Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1249

Archive 1245

←

Archive 1247

Archive 1248

Archive 1249

Archive 1250

Archive 1251

Archive 1252

Question regarding content assessment appearing in see also sections.

Recently, while editing, I noticed that some articles, such as Valle Alto Formation and Arcabuco Formation, have an articles content assessment ranking in the see also sections. I removed it, but decided to revert my edit once I saw it happening again. Is it normal for an article to have content assessment rankings in the see also section? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have never seen that before. Since any change in content assessment would necessitate editing all the articles that link to it I can't see this as being a useful thing to do. Reconrabbit 15:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gaismagorm The guidance at MOS:ALSO doesn't mention it and I've never noticed such icons before. It is clear that they would not automatically update if the target article's assessment were to change, so there is a maintenance overhead in having them. I'd be inclined to remove them and let anyone who disagrees provide a reason for keeping them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

alright, I'll remove the marks on the two pages. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be a quirk of Tisquesusa (talk · contribs)'s article writing style; they were very active in the paleontology projects prior to being blocked in 2021. Reconrabbit 15:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

XDefiant

XDefiant is shutting down, so shouldn't everything be former (Like was instead of is)? RoyalSilver 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, but not until the full server shutdown occurs in June. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

People's Organizaton for Progress

Hi all! I have been making various pages lately so I may have lost track...

I was hoping to check whether I created a page for civil rights group People's Organization for Progress and it was deleted; or if I hadn't had a chance to make it at all and falsely remember.

Seems like only admins can check a deleted page's history, but I'm not sure.

In the case it was deleted, can I contest that by bringing it back, adding more references, and making sure it meets WP:Notability?

Thanks! Evedawn99 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Evedawn99. Not an admin, but you're given a noticed when trying to create a deleted page. When doing so for this one, it says that an admin had speedy deleted the page (WP:CSD) under the criteria of G11, meaning that the article was "blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something." Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I see and thank you so much! Thanks for reminding me how to find it. It looks like I never did edit! And it seems it was deleted in 2008: perhaps it was written in a biased way. I would be interested in seeing the deleted page if possible, but I assume that's not possible for a non-admin.

In any case, I will continue to add POP history to the article of its founder (Larry Hamm) entertain the idea of gathering sources and restarting an article that is written in an encyclopedic and nonbiased manner (like I did with the Jim Bray article). Thanks for the help! Evedawn99 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Evedawn99, I am an administrator and looked at the deleted article. All it consisted of was an external link to the organization's website, with not a single word of prose. Cullen328 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with sourcing

I'm trying to work on citations for Cisco NX-OS and I did find this webpage that discusses NX-OS and Cisco IOS pretty in-depth, but I'm having trouble finding reliable information on the website itself. This is already from trying to sort through the Cisco.com forums and the webpages and forum posts discussing this. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether this source is usable and, if possible, some other sources to use as well. guninvalid (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid Thanks for asking. I would keep looking. Firewall.cx does not have an editorial policy on its site and the article you've linked is unbylined -- the two of those together make it hard to assess as reliable. I did find a page that confirms Firewall.cx is an "official media review partner of Cisco Press," which indicates to me that it fails the test of being a WP:INDEPENDENT source and thus is unusable for establishing notability. Hope this helps! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid Chris Partsenidis is the chief editor for the site. Here's more about the team. Not sure why it's claimed not to be independent of Cisco. The volume of practitioners who frequented and contributed to the site are what made it a reference for product info and troubleshooting. Just my opinion, but the site is not a shill. It is recommended by Cisco for their content, and was given priority to review Cisco's material when released. The site and forums discuss more than just Cisco information. Just Al (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@GuninvalidI have some experience with 5K and 2K, so maybe I can help with citations. The article is a bit sparse. Just Al (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

How to put a picture that isn't on commons?

Hello, I'm working on a new article about the famous Bengali cinematographer "Kamrul Hasan Khosru" in my sandbox for draft submission later. And I want to put up a picture of him. But there's no pictures or anything close about him on commons, the site where I'm supposed to get all my free to use pictures from. What am I supposed to do in this situation?Yelps (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

So this is a tricky situation. All media on Wikipedia needs to be in the public domain or fall under fair-use laws. Now usually if the photo is from 100 years ago or 70 years after the death of the photographer's death, where it automatically falls into the public domain. Now, a photographer can give their media a Creative Common license, where they waive their copyrights and we can use it. This can be tricky and may take a long time or might no be possible at all. In that case we just have to leave it for now. If you do happen to find a freely licensed photo you can upload it to commons yourself or keep local here, depending on the image. Commons has more information on licensing here, and the the Creative Commons organization also does here. Also check out the the Department of the Interior for some info on the public domain. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

The first thing I will say is that new editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating and disappointing time. I advise you to leave that aside while you carry on improving existing articles, and learn more about notability, verifiability and reliable sources.

The second is that you appear to be writing User:Yelps/sandbox backwards - you have only one citation, and that is to iMDB, which Wikipedia does not regard as a reliable source because it is user-generated. Writing an article without first finding several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject is like building a house without first building foundations or even surveying the building site.

The third thing is that while pictures are very welcome in an article, they are not essential, and they play no part in getting a draft accepted: I advise you to forget about a until you have got the draft to a point where you submit it for review and it gets accepted into the encyclopaedia.

And, finally, to answer your question: it is unlikely that you will find a photo of a living subject that is acceptable to Commons, and therefore to Wikipedia, unless either you 1) take a picture yourself at some public event, or 2) contact the photographer who took a particular picture, and ask them if they would be willing to go through the process described in donating copyright materials.ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yelps, another serious problem with your draft is that it is written in an overtly promotional tone. The Neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. Any evaluative statements must be verified by a reference to a reliable, published source that is independent of the director. A picture is the last thing that you should be thinking about. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

IMDb is not a Wikipedia-accepted reference because anyone can edit it without editorial oversight. See WP:42 for reference quality. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. What I'm doing collecting sources to stash in my sandbox for organisation and article-building later. It is true I'm still learning. But I'm totally aware that my "article" basically breaks all the rules and that's because I'm not actually planning to create an article right away. I'm just stashing up all the sources for later use. I hope you can understand that, and thanks.Yelps (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Your Sandbox is a right way to start work on a draft, also to store information or content you may want to use at several articles or drafts. David notMD (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Help for page creation

Good morning

Yesterday I submitted the page I am creating for review

Draft:Gianni Lora Lamia

But it was declined telling me to make some corrections before submitting it for review again.

I am a new editor and I kindly ask if you can help me correct this page

Thank you very Much Phx-Racing (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you tell what specific help you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to know what I have to do to correct the page, what are the things I should correct or modify

Thank you very much again Phx-Racing (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Phx-Racing. Most of your citations are bare URLs. These are unsatisactory, because they make it harder for reviewers to evaluate the reliability and independence of the sources. Your citation should include title, author (if available), publisher, date, and page number, at the very least.

I haven't looked closely at your draft, but it looks to me as if far too much of it is not about Lamia. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject (in this case Lamia) and very little else. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Phx-Racing I ran citation bot on the draft, which helped a bit but there's still a lot of work to be done. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I try to create esxternal links for example https://www.ewrc-results.com/profile/370301-gianni-lora-lamia/, with the Template:Sports links/doc, but for me it's quite difficult and I can't create it right, could you please help me with this ? Thank you very much Phx-Racing (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, I have already made several corrections, inserting more reliable citations as well. I know this, but in any case I wanted to say that even if several resources cited are links, but they are links to the official website of the Dakar Rally, where you can check the entry list of the participants, the results of the stages and the final classification of the race, I think that this is an irrefutable proof of the driver's participation in the race. I kindly ask you if you can continue to help me, as I have already said I am new as an editor

Thank you again Phx-Racing (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You have a few sentences/paragraphs without sources. In a biography, every piece of information needs to be sourced. I think you could probably slim down each section too, they're all quite wordy in prose. Try and be concise. qcne (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

(I've also filled in most of the bare references for you.) qcne (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Phx-Racing, the infobox for your draft says that Gianni Lora Lamia was born in 1965 in the Kingdom of Italy but that kingdom did not exist in 1965 because it was abolished by a vote of the Italian people in 1946. You need to do a much better job with accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your precious help,I have fixed this error Phx-Racing (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

These sources must be reliable sources. Whatever shows up as the first result on google (which you have referenced) is not a reliable source. Ultraodan (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Phx-Racing, the section "Range Rover No Stop Record 1989" has no stops (periods, ".") until its very end. It would benefit from more stops. It mentions "the fearsome Sahara desert"; why is the reader being told that it's "fearsome"? ¶ That section isn't unusual. Consider this single sentence: After only three stages he found himself 16th overall fighting for the top ten until halfway through the race where in the stage that reaches Niamey in Niger for the rest day, an electrical problem sent him far back in the general classification, after, the rest day the race is somewhat disturbed by terrorist threats and the organizers, anxious to ensure the safety of the competitors, decide following information received from the French Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence, a huge airlift is taking place to transport hundreds of drivers and vehicles of the Dakar rally across the desert between Niamey and Sabha in Libya, after reports of a planned rebel attack. And why is the reader told that an airlift of hundreds of drivers and vehicles is "huge"? ¶ Also, the photo captions are most puzzling: I don't know how to start to parse Gianni Lora Lamia and Emilio Giletti Technical Cars Check Paris Dakar Cairo 2000 Paris Parc floral du bois de Vincennes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for you help, I have already made some corrections and shortened the descriptions trying to make them as short as possible, also regarding the photo captions, I ask you if you could please check every now and then and suggest me what could be the things to correct Phx-Racing (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Phx-Racing, the most conspicuous photo is captioned "Gianni Lora Lamia Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude at the 21st 1999 Granada–Dakar Rally". First, if I take this literally I infer that there were many Granada–Dakar rallies in 1999, and this was the 21st of them. As this would of course mean that Granada–Dakar rallies occurred more often than once a month (hard to believe), I guess that you instead mean "the 21st Granada–Dakar Rally (1999)". Secondly, "Gianni Lora Lamia Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude" hardly conforms to the patterns of English noun phrases: the simplest fix would be to simplify it to "Gianni Lora Lamia" (deleting "Nissan Motorsport Team Dessoude"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have made several corrections, and added more reliable resources, would it be possible please, to have your opinion on this, and further help for further corrections or changes if necessary

