Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Citing a book

Is it okay to cite a book which isn't available to read online? or which is paywalled.. As far as i know the citations should be verifiable. But citing such books wont be verifiable. So is it possible to cite such books if no other source is available? Dagoofybloke (talk?) 14:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That's completely fine, see WP:OFFLINESOURCES. jolielover♥talk 14:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

okay thanks alot! Dagoofybloke (talk?) 14:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

"It's only verifiable if you pay" and "It's offline only" are still technically verifiable. "This source is private and therefore unavailable" is not verifiable, and is not allowed. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

So for example i cite a book which isnt available online, but i have physical copy of that book. If an editor asks a scanned copy to verify and i send them, it counts as verifiable? Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡♡ (Wanna talk? ๋࣭⭑) 16:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No, the book has to be something that a random reader could, if they were sufficiently determined, get hold of, irrespective of you. If you have a physical copy of a book that isn't available online, but it's available in a library somewhere, then it's acceptable. If you have a physical copy of a book that isn't in a library anywhere, and is only available to another editor by means of you scanning it for them (for example if it's a privately-published one-off) then it's not usable as a source. Of course if you have a copy, and another editor doubts the source exists, you are welcome to show them scanned sections to prove that it exists, but you're not obligated to do so; provided the citation includes sufficient information that they could get hold of a copy, then it is their job to do so. Elemimele (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

okay got it, thanks. Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡♡ 「Wanna talk? ⋆˙⟡」 17:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele (I was confused when your answer started with "No" instead of "Yes", but the rest of your response should make it clear. As in "Yes, if you have the book, then it counts as verified". Or something.) David10244 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@David10244: what I was trying to say is that possession of the book may verify that the book exists, but it's not enough to make the book usable as a source in Wikipedia. There are two obvious instances where a book cannot be used as a source even if you possess it. One is that it's a self-published thing that you printed yesterday; it may be available in the sense that you are willing to send copies of it to anyone who wants it, but it's no more reliable than a blog. The other is when the book is a one-off: your grandfather's diary, or a 16th C manuscript; these are primary sources and can't be used. I am trying to think of any exceptions, but my belief is that a book source in Wikipedia really ought to be something that a determined reader could, albeit with effort, track down in a library somewhere. Elemimele (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Me on my way to the US to get hold of a book because it is only available in a library there cuz i am sceptical of a claim made by that one editor. Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡♡「talk?⋆.˚sTALK?. ݁₊ ⊹ .」 12:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Haha yes, that IS how the rules are. But there has to be a rule, and all the other rules we might make for this are way worse than the one we've got. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele Got it, thanks for the explanation, and you are right of course. David10244 (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If the book has an ISBN number somewhere on its first few pages, than it is an acceptable reference. You can cite this book using Add a Citation:Automatic option by entering this ISBN alone. ApoieRacional (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on why my draft is getting declined

I've submitted a draft twice and it's been declined both times for the same reason, even though I acquired new sources (articles written solely about the person) and completely rewrote the article.

Reason for decline: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Any guidance would be amazing! Thanks!

Link to draft: https://w.wiki/H4Ne

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards Anacavich (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Anacavich Hello. You disclosed a conflict of interest with your draft(Draft:Emilie Bodoin). What is the general nature of it?

Did you see the messages left by reviewers at the top of the draft? (Not the actual decline messages, but under those). Most of the coverage is about the company and not the CEO herself. That might merit the company an article, but not the CEO.

The award you mention does not contribute to her notability as it itself does not have an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@331dot

Hi! Yes, I did see the comments. We cited multiple sources in which the subject matter is solely Emilie Bodoin (references 3, 4, 5). I'm curious what we could do differently in our next draft because it seems like our current sources are just not cutting it. Are there some examples of sources that are more appropriate? Anacavich (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Reference 3 cites "editorial team" as the author, and the image in that article was provided by Bodoin herself; these suggest that the piece was paid placement or otherwise not independent. #4 seems to be written by a "content creator" who takes on paid jobs. #5 has no specific author, another clue it is likely not independent. All three are glowing in their praise of Bodoin and clearly not neutrally written.

As I said, I don't feel she is notable enough to merit an article, though her company may be. Please read WP:BOSS and show it to your superiors and colleagues(including Emilie Bodoin). You're not likely to be successful here. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anacavich, who is "we"? Meadowlark (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anacavich "We"? Who is "we"? David10244 (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

(Sorry for the dup comnent.) David10244 (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It often happens that a person trying to write an article sees the same reasons for decline that you saw, and does the same as you did: rewrite and hope. Unfortunately, "different sources" is not the same as "better sources". It doesn't help to throw sources in there if you haven't closely analyzed how well they fit the requirements. You can't use mangoes instead of chickens to make chicken soup, even if you bring a million mangoes.

If it seems the new sources "almost" meet the requirements, then it probably helps to consider a couple of things: first, the requirements are only the minimum allowable - they're not a goal to be hoped for, but a low bar that has to be got over. Second, of course a writer who feels pressured to get an article done is going to say "this almost meets the requirements, can't we just say it's OK?" when a reviewer knows it's not even close. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This biography article has many other flaws besides notability.

Her colleges, degrees and years of studies are not mentioned,

there is no reference to "lithium metal production project at Argonne National Laboratory",

lithium extraction has nothing to do technically with "vanadium cathode" (which one?).

If the relationship is not technical but business-like, it should be specified.

I can continue with technical flaws, but I am not getting paid to do it.

Just to summarize, in addition to WP:PERSON this draft is far from meeting the requirements for:

Verifiability (WP:V): Readers must be able to check that information comes from a reliable source;

No Original Research (WP:NOR): Wikipedia does not publish original thought, unpublished theories, or new interpretations of existing data;

Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV): Content must be written neutrally, even when describing controversial topics.

@Anacavich It's getting declined because you haven't shown that she meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article, refer WP:42. The article's also not a well-written Wikipedia article. Since you're getting paid, you have the time to read other articles, familiarise yourself with (some of) the rules, figure out how Wikipedia articles are written and even learn to edit. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

And, BTW, I did my postdoc at Argonne but in a different division. Small world again. ApoieRacional (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC) ApoieRacional (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Article Getting Denied

Hi everybody!! Thank you for researching my article, and I hope you are all doing well. I have submitted my article a few times and all times they have gotten denied because my article is not about somebody who is notable enough. I have edited after each time getting denied, adding more news articles about my subject. I am writing about my mother, and I understand I have a COI, though I truly do believe my article contains little to none bias. My mother is not in great health, and I want to give her a page so her memory lives on. My mother has had a notable career in her field. Please help me make my mom happy, preferably before x-mas, let me know what more I can add to get this article approved. (SIDE NOTE: I Really don't want to sound argumentative, though, if you google "Priya Himastingka" she will come up, if that helps idk)

Thanks everybody :) Kabir Peckham (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If your article keeps getting denied because the person is not notable, then why are you not saying "Oh. This person is not notable" and giving up? It is time to give up. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kabir Peckham, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sorry you mother is not well, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kabir Peckham, although your mother does appear when searched, she is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Please consider putting her in a blog page or a memorial page instead. I wish your mother all the best. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌 :) 03:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I am sorry if I wasted time for all of you, please let me know if there would be anything I could add to allow her to be on wikipedia. I admire you all for such dedication to keeping information human, that is what we need in this era… ~2025-42398-57 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Priyadarshini_Himatsingka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabir Peckham (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If getting your mother happy is all your goal, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. ~2025-41932-19 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That is definitely true and unarguable. Although this user's mother is impokrtant to them, she is not notable enough to have an article about her personage on Wikipedia, which is solely an encyclopedia of knowledge. Yooniik (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I also recommend you to carefully read the comment left by the reviewer. It clearly shows the problem of your draft.

Many of your sources are just passing mentions or promotion-ly, so they don’t establish notability. ~2025-41932-19 (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kabir Peckham. You might want to consider starting a personal website, or a blog site account, where you can honor your mother through photos and sharing stories of her life. Give the new Internet address with everyone you know, so people who know her can find it. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I am sorry if I wasted time for all of you, please let me know if there would be anything I could add to allow her to be on wikipedia. I admire you all for such dedication to keeping information human, that is what we need in this era… I appreciate your advice :) ~2025-42398-57 (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing that will get her allowed on Wikipedia, I'm sorry. Her story should be told - but this is the wrong place. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m assuming that you are @Kabir Peckham? You can’t really put her anywhere in Wikipedia, except maybe a mention of her in your user page. Wikipedia is not the place to remember your loved ones. Thank you. 𝕲𝖎𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖌 :) 06:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kabir Peckham In order to get the page accepted, you need to show that the subject meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article, refer WP:42. The only way for you to get this page accepted, is to actually find sources that meet the criteria. That means you need to find at least two publications in which she has been featured (ie quality publications - independent, well-regarded sources, that discuss her at length). Your current sources are not quality sources and the article as written doesn't show that your mother is globally notable. It's not enough to be a small business owner. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Date format in citations

Hello! Is there a way to set a default format for dates used in citations? I'm mostly editing pages about US topics right now, so I use the MM DD, YYYY format, but every time I create a new citation in the visual editor, the default format is YYYY-MM-DD, and I have to manually change those dates every time. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to use DD MMM YYYY (as in "25 December 2025") format in US-centric articles too. Wikipedia has an international audience, so using an international format that is understandable by anyone in the United States and elsewhere is fine. As to your question, I don't know how to set the default; I have never used the visual editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's more about consistency—most of the articles I edit use the one format, so I want to make sure all citations are in that format. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

"It's fine to use..."—That's true when starting a new article on a generic topic, but as MOS:DATEVAR makes clear, when editing an existing article the style already in use should be maintained. You'll also find that people expect the relevant local style to be used on articles on topic related to a particular place or its features and inhabitants. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Right. I was trying to suggest that when an article isn't consistent to begin with, one should establish a reasonable standard that isn't US-centric but is still acceptable to US readers.

The OP's actual question, however, was about configuring the visual editor to format dates a particular way by default, and I honestly have no idea due to having no experience with the visual editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist He seems to be talking in particular about inserting a citation and using the "automatic" feature. The editor reads the website and inserts the [date from the] page in the European standard. If you choose manual, you add the date yourself and insert whatever you like. So the simple answer, is you can't change how "automatic" works.

You can:

• use manual rather than automatic;
• use automatic and change the date after you've inserted the citation;
• format the reference offline and copy and paste it on screen; or
• accept that that's the way automatic formats dates and have different date formats.

MmeMaigret (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter (1) Yes there is a way to set the default. The default is likely already set for the page. It's usually near the top (2) No, you don't actually have to change the date that's inserted. If it inserts the date as YYYY-MM-DD, just leave it. Wanting to change it seems hyper particular. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The template is {{Use dmy dates}}. Pretty sure there's a bot that comes along and changes the dates if they're in another format. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I have found that even if a page has the {{Use dmy dates}} template, the automatic citations will still use a different format by default. But if you're correct that a bot will fix them, then I'll do as you suggest and just leave them, instead of correcting them manually every time. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability (Spotify, Tidal, AllMusic, Music Apple etc...)

Hello folks, I have question and need to understand better about notability in music (single or album), I have done read the policies but I happen to be confused a little. May I know why Spotify/Tidal/Allmusic/Music Apple isn't notable? because I use those sources as reference for: 1. Credits and personnel (Tidal and Music Apple have those information) 2. Release history 3. For tracklist (if the single happen to released in mini ep or just a single with 2-3 tracks)

Currently, I'm re-editing a song (I Don't Wanna Love You Anymore by LANY). May I know what other sources that notable for those 3 above? DuskSky2018 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Being published on any of those services isn't any indication of notability, because basically those are considered primary sources, not independent of the music. Primary sources don't make something notable, no matter how many there are or how broad the audience. It's analogous to uploading videos to YouTube doesn't make you notable.

