's not even to mention the articles published more than around 10 years ago, before the AfC draft process even existed. This particular fallacy is so common it has its own page, too; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, to assume that all of those other articles have undergone the same level of scrutiny as yours is an error. It is very likely that if someone took the time to really review those articles (and a great many other articles on Wikipedia!) they would probably find them worthy of deletion; but deletion is not a fast or easy process, and so many subpar articles languish in the forgotten corners of the encyclopedia until someone determined enough does the needful. C'est la vie.

any advice on specifics as opposed to concepts would be really appreciated. When it comes to organisations, WP:CORPDEPTH is key. Charities, businesses, think tanks and the like tend to attract a lot of reporting on their everyday activities; "X charity donates Y tons of rice to Poor Country" "TechCorp raises $XBn in Series A funding" "TankThinc releases new report on rising rates of Bad Stuff", that sort of thing. None of that's useful to establish notability.

Forgive the copypasted boilerplate here, it's relevant; 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. That's really the key. a neutral summary of what people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. We're looking for in-depth coverage by people entirely unaffiliated with the company writing from a position entirely unaffiliated with the company (so no 'exclusive interviews' with the founders or important people, which is another very common thing). Athanelar (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi,

Thanks again for that, and I finally think I'm getting a small piece of a handle on what you mean, although it does feel quite arcane. So am I right in saying that notability has to be directly about the existence and nature of the organisation itself, and that articles about the research findings the organisation produces, for example, don't count? Simon J Garrett (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Exactly. Notability isn't (generally) based on what you do, it's based on what othrr people write about you. To prove that your organisation id notable, you have to show that other people entirely unconnected to it have decided, of their own volition, to write about it.

That's precisely why the overwhelming majority of organisations in the world simply don't meet the standard. Athanelar (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I see. Thanks again. Simon J Garrett (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Simon J Garrett For another point, in case this moves forward, I suggest removing the Advisory Panel. Information like that does not help much in showing how the group is important, and it is hard to keep information like that up to date as time goes on. David10244 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

anyone welcome to create three days ongoing war in Mogadishu, here the news link; Reuters AP NBC NYT QalasQalas (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, QalasQalas, you'd be welcome to create an (of course policy-compliant) article about this war. ("War" might be an exaggeration. But use the term, or one of the terms, that your reliable sources use.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

many WP:RS used battle erupts so what if we used to 2026 Mogadishu battle. QalasQalas (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That sounds a bit odd to me. However, my opinion on this matter isn't worth much. You could ask the experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

2026 Mogadishu clashes needs some orange tags. QalasQalas (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There has been dispute over Major Myles Moylan's place of birth - Tuam,Co Galway or Amesbury, Massachusetts.There is one citation supporting Moylan's place of birth as Amesbury - the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylanhttps://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylan). That website has recently posted the following - Myles Moylan served many years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he gave varying places of birth. Sometimes it was Amesbury, Massachusetts, and sometimes it was Tuam, County Galway, Ireland. Birth records show that he was, indeed, born in Ireland. Official Army records continue to show his birthplace as Amesbury because that is the place of birth he gave when he started the enlistment for which he earned the Medal of Honor. As of now, there is no supporting evidence for his Amesbury birth. All evidence suggests he was at least Irish. How can I delete Amesbury as his place of birth on his Wikipedia profile? BuffyO'B (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

When sources contradict each other, we cite them both. X says 123, but Y says 456, based on this reasoning. DS (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is a good way to handle a contradiction, and would certainly work. I'm not sure this is a contradiction, though, given the recent clarification. I think you could reasonably say he was born in Galway, and add something like "Army records show him as being born in Amesbury, Massachusetts, as that was the birthplace he gave on enlistment" sourced to the above. M kuhner (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd go with stating he was born in Galway, and then when it comes to his Army career, state that he claimed he was born in Massachusetts when he enlisted in the US Army, sourcing both. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 05:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, if you check out Myles Moylan's birthplace on his wiki page, you will see that there is one citation to support his place of birth as Amesbury - https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylan. If you scroll down to the bottom of that citation page, you will see that the Congressional Medal of Honor archivist has explained why they cite Amesbury although he was clearly born in Ireland. BuffyO'B (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Before I stopped using LLM to help with my articles, I used it to help make Undertale: The Determination Symphony and List of Undertale and Deltarune concerts. I tagged these as AI generated to help clean them up but whats the best way to clean up LLM use? Monathephantom (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Monathephantom: If you created those articles, then presumably you know how and where you used AI, and should be able to remove or rewrite the AI-tainted parts of the articles yourself. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is not helping. These articles are mostly ai generated and I wanted to ask for advice on how to properly clean them up Monathephantom (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If they are "mostly" AI-generated, then it all needs to be cleaned up. The solution is to delete or draftify these articles and write them from scratch with no assistance from AI at all. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have moved these articles to Draft:Undertale: The Determination Symphony and Draft:List of Undertale and Deltarune concerts. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I took a quick look at Undertale: The Determination Symphony, Monathephantom. It's voluminous. I can understand that you have no appetite for going though it. Replace the thing with a 100%-human-made stub. Then ask for earlier versions to be deleted (for earlier "revisions" to be "revdelled") in order to prevent editors looking in the history from copying the AI slop and pasting it back in. Nourish and augment the stub. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 01:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Hoary, You removed your reply but i followed your advice and removed all AI generated content and left those articles as stubs. They're notable enough to receive inclusion here, and soon i'll be expanding it. Monathephantom (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Monathephantom, this unexpected resuscitation of my suggestion put me in the mood to snip out a few more bytes. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 03:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You may well have done this already, so please ignore if so!

AI loves to just make things up, but for some reason I've found that it's got a massive blind spot when it comes to video games.

Make sure that you go through any AI-generated sources/citations with a fine toothed comb, because you can pretty much guarantee that some of them will be absolutely useless. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Are there any wikipedia help or guide pages about identifying, reviewing, or correcting text with AI-generated writing? I've seen a few articles tagged with it, but the talk pages are rarely informative. -- Gmedinakim (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes! WikiProject AI Cleanup has resources and guidelines. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 07:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have added information to this article and included (using Upload Wizard) some photos of paintingss done by the artist who died in 1912. Somehow I have indicated that the paintings are my own work! Could this be corrected for me. I also had some problem with positioning the photos, needing to leave a huge gap in my editing text. I am out of touch with editing procedures now. BFP1 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy link: George Hay (artist)

I can correct the copyright tags; since they are faithful reproductions of paintings by an artist who died over 100 years ago, the correct tag is {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. But I'm not sure about how the photographs should be positioned. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, actually, I also need to know where you got the photographs from. Were they online? Did you take the photograph yourself? Are they from a book? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

They were online from Bonham and Christies auction catalogues BFP1 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you provide the links so I can add them to Commons, please? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-4715889?ldp_breadcrumb=back

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/13978/lot/1018/george-hay-rsa-rsw-1831-1912-63-x-89cm-25-x-35ins/#lot-details

Thanks. These were used for the photos in the article but they cannot be uploaded directly to Commons as the titles are incorrect.

The titles used by the auctioners were just made up ones because they did not know the correct title. I used the correct titles (as a result of research) of the 2 paintings when I uploaded them to Commons. I was going to mention the incorrect titles in 'further details' for each photo.

I have added the words 'auction catalogue' to the 'Further details' Summary for each photo and it seems to have fixed things. I will add the auctioneers details to complete things and add a Discussion section for each photo in 'Further details'to indicate the auctioneers 'made-up' naming of the paintings.

I have now added the auctioner's details for each painting in the Further details sections.