Thank you very much Phx-Racing (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Phx-Racing Too many of the references are URLs. There are still some hyperlinks to remove. Of much greater importance, there is far, far too much detail about each race. See WP:UNDUE. And too many images. If you go to Dakar Rally and from there to articles about the winning drivers, most (but not all) are much more concise in reporting race results. David notMD (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, could you specify for example which hyperlinks should be removed, as I have already explained I am a new editor and I still don't understand many things well

Thank you Phx-Racing (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There were instances where you had inte4nded to create references but forgot to put the ref at beginning and /ref at end, so they looked like hyperlinks. I fixed those. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, I will also try to make all the descriptions shorter and reduce the number of images, as you suggested. Phx-Racing (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia page Indexing

If a Wikipedia article has been in the user space or draft space for more than 90 days, and then get moved to the main space is it automatically indexed by search engines since the old history has been moved to main space and it is more than 90 days old. Sign them in (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sign them in. Welcome to the Teahouse. You did ask this question before and have already received an answer. See here. I believe that means "no". The 90 day counter starts ticking once a page is moved into MAINSPACE. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

My redirect got reviewed

I got a notification saying that a redirect I created, Deep fried shrimp, got reviewed. What does this mean exactly? Justjourney (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Justjourney. When a new page is created, it's cued to the New Pages Patrol for New Page Reviewers to review. When a page is reviewed, it's allowed to be indexed by search engines, so now it shows up when you Google it. When I searched for "Deep fried shrimp Wikipedia", the "Fried shrimp" article is now what comes up. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney In summary: your redirect has been accepted! Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Subscriptions to newspapers

After passing 6 months as an editor, I believe I can now access additional databases which include newspaper subscriptions; please remind me how to do this. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe editors are acting in good faith.

I have had a very disappointing day today interacting with the editors from wikipedia. I do not believe the few editors I interacted with today are "acting in good faith" when responding to my comments. Most of the replies to me today were pure obfuscation, fixation on minor errors, moving the goal post, or reiteration of previous points by the editor. Most of my initial comments were not adequately addressed.

I have edited scientific papers as a professional for the last thirty years, and I can recognize snarky comments when I see them. If interested, I can provide references to my professional publications and citations.

In summary, I am disappointed by my interactions here today. I would welcome any feedback to my responses, and to the editor responses I have gotten, if a 3rd party is willing and interested to review the discussion. Until then, I have to concede that perhaps wikipedia is no longer a place to discuss ideas in good faith. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 01:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you don't spam several posts about the same issue, as that will just annoy third parties. I agree it's unfortunate that these conversations have taken the tone that they have, but this is already being discussed in the sections you created above. Note that part of Wikipedia's ethos is that anyone can edit, so no special deference is given to editors who have published works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand my edits were not minor edits, and the editors critiqued me for not understanding that distinction, but really offered no recourse for further edits. I am beginning to understand now I need to do all these edits myself, using the wikipedia html-like formatting, but I am not sure I want to waste the time, if the edits will be just be ignored or rejected out of hand.

I have been a reviewer of scientific journal articles for 30 years as my profession, and the comments I received here today from the editors, especially one in particular, are not acceptable. Now I have been blocked from the page I would like to thoughtfully edit, with respectable references, using the most current science, but is not allowed because the a particular editor disagreed with me. I made a few simple mistakes with reference numbers, and the editor used that mistake to discount my entire argument. This is not acceptable.

My main point for today, that was never addressed by a particular editor, was that a blog post, from approximately 20 years ago, should not be used as the main reference to refute an scientific article. This is basic academic publishing 101. I am sorry that my reiteration of this fact, has now led to the important subject matter not being discussed. It is disheartening that there is so much pushback to discussing scientific theories by the editors of wikipedia. I have tried to be cordial and professional the entire time. I repeatedly apologized for any mistakes I made, but the end result was a ban, and ultimately the discounting of a scientific theory. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 02:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tdkelley1. I've searched through your edits (also, I noticed you removed the link in your signature that leads to your talk page. Why?) and believe you are talking about interactions at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. From just a quick skim, I personally feel that the other editors were not uncivil at all. I also feel that some of your comments were pretty snarky and a little condescending, and accusing someone of not acting in good faith without clear evidence and examples is a personal attack (see WP:NPA#WHATIS). WP:BLUDGEONING is also bad practice. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not intentionally remove remove the signature that leads to my talk page. So I am unclear what you are talking about.

Can you please be specific about what comments you disagree with? As I have mentioned before, I have thirty years of editing scientific articles, and I do not believe the interactions I have had today were in good faith. Again, can you please be specific? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 02:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Just for reference, custom signatures that link to a user page, user talk page, or a user contribution's page are OK; a direct link to one's user talk page isn't required per WP:SIGLINK. An uncustomized signature will provide a link to both the user page and user talk page by default along the lines of Username (talk) time stamp, but this isn't required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. I have spent most of my time editing a specific page with no results to point to, signatures are not something I was paying attention to. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 02:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that a user's signature isn't required to have a visible direct link to their user talk page, as what someone above seems to have asked you about. The standard way of signing one's posts (i.e. using four tildes) should look like "Tdkelley1 (talk)" (the syntax is [[User:Tdkelley1|Tdkelley1]] ([[User talk:Tdkelley1|talk]]) which looks like Tdkelley1 (talk) to to others) in which "Tdkelley1" links to your user page and "talk" links to your user talk page. Since your signature only shows the "Tdkelley1" part, the other person is assuming that you've customized your signature in a way that got rid of the "talk" part. If you did such a thing, that's OK as long as your signature still contains a direct link to your user page. If you didn't customize your signature and just add ~~~~ to the end of your posts, then perhaps it's bug or something. If you want to find out why that's happening, you can probably find someone who can help you WP:VPT; if you don't care either way, then don't worry about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments. As long as I am not breaking any rules, I guess I am OK with the signature. Thanks again. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I did provide evidence of why the editor was not acting in good faith. For example, he was using the "move the goal post" technique, which I said, which is not a valid argument technique. For example, when I addressed one comment, he just switched to another comment, or moved the goal post to something else that needed addressing. This was specifically referencing his argument technique, from a debate perspective, and is no way a personal attack, but rather a critique of the debate technique, which is not acceptable in scientific circles. You cannot "move the goal post" in response to a rebuttal of a fact in a scientific article. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 03:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

wp:ani is the place to go if you think editors are acting in bad faith, I would advise against it (as your recent block should demonstrate). Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that I was blocked for editing the article, when, in fact, I did not edit the article after I was told not to. I was blocked for discussing with the editor MrOllie, the merits of certain references. Or at least that is why I believe I was blocked. Basically the block came after my discussions, not after any edits I made. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 12:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing the article in question and the Talk page of the article."Due to your ongoing disruptive editing, I have blocked you from the pages Aquatic ape hypothesis and Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis with an expiration time of indefinite. This is a contentious topic restriction: Disruptive editing in a contentious topic area - pseudoscience and fringe science. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)" Creating a discussion here at Teahouse is not part of the process of appealing the blocks. David notMD (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. Thanks for the information. I am unclear as to how my editing was disruptive though, when I only made edits to a few sentences, and those edits were not even excepted. How can this be considered disruptive? Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 14:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Best to ask the Admin who blocked you, or else pursue the appeal process. Teahosue Hosts are generalists. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow. I am surprised I am even allowed to still post here. I have been banned almost everywhere.

I have spent a lot of time here, and I am not happy with my experience here. The level of snarky-ness is extremely high here. I have posted my interactions with MrOllie which were not professional at all.

I have a sub on reddit were we can discuss AAH in nauseating detail if you would like. Please join me there and we can discuss this all you want. I welcome any critique. Perhaps iron out actual changes to the Wiki article.

Reddit sub r/AquaticApeHypothesis

Also I would like to respond to the critique given here of the four articles I posted for review, but I am unable to answer the criticism! IMHO, that is crazy. Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 18:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You've been page blocked on Aquatic ape hypothesis and its talk page only, not anywhere else. There are millions of other articles that you can edit, most of them not being a contentious topic. Sorry for being busy earlier, but rhetorical questions like What? Do you even understand what AAH is about... Are you an anthropologist? You don't seem to understand the theory don't give me a good impression.

It's also bad etiquette to type in ALL CAPS as doing so is the equivalent to yelling in a discussion. When emphasizing something, italicize. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little upset at that point. If you look at my interactions with Mr. Ollie they were quite frustrating and he was completely rude and unprofessional. He was not understanding the theory correctly, and frankly, I was at a loss as to why I should explain to an editor, a theory, that they don't understand. Is that my responsibility, to explain theories that editors don't understand?

Regardless, I would love to be more specific on this topic if you want to entertain me.

We can also discuss on Reddit at r/AquaticApeHypothesis. I will not ban you simply because you disagree with me! Troy Kelley Tdkelley1 20:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a place for general discussions of concepts or a place to advertise your Subreddit which it appears you're attempting to do here. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tdkelley1: Two people can look at the same thing and see two different things. When I look at the article talk page being discussed here, I don't see anyone being completely rude and unprofessional to you, but I do see people on both sides perhaps getting frustrated. All WP:WIKIPEDIANs are WP:VOLUNTEERs who are free to come and go as they please; in other words, it's not anyone's job or profession to discuss things with you. Wikipedians with specialized knowledge in a particular subject area such as yourself might have a hard to adjusting to Wikipedia talk pages because such pages are probably not the type of venues they're used to, which is why such Wikipedians are often advised to take a look at WP:EXPERT.

As long discussions are WP:CIVIL and move towards establishing a WP:CONSENUS, things tend to be OK; however, people are people and it's very easy to get frustrated when others don't see things the same way you (= collective you) do. When that happens, taking a step back to reassess or even just to breath can sometimes allow things to cool down and perhaps even provide a bit of perspective, even WP:DOGGY can be a good idea in such cases in both figurative and literal sense. Trying to keep the pot boiling by starting multiple threads here at the Teahouse with provocative section headings implying others are doing something inappropriate is a move in the wrong direction that is unlikely going to garner you any sympathy. Wikipedia is less about winning than it is about consensus-building, and the fact the an administrator felt the need to step in and place editing restrictions on your account isn't really a good sign.

