Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly. Alternatively, you can contact an experienced editor by visiting your homepage and clicking "Ask your mentor a question about editing".

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

Question on BLP1E, SINGLEEVENT, and AfD precedent

I'm seeking clarification on how to properly interpret and apply WP:BLP1E, WP:SINGLEEVENT, and WP:GNG in the context of this ongoing AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Nasser Abulaban

The article concerns a subject known for a crime. However, the case has received sustained coverage in reliable national media (e.g., NBC, CBS, etc...), and has since inspired a documentary by G-Unit Film & Television for Peacock. Suggesting that there was continued cultural relevance for this crime.

Some editors argue for deletion under WP:BLP1E, while I believe the scope of coverage and continued public attention satisfy WP:GNG. While I acknowledge that a full biographical article may not be notable due to WP:SINGLEEVENT, I wonder whether the subject matter of the crime itself might warrant coverage.

My questions are:

1. When, if ever, does sustained media coverage and documentary treatment override BLP1E concerns?
2. How do articles like Gypsy-Rose Blanchard, Murder of Laci Peterson, Betty Broderick, or Murder of Eve Carson differ in policy application from cases like this (being Ali Nasser Abulaban)
3. If notability for is deemed insufficient for a stand-alone page, would WP:ATD-M (merging to an article about the crime or to a page that highlights the Peacock documentary) be more suitable than deletion?

I appreciate any guidance to better understand how notability and BLP policy interact in cases like this. Issac I Navarro (talk) Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Issac I Navarro, in my opinion this crime, though horrific, is pretty commonplace. "Man kills estranged wife and her subsequent boyfriend." This is a sad story that we've heard before. As for Gypsy-Rose Blanchard, her mother's many years of abuse was an unusual factor. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant, a missing person for nearly four months, and the killer was living a secret life while convincingly pretending to be a loving husband. As for Eve Carson, murdered after a $700 robbery, five shots with a handgun failed to kill her and it took a sawed off shotgun to finish the crime. Also, there were two shooters. So, part of determining whether a murder should be covered on Wikipedia is how unusual the crime is. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again, @Cullen328. I see your point about how Wikipedia often weighs the unusual nature of a crime when considering notability. I agree that the facts of this case “man kills estranged wife and her boyfriend” are, sadly, not rare. But I’d argue that the context, digital footprint, and media response have made it uncommon in coverage, if not in content.

What sets this apart isn’t just what happened, but how it played out in public view. Ali Nasser Abulaban filmed and posted much of his behavior online. His persona online blurred fiction and reality. News coverage and the Peacock documentary draw parallels to social media influence, toxic masculinity, and the digital performance he did with his skits.

While I understand that WP:BLP1E aims to prevent undue attention to individuals known for a single event, this seems to be a case where, though the crime itself may be common, the national media’s response is not.

We’ve seen similar treatment in other cases where the crime was not especially unusual, yet the coverage elevated its public relevance:

– Murder of David Lynn Harris

– Mary Winkler

– Murder of Daniel Brophy

– Pam Hupp

– Death of Caylee Anthony

– Betty Broderick

– Death of Conrad Roy

In each of these, the media attention, not just the act itself, played a central role in establishing notability. As most of these seem to be not rare cases on their own. I believe this case is of the same character. However, I suppose that is for the AFD to decide.

My question, mainly concerns how to determine when crime is significant, particularly if it has already been featured in a documentary. And where might I find something such as WP:BLP1ENOT that I could read up on. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Would like to move an article to Mainspace

Hi! I’ve created an article draft at User:Storybysource/sandbox and would like it to be moved to mainspace under the title “Elvin Daniel Rodriguez.” Can someone assist with this move? Thanks!

User:Storybysource/sandbox Storybysource (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Storybysource: sorry, but your draft is not ready to be published in the encyclopaedia; it requires considerably more work. There is insufficient evidence that the subject is notable. The referencing is inadequate, as there are no inline citations which are required in articles on living people. The tone is very promotional throughout. And those photographs are almost certainly problematic in terms of copyright.

Could you also read and respond to the conflict of interest query I posted on your talk page. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Declined draft

Help improving declined draft — reviewer suggested I ask here

Hi Teahouse editors,

I recently had my draft article Draft:Anatolis Spyrlidis was declined at AfC on 30 July 2025 by reviewer User:Qcne, who suggested I post here for guidance. The reasons given were “not meeting significant coverage” and “inline citation” requirements. I’d like to request specific help in addressing these points so I can resubmit successfully. The subject (myself) is a Greek Cypriot calligraffiti artist with:

• Coverage by The National Herald (international newspaper)
• Featured profile on the International Museum of Calligraphy site
• Inclusion in the published book Walled Island: Street Art of Cyprus (2025), which profiles 115 artists (StreetArt.cy)

Official Certificate of Appreciation from the Romanian Ministry of Culture, with event coverage on educatie.ong I believe this meets WP:ARTIST standards, but I understand formatting and inline referencing may need improvement. Could someone help me:

• Review my sources and confirm if they meet notability guidelines
• Show me how to format inline citations so each fact is properly referenced
• Recommend any structural or tone changes so the article is neutral and encyclopedic

Thank you for your time — and thanks to User:Qcne for pointing me here. Royalvenom (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Please make a proper declaration, per WP:COI (or point to where you have already done so)
2. Do not add yourself to articles, as you did here
3. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY
4. Large parts of your draft are uncited; you need to cite a reliable source, independent of you, for each fact you include
5. The second source you list above is a reprint of the first, so cannot be counted for notability. Remove it.
6. For reference formatting, see WP:referencing for beginners.
7. When you have added the necessary citations, re-submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it to "mainspace". If not, they will give you further advice.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Royalvenom. One of the things that makes it so difficult to write about yourself is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Has a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with you, said that you "bridge traditional calligraphy and street culture?" If so, then cite it. If not, then that doesn't belong in the article.

Has a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with you or with Pilot pens, said that you are the Cyprus ambassador for them? If not, then that doesn't belong in the article.

Since you currently have at most one source which is independent of you (the book might be, but searching for it online, I haven't found anything which indicates the publisher, so I'm dubious whether it counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes), you have little or nothing on which a Wikipedia article could be based.

If you were to go ahead with this (which I don't recommend), you would need to

1. Find several sources which are completely independent of you and your associates, published by reputable publishers, and contain significant coverage of you, as opposed to your work. See WP:42.
2. If you have found several such sources (and only then), effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. If they don't mention something you think is important: tough. If they say something you think is wrong - well you shouldn't put anything in the article that contradicts what they say, and if another editor comes along later and adds information you don't like from one of those sources - again, tough.

Do you see why writing an article about yourself is so difficult?

I suggest you also read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It would be perfectly acceptable to cite Pilot Pens naming the OP as their Cyprus ambassador. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be acceptable as a source, Andy; but without an independent source, would it be appropriate to mention it? ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Updating Eric Rubin's Biography Page

Hi there,

I am working to update Eric Rubin page, the Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and NEJM Group. My colleagues and I have made the requested edits and have had trouble hearing back from an editor for weeks now. Any feedback to help get this published would be helpful.

Thank you, Talia TpantaleoIMG (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

TpantaleoIMG The whole url is not needed when linking, I've fixed this.