I have decided to put the auctioneers' made-up titles in the main text. Thank you for setting me on the right track. . BFP1 (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Perfect! Glad we could get that sorted. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Teahouse, I would appreciate some advice before resubmitting a draft article. I wrote a draft about High Life, the British Airways magazine. The draft was declined because the reviewer felt it appeared to contain LLM-generated text and suggested that it be rewritten from scratch. The sources used are genuine, independent and verifiable (including coverage from The Independent, The Guardian, Campaign and Press Gazette), and the subject previously existed as a Wikipedia article before being redirected. Before I undertake a substantial rewrite, I would be grateful for feedback from experienced editors. Looking at the current draft, what changes would you recommend to make it more encyclopaedic and improve its chances of acceptance? Thank you so much in advance for any advice. Best, Kerry KS Citations (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You said that the sources used are genuine, independent, and verifiable. But did you use an LLM to write the text? Those are two different questions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy link: Draft:High Life (magazine)

Courtesy ping: Helpful Raccoon

^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The sourcing seems okay, but as is common with LLM drafts, it describes the coverage itself instead of summarizing what sources have said about the publication, along with vague generalizations like "reflecting broader changes in airline publishing". The easiest way to fix this is by rewriting the draft yourself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@KS Citations As someone who rescues a lot of pages, I would have suggested that you turn the text of the declined version into bullet points and rewrite each bullet point in your own words in neutral language but the page is now little more than a stub, which on first appearance would seem better as a section of the primary page. The draft does seem to one good sig cov and another that maybe passable. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Good point, there's less independent sourcing than I originally thought. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks all for your replies. Much appreciated KS Citations (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I just suggested an article to be made, and I'd like to know if anyone knows how long it takes on average for an article suggestion to be addressed.

Thank you :) Aquangell (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It may be a long time, depending on the topic, the availability of sources, and the willingness of someone to do the work. Requested articles is severely backlogged. Far more suggestions are made than fulfilled. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, that was helpful! Aquangell (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Frankly, you should assume that any article you request will never get made. Article creation is a difficult and time-consuming process, and the people interested in doing so are probably going to do so in a topic that takes their interest (or that they've stumbled on good sources for) rather than doing so on the behalf of others.

If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia and you have a strong interest in the topic, I really suggest you start editing Wikipedia, get some experience and tackle the task yourself. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the tips :) Aquangell (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Aquangell, I suspect that the responses above are about suggestions related to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but that your question is instead about Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok/Articles for creation. That could be different. However, as I glance at its history I don't notice any edit summaries such as "Removing from list (article now made)". It seems a sleepy page; Athanelar's advice remains valid, though I'd preface it with "first check that you'll be able to demonstrate that your proposed subject is 'notable '". -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 22:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, thanks for letting me know regarding the page's activity :) Aquangell (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I submitted my first article to AfC in April and got it approved in 2 days, which was a complete shock. I think it critically depends on whether a reviewer is interested; mine was on a specific hobby topic and maybe I hit a reviewer with the right hobby. I have heard of other people taking weeks or months.

An alternative is to ask a mentor or other experienced editor for an informal review. Putting up an article directly and having it end up at Articles for Deletion is not much fun, so a pre-check is a good idea. M kuhner (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

M kuhner, despite its title, Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok/Articles for creation is very unlike Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It doesn't expect drafts. But as for AfC, yes, it can indeed be pretty fast. See this example (pats self on back, pours self a beer). -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 01:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, missed the TikTok part! M kuhner (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @M kuhner. I'm sure that a reviewer who is interested in the subject will help get a quicker review. But the main thing that gets a quick review, I think, is that it is an easy one to do, either because it obviously fails (the much more common case) or because it obviously passes (because it has an appropriate number of citations to high quality sources, and everything is cited). ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Bio says born in PA. Dropped out of high school, and began racing when he moved to Northern Calif. The truth is, He went to school at Sunnyvale High in Nor Cal. He was already here before he started racing at Fremont Dragstrip. ~2026-33860-37 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you have a suggestion for (or can make a correction to) the article Jim Liberman, then please present it in Talk:Jim Liberman. Be sure to provide a reliable, published source for it. (We can't accept mere hearsay.) -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 22:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I tried to correct some major errors in an unsourced movie synopsis, and an officious editor reverted the synopsis back to the erroneous original, criticizing me for not providing any source for the corrections. I've checked a few, and I cannot find any synopsis that list sources (since the source for the synopsis is the movie itself). What would the source for a synopsis even look like, since the source is the movie (or book) itself? Krautsk (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You are correct; a work such as a book or film is itself the reliable source for its content, since anyone can verify it by reading or watching the work, and an article about the work does not need inline citations in the Plot or other section describing its content, although actual quotes from it do need to be fully cited: see WP:PLOTREF.

Of course, anyone could take issue with the accuracy of a plot summary, but this would be a content dispute that should be resolved as described in that link, not a deficiency in referencing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Krautsk, it seems that all is now well. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 02:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So, I am studying this subject within Hinduisim about different temples.

And I am particularly interested to learn more about the Venkateswara Temple in Tirumala. And I came across a subset of this article in the name of Legend of "Tirumala".

Question: What's the best way to merge these two articles (I think A2 is a small subset of A1):

Article 1: Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala

Article 2: Legend of Tirumala MethodsUser (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Before wondering how to merge the two, MethodsUser, have you read Wikipedia:Merging on whether to merge (and if so then how to get agreement for merging)? -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 04:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey there, thanks for the guidance & sorry I didn't know that [Wikipedia:Merging] existed.

From what I read, the "Legend of Tirumala" article kinda fits the short text & context criteria well. It's a subset of the broader Venkateswara Temple article & unlikely to expand independently. Infact I also came across a 3rd article on the deity Venkateswara himself, which I need to factor in before deciding the right merge structure. I gotta study all 3 articles carefully before tagging them for a merge. Appreciate your guidance! MethodsUser (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Having been through a couple merges, it's fairly easy if you can add the short article as a new section inside the large article. That might be possible for Legend of Tirumala. If you are considering different ways to merge, I strongly recommend putting your ideas on one of the three Talk pages, and putting a link to that discussion on the other two, so you can get input from everyone involved with these articles. Doing a discussion there before going to AfD is, I think, a good idea. M kuhner (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not sure how to best to correct an issue in the short description in the biography of a living person.

In the infobox for Deborah Raji, the living person has a (correct) birth date calculated using template:Bbad. What's the best way to correct the short description birth date, which incorrectly lists "born 2020". Should I correct it by literally typing in "1982/3"? Or, should I copy/paste in the Bbad, as in {{birth based on age as of date|37|2020|12|3|noage=yes|slash=yes}}? Please advise :D Gmedinakim (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Gmedinakim! Actually, per the Wikipedia:Short description guidelines, you do not even need to include the birth year at all. The standard recommended format for a living person's biography is simply "Nationality occupation" (for example, American actor). Including a birth year is strictly optional and usually discouraged unless it is absolutely necessary to differentiate them from another person with the exact same name. If you do choose to keep the year, it must be manually typed out as static text because complex templates like {{Bbad}} break when exported to mobile and search platforms. Hope this helps! CKATL·ø 06:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Gmedinakim: Please link the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@PrimeHunter Done! I linked Deborah Raji's page in the original question (topic opener?). Gmedinakim (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Gmedinakim: Thanks. The false year was added for no reason [1] and you were right to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Did you make an article and upload pictures and gifs? ~2026-33906-80 (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No? I was just editing a short description. Replied to the wrong topic, or am I missing something? -- Gmedinakim (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Resolved! -- Gmedinakim (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. I am not asking for help with my own draft. I am asking experienced editors to create a full article (not a draft) about mcmod.cn (MC百科), a Chinese Minecraft mod database launched in 2013. Why this site matters: One of the largest Chinese databases for Minecraft mods Active since 2013 Well known in the Chinese Minecraft community What I would like you (the community) to do: Check if the site meets Wikipedia notability guidelines (I believe it does, but I am not a Chinese speaker and cannot easily find Chinese sources like 3DM, Gamersky, etc.) Create a full article – not a draft, a real page Upload and add images: full logo, favicon, screenshot of the homepage, and the green slime animation from the footer (if fair use allows) I cannot do this myself because I am not Chinese and do not want to navigate the Chinese website for screenshots or slime images. I am asking the English Wikipedia community to do it. Is anyone willing to take this on? Or can you point me to a WikiProject (like WikiProject China) where I can make this request? Thank you. ~2026-30628-68 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Such requests come rather frequently. Please see Athanelar's response (above) to a similar request. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 10:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm really not sure what gives people the idea that, if they find the task too difficult, that there is some other person out there for whom it's easy who would love to do it for them. It's like saying "I've got a really good outline for a novel but I'm no good at writing, whereas you're an author, so can't you just do it for me?" Athanelar (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, "temporary article, will be deleted later"? Why would anyone want to write that? M kuhner (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The satisfaction of a job well done! Amatmilen (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can upload images and GIFs. ~2026-33906-80 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, What is a recent changes patroller and what does a recent changes patroller have the capability to do? Thanks! Me, in particular 10:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Powerplay11, please see Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 10:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