See WP:NMUSIC or more specifically WP:NSONG for guidelines. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation!:D DuskSky2018 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are often used as references for track listings and song lengths and that sort of thing, and that's allowed. But just having a song on Spotify or whatever doesn't count towards notability, if that's what you're asking, because anybody can publish there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

As a rule, online storefronts and streaming services do not count towards notability for a couple of reasons: They provide minimal details about the song other than track length and date of release and - in the case of streaming sites - they are either (if legal) licensing the music for legal airplay or (if illegal) broadcasting copyright violations writ large. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I may need help

hello wikipedian anyone can help me with this Draft:Radford Sechrist is may need better source or just minor fix  Thanks KANABAIS (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This has been submitted for review. The reviewer will either accept it, or, with a comment, won't accept it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that the mainspace article was draftified per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radford Sechrist just over a week ago, and edited by sockpuppets (now blocked) up to that point also. The Kanabis account asking for help here is 1 day old. What's with all these new accounts interested in getting the article published? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

yes KANABAIS (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredryandloneria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The draft may be eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion due to being edited by sockpuppets while blocked. At that point, notability of the topic is irrelevant; we don't accept content from blocked users. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

iam not Socketpuppet KANABAIS (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, whatever. They all say that. We'll wait for the investigation to complete. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

ok thank KANABAIS (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@KANABAIS What does "yes" mean here? David10244 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

OP indef'ed as sock via SPI. Leaving it to User:Anachronist and others to decide how to proceed with ignoring, declining, or setting for deletion that draft article. DMacks (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Would this even qualify for WP:G5? It would if the draft had been recreated by KANABAIS, but instead the AFD discussion draftified it, so it isn't a case of a "creation by a banned or blocked user" because the original creation occurred before the block or ban. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm following up here to note that it has been cleaned up and submitted for review by an experienced and trusted editor, so it wouldn't qualify for deletion now in any case. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Deepak Bajracharya

Hello, I have submitted a draft:Deepak bajracharya and i'm still getting message that "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", though on previous round reviewer commented that there is issue with neutral point of view. Please help and guide me on this. Nirjal stha (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you a Paid editor? Tankishguy 15:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

How to reply this? i'm editing Wikipedia from 2013 and receiving this question for the first time. Simple answer is no.Nirjal stha (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why I have been asked this question? Could you please clarify.Nirjal stha (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nirjal stha We often ask draft authors if they have a conflict of interest or are being paid to edit. And we quite often get paid editing rings who try to promote musical artists by writing articles about them on Wikipedia. Regarding your draft: out of all your sources which three meet all the criteria at Wikipedia:GOLDENRULE? qcne (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I need help on the issues that need to be fixed in this draft because i have already made several changes after multiple iteration of reviews, but still getting same vague review message again and again. Please help me to understand what are the exact problems in the article which i can fix. Nirjal stha (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

As I asked before, which three sources meet the criteria at WP:GOLDENRULE? qcne (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

What qcne is asking, IS exactly the help you need. Without it, the draft is guaranteed to fail. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to become an admin.

I have high intelligence and am eager to get to know other users. I could help make wikipedia a better safer place. Sorry this isn't really a teahouse thing but I couldn't think where else to post it. I have never been blocked off wikipedia or anything, and I am a quick and eager learner.~2025-42084-31 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-42084-31: See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. You need an extended-confirmed account for a start. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You have a pretty king way to go, perhaps years, so if you are up to it I suggest you make a “real account” and read most of the important policies, and work up from minor edits. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

the problem is my kindle isn't cooperating and I cant create an account because it wont let me press the button.. otherwise i would. ~2025-42084-31 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You can't be an admin if your machine won't even work. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, being an admin pretty much consists of pressing buttons so I'd suggest figuring that one out. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the/a sandbox of your talk page. It doesn't give me the impression that you know what Wikipedia is. (Briefly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository or incubator of fiction.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

(The title "My first fanfic" shows a person who doesn't know fiction very well either.) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is the same users who asked a Fanfic question on the Ginny Weasley page, I have no clue whether this person actually knows what Wikipedia is. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I didn't but it was a onetime fluke! my kindle is obviously working because i have an account. Yooniik (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yooniiik To be frank, your user page and talk page show that you are far from ready to even think about running for admin rights. Please spend a couple of years learning the ropes and building up some solid editing experience. Your account has only one edit to mainspace (articles), which has been reverted. Start by reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and everything that's linked there, then learn to make small constructive edits. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not easy to become an administrator first you need a couple thousand edits sign the access to non-public information contract then be elected by the community. First create an account and read WP:Edit for basic concept. Although Im not an admin Theknoledgeableperson (SHOUT HERE) 22:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Admins don't need to sign the Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy. Oversight and checkusers do, along with some other groups, but admins don't. AELECT is the elected option, RFA is a !vote/consensus building activity. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Saving pending edits?

This feels like a stupid question but I might as well give it a shot. Is there a way so save in the middle of editing without publishing your work? Aside from simply writing down what you were going to do. I was in the middle of fixing some info on a town, but had to leave suddenly and lost my work. I redid it without much issue, but it made me wonder if something like that existed and I had simply missed it.

Thank you in advance! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gordonthefreedman,

You can save work-in-progress in your user sandbox or other subpage in your user-space. The term "publish" is a legal one that applies to any edit you make on Wikipedia, but by 'publishing' it to one of those other locations it won't be in the actual article and you can come back later to continue working. Then when you're ready, you can copy it to the live article itself. DMacks (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you anyway! Will definitely be using this. Gordonthefreedman (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You do need to be aware that when you press "Publish", the material is not going to be private; others can see it if they know where to look. But still, it isn't going to be "on Wikipedia" in the way people usually mean that. "Publish" IS "the save button". TooManyFingers (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

"Enable the Edit Recovery feature" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing could theoretically be used for this but I certainly don't recommend it. Something could easily go wrong and the work be lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow thank you this looks like exactly what I need! Any chance to recover old work is a plus, even if it isn't guaranteed. Thank you! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Gordonthefreedman, I use Geany to save such material on my computer's "hard drive" (SSD). -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

And the icon for saving in geany is a floppy disk (which isn't floppy). Skeuomorphs and legacy descriptions are fun! DMacks (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The icon for "save" should be the "desperate sobbing emoji" with a big red line through it. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Aha yeah, as a creative writer I certainly feel that. Gordonthefreedman (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right, DMacks. Those icons had hardly entered my consciousness: I've always used Ctrl-s (Ctrl of course being the key immediately to the left of "A", CapsLock being below and left of "Z".) Thank you for the marvellous word skeuomorph. (So that's how I'd laugh off a "landau bar"....) -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Help needed: Fixing Citation Style errors on the "Natural science" article

Hello! I am a new editor, and while reading the article on [Natural science], I noticed some red error messages in the References section (specifically citations #7 and #8).

The error says: "{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal=". I want to fix this by adding the missing journal information, but as a beginner, I am not sure how to find the correct journal name for these specific references or the right way to edit the template without breaking it.

Could someone please guide me on how to identify the missing journal titles and the best way to resolve these template errors?

Thank you LogicianVikash (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Usually what you need to do is press the edit button and find the reference in the main body if the text, then you can edit the reference and put the journal name (put it in brackets if the journal is a notable one with a Wikipedia page). That should fix the issue. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@LogicianVikash Please See Cite journal for beginners AND BONUS see Citing sources CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. Thanks a lot. LogicianVikash (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I also found a spam link on the All India Secondary School Examination page which I have removed (aisse.in). Is it common for Indian education pages to be targeted by such SEO spam? LogicianVikash (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: "yes". Several topic-sets of Indian and Pakistani articles are spam magnets, especially articles about certain types of businesses or other entities where there is lots of competition for a large consumer pool. DMacks (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Indexing possibility

Please take a look at this article: The Academy of Fine Arts (please don't take this page down). This article is neither accepted from a draft, nor is 90 days old, nor is the page creator an autopatroller. Then how is it possible that this article is able to indexed by search engines (Google)? If the term "Academy of Fine Arts movie" is entered, it displays the Wikipedia result. How is it possible? Is there some other method to make pages be able to be indexed by search engines unbeknownst to me? Babin Mew (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I THINK the answer is: It can take 90 days, but it might be faster. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Babin Mew The article has been marked as reviewed at of 00:46, 7 November 2025. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

But there are no edits on November 7 in the history. And besides, can you explain the mainspace article reviewing process? Babin Mew (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=The+Academy+of+Fine+Arts+%28film%29

Not everything that gets logged is an edit. DS (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Babin Mew As DS has explained, the WP:NPP patrol doesn't create an edit but just marks the page as being available to index. In my experience, search engines like Google take notice the next time the article is actually edited after the patrolled date, so probably on the 8 November in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that mainspace articles could be reviewed. Is there a place to ask for mainspace articles to be reviewed other than making it a draft? Babin Mew (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

All newly created mainspace articles get reviewed eventually (at max a few months) unless you are autopatrolled. There is no need to rush, as it would work out naturally. GGOTCC 03:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

First-Time Contributor Trying to Submit Content

 Courtesy link: Draft:William Joseph Bowman

Hello! My name is Robert Doerschuk, and I have a contributor account. I have a biographical piece I'd like to submit for whatever the process is that leads (hopefully) to publication. It's a bio on the late William J. "Bill" Bowman, a significant conceptual artist and computer graphics pioneer for Xerox in the early 1970s. This is my first subission. I've coded it as best I can per Wikipedia instructions. However, I can't find a step-by-step instruction on how to begin and proceed. All help is welcome! Thanks. Music City Scribe (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Try the article wizard? DS (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Music City Scribe, copy the content of your draft. Paste this into a text file in your computer's hard drive or SSD. Use a text editor (not a word processor such as MS Word) to replace every example of “ or ” with ", and every example of ‘ or ’ with '. (With any text editor, this should be very easy.) Copy the result; paste it to replace what you have in your draft here. Save. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You already have some good advice on your talk page; I have just left some introductory links there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused by ref #2:

• Stoke Allen, “Heroes of Democracy Comics” (“Billy Bowman),” ‘’Los Angeles Herald’’, 1942. (

Isn't "Heroes of Democracy" in the early 1940s for that paper a comic strip by Stookie Allen (see [1])? DMacks (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for review and possible move from sandbox (COI disclosed)

Hello —

I have drafted a biography in my user sandbox (User:Professor_water/sandbox) with a full conflict-of-interest disclosure. The draft is based primarily on independent, secondary sources, including a peer-reviewed biographical profile published in Risk Analysis (2022), as well as professional-society coverage of honors and (U.S.) National Academy of Engineering election.

I would appreciate an uninvolved editor reviewing the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and policy compliance, and—if appropriate—moving it to mainspace or advising on any changes needed first.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

@ProfessorWater. Professor water (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it passed AfC, so there doesn't seem to be anything more to do here. Well done! win8x (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Submission help

Hello everyone, I’m looking for some guidance on the correct process for creating a neutral Wikipedia biography about a living person. I am the subject of the proposed article and understand that I should not write or publish it myself. I’m seeking advice on how best to proceed and how to find an independent editor. The individual is already referenced in existing Wikipedia lists and timelines relating to LGBTQ+ history, and is also the holder of an official Guinness World Records title (First openly transgender football (soccer) referee). There has been independent media coverage, including from national broadcasters and established publications. I’d like to ensure that any article created is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s notability, neutrality, and conflict-of-interest guidelines. Any advice on next steps, or where to appropriately request editorial assistance, would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your time and help. ~2025-42361-57 (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Give them a chance (by providing a way to email you), and self-described "independent editors" are likely to be clamoring for your custom. Chances are high that they'd be incompetent or out to rip you off or both; so forget that approach. The recommended next step is ... well, not to take a next step. Forget it. If you're notable (as defined by and for Wikipedia), others will eventually want to write you up, of their own volition and without any encouragement. If (like most of us) you're not, an attempt at an article won't succeed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation,I understand and appreciate the clarity.

