I read a lot of articles on swimming races on Wikipedia. When it comes to an Summer Olympic event, none of them in the past will start the lead by telling you how many laps of a 50m pool that the race will take. Maybe because it is not necessary and is just filler info. Most people know basic math that a 200m freestyle race will mean 4 laps of a 50m Olympic pool. Yet recently an editor added into articles - Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metre freestyle and also, Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle that those races requires 2 laps in a 50m Olympic pool in the lede. I just think this is unnecessary filler info that isn't suited for a lede that's meant to summarize only the most notable facts. Also it dumbs the article down as if it's accommodated for kindergartners. I made a talk thread - [1] However I have to admit that despite I think it's filler info, I am not 100 percent sure what policy it violates. I do think it goes against Wp:Mos specifically - [2] and that we don't do this for any other Olympic swimming race articles ever but unsure of what policy exists to not allow unnecessary details that most sports readers of these articles don't need to be told about in lede. I already removed them by calling it as filler or unnecessary info. IP49XX (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text doesn't necessarily have to be an explicit violation of policy to be removed. That it's not really helpful to an encyclopedic article about the event would be enough to argue for its removal. You went ahead and boldly removed the text (and I agree with you that it's kinda silly since we don't do that kind of basic aside in the lede for any other sporting event) and included your explanation why. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am a moderately experienced editor but I struggled to define the exact policy. I suppose I feel like a stingy landlord where the lede should be regarded as a prime real estate and should be concise and focused on key outcomes, and deliver the most newsworthy facts first; who won and why it mattered like records. Merely adding that the pool length is 50m and 2 laps must be done, is like explaining a soccer game was played on grass- technically that's true, but obvious, expected and distracting. It feels obvious yet I can't define that policy clearly.IP49XX (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are 200m freestyle races always 4 laps of a 50m pool, or are they sometimes 2×100m, or 8×25m? I don't know, and I doubt "most people" do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think even if some readers still don't know the Olympic pool is 50m, the lede isn't the place to teach that. The lede is for the result - who won and records broken. Technical details like an Olympic pool length or lap count are better explained in the body or in a footnote. Tho they are better in a more general article like Olympic swimming unless there's some extraordinary reason like this particular race for the first time was done in a non standard pool or there was confusion. regardless the addition of the pool length and lap count is better to be mentioned further down the article and not in the lede where readers want to know what the race is and who won, and not the pool length or lap count. - It's basically like saying 100m sprint run was run on a track so runners needed to stay in their lanes - that may be informative to some, but it's not lead worthy unless something unusual happened. IP49XX (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's not common enough knowledge that an Olympic pool is 50 metres long. Yes, 200m races are often 8 × 25m, just not in Olympics. To make technical articles understandable, I think this information should be included. It was already useful to the GA reviewer for this article, who didn't already know this. IAWW (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree clarity is important but we should consider placement. Lede is meant to summarize the most important aspects of the event like who won and any records broken. It is not ideal for basic background details unless they're central to the race outcome. I want to keep the article professional and in line with Manual of style. We don't go adding to every single swimming race the first senntences telling people the pool length and laps count. Why start now just because you or Ga reviewer think it's central to the event. I don't think that it means it belongs to the lede, IP49XX (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems likes one best held on the article's Talk page -- or if it affects a lot of articles, maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming where options like putting that sort of detail into infoboxes could be considered. -- Avocado (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, I added several external links and references to this international artists but the items were removed by someone by the name of Tracy. All the information included additional citations for verification, reviews, interviews and links to Opera companies and concerts halls as sources for Gaston Rivero backing up his Wikipedia page. CraigAmstrong (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Gaston Rivero

@CraigArmstrong: Why are you blindly slapping random references at the end of the article? That doesn't fly for articles on living people. We also don't cite interviews with him or any organisation he's worked for or with (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CraigAmstrong. Please read WP:EXTERNALLINKS. An excessive amount of external links are not helpful. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in order to add sources backing up the life of this artist. He is a renowned Opera Singer and this continues showing up in his page: This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous.

