Hi folks,

I've been editing for a while now, but another editor has recently indicated that some of the list articles I've worked on (population lists for various animal taxa) are in violation of WP:ONESOURCE because all population estimates come from the IUCN Red List. For an example of one of these lists, see List of Pterocliformes by population or any of the child articles of List of birds by population and List of mammals by population.

My understanding of the single source guideline has been that articles with a single citation are generally not good; in the case of these lists, almost all information comes from one organization (IUCN/BirdLife International), but are species-specific and normally have different authors for each species, especially in the case of mammals. What this looks like in the reflist is that every species has its own, species-specific citation, but most/all will be citations to its Red List profile.

I'm hoping to get some clarification on whether the citation structure of these lists violates the one source guideline, and if so, how the articles could be improved -- IUCN is the standard, normally, because they perform semi-regular updates and collate several different studies for the species; if one were to cite all the individual studies, it would likely end up being original research.

Thank you very much for any and all guidance! DuckWrangler97 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pterocliformes by population has 17 sources, albeit from one publisher.

WP:ONESOURCE is an essay, not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is a guideline however. 'Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.' 11WB (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just don't think the articles would be improved by citing outdated guesses for single species from individual papers. IUCN is the standard. It would be like citing a paper from 1993 to report the population of Texas when information from the federal census exists. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DuckWrangler97: I totally get what you mean about IUCN being the standard for population estimates. Are there any publications which cite or discuss the IUCN population estimates for the species you're working on? Those could potentially be used as WP:SECONDARY sources to show broad consensus that the IUCN estimates are considered accurate by subject-matter experts for those taxa. NeuroJasper (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NeuroJasper - thank you very much for the reply and feedback. I really appreciate your suggestions.

In a lot of cases, yes. In the case of highly charismatic or often-studied species, there are definitely secondary, external citations using IUCN numbers (or Partners in Flight or BirdLife International, which are directly co-opted as IUCN estimates).

The issue with smaller taxons still remains, though. There would be plenty of examples of secondary citations in Accipitriformes or Anseriformes, where there are hundreds of species; much more difficult for smaller orders such as Pterocliformes or Phaethontiformes where there are fewer species in parts of the world where not as much avian research occurs. I don't think the population of a duck species is any more or less notable than a tropicbird, though.

The overall issue is that in my updating and addition of species to the child lists of List of birds by population (and List of mammals by population) is that I'm adding data, where it is published, for every species (>10,000 for birds alone). In some rare cases, someone other than IUCN has published a population estimate and IUCN has not, in which case the non-IUCN source is cited. Generally, if IUCN has not issued a population estimate, no one else has either.

In many cases, several different authors have issued population estimates years apart, and IUCN collates these into a single "best guess" estimate. I'm especially trying to avoid a convention whereby each of these individual papers would need to be cited, as most are now outdated and would introduce a lot of confusion to what ought to be a relatively straightforward table.

Finally, there are some analyses for specific taxa which do directly report on the accuracy and precision of population estimates across the board (see Bird et al. 2021 for a meta-analysis on petrels, which could be cited for the Procellariformes list) but this is far from the norm.

TLDR: I suppose maybe the answer is to qualify that IUCN is a widely-accepted authority for population estimates at the top of each order's list? It wouldn't change the fact that most/all estimates are coming from IUCN/BirdLife International, but perhaps that would assuage some concerns about "single source" information. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got diagnosed with influenza b, or the flu and i am just feeling bored on my computer, so what can i do? CLS STUDIO (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could check out the task center to find some smaller edits you can do to help out. Honestly, I started editing for a very similar reason, minus the flu. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should read about some unusual articles, such as gender of connectors and fasteners, or Osama bin Laden (elephant). – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kicking myself for not thinking of that! Good job! @LuniZunie CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could read WP:Referencing for beginners, and find a source for the text you added to Lansing, Iowa. Learning how to cite sources is a vital skill that will stand you well in your future editing.

Get well soon! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered something! I could look at the article on Potoooooooo (Pot-8-Os) CLS STUDIO (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe check out the DOF. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) 01:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help with amending or deleting a Note on Wiki's No. 25 Squadron RAAF page.or a

To my regret I feel it best to request help to amend (or even delete) the Note 'a.' on the above article page. As a user called Shellac41 in January 2023 I was able, with help from Wiki's Help section and some very helpful users, to add a Note a. to Wiki's No. 25 Squadron RAAF article.

In 2023 I believed the added Note a was needed to help readers to understand the reason and evidence for the correction of a statement in the article that had said No. 25 Squadron moved to Tarakan in mid-1945 during WW2, whereas in fact it never did; it operated from its home base at RAAF Cunderdin in Western Australia (WA) for all of 1945 and up until it was disbanded in mid-1946.

Now, 3 years later I believe the original Note a I added has served its intended to be helpful purpose and in my opinion would be best amended to be either less detailed (and thus maybe more discreet and diplomatic?) or even deleted in toto?

To that effect, yesterday 17 Feb 2026 I tried as user Shellac41 to amended the Note a ' and after a few attempts the following amended Note a was published at 03.39 Wiki time which read: Some sources (and thus this article until November 2022) have incorrectly stated that 25 Squadron moved to Tarakan "...in June 1945 until the end of the war."

Not long after doing so I found that:

1. According to Wiki's records my old user name of Shellac41 does not exist; and
2. At 05.33 Wiki time, Wiki user Matilda_Maniac deleted my amendment and replaced it with the original Note a as it read before my attempt to amend it.

I am very much conscious of the existence of Wiki's very high standard protocols and procedures and of more knowledgeable users enforcement of them but unfortunately I have to admit ignorance in properly understanding and satisfying them, now more so as one nearing 83 years of age. (In August 2021 I experienced being "blocked but thankfully I was "unblocked in December 2021 after a successful appeal.)

Therefore, to avoid further breach of Wiki's protocols and procedures, if it is possible and acceptable I request Wiki's help in the form of:

1. A simple for me to understand point by point list of the steps I must follow to publish my intended amendment to Note a as per the words (or similar) of the last amendment that was soon reversed by user Matilda_Maniac, or if preferred by Wiki, to delete Note a and any text reference to it in toto? OR
2. A more knowledgeable than me Wiki user doing so for me?

I sincerely apologise for this obvious inconvenience and my ignorance. From a user once known on Wiki as Shellac41 Shellac41 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Shellac41, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, your account Shellac41 exists, and has existed ever since you created it in 2021. You may be being misled by the red link: all that means is that your account does not have a user page - which is perfectly fine: a user page is optional.

As for the edits to No. 25 Squadron RAAF, it appears to me that @Matilda Maniac has expanded the text itself, incorporating the observation in your footnote, and has therefore removed the footnote.

If you think that this is not correct, or not satisfactory, your first step (as always in case of disagreement or possible disagreement between editors) is to discuss it with her, either on her user talk page, or preferably on the article's talk page. I have pinged her her as well as you, so she should see this and enter the discussion.

Please have a look at WP:BRD for how this sort of thing works. ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

she is a he actually, just a big Matildas fan. I moved a prose note into a more normal one, and added a Notes section, which is the most common format for such notes. @Shellac41: good on you for still editing into your 80's, from an editor who's just moved into their 60's ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matilda Maniac. Thank you for your helpful reply to my request. While I had hoped my request was gender neutral I do hope the Matildas excel in the forthcoming World Cup.

I think your response means you corrected the error I first made in 2023 when I placed an (a) reference to a Note in the middle of the sentence (which began with "From March to August 1945 the squadron's Cunderdin based Liberators flew.....") rather than at the end of the sentence? Is my thought correct?

However, I am confused about your advice you added a Notes section because a Notes section (with the same note as now shows) existed since I added one in 2023?

Finally, your corrections are appreciated but if possible and acceptable to you, I request that you replace the old Note (a)'s wording with (a) Some sources (and thus this article until January 2023) have incorrectly stated that 25 Squadron moved to Tarakan "...in June 1945 until the end of the war." Shellac41 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Hi again Matilda Maniac.

I believe the Note has now served its useful purpose so another alternative is to completely delete reference to the Note and the Note itself?

Erratum: My comment to you about the Matilda's excelling should read "in the forthcoming Asian Cup and the later World Cup." My mistake! Shellac41 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine, I will contact Matilda Manic as you suggest. Shellac41 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I've tried to change my signature earlier but it seems like the colour doesn't change. I think it's because I've clicked on the link before. Is there a way to change the colour of that?