Sometimes no matter how hard we try, consensus just doesn't go our way. When that happens we can either try to understand why and modify our approach accordingly or just move on to something else. Continuing to go on and on about how others just don't get what we're saying isn't going to get us very far at all. Your account is a little more than a week old and you've made a bit more than 100 edits. There's a learning curve associated with Wikipedia pretty much like there is with anything else. There are over six million Wikipedia articles and many are in need of improvement; so, perhaps taking some time doing other things (even things like the WP:GUILD) will not only help you become more familiar with things Wikipedia, but also perhaps show others that you're really more interested in being WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Help & ask for advanced review for Draft:Winston Utomo because of looks like an advertisement

Hello from Indonesia, recently I've resubmitted the Draft:Winston Utomo and declined again. The reason was read more like an advertisement. I've also read the regulation and want to ask some suggestions how to fix and improve this draft to become better & not recognized as promotion article. Happy to receive suggestions & improvement, please help & guide me about this, thank you. Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sample: This significant investment solidifies IDN’s position as one of the largest and most influential media technology companies in Southeast Asia. Under Winston’s leadership, IDN has transformed to become the leading consumer technology company with four main pillars: digital media, livestreaming, creator economy, and entertainment. Yes, this is more like an advertisement. If, even after being prodded about it, you don't see the promotional language or won't remove it, I really wonder if editing en:Wikipedia is for you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I'll read & crosscheck it again, and do several changes for the promotional language one as soon as possible. Thank you. Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed some of the promotional wording, more needed. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks to you too for your help. Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rachael Adrino Do you need more help ? If so , how can we help you ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe Please help me for checking again the Draft:Winston Utomo, after several edits from me & several editors previously to prevent the promotional phrases. From me, I think that's enough for now, but if there are still several promotional phrases, please inform & suggest me which one need to fix. Thank you. Rachael Adrino (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Catching other editors attention

I'm in a disagreement with another editor, to avoid an edit war, I created a Talk Page post on the article to discuss what the dispute is over. When I made the initial reversion, I left a message on their talk page which was not responded to before they reverted my revert. How do I make sure they see either of these, and at what point do I escalate, and if so how? Sircheezball (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

They should have gotten a notification for both so it's nothing on your end. I would wait a little bit longer and if you feel it is necessary to escalate you can read WP:Dispute resolution to look for the next move. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sircheezball Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the way to go! Side-note, I agree with your revision, being familiar with RCP. And would recommend {{Diff2}} when you need to link diffs in the future. Happy resolving! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Sircheezball (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Subjective article with Self authored sources?

I was suggested to edit the Alexander Woodman article due to it being flagged for promoting the subject in a subjective manner.

And while the article is certainly guilty of this, my question is about its sources. At least 14 of its 38 sources are articles authored by Alexander Woodman himself. These articles are used as the citations for some of the most egregious subjective sentences in the article.

How do I proceed from here? Do I straight-out delete the dubious parts of the article? Bruebach (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

For now, I have added coi and notability tags- The article mght be a candidate for WP:AFD. Lectonar (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to see if there is anything salvageable in this article. Bruebach (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The article was created by User:AlexWoodman, burnished by User:ShoushanA. Huge amounts need to be removed. You can decide if I cut too deep. Also, you started with "I was suggested..." By whom? If you have a paid or unpaid connection to Woodman you have a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It was suggested by the "Suggested Edits" function of the user homepage. Due to it being tagged for copyediting due to promoting the subject in a subjective manner. Bruebach (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah. The simple note you put on your Talk page absolves you of any suspicion of an undeclared COI. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. ShoushanA (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Case Sensitive Search

Hello! I am pretty new to editing and wanted to begin with some copy editing tasks to get familiar with the syntax and expectations of Wikipedia.

I was looking into cases of "the its" in articles, and many results turned up were not relevant to the issue, as they referenced ITS as an acronym, which is not an error. I was able to regex a search that was case sensitive (insource:/" the its "/), but it only turned up one result before the regex timed out.

I'm not super familiar with regex so I don't know if there's a better way to execute a search like that, or a different way to make searches case sensitive. If this isn't a viable option for searching I understand, but wanted to ask in case I was missing something obvious Screechout (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Screechout: you could try to combine the regex search with normal search: {" the its " insource:/" the its "/}. It should find all instances of phrase regardless of case and then the regex will filter out only the lowercase results. MKFI (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That did the trick! Thanks for your advice. Screechout (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Orphan article

Hello, I have added a link to Tamatem Games with the help of the find link tool leading me to Nanobit, which had a sentence about Tamatem. This means Tamatem Games is no longer an orphan article. If anyone is able to remove the orphan article notice please do! PLBF61371 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@PLBF61371 The orphan tag is near the top of the source code. If you look at this editing page you will readily see what needs to be removed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Help Needed: Improving References for Draft:DC Wine & Spirits

Hi,

I’m trying to create a Wikipedia page for 'Draft:DC Wine & Spirits' but it was rejected due to insufficient references. The feedback mentioned that my references are not considered reliable, independent, and in-depth enough.

I included sources like WineBusiness.com, Benzinga, APNews, and MSN.com, but they seem to be insufficient. Could someone please guide me on:

**What type of references would be acceptable?

**How can I find better sources that meet Wikipedia's standards?

**Any other improvements needed for approval?

I appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance!

Tom Tomgera (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources ought to be reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of the subject.

• The link to APNews is to paid content, a press release from KISS PR. Press releases are absolutely worthless in this context.
• The WineBusiness citation is inappropriate as not only is it a simple description of a normal business activity that is explicitly listed as trivial at WP:CORPTRIV, it's written by DC Wine and Spirits.
• The Benzinga link is also a paid press release.
• The MSN link is clearly paid content, written by DC Wine and Spirits.

None of these are reliable, none of these are independent, and none of these provide significant coverage about the subject.

The sources are so blatantly promotional, that I have to ask if you have an undisclosed link to this company. If so, you need to explicitly disclose the relationship as noted in WP:COI or WP:PAID, depending on the exact nature, should a relationship exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Declined twice, and requested on your Talk page that you address the COI/PAID question before any further editing. Having COI/PAID does not forbid you from creating a draft, but must be declared. Also, see Help:Referencing for beginners on how to make in-line citations. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing a Newspaper Article in PDF (Not Online)

Hello! I have a newspaper article relevant to a person I am writing about. The article is not available online. 1) How should I cite it correctly? 2) Should it be placed in the References section or the External links section? Advokat2024 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Advokat2024 Many newspaper sources are not available online, although there are websites specializing in scanning them into archives: e.g. newspapers.com. Wikipedia is happy to use WP:Offline sources (see link for details) provided that full information is given so that a reader could, in principle, find the newspaper in a library which had copies. If you use our template {{cite news}}, you'll see how to format the citation into the references. Don't link as an external link: if you personally provided the .pdf in some accessible online repository you would be likely to be infringing the copyright of the newspaper. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you Mike! Advokat2024 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Nota bene: However, in the event it happens to be a copy of an old article (very roughly, pre-1930) whose copyright is expired, you can then upload it to Wikimedia Commons (and link the cite to that uploaded copy). For details see commons:Help:Public domain.--Slowking Man (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated. Advokat2024 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed

To get extended-confirmed, do I have to make 100 edits in the main namespace (wait 30 days), or is it the total edits like when I was autoconfirmed? Justjourney (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The extended confirmed policy is here, but it basically states you need to make a total of 500 edits in any namespace and with an account age of at least 30 days. cyberdog958^Talk 03:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Justjourney, please be aware that they must be 500 productive edits over a period of at least 30 days. There is an editor being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents right now for "gaming the system". They added and removed a period 331 times in an hour and 35 minutes just to get extended confirmed and make edits to an article related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Behavior like that is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Record high and low in climate

Hi. I want to suggest the climate table to be changed a little.

For example, look at the climate table of fhe city of Gwangju: Climate table

Here, the record highs and lows for each month are stated. But we don't know when has this record extreme reported in history. We only know the timeline from the table (here 1991-2020)

So, I want to suggest the times the record highs and lows have been reported be present too in all climate tables. Whether by referencing them or adding notes below the table. Aminabzz (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Aminabzz. To ask for some change in how the information is presented in a particular article, the best place to ask is on that article's talk page. But for a more general request like this, I would suggest a WikiProject talk page - perhaps WT:WikiProject Weather or WT:WikiProject Cities. The people who watch those talk pages are more likely to engage in a discussion with you, and perhaps can point you to existing recommendations, or previous discussions. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Aminabzz (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Questions after moving a page

I moved a page for the first time (from List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations to List of dismissals and resignations in the first Trump administration), along with its talk page. But the Moving a page instructions say "check 'Move all subpages, if applicable' during the move process," and there was no box to check for this. (And FWIW, the simplified How to move a page article doesn't alert you to the need to attend to subpages at all. Should it?) There's one archived talk page that wasn't moved. The Moving a page instructions say "If subpages were not moved, they will show as redlinks on the new talk page," but I don't see any redlinks on the new talk page or any reference at all on the new talk page to the existence of an archived talk page. Do I now move the archive page in the same way and then link to it from the new talk page, and if so, are there instructions for the specific text that I should add to the new talk page re: the archived page (or should I just look at the text on a random talk page with archives to see how this is worded / where it appears)? Or is this something that I should ask an admin for help with? Also, the Cleaning up after a move article says "the bot settings need to be updated ... In some circumstances, this will involve updating (moving) a hard-coded bot subpage." I think I understand the instructions about the bot settings (if I've understood correctly, I shouldn't update this until I've taken care of the talk page archive), but I don't understand how to determine if I need to update "a hard-coded bot subpage." Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Moving the subpages of pages automatically is an option only available to admins and page movers. If there is a talk page with more than a couple subpages (which you can check for with Special:PrefixIndex), it is better to request the move through WP:RM/TR. Also, the archiving bot needs to be updated when moving a page with automatic archiving. I have moved the page and fixed the bot for you. cyberdog958^Talk 23:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberdog958, thank you for your help. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Change an edit summary