An RC patroller is a volunteer who dedicates their time to patrolling Special:RecentChanges. The permission/capability most often associated with a RC patroller is rollback. Rollback, however, is not given out to all RC patrollers by default. CKATL·ø 10:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, looking at the citation supporting Myles Moylan's birthplace as Amesbury, it doesn't support it at all. If you scroll down the Congressional Medal of Honor Society page used to support his Amesbury birthplace (https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylan), you will see a note form their archivist to explain why they are using Amesbury altough they are confident that he was born in Ireland. If there is no supporting evidence for Amesbury, why is it not removed? If there is any doubt as to his Tuam birthplace, please explore the profiles of his family members on Findagrave, where there are documents connecting Myles to his Tuam family - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5929202/myles-moylan. BuffyO'B (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I previously answered this without realizing you were the same editor as in the previous question--sorry for any confusion caused by that answer.

It looks like the Talk page discussion has gotten stuck. Some options are given in WP:Dispute resolution. The WP:Third option of asking for an uninvolved editor to look over the situation and try to help is a low-drama approach that may work here. M kuhner (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello team! On this auspicious day, I've added an external link on sir Mr. Tim Berners-Lee's page. As available on your Wikipedia. It's as per the norms of mentioned [WP:EL]. Pls review and confirm, I'm sure it doesn't require a revert. I appreciate your early reply and support. My sincere thanks in advance. Thank you. Yours faithfully. Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you briefly explain why this link is needed?

The guidelines at WP:EL say that there should not be external links to information that would naturally be in the article. Encyclopedia links almost always fall under this. What information is present in Britannica but could not be sourced and added to the article? M kuhner (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sir.

Only a few words, for example "Charles Stark Draper Prize (2007)."

Also, a mere statement which reads as follows:

Berners-Lee was the author, along with Mark Fischetti, of Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web (2000).

There maybe more, my sincere apologies in advance.

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why can't this information be sourced and added to the article here?

We normally do not link to encyclopedias in External Links as it is not helpful. The Wikipedia user is already reading an encyclopedia entry. They should not need a link to the same entry in a different encyclopedia. M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I cannot handpick each and every word to draw the comparison. I'm an unpaid member; if you fund it, then we can work together. This will be beneficial for both. We shall add more sourced information. Many pages on Wikipedia have Britanñica Encyclopedia as an external link. I appreciate your time for great thoughts shared.

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That link has now been removed. The fact that other pages may link to Britannica is irrelevant. See WP:OSE Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Those other Brittanica links may need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why don't we do that first, who are adding it?

When do you think you can revert all of them?

This is absurd. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In general, "this is also a problem on other pages" is not a reason to avoid fixing a problem. See WP:OTHER. M kuhner (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Writ Keeper!

When we are discussing it here, may I know your reason for the revert, please?

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

As noted in my edit summary and in other editors' posts above, it was unnecessary. As WP:EL states: Links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. The onus is on you to demonstrate the value of including a link to what is essentially a duplicate of the Wikipedia article itself. If the Britannica article has useful information that isn't already on the Wikipedia article, the correct response is to incorporate that material into the article directly (with sources), rather than burying it in a link and making a reader have to wade through a mostly-redundant article on a separate website. If it doesn't have any information that the Wikipedia article doesn't already have, then it's useless. Either way, it shouldn't be an external link. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Fine then, @331dot / @Writ Keeper do you both agree with these?

Few words, for example "Charles Stark Draper Prize (2007)."

Also, a mere statement which reads as follows:

Berners-Lee was the author, along with Mark Fischetti, of Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web (2000). Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You should discuss questions specific to an article on the article's talk page; in this case, Talk:Tim_Berners-Lee. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's late at night in India; can you please answer ASAP so that I can add those words and sentences to the page and we all can rest at peace for the day, pls? Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Your proposal is not coherent. What material are you considering adding, where in the article are you considering adding it, and what sources are you using to cite them? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You have all the information here itself, can you read the honours section on the page.

Pls feel free to add it yourself, I'm sick and tired of repeating my words, sentences or statements here. Let God's grace bring peace and prosperity between the most intellectual beings of its species. Ameen. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is no rush. Wikipedia will still be here in the morning. Requests to add stuff should go on the Talk page of that article. Not here. They may not be done quickly: that should be okay. M kuhner (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

VGM/GD/GW God's grace, sir.

Thank you, I thought of gifting our time and a few words of respect to the legend.

It's still his day in the USA.

I'm utilising this platform to greet/wish on Wikipedia.

If only as an example, you can help and support with code, I shall copy and paste it as is.

So, to avoid further confusion and reverts.

My sincere thanks again.

I still believe, and I'm sure we as a team could achieve it.

I'm a newbie at Wikipedia, with just 7 months experience.

I'm sure you'll oblige to teach me. I apologise for disturbance and I regret all inconveniences.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No.

I'm utilising this platform to greet/wish on Wikipedia. This is not what Wikipedia is for. I suggest a social media site.

M kuhner (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, can we add those words or sentences? I'm aware of social media, even though I seldom use it. Where would Wikipedia be without www? We all are aware; please add what's necessary if we have professional ethics.

I'm only trying to show respect to the elderly by reviewing what is written about him without his consent.

If you wish to write, pls do it yourself, as I've begged enough to educate myself and others.

Nothing comes free of cost in the world today. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

excuse me, i was wondering if there is any sources i can use for Draft:The Amazing Digital Circus soundtrack that isn't just spotify or youtube, i have a feeling that those may not be good sources Arenghtqru888 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You should start with looking for reviews of the soundtrack from reliable publications, although if all that you have found is on spotify or youtube you should ensure that it meets WP:NALBUMS. Freddieh9 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The Albums Wikiproject have a list of recommended sources (and a search engine) at WP:RSMUSIC that may be useful. In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

where can i find images that i can use for wikipedia? Noxajatsocad (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikimedia Commons: [2]. By far the easiest source, as everything has already been vetted for copyright, LLM, and other issues. (Not 100% perfectly, but still better than anything else for this purpose.)

M kuhner (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

someone please assessment this ~2026-33967-79 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, dear fellow Wikipedians!

I have a question that has been bothering me for a long time. How can I manage to participate in several wiki projects at once, write and edit articles on topics I care about, and also translate them into the languages I know?

I understand that Wikipedia is a marathon, not a sprint, and there’s no need to rush. But I keep burning out because I take on too much. I enjoy working on Wikipedia and being useful to people, but it takes a lot of energy. Recently, I even gave up my other hobbies in favor of Wikipedia.

What’s more, Wikipedia itself sometimes throws me into existential dread. I calculated: if you read 100 articles a day, it would take 197 years to read the entire English Wikipedia. And if you set out to work on the Vital articles, at a rate of one article per day, it would take 137 years. Clearly, none of us have that much time.

How do you cope with this sense of the infinite, avoid burning out, and still remain a useful contributor? I’d be grateful for your advice. RiiffTower (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @RiiffTower, I totally empathise with a lot of what you've said! My advice would be that if you feel like you're burning out, it may be a sign to take things a little slower. Both you, and the encyclopedia, are better off in the long run if you were to make a small number of edits consistently, rather than trying to do everything at once and taking an extended wikibreak because of burnout.
And don't forget, there are many different ways you can contribute; writing articles and translations are big tasks that can expend a tonne of brain power, so if you're feeling burnout, you could try switching it up. Personally, when I'm running low on spoons, I find many gnoming tasks or patrolling to be a nice brain refresher.
Editing is also voluntary, and you shouldn't feel like you're obligated to improve the encyclopedia. You are also only one of 3.7million editors who have made more than 5 edits; that's not to say you're not important (you are!), but rather that this is a team effort, and you shouldn't feel like the weight of the project rests on your shoulders. You're correct that, individually, none of us have that much time, but as individuals we're only one small part of a much larger machine. If you're feeling that existential dread, just think of and trust that there's a team of equally amazing editors who, collectively, do have that time and ability! In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Riff,

There are many ways to approach the contribution urge. I'll share mine in case it helps.