Find sources: "Gaston Rivero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) CraigAmstrong (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:REFB, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP then. You're not using the links are sources, you're just plastering them at the end of the article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on User:Tarlby's answer, you need to use the sources in the text, so that we can see which specific statements each source is supporting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an occasional Wikipedia editor. I know what I should do but I don't know well the guidelines to point others towards. I recently noticed a relatively new Wikipedia editor added a level of detail that is probably too much to the Clearwater Ferry section. It also seems somewhat bias in favor of the rich man who has been in the spotlight for crashing into the ferry.

Anyway, the information seems factually correct but somehow not exactly needed for the article. I'm not how to approach the situation or which guidelines should be referred to about this.

I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia these days and dealing with a conflict like this isn't something I'm up for.

It would be much appreciated if someone with more experience could help with this situation by either showing what should be done or letting me know it's a non-issue. Thanks!

RayScript (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends,

User id is Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas , We need to know that our submission for Review is approved or something is pending for clarification from our end , please share / regards Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear on your query and which submission are you talking for review? Fade258 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fade258,

Please open below link , we are query for the submission of below link;

User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox. Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas. You have not submitted your draft for review. If you did, it would be declined as unreferenced. Please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. Please read Your first article carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas, I am just seeing your draft and found that, that was in userspace. If you want to publish this page as a Wikipedia article, you need to move it to the correct title and submit it for review through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. You can also follow the instruction given by Cullen. Note: IMO, It looks like an autobiography. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas/sandbox has been declined. Do not resubmit until all content it referenced by quality references. See WP:42 for what that means. If this person (you?) has not been written about by other people, there is no potential for it to become an article. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who 'we' refers to. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Akhtar Abbas If you submit it again without any attempt to provide references it will be Rejected and your account likely indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope you're well. I am trying to create a page for ​Roger Chennells in drafts and a "this title is blacklisted" message popped up. How do I get around this to be able create and edit this page? Thanks! FazielahWonderCommsSA (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a link for that? I see nothing message like that, as you said above. Fade258 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258 Clicking on ​Roger Chennells or Draft:​Roger Chennells gives a blacklist notification. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FazielahWonderCommsSA, Yes. I can see the title is blacklisted. You can request for title delisting or contact administrator for this. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FazielahWonderCommsSA Please ignore the above. Your post has a zero-width space right before Roger. Your browser may reveal there is a non-displayed character when you try to pass it with arrow keys in the edit window. It depends on the copy method whether it's included when you try to make a link. I omitted it here in a working link: Draft:Roger Chennells. https://r12a.github.io/uniview (not affiliated with Wikipedia) can show non-displayed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, Thank You. It works now. Fade258 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I have successfully managed to start a new draft FazielahWonderCommsSA (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FazielahWonderCommsSA the draft Draft:Roger Chennells has been Speedy deleted. The content about him was not referenced. Referencing his publications does not contribute to establishing notability. See WP:42 for what is needed. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Need your help, please: if someone wants to add a company on Wikipedia with the basic facts about it, is that possible (allowed) to do and how to do it (the procedure itself)? Thank you very much in advance! Dape13 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dape13, Yes, You can create a article of a company that you want. If the company is notable enough. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dape13 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and tell of its offerings, nor is it a place for companies to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please also see conflict of interest and paid editing if it is your company that you want to write about. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article you write is notable and short, it would be a stub. But as long it is notable [and does not have other problems] it will not be deleted. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the case if the article is created directly in article space- stubs will not pass the WP:AFC process. Drafts don't need to be complete, but they need to be more than a stub. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per 3312dot, if you have any connection, declare that on your User page and use AfC to submit a draft for review, per WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tsitsi Masiyiwa

Hi Guys, hoping someone is able to please point me in the right direction. I submitted a draft for BOLP, this was the 3rd submission and has been declined again on the basis that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I thought I had applied due diligence in researching all available references on the subject available to the general public and even included references from sources that are credible and impartial (ie: Vanity Fair & Forbes). I would appreciate any guidance. Thank you. Substantiator (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sustantiator Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you.