I really wish there was a way to edit or amend an edit summary. This is an example where I accidentally selected the wrong edit summary from my drop-down selection of edit summaries. I do not think I can fix it now. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

When I want to write a better Edit summary, I will go back in, add or remove an unnecessary space, or something similar, and write a better summary, often with a quick explanation of my error. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I could do that, is that what I should do? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Yes; see Wikipedia:Dummy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrong wikidata item for article

Editor is blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please editors I would ask you all to make out a little time, I would have done it my self it is because am a new editor can anyone please help me with this issue this Wikipedia article is connected to the Wrong wikidata item actually meant for this article. Can an editor please help me disconnect the wrong wikidata item from the article and move it to the right place and then please try creating a new wikidata item for the article Keiv Brown, thank you all, all our efforts is to build this Wikipedia. Sign them in (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) I've moved the wrong wikidata item to its correct Wikipedia article. Newystats (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Can you please make a new wikidata item for me am a new Wikipedia editor and as you do so thank you so much. Sign them in (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC) @Newystats Can you please make a new wikidata item for this article am a new Wikipedia editor and as you do so thank you so much Sign them in (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC) "Keiv Brown" was a feeble article. Until 17 February it had been a feeble article about one Kev Brown: an article that had survived an AfD (if barely). Its minimal content was sourced to material from as far back as 2015 (when John Junior Ogbonnaya, aka Keiv Brown, would have been four or five years old). It would have been obvious to you, Sign them in, that the article was not about some teenager. I have reverted it to its previous state, a (feeble) article about Kev Brown. You, Sign them in, are free to create Draft:Keiv Brown, about the teenager, and to submit this for conversion to a full article. Don't attempt any hijack any other legitimate article for the same purpose; if you do, you'll be prevented from editing further. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Newystats, I am happy to see that Wikidata has nothing for Keiv Brown but has an entry for this Kev Brown. Please don't alter this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC) I see that this wasn't your only attempt at an article hijack, Sign them in. There was also this attempt (swiftly reverted) to hijack the article Robert Aerens (a painter and etcher, 1883–1969) for some "talented young singer making waves in the music industry at the age of 14. Despite his tender age, Robert has already gained recognition for his remarkable vocal abilities and captivating performances". Luckily, Adakiko (who reverted this) resisted captivation. "[A]ll our efforts is to build this Wikipedia" (above) rings hollow. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC) @Hoary, Edits look like they could tie in with User:Toolatetyla, who uploaded the photo on the "Kiev Brown" article. And if you look on the editors userpage... well. Also ties in with Special:Diff/1263693650 done by User:Omarisonfire. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC) "Sign them in" is now blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

How to check if an article was previously PROD?

I tried looking in the archives to find an answer, and I'm sure it's been asked before, but I couldn't find it.

I'm trying to check if a page has previously been tagged for proposed deletion, but it's not showing up in the tag filter on the page history. Does that mean nobody's done it on this page or is there something I'm missing? Thanks! EllieDellie (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I did realize that the page in question had very few edits, making it very easy to check manually, but would still like to know for the future. EllieDellie (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@EllieDellie, I asked that same question not that long ago, and here's what people said. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated! EllieDellie (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

An existing article which was PRODed in the past, but de-PRODed, is supposed to have an {{Old prod}} message on its talk page. This to my knowledge isn't "enforced" automatically by anything though; it requires someone to have done that (ideally the person who PRODed). But, the takeaway is if a page had that neglected for whatever reason and doesn't have the template, no one is going to blame you for unknowingly re-PRODing. Don't worry about it and let an admin handle it if you wind up sometime stumbling on such an article.

(The only way to 100% for-certain check is to use a tool like Wikiblame and do a linear search through the entire page history, seeing whether the prod template was ever added. For an article with a big history this is likely to take some time.) --Slowking Man (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this really helped! Glad to know I won't have to do it manually every time EllieDellie (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Issue with factually incorrect edits to Page

Hi There. I've been contributing to a number of pages related to Australia and cities/towns there.

One of these is the article Springfield, Queensland, which is for a Suburb within the city of Ipswich, Queensland.

This Suburb is demonstrably part of the city of Ipswich, Queensland for Local Government Purposes, and not the immediately adjacent city of Brisbane. Here are three official Government Sources:

• Queensland Government Place Names Search: [1] https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/title/place-names/queensland-place-names-search
• Ipswich City Suburb List - Springfield is part of Division 2: [2] https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/its-your-council/mayor-and-councillors/ipswich-city-divisional-boundaries
• Springfield City Suburb List - Springfield is not listed: [3] https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/council-information-and-rates/brisbane-suburbs#s

The issue I've seen is that there are other editors (all anonymous / unregistered) that keep editing the page, only editing the sections related to which city it is part of, to makeit read that it is part of Brisbane instead. This is factually incorrect, as proved by the above three sources.

I have been trying to follow the Principle of Assuming Good Faith (WP:FAITH), by reverting the edits and leaving messsages on the Talk Pages. But as the edits are being made by anonymous users, I feel it's likely that they are never seeing these.

I don't want to get into an Edit War (WP:WAR), but to me this is an open-and-shut thing.

Is there anything I can do here, other than just checking the page every so often, and reverting these edits and leaving more Talk Page messages, as I have been doing? (See edit history of the Suburb Page.) Thedwan (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thedwan: I get it - it's tough especially if people aren't seeing your attempts to discuss. But when I look at it, I'm kind of confused too. Because to me, based on the geography, both Springfield and Ipswich are suburbs of Brisbane. So while yes, it's technically correct that the administrative status of Springfield is that it's a suburb in the City of Ipswich... that doesn't matter to the vast majority of people. As evidence of that, it's in the planning for Brisbane's mass transit/commuter transit networks, for example. I would be curious personally what sources not affiliated with the government say about it - when they refer to Springfield in, for example, national news, do they say it's a suburb of Brisbane or a suburb of Ipswich?

The solution here may not simply be to enforce the current wording of Springfield is a suburb in the City of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia. and Springfield is in proximity of the nearby suburbs Springfield Lakes and Springfield Central. - the solution may be to find a way to reword the whole lead to point out that it's administratively in Ipswich City but that it is, for layperson purposes, just another suburb of Brisbane. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying, but Ipswich is definitely currently a different city. It wouldn't surprise me if in the next 50 years or so that there might talks to merge/amalgamate the two cities, but right now I don't believe there's anyone seriously proposing that. On your transport point: Other Mass transport systems in major cities in Australia - e.g. Sydney and Melbourne - do have public transport links out to other nearby cities as well, but that doesn't make them the same thing. I'm hesitant at present to change the wording, only because currently it conforms with the same setup on all other pages for the suburbs of the city. See the list here: City_of_Ipswich#Suburbs. I might try the solution that Graeme Bartlett has proposed here in the first instance. Thedwan (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thedwan: I wasn't trying to say they're the same city by any means. But the layperson definition of a "suburb" tends to be "an area where people tend to commute to work in the bigger city from". By that definition, it seems that maybe most people would consider both Springfield and Ipswich suburbs of Brisbane, regardless of how it's handled administratively. I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page for the article about how it may be improved, so people can contribute there - or you can just be bold and change the wording of the first few sentences to clarify that, while in "popular terms" it's an outer suburb of Brisbane, it's administratively a suburb of Ipswich. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Well if you are correct in what you say, you can put a wikitext comment in front of the city name telling editors not the change it. eg <!--Do not change as this is part of the city of Ipswich. Use the talk page to discuss -->. If this kind of change by anons becomes too frequent that it is causing problems, the page can be protected to prevent anonymous changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for responding. I didn't know that this was a thing that could be done, so I'll definitely give this a try now. Thedwan (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with a table

Hi - I've been tidying up List of contemporary epistolary novels, and I have somehow given the table an extra vertical line on the right. Could someone please fix this... or tell me how to do it. Many thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Blackballnz, I've fixed the table as requested. In the future it might be worth switching to visual editor, I understand tables are quite the pain to deal with. Best — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes they are difficult. Blackballnz (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

draft page help

Draft:Leo Hatton

Hello can you help me. Is this article now likely to be admitted? I have removed and added more reputable sources. thank you EmmaElves (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You have resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if they do not accept it. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@EmmaElves I made the minor edit of swapping your external link to IMDb to a templated one. I'd be interested to know where you learned that the syntax Leo Hatton on IMDb would work, as we are trying to discourage editors from using that method in articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@331dot@EmmaElves@Michael D. Turnbull

Hi - I'm a Teahouse lurker, always keen to learn more about Wikipedia. Having looked at this draft, is it OK to have in the lead, as someone's main point of notability "best known for her upcoming role". There is also a large paragraph about the upcoming TV series, which wouldn't usually appear in a BLP. It appears very promotional of this show. Am I right about this? Blackballnz (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems unlikely that an actor could be best known for something that has not yet aired and you are correct that the topic should be the biography, not the show. I'm sure that the reviewer will comment on that and if you can improve the draft, please do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello! I have a question about the article: Draft:New Breath Recovery. The thing is that I am the director of this rehab, and I was told that it is necessary to specify somewhere about conflict of interest, and then the attitude to the article will be different. Can you please tell me where to do this? Sober and recovered (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Sober and recovered Hello and welcome. It's a draft, not an article(at least not yet). As the director, you need to make a formal paid editing disclosure(click for instructions). You should do this on your user page, User:Sober and recovered. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sober and recovered, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you have done what many new editors do, and taken on a task which is difficult even without a conflict of interest: that of writing an article without having spent time learning how Wikipedia works. 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.

More specifically about your draft: Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which the Center or its staff say or want to say about it. The article should be almost entirely a neutrally written summary of what people wholly unconnected with the Center (and not prompted or briefed by the Center) have chosen to publish about it via reliable publishers. See WP:42 for a guide to the kinds of source that should be used (and that must be used in order to establish that the organisation is notable). ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sober and recovered All your sources are from your own website, except one endorsement from a patient which obviously is not independent. A brief Google search shows me that there are basically no usable sources that would demonstrate wikinotability, so you are wasting your time trying to draft an article. There are also reasons your facility may not want one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

maintenance templates question

Hi everyone, I have been doing some editing in my spare time and really enjoy fixing grammar mistakes and that kind of thing. Wikipedia recommends me articles on my user page but I would like to know if it's possible to specifically seek pages out based on the maintenance templates they have. Is there a list of pages that have maintenance templates on them?