I have not fallen into the anxiety trap but like many editor, I have definitely seen the abyss. After 20 years as a user, I decided 6 months ago to contribute. My method is to start from the good reference materials I have and topics I care about rather than from the top (a Project, etc.). So for example, as I read a couple of great books on a subject (in my case art), I highlight facts and ideas that seem worthwhile and assume will not be in Wikipedia. Most of the time, they are not. And then I gradually add bits to selected pages.

Sometimes I decide to go in a rabbit hole for the pleasure of it. This week for example, improvements to the British landscape artist J. M. W. Turner unexpectedly led me to the Aesthetics concept of Mimesis and since I had something to contribute, decided to enjoy my foray into art philosophy and 18th/19th centuries discussion of whether art that accurately represented nature was more truthful than that which conveyed its awe on the viewer, which is fo course, a founding idea of Impressionism.

It is really a matter of enjoying the trip rather than getting anxious to reach (an unreachable) destination. Take a break and return refreshed!

JP

PS: I copied your banner formatting and stole one banner from you, so we all help with our past contributions in unexpected ways even while not doing anything. ;-) Jp1008 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @Jp1008. Yes, in our line of work, enjoyment is the main driving force on the path to free knowledge on the internet. For now, I'll pass on the wiki-vacation — I've just returned from a break. Good luck with your edits.

P.S. What banner are you talking about? The userboxes on my page? If so, I was inspired by Transhumanist's page, and he, in turn, was inspired by WikiPortals. Indeed, Wikipedia is not just a site — it's a whole ecosystem. RiiffTower (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @Nil NZ. Thanks for the detailed response. You gave me some very sound advice: to alternate intense work with routine tasks. I've seen that technique in time management video, but I never thought to apply it to Wikipedia. Now, for example, between major edits, I can work on assessing articles on talk pages.

And yet I still feel like the whole project is resting on my shoulders. I understand: if I stop editing, say, Vital articles or another popular WikiProject, some newbie will replace me. That's not a problem.

But the issue is different. The English Wikipedia has too many gaps on topics related to Russia. There are niche issues that will likely remain uncovered — neither fully nor even partially — for decades to come. And the article about my native locality is in a deplorable state, not only on the English Wikipedia but also on the Russian one. I doubt that anyone other than me will take on a thorough edit of it in the next hundred years. And there are many such articles. They're literally 'crying out' for attention, demanding time that I don't have. RiiffTower (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I find it helpful, instead of thinking about "improve Wikipedia", thinking "I am going to fix up this narrow topic." Right now I am fixing up Ugandan English-language newspapers. I can finish in a reasonable amount of time and it will be satisfying. If you keep getting distracted by other issues you may never get the satisfaction of completing something and seeing that it's good.

I also suggest making a deliberate effort to keep your other hobbies. Maybe they get less attention for a bit, but don't let them die off. I play at least 1 game of chess every day, even in times when energy is scanty: so when I want to go back to it more seriously it won't be too stale. M kuhner (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @M kuhner. Thanks for the sound advice.

As for my other hobbies — they are less productive and useful. No one will see the results of those activities, or they'll only be noticed by chance. But in Wikipedia, my edits are seen by hundreds of thousands of people in different languages. That's why I've decided to sacrifice my other interests in favor of Wikipedia. RiiffTower (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia is smaller than real life, but it has a similar ability to overwhelm. I live in a big city with too many interesting things to do, and must curb my appetite or be overloaded with life. One nice thing about WP is there are ways to avoid doing a thing all the way. So, I no longer write many fresh articles but mostly concentrate on my watchlist where I see what other editors are doing with topics that interest me. If someone introduces a new detail but writes ungrammatically or uses too many words or misses an important point, I can fix those things. Vice versa, too. I leave the article in somewhat unsatisfactory condition (no, never really bad condition) and let another editor find and fix it.

Remember, no article is ever finished, nor has to be. It's not a static wooden post; it's more like a living, growing tree or even a forest. If nobody besides me takes an interest, I get no interaction, which is to say it's a sterile topic and my further work on it will not bring an improvement in what humans actually know. That gives me permission to drop it and walk away. Whatever philosophy we apply, we have to hold down the jobs we load upon ourselves. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @Jim.henderson. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes, Wikipedia is good because there's no boss over you telling you what to edit and when. I, for example, didn't make a single edit in 2024, and no one judged me for abandoning Wikipedia. However, I personally feel a bit uncomfortable realizing that I have unfinished articles that I left behind. RiiffTower (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don’t attempt to read a large portion of Wikipedia articles, I only read ones on subjects I have an interest in. If I become curious about a certain subject I’ll check to see if there’s a Wikipedia article I can learn from. Sometimes that article is just a stub, or there’s a tag stating more references are needed, so I’ll take on the project of improving that particular article.

What I love about being a volunteer Wikipedia editor is I get to choose what I’m going to work on, and I decide how much work I’m going to give to any project. I work on "niche" subjects that few besides me have an interest in, and work at my own pace – sometimes I do the research, and then take months before I get around to the actual writing part. There are times when I set aside Wikipedia work for awhile because other interests take up my limited energy, but that’s okay, because I’m a volunteer, and no one will fire me if I don’t put in enough time each week.

It’s taken me almost 20 years to do 4,000 Wikipedia edits, but that’s fine, for I’m not in competition with anyone else. I do what interests me, I do accurate work (with a few mistakes that can easily be corrected), and I’m proud of providing information that people around the world can benefit from. I don't focus on what I can't get done, for I know I'm helping at my own pace, doing work no one else chose to take on. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @Karenthewriter. Perhaps I should adopt a similar attitude towards Wikipedia, rather than demanding too much of myself. Thank you for your response. RiiffTower (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

it seems that the dates are incorrect if he was born 353 how could he have died 336 that's 17 years before he was born ~2026-33992-96 (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's because he died 336 BC, and BC dates are basically backwards. For instance, 1 BC was at the very end of the BC era, and 300 BC was 300 years before 1 BC. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I assume you mean Alexander the Great, whose birth and death are Before Christ, meaning that they predate (an estimate of) the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, and are closer to being the year -355 and -322 than 356 and 323. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been looking to possibly make a article for a animated/comic web series called "MAU MAKAN APA?", it has a decently notable community (subreddit, its own community wiki, and the combined viewership for the episodes on youtube easily surpasses a million, though I don't how much that contributes to anything), and viewership, and it's been mentioned in other articles for voice actors Sean Chiplock and Kira Buckland. I feel like that meets the standards, but I wanted to know others opinions on it before I started writing things up Floridia098 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

oh yeah, imdb too Floridia098 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Floridia098, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that nothing you have mentioned here contributes directly to establishing notability - neither comunity, number of episodes, number of viewers, or being mentioned anywhere at all. It may be notable, but nothing you have mentioned contributes to that.

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 to establish that the comic is notable, you need to find several sources which each meet all the requeirements in the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I recommend doing a source search. What you need are substantive reviews and/or discussion on reliable sites. If you can find three of those, the article should be fine. Some sources may be in Indonesian: maybe a fan who speaks that language can help locate sources there?

This review may be helpful: [3]. M kuhner (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was trying to add images to my article things for visual reference, but it said I needed a copyright license or something, but the images are of Clint O'Shea, the person I was writing about (me), so... I didn't think i had to copyright myself Clint O'Shea (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you have taken a photo of yourself, you can go to Wikimedia Commons and sign paperwork putting it under the appropriate license. You can't do that for a photo taken by someone else, though, even of you: they hold the copyright, and would have to put it on Commons.