If you have a connection to this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You have basically posted her resume; not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her important/significant/influential as a person- what we call a notable person. Awards only contribute to notability if the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons stated The list of honors and awards does not contribute to her notability, but in my opinion that information can remain as it is informative. However, that is half the references. Of the other references, which in your thoughts meet the standards stated at WP:42? David notMD (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some editor saying that I can't write "He Has been serving as mayor since 2024" on politician page because its a Biography. I have to write "He serves as mayor since 2024" M1rrorCr0ss 10:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why other editors are saying that: have you asked them? I would say "He has served as" rather than either of those. ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a hoax, the editor has posted that someone has been mayor since 1000 BC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M1rrorCr0ss, the verb "serve" is unnecessary there. I suggest: "He has been mayor since 2024." -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M1rrorCr0ss, I would avoid use of the present perfect tense ("has been [mayor]") due to possible WP:RELTIME issues which could make the statement false in the future. If this is a dusty little town that attracts few editors to the article, a reader reading the article in 2026 may be reading a false statement if no one bothers to update the article after the next mayoralty election. It's better to just use wording that is WP:Verifiable regardless when a reader reads it. So I would suggest: "He was elected mayor in 2024" (or, or was appointed, or became, or whatever the case may be). That remains true, regardless who the current mayor is. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through Special:Random to try finding articles to add links to when I noticed a particular section of an article (Tutankhamun and the Daughter of Ra) that seemed suspicious and might have been plagiarized from elsewhere (Plot summary), so I searched it up, and found it on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and various other sites. I understand that users should be bold, but placing a template or notice or something of that sort claiming copyright infringement is a bit too extreme, along with my lack of knowledge about copyright, especially with book summaries. Would this require an edit or any sort of action? hi (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the advice here Synonimany (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not too extreme. What is extreme is the copyright infringement, which Wikipedia takes pretty seriously and should be removed and revision deleted ASAP. And WP:BEBOLD does apply here: the harm done by an accidental copyright template is much less than that of an unnoticed copyvio. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for other hosts: I've gone ahead and removed the copyrighted content (assuming I'm correct in that it is a copyvio), and now I should probably request revdel. Honestly this article might even ought to be sent to AfD, but do I request revdel of the entire article? Since the copied stuff has been there since the original creation in 2005... Best, GoldRomean (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that sites looking for random blurb often cut-and-paste from Wikipedia without attribution, so you have to work out which way it was plagiarized: did we copy them, or did they copy us? To be honest, I'd be more worried about the notability and sourcing issues. This particular article has no sourcing whatsoever, and if the only sourcing available is a couple of reviews at the time of publication, is it sensible to have an article on the book at all? Elemimele (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the removed content should probably stay like that until we know for certain if it was stolen or not. hi (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sensible Elemimele (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your help. I often see on some pages such as the politics of Yemen a request for citations. However when I tried to add a true fact to the page on the text "lord and father of mankind", it was deleted because the editor didn't like my citation. Why didn't they just post the notice that is was insufficient?

Thanks Debra Watkins Newbycpa (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia has no central editorial board enforcing policies.It's all done by volunteers, and nobody is 100% up to date on everything. DS (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that there's a difference between "this statement needs a citation" and "this citation doesn't say what you claim it does" (and also "this statement is unnecessary and promotional"). DS (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Newbycpa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't use those tags, because all claims in every article would be cited to a reliable source. But particularly in the early days of Wikipedia, many editors didn't do that, so we have thousands and thousands of inadequately cited articles.

In a slightly less ideal world, when an editor finds an uncited piece of information, they would look for a source and add it (or remove the information if they can't find one); sometimes people do that, but often they lack the knowledge, or the time, or the interest to do so, and so sometimes they add one of those tags - this is sometimes referred to as drive-by tagging.

But when you are adding information now, it is seen as your responsibility to cite a suitable source, since you are the one adding the information.