You have received a response today(scroll to the bottom of the article talk page); wholesale rewrites are not done via the edit request process. Edits requests should propose small, incremental changes, one or two at a time, so that a volunteer does not need to invest a large amount of time in reviewing the request. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"My colleagues and I"—If you are writing on behalf of or about your colleague, please see WP:PAID and WP:BOSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Discography

I just updated a band's discography with over 15 titles now I need to write the linked pages

How do I complete writing this discography? all of the links are in red, I need access to basically rewite the whole discography - how do I do this today? SMFitzgerald (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Eagles_of_Death_Metal#Discography --Finngall ^talk 17:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Before you start writing, what you'll probably want to do is gather the sources you can find for the albums. Wikipedia only hosts articles for topics that are notable, which, in this context, means topics that have been written about by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thus, we can only have articles about any of these albums if sources other than the Eagles of Death Metal themselves have written and published material about them. In my experience, one of the best ways to find sources for albums is to look up professional reviews they've received. I would recommend not starting on writing any articles until you've had a chance to collect your sources and identify which albums have been written about enough to support an article in the first place. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I completed my first album draft:

I added a sentence about the album, sourced that info from a book already sourced on their page, then added 11 online retailers who sell the album and album reviews using this format:

I hope this was sufficient; if not, please advise and thank you. SMFitzgerald (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have left some feedback on the draft, but online sellers are not suitable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Confusing block

 Courtesy link: User talk:Gjb0zWxOb § August 2025

Hello, I was recently blocked by an admin for an edit that I had made a month ago which was reverted a day later and which I did not undo. The admin said that if I provide my reasoning for my edit (which was reverted), my account would be unblocked. After I did that, the admin seemed satisfied with my response but then commented that he will, "leave it to another Admin to decide." I was under the impression that my response was sufficient. I have now submitted my appeal and it remains pending. I find this block to be pretty bizarre since it was a "temporary indefinite" block that was done a month after the activity happened. Quite frankly, I just want to get back to editing. Is there anything else I can do to sort this out? Thanks. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I for one would be very wary of unblocking you as long as there's no satisfactory response -- indeed, no response of any kind -- to User talk:Gjb0zWxOb#Jewish terrorism, in which questions were posed less than one month ago. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Gjb, I would say that from what the admins posted on your talk page, they believe that you (perhaps unintentionally) were using incorrect edit summaries that did not match the information you were putting on the page. Particularly with the 'Supremacism' article, the information you added also did not accurately describe what the source said, appearing to be your own original research.

Suggest reviewing Yamla's comment on declining your unblock request, along with Hoary's post immediately prior MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I responded to everything raised on my talkpage. There was a bit of confusion on my part based on where to put my comments. I started by putting them on the Jewish Terrorism talkpage, which I had participated in earlier in the month but then moved on to other things. Then when the unblock request was denied, I addressed the Admin's concerns on my talkpage in my new unblock request where he said he would "leave it for another admin to decide." In the block edit summary, it said, "Temporary block until editor responds to recent questions about their edits on Jewish terrorism." What else can be done? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I ‘’’would’’’ have said that as far as I can see you haven’t really addressed the substance of their concerns, or what I pointed out, but when I was clicking around to make sure I explained extended-confirmed status to you correctly, I saw that you have A LOT more edits than I do.

I’d be happy to try to explain things to a newbie, but… why do ‘’’you’’’ need this explanation? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Review of new article - Conflict of interest

Hello, I am Jan Rosenow, the subject of a draft biography currently under review via Articles for Creation. I have disclosed my conflict of interest and am seeking independent review and feedback to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability. If any uninvolved editors from this WikiProject would be willing to review or comment on the draft, I would greatly appreciate it. The draft is here: User:Janoxon/sandbox Thank you!🙏 Janoxon (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Janoxon. You have not submitted this for review. Please press the big blue Submit your draft for review! button. qcne (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I misspoke. I did not yet submit it as I was cautious about it being rejected. I’m seeking feedback on the article to improve it. Janoxon (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback to improve comes from the review process, so I do think the best way fwd is to submit for review. qcne (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Janoxon It is unfortunate that the first citation to table.media doesn't allow one to see more than a picture and that when one clicks on the website's "about us", both the "career" and "contact us" links give "404-page not found" errors. That will put off any reviewers since it implies the site is not a reliable source. The Oxford Mail article is much better. You need three sources like the Mail to show how you are notable in the way Wikipedia demands and you can augment that with a limited amount of WP:ABOUTSELF content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Tables

How do I center a Content cell? 1Bluep (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi 1Bluep, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think it's possible in VisualEditor which you usually use. In the source editor, write style="text-align:center;" | A, where A is the content to display in the cell. See the end of Help:VisualEditor#Getting started: the VisualEditor toolbar for how to switch editor on a slanted pencil icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay to update Lyrical G’s career start date to 1994 using Alchetron as a source?

Hi

I’m editing the Wikipedia article on Lyrical G. The article currently says he started his rap career in the 1990s, but I found a source Alchetron that specifically states he began in 1994.

I understand that Alchetron is a user generated site and may not meet Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing standards. However, I’ve searched extensively and this appears to be the only source available online that gives a specific career start year.

Would it be acceptable to use this source just for that one fact (with a proper citation)? Or should I stick with the broader "1990s" wording in the article until a more reliable source is found? Thilio (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Stick with the broader "1990s" wording in the article until a more reliable source is found. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you so much. Thilio (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thilio Note that offline sources are perfectly acceptable, provided reliable. If your searches led you to, say, a newspaper source, that would be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

As I explained above, it's better to stick with the broader "1990s" wording in the article until a more reliable source is found. Michael D. Turnbull, I acknowledge your input. Cheers. 🐍 Thilio🤖 13:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Citing two chapters from the same CD album booklet

How do I cite two different essays by two different authors that are included in the same compact disc liner note booklet? Trying to do that at this article, but haven't been able to figure out how yet. Please see the last two items listed in that page's sources. As always, thank you for your help! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Make two different citations, with the name of the author in each.

If you need further help, ask here again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! So in other words, the way I had already cited these sources separately is fine? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, so I'm unable to say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, CurryTime7-24. Yes, you can do what you want. I could give you a better answer, if I knew all the info related to your question. First of all, can I confirm that we are talking about Tori (2013) and Hirabayashi (2013), the two citations just above the external links? If so, where is the citation for the the compact disc info that is common to both of the liner note authors? Surely the CD has a title, an author (musician, group name, etc.), a date, a publisher, and an isbn that is unique, and applies to the CD as a whole, before we even get to the separate liner note authors, right? What I would do in this case is to use template {{cite AV media}} to cite the information that applies to the CD, and then write two {{harvc}} citations each of which applies to only one liner note author. You place those two in the body of the article, just like you do with {{sfn}} templates, and they will link to the AV media citation. If you do a lot of this sort of thing, see the documentation for {{harvc}}, and this annotated example that shows you how to use it . That example is for a book with chapters by different authors, but your case is analogous; just use {{harvc}} instead of {{citec}}. If you add a full CD citation to the References section and ping me, I will show you how to do it. Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Hori and Hirabayashi are two essays included in the same CD booklet. Let me add it tomorrow afternoon (PDT). Thank you kindly for your help! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Robots FAQ

Why are robots considered excessive editing thanks and regards 129.126.36.49 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Robots", if you mean the use of AI (Artificial Intelligence), here is some easy information, just look at WP:AI, or the use of robot for quick editing, as they're considered Bots, and need approval from Wikipedia:BAG. Anymore questions, feel free to reply here, or use my talk page...

Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 02:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

An article about New Wave artists, who made the transition to dance-pop?