A bigger issue: writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged and seldom succeeds. See WP:Autobiographies for why, and how it has to be done. If you don't follow those instructions it's pretty much guaranteed your article will get deleted. I recommend against even trying. If you are notable, someone else will write that article eventually. M kuhner (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would it be likely to write an article about how my grandfather grew up in poverty, became a farmer, then a racer, crashed, and almost died? He also got 2 full-ride scholarships, 1 for basketball and 1 for baseball. Do you think that would get declined?? Clint O'Shea (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia has articles about people who have received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. What you know about your grandfather would probably make for a great essay, but it can't be used for a Wikipedia page. So the way to answer this question is to search for sources. I wish you the best of luck, but it may not lead to an article. Most people, however interesting, won't have Wikipedia articles. (If you do write the essay, maybe a local newspaper or newsletter would be interested? Local to where your grandfather lived, I mean.) M kuhner (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Clint O'Shea While this is very cool for a person, and no doubt very important to your family, it is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, entirely unremarkable.

In order for a person to have an article about them here, they need to meet our notability requirements, which in this case would mean you'd need to find examples of other people entirely unconnected to him or your family who have written about his life in-depth who you could use as secondary sources. Athanelar (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If there are sources for your grandfather having that interesting life, then knock yourself out. Wikipedia requires in depth sources on individuals, and something to show their notability, someone like your grandfather has a remarkable life but wouldn’t have an article, and someone unremarkable with little information might— simply because they held a notable position or something like that. All goes down to sources and notability, I wish you luck. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Clint O'Shea, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd recommend having a read of Wikipedia:A picture of you, which has some great advice and steps to follow.
The question of copyright is an important, but sometime confusing one; even though you may be the subject of the photo (and you have certain rights in that regard), the copyright of the image usually belongs to the photographer. If it was taken by someone close to you, like a friend or family member, you could get them to submit the photo for you following the instructions at WP:A picture of you#By email.
That being said, the first step should be to get an article published first. You can have a read of our inclusion guidelines for biographies, and if you believe notability is met, follow the steps at WP:Your first article. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

i took the photo Clint O'Shea (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can someone help to upload a photo to a Wikipedia article? The photo is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=john+mcgavock+grider&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

Thanks Vedlagt (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What is the difficulty you are having? (How to advise you depends on what you're trying to do specifically) 331dot (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to add a photo to the article John McGavock Grider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McGavock_Grider

I am new to this. Vedlagt (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Vedlagt, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I assume you are talking about the image c:File:Johh McGavock Grider.jpg?

If you open that link in a browser, you'll see at the top a link "Use this file" with the Wikipedia "W" before it - that will give you some strings that you can paste into a Wikipedia article using the source editor (it's probably easier with the visual editor, but I'm not familiar with that). ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, thanks!

I will try this. :) Vedlagt (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Under the 'View history' for this article (which I had previously extensively enlarged) there is an edit at 17.24h on 22 April which has caused the text starting 'This prolific ...' to wrqp round the 3 photos when it should be under them (see version prior to edit). Can this be corrected? BFP1 (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is about this change at Harris Lebus, by Headhitter. The issue is that at certain screen widths, the old version would cause a lot of empty space before the three photos. So I agree with Headhitter, the new version is an improvement. @BFP1, why do you prefer the version where the text doesn't wrap around the photos? --rchard2scout (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Originally the previous paragraph of text related/linked to the photos below (discussing them as an identification aid). I thought that the edit which introduced a different subject before the photos, weakened the link between the 'identification discussion' and photos.

Thank you for explaining the space issue. I can accept that no change is required.

Yours views are appreciated. BFP1 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy link: User:Enamel2/sandbox

Hello, the first article about enamel art gellery Ornament was declined, plesee let us know the points which need to be edited why. Enamel2 (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Enamel2 The draft you submitted in your sandbox is not in English. This is the English language Wikipedia, we only accept articles in English. Athanelar (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Firstly, the article isn't in English. All English Wikipedia articles need to be in English. Also, many of the sources you seem to cite are unreliable (WP:RSYOUTUBE). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wrote a draft article about a Swiss-Japanese Political Science professor, who also happened to be a poplular youtube blogger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Pascal_Lottaz . Another user moved page Pascal Lottaz to Draft:Pascal Lottaz without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: more sources needed .

Being used to the US legal system, I find such remark "arbitrary and capricious" (see Standard of review for definition). The number of cited sources is comparable to the numbers in the articles about other International Relations professors (e.g. Steven Walt).

I am asking more experienced wiki-editors, if there are objective criteria that are uniformly applied to all Wiki-articles, or if the proper translation of "consensus" from Wikipedian to English is "High-handedness of the chosen few"? I would also aprreciate SPECIFIC suggestions (better yet- improvements made by others) how this draft can be improved, and what is needed to make it publishable. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to start off by mentioning that I would say some of your information, such as his "Affiliations and Memberships" can be mentioned in an infobox. Additionally, Youtube is not a reliable source. (Read WP:RSYOUTUBE for more information). Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 12:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your feedback. I am relatively new to Wikipedia.

I support your idea of <<his "Affiliations and Memberships" can be mentioned in an infobox>>,

but I do not know, how to do it myself. Could someone more experience make this change?

I am not arguing, that You-Tube is a relible source. Instead, cite an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications by Pascal Lottaz and by others. However, I feel, that in this particular case citing You-Tube is appropriate for several reasons:

1) Prof. Lottaz is a credible well-established researcher, rather than some random youtube-blogger;

2) Many topics, that he and his guests cover on his yout-tube channel, have been discussed (or in the process of being discussed) in peer-reviewed publications. I provided a list of such papers in my draft.

3) I agree, that running a super-popular youtube channel with over 345,000 subscribers (!) is not something, that many professors can brag about. However, this is exactly that type of thing, that makes Pascal to stand out among his peers, and brings boring scientific discussions to a broader audience all over the World. Pascal is a new generation of university professors, who are focused on serving the public-at-large rather than serving a few funding agencies, that provide research grants. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I should emphasize, "number of youtube subscribers" is not a criterion of notability, because - although the social media companies don't like to talk about this - you can buy fake subscribers. Am I saying that's what Professor Lottaz did, no. But he could have. DS (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I did not mean that he is a Youtube blogger, I meant to say that you cannot use it as a source in general, as you did with one of your references.
I will work to make that infobox, and I may leave some tips for you on your talk page! Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 14:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, ArcturusNotTaurus, and welcome to Wikipedia.

What matters about sources for a Wikipedia article is not their number (see WP:Citation bombing), but their quality.

The most basic criterion for a subject qualifying for a Wikipedia article is Notability (please click and read): as you can see there are many ramifications to this, but they boil down to "has the subject been described ("noted") at length in several pieces (written or broadcast) that have been published in Reliable sources that have no direct connection to the subject?" ('Popularity' [especially on YouTube, where any nutcase can get a million subscribers], deemed 'importance', etc. in the real world have no bearing, only documentation.)

Any article should be almost entirely based on the facts in such sources and nothing else: this is summarised in the essay at WP:Golden rule. As a rule of thumb, a Wikipedia article needs at least three such sources which all meet all of the Golden rule criteria.

Additional minor and uncontroversial facts only (age, number of a company's employees, etc.) can if necessary be sourced to non-reliable sources, such as ones connected to the subject.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a private and entirely volunteer-run enterprise, not an official entity, so regardless of anyone's notions of 'fairness', our consensus-formed policies and guidelines are what apply. To head off something you seem to hint at, any threats of legal action are not tolerated.

Because of Wikipedia's complex nature, writing an acceptable article is much harder than most people think, regardless of their writing experience in other spheres. We usually recommend that a new editor (which you now are), spends weeks or months working on lesser tasks (like copyediting existing articles) and studying procedure, the Manual of Style, and so on, before attempting to create a new article.

Your inserted article has been '"draftified" to have more work done on it in order to bring it to an acceptable level: this is entirely normal, and better than having it deleted entirely for not meeting the required standards (which was also an option). Please continue to work on it, in collaboration with others if they express an interest, and it will likely reach Article quality sooner or later. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Although I still have no idea, what EXASCTLY I can do to improve this draft. I also want to make a few comments:

1) There are many published wiki-articles about other Political Science professors, and the notability of the subject and the quality of these articles are not better than those of my draft about Pascal Lottaz: e.g. Steven Walt, Robert Keohane, Helen Milner, Michael W. Doyle, John Ikenberry, Stephen D. Krasner, Kathryn Sikkink, Martha Finnemore, Joseph Grieco= note how short this article is ! I will agree, that these people are older than Pascal, but Pascal has made contributions comparable or bigger that these folks.