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) ☺ 10:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jacksonvil. It's nothing to do with whether you've clicked the link: it's blue for me as well. The problem is that you've set the style in a span which includes the wikilinks; but they set their own style in inner spans when the software expands them.

So you'll need to set the style within the Wikilink.

At present you have:

<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen"> [[User:Jacksonvil|Jacksonvil]] ([[User Talk:Jacksonvil|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacksonvil|contribs]]) </span>

You'll need to change it to something like:

[[User:Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">Jacksonvil</span>]] ([[User Talk:Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Jacksonvil|<span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: mintcream; color: darkgreen">contribs</span>]])

That produces: Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has 380 characters. The limit is 255. This is closer at 273 but still needs trimming:

<span style="font-family:Georgia;background:#F5FFFA">[[User:Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">Jacksonvil</span>]] ([[User talk:Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contribs/Jacksonvil|<span style="color:#006400">contribs</span>]])</span>

It produces: Jacksonvil (talk|contribs). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping me. I just had to get rid of the font, which trimmed it down to just 253. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 07:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna add some images of Yayoi Kusama's exhibitions on her page.

Thing is, My family's and my faces are on there, so could i censor their faces even if it might block some details? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can crop anything out of any photo before you upload it to Wikipedia (or Commons). It's important that you take into account freedom of panorama, though: photos of three-dimensional artwork may or may not be properly free, depending on where you took them. DS (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SomnambulantFish, and welcome! Some other important aspects to consider here are how it represents the subject of the photo. Our image use policy discourages photos with family/friends prominently featured alongside the image subject, partially because of a self-promotion aspect (which is less a concern if you choose to censor), but also because [t]he relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. So if you can crop them out of the photo or keep them a non-focal point of the image, it's a good choice, but it'll be a less useful image otherwise. Hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SomnambulantFish, the article Yayoi Kusama is currently illustrated with examples of her work that are free of the distractions either of viewers or of rectangles, mosaics, etc obscuring viewers. An example is c:File:Kusama Yayoi The Spirits of the Pumpkins Descended into the Heavens.jpg. This may be reproduced thanks to (tightly constrained) freedom of panorama (FOP) in Australia, which of course you couldn't cite for an exhibition in Switzerland, the US, etc. If you have a question about FOP or related matters, you'd better ask it at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been working on my first article for the past month or so. I have been told different things from reviewers about whether my article will meet notability guidelines. Can someone help me confirm whether it will qualify for it lest I spend all this time when it won't pass? Tomdvocate (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to help you, but you didn't link the page. Please do that if you would. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tomdvocate, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It doesn't look to me as if a single one of your sources is a secondary source - even the ones that don't explicitly quote Collins read as if they are simply regurgitating what he has said or published. Without secondary sources, there's no notability and no article.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Treasure of Jon Collins-Black (found by looking at Tomdvocate's contributions, CabinetCavers) --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 12:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful thank you. I enjoyed learning a little about the Wikipedia community. Tomdvocate (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admins, I have a question. If a living person is accused of something serious but it was never proven, does it still need to be mentioned on that person’s page? I’d appreciate some clarification. Thank you. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiTributor2026 I'm not an admin, but all unsourced claims about a living person, especially a negative one, are to be immediately removed from the article. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my query, @CabinetCavers. An entire paragraph is sourced from The Daily Graph. However, the article does mention the subject’s connection to the incident, but only in the context of allegations and speculation, not confirmed involvement. There is one short line stating that federal prosecutors found no link between the subject and the bombing incident. I believe that, under WP:CRIME, these allegations should not be included on the subject’s page. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WikiTributor2026, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Usually such material should not be included, even if the accusation is reliably sourced. See BLPCRIME. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for mentioning BLPCRIME, @ColinFine. By the way, should I delete it myself, or do you need to check the page first? I haven’t made any edits yet, as I wanted to get guidance from more experienced editors first. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to look at it.

I suggest you go ahead and be BOLD - the worst that can happen is that somebody reverts you. (Make sure it doesn't look like a random deletion by explaining in the edit summary - I suggest citing [[WP:BLPCRIME]] in the edit summary.) ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you for this. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering removing Cedars-Sinai Medical Center#Patient data security breaches for reasons stated at Talk:Cedars-Sinai Medical Center#Revision of Controversy Section. I want to notify the original author of that section. Is there any good way to find out who it is? Julian in LA (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA Take a look at mw:Who Wrote That? and WP:BLAME. HurricaneZeta^C 23:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a good article and an A-class article? I almost never see articles in A-class, but it appears to be in between good and featured articles. Speedrunz (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. A-class is typically only used by one project, Wikiproject Military History. You won't see many A-class articles outside of this project. I honestly don't know why they do it though. jolielover♥talk 05:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist produces such a large volume of FA and GA articles that it kept the A-rank process when it was largely forgotten. As someone with 1 (to be 2) A-class articles, the A-class review process is essentially three GA reviews stacked on top of each other. While images and prose are checked, MilHist also focuses on the reliability of sourcing and accuracy that other reviewers at the FA process may not be able to provide. GGOTCC 06:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have revise and resubmit my draft for Draft:Novelship and I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Thank you in advance! Ivanofjonas (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ivanofjonas. You have resubmitted it for review: that is how to get feedback.

Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know about making Featured Articles PrabinDangali (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It's a long process, and every bit of an article is scrutinised as it is supposed to represent the best of the best on Wikipedia. I wouldn't recommend jumping right into it, start with improving an article to good article status. jolielover♥talk 04:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading a lot of books about angels recently, all of which have very interesting information about specific angels and the like. I'm pretty sure that they would make reliable sources, as they themselves are thoroughly researched, etc. My issue is that I don't know if I can use them as a source without a way to access them online (to be fair, there may be a way to get PDFs of them online, like on archive.org or the like-- I haven't had time to check, but I'm still interested in this question when it comes to sources that cannot be found online). Is there a way to use books that aren't online as sources, and if so, how? Olliewally (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's absolutely fine. You have to use the {{Cite book}} template, and it's fine to not include a link - however, it would be much appreciated to include some parameters for easier identification, like ISBN, doi, hdl, or whatever else you can find. This should be pretty simple, if it's not in the book itself, just search the name online and you can probably find the ISBN or a similar identifier, like on Amazon. It would also be helpful to add page numbers if someone wishes to verify the information. We work on the assumption of good faith :) jolielover♥talk 04:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

damn that was fast. thank you :D Olliewally (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Olliewally, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Just a couple of things to add to what jolielover said.

First, it's not obligatory to use the template, but I would certainly recommend it.

But the main thing I would stress is that the important bits of any citation are the bibliographic items such as author, title, publisher and/or publication, date, and page number if appropriate. These are what allow a reader to make a quick evaluation of the likely character and quality of the source. URL, ISBN, and doi are not an essential part of the citation, but conveniences to help a reader locate and obtain the source if they wish to. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Members,

Thank you for your kind invitation. I hope you are doing well.

I am having some issues creating my first page on the English Wikipedia. I am confident that the topic “Primipilus,” which was a historical rank in Transylvania among the Székelys, would help present a more diverse picture of the multiethnic region of Romania.

I started my project last autumn and have made many improvements since then. I'm really looking forward to seeing it published.

Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be corrected to meet all the standards.

Kind regards,

Andrew Cosmaender (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy article: Draft:Primipilus (rank)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. You may refer to the submission decline reason; that is, this article fails to meet the minimum number of references and citations needed to support text-source integrity, as outlined in WP:MINREF.

This is not to say that your research is too insufficient though! There are a lot more sources out there that also discuss Primipilus, and there's also the likelihood of finding more sources inside the articles and works you're citing that could help improve the inline citation issue of this article.

For more information, you may read at WP:When to cite and Help:Referencing for beginners. Cheers! nhals8 🟊(•3•)🟊 06:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmaender I have added tags to your draft to highlight problems and places where you could add additional citations. I also did a little bit of copyediting, mostly removing a lot of unnecessary Latin translations in parentheses. Athanelar (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating an article on a Palestinian karateka. but I don't know how to make an infobox and I created a mess. Can someone help me.

Draft:Hala Al-Qadi. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the visual editor you can go to the plus sign at the top of the page, then you can press templates and type in infobox person (the standard infobox) and from there you can add the information (be careful when adding an image, sometimes people put the “file:” which is unneeded). Hopefully this helps. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the article now the infobox seems pretty good for a sportsperson. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I accidently corrected it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it’s good to hear you were able to fix it yourself, because that means next time you should be able to make it again. Happy editing! The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have completed the biography of Sergey Smbatyan and want to move it from draft space to the main Wikipedia space. I need help as I am not able to do it myself! Thanks.