For context, I only asked because a number of people had suggested that I should have a page, and I wanted to check the correct process rather than do anything inappropriate.

I won’t be taking this any further and appreciate you taking the time to respond. LucyClarkSUFC (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your direct response to my direct response, LucyClarkSUFC. To elaborate somewhat, creating a draft about oneself (or one's father, girlfriend, boss, etc) is permissible. But then it is or (more often) isn't accepted as an article; and if it is accepted, from then on it's almost completely outside the control of the creator or (if different) the biographee. Either creator or biographee may correct obvious vandalism or silliness; but can only update content, improve wording, etc, via suggestions and requests on the article's talk page. And as for creating a draft as an introduction to Wikipedia editing, have your browser look for "My earnest advice" within this web page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

hello

Can i use youtube as a source especially with videos made by media outlets Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Which videos are you thinking of? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

One about mass hysteria, also if only 1 source covers it does it count as unreliable or something Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, which video? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

"Media outlets" can be of wildly different quality standards. Some simply recycle material produced by others, claiming "fair use" or "public interest", or not even bothering to do that. Some "media outlets" that generally are pretty good provide time, in the name of "neutrality" or whatever, for hucksters to spew misinformation. So who's talking, which "media outlet" is it, and what kind of claim do you want to use this for? -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The star, you know a english news channel that says in its description:

The Star is Malaysia's best-selling English newspaper with a daily readership of over a million. TheStarTV.com is a webTV that is a part of the Star Media Group Berhad.

thats only like half of the description Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but which actual video? People on here are usually asking you the right question for a good reason, and it helps to really answer the question instead of making up something else. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

one talking about tiger like mass hysteria Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Which video? I don't mean what's in it, I mean what's the exact video. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

dude i literally said about mass hysteria that makes students behave like tigers Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Alluding to the source rather than identifying it just wont do. If youre going to use a book then the name and author is a bare minimum, if its a youtube video then the bare minimum is the URL.

If you were to get into a taxi would you tell the driver about the interior of the building you were trying to get to, or would you just give the driver the address?

No one is going to be able to help you if you refuse to communicate. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 14:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

didnt you see i said its the star Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes we've established that its in The Star and discussed the reliability of that source. I've even linked to what I think is likely the video you're talking about but you haven't responded to that or said what context your planning to use it in. There is no need to be rude to people who are trying to help you, especially when you're the one making it so hard. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

an article dammit about mass hsyteria Amazin brrrt GUNZ (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If there's a video you want to secretly use without explaining which one, then definitely no, you can't. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Please give the address so everyone can look. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing this one? It seems like it would a perfectly decent source in a section about mass hysteria occurrances in malaysian schools - it would not be good as the only source (fortuneately, many sources have written about this phenomenon). Again, it would depend on the claim you're using it to support.

I cannot fathom out why you're being so cagey with what source you want to use and in what context, it makes it very difficult to awnser the question. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPYT, YouTube is generally unreliable, however, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. So, if the media organisation you want to reference would be considered otherwise reliable on Wikipedia if you were to source one of their articles for example, then a youtube video verifiably published by them would also be considered reliable. Athanelar (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The Star is, I think, considered generally realiable but with the caveat that it is owned by a political party so would not be disinterested in any political reporting. As Hoary said, this sort of comes down to what sort of claim you want to use it for. When you say one source, do you mean for that claim or for the article as a whole? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Request review and publication of a draft translation

Hi, I translated a Korean Wikipedia article into English, but my account can’t publish translations yet due to experience restrictions. Could someone please review my draft and publish it if it’s suitable?

Draft: Draft:유신_(기업명)

Thank you very much.

Draft:유신 (기업). Wikiarchive66 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like your draft may be showing a company that is not notable. English Wikipedia looks for companies whose history is already told in the public media, and does not accept articles about other companies. Please look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a better explanation. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikiarchive66, the English Wikipedia may well have more stringent notability requirements than the Korean Wikipedia. What is required are several references to published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the company and that devote significant coverage to the company. Your first two references do not devote significant coverage to the company and your other two references are published by the company itself and are therefore not independent. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiarchive66: you will get your draft reviewed after you click on the big blue 'submit the draft for review' button. Although as already explained, there is no evidence of notability, so the draft will inevitably be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Email button in signature?

Hello!

I've been contributing some time now and I think I'd like to make a custom signature. Probably:

MEN KISSING! (she/they) - talk - contributions 10:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of folks include other useful links like that in their signatures. I would like, in addition, to include an "email me" button linking to Special:EmailUser. I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, but I've never seen anyone do it, which makes me hesitant. I'd like to make sure this isn't an extremely bad idea before I do it. I've already disabled "allow e-mail from brand new users" in my account settings, which is an obvious precaution.

I understand why it might be a little bit silly to have an "email me" button in the signature. I just like the idea of getting emails from other editors! And I would like to signal as such as part of the signature. MEN KISSING (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the PAGs that would prevent you from including it. The only thing one must have in the signature is a link to at least one of: userpage, talk page, contributions. Anything else is at your discretion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

email from other users is very rare; I don't see the point including such a link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's only rare because most people don't include a link, though. I suppose we will find out in time. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk - Edits - Email 11:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting, in case you didn't know, that replying to an email would expose whatever email address you have on your Account Settings - which might be an issue for you privacy-wise. qcne (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of this, yes.

I think anyone who is able to become auto-confirmed on Wikipedia and entrust me with their email address to write me a thoughtful message, I can trust my email address with them in turn. If someone sends me something less than thoughtful, I will be sure to safely ignore it (or report it via the proper channels if necessary.) I could also have a different email address I use for replies than I do for receiving mail, one that isn't linked to my account. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk - Edits - Email 12:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it's rare because we have talk pages, and prefer to conduct all but a few sensitive matters in openly and in public. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I prefer to have folks be less hesitant to email me about less sensitive matters. Even if I don't get any emails (I've already gotten a few from this discussion post, actually!) I still think it's worthwhile to include in my signature. I am the kind of person who would put an email me button in their signature, and so I have put an email me button in my signature. Self expression is fun! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 23:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're keen to discuss wikipedia "off wiki" then you may also be interested to know that there are dedicated WP:IRC and WP:DISCORD servers. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

pre-technical studies

what is visual programing ~2025-42476-77 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-42476-77 Our article Visual programming language will answer that. qcne (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

As well as what qcne said, you might also want to ask at the computing reference desk. The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia, whereas the reference desk is for knowledge questions more generally. Athanelar (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Using Google Translate?

When translating a page, is using Google Translate recommended? I have noticed that when I use Google Translate, there are usually mistakes and/or the text is too detailed (the wording is far too complicated for even native speakers to understand).

Thanks!

Z-Astro3 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Z-Astro3. Do you mean you are trying to write a new article or expand the content of an existing article and using Google Translate to help create the text? We call that machine translation and no, it's not very good, and a lot of care is required. qcne (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: I think a person using Google Translate needs to know both languages well enough to be able to do the translation by themselves. For such a person, it can potentially save them time. But correcting its mistakes isn't necessarily easy. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

TooManyFingers is correct that Google Translate and other machine translation tools are helpful when an editor speaks both languages and can therefore check carefully and correct the inevitable errors. Machine translation should never be used to create content from a language that the editor does not speak. It is useful to get a general sense of a text but no more than that. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, I'll say that it is possible to use Google Translate when translating from an unfamiliar language to English, but it is a time-consuming process.

I did this to create the Paul Trappen article translated from German. I have a passing familiarity with German, I know a few words in any sentence but usually not enough to understand the sentence. I would run each sentence through Google Translate forward and backward multiple times to see how the English changed. Sometimes the bidirectional translation was stable and I used it. If it wasn't stable, I would ignore the German Wikipedia article and refer to the source, writing an English sentence that agreed with the translation of the German source being cited.

This took a long time. It was a slow and arduous process, not one I'm eager to repeat. As Cullen said, it's much better if you know both languages well enough to communicate in them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Z-Astro3, as TooManyFigers already stated, it's a timesaver when you already know both languages, but I always end up changing lots of things, and sometimes having a good laugh at the results, and other times am alarmed about how very wrong it is, and get worried that monolingual editors are just relying on the output with no way to verify it. Please do not rely on the output of automatic translation, unless you are able to understand the original and evaluate every word of the automatic translation for accuracy. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Emblems of the South Korean president

I have been concerned for a few months that the circular emblem which appears at the top of the infobox on President of South Korea is not notable enough to appear there (and I fear that part of its notability might be as a result of Wikipedia). While it is a symbol used by the president, it is not the main one, nor is it the presidential seal as some people describe it to be.

Essentially, I feel like I've hit a brick wall on this issue, and pretty much everyone I've discussed it with on talk pages seem to believe it belongs there. Perhaps I am being stubborn but I strongly disagree, so I am interested if there is anything at all other than RfC that could be done (and the main reason I am here is because the RfC page suggests going here). Thanks notadev (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with its explanation of "due weight", help you? (because you're saying this thing is true but is far less important than people are treating it) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue so thank you. I've been looking at this through the lens of it just being an infobox dispute where I think the image is inappropriate, but giving it undue weight might be a better descriptor, especially as my concern is that it makes it seem like the main symbol of the presidency. notadev (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Couple random questions I've been thinking about

Sorry to keep visiting teahouse, but I have a couple more random questions.

1. Is there a way to watch a user's contribs? Sometimes I see users I'm worried about but I can't watchlist their contribs so I just have to remember to check.
2. Is there a way to be notified if your edit is reverted? Oftentimes I watch pages really just to see if I get reverted, so that I can figure out what I did wrong or discuss.
3. I recently learned that after 150 edits, the newcomer task of adding wikilinks is blocked. I assume this is to prevent edit farming, and it doesn't bother me because I didn't use it much anyway. However, it does make me wonder, how are we supposed to get through the enormous backlog of articles needing to be wikilinked if only a few users can do it? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

2. Looking at your own contributions list to see if anything is marked as reverted is the only thing I can think of.

3. Anyone can add wikilinks! You just might not be able to see it as a newcomer task? If you're into adding links I would recommend checking out WP:Orphanage and adding links to orphan pages (ones without incoming links in mainspace).

I don't have an answer for your first question, sorry. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, no need to apologize for visiting Teahouse, that's what we're here for! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo has an option for notifications for your edits being reverted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: If "Edit revert" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo then you should be notifed if someone reverts you by using the undo or rollback tool. There are other ways to revert. Category:All articles with too few wikilinks currently only has two articles. I don't know whether there is a newcomer task using another method to find articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Maybe Special:Contributions would be useful? It's not a watchlist of all the pages a given account has edited, but it's a feed of all their edits.

3. It would be interesting to find out what algorithm the newcomer-task uses to propose articles, and whether it's amenable to use by some other tool for other editors. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Right, I knew I could use contribs, I was just hoping I could deliver it straight to my watchlist. Thanks though! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I went to the media, wiki page about it, and it wasn’t particularly helpful, however, I know it uses some kind of bot to suggest specific words/phrases to link. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain its just through maintenance templates; the relevant Mediawiki pages are Newcomer homepage and Newcomer tasks. T227728 and T229430 might also have some more information. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I did go and check on one of those edits I had done, and when I added the links it didn't have a maintenance template. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

FloblinTheGoblin, by the numbers:

1. No. (It might encourage WP:HOUNDING, although there could be legitimate, anti-vandal reasons for it.)

2. Happens automatically by Wikimedia's WP:NOTIFication system.

3. The newcomer task is based on articles (or sections) that have the template {{Underlinked}} on them. You can search for such articles at any time by checking their Tracking categories.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Re: Number 3, there are only 3 articles in that entire category. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

FloblinTheGoblin, and now only two. There used to be a great deal more, but since the advent of the newcomer Homepage, they have been gradually whittled down to basically zero, by new editors following the Suggested Edits module, where 'Underlinked' was always an easy fix to suggest. There will probably never be more than a handful in that category now. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sweet. Well, I'm so glad the wiki has fixed that problem. Thank you for your response! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

KStoller-WMF may be interested in the newcomer homepage/Suggested wikilinks question. The list is now populated automatically (if the article is >x length in words and less than y% are linked), but I don't know how many articles are eligible under the formula.