Hello, I am a music enthusiast, and I arguably have been reminded that everytime I look through New Wave artists, who played their own tunes, they were the reasons their own records, became popular, sold millions of dollars, and when the genre left, they made the transition to dance-pop. I found an article about this on SusQueHannock Courier, and I was wondering if I could use it, under New Wave, please?! Thank you! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please explain a bit more in depth, so we can understand. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is some of the New Wave artists transitioned themselves to dance-pop, because of the popularity of the albums. That's the best I can say. Thank you! I found an article about this. Televisionbuff831G (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you still need our help? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes! I gotta go to bed. Thank you! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Televisionbuff831G, and wecome to the Teahouse. I also don't quite understand what you are asking, but if you are proposing to add something to an existing article, the talk page of that article would be the best place to ask, as people interested and knowledgeable in that subject will be more likely to see it. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking whether you can use "SusQueHannock Courier" as a source to add something to an article; the answer is "probably yes". Make the addition, and see what happens next, noting WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! At least, I got the question answered and cleared! Televisionbuff831G (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers

Hello, I am attempting to write to write a article about a person (specifically, San Francisco 49ers halfback Phil Francis). However, most of the sources are newspapers, only available via newspapers.com which has a very annoying paywall. Is there any alternative ways to access these? Notaoffensivename (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

In, my opinion, I'd say wait to find some more reliable sources or wait for another editor to do so.

If, you wanted to try, do an AFC/Draft so other advanced reviewers can see if its good enough.

Thats my advice,
Thanks,

Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Valorrr, are you saying that newspaper articles only available via newspapers.com aren't so reliable? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello notaoffensivename :). If you have access to the Wikipedia Library you can use it to access newspapers.com. Check out Wikipedia:Newspapers.com for instructions. If you can't access the Library (it has some requirements) you can ask for what you need at Resource Request. Feel free to ask any other questions. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename You won't be eligible for The Wikipedia Library as you have fewer than the 500 global contributions to Wikipedia required. I have access to newspapers.com and the search "Phil Francis" + category=Sport still gives over 9,000 matches. If you can refine what you want to search for (e.g. years he was active) and ping me to your talk page or draft, I should be able to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, does Wikipedia prioritize trustworthy, reliable sources, or the original research of some editors? For example, if a film is originally made in one language, but there are no reliable sources confirming it , some editors try to determine the original language by checking lip-sync or similar clues. That becomes their "original research," which somehow gets more importance. Maybe they are right, but why should someone's personal point of view be accepted over what reliable sources say? Even if their analysis is accurate, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable sources, not what’s "right." I read this somewhere once, though I don’t remember exactly. Sorry if I’m wrong.YashTheBosss (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

YashTheBosss: "[D]oes Wikipedia prioritize trustworthy, reliable sources, or the original research of some editors?" The former. (The original research of editors counts for nothing.) "[W]hy should someone's personal point of view be accepted over what reliable sources say?" It should not. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @YashTheBosss, and welcome to the Tahouse. Your memory is correct. See WP:verifiability and WP:original research.

(Side note: I got those links by putting "WP:" on the front of a relevant word or phrase. In this case I knew that they pointed to relevant pages. Searching for WP:(relevant word or phrase) doesn't always find you a policy page or essay that is relevant, but often it does). ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The other relevant essay is WP:Verifiability, not truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all.YashTheBosss (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Self-article summary

I can watch Only You to recent My (Im) Perfect Family to article wizard in this article. 2001:44C8:6782:33B5:DCB4:EB04:5DB3:955B (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I cannot parse what you write. Is it a question? A request? Something else? -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The "Karen" slang

Karen is not a slang word. It is a name. Someone made up a stereotype white woman and said, she looks like a Karen....".People will see this from Wikipedia and assume that it's ok to use the good and pretty name of Karen to use it on any woman if they see fit to say the name in a derogatory way. I know a couple of women named Karen, and they have been laughed at, made fun of and threatened. I feel so worried for my friends that someone will want to harm them if they find out their name is Karen. The way people have been, some people are not afraid to harm anyone, or worse. Karen is not slang. It's an innocent and kind name. 2603:9008:1601:6B09:A9C9:EE9A:FA9B:C89F (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Karen" is a name. It's also a people, a language, etc. And it's a pejorative slang word. Are you suggesting that the article Karen (slang) should be deleted, or that it should be bowdlerized, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on subjects satisfying Wikipedia:Notability and we report what is said in reliable sources. It's unfortunate for people named Karen that the name is used in this way but it is, and there are reliable sources about it. Karen (slang) has 72 references. I haven't examined how reliable they are and how many specifically use the term "Karen", but it's a well-known term. If you see an article which makes inappropriate comments about a specific person called Karen then you are welcome to report it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia vs Wikipedia

After discovering the deep pit of controversy around infoboxes on certain types of biography, and being told very firmly that Wikipedia is encyclopaedic, I'm curious as to why we don't spell it 'Wikipaedia'?

I think it looks better. Tangost1 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia#Etymology has some information including "encyclopedia in American English, encyclopaedia in British English (although the spelling encyclopedia is increasingly gaining acceptance)". Different people are used to different things. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC is the policy about encyclopedic content. The aim is to document facts without editorial opinion. Further, material covered should be concise without excessive detail. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a fundamental contradiction. The policy about encyclopedic content is editorial opinion. 'Concise' is subjective anyway, and frankly Wikipedia has turned out to be a massive disappointment for me personally... If I'm allowed to say that. Where can I go to express an opinion about this? Tangost1 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I might just go to a book shop and buy an encyclopedia. In the UK. Tangost1 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia has many problems and can be disappointing. However, thinking about the situation shows that what has been achieved is remarkable. Just like Twitter and 4chan and other places, anyone can participate here so disagreements are inevitable. Wikipedia does a lot better than just about all other open websites. Johnuniq (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The name "Wikipedia" is actually a portmanteau a combination of two words.

wiki (from the Hawaiian word wikiwiki, meaning "quick") and "encyclopedia".

Because Wikipedia was started in the United States it adopted the American English spelling of encyclopedia. That’s why it became "Wikipedia" not Wikipaedia.

Even though the project uses the American spelling in its name, articles themselves follow whatever variety of English is appropriate to the topic so British subjects use British English and so on (see WP:ENGVAR).

So in short:

The "ae" spelling just didn’t make it into the name but the encyclopedic mission definitely did . lol😊 🐍 Thilio🤖 10:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Middle names in article titles

For biographies, I've noticed that some Russian (or just generally Slavic) biographies also include the middle name in their titles and some don't. Is this done when two individuals have the same given name and surname? Also: I've recently created the Nikolai Dmitrievich Dmitriev article. There exists another biography for a Nikolai Dmitriev. Should I move the "Nikolai Dmitriev" article to "Nikolai Konstantinovich Dmitriev" or move my article to "Nikolai Dmitriev (composer)" and the other to "Nikolai Dmitriev (linguist)"? WafflesInvasion (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi WafflesInvasion

From what I’ve seen, Russian or Slavic biographies sometimes include the patronymic (like Dmitrievich or Konstantinovich) but it’s usually left out of the article title unless it’s really needed either to tell two people apart or because the full name is how they’re commonly known in English sources. That’s in line with the naming conventions for people and WP:COMMONNAME.