Draft:Sergey Smbatyan. Arpine26 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have moved the draft to article space. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arpine26 What is your connection to this man? You took a professional image of him where he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is an Armenian conductor. I got the photo from the orchestra to contribute to the Wikipage. Did I put the credits wrongly? I am still learning to edit articles, please let me know if anything is wrong. Arpine26 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arpine26, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, copyright is a complex business with legal implications. When you uploaded the image c:File:SS 2021.jpg to Wikimedia Commons, you made the specific legal declaration that it was your own work and that you, personally, were publishing it under a certain licence. From what you said above, this was not true, and you do not have the legal power to publish or license it: I will shortly nominate it for deletion.

In order to use that picture in Wikipedia, the owner of the copyright (who is probably the photographer, unless there has been a legal process transferring it to the orchestra or one of its functionaries) must explicitly license it in a way that Wikimedia Commons accepts: a general "permission to use it" is not enough. See donating copyright materials for more on that.

However, a picture is not an essential part of an article.

More importantly, it will help reviewers if you can convert the bare URLs to proper citations: please see WP:REFB. I suspect that many of the citations do not meet the criteria in golden rule, but probably enough do to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have uploaded the file [directly to Wikipedia I was wrong] and described it as "Own work", which has the legal meaning that you took the photo yourself and own the copyright, or have purchased the copyright from the photographer.

If you indeed own the copyright, you should preferably have uploaded it to our sister project Wikipedia Commons, under a suitable licence, making it available for use by other-language Wikipedias and indeed by anybody, for any purpose.

If you do not own the copyright, you have breached the copyright of someone else, illegally. Your statement that you "got the photo from the orchestra" suggests this – note that even if the photo was taken for the orchestra's use, the copyright probably still remains with the photographer, in which case the orchestra did not have the right to allow its use on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is very careful to observe copyright laws (which are very complicated), so it would be best if the photo is deleted immediately.

I appeal to other editors with more expertise to do this. (I am alive to copyright issues because of previous employment in publishing, but am not conversant with the mechanics of images on Wikipedia.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all clear. Thanks! Yes, please delete it but also if I ask his orchestra to provide an image, what should I write in the owner description so that there are no issues? Arpine26 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that images are a "nice to have" thing, not a requirement. The orchestra/their photographer may not want to let you use its image, because they would need to release it for use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use, like selling the image or article with the image. This would mean that they would need to allow the sale of the image but not have any right to any proceeds of the sale. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arpine26. I have already referred you to WP:donating copyright materials, which explains what the copyright holder (who is probably not the orchestra, though it might be) would need to do. ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arpine26 I an not currently convinced that this article is actually ready for mainspace. It currently seems to be mostly a list of his accomplishments and the sources seem to be pretty much entirely either affiliated with him and his work or simple passing mentions of him being hired to a particular band or making a performance etc. Especially given that a previous article you created was moved to draftspace due to not being ready for mainspace, I think it would've been better for you to submit this draft for review via AfC rather than moving it to mainspace right away.

I can't currently move the article back to draftspace as a redirect still exists at the draft title, but I would suggest you request the article be moved back to draftspace and submit it for review, or otherwise at least try to find some better coverage to substantiate notability more strongly. Athanelar (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my interest in contributing to the improvement of the Wikipedia page dedicated to the TSHZ3 gene, which I have been studying for many years. Is this possible? What should I do? Best regards, Laurent Fasano ~2026-11167-88 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-11167-88, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Anybody is welcome to contribute to improving Wikipedia.

I suggest you create an account: this is free, and makes it easier for other editors to communicate with you. It is not compulsory, though.

If you have been working on this subject, then something to watch out for is the temptation to add your own results. Please note first that everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, so only add information if you can cite a published source. See original research.

Secondly, adding anything sourced to your own publications is regarded as a conflict of interest, so it is better for you not to add it directly, but instead to make a COI edit request that another editor may review.

Please see expert editors for more information. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on citing your own publications is at WP:SELFCITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-11167-88 You might like to read WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Gene Wiki, which is an area used by editors interested in human genes. The current article on TSHZ3 is designated a WP:STUB, so could certainly benefit from some careful work. It already uses a 1991 paper you wrote as one of its sources. Note also Talk:TSHZ3. Thanks for your interest in contributing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

for a long time now I've noted that wikipedia only has a page about "Giuseppe Beghetto" the famous cyclist, but not the karate master (and champion) of the same name. There is only a very short mention of him in the italian version of the page on "Luigi Zoia", noting that Maestro Beghetto won the European karate championships in 1972.

But back in those times he was a very well known karateka, won competitions both in Europe and in Japan (I've even seen claims that he has been the first European to ever do so in Japan, but sadly I can't find any sources to back that up).

To me personally Maestro Beghetto is a legend and is well known in the world of Karate. That is true especially in Poland, where he was one of the first high-ranking masters to come and teach regular classes, helping laying the foundations to establish Shotokan Karate in Poland (he taught both my Sensei as well as his Sensei). But of course he also did a lot to spread Karate in both Italy and Germany.

He also wrote a book called "The new encyclopedia of karate-do" (https://www.amazon.pl/Neue-Enzyklopädie-Karate-Do-Jahrtausend/dp/3833418176) in which he describes his outlook on Karate after tens of years of practicing it. Finally a few years back Shihan Beghetto got awarded the level of 8°dan for his overall achievements in the field of Karate.

There is a ton of news articles online (some of them in polish) documenting the many seminars he held so far, and he still actively participates in them, continuing to share his knowledge of Karate to this day.

Therefore I have two questions: 1. Do you think Giuseppe Beghetto is notable enough to have his own page in the Wikipedia? 2. Could I write it? (I do have both personal and professional ties with Shihan Beghetto)

Thanks a lot, Lucas LeeeHacker (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can't answer the first question(though sources need not be in English), but as to the second, once you disclose your affiliation on your user page(User:LeeeHacker) per conflict of interest and possibly paid editing("paid editing" includes general employment, such as working for the subject or editing as part of your job)- you may create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question of "should this person have a Wikipedia article?" is succinctly answered by the golden rule.

To summarise; has this person been written about in significant depth in reliable publications, which are entirely independent of the subject (so be wary of industry/trade magazines which have a vested interest in puffing up the subject), excluding any pieces which only mention them in passing or focus on other notable people or organisations with which they're affiliated. Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear team,

I hope you are well. Can you please guide me can everyone make their profile on wikipedia ? I have a dream of having my name on wikipedia is there any chance it can be possible or i need to be very very famous ~2026-11301-55 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We only have articles about people who are already "notable", by which we mean that they meet the criteria described here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to make a good topic? Rgarci7267 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase your question? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 19:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "the ba club"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pattern to these. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think these accounts who ask weird and very short questions like this are trolls, or they don’t understand fully what Wikipedia is. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am facing two difficulties:

1. I created some redirects which does not land in the right place:

• K. Manzoor Elahi
• K. Mushtaq Elahi
• K. Taufiq Elahi
• K. Tausif Elahi
• K. Iffat Elahi Mahbub
• K. Mahbub Elahi Biplob
• Captain Iftekhar Elahi Shanto
• Ershad Elahi Shuvo
• K. Daad Elahi

2. Also I wanted some advice if any of the aforementioned articles are notable to have a proper mainspace article. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TrueMoriarty, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm dubious about the value of these redirects. First, is anybody likely to search for these names (I have no idea)? And secondly, if they do so, is there any value at all in directing them to the article on the surname? (I don't think so).