@FloblinTheGoblin, do you think 150 edits is too early to cut it off? What if it let you continue with the task, but more experienced editors were limited to just a few articles a day (down from a maximum of 15)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I just want to wish you all merry Christmas. I hope you enjoy your holiday and have good time with the people you love. ObamaForever2008 (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Echoing Merry Christmas back across the miles, O.F., and in return sharing a thought that resonates with me and may with other wordsmiths: that the one whose birth is celebrated today has also been called The Word. Augnablik (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

You too! ~2025-42519-93 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Who was the 1st author?

I need to know who was the creator of Template:Largest settlements of Antigua and Barbuda. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Logoshimpo. It was CROIX. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

you can just check the page history, hope that saves you time later :) Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 13:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Largest settlements of Antigua and Barbuda is a red link so the page was deleted and the page history can only be seen by administrators like me. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Un-discussed move

[here] can someone please revert back this move as it was un-discussed and does not have any merit in doing so. 456legendtalk 04:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. The better place to ask is WP:RM/TR (although given the redirect had no history, any autoconfirmed user could have reverted the move). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Nowiki tags for square brackets in references

Hello, Teahouse,

I recently made an edit to Erebus which fixed the CheckWiki error for "Square brackets without correct beginning." This was the original text that was inside a reference:

... [= Orphic fr. 64V Bernabé (pp. 73–5) = [https://archive.org/details/orphicorumfragme00orphuoft/page/80/mode/2up?view=theater fr. 1 Kern]] ...

and the edit I made:

... [= Orphic fr. 64V Bernabé (pp. 73–5) = [https://archive.org/details/orphicorumfragme00orphuoft/page/80/mode/2up?view=theater fr. 1 Kern]<nowiki>]</nowiki> ...

Both edits read like:

 ... [= Orphic fr. 64V Bernabé (pp. 73–5) = fr. 1 Kern] ...

I made this edit to fix this error while keeping the content and the appearance of the reference in mind. The text/appearance of both edits remain the same. Per WP:COSMETICBOT, this could be considered a cosmetic edit, however I also fixed reference duplication in my edit, so I think this is considered a substantive edit.

However, an editor has reverted my first edit and argues that there is actually no error and CheckWiki is incorrectly flagging this as an error.

So, before I go and continue making fixes for this CheckWiki error, I ask you two questions:

• 1. Is this actually an error that should be fixed, even if it is considered a cosmetic edit if that is the only change?
• 2. Did I correct it in the right way? If not, what should be the correct method?

Thank you and happy holidays! Ecourter (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Ecourter, by the numbers:

• 1. Whether I'd go so far as to say should be fixed, I don't know, but I think it is a definite improvement. I would have fixed it, as double close-square-brackets could be confusing or misinterpreted by human editors, even if the software gets it right, as it did in this case. Your edit improved the wikicode in a way that helps all future wikitext editors who might look at that reference, so I would say that overrides any concerns about edits which do not alter the rendered page.
• 2. There's more than one way to do it. I generally do something like ... fr. 1 Kern]&#93; (at least, in template code) but your way is better in main space because ]<nowiki>]</nowiki> is just clearer about what is going on. So, I would say 'yes' to #2. (There is an alternative in certain circumstances: ]{{zwsp}}], but maybe not here.)

P.S., this is pretty in-the-weeds stuff that guidelines don't really delve into at that level of detail, so I don't think there is really a 'right' or 'wrong', here. That means basic principles apply: what is the best for (in this order): a) the viewer, and b) the editor? I'd say a) is a wash, and b) is your fixes. Just my 2 cents. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

P.P.S. By the way, this is pretty technical for the Teahouse, and I'd probably advise using WP:Help desk instead for something like this. However, it is n.b.d., and even on this page some editors doubt any difference between the two, so do what seems right to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You can also use ] to produce a ] that won't get interpreted as a wikitext symbol. (Copy the displayed code, not the "&amp" bit that you see in the wikitext. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a really good option. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

login authentication?

Wikipedia recently logged me out of my account, as it tends to do around every year or so, and usually I’m allowed to just log back in, but when did it start asking for the email authentication code thing? Furthermore, when did it start creating these 2025~1234~123 accounts for new IPs? Haven’t edited in a while and feel like I’m out of the loop; just wanted to ask when that changed so I don’t feel old- (I’ll log back in soon, probably tomorrow, just don’t feel like going to the trouble currently)

— a temporarily logged out Shadestar474 ~2025-42923-65 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts became a thing a few months ago. As for email authentication, do you have two-factor authentication set up? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t think I’d enabled it, but I can check. Thanks! ~2025-42923-65 (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Vinod Kumar Shukla

Ref: Vinod Kumar Shukla #Death

An author I loved passed away recently. His BLP's death section quotes the prime minister's condolence message. I am not sure if it belong there. But I'm also not sure if it should be remove, given how preceptively big of a thing it is for the prime minister to write this for a Hindi author.

Furthermore, I adore the author too much and am too biased to take a neutral call on this. I urge someone on the teahouse to take a look and modify things if needed.

Feel free to archive the discussion. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you adore this author because you were friends or business associates? Or just because their work is important to you?

If you never knew the author and never did business with them, then I believe you are safe to express your opinion freely. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Just as a reader adores an author.

I'm unable to take a decision though. Per below comment, I'll start a conversation on the talk page. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers See WP:COICOI. Any case in which your interests are at odds with NPOV is a COI, that can include being a sufficiently passionate fan, it doesn't have to be a professional/personal connection. Athanelar (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you, I had never run into that. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kingsacrificer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Whatever your reasoning, the best place to discuss this is on the talk page, Talk:Vinod Kumar Shukla, where other editors with an interest in the subject will see it. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll start a conversation on the talk page.

But I must say: Given the author's demise, the page may receive some additional views/activity; but usually messages on an article's talk page rarely get traction. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Im really in need of help financially I can seek to win any thing that will be a blessing to me and my family

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

---

finacial Jamarcus55 (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jamarcus55 This is a forum for help for Wikipedia editing, nothing more. qcne (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jamarcus55

this is wikipedia not a bank or lottery Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 13:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

or a casino Versions111 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Returning to IP editing

Should we return to IP editing, instead of TA editing? If not, why though? ~2025-42519-93 (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-42519-93

I really don't know myself but to find out I recommend WP:TA Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 12:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't something that the English Wikipedia has any control over. This has been implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation. qcne (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The WMF won't do it; they had to get rid of IP editing because of legal privacy concerns, probably relating to GDPR. At this point the only way enwiki could get rid of TAs is if we require accounts for editing. Athanelar (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

AfDs

Hello, how is "Draft-ifying" an article different from deleting it? Thanks, TH team. Kvinnen (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Draftifying is very different from deleting an article: when an article is draftified, it still exists, retains its full edit history, and editors can continue improving it by adding sources or fixing issues such as notability and tone. Once it meets Wikipedia’s standards, it can be resubmitted through AfC and moved back to mainspace, whereas deleting an article removes it from public view and restricts access to administrators only. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This helps! Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

A draft still exists on the website but can not pop up while searching for an article during traditional methods. These articles have the prefix Draft: and are often used for saving incomplete articles for later refinement. A deleted article deletes all of the text, making it impossible to access without undeletion. GGOTCC 16:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Kvinnen, draftifying gives the creating editor the time to fix up the problems in the original that caused it to be draftified in the first place. Does this answer your question, or is there something else? Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this does. Thanks again! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

G20 summit &Dirty master

@Ol Dirty Master Good master with a opposed of Dirty,has the G20 summit of the world has done a impact we will see about that next year! ~2025-42522-90 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

/* G20 summit &Dirty master */ It will have impact I am confident AI ~2025-42522-90 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-42522-90 Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Notable Artist from Mumbai - Please give your feedback

Hi, this looks like an interesting contemporary Indian artist and I’ve put together a draft biography in my sandbox. I’d appreciate any feedback on notability, sourcing, and tone before submitting to AfC.

Sandbox link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pritik_Wiki/sandbox

Thank you! Pritik Wiki (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Was this created by an AI chatbot, @Pritik Wiki. I note the phrase: [Add official artist website if independently verifiable].

Your first source is good. Your second source only okay. The third source isn't any good. I'd ideally like to see three strong sources like the first source to prove this person meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne Thanks for your quick review and valuable feedback. To clarify, the article was written and edited by me. The bracketed phrase (“[Add official artist website if independently verifiable]”) was a draft-stage editorial reminder and has now been removed, as it does not belong in published article text and could create the wrong impression.

I’m grateful for your clear assessment of the sources. I agree that the first source is strong, the second is moderate, and the third does not adequately support notability. I will remove or replace the weaker source and work on adding additional high-quality, independent secondary sources comparable to the first to clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria.

Thank you again for your guidance — it’s very helpful, and I appreciate your time and attention to improving article quality. Pritik Wiki (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that both your sandbox and your replies here are AI generated. Please note WP:NEWLLM (generating new articles from scratch using AI is not allowed) and WP:LLMCOMM (using AI in user-to-user communication is highly frowned upon by the community) Athanelar (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There are whole sections of biographical detail that have no cites. WP:BLP policy requires citations for bio claims. The sources you provide to meet that requirement may help with others' concerns about notability. DMacks (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks Thanks. I appreciate the reminder regarding WP:BLP requirements. Senior editors quick response and guidance is very valuable for all of us. Thanks Pritik Wiki (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

How to delete a user page?

I found the User:Catejhaz page that contains inconsistent mix of wiki formatting elements.

It would deserve {{Db-g1}} and {{Db-g2}} if it wasn't in the User: space.

It could be removed as {{Db-u1}}, but I can't nominate it, as it's not mine.

It could almost fit {{Db-u2}} 'nouser', because its owner has not logged in since 2009 – but, technically speaking, it's not no-user, because the account still exists.

It also doesn't fit {{Db-u6}} or {{Db-u7}}, because it's not a sub-page.

Anyway, the page seem useless, it hasn't been edited for over 15 years and its owner did not make any (visible to me) editing actions except on that page.
IMO there is clearly no reason to keep it, and it doesn't even need any discussion. How should I proceed to make it deleted?

Or should I give up on it...? --CiaPan (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Similar question on User talk:DarkDragon123 and User:Dar2006 2007 and possibly many others... --CiaPan (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@CiaPan I don't think it matters. These are clearly test edits from non-contributors. But they don't take up any server space. Just leave them be. qcne (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This one in particular pollutes several maintenance categories that others actively patrol. Similar to other third-party lint-cleanup gnoming, that is a valid basis for some sort of action. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne and DMacks: Thank you for you replies. Meanwhile, another two examples from the other end of alphabet: User talk:Woah d00d and User:Ywwabced. --CiaPan (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@CiaPan I didn't look properly - my bad, it's Christmas Day etc - so if these are actually appearing in a cat then I would suggest just wrap them in nowiki marks? qcne (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: Yes, they actually do. Those four linked above appear e.g. in hidden maintenance Category:Pages with math errors, Category:Articles with math render errors (where I actually found them) and in Category:Pages with missing files. --CiaPan (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I've blanked the page for you. That's really all you need to do for an account that hasn't edited for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it forbidden to use google translate and grammarly extension on writing proper English?