2) I also want to note, that your statement about "legal action" was highly inappropriate. I stated, that it did not take me long time to figure out, that Wikipedia:Consensus translates into English as "arbitrary rule (high-handedness) of the chosen few", and it turned out, that I was not first one, who discovered it. There are many publications everywhere on this exact topic. Then, I made a reference to "arbitrary and capricious" as defined in Standard of review. I apologize, if this message seemed to have a non-intended connotation.

3) I want to tank you for pointing out WP:Golden rule. I was not aware of it. I will study it in details.

4) Finally, I feel like incubating draft articles away from the public contradicts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Is it possible to attract other editors to work on Draft:Pascal Lottaz? It makes a lot of sense to have such mechanism for all draft articles, doesn't it?

Thank you again for your help, and I look forward to your comments. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just because something is in the draftspace does not mean nobody else will or can edit it. For example, I made changes to the article to fix citation formatting issues. It is not just because of the achievements he has made. The sources matter. They must be strictly independent and reliable. If there is any connection to the subject in a source, it should not be used. Hope this helps! Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 14:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There are thousands upon thousands of articles in draft space. It would be nice if editors had enough time to come together and help newbies write new articles, but they don't. Generally, if you want an article to exist that doesn't, it's up to you to create a quality first version that reviewers will accept.

This doesn't mean you can't find resources to help you improve it. You've been asking a lot of questions in rapid succession; how about you focus on your previous question about infoboxes? A great place to find advice is the WikiProjects relevant to the article you're trying to make; in your case, you might find some good advice at WP:WikiProject Education. Amatmilen (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

ArcturusNotTaurus, here are two things you could do to improve Draft:Pascal_Lottaz: (1) get rid of the second, huge, list of works co-authored by him; (2) deal with all the red error messages in the list of references (which you have titled "Notes"). Maproom (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Dan100_refusing_to_engage_with_editors_raising_concerns

I know that all edits should have edit summaries (WP:SUMEXPLAIN), but is it really a requirement for all edits? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 13:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can publish an edit without an edit summary. However, it is useful to have them. For example, assume you delete a section for not being supported by reliable sources. Editors, particularly those who patrol recent changes or rollbackers may think you were commiting an act of vandalism. They support your edit and help those who patrol ensure an edit is not disruptive in any way. Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 14:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, and that ANI report doesn't claim it's requirement for every edit. Policy-wise WP:EDITCON requires explanation only if the reason for an edit isn't obvious. WP:EPTALK offers some additional nuance, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Both policies indicate talk page discussions can be valid places to explain edits, not just summaries. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I am trying to publish a Wikipedia page and the first submission got denied, I made edits and resubmitted, I have not heard anything on the page or in my email. I have asked the Help Desk on how to contact support or gain approval. I am needing to know the status of my page so I know what to do next, are there any tips? BlaineTurner Advertising (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, BlaineTurner Advertising, and welcome to the Teahouse.

(Assuming you do change your user name as required, and then make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor, and so get unblocked).

Like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. promotion of any kind is not permitted. If there is aver an article about your client it will not belong to your or your client, will not be controlled by you or your client, will not necessarily say what your client wishes it to say, and may be edited by almost anybody in the world except your client and you.

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.

Please read WP:PRPEOPLE, and show it to your client. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello,

I am looking for feedback or possible editorial help regarding a draft article about the Italian animated feature film Spacetime Chronicles (2025).

The film was selected for the Contrechamp competition at Annecy 2026 and was also selected for Fantasia International Film Festival, while additionally screening at Raindance Film Festival, Anima Brussels and BAFICI.

The project has received coverage from sources including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Cineuropa, Cartoon Brew, Animation World Network and Screen Daily.

A previous draft was deleted due to formatting and sourcing issues, so the article has since been rewritten in a shorter and more neutral encyclopedic form.

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spacetime_Chronicles

If any editor experienced with film or animation articles would like to review, improve or rewrite the page independently, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Stefanobertelli1981 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You have not yet submitted your draft for review. I've added a template which will let you do this. Athanelar (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is not a formal review of the article, but: It is too bare-bones right now. You have reviews in your list of sources, how come the article doesn't describe them? You could read the reviews and summarize their main points (with citations back to the reviews). What did the reviewers find remarkable about the film, good or bad? How did they classify it? Did they compare it to other works? M kuhner (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, my name is Juliette and I started a wikepedia accoun through wikiedu with a university class last semester. I enjoyed the experience a lot and wish to contribute more to new articles, but have a few questions concerning the last one I wrote.

The article I wrote is FOKUPERS, but,

1. When I look it up, I only see the german version, even if I have a canadian english browser, and the result of the page I wrote does not appear before the German version, which I do not understand.
2. At the start of the page the following appears: ''This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .'', but I have referenced more than 9 different sources, therefore I do not understand this aspect either.
3. When I look up the history of the page, my edits and word additions do not appear, neither does my creation of the page, which I also find pretty frustrating because I wanted to review those.

Could any of these questions be answered or reviewed for me please?

Thank you! Juutaime2 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Were you not already answered at the Help Desk? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 17:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes thank you!! Seriously did not expect such fast answers! Juutaime2 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Juutaime2, please don't ask the same question at the Teahouse and the Help desk. There is a risk that two people spend time giving you the same information. TSventon (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the heads up, I won't do that again! Juutaime2 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello,

I have prepared a draft article at Draft:Nicolas Grospierre. I am the subject of the draft, so I am disclosing a conflict of interest and do not want to publish the article directly.

There are already Polish and French Wikipedia articles about me, but they are incomplete and not fully synchronized. The English draft is intended to provide a more accurate and fully referenced overview, using institutional, museum, publisher and press sources.

Could an uninvolved editor advise whether the draft is suitable for Articles for Creation, and whether any sections should be shortened, removed or better sourced before submission?

Thank you. Ngrospierre (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You have already submitted the draft for review, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted.

Please read the autobiography policy. We want to know what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. This may be different from other Wikipedias, all of which have their own policies. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your reply. I understand.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest and submitted the draft through Articles for Creation precisely so that it can be reviewed and, if necessary, shortened or rewritten by uninvolved editors.

I also understand the point about autobiography: the article should be based on what independent and institutional sources say, not on what I say about myself. My intention in preparing the draft was to gather those sources in one place, especially because there are already Polish and French Wikipedia articles about me, but I will leave the assessment and any necessary changes to independent reviewers.

Thank you again. Ngrospierre (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to be a good programmer LoriLing (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @LoriLing, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What is your question about using or editing Wikipedia? That is what this page is for. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I have added a few edit requests on the talk page of Anne-Lot Hoek (eg new book, new scientific article, performance on BBC radio. Could you help getting them processed? Kind regards. Ewout12345 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to mark your requests as edit requests, or very few people will see them. See edit request for instructions. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why do temporary accounts suddenly disappear even though it hasn’t been three months? ~2026-34065-23 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

They don't "disappear" per se, but if the cookie on your computer/device is lost, a new temporary account will be created(within limits to avoid abuse). 331dot (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia sucks; they shut down everyone and don't help new people. Instead they send them to pages with rules using nonunderstandable terms. Clint O'Shea (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What help are you seeking that you are not getting? What is it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

i try to rewrite my articles and then cite them; they get denied, so i try again and again but never get advise or help, just more denials Clint O'Shea (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Plain English advice:

After you write an article, but before you submit it, click on every single link in "References." Does it work? Does it go where you meant it to go?

This will not solve all your problems but it really, really helps! Article reviewers hate to see links on a new article that don't connect to anything, or connect to the wrong thing.

Second piece of advice: Writing a new article is one of the hardest jobs here. Try something else first. Find an article you like, look for additional sources and add one good piece of information, with its source.

M kuhner (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Clint O'Shea: When citing an online source, I suggest using a citation template that creates a link for reviewers to see the source. I added a {{cite journal}} for you at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Clint, according to your User page you joined Wikipedia just yesterday. Although you packed a lot into that one day, it’s still only one day’s worth of experience.