In your case since there are two people named Nikolai Dmitriev, it makes sense to disambiguate the titles. The standard way to do that is by adding a descriptor in parentheses like you suggested: * Nikolai Dmitriev (composer) * Nikolai Dmitriev (linguist) That approach aligns with WP:DISAMBIGUATION and helps readers quickly tell who's who.

The full name with patronymic can still go in the lead sentence no need to use it in the title unless it’s really the most recognized name.

Hope that helps a bit. Cheers. 🐍 Thilio🤖 10:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add descriptors to the titles. WafflesInvasion (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @WafflesInvasion, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are two relevant policies here.

COMMONNAME says that article titles should use the name for somebody (or something) that is most common in the various reliable sources that the article is based on. Since using the patronymic (which is not a "middle name" as we usually understand that phrase in English, by the way) is common in Russian publications, it may well be appropriate for a Russian individual: it depends on the sources. See WP:patronymic.

Secondly, where there are articles on several subjects with the same name, we often need to disambiguate. One of the ways to do this is to use the middle name or patronymic - but we wouldn't do this if that form of the name is hardly ever used in publications. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Question about Greater Bangladesh

This article was deleted Greater Bangladesh and then recreated I think a few times. It was tagged for deletion again because it was deleted before. I tried to fix the problems, but it was changed back. It looks like Ahammed Saad and ZDRX are fighting over whether to delete the article. I think I made a mistake trying to fix since it was deleted three times before and now I'm not sure what to do. Can I just add the deletion tag back in so someone will look at it? Sorry for creating a problem, I will fix it just need to know how. Themeparks (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Help editing an article

Courtesy link to diff

This is about the Heywood-Wakefield page: Heywood-Wakefield Company#External links

This retired composition professor signed up as an editor to fix grammatical errors because they drive me mad and to edit sentences and paragraphs to improve readability. Since then, I have edited a few pages when I have found incorrect or incomplete information on subjects that I know something about. Today, it was the page for the Heywood-Wakefield Co. The problem is that I don't think I added external links correctly. I know there is information I can read to help me, but I'm currently suffering a migraine (thank you, Canadian wildfires) and cannot figure out what I'm supposed to do. I would appreciate it if you would take a look and make necessary corrections. Thank you! Professoressa X (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You used a "bare URLs" as a references; we prefer to avoid these. You also gave each reference twice, rather than "reusing" them. I have fixed both issues; please see WP:referencing for beginners for future cases. You might also be able to add other citations to the existing text, which would be helpful.

You also did not give a citation for your "Marshall Lloyd had developed a process for..." addition; and you used the phrase "Not surprisingly, the Heywood-Wakefield imprimatur increased the popularity of Lloyd's wicker products." Such claims (i.e. that something is unsurprising) should not be made in Wikipedia's voice.

I have removed that part of your edit, but please feel free to remake it, bearing the above in mind, once you have a source, and when you are feeling better—which will be soon, I hope.

I will also leave you some useful links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Andy--Thank you for the help. I am feeling much better today and was able to comprehend your instructions. I think I have made the edits and links correctly. That being said, I would appreciate it if you would give the Heywood-Wakefield page a read to make sure. Professoressa X (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear.

That looks much better. I would caution against over-reliance on a company's own website, especially for positive comments about their own performance (your new edit is close to, but does not cross, that line). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/. Could not find any information on this so I am asking here if this is a good source. 192.184.146.53 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is in as much as it is evidence of what the authors said, and you can quote it as such; but it has not gone through peer review or an editorial process, and serves a political purpose, so claims made in it cannot be taken as facts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Khaled Hanno-Article Draft

Hi Wikipedia Editors,

I'm a new editor and i was trying to creat an article about one of the most important painters in Alexandria/Egypt, Dr. Khaled hanno, whome he have more than 700 painting and 90 exhibitions and many rewards.

I've tried to make the draft as much as possible as per the guidlines of wikipedia, but it was declined, I need your help to guide me how to publish the article and make it stable, especially that Ive asked the Painter - Dr. Hanno - to add sample of his work on wikicommons so we can use it in his article.

the link to tha draft is:

Draft:Khaled Hanno

Thank you in advance,

Thooth777 Thooth777 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Thooth777. You have not proven how this person meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Have you read that policy in detail? What criteria do you think this person meets? qcne (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

From the English version of the single source used, it appears to be a self-published CV.

If Hanno is indeed "one of the most important painters in Alexandria/Egypt", show us independent publications referring to him as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello, I would like to give a disambiguation page for "Consolations." I looked up 'consolations' to attempt to pull up Liszt's Consolations. Currently, 'Consolations' redirects to Seneca's Consolations and there is a Consolation (disambiguation). How do I pull this off? Thanks, Coulomb1 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

there is already a disambiguation page for consolations that you linked with liszt's consolations listed on it.

what exactly do you mean? aquarium substrate^talk 19:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Coulomb1. Seneca's Consolations doesn't look like the primary topic for "Consolations" so I have redirected Consolations to Consolation (disambiguation) instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

some help

Hello, I’m Cyril Voyant, Director of Research at the O.I.E. laboratory, Mines Paris‑PSL, based in Sophia Antipolis. I am seeking the assistance of a neutral volunteer editor (with no personal or professional connection to me) who can review or publish a draft about me, in accordance with community standards. My academic credentials are publicly verifiable: HAL profile (116 indexed publications, participation in ANR/EU projects like SAPHIR, Fine4cast, TILOS): https://cv.hal.science/cyril-voyant Google Scholar profile (over 130 peer-reviewed articles, approximately 6,500 citations): https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aUlP6agAAAAJ&hl=en ResearchGate profile (149 publications, around 6,157 citations): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cyril-Voyant.My research areas include: Solar irradiance forecasting applying hybrid AI/statistical models, development of novel metrics such as the stochastic coefficient of variation (sCV) and Forecastability Index. ClearSky‑Free forecasting using Extreme Learning Machines trained directly on raw irradiance data. Transfer learning and clustering techniques to deploy models in regions lacking local data. Complex-valued time series modeling to capture amplitude and volatility for probabilistic forecasting. Medical dosimetry and radiotherapy planning, notably the open‑source software LQL‑Equiv used in over 20 countries. Projects with national and European funding: SAPHIR, Fine4cast, TILOS. All the information and reference are availaible at https://www.cyrilvoyant.com/ . A lot reference are available in scopus, publon, mdpi interfaces. This initiative is strictly non-commercial, primarily aimed at improving access to my work and facilitating future scientific collaborations. I would be grateful to any volunteer editor, impartial and independent, who can assist in ensuring the text meets Wikipedia guidelines. I can provide access to the draft via EverybodyWiki (Cyril_voyant) or cyrilvoyant.com if needed. Thank you in advance to anyone willing to contribute to the rigorous and useful dissemination of this scientific work. Best regards, Cyril Voyant Cyril voyant (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Article Wizard to make a draft about you. Also see WP:YFA! I recommend you not write about it because all the sources are self published. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If someone were to do this, they would still have a conflict of interest because they are doing it on your behalf after being asked by you.

In regards to “ This initiative is strictly non-commercial” see WP:YESPROMO. This is an attempt at self-promotion. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 00:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You already posted the same thing earlier on this page, and I responded on your talk page. You've been given a lot of good advice, and I have offered to review your draft if you try to make another one. Bear in mind that your earlier draft was deemed promotional and unacceptable due to your use of LLM to generate prose. The English Wikipedia has high standards; if one of the many journals you've been published in wouldn't accept your prose, then neither would we. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. My intention is exactly to avoid any conflict of interest by asking a neutral, volunteer editor to review of my draft. I have no experience with wikipedia, and my phrasing is naturally biased by some academic background.