Thank you for your help! Rainmirage (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think every maintenance template has an associated category—but maint categories are hidden, not displayed by default. If you wish to see them you're in luck: just do as directed by WP:HIDDENCAT! Another fun thing of sorts can be to go to random pages and see if anything needs doing. For more on that see WP:Random, which in fact has a user script to pull up random pages in a given category, in § See also. WP:MAINT has even more resources for those looking to do maintenance work. And thanks so much for your interest in improving Wikipedia! --Slowking Man (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rainmirage, welcome to the Teahouse! You might be interested in the Task Center, which helps editors find pages in need of improvement. You can choose the kind of editing that most interests you. Sounds like the copy editing section might be of most interest. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I recommend Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss for fixing spelling errors (or adding valid entries to Wiktionary). Or you can do a custom search for an error eg search for "they gives" to find that one kind of grammar error. Or search for "she" insource:/[^.]\. she / to find sentences that start with lower case "she". But they do tend to get boring if you fix dozens, so just do it while you enjoy the work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, may I piggyback a quick question onto your reply to @Rainmirage about the Typo Team: if you join it, are you ever expected to do assignments or do you always get to choose what to work on? Augnablik (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: you just do what you want. So you don't have to add to Wiktionary, or mark up non-English. You can do as little as one comma-splice fix. Fix easy spelling errors. Fix difficult technical words. Or as much as fixing every time CO₂ is put in as CO2. Any project you set yourself is up to you, as no one is paying you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rainmirage There is a very comprehensive list based on maintenance templates available for WikiProject "cleanup". This is available here and allows you to find articles within areas that might interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ioan cuza

Ioan Cuza rediretcs to ionita cuza but why ? shouldn't it redirect to Alexandru Ioan Cuza? keeping in mind that ionita cuza makes no mention of "also known as ioan cuza" and the name doesn't even contain ioan cuza. i feel like 2nd one is also more well known. any inputs??

☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect was created in 2017 by User:Dahn, who is still active, so I suggest you take this up with him to agree a way forward. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware to what degree Alexandru Ioan was known as just Ioan (as opposed to just Alexandru), whereas Ioniță was clearly also known as Ion, with Ioan being a variant of Ion (any Ion). But I would not oppose a move or a disambig if anyone feels strongly about this and has some evidence to back up the claim. Dahn (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Got my Draft Rejected for references so I searched similar article...

Hello guys!!! I am new here. I have following questions :

1) Yesterday, I stumbled upon the article, Bimalendra Kumar which contained no independent references but got approved. My article, Draft:Ramesh Prasad (professor) on the other hand failed the review despite having Ministry of Education (Government of India) as a source in it. Additionally, it also contained Independent News Journal, Hindustan Samachar [english] as a source which covered the subject (Prof. Prasad) independently. But, why my article is not going through?

2) Is there anything like if an experienced and upper-level editor writes an article with little to no references, it gets approved.(or he approves it him/herself)

3) Why the article gets refused when any one of the editor refuses it. Is there any biasness or racial discrimination to it? If a person is from India then for him/her Government backed references are also not enough?

Please help me understand it moving forward in this platform. Praty0p (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Praty0p:

There are nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia. They have come about in a variety of ways, and many pre-date our review processes and current notability etc. policies. Not all were "approved". Nowadays, new articles must meet our various requirements, and to ascertain that, we evaluate drafts by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines, not by comparison to existing articles. Your draft was declined because it is very poorly referenced, with entire sections without a single citation, and the sources are all primary and thus insufficient for establishing notability. It may be that this person is eventually deemed notable, but we need to see reliable evidence in support of that, and we need to be able to verify more or less every statement in the draft.

To answer your second question, yes, editors with sufficient permissions may publish articles directly into the encyclopaedia. But if these do not meet our standards, the articles are unlikely to remain published very long. The point isn't, therefore, to publish an article, but rather to publish an article which complies with the various policies and guidelines, and can remain in the encyclopaedia.

As for your final point, you are accusing, at least in a veiled manner, the reviewer(s) of racism. Please do not go there, as baseless aspersions are unacceptable. We have countless articles on persons of Indian, and just about every other, origin in the encyclopaedia. This issue has no bearing whatsoever on why your draft was declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

To add to this, looking into the article history for Bimalendra Kumar proves somewhat interesting. It was previously tagged for a lack of notability under WP:NACADEMIC and for being an orphan, however both tags were removed by the creator of the article later with no real improvements and no edit summary.

All but one of the citations on the article did not have any reference to the subject, so I've removed them and added a tag for a WP:BLP lack of sources seeing as I could barely find a source including him, let alone about him. How it passed review last year and not in 2010 is anyone's guess. I'll check back on it in a week to see whether improvements have been made. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Praty0p Your draft was "declined", not rejected, which means you can continue to work on it. A brief look shows that, at present, it does not conform to our important policy on biographies of living people, namely that every fact be backed up by an inline citation to allow readers to verify the information. For example, the whole section on his early life and much of the section on his current research is uncited. We have specific guidance for how to establish that an academic is wikinotable and you should ensure your draft shows how Prasad meets at least one of these criteria. (You can add a comment at the top of the draft for a future reviewer.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ramesh Prasad (professor) may qualify for his being a Dean. What is required is better references. The draft was Declined, not Rejected, which in Wikipedia terms means no potential to succeed. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Publishing a translation

Hello, I would like to publish a translation of this page: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Martincov%C3%A1 However, the page says I'm not allowed to publish it, I can only save a draft - which I did, but also, I clicked the "Publish" button and the draft got published under a wrong name (not as a translation of the original page, though): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jana_Martincov%C3%A1; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ComposeAdela/Jana_Martincov%C3%A1 How can I publish the actual translation? And how can I get rid of those 2 pages that I created by mistake? Thank you! (The translation I inserted should be correct as it was done and proofread by a professional.) ComposeAdela (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@ComposeAdela Welcome to the Teahouse. In this context, the word "publish" just means "save my page": into draft space in this case, or into your sandbox. So, I suggest you stick with Draft:Jana Martincová and when you are ready, submit it for review. What you have in your sandbox can just be WP:BLANKed when you want to re-use your sandbox. Be aware that the standards on en:Wikipedia are strict, so ensure your draft conforms to our biography of living people policy. After submission, experienced reviewers will accept it into mainspace or give you feedback for improvements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ComposeAdela. Have you read translation? What makes translating into English Wikipedia difficult is that most other Wikipedias have lower standards for sourcing than English, so in many cases a translation, however faithful, is not adequate. I haven't looked in detail at the citations in Draft:Jana Martincová (which I think is the same as User:ComposeAdela/Jana Martincová: you can request deletion of the latter by adding {{db-author}} to the top), but I see that a lot of them are by Martincová. That is not what we want to see in the reference list: we want to see mainly sources which are completely indepedent of the subject (not written, published, or commissioned by the subject or by their associates or institutions), talking about the subject - see WP:42 for more detail. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Help—need an encompassing subject descriptor for disambiguation

When confusion is possible among identical or very similar personal names, disambiguation is required. I've got a disambiguation-related challenge, and here's my quandary:

How do I come up with a good descriptor for a person who is essentially a practical idea person — someone whose career has consisted of acting on his ideas? In this case, by being a land-use designer, an entrepreneur, a mentor, an organizer, and at times a funder of the projects of others? “Polymath” or “renaissance man” are common terms, but are maybe too vague, therefore likely inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Suggestions welcomed and appreciated.Joel Russ (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Joel Russ. It would be helpful to know which specific person you are talking about. Hypothticals are difficult to answer helpfully. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Bio article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Raymond_(publisher) Joel Russ (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Being Richard Raymond (publisher) should suffice. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Joel Russ I've added him to the disambiguation page. You can tweak that if you think of a better short descriptor there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. Joel Russ (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation: The fundamental thing is, it "doesn't really matter" what the disambiguator is—as long as it's not misleading of course. It just has to be something. And random characters/symbols/etc. would be a little reader‐hostile. Publishing publications was something they were "known for" so "publisher" is fine. If people decide it needs to be changed at some point for whatever reason, they can do so. There is no deadline.

Compare and contrast Wikidata which does just use arbitrary numerical identifiers, since the, well, data are intended primarily for consumption by computers and programs being executed by said computers, and not for humans to go through and read "directly". For instance here is Raymond's very own Wikidata entry: Q131442980 ta-daa! --Slowking Man (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have owned several books that Raymond published going back over half a century. "Publisher" is just fine as a disambiguator. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion. Joel Russ (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Advanced automatic reference creation

Q: I've been using the "automatic" option in the "cite" button, but I've noticed its limitations. For instance, it doesn't generate references from links to PDF files. Are there more effective ways to automatically create references from links? EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I would try using Visual Editor as it lets you add information without having to know all the wikitext. I have used it many times to edit references. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 09:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

10x. I already use the Visual Editor. My issue was that in the case of links to PDF files you need to put everything manually which is a lot of work. There is also no way to control the format of the reference. EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately there's not really a way to speed up PDF references as far as I know, but so long as you fill in all the parameters the formatting should work itself out. You can try Easybib to gather the information faster or anything similar online. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 13:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

10x. I now found this Help:Citation tools maybe this would help. EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

how to make a disambiguation page

how exaclty do I make a disambiguation page, is there a different "wizard" or any tags or template I nned Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple! Most important thing is to familiarize yourself with WP:Disambiguation, to know the general conventions to follow. Then when you make it just put {{dab}} at the bottom (for "disambiguation"; {{disam}} or the full {{disambiguation}} work too). Really, that's it!