If you think that your source is adequate, open a discussion with the editor who reverted: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think my frustration is that the choral anthem that I was trying record as an alternative setting of the hymn text exists, I have sung it, I have no rights to it. Not sure how you can cite a choral piece without it looking like a promotion. The article references other hymn tunes but doesn't provided any citations for those. It all feels arbitrary But thanks. Newbycpa (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to remove those other entries unless sources supporting them can be found, Newbycpa, rather than using them as a reason to add more uncited material. The standard for inclusion here is that something is verifiable, not simply that it's true. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused about what citations are. Politics of Yemen has a "citations needed" tag. That means that the article needs sources. What you added to Dear Lord and Father of Mankind had nothing to do with citations on Politics of Yemen. As @Feline Hymnic said in their revert's edit summary, A ref is supposed to be a cite of a reliable source that supports a claim in the article's text. Instead, this looks a promotion of a product. Please see, and follow WP:CITE. GoldRomean (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metawikipedians.

I’m here to gauge interest on a Wikipedia article idea of mine, or to see if it has already been created under a different name. I think an article that talks about scientific exploration of magick and occultism could be useful; there are pages about magick but they don’t really contain scientific exploration of the subjects.

so im curious if anyone else would like to see this article be created. Polkol777 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "does anyone else want the article to be created". If you want the article to be created, that's the only thing that's necessary. The catch is, if you want the article to stay instead of getting deleted, it has to meet requirements. DS (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, so essentially the article must be notable and follow other guidelines of wikipedia. Just curious if others are interested in it to also help with editing it Polkol777 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Polkol777, and welcome to the Teahosue.

It's not the article that must be notable: rather, the article must have suitable sources that establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You would need to cite, and indeed base the article on, several reliable sources that discuss specifically "the scientific exploration of magick and occultism", (or whatever you decide the subject is precisely). Sources which do such exploration, as opposed to discussing it as a topic, would not be useful.

You might find somebody interested - or, indeed, somebody who can point you to an existing article - at WP:WikiProject Occult. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the page title in italics?? M1rrorCr0ss 07:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add the template {{Italic title}} to the top of the page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M1rrorCr0ss. Some infoboxes do this automatically. Examples include Template:Infobox book, Template: Infobox play and Template: Infobox film. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is the correct scientific terms for the following:

• national assembly? a house / chamber representing on national level. NOT a bicameral parliament like US congress, but house of representatives, senate.
• popular chamber? a house / chamber representing the people in a "one person one vote" fashion, proportionally
• federal chamber? a house / chamber representing federated unites, like US senate, swiss ständerat.
• territorial chamber? a house representing regions in a unitary state, like french senate.
• consociotional chamber? a house representing groups of people along ethnicity, religion, like House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina

and in which article the scientific terms would best fit into: national assembly , legislative chamber ? ThurnerRupert (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are scientific terms, but I don't normally comment here, so you pays your money. Roxy the dog 08:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThurnerRupert Consider trying Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities for questions like this. I think the closest you can get is "scholarly term", and there might be several acceptable ones.

Fwiw, "In politics, a national assembly is either a unicameral legislature, the lower house[note 1] of a bicameral legislature, or both houses of a bicameral legislature together. In the English language it generally means "an assembly composed of the representatives of the nation."[1]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done with working on Draft:Yao Yuanjun and plan to make a DYK for the article, I currently also have a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Xiaolong (Chinese coast guardsman), so will I be able to make a DYK nomination for the Yao Yuanjun article when I'm done with it since I have two DYK nominations? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac As long as the article remains in draft space, it will not be considered for DYK, so you need to focus first on getting it approved. This is likely to be difficult as the subject appears to be notable for only one event. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question is not whether the article is notable or will be approved, my question is whether i can have two DYK nominations at the same time.

As stated above, I will publish the article when it is finished(so i'm not asking for a DYK nomination now, I'm asking for when I finish it), and for notability it has been covered by tonnes of media(twice in fact, in 2011 and 2021, due to his death and the aftermath of his death), and we have several other articles of military personnel whose notability mostly comes from the same event like Nathan Bruckenthal and Xie Jinyuan, and martyr status in china is considered one of the highest military decorations. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can submit and work on more than one DYK at a time. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve mostly packed it in, at enwiki (see my userpage) but do the occasional Wikignome edit. An edit to Gyaru (Shwingo) caught the attention of an IP that seems to frequent the place (Shawengo, Talk Page Shacacatoh) and I’m not quite sure how to go about his query:

I am really at a loss on how to academically prove about most of the information present in said article(s) is true and not creative community input or AI material.