I’m not looking to promote myself, but rather to highlight research topics, open-source tools (like LQL‑Equiv), and innovations in the hope of stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration beyond my usual circles.

I will submit a structured draft in my sandbox, and step back so an experienced editor can evaluate and publish it if it meets encyclopedia standards.

For transparency, I’ll declare my connection, request edits rather than make them directly, and strictly avoid promotional language. Thanks again for your support! Cyril voyant (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

re, I writed a draft.... hoping all is ok, i will modify it according remarks !!! thank you Cyril voyant (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"I’m not looking to promote myself, but rather to highlight research topics, open-source tools (like LQL‑Equiv), and innovations"

Great; so instead of repeatedly asking for an article for yourself, look into how you can contribute, in alignment with our polices, to articles on those topics.

"in the hope of stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration beyond my usual circles"

Then you are in the wrong place. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Try LinkedIn. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful comments, which really help me move forward. Cyril voyant (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sentret and Furret

is this good User:A minecraft parkour pro/sandbox/Sentret and Furret. A minecraft parkour pro (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@A minecraft parkour pro: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like your draft does not meet the notability guideline for fictional characters. Also, your only listed source is a wiki style website which are not reliable as they are user-generated, much like Wikipedia. Articles here have to be based on reliable sources, and it is highly unlikely that any exist for those particular characters. I unfortunately don’t see a path for your article to be accepted in any capacity here on Wikipedia do to these reasons. If you are interested in writing about those characters, I encourage you to make edits directly to the wiki you referenced (Bulbapedia), as that is a more appropriate place for articles about Pokémon characters. cyberdog958^Talk 01:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fine i tried. :) A minecraft parkour pro (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@A minecraft parkour pro I disagree that there are not likely to be reliable sources for the characters, but Pokémon notability is a very weird area. At the moment, most Pokémon are all put into "mini articles" in generational lists. If you can find reliable, non-user generated sources, you might be able to add some information about Sentret and Furret at List_of_generation_II_Pokémon#Sentret and you can find some more info on writing about Pokémon on Wikipedia at WikiProject_Pokémon. Good luck! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 05:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

December 30th: Addition?

Though it is mentioned in another article on said date, the Hurricane Creek Mine Disaster which happened in Leslie County isn’t included in the article. I sure do hope it isn’t because of notability reasons. I mean, it can’t be said guideline, it has its own article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to the December 30 article, I see no reason why you shouldn't add Hurricane Creek mine disaster. Please also read WP:DAYS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Why does vandalism exist

I regret it so bad man, i thought it was cool, can everyone cleanse me of my sins? 142.161.232.18 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal. Moxy🍁 01:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

History of edits

Is it possible to see history of things I've successfully edited, and things I tried to edit that were rejected. I only see one, which was rejected, and I don't remember what my attempted change was so I don't why it was rejected?

Are these deleted, or am I not looking in the right area? Concerro (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your contributions are at Special:Contributions/Concerro, which, if you're using a computer and not a mobile device, you can see by opening the drop-down menu in the upper right corner (the little person icon) and clicking on "Contributions". Some of the contributions may be tagged with "Reverted". ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Concerro, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to Anachronist's answer: edits that you made to a page that has since been deleted will not appear; but edits that have been reverted will. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Help improving language articles

Hi, sorry to bother with a stupid question but I’m getting really frustrated over something and need an outsider opinion. I’ve been trying to improve language articles here as that’s my main interest, and have noticed that the vast majority of language articles’ lead sentences follow the form “XXX is a (family) language spoken in (place)”, including all of the language Good articles. This is also reflected in Wikipedia:WikiProject Language’s guideline for article style/structure. However, not every language article follows this structure, so I decided to work to make things more consistent. If you look at my recent contributions you can probably notice that I’ve gotten into a disagreement with another editor because of this; they cite MOS:LEADSENTENCE to say that all articles should have the exact article title in bold in the lead sentence. I’m willing to accept I’ve screwed up and I’m not following the rules properly, but at the same time I find it hard to believe that so many language articles, including all of the Good articles, have fallen through the cracks and missed this very obvious style issue. Can someone help me? EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a difficult situation, it does seem that there is some ambiguity here that means based on the style guides there's not necessarily a right answer. I do feel that, using this as an example, the form "XXX is a (family) language spoken in (place)" does not mean that "XXX" has to be "Assiniboine" rather than "Assiniboine language". Having said that, your point about all the good and featured articles not using the "language" in the bold word is a very good point, and so I think you are probably right in what you have been doing.

It is also clear there are exceptions to "the article title needs to be specifically what is in bold" given the "Death of Azaria Chamberlain" bit in the mos:lead#Bolding_of_title_and_alternative_names guideline. I think that just nobody has added anything about languages in that section - I think it is worth using the mos:lead guideline's talk page to ask how people feel about this and if we can get a consensus on if language articles should be added in there as an exception as well. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 05:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think that every language article should commence with exactly the same form of words? I'm not saying they can't, or shouldn't, but what is your rationale, and why does it matter that some don't?

We always look for consistency within an article, but exact consistency between all articles of a given "type" (whatever that is) may not be either practical or desirable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.194.92.162 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

EllaMinnowPea371, may I offer a dufferent perspective? I would not worry overly much about having a consistent style among different articles. Yes, there is something to be said for following local project guidelines as far as that goes if the associated WikiProject, WP:LINGUISTICS and WP:LANGUAGES have one (but not not too far !), and being consistent in that sense. But in my experience, articles on language-related topics generally have some of the most serious problems of WP:Verifiability, WP:SOURCING, and WP:Original research of any of the topic areas I contribute to or read.

I have a theory about why this is. Everyone feels that they are an expert in their own language, and per the theories of linguistic competence, they are not wrong about that—they are! But this may translate into a sense that they don't need to include sources for content they add that are based on their ability in their native language. But this is not how Wikipedia works, it is contrary to WP:EXPERT, and finally, every user has an idiolect, but few are aware of it or of the implications of writing an encyclopedic article based purely on their own personal notions of their language, which even with the best of intentions may not match what the most reliable sources say. This also applies to you, to me, and to everyone else.

So if you are truly interested in contributing to articles on language topics at Wikipedia, may I suggest you put consistency on the back burner for now, as a nice-to-have but not an urgent problem, and turn instead to an area where you could truly make a significant impact in language articles across the board, which is in proper sourcing and verifiability. P.S.: I have changed the section header of this section to "Help improving language articles" to make it easier to understand what it is about in the table of contents or while browsing the page, I hope that is okay with you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I am very well aware on the verifiability and sourcing issues in language articles and have been working to fix them. However, this is a HUGE job and I don’t have the energy to research every day, so fixing minor things— typos, confusing phrasing, punctuation, and style inconsistencies— feels like a good alternative on days where I don’t have the energy to do much else. I want to improve Wikipedia, and while I agree that there are WAY, WAY more pressing issues than style minutiae, an improvement is an improvement. I hope this makes sense. ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 00:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Above all, this is a volunteer effort, and you get to choose whatever it is you wish to work on. Your efforts are appreciated. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Norman Frederick Astbury