For months I've been receiving feedback that AI was used on my draft page, but when I respond to explain my page, I'm met with a "new page reviewer" who claims my response was also written using AI. All I use are Google Translate and Grammarly to check the accuracy of my English. All the text is my own; I can't publish my page because the reviewer suspects it might be AI-generated and I can't get past this reviewer. Nevertheless, I have taken the reviewer’s feedback into account and checked for quality issues, attempting to correct the promotional tone, essay-style writing, and speculative statements. I have also restructured much of the text to create a clear section structure in line with Wikipedia norms and moved some details to the references section. I’m still getting LLM usage response. It's a very discouraging communication, and there's a huge AI fallacy preventing me from becoming an editor at Wikipedia. Any suggestion? Themkview (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Themkview. You might not be aware, but Grammarly is now Grammarly AI and has inserted a large-language-model into it's product. This classes it as an LLM in our books.

But, yes, generally editors on the English Wikipedia should have a near-fluent level of English-language competency. Machine translation software like Google Translate can create clunky translated text which misses meaning and contains errors.

Perhaps you would be better contributing on the Turkish-language Wikipedia if you don't have the English-language skills to contribute effectively here?

That said, I don't think Draft:Orhan_Tanrıkulu is written that badly. It does require some language and grammar clean-up, but I would not say it has the usual hallmarks of AI-generated text. The biggest issue is that you don't have any sources that are online, so it's much harder for reviewers to verify the sources. qcne (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Even Google Translate apparently uses Gemini now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually write and speak in English. I use these tools to contribute properly in English. Even my English friends are doing the same to their daily and business writing. Anyway, I got your point. However, the reviewer refused with the cause of LLM usage not the limited online sources! By the way, I have enough scanned newspaper articles, official docs, etc., to prove the authenticity of the content. However, I can't upload these to support draft page. The article should be on the main page. I'm waiting helplessly, and I still don't know how to correct the article. Themkview (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be available online for you to cite them, Themkview. See WP:OFFLINE. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Submitting articles to Wikipedia is not a test of writing style. But because of the huge numbers of people trying to "smuggle" themselves or their business into an article, submitting articles IS an honesty test. Using fake writing on an honesty test is generally not a good move. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you are using, it's having an obvious damaging effect on your work, so quit using those things and write by yourself. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

If you accidentally use wrong grammar, you get no blame for that. It's far better than hiding behind a machine. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Agrew with TMF; just write your own style of English, and don't worry about it.

Also, Qcne, I generally agree with you right down the line, but not with this:

generally editors on the English Wikipedia should have a near-fluent level of English-language competency.

I strongly disagree, and to my knowledge there is no policy or guideline which supports this. ESL editors are welcome to contribute here as long as their English is readily comprehensible; other editors will fix up any problems of grammar, style, or "accent". Let French Wikipedia continue to be snobbish about that; we are not. I welcome our large cohort of second language English speakers to continue to contribute here, even with imperfect English. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I second what @TooManyFingers has said. It's much more important that the content of your article is sound than the style; style can be fixed later, but no amount of copyediting can fix an article that shouldn't exist to begin with.

Just write to the best of your ability and don't worry about using Google Translate or Grammarly. If there are serious grammatical/stylistic errors then someone will fix it sooner or later, and unless the errors are egregious nobody will decline your draft for some grammar issues. Athanelar (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The last paragraph is accidentally quite misleading. "Don't worry about ..." means exactly the opposite of what you intended. (It also does mean what you intended - it's very much both.)

So ... @Themkview: Please don't use those tools. It's better without them. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

If it means both, hmm... maybe oversight would be the best path; or shall we table it for possible sanction? Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Oversight is one of my favourite contronyms.

Because, if you oversee something, you have to make sure you don't overlook anything; if you don't keep a tight overwatch then you might make an oversight; so make sure you look over it again. Athanelar (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure. A lot of overseers tend to underlisten, even though an undertaker who overshares is a dead giveaway. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

How many sockpuppets have been promoted to admin?

I’m wondering after the most recent admin elections how many sockpuppets have been able to fool the community and get promoted to positions of power. Like, after the most recent elections what the new total is? Bassermick (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one of the recently elected new admins is a sock of another user?

If you have evidence of that, please feel free to open an WP:SPI or contact ArbCom privately if the evidence involves some non-public information. If not, well, as they say at weddings, forever hold your peace.

And, yes, to answer your question, there have been a couple of circumstances where formerly blocked/banned users have started new accounts and gained administrative rights before being unmasked (or, in one case, self-disclosing). Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd start by examining the one-edit account that started this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t think it was that much of shock, I just assumed a lot of people probably already knew Left guide is a sockpuppet, probably of Icewhiz. Bassermick (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Accusations sans evidence are sanctionable by themselves. If you have proof, send it to the Arbitration Committee. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I never knew that one of the administrators turned out to be sockpuppets. How surprising can those be. At least, I heard of this prior to. ~2025-42676-23 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Help adding images

Hello!

I have a personal connection with Asad Noor and I've previously added their image (I've declared a conflict of interest in my profile page) but I feel it'd be better to update their image to a more recent one (kindly see my uploaded images here). Can someone add them to the article? I don't want to edit the article again as I'm not sure about the policies regarding adding images to an article which I've a conflict of interest with. Is it allowed tho?

Thank you very much & Happy holidays! M Rawnok Mahfuz (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that one picture at the bottom of the page is fine but for the caption just say the date it was photographed Theknoledgeableperson (SHOUT HERE) 22:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@M Rawnok Mahfuz In future, if you have any doubts about adding text or images to articles where you have a COI, you can always make a request on the article's talk page. We have a Wizard for doing that which will draw your suggestion to the attention of neutral editors who specialise in fulfilling (or not) such requests. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts list

The hosts list here could use some "weeding". Several names on it are blocked sockpuppets. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Teahouse is the best place to discuss the details of the Teahouse itself. There are a lot of hosts listed on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts, and although there is a Category:Wikipedia Teahouse hosts, it's manually populated on each one's user-page independently of the central /Hosts page. As a quick start, it's easy to scan the cat: there are several who are indef'ed (should probably update their user-page), but none of them are listed on the /Hosts page. Feel free to ping me if you start a thread in a better place to discuss this and I can look at some other tools that might help. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just removed three blocked users from the list that appears at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I made Wikipedia:Teahouse/Compact host-list (auto-synced from /Hosts) as an easier-to-scan list. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

TODO: for the several users who have neen renamed but are still active on WP, their entries should either be updated or removed...working on that aspect... DMacks (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how this works. Recently somebody put me on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/7[2] but I'm not listed in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. Should I be? I have no objection, but I have no idea if there's a process to being a host, and I didn't know I was one until I became "featured". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I am listed as a host. I would prefer not to be, as my presence there is no longer justified. But I have been unable to figure out how to remove my name. (There may be others in my position,) Maproom (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I just looked, and I do not see you listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts (and there are no recent edits). Do you mean some other list? Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist, @DMacks, @Maproom, @Mathglot, @Cordless Larry. See very relevant (unfinished) discussion at WT:Teahouse#Should we get rid of the featured hosts on the top right of the header and mark them as historical?. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

By a quick browser-find I do see Maproom on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. That page is just a wrapper around Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing that contains the actual list. I removed your entry. Thanks for helping when you are able, and letting us know you no longer wish to be listed. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, DMacks! Maproom (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"Template parameters changed" ?

Hello! Does anyone know why the Visual Diff of this recent change I made shows "Template parameters changed" for the Accolades Table? I did not make changes to that table, and the Wikitext diff view doesn't show a template change. There also doesn't appear to be any changes to the table. Is this something that happens automatically when citations are moved around? (note that my change didn't remove/add any citations, but I did change a quote to a blockquote).

Thanks for your help! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 21:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chao Garden, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like a bug to me. I guess "Template parameters changed" was meant for the references section which has a display change caused by changes to {{Cite web}} parameters earlier in the page. If I hover over "Template parameters changed" then "Ref." in the Accolades table is marked. It's generated by an unchanged template call {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}. Maybe it somehow confused the software that it contains the string "Ref" and the actual change was inside ref tags. I don't normally use visual diffs so I don't know whether such erors are common. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this safe

I want to create a draft, but im afraid of the ongoing scam. is it safe to create the draft? Thanks, Yooniiik Yooniik (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean a scam in which someone offers to write it for you if you pay them?

Ignore any offers like that, and it will be fine. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

okay thanks! Yooniik (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SCAM lists some of the more common types of scams and signs to recognize. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Couple other random questions

1: What is considered "basic knowledge" of a language per the babel one template? Specifically, Spanish.

2: At what edit count, user age, or other metric should I stop using the Teahouse and switch over to Help desk (I think that's for more experienced users?)? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Whatever you feel like. The template is meant to communicate that you could aid with another language (with es-1 being somewhat basic Spanish). There might be a page that specifically qualifies them, but it is rather vague, too, if I remember correctly.

2. We will never turn you away. I have seen editors with over 3,000 edits post questions here. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(re: #1) There are some rough definitions at WP:Babel/Levels but the whole Babel system is subjective and only a guide. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the Help Desk is for harder questions? I know the Teahouse is supposed to be friendly, but I don't see any Help Desk people trying to be UNfriendly ... :) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thats because Doug the Ram doesn't answer there. {The poster formerly knwn as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think having both the Teahouse and the Help Desk is redundant. Pretty much the same people answer questions in both places, and the questions are similar. Teahouse likely gets more attention due to the publicity from the automatic template that is put on user talk pages when reviewing a draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The intention for them to be different has clearly not worked the way it was meant to. (I don't know how it was meant to turn out, just that this couldn't have been it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

A lot of questions about drafts being declined appear in three places: here at the Teahouse, at the Help Desk, and at WP:AFCHELP. Triple redundancy! And part of the reason for the split is because the AFC reviewer script offers to invite people to the Teahouse when a draft is declined, when it should invite people to WP:AFCHELP. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the AfC script currently adds this to the decline notice: If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

But if this is the submitter's first decline, they also get an additional notice which says, If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

FloblinTheGoblin, as others have said, the template is rather vague. Your question is something I am quite interested in (see my user page) and I can tell you that those evaluations are very rough. In addition, a) understanding, b) speaking, and c) writing are three vastly different skills, so for example, while I rated myself a '1' in Catalan and Russian, I wouldn't dream of translating a Russian article into English, because I am light-years away from understanding enough to do that. Otoh, I have translated a bunch of Catalan articles, because my Spanish and French are fluent, and my understanding of Catalan is pretty strong, even though attempting to speak it gets polluted with my much stronger Spanish and French fluency. But I can read a Catalan article no problem, and translate it, with the help of a dictionary for some words I don't know. So, the Babel template is really a very, very rough indicator; just do the best you can. Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Check my work, please

I recently wrote the "20th century" and "21st century" sections of Social question and want to know if I am doing anything wrong. I am especially worried about the potential for bias: do my political views show in my writing? Also, is the style encyclopedic? Should I find several sources instead of relying on a single book? Lucevium (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@ Lucevium (Should I find several sources instead of relying on a single book?):

Yes, you should. Please take a view on this book:

https://books.google.de/books/about/Prekarit%C3%A4t_Abstieg_Ausgrenzung.html?id=jI9NxX2Y0xAC

Please pay attention (!): The sentence "Die soziale Frage ist in die politische Öffentlichkeit zurückgekehrt." has been translated into English as: "The social issue has returned to the political public.