As for whether they are notable or not: in order to demonstrate that a subject is notable, it is necessary to find several sources which meet all the criteria in golden rule. It is very unlikely that anybody here is going to be willing to do that research on a list of names that you have come up with. If you want to know if any of them are notable, it is almost certainly up to you to do that research. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. But if you notice K. Mushtaq Elahi, do you think atleast he might be notable enough? You can notice some independent sources about him in the elahi (name) page

Thanks again!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueMoriarty: Section links should only name the subsection like Elahi (name)#Elahi family (Rangpur, Bangladesh), not Elahi (name)#Surname#Elahi family (Rangpur, Bangladesh). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those redirects should be deleted, as they do not redirect to articles. I also believe that those names should be removed from Elahi_(name), which ought only to list notable bearers of that name. TrueMoriarty, if you can show that any of those people are notable (and it seems likely that some are), please go ahead and create articles about them. Once the articles exist, add links from Elahi_(name). Maproom (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that as you will notice that a lot of articles about prominent families have lists of member which are not fully notable (but still very notable for a person) for Wikipedia. The names are usually bolded with redirects. I followed that pattern but thank you for the suggestion.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 09:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have expanded the article on Hakim Khan Suri with additional reliable sources and improved structure, but the assessment has not been updated yet. Could someone please review the article and update the quality assessment if appropriate? 赛义菲 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@赛义菲  Done and welcome to Teahouse. In the future an easy way to assess an article is by using WP:Rater. See also Wikipedia:Content assessment for guidance. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assessment and the guidance. I appreciate the help. 赛义菲 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone! I’m fairly new to editing Wikipedia and I’m currently working on improving an article. I’ve found several reliable sources (including news articles and books), but I’m a bit confused about how to properly document them. What’s the correct way to add inline citations using <ref> tags? Should I be using citation templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}, and how do I fill them out correctly? How do I make sure my references section formats automatically? Are there common mistakes beginners make when documenting sources that I should avoid? I want to make sure my edits follow Wikipedia’s documentation and verifiability guidelines. Any step-by-step advice or examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help! InsightfulDocumentation103 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@InsightfulDocumentation103 Welcome to Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for complete guides on how to add inline citations and for practical guide see Help:Referencing for beginners. Also please try to write your questions in your own words in the future and avoid the use of chatbots see WP:LLM#Communicating. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have been seeing articles made by my friends get deleted for seemingly no reason what are some common reasons that people's articles can get deleted MaxTheThirsty (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's for being too promotional (WP:PROMO) or the subject not being notable enough (WP:NOTE). Can you specify what articles are the ones you want clarification on their deletion? Toarin (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DEL-REASON, point 8 is the most common one. It's important to note that even if something is popular, it may not be notable. ( see this for an elaboration on that point) Happy editing!   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks so much for the help and telling me the reason for the deletions MaxTheThirsty (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i need some help please on wikipedia Make out you own thing (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with?   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Make out you own thing Another editor has left some suggestions on your talk page, which gives general advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, is Wikipedia a place to collect hats, and the reason for this? WillToSay31 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WillToSay31. Welcome to the Teahouse.

"Hat collecting" is indeed a pathology with which afflicts some Wikipedia editors. See WP:Hat collecting. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a new editor, I just don't know where to find this information.

My question is what to do (or to not do anything) in the presence of slurs in user pages. I would assume to do nothing, but I'm unsure. What I saw had one slur, and the page in which it was in included a lot of other content that was non-offensive. This user hasn't edited in a few years, as well, so I doubt I could leave them a message.

Thanks to anyone that can help. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored so I think you shouldn't do anything unless if it's genuinely offensive or intended for personal attacks to someone. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivebeenhacked, Wikipedia is not censored applies to articles and images. Wikipedia's userpage policy says "there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". @Organhaver, whose user page is this -- I think that seeing the context would help. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially want to call them out, but I guess if it helps? It's in this section of the user's subpage. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiktionary that term isn't even a slur, just "offensive";

quote: "4. (informal, offensive) A person or being who is extremely stupid or slow to learn."
--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 22:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the countless sources that state otherwise. Also, the Wikipedia article (which is... literally the project we're on) states that it is a slur (see this link). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the user to remove it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I said before: this user hasn't edited in 4 years, so I really doubt that I could ask them to remove it. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I have removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An offensive name for a category of human beings is a slur by definition.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so after spotting a discrepancy in the article about Poland, where (in my opinion) it is wrongly classified in the info-box and article as having a "semi-presidental system", In my attempts to figure out the root of this I have discovered a small rabbit hole.

Basically the whole thing originates from the classifications of what is a parliamentary and what is a semi-presidental system.
After reviewing the sources both in the article and finding more, there seem to exist 2 main definitions in literature:
first, more popular one which considers what powers lie under the president and parliament, and
second, which considers a semi-presidental system to include any otherwise parliamentary system where the president is also elected trough a direct vote from the population (sources using this definition list eg. Ireland as an example of a semi-presidental system)

So, the article Semi-presidential system clearly uses the first definition, as countries such as Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia, Moldova, Bulgaria, etc. are categorised as parliamentary. However, after reviewing the references Poland has been categorised using the second definition as semi-presidential. The majority of the sources online (including official Polish Government website, European Union website, and CIA Factbook, as well as multiple published sources) classify Poland as a parliamentary republic, however some argue (mainly because of directly elected president) that Poland is to be considered semi-presidential republic.

This turned into kind of 2 separate things so the talk page links are: here about the two definitions, here about the classification of Poland itself, and here about my problems with the currently listed sources
--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 22:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least your second attempt to bring up the matter at the teahouse (the/an earlier attempt being here). Meanwhile, you seem to have brought it up at Talk:Poland, Talk:Semi-presidential system, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and (as I didn't look at all carefully) possibly more. If you want to launch a RfC, then go ahead; consistency of labeling as "parliamentary" versus "semi-presidential" may indeed be very important, but it's not a matter for the teahouse. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however I asked the first time on teahouse earlier before I figured out the whole 2 definitions thing.

I decided to ask on the teahouse as to whether this is the kind of thing that RfC is meant for, as I haven't made a RfC before.

I only brought it up in the links above (and i cross-linked everything, if someone looked at any of the discussions they would be aware of the other ones), and in the teahouse itself.

--wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name for scar tissue after being struck by lightning? ~2026-11216-63 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a better question for WP:Reference desk. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First a wound from lightning bolt, after healing, what is the Medical scientific name given the scar? ~2026-11216-63 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse specifically is for questions about the workings of Wikipedia. Questions about finding information on wikipedia are for the Reference desk. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the essay WP:WAW there is a claim that "As a result of sourcing issues, almost all^[quantify] biographies before 1900 are of men." Occasionally, I'll see a maintenance tag and take it as a challenge, and today is one of those days. I have two ideas for how to quantify this using Wikipedia data, but I need to know if there are any relevant tools. I either need
a) (preferred) a tool that allows me to browse pages by birth date and gender (obvious reasoning here) or
b) something that allows me to see the full number of pages in a category, including subcategories.
If anyone has one of these, or another idea, could you please help me? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FloblinTheGoblin, the folks at Women in Red might be able to help with this? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't organized by Wikipedia language edition, but Humaniki is the best representation that I know of. The graph is rudimentary at best, but at least it is something. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeycdiamond @Sarsenet Thank you! I will pursue both of these. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wavv.Music That's the example of the page which recently published and some editor tagged it and nominate the article for deleting. Please help me to understand how to handle the situation professionally. Thank you. RedOwl (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RedOwl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavv.Music has a very simple "delete" rationale: "Fails to meet WP:NORG". Well, does it fail to meet WP:NORG? If so, then say nothing -- you'll be saving wasted effort and time. If it does meet WP:NORG, then in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavv.Music briefly and persuasively say how it meets WP:NORG. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply @Hoary. Can you tell me does it meet WP:NORG or not? And how to analyze it? RedOwl (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RedOwl, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the other comments at the deletion discussion that Hoary linked to above. They explain exactly how, in the commenters' opinion, Wavv.Music fails to satisfy NORG.

If you wish to challenge that, you need to refute their arguments: to find sources that are not all routine coverage, primary sources and press releases. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I was asleep, RedOwl, ColinFine adeptly answered your question. I have nothing to add. -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time @Hoary and @ColinFine. RedOwl (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to include Canon Cinema EOS cameras in Template:Canon EOS mirrorless cameras similar to how Sony cinema-line cameras are included in Template:Sony MILC cameras? Suro1234 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Cinema EOS Suro1234 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Suro1234, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Questions about what should go into a particular article (or template) rarely get useful answers at a general help page like the Teahouse. I see you have asked at Template talk:Canon EOS mirrorless cameras, which is a better place to ask.