I am new to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. I decided to come here because of the invaluable help that my mentor and other editors have provided to me with respect to the recent publication of the entry for Norman Frederick Astbury. As the subject is my late father, I have declared a COI on my Talk Page. I understand that I am, therefore, precluded from editing the published entry directly. I would, however, like to use my Talk Page to set out topics that visiting Wikipedia editors may wish to select, research, develop and then provide one or more related edits to improve the overall quality of the entry. In the foregoing context, I would like to address Wikipedia’s comments: ‘This article relies excessively on references to primary sources’ and the article being declared an ‘Orphan’. Happily, Editor Nthep has linked the material to the subject’s elder brother by inserting hyperlinks into the Info Boxes in each entry. So, although the material is now a bit less of an orphan than was originally the case, I believe that there may well be many other instances to be established. I am very grateful to Editor Nthep for starting this process. A recent issue with which I would welcome help is that ImageRemovalBot has just deleted a photograph which the owner, Lucideon, had given me written permission to use. The image, which had been placed adjacent related text in the Career section, is of the former BCRA Headquarters in Penkhull, Stoke-on-Trent, where the subject worked for 17 years. The image also appears on Lucideon’s website. Any recommendations as to how best to have the image restored in a manner complaint with Wikipedia’s protocols would be most welcome. To conclude, I would welcome suggestions and guidance with respect using my Talk Page

1. to deal with the excessive reliance on primary sources,
2. to address the orphan issue further,
3. to encourage the sort of editing Wikipedia seeks to improve entries and
4. to expand the material describing the subject’s personal life.

This final objective faces the twin challenges of maintaining a scholarly, encyclopaedic and neutral style while at the same time having few if any citations available simply because ‘personal life’ is rarely newsworthy. Many thanks in advance for any guidance you may feel able to offer to me at the Teahouse. Kestrel2Zero (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Kestrel2Zero

Norman Frederick Astbury Kestrel2Zero (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Kestrel2Zero, two points. On ImageRemovalBot has just deleted a photograph which the owner, Lucideon, had given me written permission to use: the identity of the owner of a print or a negative, let alone a JPEG, is by the way. Is Lucideon the copyright owner? If so, please see this. And please make suggestions or requests for the article Norman Frederick Astbury not on your user talk page but instead on Talk:Norman Frederick Astbury. -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Hoary

Many thanks for all of this guidance. I value your support highly.

I think Lucideon must be the copyright owner because the building belongs to them and it appears on their website. Please let me work my way through the Commons:Volunteer Response Team page along with the other information you have provided.

Lucideon have been immensely helpful, giving their time freely, as one can see from all the references and other material they have been kind enough to provide. Having asked the question, received a positive written reply and asked them to check with their legal department, I am hesitant to trespass on their kindness by way of further questions when they have already spent so much time providing a wide range of information voluntarily.

I think I will need some time for me to work out the way ahead.

Thank you too for explaining that I should be using the page - Talk:Norman Frederick Astbury for suggestions or requests in the future.

Kestrel2Zero (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Kestrel2Zero

Hello again, Hoary

Literally five minutes ago, after my previous reply to you, I received the following email from Lucideon:

QUOTE

Dear Nigel,

Please accept my apologies for the delayed reply.

I had looked in to the issue to the Penkhull photo copyright previously but wanted to double check to ensure that there are no misunderstandings and that you have the definitive answer to your query.

I can confirm that the Penkhull photo was taken by a member of the company which means that Lucideon owns the copyright. As you know , Lucideon has given you permission to use the photograph with attribution. Perhaps you just need to add to the photo: ‘Copyright Lucideon. Used with permission from Lucideon’.

I see that the photo has been removed from the page and I assume that this is connected with the enquiry.

As to the point about relying too much on primary sources, in the world of research , primary sources are excellent and the source of original data. I think that because of the way that Wikipedia works, they like to have corroboration from other sources .

I hope this helps.

It’s great to see your project come to fruition and to see your father’s achievements collated.

We still come across , and refer to, his work and it’s so nice to now know more about him.

Kind regards,

Karen

Karen Sutcliffe

Library and Digital Support Officer

[readacted]

www.lucideon.com

UNQUOTE

If are able to reinstate the imager for me on the basis of this communication, I would be most grateful.

I will also put this message on Talk:Norman Frederick Astbury as indicated by you earlier.

Best regards

Kestrel2Zero (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Kestrel2Zero

@Kestrel2Zero Unfortunately due to copyright law, we need Lucideon themselves to upload/donate the photo to Commons. You could share the following link with them: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. qcne (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We do not need Lucideon themselves to "upload/donate the photo to Commons" (whatever the latter means). We need them to follow the process described at the page you link to, to release the image under an applicable open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; please let me investigate.

Kestrel2Zero (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

REG: Wikipedia Content Policies

Hi, can anyone help if this draft content comply with Wikipedia content policies. I have given enough citation links from all reputed publishers. Have derived content using news from the publishers, have not entertained any topics away from news publishers. Thank you very much.

Draft:Sabarisan Vedamurthy. ArmeVijay (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@ArmeVijay try to add more references and citations (basically sources and websites.) User:StopLookingAtMe1 08:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@ArmeVijay You need to check that the draft is compliant with the policy for biographies of living people, which the "Personal life" section is not because it cites no published reliable source. Perhaps a source of this type is available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How to actively edit Wikipedia?

Hello! All my life I've been editing while reading articles and randomly finding things to fix or add. It seems a lot of users here like to actively edit, ie using the site for the specific purpose of finding things to edit. How do you do that? Dino42 (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dino42 to be honest, IDK. But to get more contributions (I have around 300-400) I would recommend going to the contributing page. User:StopLookingAtMe1 08:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dino42. I would really recommend checking out Wikipedia:Task Center which includes tasks you can do on Wikipedia at all levels of competency, from beginner to advanced. You could also get involved in an active Wikipedia:WikiProject which often have lists of articles that need editing. qcne (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Как да спечеля значка?

Как да спечеля 2 значка форматер? 12 Ана анияна (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You write in Bulgarian. This page is about the English-language Wikipedia.

If your question is about the Bulgarian Wikipedia, please ask at bg:Уикипедия:Разговори.

If your question is about the English Wikipedia, you can ask in Bulgarian, at Wikipedia talk:Local Embassy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello 12 Ana. I have no idea how you get the "Formatter" badge. The only think I can find about badges is at WP:BADGE, which says that the project is not active. ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think 12 Ана анияна is referring to The Wikipedia Adventure. Some parts of the program (which awards badges) are not possible to complete because of the change from Vector legacy (2010) to the current default appearance Vector 2022. -- Reconrabbit 18:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Question on medical articles

So I'm in a bit of a conundrum: this is my first time editing a medical article (Autism) and I'm starting to familiarize myself with the relevant guidelines. NYT is generally reliable except for medical articles, however the article that I want to cite I believe is accurate and is also backed up by academic sources. Not to mention I have personal experience with the subject of the article and know it's accurate firsthand (although I know that doesn't count for much here). Can I cite the NYT article in addition to said sources? Gommeh 🎮 13:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the statement. Best to discuss on the talk page of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Att: Employment Needed Help!!?

How could I possibly apply for a job? With Wikipedia and or affiliates or also be a Teahouse employee? Thanks! Yah1designz777 (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse responders are volunteers.

One can find information about open positions at the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) at:

"Work with us – Wikimedia Foundation". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 2025-08-07.