If you wish you can create it in your user sandbox to work on it at your leisure, then when ready just move it into the mainspace. And of course feel free to ask for assistance here! --Slowking Man (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Asking for help

Can you help find citations for Draft:Pressure (video game) 1250metersdeep (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Onus on sourcing is generally on those who want the content, not on noticeboard readers. That said, I did a search (string: pressure video game) and am coming up with pretty much nothing we can use as a source - no articles about the game, no reviews of it, no nothing. (Indeed, the only review that showed up was for an unrelated tabletop RPG of that name.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@1250metersdeep: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1249. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games might have some resources that may be of use to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to merge this article into the one for list of Roblox games, although the patrollers there would have to ensure the article meets notability. I don't think an individual Roblox game warrants enough notability for its own article, minus something such as Adopt Me! or Dress to Impress (both for which have substantial outside coverage to qualify for their own, larger, articles). -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been working on finding sources for a bit 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a list of closing templates?

I've seen Template:hat and Template:atop used for different purposes when closing discussions. Is there a full list of templates for closing discussions? guninvalid (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid, we have both the navbox at the bottom of the page ({{Templates for archiving}}) and Category:Wikipedia archived wrapper templates, if that helps. If you mean "closing discussions" in general, e.g. including miscellaneous templates (such as {{NAC}}), then afaik there is no singular page listing them all. – Isochrone (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Creating a map.

Hello! I am currently creating a page about a historical Arab kingdom and would like to input a map showing its historical territory. While I know the size/territory of the kingdom, I do not know how to make a map. Please help! Middle-easternfactcheck (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Middle-easternfactcheck you might benefit from posting your request at the graphics lab with reliable sources to request others create a map for you. – Isochrone (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give it a go Middle-easternfactcheck (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Choosing the correct copyright tag

I hope this is a simple question. I have done this only once before and because it was such a long time ago I have forgotten which tag and where I should upload it (here or Wikicommons). It is for an image that is most likely still within copyright but will only be used to represent the painting for which the article talks about and for no other use or article page. I know there is a proper tag but it has slipped my mind. Any direction (and correct verbiage to attach when uploading) would be appreciated. TIA. Maineartists (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maineartists you shall have to populate the fields in {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free fair use}}, as (surprisingly) there is no dedicated template for artworks. The best way to do this is through the File upload wizard, pressing "upload a non-free file". – Isochrone (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Isochrone. I think I did it correctly. I appreciate your help. Maineartists (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, I've been contacted by a Jason Bennett who has invited me to contribute a wikipaedia page for a price? He's sent a link with a range of pricing options. How do I know this is genuine?

I'm happy to contribute but want to ensure that this is not a scam....

Grateful for any advice!

C Kelly FRCP MD 5.151.214.229 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is indeed a scam. Delete that message. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to add you should probably report it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org (see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning) — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Don’t ever accept payment for WP stuff. It ain’t big and it ain’t clever! Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with an image

I uploaded an image in Wikimedia Commons that i thought was copyright free but it's not. Is there a way to delete it?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_picture_of_Banna,_Bangladesh.png 97188 shamiulhk (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@97188 shamiulhk you can file for speedy deletion. See c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. G7 and F1 would be applicable. – robertsky (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@97188 shamiulhk: As it's been less than 7 days since upload it would qualify for speedy deletion per your request. I've tagged it as such with a link to your request here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Promtional language, brochure, and very messy.

I need help with this article: Eudes Assis

Hello all Wikipedians! I found this article, which I believe does not meet much of Wikipedia's standards. I made this draft, to try to correct some writing errors and cut the promotion value. My question is, is this better than the original? How would I do a mass reformat like that? Does the draft itself meet standards (expect for citations, I am working on those)? C809 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@C809: Your tone in Draft:Eudes Assis is better. But references are required. And you can use the images too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Far better to edit the existing article section by section versus deleting the existing content and replacing it with your own. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What to do with someone reverting all your changes.

Hello,

There is one person reverting all my changes. What can be done regarding this? Wandtess (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If someone has reverted all of your changes, the first step is to discuss why that is. In this case, you appear to be adding "Persian" to any mention of the Gulf, even where this does not fit. Such changed are likely to be reverted, as they are seen as disruptive rather than improvements. CMD (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wandtess. Here is what you should do: Stop edit warring. Stop vandalizing. Stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced content. Heed the advice and warnings given to you by more experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

A high percentage of your edits have been reverted by several well-experienced editors. Your Talk page shows you were warned several times of a possibility of being blocked, and most recently you have been blocked for 24 hours. The problem is not other people. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft not yet reviewed

Hello, I submitted several long drafts on David Petersen (American author) that were rejected (the last rejection was on Jan 4, 2024). I revised it to just 5 factual, neutral, objective sentences (vs. the original 2739 word entry) but the most recent draft seems not to have been reviewed. I think I submitted it Jan 10 2024. Please advise. Thank you, Andre Marquis Dremarquis (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dremarquis If you are referring to Draft:David Petersen (American author), then you have not re-submitted it since it was declined (not rejected, which means "give up and don't re-submit, ever). If you were to re-submit it today, I predict it would be rapidly declined again, as it doesn't use the standards in our WP:Manual of style, e.g. for section headings and references. Most importantly, it doesn't show how Petersen meets the notability criteria for an author, which you need to do using sources meeting our golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dremarquis. I have improved some of the formatting on your draft article, but it still needs a lot of work to be accepted. It may be useful to read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, plus you should read numerous published Wikipedia articles on authors. I once had a book published by a small press publisher, and I have friends with multiple books published, but none of us have Wikipedia articles, because we are not notable enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Why did David Peterson win the awards you listed? Are there reliable sources stated the reason for the awards? If so give that information, for it may help to show his notably. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Karen,

I don't know how to navigate the submission process well. Here is the most recent draft that I thought I had submitted. I don't think it is the one that you had access to. Can you tell me:

1) how to access the draft you did some formatting on?

2) how i can submit this revised draft (see below):

David Petersen

Biography

David Petersen was born May 18, 1946 in Oklahoma City, OK. He is a critically acclaimed American author who writes primarily about nature and humanity’s relationship to nature. Petersen was the subject of the documentary film On the Wild Edge: Hunting for a Natural Life, by Belgian filmmaker Christopher Daley. Petersen worked with both Edward Abbey and A. B. Guthrie, Jr. (see below: Books – Edited). David Petersen’s works have delved deeply into the ethics of hunting and how humans evolved as hunter-gatherers, and the implications of that fact for who we are today and how we should relate to Nature.

Books (all non-fiction)

Authored:

Among the Elk: Wilderness Images, photographs by Alan Carey, Northland Publishing (Flagstaff, AZ), 1988.

Wind, Water, and Sand: The Natural Bridges Story, Canyonlands Natural History Association (Moab, UT), 1990.

Among the Aspen: Life in an Aspen Grove, photographs by Branson Reynolds, Northland Publishing (Flagstaff, AZ), 1991.

Racks: The Natural History of Antlers and the Animals That Wear Them, Capra Press (Santa Barbara, CA), 1991.

Ghost Grizzlies: Does the Great Bear Still Haunt Colorado? Holt (New York, NY), 1995.

The Nearby Faraway: A Personal Journey through the Heart of the West, Johnson Books (Boulder, CO), 1997.

Elkheart: A Personal Tribute to Wapiti and Their World, Johnson Books (Boulder, CO), 1998.

Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America, Island Press (Washington, DC), 2000.

Writing Naturally: A Down to Earth Guide to Nature Writing, Johnson Books (Boulder, CO), 2001.

Cedar Mesa: A Place Where Spirits Dwell, University of Arizona Press (Tucson, AZ), 2002.

On the Wild Edge: In Search of a Natural Life, Henry Holt & Company (New York, NY), 2005.

Edited:

Big Sky, Fair Land: The Environmental Essays of A. B. Guthrie, Jr., Northland Publishing (Flagstaff, AZ), 1988.

Earth Apples: The Poetry of Edward Abbey, St. Martin's Press (New York, NY), 1994.

A Hunter's Heart: Honest Essays on Blood Sport, Holt (New York, NY), 1996.

Confessions of a Barbarian: Selections from the Journals of Edward Abbey, Little, Brown (Boston, MA), 1994, revised edition, Johnson Books (Boulder, CO), 2003.

Postcards from Ed: Dispatches and Salvos from an American Iconoclast, Mildweed Editions (Minneapolis, MN), 2006.

Documentary

Christopher Daley, 2016, “On the Wild Edge: Hunting for a Natural Life.” Available on Youtube

References

Bloomsbury Review, May-June, 2001, John Nichols, "A Memory in Nature: Writing the Wild Country: A Profile of David Petersen," pp. 3-6.

The Sun, December 2009, Jeremy Lloyd, The Good Hunter: David Petersen on the Ethics of Killing Animals for Food.

On the Wild Edge: Hunting for a Natural Life. C. Daley, 2016. Available on Youtube Dremarquis (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Last submitted 4 January 2025 and Declined same day. References are not properly formated, so impossible to determine if the text is verified. Listing his books is allowed, but does not contribute directly to establishing his notability, as no content ABOUT HIM. Minor awards do not contribute either. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Dremarquis I clicked on Draft:David Petersen (American author), the link that Mike Turnbull listed in the first reply to your post. There is a lot to figure out in Wikipedia, I didn't attempt my first online article until I'd been editing here for three years, and I just about memorized Help:Your first article I'd read it so many times. Prior to becoming a Wikipedia volunteer I'd done some freelance writing so I was familiar with book and magazine "writers' guidelines" so it may be easier for me to understand that all publishers have guidelines to follow, and this website is no different.

Writing for Wikipedia is hard, but I find the work fulfilling. When I don't know how to do something I often go to a published article, click on the Edit tab, and see how things are formatted. Just keep looking for every source you can find on David Pearson, and keep asking yourself what would help prove he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Karen,

Did you read my 5 sentence draft on David Petersen. I am a tenured professor at the University of Rochester. I have published 4 books and dozens of scientific articles. I find it hard to believe that the 5 sentence draft does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I have seen plenty of entries that are less supportedstufied, and less neutral/objective. Please reply, Andre Marquis Dremarquis (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dremarquis, the three citations for that draft are, in full, "Bloomsbury Review", "C. Daley, 2016", "Jeremy Lloyd, The Sun". In other words, none of them have the basic bibliographic information that any reader, let alone reviewer, would require. The parenthetic citations in Integral Psychotherapy, even without the bibliography, are more complete than that. We need full publication information and page numbers. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that not everything I think I am uploading to Wikipedia is getting through.

here are more complete references:

Bloomsbury Review, May-June, 2001, John Nichols, "A Memory in Nature: Writing the Wild Country: A Profile of David Petersen," pp. 3-6.