If you think that not many people will see it there, then put a note at a relevant WikiProject (probably WT:WikiProject Photography) directing people to your question. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I have a draft pending at AfC (Draft:Island Styles) that I've been working on. I've disclosed my COI and I'm just waiting for review. However, I realized the target title "Island Styles" is currently a redirect to the band Candlebox (the redirect was created a few years ago by an editor who is now blocked: User:FMSky. Redirect link:Island Styles (musician)). I'm worried that when a reviewer finally reaches my draft, they won't be able to move it because of this redirect. Should I file a technical move request now, or should I just wait for the reviewer to handle it? I don't want to create extra work for the admins! Thanks in advance for the help! Islandguitar (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandguitar Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I don't think you should worry about this one too much, as Wikipedia does have policy resolving ambiguous titles like this, as outlined in WP:D. Should this be passed and moved to main space, I think the reviewer would move your article to something like Island Styles (musician) or Island Styles (composer).

Oh and by the way, writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged, so keep in mind that. Cheers! --- n✓h✓8 03:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Islandguitar (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me merge Q126524681 into Q21127844 Vitedg (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is the Wikipedia Teahouse. You probably should ask this question somewhere on Wikidata. The help page for merging pages on Wikidata is located at d:WD:M. dot.py 07:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For Sankar Basu, I see hidden categories for missing birth year and place, even though the page has them. Is this normal behavior? If so, what is missing? Thanks for clarifying this.

B030510 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC) B030510 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For that page, someone had manually added those two hidden categories. I have removed them.

P.S. You seem to have double-signed your message. This usually happens when you do ~~~~ at the end of your message when pressing "Add topic"; you do not need to do this, as the message is automatically signed after pressing that. dot.py 07:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to no more what it takes to have biography published and established on Wikipedia? Kindly assist in this.Sorry I am new here. Chizobe (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chizobe. Please read and study Your first article. If the person is alive, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. If the person is yourself, be aware that self-promotion is not permitted, and writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chizobe (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Thanks so much![reply]

@Chizobe Also see almighty 42 The answer to life, the universe, and everything. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is actually to become really really famous, then somebody will write a biography for you. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 10:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chizobe (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Humorous 🤣[reply]

they're not even really joking though. That is by a long shot the best way to get a Wikipedia page. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be so kind to read P. 183 of the linked article, and perhaps copy it out here or on my talk page, I’m researching the uniform of a regiment and I would do it myself (as I have a JSTOR account), but the device I am working on for some reason won’t open the JSTOR document properly. Here is the link and thanks in advance.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44225148

The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've downloaded the article and will email it to you in a moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks that helps too. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need us to access JSTOR. Since you are an extended confirmed editor, you may access JSTOR and other resources via the Wikipedia Library. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Mike has emailed me the section I want to read but next time I will use the WL The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need access to specific sources that you can't get through TWL, WP:RX exists for this exact purpose. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull thank you very much for the help, I was able to add a description of the uniforms to the articles I wrote and managed to change the images (which weren’t accurate) to the best of my ability, have a great day. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hope everyone doing great. I want to know is that possible to change the title of any page, if yes than How? RedOwl (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC) @RedOwl (talk)[reply]

You can take a look at WP: MOVE. Toarin (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "Move" tool located in the Tools sidebar TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, @RedOwl, your account won't be autoconfirmed for another 24 hours approximately, so you won't have that option available to you until then.

If you have a move that can't wait that long, you can ask at requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/RedOwl is an example of a page that you won't be able to rename. -- Hoary (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi everyone. I'm a contributor to the French Wikipedia and I just wanted to let you know that André Obami-Itou passed away a long time ago." TGD2000 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TGD2000 Could you please present a source proving his death so we can verify this? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's in French. I am the creator of the same article in the French language. You just need to read the French version with the sources." TGD2000 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, but you must wait for someone who knows French to come along. I cannot help you as I know not a word of French. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just use machine translation. They are quite reliable nowadays, especially for a quick check of information like this. TGD2000 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for his 2024 death date. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the death date, with the same source as in the French article. Deor (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! TGD2000 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I attempted to edit the No Doubt (band) page because of incomplete and inaccurate information. I was a member of the band for two years and just wanted to correct the timeline and other inaccuracies currently published on the page. Evidently, I made an error in the formatting and was admonished by a user threatening to remove me. I was wondering if somebody can please help me to make the corrections that need to be made properly. OldSchoolPlaya (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a member of the band, you have a Conflict of interest and should disclose that in your edit. Alternatively, you could submit an edit request, which is a better idea for articles with which you have a COI. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OldSchoolPlaya More fundamentally, the issue is that you're changing/adding information without citing that information to a reliable source. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and all factual information must be cited to a reliable source such that anyone on Wikipedia can verify the origin of that information. No doubt you have factual knowledge of the band due to your affiliation, but obviously none of us have any reason to simply take you at your word. Athanelar (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above answers, see WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get this done without messing up formatting. Could someone add the hockey player Sofie Lundin to the Olympians section of Ohio State Buckeyes women's ice hockey ? Kivi36 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivi36 I note that Sofie Lundin is Swedish. What source do you have for the suggestion she plays for Ohio State? You should add that first to her biography and then the addition can be made. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/womens-ice-hockey/roster/sofie-lundin/6522 --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing—lots of school pages go under vandalism.[Probably the students of the school editing without citations.]

So, I propose that we protect all school pages. [[User:SomnambulantFish|SomnambulantFish]}}] _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is not a page for making proposals, but for asking for help.

Try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but first read Wikipedia:Protection policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SomnambulantFish, we do not preemptively protect groups of articles based on the possibility of vandalism. We protect individual articles based on repeated and recent vandalism or other disruption of that specific article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly inquire about the status of my draft, which has been under review since 19 January. I would appreciate your guidance on whether the submission was completed correctly and if this review duration is within the normal timeframe. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Draft:Kevin Chesters; it has been submitted and is awating review. As noted, this could take "6 weeks or more", please be patient with this entirely volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am Paul Bate, Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency. I understand that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged and that this is a conflict of interest. I believe I may meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria (there is independent coverage of my work in strong independent sources, listed below not just gov.uk). Would any independent editors be willing to consider creating an article about me, or to advise whether this would be appropriate? Thank you.

Example sources: Pdbate (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Example sources"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren’t enough to use to make an article then you could probably add yourself to the UK space Agency article (if there is one, probably is) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is, and he is already mentioned and pictured there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok that makes sense. Well then @Pdbate if you can demonstrate your notability (through at least three in-depth and reliable sources), then go for it. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into and advising on this. Below are examples of publicly available sources (apologies, previous message was truncated) - does this help?

• BusinessCloud – article on move from Babylon Health to UK Space Agency CEO: https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/babylon-health-exec-given-job-in-a-million/
• Civil Service World – article on UK Space Agency chief’s departure and reorganisation: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/uk-space-agency-chief-to-depart
• Physics World – “Once a physicist: Paul Bate” profile: https://physicsworld.com/a/once-a-physicist-paul-bate/
• The Independent (or other national outlet) – coverage of new UK Space Agency headquarters and regional offices, quoting Paul Bate as chief executive: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/uk-space-agency-cardiff-andrew-griffith-wales-scotland-b2517933.html
• SatNews (sector outlet) – coverage of changes to UK Space Agency and government arrangements, mentioning Paul Bate as chief executive: https://news.satnews.com/2025/08/21/forresters-digest-uk-space-agency-absorbed-by-british-government/
• GOV.UK – official biography for Paul Bate as Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-bate
• GOV.UK – news release announcing appointment as UK Space Agency CEO: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paul-bate-appointed-as-uk-space-agency-ceo
• GOV.UK – news release announcing decision to step down as UK Space Agency CEO: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/paul-bate-to-step-down-as-uk-space-agency-ceo
• Space‑sector conference site – speaker biography for Paul Bate at UK/European space conference: https://www.spaceconference.co.uk/2025/speaker/1776968/paul-bate
• Space‑Comm or similar event – speaker biography for Paul Bate: https://space-comm-scotland.co.uk/speaker/dr-paul-bate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, I created a draft for you: Draft:Paul Bate

This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Could be sooner too. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thank you for taking the time to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pal.. Draft was not approved. Inadequate sources LionmerterTHE (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We need a minimum of three sources that meet the requirements at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and for the guidance on sourcing and WP:42. I've had a look at what would meet the requirements. Do you think the following do the trick?