Peaceray (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Along with Wikipedias being volunteers, each section of Wikipedia is voluntary and only certain permissions have an application process. Anyone (whose IP isn’t blocked in or in a location where Wikipedia is blocked) can make an account and start responding at the Teahouse, although if you do not have experience with Wikipedia you will likely give wrong information and may be asked to slow down. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Black Menace

Draft:Black Menace

Could it be moved to the mainspace after it was originally deleted via AFD? Nighfidelity (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Nighfidelity Since Black Menace was deleted through an AfD, it can’t be approved through AfC alone even if the draft is much better now. You’d need to go to WP:Deletion review and explain what’s changed (like new sources or chart info). AfC reviewers usually won’t move drafts like this without community consensus first. 🐍 Thilio🤖 14:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't let petty bureaucracy bind us; the AfD was seven years ago, and we don't even know that the subject is the same one (and even if it is, the new version should be reviewed on its merits). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Just FYI: The topics are indeed the same. Deor (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Help creating article on Generative Radial Geometry (GRG)

Subject: Help with GRG article – New user with scientific publication

Hello, I'm a new user and I'm still learning how Wikipedia works. I'm trying to contribute an article about **Generative Radial Geometry (GRG)**, a new mathematical method I developed that reconstructs the circle's area and circumference without using π. The method is already published on **Zenodo** with a **DOI**, and the article is currently under review by a scientific journal.

I created a draft in my sandbox: User:Fipodigital/sandbox

However, I'm confused by some edits and comments I received, and I'm not sure how to proceed. Since the method is under evaluation and will likely be submitted to multiple journals (one at a time), I would like to understand what is allowed and how to improve the page.

I believe this contribution may benefit the scientific community and general public. The method is clearly demonstrable and documented.

Could a mentor or experienced editor help me move forward correctly?

Thank you very much!

Fipodigital** Fipodigital (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Fipodigital. I thought I remembered you asking about this before, and when I checked the archives, it initially looked like your previous query was archived before it was answered (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1261#Request for Feedback: Generative Radial Geometry). However, closer inspection shows that you edited your question and in the process deleted some responses that had been posted to it (see this edit). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

...although the advice left on Fipodigital's talk page ("...the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines ... Unless or until [there are independent sources about it] no article about it will be suitable for Wikipedia, no matter how it may be written. A document written by the creator of a topic is not an independent source; a document self-published by posting it to a site where anyone can post is not a reliable source.") is still there.

WP:FRINGE probably also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"published on **Zenodo** with a **DOI**" is of no particular significance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fipodigital In general, an article in WIkipedia needs to be based on secondary sources. That means you will have to wait until your publication(s) have been noticed by other mathematicians and commented upon in reviews or other relaible published sources. It is simply too soon to create a Wikipedia article until that happens. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Bullying behavior

Hi, I would like to report unprovoked bullying and insulting behavior. How can I do that? DaringDonna (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

See ANI (and be sure to read the instructions at the top of the page before posting). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Will Ludford.

Hi, would someone be so kind as to take a little time to visit my page and see if my edits are correct. I have written a new page and hope this time its all ok to meet the Wikipedia standards. Thank you so much,, Will Ludford. Musicmindz14 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Draft:Will Ludford.

Please refer to the advice I and others gave you, the last time you were here; not least to see Help:Referencing for beginners; and use this process to submit it for review, when you feel it meets Wikipedia's requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Emily Lazarou (Forensic Psychiatrist)

Hello! I am assisting Dr. Emily Lazarou with a draft Wikipedia article. I have a conflict of interest, so I am not posting or editing the article myself.

The draft is fully written, well-sourced with mainstream and academic references, and formatted according to Wikipedia standards. I would like to request a neutral editor to review and, if appropriate, submit the article to Draftspace or mainspace.

The source text is available here:

[ Copy of draft article moved to Draft:Emily Lazarou ]

Thank you for your time and help! MARIGOLDSMEMORIESASSIST (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have moved your draft to the page linked above.

Please see WP:PAID and WP:BOSS.

Your draft cannot be published, because, contrary to your claim it has no citations, which are required for every statement in an article about a living person. Can you explain this discrepancy? Did you use an LLM (ChatGPT, or suchlike) to compile the draft and/ or your post here?

Please see WP:Referencing for beginners for details of what sources to use and how to add them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft. I did use a large language model (ChatGPT) to assist with formatting and wording, but all factual information is based on verifiable sources, which I will now add inline. I appreciate your guidance and will revise the draft to include proper references per WP:V and WP:BLP. Thank you again!-- MARIGOLDSMEMORIESASSIST (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's licensing attributes words you write to you, and as far as I can tell, doesn't permit you to use anything but your own words when writing prose. Because whatever is written by LLM is not original content and based on training data, there is no provenance or traceability to the original authors, therefore we cannot use it. Don't poison your well.

Also, refrain from replying or editing further until you respond to the paid editing query on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm assisting Dr. Lazarou with preparing a draft of her biography. I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, but I do have a conflict of interest due to my relationship with her and I am disclosing this here per WP:PAID. MARIGOLDSMEMORIESASSIST (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In being an assistant to the subject, you are by Wikipedia's definition paid by her (though not necessarily in money) – that this is not specifically to edit Wikipedia is immaterial. You need to make the declaration on your own User page and the Talk page of the draft article for the information of any assessors. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.194.92.162 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You should add the declaration to your userpage, not a Teahouse post. It says that at wp:paid. When people you have asked for help give you links to help you, please read them. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Addison Wiggin Page Edit

Hi Teahouse hosts,

I'm seeking help with updating the article on Addison Wiggin. I’ve prepared a fully rewritten draft that updates the article for 2025, trims overly long quotations, and improves sourcing (per WP:BLP and WP:QUOTE). The updated draft includes citations from high-quality secondary sources like The New York Times Magazine, Reuters, The Economist, and Time.

I’ve posted the proposed draft on the article’s Talk page here:

Talk:Addison Wiggin#Proposed Article Rewrite: Addison Wiggin

Would someone be willing to review it and consider making updates if appropriate?

Thanks so much! Awiggingsf (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Awiggingsf The draft still needs stronger, reliably published secondary sources throughout from the lead section to the bibliography to meet WP:BLP and WP:RS standards. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and making sure all key claims are well-supported. Once improved.

🐍 Thilio🤖 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Ledes should not have citations, but should summarise what is cited in the body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Addison Wiggin.

However, as we already have an article at Addison Wiggin it would be best if you made smaller, incremental proposals for changes, one at a time, in the form "replace paragraph X with paragraph Y" or "add paragraph saying Z", with citations, on the article talk page, using the edit request wizard.

Also, see WP:PAID and, depending on whether you are Addison Wiggin or work for him WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:BOSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Pin-up art

Wikipedia has pages for Pin-up model and List of pin-up artists (to which Pin-up artists redirects), as well as a disambiguation page for Pin-up. It does not, however, have a page for Pin-up art. This strikes me as strange, as it has pages for, say, Erotic art, Erotic literature, American burlesque, and similar that describe the topic in terms of genre rather than its participants.

In my opinion, much of the content at Pin-up model would be better served by a Pin-up art page. But in the interest of respecting Chesterton's Fence, I thought I should check in here before creating one. A lot of work has gone into the Pin-up model page, it's connected to 37 languages, and a page for Pin-up art might create a need for extensive trimming of the model page. Any thoughts are appreciated. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"In my opinion, much of the content at Pin-up model would be better served by a Pin-up art page."