There apparently is no difference between the terms social question and social issue in English. --~2025-43248-18 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The style of writing seems fine enough for the 20th century section. Something about the 21st century section's wording off-puts me but I can't exactly decide what. It might just be too short. From the writing, I can probably guess you are more to the left if I had to make a guess, though the bias is not problematic as long as it is well-sourced and attributed (which it seems to be). If you feel particularly uncomfortable about a claim, you can say "According to [author]..." Finally, I would say you should just find more sources as the sections are rather short. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I have another question. The book I pulled information from has a lot of info that I haven't added yet, including analyses of the social question by country. I could write about the 21st century with a lot more detail, drawing from only that book. At what point do I need more sources? Should I just use that book until I can't anymore, or get a variety of sources? Lucevium (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The answer to that question is somewhat holistic, in my opinion. You need to be mindful about undue weight. Also, as a book can go into far more detail than an encyclopedic article, I would try to pick out the most important pieces and leave quite a bit out. Worst case scenario, you add the detail later. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Lucevium, Quxyz has hit the nail on the head by mentioning WP:DUEWEIGHT; this should be the deciding factor in what to say, and drawing from only one source can be very problematic, *unless* that one book happens to represent the majority view of all independent, secondary, reliable sources. One way to check out where the majority lies, if there are too many sources to read them all, is to check out other tertiary sources, if they exist. An article from respected tertiary source should reflect the preponderance of secondary sources, and as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so should we. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Can AFC reviewer, Review this

Block evasion for yet more "Radford Sechrist" spam. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

hello AFC reviewer I been seeing Draft:Radford Sechirst like couple day is still not reviewed Nicedudebro (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You mean Draft:Radford Sechrist. Reviews often take a long time and it has already been reviewed twice. I'm not reviewing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

no is been updated Nicedudebro (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

They didn't misunderstand you. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

sorry😯 Nicedudebro (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Get your original account unblocked before you edit further. When you are blocked, it isn't your account that is blocked, it is YOU who are blocked personally. You are not allowed to participate here until your original account is unblocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

First edits!

Hello all,

I'm a brand new user, and I just made my first edits to an article. Sorry to sound like such a newbie, but after one publishes changes, is that it? Does someone review the change, etc.? I'm just nervous (in an excited way) because I've enjoyed Wikipedia for many years, and I want to help make a difference - but in the correct way.

Thanks in advance! CanelaQuill (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

happy editing! Nicedudebro (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi CanelaQuill, welcome to the Teahouse. The only people who might review your edits are recent changes patrollers, unless you are editing an article with pending changes protection. Thank you for your contributions! You have now contributed more edits than 80% of accounts :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Glad to have you contributing! In almost all cases, as soon as you click 'publish' for a change to an article, your edit is live for all to see. There's no supervisory process or second opinion involved. Others might make further changes (just as you did) that alter your edit (just as you altered someone else's)...it's all a fully exposed collabotative process. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. CanelaQuill (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, CanelaQuill, and we are very excited to have you! To your question: no, nothing else to do, other than to find the next article you would like to contribute to. If you already have some ideas, by all means follow them; otherwise, if you need some suggestions, check out the Suggested Edits module top left on your Homepage. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello CanelaQuill, and welcome to the world of Wikipedia editing. I just wanted to give you a heads up that the time may come when you'll make a mistake in editing, and another editor might revert your work, and perhaps leave a polite message on your Talk page, explaining why the revert was made. But as long as you always edit in good faith, an occasional mistake is nothing more than a mistake, and a chance to learn a bit more about this sometimes-confusing editing work. I hope you obtain great satisfaction in helping to improve this wonderful resource of online information available to anyone with an Internet connection. Karenthewriter (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@CanelaQuill for info on how to start editing see WP:EDIT Theknoledgeableperson (SHOUT HERE) 11:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! That's reassuring. CanelaQuill (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox for unregistered users

Could unregistered users have their own sandboxes, and are they able to be created? Thanks a lot. ~2025-42676-23 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

No. If you want a personal sandbox, you need an account. Until you create one, you can use WP:Sandbox. -- asilvering (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that an editor with an account could click on the link User:~2025-42676-23/sandbox and create a new page which would then behave as if it were the sandbox for @~2025-42676-23. We already have had enquiries about temporary accounts creating user pages, which they can't do directly but others can do on their behalf. Since temporary accounts only last 90 days, there's not much benefit in having either such user pages or sandboxes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Generally agree, however anyone a minimum of tech savvy (or willing to look it up online) could create a browser bookmark to their original temp-whatever sandbox, and then always use the same sandbox forever, regardless what their periodically updated temp account name is. (This would link the names of two or more temp accounts, but that wouldn't bother me, if I were unregistered.) I use a browser bookmark to get to my (registered) user page, just because it is convenient and easy. Temp accounts could do the same thing with a sandbox page. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Kilshaw scandal?

See BBC article from 2022 serving as a retrospective and AFP article from 2000 covering it. Is there an article on it? Nighfidelity (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It would appear not. Although before creating one I would suggest adding it to List of international adoption scandals. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

What could be the title? Nighfidelity (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think Killshaw Adoption Scandal would do. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

How to deal with user who ignores discussion?

There was an edit war on specific article, so I opened the discussion on there to talk about it, but the oppose user completely ignored it and keeps editing other articles. Thus, the article remains incomplete right now. What should I do in this situation? I searched for related guidelines but I failed to find the solution of this. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Which article? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ll respond when I have time; you started the discussion just an hour ago, so please be a little patient.Twister Swagger (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Twister Swagger: Perhaps I'm trying to prevent kind of these situations not to happen in future, since I experienced these situations 1~2 year(s) ago. Also it's kinda incomprehensible for me that you have a time to edit other articles and keep watching on my contribs, rather than sharing your opinions on the article's talk page.

@TooManyFingers: The incident happened on Out the Window. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I will answer in due course. I am under no obligation to respond within an hour, so please maintain respectful manners. Twister Swagger (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Twister Swagger It looks to me like you've made a significant mistake. You linked to a discussion where you thought you saw a conflict of interest, but they were quoting from the magazine, not explaining their own position. I think you're probably in the wrong here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding? Maybe your edit summary was missing a lot of information? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions What is your relationship to the magazine in question, and to anyone who works there? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You mean Melodic Magazine? I'm just a student who loves to edit pop music related articles. XD Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, but that wasn't the question. What's your relationship with the magazine and anyone who works there? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I thought my answer would satisfy your question. I'm not even related to any magazine or even anyone because I'm just a student from South Korea. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

That's OK - thank you for answering and sorry I misunderstood. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

who is my mentor?

i was neverhelped by a mentor that i know of so im curious was i assigned one ever? Yooniik (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It should say on your homepage who your one is. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yooniiik Click on Special:Homepage to find out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

captcha

when will i be able to stop needing captcha Yooniik (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

When you have an account that is four days old and has ten edits. This is known as the autoconfirmed threshold. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Please help me 🙏

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

---

I am being targeted and maliciously ganged up on by either a single person using multiple accounts or a group of acquaintances (labeled as “Hong Kong student”). They are even systematically reverting all of my previous editing contributions. Accusermanager (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

For those unaware: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#LLM_use_and_PA_by_User:Accusermanager Fermiboson (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The articles being rolled back include, but are not limited to:

Money Services Business

Money Transmitter

…

I will not attempt to edit and improve them again, because this is evidence of malicious vandalism. If the community takes no action against this purely destructive behavior, then so be it—we’ll just have to continue letting imperfect or even incorrect knowledge be presented to the world. Accusermanager (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:ANI § LLM use and PA by User:Accusermanager for anyone curious what this refers to. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Accusermanager (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You are the vandal. Yes, you're being targeted, because of your own dishonest editing. When you are dishonest, you are going to get targeted. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Former GAs/FAs

Here’s a question: for former Good Articles and Featured Articles, how come people don’t just revert it back to when it was good enough to be a featured/good article?

This is assuming that the delisting was 1) not due to a change in criteria and 2) not due to poor reviewing. If it is agreed that the previous version constituted a good/featured article, why not restore it? I know it would revert many good edits, but worse case scenario, you could just sort through the edits (assuming there weren’t too many) and revert all the bad ones, or just make that compromise and lose a couple good edits at the expense of an FA/GA. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably because the prior versions are outdated. Take the J.K. Rowling article, for instance; it was promoted in December 2007, 18 years ago, then demoted two months ago. There's no way an editor could revert everything back to the FA version without losing massive amounts of post-2007 article content. Some1 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It's also possible (and in some cases likely) that important new information has been added and shouldn't be taken out. Sometimes it would be far more than just "a couple" of good edits getting lost. So we end up back where we started, having to take each one case by case.

IMO the best thing you could do about this, if you want to, is to look in those lists for topics that interest you, and - instead of planning to reverse the changes - plan to make the article better by doing whatever is the right thing in that case. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers @Some1 Thank you so much! That answer was very helpful. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Remigration entry USA

This is receiving a lot of reposts on X. It is likely to cause conservatives not to donate to Wikipedia. Is there a way to reword it so that it accurately relays border protection? Anyone who is sane knows that a country is not a country without borders. Remigration ~2025-43276-48 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Remigration to discuss your concerns with that article. We editors are not concerned who donates or does not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation- and withholding or making donations has no impact on editorial decisions. That subject has nothing to do with the status of a country or having borders. Racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia, nor are personal attacks("anyone who is sane"). 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Help with Bauhara (Jat Clan) draft

Hello, I am a new editor and I recently submitted a draft for "Bauhara (Jat Clan)". It has been declined twice due to concerns about AI content and WP:CTOP (caste-related topics). I am writing based on local records and a government recognition certificate awarded to my grandfather. I need help to rewrite this in a neutral way that follows Wikipedia's rules. Thank you. Rishibauhara (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC) Rishibauhara (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I must inform you that as a new editor you are not permitted to edit in the topic area of Indian social groups(like castes) until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits. Please see your user talk page for information I am placing there. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rishibauhara, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

Your draft has no relevant sources - most Wikis are not reliable sources, because they are user-generated; and official records are primary sources - so does nothing to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure

I get through all the slides and then when it says hello world it wont go on. can you help me? please and thank you. Yooniik (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The Adventure doesn't work properly on mobile - could that be the problem? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It is definitely possible. I'm not using a phone, computer, iPad or tablet. I'm using a Kindle and that also may be the reason. Yooniik (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The only time I used a Kindle, it was Android the same as a phone (but with other software added to it). But that was a long time ago. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Advice needed on AfC rejection (WP:SIGCOV) for Draft:Sillygoose OÜ

Hi, I’m looking for advice on how to address a notability rejection under WP:SIGCOV for an Articles for Creation draft.

The draft is about a creative design studio. One of the sources is a full, in-depth editorial interview published by Visual Art Journal that focuses entirely on the subject’s practice, development, and exhibitions.

The AfC reviewer commented that most sources were primary and that there was no evidence of significant coverage. I’d like guidance on whether this interview qualifies as significant independent secondary coverage, and how the draft should be restructured to make that clear.

Draft: Draft:Sillygoose OÜ Umair.Ishaq (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are the subject talking about themselves, and therefore primary. There are small partial exceptions to this, but mainly not. The interviewer can't be independent while the subject is sitting there - interviewers don't want to say anything that might offend the subject. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

What you need is several sources that tell detailed stories about the subject, where the story is by the reporter alone - no press release, no interview, no announcement to make, just a story. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Umair.Ishaq, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

It doesn't look to me as if any of your sources meet all the criteria in golden rule: without several sources that do so, no article is possible.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (While your account has existed for fifteen years, you did not edit from it until yesterday, so you are a new user for this purpose). ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Trying to develop new article

This is my first draft of a possible article about a famous American political scientist. It has been summarily rejected, essentially over citations. I have received comments from three different editors. As someone who has published many scholarly articles (which require citations, by the way), I am used to dealing with editorial comments and have a reasonably thick skin. However, I find the comments I have received thus far to be condescending and unhelpful. One editor questioned notability; as noted below, and supported by footnotes 2 and 3, the subject of this draft article has published more articles in major political science journals than any other person in the entire world. He has also received numerous awards. Style aside, I would think this establishes notability.