1. Physics World – “Once a physicist: Paul Bate” (2024) A profile and interview that traces my career from the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit, through my role as senior health adviser in No 10 working for David Cameron and Nick Clegg, then on to my appointment at the Care Quality Commission and later Babylon Health. It provides narrative detail, quotations and context on why I moved between these roles and what I was responsible for. Link: https://physicsworld.com/a/once-a-physicist-paul-bate/

2. HealthInvestor – “babylon: Paul Bate” (2016) An independent health‑business article covering my move from the Care Quality Commission to Babylon Health. It confirms my title as Director of Strategy and Intelligence at CQC, describes my role in implementing post‑Francis reforms and leading CQC’s five‑year strategy, and explains that at Babylon I would lead NHS work and expansion. It offers secondary commentary on my impact at CQC and the significance of the move to Babylon. Link: https://healthinvestor.co.uk/executive_moves/babylon-paul-bate/

3. City A.M. – “UK Space Agency taps Babylon Health executive as new boss” (2021) A business‑press piece reporting on my appointment as chief executive of the UK Space Agency and summarising my earlier career. It identifies me as a senior executive at Babylon Health, notes my previous position as Executive Director of Strategy and Intelligence at CQC, and states that I served as senior health and care adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron in Downing Street. This helps to corroborate the No 10, CQC and Babylon roles from an independent outlet. Link: https://www.cityam.com/uk-space-agency-taps-babylon-health-executive-as-new-boss/

4. BusinessCloud – “Babylon Health exec given job in a million” A technology‑business article focusing on my move from Babylon Health to the UK Space Agency CEO role. It covers my position as a Babylon exec and places the appointment in the wider context of UK space and tech policy, adding independent coverage of the transition from digital health into space leadership.

Link: https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/babylon-health-exec-given-job-in-a-million/

5. The Independent on the new UK Space Agency headquarters and regional offices: Link: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/uk-space-agency-cardiff-andrew-griffith-wales-scotland-b2517933.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbate (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In short: no.

1. an interview, so not independent
2. routine announcement
3. ditto
4. ditto
5. not about you, so not significant coverage; routine announcement and a quote, so not independent.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing

Thanks for the clear feedback, Andy. I've had a look for stronger candidates with analytical coverage. Do these add enough to the ones before?

A. Dods Westminster Guide (2012) profiling me as No 10 Health Adviser: "The man who took the health bill by the scruff of its neck and gutted it after the 'pause'": https://downloads2.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/2012/House_Issue_Supplement_10_Guide.pdf Political monitoring service with attributed policy impact.

B. BMJ (2020) on my leading Babylon's major Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust partnership:

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m266 �

Independent medical journal

C. The Health Foundation – "From rocket science to babylon: my career in quality improvement"

https://www.health.org.uk/newsletter-feature/rocket-science-babylon-my-career-quality-improvement

The Health Foundation is an independent UK health charity and think tank and the profile covers gives independent editorial context to pre-space career.

Pdbate (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just 72 words, so not significant coverage. I can't access the second, but it seems to be another routine announcement. The third is another interview.

I think it's time to draw a line under this; you might find WP:TOOSOON helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy - very clear and I appreciate you letting me know the score.

Dear concerns,

Regarding the Draft:Scott Woodward (marketer), Mr. Scott has contacted me requesting that this draft be deleted. Kindly let me know if it is possible to have this page taken down. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted in six months if no-one improves it; or you could try nominating it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are also noindexed, so every reputable search engine that honours robots.txt shouldn't be showing it in search results anyhow. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Melon the dominator

It’s not notable.. Melonman221 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't. It has been rejected as utterly unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As like A thing that was on the News of that was mentioned on the News Website without having any issues? WhatABanger (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks you WhatABanger (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to 'adopt' inactive drafts that other people have created? (Plus a question around what qualifies as COI when it comes to hobbies and the like.)

There's a draft that hasn't been edited in five months and is nearing its deletion period that I'm interested in 'adopting' and working on myself. I have checked news searches and believe there may be enough reliable sources for a page based on this topic to be theoretically accepted if it was to cite them, but the page does not cite most of these sources and is generally quite barebones in what text it does take from the few places it does cite.

I understand that smaller edits to other drafts are allowed but are you allowed to completely rework drafts that are not yours, or would it be best if I wait for the existing draft to reach its deletion time and then create my own?

BTW: Could someone here please clarify what specific scenarios COI applies for users who are members of creative websites? I'm a user on the SCP Wikidot but only have a single fairly small tale on the site that is entirely unrelated to any topic present on Wikipedia. As far as I understand COI mostly applies to monetary/familial connections, which wouldn't apply here; but I'd still like it clarified, just in case there are any other cases that I'm missing that might apply. Not only to check if it already applies for me, but also where it might in the future if it doesn't already. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ThyCheshireCat, you're welcome to improve abandoned (or other drafts). ¶ I'd never heard of "the SCP Wikidot". I started reading the article SCP Wiki but soon dozed off; somebody else will have to comment on this and your "tale", I cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI means what it says on the tin; if your interests conflict with those of Wikipedia. This normally comes in the form of personal or financial connections, but it doesn't necessarily need to. If you're a diehard fan of a particular property you might also have a conflict of interest. In this case I don't think that applies, though. Athanelar (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make a redirect from The Noble Experiment to Prohibition in the United States as it had been called by such as people including Herbert Hoover^[1], but a redirect already exists to The Noble Experiment (distillery) and I do not believe that that is the most common use of the term, so should I try to create a disambiguation page for The Noble Experiment linking to both, or should I just edit the redirect or what? If I edited the redirect how would I add the thing at the top of Prohibition in the United States saying that ""The Noble Experiment" redirects here, for the distillery see The Noble Experiment (distillery)"? If I should make a disambiguation page what process should I go through? Fun Chaos (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start a brief discussion on the talk page first to see if others agree before making any changes. LionmerterTHE (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the redirect is sensible, no need for a disambig page for just 2 options. The template you're after is probably {{redirect}}

Namely, {{redirect|The Noble Experiment|the distillery|The Noble Experiment (distillery)}} will produce "The Noble Experiment" redirects here. For the distillery, see The Noble Experiment (distillery). Athanelar (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new editor and I am looking for advice before making changes.

I proposed a rewrite of the Capers Williamson article to condense the wording and make it more encyclopedic while keeping the same sourced facts. The original version relies heavily on a feature-style interview with detailed narrative quotations. My goal was to keep the verifiable information but summarize it more concisely so the article better reflects the subject’s athletic career.

Another editor suggested I ask here before re-implementing. I am not trying to remove sourced material, only to improve neutrality and proportionality in a biography of a living person.

Could someone advise whether this kind of rewrite is appropriate and how best to proceed while staying within WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Uscathy (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First: you appear to have written this comment with AI. Please don't do that. We're all volunteers dedicating our human time and effort to help you. Please return some of the favour by discussing things with us in your own words. You seemingly also used AI to rewrite the article, which is what led to the trouble here. Using AI to add large amounts of content without proper human review is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am curious about these temp accounts. I just wanted to see what it's like and what number I would get. So I logged out and then edited an article that I have never edited before here [1] (just to test). My first edit gave me a unique temp account detail. That's cool. But I logged back in and then eventually logged out. And then edited that same article a second time [2] but I realised I now have lost my temp account in just 2 hours. What gives? Must I stay logged out just to keep my temp account number? Or does it expire in a few hours or randomly? ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personal feedback - I honestly don't like it and probably won't be using it further for other articles. With mobile browser, the floating notice at top is distracting. The navigation bar also won't let you access your edit contributions history. And I have mixed feelings about hiding IP addresses. I think it creates more problems than it solves. After this experience, I think I'll stick to my own logged account from now on. ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You tried a temporary account; you didn't enjoy the experience; you don't think you'll try it again. That closes the matter, no? But if you do still have questions, try reading Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my expectations. I did read it. It says "As long as the cookie exists, you will be automatically logged into this temporary account, meaning all edits made from this device and browser will be attributed to this temporary account, even if the IP address changes." I assumed that as long as I don't clear my cookies and use the same browser and same device and also I am pretty sure my IP address didn't even change. Then my temporary account should have the same number name. I am just shocked that it is not this case at all. The instruction page should maybe explain why but can't find it so why I asked here. But yeah, if you're not interested in answering this question that is just out of curiosity then I suppose matter is closed. Thanks I guess ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is your browser set to delete cookies on exit, or are you otherwise using incognito/privacy mode? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano I am using Chrome. (The normal non-beta version). It doesn't delete cookies. I am definitely not using privacy/incognito mode. The only thing I did was log out then edit with temp account. Then log in and cycle my bike a fair distance. Then 2 hours later - log out and edit. And that's it. Afterwards - I haven't yet logged back into my account as I prefer not to lose my temp account quickly again. ~2026-11516-52 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that the act of logging in resets that cookie. Ideally it shouldn't work like that; the login cookie should be independent of the temp account cookie.