The Sun, December 2009, Jeremy Lloyd, The Good Hunter: David Petersen on the Ethics of Killing Animals for Food. https://www.thesunmagazine.org/articles/22829-the-good-hunter

On the Wild Edge: Hunting for a Natural Life. C. Daley, 2016. Available on Youtube Dremarquis (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dremarquis I read your draft article. I am not a reviewer so I don't have the authority to say what is or is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article. That is not something I studied, since I don't want the added work and responsibility of being a volunteer reviewer. I have not read or viewed your references, so I don't know what is included in them.

I do know how to format reference sources, so I tried to help by reformatting yours. You put the complete reference citations at the bottom of the draft, but the citation information needs to be within the article, so I moved the information to within the reference "brackets" where you had placed the shortened citations. I also added a link to the documentary, so people can click on it and be taken to the video on YouTube. As a volunteer who has a job to go to, plus is in the process of moving, doing some reformatting of your draft is all that I have the time and ability to do for you. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dremarquis, I don't know what you mean with "uploading". You can simply go to your draft and click "edit" and insert those things in the citations. I don't know if that YouTube video will fly. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Karen,

thank you SO MUCH! I deeply appreciate your help.

Andre Dremarquis (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have converted the sunmagazine weblink into a citation including the URL you supplied. I thought at first that this would be a good source to establish wikinotability but I'm afraid it does not since it is entirely based on an interview with Petersen. You need to find at least a couple of independent sources, perhaps based on reviews of his work written in reliable sources by subject-matter experts (i.e. not blurbs). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

How about these:

American Scientist, July-August, 1996, Mike May, review of Ghost Grizzlies: Does the Great Bear Still Haunt Colorado?, p. 401.

Audubon, November, 2000, Christopher Camuto, review of Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America, p. 131.

Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1996, John Balzar, review of A Hunter's Heart, p. 5.

Nature Canada, summer, 1997, John Davie, review of A Hunter's Heart, p. 52.

New York Times Book Review, November 12, 1995, Carol Peace Robins, review of Ghost Grizzlies, p. 56.

Washington Post, September 3, 2000, David Guy, "Basic Instinct," p. 4.

thank you for your help,

Andre Marquis Dremarquis (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've not read any of these reviews but in principle they look fine. As you are trying to show he meets WP:NAUTHOR, rather than how the books meet WP:NBOOK, as you would if writing an article on the book itself, you need to paraphrase into your main text what, if anything, the reviewers said about him as an author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Karen,

Please bear with me. I was informed by Mike Turnbull that I need more independent sources, which I have. I need to paraphrase into the main text what those authors said about David Petersen. You had mentioned that you had improved the formatting and made the citations proper. Unfortunately, I can't find the revised draft of what you did. When I go to "Draft:David Petersen" the citations are just [1], [2], [3]. Will you kindly let me know how i can access the draft you edited/formatted so my revision works from what you did?

Many thanks,

Andre Dremarquis (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I edited Draft:David Petersen (American author). I just went to that draft, and there are 3 references:

• 1. John Nichols, "A Memory in Nature: Writing the Wild Country: A Profile of David Petersen," pp. 3-6, Bloomsbury Review, May-June, 2001
• 2. On the Wild Edge: Hunting for a Natural Life, (film), C. Daley, 2016
• 3. Lloyd, Jeremy (December 2009). "The Good Hunter: David Petersen on the Ethics of Killing Animals for Food". sunmagazine.org

I did not add any additional references, I just changed the formatting of the ones that you had placed within the draft. Mike Turnbull made additional changes to the 3rd reference. Wikipedia has no Draft:David Petersen. (If the title is in red that means the draft / article doesn't exist.) Are you looking at a "Draft:David Petersen" that is stored on your computer, instead of looking for it on Wikipedia?

Go to Draft:David Petersen (American author) (if the title is in blue you can click on it and you will be taken to that draft / article) and you should see the changes that have been made.

When I began a volunteer editor in 2007 I'm sure I was confused a good deal of the time, for there is a lot to learn. When I first started writing Wikipedia articles there were times I was in tears because I couldn't figure out why my drafts were all muddled up, for I couldn't always find the formatting errors I'd made. If you click on my user name (Karenthewriter) in blue letters at the end of this comment you can see a list of the new articles I have had published on Wikipedia. Over the years I've collected reference books and websites on the niche topics I write about, but I know very little about finding good references for subjects outside of my limited ange of interests. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Karen,

thank you very much for your reply. However, when I clicked on the blue "Draft:David Petersen (American author)" in your reply above, the entry still has the references as [1] [2] [3] - so I don't know what the proper formatting for the references is. Perhaps the larger issue is that I apparently am not accessing the proper page so that I can see the edits that you and Mike have made. Please advise. I am sorry to be taking so much of your time. I truly appreciate it,

Andre Dremarquis (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Within the draft article entitled Draft:David Petersen (American author) the references are seen as [1],[2] & [3] (like footnotes), but if you scroll down to the bottom of the draft the Reference section shows both the number and the full reference citations. If you are not seeing that on your computer (or other electronic device) there is nothing I can do to help you.

I am currently driving between apartments in zero degree weather, I'm painting walls, and need to move an oak wardrobe to a new location all on my own. (I have osteoporosis.) I will not be checking the Teahouse for the foreseeable future, as I am overwhelmed with other tasks that must be done. I am sorry you are having difficulties, but I don't know how to help you. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're looking in the body of the draft, click on those numbers to be brought down to the bottom of the page, where the citation information is displayed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I am trying to improve this article, Shobon no Action, and I noticed that the Russian version of it has much more content. However, I don't speak Russian. I know you aren't allowed to copy-paste translated information, however, could I translate the article into English, and then use common sense fo fix the grammar, then paraphrase it into the English version? I would still cite the info, and not add anything incorrect to my knowledge. Basically, can I paraphrase translated information? Sorry if this doesn't make sense. loserhead (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

As a first step, you can mark it with {{Expand Russian}}. However, i wouldn't recommend the path, you offered to take. Synonimany (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Better to let someone who can understand Russian attempt to write the English, and then you can fix up problems, even if the English is not good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @.loserhead451271284329081988642312107789389336505800372274823167045637944533569779436, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question depends upon citations. If the Russian text is cited to what English Wikipedia regards as reliable independent sources, then translating the Russian might be a worthwhile approach. But if not, then the Russian text is of little value for an English article. ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect "x years ago" and "x days ago" in Vulkan's Infobox?

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

I'm a complete noob to wikipedia editing so this might be irrelevant.

This might be a known issue, but in the wikipedia page for Vulkan, the Infobox incorrectly states that the release date (16 February 2016) was 8 years ago and the latest stable release (7 February 2025) was 8 days ago. Is this info dynamically generated? The page uses wikidata in the Infobox, so I'm not sure how to edit it to properly reflect the current date. Shuddown (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Shuddown. I'm not very experienced with Wikidata shenanigians either, but purging the page seems to have updated the infobox. The article just needed to reset its cache. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

(And yes it is automatically updated to match Wikidata) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The times are made using templates such as Template:Start date and age, which automatically says how many days ago it was. It could be that it uses UTC time, or the page just needs purging. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about reporting repeated vandalism

Hello, I am a new editor. I just created an account to remove an instance of vandalism I witnessed. The specifc page is Brachydactyly type D. I have successfully reverted the edit that contains the vandalism, and I am now about to leave a warning on the IP address's talk page. I noticed that on this talk page, the sections are divided into specific months in each year. Each month, warnings start over at level 1/blue. The warning I would be leaving on their page is for their first instance of vandalism in February 2025. However, they already have a warning in January 2025 for vandalizing the same page. This would also be their third warning in 2025. Would it be appropriate to send this person a level 3 warning, or must it be a level 1 warning? In addition, looking at the IP's contributions, it appears that all contributions they have made since 2018 have been reverted for vandalism. I would like to report this person, but I worry that they might not have been warned enough this month to be reported. Though, I think that it is safe to believe that any contributions they make in the future will be vandalism. I apologize if this is not the correct place to ask. I have been reading all of the pages on removing vandalism, and I have not yet found an answer to my question. Thank you. Evilnice (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Added here per a false positive report (also the page is semi-protected). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the matter up, Evilnice. This person has already wasted too much of other people's time; I've given them a fortnight's break from Wikipedia. I've no particular reason to think that this will influence what happens once two weeks have passed, but if the silliness continues wouldn't hesitate to impose a much longer block. (They've already experienced a year-long break.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Evilnice, the convention of using the month and the year as a section heading is just that - a convention or a tradition to make it easier for visitors to a user talk page to find warnings. There is no "reset" at the beginning of each month. The same is true of the escalating levels of vandalism warnings. They are good to use, especially for less experienced editors, but it is not a requirement that they be used in strict sequence. Severe vandalism such as threats of violence, overt racism, gross profanity and the like should get a level 4 warning and an immediate report to a noticeboard or recently active administrator. As an administrator, I block for severe vandalism immediately without warning upon sight. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Evilnice: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1249. I suspect the "resets" you're seeing may be coming from users who use automated warning scripts like RedWarn or Ultraviolet. I use the former for rollbacks and that's how the script is programmed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm in a fog this morning, and can't remember and don't know how to find the right template. I was looking for information on Tom Barnard, which some might pronounce the same as Tom Bernard. I feel like there is a biography version of Template:Distinguish that I can't find. Anyone know what I'm looking for, because I feel like that hatnote would be appropriate for both articles. --Onorem (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one you mean but there is a list of all of them at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnote templates. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. "similar names" is what I was looking for. --Onorem (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

No...that's not it, but I think I can make the distinguish work. --Onorem (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The significance of a person

Hello! I created a draft of an article about Draft:Aleksandr Borisovich Ter-Avanesov.

Alexander Ter-Avanesov is mentioned on the page of the List of members of the Federation Council of Russia, with a link to the website of the Federation Council, as a reliable source.