I’ve been out of touch with this community for years (doubt I ever really got back into the swing of things on my 2020 run). Don’t suppose I could tempt anyone to jump into the convo on my talk page, with better advice than I? Cheers. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot tell if it is AI or just a devoted good faith editor. However, the article is largely unsources. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 11:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, is it possible that a user with "AP, ECo" could secretly edit their own user log list and delete data that was previously there? Is it possible at all to delete log lists? I believe it is if it's a privacy breach. If so, is it recoverable? NotQualified (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not possible.

Which user are we talking about?

Which log are we talking about?

What is the URL?

What did you expect to see? Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a general question. But to be clear, is it totally impossible for this to occur? NotQualified (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is completely impossible, in the sense that you could have a database corruption that removes entries from a log (but that would not meet the requirement of the user doing it to their own log). Also, a oversighter is able to remove log entries from view, but there are strict rules for that and it is very rare (and I don't think they are allowed to surpress log entries about themselves. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. I believe that oversighters are able to see oversighted stuff. So for example if someone posts someone's home address that can be removed from view. Polygnotus (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In even more extreme and rare scenarios it is theoretically possible that the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation removes stuff from view, see Wikipedia:Office actions and User:WMFOffice (but, again, it is very very unlikely that they use that power to remove log entries about themselves). Polygnotus (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am no longer able to log into Wikipedia from my school since the new login portal was implemented. Does anyone know if there is a way to bypass auth.wikimedia.org and use the old login page? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! E6400 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend asking over at WP:VPT. I doubt that the answer is "yes", but there may be a workaround. Polygnotus (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I sort a wikitable from earliest to latest in the filmography section, which is currently ordered from latest to earliest? — ArćRèv • talk 02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Arc Rev, If you are a registered user then you can add a user script to automatically reverse table rows or provide advanced sorting. This is more advanced and for personal use only. If this looks complex to you then you can see further here. Fade258 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: Could you let me know which userscript to use or which section of the article you're referring to? — ArćRèv • talk 03:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I could not find any user scripts that automatically sort. May be, I will create that scripts soon, otherwise you could go for help link in (click on here) which I mentioned in my previous message. You could see filmography section of Ansha Sayed, may be this helps you. Fade258 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Persian Gulf

As stated in the title, this is not about political influence or forced change - it's about geographical accuracy and the historical context behind the name. It's extremely disappointing to see the page admin modify the article to include "Also known as," as if alternative names carry equal weight without proper historical or geographical basis.

If everyone begins renaming places on maps to suit political agendas or personal narratives, the result will be confusion and chaos.

Any naming - like any other claim - must be supported by credible references and historical evidence.

Unfortunately, the admin of the Persian Gulf article has not only locked the page but also restricted access to the talk section. This means the admin can unilaterally impose their own viewpoint without allowing community input or open discussion.

This not only contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia’s core principles, but also undermines the values of collaborative editing, neutrality, and transparency that the platform is meant to uphold.

This is not the Wikipedia I used to support. Mani.zaeim (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Please read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the admin of the Persian Gulf article"—There is no such role on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I want to improve articles related to Indian herbs and Ayurveda. Sometimes I find really good information in Hindi-language books or government PDFs. Can I use non-English sources if I translate them myself, and will they be accepted as reliable references? Thanks in advance. Cognowriter (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I am afraid the answer is no. See WP:MEDRS for more information. For new users I would not recommend getting involved in medical-related topics on Wikipedia, because that is probably the second-most difficult topic to get involved in. Did an AI write your userpage? Polygnotus (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cognowriter If you wish to write about topics in Category:Herbs, without making medical/health claims, then you can certainly use non-English sources. See this part of our policy for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Check their userpage. Polygnotus (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, before I replied. It is possible to write about plants without making medical claims and I like to think that respondents at the Teahouse should try to answer the question asked, even if we need to caution about WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, as you did. I see this as an implication of WP:BITE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Peter Swales (historian), is it possible to reduce the size of footnote 14 -- I mean the [14] in the text? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]