Have you reached out to your mentor about some of your concerns and asked for his or her insights and advice? Mentors are one of Wikipedia’s most valuable — and often overlooked — available resources. They can really help in wading through all the jargon and procedures that can often overwhelm fledgling editors. Augnablik (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Clint O'Shea Here's a very simple rule you've already been made aware of; you must stop using AI to generate articles or edit articles, as you have obviously done at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B, Draft:Eaglercraft (Minecraft recreation) and at NHL 23

There are lots of people here who would like to help you join the community here at Wikipedia, but if you continue to break this rule after yoi've specifically been previously informed about it on your talk page, it is not going to bring you any success. Personally, I would suggest you start by reading this guide, which Is specifically designed to avoid any of those difficult to understand terms. Athanelar (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I intend to begin a discussion at ANI regarding disruptive edits and no attempt to engage in discussion, but since it involves multiple TAs, I'm not sure how to immediately proceed. I believe multiple TAs are being used by the same user (intentionally or not), potentially including one which has already received a block. Do I first need to ask someone with TAIV to confirm this, or will it suffice to go straight to ANI with my suspicions?

In case it helps, this issue is regarding Pancho Tequila. Thanks! Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 22:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:SPI is the page specifically for sockpuppet investigations. I see it brought up at ANI frequently but SPI might be the better option especially if you're not super sure Amatmilen (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh I see, I wasn't aware of that page. Thanks for linking it! I'll go ahead and proceed there. Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 11:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Is this a good case for one (or more) redirects?

I was on WP:WANTED and saw that Marble Mountains Wilderness Area was linked 739 times without a page. Upon further inspection, I noticed that two related pages already exist: Marble Mountains (Siskiyou County) (general) and Marble Mountain Wilderness (the wilderness area). Notice that one is singular and the other is plural ("Mountains" vs "Mountain"). Apparently, this inconsistency is common. It's discussed in both noun forms in on wikipedia and federal webpages. The associated US Forest Service page refers to it both ways for the page title (plural) and the opening sentence (singular). To make things a tad more confusing, there's two different WP:DISAMBIG pages. Again, there's one for each noun form: Marble Mountain (disambiguation) (more useful) and Marble Mountains (disambiguation) (less useful).

Is this the best course of action (below)? Or am I missing something?

• Turn the Marble Mountains (disambiguation) (plural) into a redirect to Marble Mountain (disambiguation) (singular). They're redundant, and one of them is clearly more extensive.
• Create a Marble Mountains Wilderness page, which will redirect to Marble Mountain Wilderness. There are enough places in the world called Marble Mountain(s) but there's only one Marble Mountain(s) wilderness. The redirect seems prudent because of mispellings and all the weird singular/plural form shenanigans (i.e., that aforementioned inconsistent USFS page).
• Create the Marble Mountains Wilderness Area page (currently a WP:REDLINK), which will redirect to the existing Marble Mountain Wilderness page. This will satisfy the WP:WANTED page and resolve the 739 links to it.

I can't tell if this is a "if you're only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail" situation, or if redirects are the right tool for the job here. Plus, I'm trying to figure out where newbie ends and WP:BOLD begins. (If possible, I'd like to implement this myself so I can practice editing, making new pages, and redirects). -- Gmedinakim (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think redirects are perfect for the Marble Mountains Wilderness/Marble Mountains Wilderness Area case. I think the disambiguation pages can probably stay as is, since the Marble Mountains one links to the Marble Mountain one, but either option is probably fine.

Also, as for where newbie ends and BOLD begins: right here! There's not an edit count requirement on BOLDness, and the types of changes you're proposing don't seem particularly controversial. (That's not to say that no one would oppose them, but they don't seem like disruptive or reckless edits that would not be considered proper bold editing.) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Gmedinakim, I have never encountered anything that could reasonably be called a "wall" but that was constructed out of a single brick. But I also haven't heard or read talk of "bricks walls". Instead, the things are called "brick walls". This is the result not of an exception-free rule of English but of a strong grammatical tendency in that direction. Marble in "Marble Mountain Wilderness" is better thought of not as singular but as unmarked for (grammatical) number. ("Marble Mountains Wilderness" is grammatical too.) The version with "Mountain" is much more commonly used than that with "Mountains". Redirects are cheap. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 01:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Resolved! -- Gmedinakim (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why doesn’t Portal:Current events/May 2026 as part of its links? ~2026-33959-40 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there! Portal:Current events/2026 May 31 is listed on that link. Look at the source for Portal:Current events/May 2026 and you'll see that it doesn't contain a link to KRAS, just technical code that makes it display the text found in Portal:Current events/2026 May 1 through Portal:Current events/2026 May 31. GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So what can be done to fix this? ~2026-33608-87 (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@~2026-33608-87: The link to Kras was added to Portal:Current events/2026 May 31 46 minutes before your original post.[4] Portal:Current events/May 2026 doesn't have the link in its own wikitext but transcludes it from Portal:Current events/2026 May 31. There is a delay in updating link tables when a transcluded page is edited. It happens automatically but the time varies a lot. I see Portal:Current events/May 2026 now at null edit (but not a purge) of Portal:Current events/May 2026 would have forced the link tables to be updated right away for that page but there is rarely a need for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So I've gained a little experience, I've mainly just made edits to pages I care about and (I think?) I'm familiar with the basics of editing. But now I want to learn about ways to help contribute to Wikipedia besides just stalking news on the one or two pages I care about.

In particular I'm interested in learning about how to find vandalism, and what kinds of helpful software is available to auto confirmed users. I also want to know if it's possible to get involved in multi-person projects (I know that's kind of what wikipedia in the first place) where I can talk with people and plan bigger changes then I could do on my own (There's a major article rework I've been viewing that would take a team of people)

Basically as an editor I've found that I do best when I can communicate and coordinate with other people, and I just want to know if there are any parts of wikipedia more geared towards that. Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You could hook up with a WikiProject, though you'll want to choose carefully as many are inactive.

You could become involved with one of the Noticeboards. I'm at WP:AI noticeboard trying to stem the flood of LLM articles, and while it's intensely frustrating there is definitely a sense of working with a team there--not a formal team, but familiar faces and slow improvement of our working practices. WP:Articles for Deletion is another place to consider. It will certainly teach you a ton about notability and sourcing, and someone willing to put in work looking for additional sources on a contested article is very much welcome.

You could become a new page patroller or work at WP:Articles for creation if you have been here long enough (I believe 6 months). You could become a Teahouse host or just informally help out here.

You could look at the WP:Village pump discussions and see if you'd like to pitch in on improving policies or tools.