It would probably be best to raise that on Talk:Pin-up model; or if you get no response there, on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects listed there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How to create an approved page

I am hoping to create a page for my professor who is the newly appointed Dean at Howard University. I am trying to understand the parameters around what is acceptable. Thank you! NgeriN1 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The relevant criteria and other guidance are detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Be aware that in general, the Wikipedia:Notability of a subject must be demonstrated by citations to at least three items about the subject that are simultaneously independent of the subject, have been published in a Reliable source, and are of substantial length (paragraphs, not mere mentions) – see Wikipedia:Golden rule.

If you think your subject meets the requirements, you could start a Wikipedia:Draft article through the Help:Your first article process, but since you are connected to the subject, this will be harder since you must be mindful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as our core policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You might also want to consider (on your subjects's behalf) Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing – does your Professor necessarily want an article about them? If they have in fact suggested you make one, please see Wikipedia:BOSS.

Be aware that creating an article that meets Wikipedia's complex requirements is in itself difficult, and you can at the least expect to have to go through several cycles of submitting the draft, having it declined with explanatory comments, improving it, and resubmitting it before succeeding.

New editors are usually advised to spend at least several weeks or more practising by making minor copyedits and additions to existing articles, and becoming adept at the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: remember, on Wikipedia there are no deadlines. Hope this helps. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.194.92.162 (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Exemplary page on an indigenous people?

Hi, I see a page on a native American people (Mohawk people) that could really use some help. I'd like take a more meta look than just adding citations. Is there an exemplary page on a native people I could use for a template & inspiration? Thanks. Mdottt (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Usually, Wikipedia's exemplary articles are our Good Articles and Featured Articles. It looks like there is one GA (Ohlone) and one FA (Indigenous people of the Everglades region) which would be relevant models. Both of them were assessed a long time ago, so they may also be flawed, since Wikipedia is ever-improving, but they may give you some ideas for where to begin. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How to develop the article about self-harm?

Dear Friends.

I think I would like to add substantially to the article about self harm. However, I see so many things in there I do not understand. Like the section with medical sources, I do not know what kind of scientific literature should go where and on what basic. Generally, the structure of this article is very different to "typical" Wikipedia article and I am lost. Can somebody shred some light on this matter?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The self-harm article seems (at least for the first 30% or so that I read through) reasonably written for a layperson to understand. If you find a section too technical or full of medical jargon, you can tag the section with {{Technical|section|date=August 2025}}.

If you have suggestions or comments about improving the article, start a discussion about it on Talk:Self-harm. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Naming a business page versus individual name please

Hello Teahouse,

I hope you're doing well. I created a Harry Hillier page about a coachbuilding historical business in Australia. It was called 'Harry Hillier Ltd', but I noticed recently that a sportsperson with the same name was auto-linked to the page (instead of them being redlinked).

Could you please let me know what you would suggest? Should the page have Ltd or coachbuilder in the title, or is there another fix to address this? Thank you SunnyBoi (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, Harry Hillier, about the coachbuilder, doesn't need to be renamed. A quick look suggests that the incoming links are intended for a golfer of that name. Ignore any examples that are either within signed comments or are within "user spaces"; for those in articles or drafts, rename to "Harry Hillier (golfer)" or "Harry Hillier (golf player)". (I'm not entirely sure which of the pair. Other editors here will know much more than I do about sports terminology.) If you've noticed that the golfer has a sideline in, say, billiards or darts (or if I've made a mistake), then let's rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps a lot! I have changed all the 'What links here' besides user spaces etc. I appreciate your help, thanks again! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Proper way to expand a redirect

Hello, I'm looking to expand a few redirect pages into fully-fledged articles, and would like to create some draft pages. My question is, what is the proper way to move the draft articles into mainspace while preserving the page history (i.e., without copy-pasting)? Simply moving the draft article to the destination page name (e.g., by using the "Publish now" button on the Draft Article template) would be blocked by the existing redirect, so I was a bit stumped. Thanks, AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You can move the draft over the redirect using the “Move” option it will preserve the history. If you’d like, I can move it for you.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wanted to know how to do it myself, and besides, I don't have the finished draft yet, so there is no need for you to move anything right now. I appreciate your assistance. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You can find guidance here Page mover guide. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 05:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again! I'll be looking into this. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Overhaul of List of cameras on the International Space Station

I've been working on an overhaul of List of cameras on the International Space Station such that it's a little more organised and contains much more information about the cameras that are and were on the space station and why they're there. Before publishing these changes to the article, I'd like to get feedback about my draft (User:Edits4019/sandbox) and know if there are things that can be improved, since I'm pretty 'new' to Wikipedia as far as editing text goes and also especially since my English isn't that great. Edits4019 (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Just submit it reviewers will give you feedback whether it’s accepted or not.

🐍 Thilio🤖 04:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It's an article, Thilio, not a draft. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Then just go ahead and make your changes. 🐍 Thilio🤖 05:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, Edits4019, I'll bite. Excuse what may look like rudeness, but why should anyone be interested? (Other perhaps than in "I'd guess that this was good publicity for Nikon. Had Nikon been willing to pay more for the privilege than its rivals?" -- a question that unfortunately goes unanswered.) Now, it would be interesting if we read why such a number and variety of cameras was chosen. (What was each for?) But for me the question that's foremost is: Why would anyone "[undergo] photography training" with a camera on which a flashgun and what looks like a long-focal-length lens are simultaneously mounted? -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Block This Guy ASAP

User:Balyyadav123YashTheBosss (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

See Last edit of this page, Sathyaraj filmographyYashTheBosss (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have left a warning on their talk page, which is the first step. Now to start cleaning up their mess... ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked while I was replying! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, YashTheBosss. (This wasn't the best page for it, but no matter.) ClaudineChionh, we only have a limited set of templates, so I'm not criticizing you for posting one that boils down to "You've been a very naughty boy. And if you're naughty once more, we'll actually do something about it." Anyway, rather than append the block message to your warning, I simply replaced your warning with my block message. It's not as if this fellow suggested that he was straying only temporarily from an encyclopedic and altruistic goal. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries @Hoary, I only realised when I started looking at the diffs that this was a more extensive issue that somehow stayed under the radar for nearly a year! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to create my own website, give me permission to put your movie on my website, you will pay for it.

I want to create my own website, give me permission to put your movie on my website, you will pay for it. 175.107.211.83 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

A fascinating business proposition. A suggestion: First create your website; then specify it, specify which movie(s) you're after, and specify how much "we" need (the WMF needs?) to pay for the privilege of having it (them) hosted by you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeking help with Draft:TCR Engineering and AfC process

Hi Teahouse hosts,

I'm working on a draft article titled Draft:TCR Engineering, which has been submitted via the Articles for Creation process. I have a declared conflict of interest (disclosed on the draft’s talk page) and am following Wikipedia guidelines by not editing the article directly in the mainspace.

The draft includes multiple independent, reliable sources and aims to meet notability guidelines. I would appreciate help or advice on improving it further and increasing the chances of it being accepted into the main article space.

Here's the draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TCR_Engineering

Thanks in advance! Cyberceo72 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberceo72: firstly, this draft has not been submitted for AfC review. (A bot did add the submission template, but you seem to have removed that.)

Secondly, the draft has no referencing. It does include a number of external sources, but these are constructed as inline external links (which are not allowed), and not as inline citations (which are required). You need to convert them from the former to the latter; please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You might want to review Help:Referencing for beginners to ensure all your sources are formatted and cited correctly this can improve the draft’s chances at AfC.

🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 06:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)