This isn't the place to post a draft for review. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DRAFT:  James L. Gibson (political scientist)

James L. Gibson is an American Political Scientist whose major theoretical and empirical contributions are Positivity Theory, his theories of democratization and Transitional Justice, and his understandings of democratic values and especially political intolerance.

Education and Current Positions

Education         Emory University, BA with highest honors, 1972

                       Honors Thesis:  “Judicial Attitudes in Decision Making:  A Behavioral Approach”

                       Thesis Advisor:  Thomas G. Walker

                       University of Iowa, MA (1973) and PhD (1975)

                       Ph.D. Thesis: “The Judicial Decision:  Social and Psychological Determinants of the

Decisions of Criminal Courts in Iowa”

                       Thesis Advisor:  Justin J. Green

Current

Positions          Sidney W. Souers Professor of Political Science, Washington University

                       Professor Extraordinary in Political Science at Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Career

Gibson began his academic career at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (1975-1983), moving to the University of Houston (1983-1999), where he was the Cullen Distinguished Professor (1996-1999). Since 1999, he has been the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in St. Louis.[i] He has also had visiting appointments at the Russell Sage Foundation (2001-02 and 2012-13), the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa (2000-06), Stanford Law School (2009), and Columbia University (2012-13).  Since 2000, he has held the position of Professor Extraordinary in Political Science at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.

Separate studies in 2019[ii] and 2025[iii] list him as the most prolific publisher of major political science articles in the world. His work has received over 25,000 citations.[iv]

Major Areas of Contribution                                                                                                                                        

Positivity Theory

This theory asserts that exposure to courts enhances institutional legitimacy (“to know them is to love them”), even when the exposure results in citizens learning that the court has made a disagreeable decision.[v] Legitimacy is reinforced by exposure to the symbols of judicial authority (e.g., robes, gavels). The effect of symbols is most likely to activate associations acquired through previous (often early childhood) socialization to system support, mostly positive. Because symbols are acquired via System 1 information processing processes[vi] (often described as instinctive and automatic as opposed to deliberative, careful reasoning), motivated reasoning (System 2) is avoided, allowing symbols to have outsized influence of court attitudes. Positivity Theory helps explain how a court such as the United States Supreme Court can maintain its legitimacy despite making highly salient and controversial rulings.

The role of symbols varies by whether one is a majority or minority person in the U.S.. Gibson’s co-authored book Black and Blue details how the experiences of African Americans with legal authorities (personal and vicarious) have long-term and profound consequences for the legitimacy of legal institutions among Black Americans.[vii] Positivity Theory has become the dominant view in studies of courts and public opinion of how legitimacy is formed and maintained.

Partly in recognition of his work on Positivity Theory, Gibson was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Politics APSA Section,[viii] and the ISPP’s Harold Lasswell Award for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishment in Political Psychology,.[ix] which is bestowed on an individual deemed to have made a distinguished scientific contribution in the field of political psychology.

Transitional Justice

Based on research around the world, including in the former Soviet Union and South Africa, Gibson has made notable contributions to theories of democratization and Transitional Justice. The transition from apartheid in South Africa was extensively examined and developed in the “Overcoming Trilogy,” three books focused on democracy to South Africa. Gibson argued that institutional legitimacy is a crucial part of political communication because only legitimate institutions will be regarded by ordinary people as credible.[x] To the extent that the goal of a truth commission is to transform society, then commissions must communicate with ordinary citizens, and, to be persuasive, they must be evenhanded and legitimate.

This, and related work in the former Soviet Union, was recognized by the 2005 Decade of Behavior Award.[xi]  Gibson’s research on reconciliation in South Africa has also been the inspiration for a continuing survey, dubbed the “Reconciliation Barometer,” launched by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa[xii] and conducted virtually annually since Gibson’s initial NSF funded surveys. In addition, this research was recognized with the Decade of Behavior Award.[xiii]  Archbishop Desmond Tutu described this research as groundbreaking and timely.[xiv]

Political Intolerance

Beginning with work studying neo-Nazis’ attempt to march in Skokie, Illinois,[xv] and extending to other settings, such as the willingness of gays to tolerate an anti-gay demonstration in Houston, and to the psychology of reappropriation for the Asian American band “The Slants”[xvi], Gibson’s work has typically focused on the application of psychological theories to real-world conflicts and controversies.

Gibson’s contributions to the study of political intolerance are perhaps best represented in his much-cited “Enigmas of Intolerance,” published in 2006. The enigmas include the still unresolved findings of the exogenous nature of threat perceptions, the multidimensionality of threat perceptions (including the different impacts of different types of threat), the lack of relationship between intolerance and prejudice, and especially the “asymmetry of intolerance,” the ways in which tolerance as an attitude has many different characteristics compared to intolerance as an attitude; in general, tolerance is pliable, not strongly held, and weakly connected to behavior. Intolerance is exactly the opposite.

Other Areas

Gibson also published significant and award-winning work on the political psychology of perceived freedom, the political psychology of intergroup relations and conflict, the political psychology of truth and reconciliation, and the political psychology of institutional legitimacy.[xvii]

He has also made significant contributions to judicial politics, political behavior, political psychology, American politics, political parties and elections, and comparative politics (with special focus on South Africa and Russia).

Awards

Gibson has been the recipient of a number of awards reflecting his contributions to research, mentoring, and teaching.

Selected Disciplinary and Professional Awards

Harold Lasswell Award for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishment in Political Psychology, International Society of Political Psychology (awarded to an individual deemed to have made a distinguished scientific contribution in the field of political psychology), 2021.

Law and Courts Lasting Contribution Award, Law & Courts Section, American Political Science Association, 2020.             Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92 (#2, June): 343-358.

Lifetime Achievement Award, Law and Courts Section, American Political Science Association (honoring “a distinguished career of scholarly achievement”), 2011.

2006 Award for Conceptual Innovation in Democratic Studies. Tri-annual award, International Political Science Association Committee on Concepts and Methods (C&M), and Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico.  Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation. African Edition: Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a   Divided Nation? Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Outstanding Faculty Mentor Award, Special Recognition, “for excellence in mentoring,” Graduate Student Senate and the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, 2006.

2005 Decade of Behavior Research Award. Decade of Behavior 2000 – 2010.  In recognition of  “research on democracy issues [that] has contributed to the use of social and behavioral science knowledge in policy settings and has enhanced public understanding of behavioral and social science principles.”

Esther Farfel Award, University of Houston, 1998: The highest honor accorded to a University of Houston faculty member, in recognition of the significance and national/international impact of the faculty member’s research or creative activity; evidence of outstanding teaching ability; and distinctive and exemplary service to the University, the profession, and the community.

“For Outstanding Teaching in Political Science,” The American Political Science Association and Pi Sigma Alpha, 1998.

Selected Book and Article Awards

C. Herman Pritchett Award, Law & Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 2022 (recognizing the best book on law and courts written by a political scientist and published the previous year).  Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2021. Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Virginia Gray Book Award, State Politics & Policy Organized Section, American Political Science Association, 2022 (recognizing the best political science book published on the subject of U.S. state politics or policy in the preceding three calendar years). Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2021. Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

2005 Lucius Barker Award, “for the best paper investigating race or ethnicity and politics honoring the spirit and work of Professor Barker.” Midwest Political Science Association, 2006. Gibson, James L. 2005. “Overcoming Land Injustices: An Experimental Investigation into the Justice and Injustice of Land Squatting in South Africa.” Paper delivered at the 63^rd Annual National Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 7-10, 2005, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois.

2004 Best Book Award, Organized Section on Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, American Political Science Association. Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.  African Edition: Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Alexander L. George Book Award (for the best book published in the field of political psychology in 2003), 2004. International Society of Political Psychology.  Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 2003. Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in Democratic Persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McGraw Hill Award (recognizing the best journal article on law and courts written by a political scientist and published during the previous calendar year), 2003. Law and Politics Organized Section, American Political Science Association.  Gibson, James L. 2002. “Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation: Judging the Fairness of Amnesty in South Africa.” American Journal of Political Science 46: (#3, July): 540-556.

Sage Paper Award for the Best Paper in the Field of Comparative Politics Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2001. Comparative Politics Organized Section, American Political Science Association. Gibson, James L. 2001. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” Paper delivered at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton San Francisco and Towers, August 30 - September 2, 2001.

Heinz Eulau Award, Best Paper Published in the American Political Science Review, 1988, American Political Science Association. Gibson, James L. 1988. “Political Intolerance and Political Repression during the McCarthy Red Scare.” American Political Science Review 82 (#2, June): 511-529.

Franklin L. Burdette Pi Sigma Alpha Award, Best Paper Presented at the 1986 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1987, American Political Science Association. Gibson, James L. 1986. “The Policy Consequences of Political Tolerance.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 1986.

Publications

Professor Gibson has published 220 scholarly works.[xviii] Below are listed his major books and the top 10 articles based on number of citations.

Major Books

Gibson, James L. 2024. Democracy's Destruction? Changing Perceptions of the Supreme Court, the Presidency, and the Senate after the 2020 Election. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2021. Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2018. Black and Blue: How African Americans Judge the U.S. Legal System. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, James L. 2012. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gibson, James L. 2009. Overcoming Historical Injustices: Land Reconciliation in South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 2003. Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in Democratic Persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press. [ISBN: 0521813905]

Gibson, James L., and Richard D. Bingham. 1985. Civil Liberties and Nazis: The Skokie Free-Speech Controversy. New York: Praeger.

Cotter, Cornelius P., James L. Gibson, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1984. Party Organizations and American Politics. New York: Praeger.

Top 10 Cited Articles[xix]

Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92 (#2, June): 343-358.

Gibson, James L. 2006. “Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603 (#1, January): 82-110.

Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (#3, August): 635-664.

Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence. 2003. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (#2, April): 354-367.

Gibson, James L., Raymond M. Duch and Kent L. Tedin. 1992. “Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union.” Journal of Politics 54 (#2, May): 329-371.

Gibson, James L. 1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.” Law and Society Review 23 (#3):469-496.

Gibson, James L. 2004. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (#2, April): 201-217.

Gibson, James L. 1978. “Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes and Decisions: An Interactive Model.” American Political Science Review 72 (#3, September): 911-924.

Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Lester Kenyatta Spence. 2003. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science 33: (#4, October): 535-556.

Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. 1995. “The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the  European Union: Models of Institutional Support.” American Political Science Review 89 (#2, June): 356-376.

---

[i] https://polisci.wustl.edu/people/james-l-gibson

[ii] Peress, Michael. 2019. “Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (2): 312-17.

[iii] J Barceló, C Paik, P Van Der Windt, H Zhai. 2025. A Global Ranking of Research Productivity of Political Science Departments.  PS: Political Science & Politics, 1-12

[iv] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ej9eokYAAAAJ&hl=en.  Accessed November 12, 2025.

[v] See Russell Smyth. 2024. “Public Opinion and Legitimacy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behavior, eds. Lee Epstein, Gunnar Grendstad, Urksa Sadl, and Keren Weinshall. New York: Oxford University Press.

[vi] https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/system-1-and-system-2-thinking. Accessed November 19, 2005.

[vii] Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2018. Black and Blue: How African Americans Judge the U.S. Legal System. New York: Oxford University Press.

[viii] Melinda Gann Hall. 2011. “A Letter from the Section Chair.” Law and Courts 21(Winter): 4.aw AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

[ix] https://ispp.org/awards/lasswell/

[x] Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

[xi] https://source.washu.edu/2005/02/gibson-receives-2005-decade-of-behavior-research-award/.  Accessed November 19, 2025.

[xii] https://www.ijr.org.za/portfolio-items/south-african-reconciliation-barometers-survey-2023-report/. Accessed November 19, 2025.