I recall on another wiki (https://minecraft.wiki I think) temporary accounts appear to preserve a username embedded in the coded numbers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another test would be to see if you get the same temporary account on different browsers running on the same computer; the IP address is the same in both cases, but different browsers would require separate cookies to be set. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was ~2026-11516-52 only a few minutes ago. I then logged in to account then logged out. I cannot actually see my temp account number until I edit. I can't even see my "preview" comment on talk when writing this message. Not sure if that's ideal. I wonder if my temp account number is the same or changed again. ~2026-11572-17 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Nope, it did it again. Two out of two tries have consistently got same results. I used the same browser tho (Chrome) and didn't use a different one. It appears the mere act of logging in and logging out - indeed resets the cookies and I got a new temp account again. If this isn't intended, you probably should ideally get it fixed. Or give a notice on the Wikipedia temp account page to give people a heads up on this bug. Anyways I replied to test it out. And thanks for answering as I think I understand it now. ~2026-11572-17 (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Wikipedia talk:Temporary accounts, with a permalink to this discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks. I am now confident it's a bug. Btw besides the Teahouse and the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Temporary accounts, the ONLY other page I have edited with a temp account is; Snowboarding at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Men's slopestyle. I believe I have acted in good faith and provided sufficient transparency. Given that, I'm somewhat surprised this issue hasn't been raised before, but I hope the focus can now remain on identifying and addressing the underlying bug.~2026-11680-32 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys do little domestic businesses qualify as notable enough? My nation is littered with huge online dress businesses which are undocumented here. I would love to write about them. ~2026-11506-23 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and digest WP:NORG. Whether your question is about "little" businesses or "huge" ones, does WP:NORG answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Tsunami for Brainrots, look it up, it's yet another brainrot game that averages around around 500k players Anotbe (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it may not have enough reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. If you can find enough reliable sources to prove its notability, then you may create a draft at Draft:Escape Tsunami for Brainrots or your sandbox. dot.py 21:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are using sockpuppets, or even if you are coordinated, but stop your spam campaign. Your game isn't notable enough to be added to List of Roblox games or have an article. Stop spamming the talk pages of the list or random articles. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm a new user and just wants to ask this, i am not associated with anyone Anotbe (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. There has been a few people spamming talk pages about this game. To answer you question, no, the game doesn't meet our notability criteria. Only 5 games on Roblox have been shown to meet our notability criteria because news and gaming outlets are unwilling to cover games that nearly no impact on the industry. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , hope u are well, Please I need to publish the Event Miss Europe who i am organising from 2015 till this year 2026. Pls what exactly you need as news or update about these competitions of Miss Europe during these 12 years. I am ready to provide any details you need to show that I am only one as organization who did these events from 2015. Thanks in advance. Elie Style Europe (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing the attention of people here to the article Miss Europe. In some places at least, it's quite stunningly bad. Sample:

Delegates from all over Europe gather to compete for the prestigious title of Mrs. Europe in the largest beauty competition on the old continent! In modern times women are philanthropists, entrepreneurs and social activists, mothers, sisters and daughters which every day must deal with the responsibilities of being the Mrs. Europe we are looking for. Europe is the continent from which art, culture and democracy began and it deserves a worthy ambassador, to serve as an example for all citizens, and empower women. Delegates will have to prepare a report, compete in different categories every day and work together to overcome the challenges they will face during this glamorous international competition

I hope that somebody with no conflict of interest may be tempted to transform this into reliably sourced, encyclopedic material. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went partway by removing all the promotional text I could find in the article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what exactly [we] need as news or update about these competitions of Miss Europe during these 12 years, Elie Style Europe. Material that (i) is published by reliable sources and (ii) is independent of "Miss Europe" or anyone running it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's Zinedine and I need a bit of a favor. I just created a article about the Dutch Reformed Church in Middelburg, Eastern Cape and I've been trying to link it to its Wikidata page, but I can't because I'm blocked on there. And even when I try to add the link when I'm logged off, it didn't let me because it said temporarily unable allow logged out editing. So please, can someone please link the article to its Wikidata page? Here's the link for anyone that's looking for it. d:Q13035573 ☀ Dutch Reformed Church, Middelburg, Eastern Cape☂ Thank you and goodbye and goodnight to you all. 505noscope (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not just blocked, 505noscope: d:Special:Contributions/505noscope talks of "an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Long-term abuse)". So "a bit of a favor" means assistance in evading this block? -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, every Wikipedia article is required to be linked to the corresponding Wikidata item.

I have now done this. WP:IAR applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Pigsonthewing for adding the link. Really appreciate it. 505noscope (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I approach Wikipedia as a newcomer writing an article and find many parts of the process very confusing in the extreme! I am having problems with uploading images to an article I am writing. The images are book covers to illustrate an article on the author of those books.The owner/publisher had already given me written permission to use an image in wikipedia. But Wiki refused my first attempts to do this. Further research seemed to direct that the images needed to be part of Wiki Commons. I then went through this whole process including use of the Wiki formatted email to enable photo owner/publisher of images to allow permission. The owner then refused saying 'If it was just going on a site we could sign it, but this would give grant anyone the right to use the cover for whatever they want - it puts it in the public domain.' Totally understandable on their part. Could you direct me if and how I could still be able to use the book cover images to illustrate my article without putting them out for use in Wiki Commons and therefore for use in the public domain. Thank you, Anne Disdoris (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Disdoris, firstly, don't worry about images until your article is accepted. The lack of images will not prejudice the acceptance and the presence of images will not increase the chances of it being accepted. If/when your article is accepted you might be able to add images at en.wikipedia (not Commons) under a claim of fair use, but these images are not allowed to be used in drafts. However, we do not allow a gallery of book covers, as each claim of fair use is only for an article on that specific subject, not a general article on the author. - Arjayay (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is all very helpful to know and has clarified things on several points. Wish I had understood earlier that images (not Commons images) are not allowed in drafts - that certainly was not made clear in all the available instructions I could find when approaching this. Disdoris (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disdoris, the publisher seems to be using "(in) the public domain" in a way that's likely to confuse. This image of a book cover has been "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license", whereby "You are free: to share [...], to remix [...]". But the copyright holder has not released the file to the "public domain" as the term is understood here. By contrast, this image of a book cover has been released by its copyright holders into the public domain. For an introduction to the public domain (as we understand it here), please see Wikipedia:Public domain. (If this seems forbiddingly long, note that much of it -- e.g. the discussion of sound recordings -- is of no concern to provision of book covers.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Disdoris. I just wanted to add that using images of book covers (and of many other things) runs into copyright laws, which are very complicated and which Wikipedia is very careful to avoid breaking. It's not that we're trying to make things difficult – these things are already difficult. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creating a new article is indeed a very complicated thing for new editors.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a new wiki user and I was hoping to gain some insight into establishing my own page. I am an honorably retired, disabled veteran who is running for political office and I would like for my potential voters to be able to learn about me. Thanks so very much! ErnieBrummitt (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service, and please don't try to create an article for yourself. Please refer to WP:BIO. Simply running for office doesn't make you "notable" by Wikipedia standards. --Onorem (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have a wonderful day. ErnieBrummitt (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, politicians must hold public office, or have won election to public office, to merit an article, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Merely being a candidate is insufficient, unless the candidate is known for something other than seeking public office. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie, the best way to allow your voters to learn about you would be to set up your own campaign website. Self-promotion isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you know those grey boxes at the top of most Wiki articles with information and an image - what are they called?

Also, is it possible for me to add one to my User Page? (when I make it)

Thanks,

-Walnut WalnutBloom (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

are you referring to an Infobox? if so yes you and them to your user page, in fact there actually a version specifically made to be added to user pages PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 00:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was referring to, and thanks for linking the user page version! WalnutBloom (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Icon (computing) should be promoted to C class.