I suggest browsing several of these and seeing what appeals. M kuhner (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, shouldn't forget the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit, which I believe offers training. That might be right up your alley. M kuhner (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@M kuhner I read about this! It seems really interesting but it looks like they're looking for people with more edits then I have, and who plan to have a serious commitment/not just casual users. Do you think if I asked some of the people involved they'd still be willing to give me the basic pointers? Also I should add for to this context to this general discussion, I believe my account is 2 years old? But I only have around 50 edits in the main space and 1 article created which I believe limits my opportunities some place (until I get some more edits). I also tend to come and go from wikipedia which might affect things as well. Thanks!Wik206 (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Only one way to find out! I think if you are polite and reasonable they're likely to have something to offer. I tend to get involved in stuff a bit too advanced for my experience level, and while I've had some clear rebukes from time to time, everyone's been decent about it. And I've certainly learned a lot in the process. M kuhner (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In reply to the added info, though, more edits would be helpful. From experience, adopting and fixing a bad article is a great way to accumulate mainspace edits, and it feels quite good when you finally get it right. (I think Hypocnemis is finally free of LLM falsehoods as of today, wow, what a journey.) M kuhner (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There isn't a 6 month time requirement to become a Teahouse Host. The only requirements are that they are have 500 mainspace edits and been a Wikipedia editor for 30 days, which is the same requirements for the extended confirmed usergroup. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I can’t help wondering how such a low bar as just 500 mainspace edits and 30 days as a Wikipedia editor could ever be enough to take on full-fledged Teahouse hosting — except to answer the most basic kinds of questions. Augnablik (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the theory is that you answer questions within your capabilities, and learn on the job. Questions you can't answer can always be left for someone else. M kuhner (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Is it possible to link revisions or diffs in edit summaries? For example, I'm cleaning up some cite errors from named references that are no longer being used. Since I'm deleting references, in my edit summary, I'd like to (wiki?)link the revision that "retired" the citations. It doesn't seem possible according to WP:SUMFEATURE, but I still don't understand the full functionality of WP:LINK either. So maybe I'm missing something? And if I'm not missing something, is there a different way I should be mentioning it (if at all)? It's also very possible that I may be hypervigilant and overthinking it because I'm tired of having my edits reverted, and then being dismissed when I follow up in good faith. 🫠 -- Gmedinakim (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can add diffs to summaries of the format described at Help:Diff#Internal links. [[Special:Diff/1358674179]] is a link to the diff you asked this question and displays as: Special:Diff/1358674179, you can also change how the link appears by using a pipe like so: [[Special:Diff/1358674179|custom text]] which then shows as: custom text. The number can be found in the URL right after oldid= when viewing a diff. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hint: if you regularly find yourself looking for the oldid in the URL, you might want to install this userscript: User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink. It adds a box to the top of any diff or permalink page to easily copy the wikilink. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There's this one page Interracial marriage that I've been eyeing to improve for a long time, the main issue is that it's 18,026 words long due to an extensive history section which also overlaps with History of miscegenation. I want to merge the history section from interracial marriage into history of miscegenation, then leave either a summary in it's place or omit history altogether and instead place a see also. Before doing something drastic I was hoping to get a community consensus but I've been unable to get any replies on the talk page. What is the best way to do this? I was also hoping to find a tool that would allow me to compare the pages side by side and incorporate information contained in interracial marriage but missing in history of miscegenation into the history page and then delete the rest (except that seems rather cruel to the work of the editors that come before, but if the goal is merging and the differences are the way something is structured rather then the information conveyed, it's more practical to choose one and delete the other then combine structural elements). Wik206 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There does not appear to be a History section at Interracial marriage. Could you specify which section you mean? (And does anyone know why that article has a hard-coded Table of Contents partway down the page?) To merge information from one article to another, follow the principles at WP:PROMERGE, including the leaving of attribution. For the subsequent leaving of a summary, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. You seem to have a decent intuitive handle on the considerations. It may be easier not to do it all in one edit. If nobody has replied on the talkpage, you can WP:BEBOLD. The worst thing that can happen is simply that you are reverted, and you can discuss at that point. CMD (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

all the sections labeled US, Oceania, etc almost entirely discuss history much more so then the modern legality. I don't know what table of contents your referring to, if you could specify what section it's in? Thanks!Wik206 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I also just noted their exists both an interracial marriage and miscegenation page. So I guess I'll add merging miscegenation into interracial marriage because miscegenation is just the archaic for inter racial marriage so it seems only one should exist, then put a note not to recreate a miscegenation page (this possible?). Except maybe not I'll have to find some editors to ask it looks like the focus of miscegenation might be slightly different then the interracial marriage page. Also is their a way to request a page rename (I think history of miscegenation should become history of interracial marriage because miscegenation is a bit of an archaic term)Wik206 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Currently the info box style for election articles features the post-primary R and D nominees only. Can we can instead include all candidates on a general election ballot? I think the 2024 presidential race was a good template for covering all general election candidates. Wikipedia could improve that by changing the info box standard from showing the R and D nominees only, to including nominees of other party primaries and independents as well. Looking forward to the feedback on this idea. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. I am a new editor and I have created Draft:Abdul Rauf Janjua. I have tried my absolute best to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. I worked very hard to search, find, and verify reliable direct third-party sources (like ISPR, Radio Pakistan, and news networks) and added them properly. I have also cleaned up the text to make it completely neutral and factual. I have done my best, but if I am still making any mistakes, please guide and help me correct them. Can a friendly editor please review my draft and help me move it to the main article space? Thank you so much for your support.BB Janjua (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you related to the subject of this article? Amatmilen (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Amatmilen No, I am not personally, professionally, or financially related to the subject of this article. I am from the same regional area (Hill Surang) and wanted to document his recognition out of personal interest after seeing the "Heroes of Pakistan" feature. I am trying my best to remain completely neutral and objective in my edits. Thank you for checking! BB Janjua (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You uploaded a photo of the subject of the article and released it under a creative commons license as your "own work." Did you take this photo? Amatmilen (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am currently working on a page for Agostinho Ribeiro, the first Bishop of the Diocese of Angra (appointed 1534). However, there is also another bishop of this diocese named Agostinho Ribeiro (appointed 1613). How should I create the title of the page as not to create confusion or overlap with a possible future entry of the 1613 Agostinho Ribeiro? Veeatrix (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There's no requirement to disambiguate an article title for another article that doesn't exist yet. In fact I'd say it's discouraged. If you think readers might get confused from reading of the other person from a source other than Wikipedia, you could clarify this in the lede. Amatmilen (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

1925 Ford Doctors Coupe aka: tall T is the least produced due to it was made for Doctors. In 1925 America didn't have many Doctors. The Doctor was a Vetenarian and a Birthing Doctor. Out of the mass production of the Model Ts they only made 300,000 in 1925 in which compared to the 1923 to 1924 was a total different car.. it was transitioning to the 1930 Model A. ~2026-34354-58 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, what exactly is your question? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is a strange character! Regular object shows like Battle for Dream Island (BFDI) or Inanimate Insanity (II) usually don't feature a puzzle piece character like the Wikipedia logo. But I want that picture too! No object show.svg is an image of Object show character example.svg + Anti.svg. A crossed-out Wikipedia puzzle piece character in the object show style. Please make that picture! And don't delete this text. Can you respond today? Don't delete it, and create this image.

BFNIF/B.F.N.I.F is a bad object show, worse than Wikipedia. There are brand logos as characters in the object show, for example: Tumblr, Pinterest, Spotify, and others. Bad show. What if they used it without copyright? And for some reason, some people value it, and that's strange.

What exactly is the question here? -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I recently created my first article, Josh Morrison, with a conflict of interest that I've disclosed on the Talk page and my user page. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved editor could review it for neutrality and sourcing. Thanks! CynDiPaula (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to submit your draft Draft:Josh Morrison for review first. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Context is I could not find anything else on Armand Gregg. Then, after checking the actual source, and saw his name repeatedly "misspelled" his name as Goegg. Search that and voila, I find him, and his (slightly) more complete wikipedia page: Amand Goegg.

It would be great if someone else could concur, but I am now 99.9% sure that the Gregg page was made because of an initial typo in the source. I put a "merge into" tag on the Gregg page, but is that the right course? Should it be a speedy delete, or is "merge" the right response? LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@LincolnMagnus: good catch! Yes, certainly a misspelling (check the German Wikipedia article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amand_Goegg), and a bit embarrassing that it has been there for more than 11 years without anybody noticing. I would just redirect Armand Gregg to Amand Goegg, since there isn't any content in the former article that isn't already in the correctly spelt one. --bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Illustrates the importance of proper sourcing lol. That probably makes more sense to do actually. I think I'll put that in(/suggest it if a regular user can't put on in) instead of having the merge tag LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The reviewer said it didn't meet the criteria for notability. But the guidelines for composition says you only have to meet one of the criteria they list. I meet #2 - Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards used in a notable music genre. I have over 30 publications with four major publishers in the sacred music field. Do I have to do a chart or something? Glpollock1 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy link: User:Glpollock1/sandbox

Courtesy ping: Bobby Cohn

^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the third attempt at this statement this user has posted:

1. User_talk:Bobby_Cohn#c-Glpollock1-20260610182600-Request_on_18:26:34,_10_June_2026_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Glpollock
2. User_talk:Bobby_Cohn#c-Glpollock1-20260610184300-Request_on_18:26:34,_10_June_2026_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Glpollock1 (header removed for this one to reduce clutter on my talk page).

I encourage the editor to read and respond to my follow up here: comment link. Courtesy ping: Glpollock1. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1358763326"

Categories:

• Wikipedia Teahouse
• Wikipedia help forums

Hidden categories:

• Noindexed pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages that should not be manually archived