[xiii] https://source.washu.edu/2005/02/gibson-receives-2005-decade-of-behavior-research-award/  Accessed November 12, 2025.

[xiv] https://www.cambridge.org/cl/universitypress/subjects/politics-international-relations/african-government-politics-and-policy/overcoming-intolerance-south-africa-experiments-democratic-persuasion  Accessed November 12, 2025.

[xv] Gibson, James L., and Richard D. Bingham. 1982. “On the Conceptualization and Measurement of Political Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 76 (#3, September): 603-620.

[xvi] Magarian, Gregory P., Lee Epstein, and James L. Gibson. 2019. “Data-Driven Constitutional Avoidance.” Iowa Law Review 104 (#3, March): 1421-1453.

[xvii] https://polisci.wustl.edu/news/prof-jim-gibson-awarded-harold-lasswell-award   Accessed November 12, 2025.

[xviii] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Gibson-19/3.  Accessed November 12, 2025.

[xix] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ej9eokYAAAAJ&hl=en.  Accessed November 12, 2025.

External Links

Most recent scholarly rankings:  https://scholargps.com/search.php?q=James+Gibson&global_search_type=scholar&type=global

Decade of Behavior Award Announcement:  https://source.washu.edu/2005/02/gibson-receives-2005-decade-of-behavior-research-award/  Talks about his work on democratization.

2006 award from IPSA: https://www.concepts-methods.org/Page/View/74     Describes contributions to survey research methodology, as well as his work on democratization.

Harold Lasswell award: https://polisci.wustl.edu/news/prof-jim-gibson-awarded-harold-lasswell-award    Presents Profession Gibson’s work as ongoing and extraordinary in the field of political psychology.

Google scholar list of citations:  https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ej9eokYAAAAJ&hl=en   This also shows his h index of 84.  For an explanation of h indices, see https://academiainsider.com/what-is-a-good-h-index-for-each-academic-position/

https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-l-gibson-2343866 A source for biographical information.

Interesting page, with some reviews of his work shown – though not the sources.  https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo13859990.html

Virginia Gray Book Award: https://artsci.washu.edu/ampersand/gibson-and-nelson-win-virginia-gray-book-award-%E2%80%9Cjudging-inequality%E2%80%9D   Emphasize work on state policy.

https://www.cambridge.org/cl/universitypress/subjects/politics-international-relations/african-government-politics-and-policy/overcoming-intolerance-south-africa-experiments-democratic-persuasion Reviews work on overcoming intolerance.

Jpfrendreis (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(Draft is at Draft:James L. Gibson)

One of the issues they mentioned is that some of the references aren't verifiable, probably meaning items that are true but not available for public viewing. Anything important that a reader couldn't verify for themselves (i.e. not already published in reliable secondary sources) is inadmissible on Wikipedia. Run-of-the-mill information such as date of birth is exempt from this. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jpfrendreis, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't doubt that you are experienced in scholarly writing, but writing for Wikipedia is very different.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

Notability has a special meaning in Wikipedia: it's not about what the subject is or has done, but about what has been independently written about the subject - basically, is there suitable independent, reliably published material about the subject to base an article on? (See golden rule) Essentially, nothing written or published by the subject counts towards that, and nor do awards unless they are sufficiently notable to be the subject of Wikipedia articles themselves.

I think it is likely that Gibson is notable in Wikipedia's sense, but you have not clearly established that (the fact that the reviewers declined the draft, rather than rejecting it suggests that that is also their opinion).

Also, you have not formatted your citations in one of Wikipedia's customary forms, which makes it very difficult to evaluate the draft - in particular, bare URLs make it much harder to determine the value of a citation, compared with standard information like author, title, date, journal, publisher.

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

--ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Jpfrendreis, agree with the above. If Gibson meets one of the criteria listed at the notability for academics, then you will have passed the biggest hurdle (there will still be other things to attend to, but they amount to housekeeping). I was hoping for something in #2; a Nobel, MacArthur, or National Medal of Science would do it; probably so would either the APA Lifetime or Distinguished Contributions award, or the Fellow or Gold Medal award. You could try to argue that one of the more narrowly focused awards meets #2's highly prestigious threshold, but you may run into counter-argument. It might be better to see if he meets one of the other criteria. Does he?

It is also important to understand the difference between WP:Notability, which applies strictly to the topic (the person "James L. Gibson") and has zero to do with the words in your draft, and WP:Verifiability (and many other stylistic and tonal issues) that apply to the content of your Draft and have nothing to do with the topic. For you right now, the former is much the more important, because failure to establish notability means there will be no article, regardless how well the content matches Wikipedia's writing standards. On the flip side: once you clearly establish notability, then your draft *will* become an article, and it's only a matter of time and fixing up the content to meet Wikipedia standards. With three rock solid references clearly establishing notability with no wiggle room for argument, you could get a draft accepted consisting of one sentence and your three slam-dunk citations (although a paragraph or two would be better). Once it is published, you (and anybody else) can then expand the article at your leisure. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

why was my artical declined

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hussein Hamzah

why was my artical declined HusseinHamzahvz (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@HusseinHamzahvz Wikipedia is not a social media network. We only host articles about people who meet our criteria for inclusion. Maybe try Facebook? qcne (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

HusseinHamzahvz, there is zero chance your draft will ever be published. Any further effort you spend on it, or asking about it, is time thrown down the drain. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Need help

I need help with an old article I made. Cheeky91021 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You do? TooManyFingers (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

How long is good article?

I have been waiting on my good article for almost a month. Is there a way to expedite the process? Thanks. Tenchi irezaru chouteki zo (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Tenchi irezaru chouteki zo, there are hundreds of good article nominations, and most of them have been waiting for several months. There are only a few people who review articles, and the nominations come in faster than we can review them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see my edits made under my temporary account

Will my edits made under my temporary account be transferred, ounce my account has been created? Publicmember (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Publicmember I'm afraid not – see mw:Help:Temporary accounts#Creating a permanent account. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Enforcement of WP:PRIMARY in CAT:COIREQ

Hello all. Recently, I've been interested in getting more involved in clearing the CAT:COIREQ backlog. While I've responded to a good amount so far, I've noticed a staggering amount of requests from employees of companies where they are attempting to cite information from said company's official website. (example here, to which I've already responded) I'm wondering, would edit requests such as these count as straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, or should the editor making the requests always have to provide a secondary source? Sorry if this is a silly question, just wondering how much discretion should be involved, as I can't find many resources that specifically regard COI requests. --^The Robot Parade 04:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB applies in many such cases. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

notability

Hi, I'm having a hard time with my main project, which has the Italian musician Luca Formentini as a subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luca_Formentini Given he is active in a niche as experimental ambient music is, it is impossible to find his name on magazines and websites such as Rolling Stones and Pitchfork. The reviewers keep asking for more notability references while I think my draft contains many, those which should be enough to start the page at least, like multiple major music printed magazines and important music websites from Europe and USA. I keep looking for references to add but when I find and add them it looks they're never enough of good. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: Your first column of references all share a title, "Luca Formentini", which is not the title of the actual underlying links (most of which are album reviews). I will also note we do not cite iTunes/Apple Music (online storefront) and AllMusic is unusable (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano thank you so much for helping me tracking the weak points of my submission!!!

I adjusted the title on the first column of references, finding a better correlation and erased the link to Itunes, while I kept the Allmusic link as I found it on some of the musicians I checked when I prepared my first draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennesz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Hecker) no problem to erase the Allmusic link if needed though. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

From looking at what you've just written here, and then looking at your draft, it seems like you probably don't know that Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability are quite different from the way you've used that word. Those are important to know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I'm willing to learn, thank you for your advice.

However when I check the criteria for notability I think we have what is needed as:

1)Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself > Yes, many important websites are talking of his work and about him as a musician.

2)Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart > This is impossible with the kind of music he's playing. Ambient and Experimental will never appear on a national music chart.

3)Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.> Again this should be contextualized as above.

4)Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.> I see the note that shows this has bee debated and probably not considered applicable. I think this is correct, given the current situation and the music style.

5)Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).> certainly yes! the Australian Extreme has a long time reputation and important catalogue, the American Curious Music has published albums from very relevant musicians, Soundscape Productions, Dark Companion all have an impressive catalogue. No way they can be considered marginal players in this context.

6)Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.> Sure! He has collaborated with very important names in the international experimental and ambient scene such as Holger Czukay, Robert Rich, Markus Stockhausen, Steve Jansen.

7)Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city> Yes, many local newspapers and Italian magazines cites him as a relevant name in the local and national scene. Focusing just on the latest articles the last review published by Rumore magazine which scores his latest album 80/100 and says "...that confirm Formentini as a secluded yet necessary voice in contemporary sonic research." or Blow Up that scores the same album 8.2 and says "Unmissable"

I think this is a lot for a musician that is active since more than 20 years in a small but relevant music style.

Thank you for your help! Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Which three sources would you say are the best ones for showing his notability? We want to be able to say "These three sources already tell his story; we have no need to add anything, because just these three are enough - they've written the article for us." TooManyFingers (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers If I had to pick from those online they would be: https://www.15questions.net/interview/luca-formentini-about-creating-silence-and-tapping-sonic-energy-field/page-1/

https://www.chaindlk.com/reviews/12271

https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2021/11/molecules-by-luca-formentini-new-album-intra.html

or https://extrememusic.com.au/artists/luca-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The first one does not show notability, because it is Formentini himself speaking. The third one is announcing an album of his, and includes links to all of his media and gives an interview quote - not sure about this one. The last one seems to have been written by him or by a publicist, also not showing notability.

So if you take the second item, the third item, and nothing else, do those give the full story of his career? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers well, no, the two you suggest are not enough to give a full story of his career. Any advice?

By the way, I just discovered that Gino Dal Soler (one of the most historical writers on Blow Up magazine) listed his latest album within his top 5 albums for 2025. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Being listed doesn't show notability either, unfortunately.

The problem now appears to be that you have far too little good material to start writing an article. Independent publishers have not been telling Formentini's story, so Wikipedia will not tell his story either. Unless you find several major stories about him, written by reporters alone, with no publicist, no interview, no press release. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone should be proud to share the stage with Markus Stockhausen - I'm aware that this is not something done by just anyone. But being "that guy who was with Markus Stockhausen" is not notable, unless publishers independent of you have told your story in great detail - without your help, just because they wanted to. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers ok, I will keep looking for good sources, but I doubt there will be the chance to find one that will give a comprehensive story of his work. The new album has just been published so there will be something new probably.

Not the answer but I found this before reading your last message:

this is what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Roland says about his collaboration with Markus Stockhausen: "Luca’s soundscapes, as can be heard on their latest release for Dark Companion, Rêverie, are an emotional journey into the dark side of the soul. Together they converse in a shared musical language, alternating deep exchanges with gently tender moments to produce music that feels very much of the present yet—remarkably—also undeniably enduring, a music that calls for repeated listening. It is a wholly spontaneous method of composition that borders on alchemy. Call it art music, or better yet, free spirits at play."

Original link is here: https://www.folkclub.it/it/concerti/36/stockhausen-capra-vaccina-mortazavi-formentini/ Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Linking account to anonymous edit?

I added an anonymous edit to Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley, then decided to create an account. I followed the link suggesting it directly from the edit confirmation but had trouble with the page in my browser and had to open it in another to complete registration. I used the same custom URL, but the edit does not appear to have linked to this account. Any way to fix that? Should I just redo it logged in? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Temporary account edits do not transfer over to a permanent account. This is mentioned here: mw:Help:Temporary_accounts#Creating_a_permanent_account. There is no way to fix this, but you can continue to edit that page if you have anything else to add, change or fix. (Those edits will be logged under your new account, but the one you did previously will remain logged under the temporary account forever). S.G. (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)