Am i allowed to? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 05:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For any article assessed as "Start", SomnambulantFish, if you believe that it meets the standard for "C", you are allowed to promote it to "C". (Or so I believe. There may be exceptions for protected articles and articles on contentious topics. Offhand I don't know. But even if there aren't, you'd be wise first to suggest promoting such an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomnambulantFish It is much more important to work on the article itself, as you have been doing, than to worry about its rating, as few readers will notice or care below WP:GA and WP:FA. That said, this article is well beyond "start" IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the tool WP:Rater useful for suggesting the correct grade and/ or applying it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not fish to assess the page yourself, there is this page as well: Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests for sub-GA assessment. It will be assessed in a few days to few weeks. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering if there's a guideline regarding location such as province, mountain, village, peak, etc., when their page name doesn't include this title (such as Hallasan), and when the original name is in a foreign language, which often means that the English translation may or may not be standardized. Hallasan is a good example of this, because in Korean, Halla is the name, and san simply means "mountain", so Hallasan=Halla Mountain. This query also covers names of provinces, for example, where WP doesn't seem consistent when it comes to capitalization. Examples include Amnat Charoen province and Kars Province. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I’ve learnt, the most common names are the ones which are used, although redirects can be set up for the alternative names. So if a majority of scholars/sources use “Hallasan” then the name of the article should be the most commonly used name, however for Paektusan the article is called “Paektu Mountain” as the latter name is the most common (in English-speaking circles).

For the province query I’m not so sure, although usually most things aren’t capitalised unless a proper noun (so if the name is actually XYZ Province, then I suppose it should be capitalised), I believe it depends on context. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku See WP:PLACENAME and WP:GEOCAPS for some guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeyolTranslater and Michael D. Turnbull, thank you both for your input. I'm afraid I didn't express my query clearly enough: my concern isn't so much about naming an article but referring to geographic place names within a page, such as Hallasan mountain versus Hallasan Mountain, Seongsan Ilchulbong Peak versus Seongsan Ilchulbong's peak, Udo Island versus Udo island, etc. Please advise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to create some articles and I found that every generation before the Lost Generation does not have an article and is in Strauss–Howe generational theory, and I want to create an article for all of them. ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 10:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find multiple sources, as described at WP:42, for each of them.

Other than that, what is your question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I can create an article for all of them ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 13:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may, if they meet the criteria described above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone :) Im working on the suggestion random edits, and came a cross an article that needed sources, to prove the different medals someone received. I found one source that talks about all the medals he received, and that section in the Wikipedia article is in a form of a bullet list rather than a prose, how many times should i place in the citation and where? Can I place it just once in the title of the paragraph? Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe won these medals:[1]

• Foo
• Bar
• Bas

works in most cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

perfect thank you :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you suggested, thank you. And If the section in the article had a specific template that said ‘section doesn't show any sources’, if I just added one good secondary source, can I remove the template? or should i change it to a different template asking for sources in general? Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; one source should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, i'll remove the template. Happypenguins82 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across an editor who has made just 53 edits over nine years (WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA), the majority of which occurred before they were advised that their edits looked suspiciously like WP:PAID. In January 2020 they were challenged, and subsequently happily confirmed they were an employee for a particular company. Since that date their contributions have been minimal; in fact they only edited two articles, one in 2021, the other in 2024, both routine non-controversial updates (AFAIK). However, I am a little concerned that their 'back-catalogue' of edits has not been examined in the light of their admission. Indeed this whole matter came to light because I was unhappy with an article containing input from them dating back to 2017, and I now suspect there are more examples. I should add that their advocacy is quite mild, and clearly WP:GOODFAITH.

Having made over 3000 edits myself, I should be WP:BOLD and get stuck in, but I am one who typically avoids conflict, and I am not feeling entirely comfortable with this task. It's just not in my nature.

Is there a task force here at Wikipedia that would take this on, or maybe just a friendly editor (with a slightly thicker skin) who could back me up with a second-opinion on specific edits? For now I have avoided identifying the editor in question, although as we have all signed up to Wikipedia knowing that our every move is in the public domain, any desire to spare possible embarrassment is almost certainly misplaced; another failing on my part no doubt. Lol! (Plus those who know Wikipedia well enough can follow my footprints anyway)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN is a noticeboard for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. If you're looking to get COI edits scrutinised for policy compliance they could probably help. Athanelar (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COIN is for ongoing editor-behavioural issues; for historic matters it would be better to raise concerns on the talk page of the article(s) concerned; these now being matters of content quality not editor behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I opened a marge discussion two weeks ago here, but I a not sure how to actually perform the merge. There has only been one response, and it has been in support during that time. Where can I request merges be performed once there has been discussion? Pietrus1 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:ArtisticIn/sandbox

my new project Patricia Elisabete Cernikova - European and World Champion 2024 in artistic inline skating is a big achievement. She still is the holder of record score points. It was blocked for an information about becoming 4th runner up at Miss Europe. This was only an additional information to her big achievements in artistic inline skating. Not reason to be in wikipedia - just a part of her life. As she is listed at the Wiki page of Miss Europe as well ArtisticIn (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article was not "blocked for an information about becoming 4th runner up at Miss Europe"; it was declined (most recently, and for the third time in one day) because its "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", and subsequently rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and why wouldnt it be? How can person get any better in something then an European and World Champion? It was a big thing for the Czech artistic skating community- ArtisticIn (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I agreed with the rejection; I was pointing out the facts of the matter.

Perhaps User:DoubleGrazing, who rejected it, would like to comment, or even reconsider? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that she hasn't done enough, but it is that she hasn't received enough coverage from reputable outlets. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, @Pigsonthewing.

@ArtisticIn: I'm happy to undo my rejection and replace it with a decline, if you can show any evidence (meaning, cite appropriate sources) that this person is in any way notable. You also need to reference the draft properly, as required by our policy on articles on living people (WP:BLP). Your citations at the time of rejection were largely useless, I'm sorry to say, and four submissions in a space of a few hours without addressing the fundamental issues was, in my opinion, a bit excessive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of need everything for my theory of everything, could you help xdd Camilobillo666 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camilobillo666. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? It's not clear from this post that you do? qcne (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilobillo666 Yes. Have you read theory of everything? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much! Camilobillo666 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, simple question, if a city has been renamed subsequently (under the same people/civilization, often this is the result of a dictator naming something after himself) should the name of the city at the time of the publication be used or should the modern name for the city be used? Pietrus1 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the location of publication of a source you're citing, use the name as given in the source.

Otherwise, please clarify your question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question :). Pietrus1 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg is a good example to look at as it has had 3 names at different times. ~2026-84942-3 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again :) Are there special guidelines for how to write prose and describe sports or soccer matches for example? Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WikiProject Football. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a milion, will do. Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editor community, appreciate the wisdom on the following: if I have a question about a change to a BLP, am I better off asking it here, or posting it to the page's Talk Page? I was advised by another editor that if the person's Talk Page is not very active you run the risk of then having to wait an undetermined amount of time for a response... Appreciate the feedback on this. With thanks- Cloudchaser92 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cloudchaser92, and welcome to the Teahouse. Good question.

It depends what specifically your question is about, and so which audience is appropriate. If it is a general question about how to do something, it's good here (though please still be specific about which article and what change you want to make).

But if it is about the content of the article, or content that you want to add, it's likely that most of the people who read this page will not have any useful response; so in that case, the article's Talk page is a much better place.

If you think that few people look at that Talk page, then one thing you can do is to post on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, saying that you have opened a discussion and linking to the discussion. (Most article Talk pages list one or more relevant WikiProjects at the top). ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I eliminate erroneous material in endnotes? Roger Pilon (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You meant the notes section commonly found at the end of articles? Toarin (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an example, with a link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best way (or, in other words, the least problematic way) to reopen an AfD that was once closed as delete? In the particular AfD I was talking about, I found new sources that might be able to overturn the AfD after it was closed. As the closure itself was not problematic I think that WP:Deletion review might be too strong. Toarin (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One option is WP:REFUND, asking for the article to be recreated as a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could could also rewrite the article as a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. When you submit the draft, the reviewer will check if it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no way to "reopen" an AFD; the decision the people make is final. You can get the article refunded as a draft or start from scratch, but you can't "overturn" an AFD. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I give my user page a subtitle, like how the luna moth has "Species of insect" when you search it? I saw a user with one, and would like to know how it's added. ArthropodEnjoyer2202 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ArthropodEnjoyer2202, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of places where it can get set. See WP:Short description#How to edit. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Visual editor, I can just click on a ref to open a menu where I'll be able to edit all of the fields of the citation template. The wikitext editor (with the 2017 mode) has the same menu as VisualEditor for creating citations, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way of editing existing ones aside from manually editing the template wikitext. Is there some toggle/gadget/userscript which allows to edit citation templates (or any other templates, for that matter) using the same menu as VisualEditor has without having to switch between wikitext and visual modes? 🍅 fx (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]