The object is suitable for a Wikipedia article, because it corresponds to the guidelines on the importance of people, being an ex-member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, an active participant in the Russian delegation to PACE (http://council.gov.ru/events/news/35409 /, http://council.gov.ru/events/news/32976/), which is also confirmed by publications in major federal media outlets that fall under the criteria of significance (https://www.pnp.ru/politics/2014/04/09/aleksandr-ter-avanesov-neobkhodimo-obespechit-nadlezhashhuyu-zashhitu-individualnykh-polzovateley-kiberprostranstva.html , https://www.pravda.ru/news/society/1249262-ter_avanesov/).

The article https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1722995 information about the person is available in the aggregator of dictionaries and encyclopedias of Russia.

The pages of the object as a policy are presented on the official website http://council.gov.ru/structure/persons/191 / The Federation Council and the United Russia Party https://er.ru/person/9451f78e-685f-4518-87ee-242ae91bad90 which he was a member of.

After resigning from the Federation Council and being appointed https://news.am/rus/news/650606.html in the Armenian branch of VTB Bank, he also continued his socio-economic and political activities, for example, he spoke https://banks.am/ru/news/newsfeed/13256 in support of business programs initiated by the Armenian government.

Please review my draft article. Xarina17 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Xarina17: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1249. It looks like multiple reviewers have already looked at your article and left decline comments that can be summarised as "citations given do not establish wikinotability". Your subject may very well be notable by wikinotable people guidelines, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet with sources that meet the golden rule—the lack of significant coverage seems to be the primary factor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS for Family names

I've seen a couple of articles where, in the subject's culture, the family name is first, followed by the person's name. While most of these pages have a template explaining this, some page names are in the typical western order, while others are in the correct order for the subject's culture. Is there a MOS policy for when family names should be placed first in the title, and when they shouldn't? JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@JarJarInks, MOS:GIVENNAME is probably what you are looking for. – Isochrone (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Requirements to edit wikipedia

What is the minimum age to edit Wikipedia? Am I old enough? 46.87.234.249 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes everyone, regardless of age, to contribute. As long as you can edit competently without any problems, you don’t have to worry about being old enough to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(that said, it is worth exercising additional vigilance if you are a younger editor: see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors) – Isochrone (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft in progress

Hey, I am working on a draft -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Henry_Budden_(missionary) Mistakenly I added missionary term in term in the bracket will it make any issues or it can be corrected, also have question regarding the image in the infobox pls check, Thanks! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you mean, JesusisGreat7, that you now think you should have titled the draft "Draft:John Henry Budden" (because John Henry Budden doesn't now exist, and therefore disambiguation isn't needed), don't worry. A reviewer who accepts the draft will handle the renaming. ¶ What question do you have about the image? ¶ Currently, a major problem with the draft is that entire paragraphs within it are unreferenced. Please add references before submitting. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The draft is under construction I havent given it for review iwill add a couple of reliable references one got!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. You can correct the title by clicking the Tools menu on the top right, where you will see the option to move the article to a new title. Although I believe that a reviewer will probably change the title for you if it is published. I don't see any problems with the image TNM101 (chat) 06:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean the image of the Person is too Big or it is okay for the infobox JesusisGreat7 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It's of a good size, no need to worry about the image. Focus on the referencing content as of now TNM101 (chat) 07:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I have got many references I'll add them with time as the draft is under construction! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7: I'm pretty sure you've licensed File:John Henry Budden Portrait.png incorrectly unless you're claiming you were around on 18 March 1890 to take/create that particular image yourself. You probably should ask about the file at c:COM:VPC and try to sort its licensing out. There's a really good chance the photo is already within the public domain, but figuring out how to license it properly might be something someone at COM:VPC can help you with.

Did you take File:Budden Memorial Church.jpg yourself? If you did, then you might need to take into account the freedom of panorama of wherever the church is located (e.g. c:COM:FOP India) just to make sure, but the church is probably too old to be still eligible for copyright protection. If you didn't take the photo yourself, you shouldn't really be uploading it to Commons and releasing it as your "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes the File:Budden Memorial Church.jpg, is taken by me during the time of Covid it was on my Phone though I uploaded it recently, sure I will go through ur guidance! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7 Marchjuly means the original person who took the portrait in 1890. TNM101 (chat) 07:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

aha, I need to go through the licensing, though the image has a public Domain JesusisGreat7 (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

JesusisGreat7, it's not surprising if people write rather differently when creating an article than how they write questions and answers in a place like this. But the prose in Draft:John Henry Budden Draft:John Henry Budden (missionary) seems utterly unlike how you write here. Indeed, an addition such as Mr. Budden was a distinguished linguist, with expertise in the language that was surpassed by few. He made significant contributions to the field, including his work on the revision of the Hindi New Testament. Budden also authored several notable religious works in the vernacular, distinguished by their idiomatic correctness and expressive beauty. somehow sounds to me less 21st- than 19th-century. Any comment? -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC) typo fixed Hoary (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary The user's draft is at Draft:John Henry Budden (missionary), not at that page. TNM101 (chat) 08:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, TNM101, for catching my typo. I was writing about Draft:John Henry Budden (missionary), and above have corrected accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

👍TNM101 (chat) 09:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to accuse, but it does read very AI generated Mgjertson (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I can make sure, no AI has been used, and it's still under construction Haven't yet submitted too JesusisGreat7 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Kobi Arad COI Tag AGAIN

Kobi Arad has gotten a COI tag again. It was removed back in Oct 2024 by @Cullen328 since I am the main person that worked on the page and submitted to AFC with disclosed paid editing, hence it was vetted in AFC. No major edits have been done by others. IMO, the COI tag should not apply.

There is also something fishy going on. Somebody(DenoZUka) posted some edits on Feb19th and then reverted everything. Looks like a brand new user. No harm done, but maybe an admin needs to send them a warning. Dwnloda (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Dwnloda, the history of Kobi Arad makes it clear who added the COI template. So feel free to ask about it on the article's talk page, pinging that editor as you do so. ¶ So, DenoZUka edited, and then reverted all their edits. Perhaps because I haven't glanced at the reverted edits, it's not obvious to me what DenoZUka should be warned about; but whatever this might be, any editor is (and you are) free to issue the warning. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Dwnloda, I again removed that tag and reminded the editor who placed it that you had gone through all the proper procedures to create the article. As for the more recent burst of edits, I cautioned that other editor about pointless editing. Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks Dwnloda (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Accidently made a redirect with a wrong name

How to delete accidental redirect paghe I accidently made a redirect without checking the name, I got the last name mixed up with another page I created. How can I speedily delete this, or what process should I go through? Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You can add this template to the top: {{db-g7}} @Alexthegod5:. This is a speedy delete tag for things solely created by a user that changed their mind about keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If they have recent edits or waiting in AFC, definitely ask in the TALK page to be polite. If it's been abandoned more than a few months, and AFC declined, just edit it. However there is no policy requirements for asking. You can edit any draft. Dwnloda (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect species taxonomy

Loking at the page Dioctophyme renale - Wikipedia for the giant kidney worm I see that the taxonomy above genus level s dramatically wrong - it is very, very distant from the Class and Order given. I don't know how to correct it. It should be -

Domain:            Eukaryota

Kingdom:          Animalia

Phylum:             Nematoda

Class:                 Dorylaimia

Order:                 Dorylaimida

Family:               Dioctophymidae

Genus:               Dioctophyme

Species:            D. renale

Physalaemus (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Physalaemus. The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article, Talk: Dioctophyme renale.

Normally, I would suggest that you just edit it (see WP:BRD), but I'm pretty sure that the content in the species-box comes from Wikidata, where d:Q18681252 (Dioctophymidae) says that its parent taxon is d:Q4037382 (Dioctophymatida) rather than q:Q1939335 (Dorylaimida) - without a reference.

I suggest taking putting a note on WT:WikiProject Animals (unless you can find a more appropriate WikiProject), pointing to the discussion on the Talk page.

Alternatively, you might want to bring it up on d:Wikidata:Project chat.

Note that you should have a reliable published source for your claimed taxonomy. ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

need help understanding citations

i've been reading some articles and i've noticed some sections in articles that have no citations at all like in smalltalk. i initially thought about using {{ufs}}, but kept second guessing myself, when is it not necessary to use citations? Sam-you-ale (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sam-you-ale. The community has consistently refused to make citations mandatory, except in certain cases: see WP:PEREN#Require inline citations for everything. So unless the case falls within WP:MINREF, they are not required.

However, I see no reason not to insert {{urs}} (I presume that's what you meant?) where there are no citations - it gives the reader notice that the section may not be verifiable. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

Why does CAPTCHA show every time i try to save my edits? Enhag92 (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an alleged “security feature”. I suspect internet conglomerates are either training AI stuff or are harvesting your info. Either way, such things are complete bollocks, and there is in fact no way to tell a human accurately apart from an AI bot. It just can’t be done ever. Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the discussion, he just wanted to know why he was getting CAPTCHAd Mgjertson (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Enhag92: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your account requires the use of a CAPTCHA when adding external links because it hasn't been WP:AUTOCONFIRMED yet. I see you've made 66 edits, so in that case you'll just have to wait another three days before you avoid that whole process altogether. Hang in there! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we bring back List of country subdivision flags in Africa

List of country subdivision flags in Africa is a important page and please repost it, i need it for my animation and many others find it useful Coool13 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Coool13: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1249. I suspect you're talking about Draft:List of country subdivision flags in Africa. The draft was deleted due to inactivity (it hadn't been edited for six months). You will want to submit a request over at this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Reusing the citation for a source that's been updated since original publication date, access date change

I started adding some names to a table listing DOGE employees, reusing an existing source. But then I realized that the source has been updated since its original publication date (original: 2/6/25, update: 2/20/25, unclear if there were intermediary updates), and the citation only shows the original publication date and the original access date, which is also different from the date I accessed it. Do I need to worry about either issue and create a second citation for the same source, using the publication date of the update and my access date? And if the answer is "yes," should I somehow list both the original publication date and the date of the update? (I'm not sure how to do that without creating a citation error.) Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

HI @FactOrOpinion. It all depends on if the updated source page has deleted information that is in our article. If the current source page contains everything needed, then just update the access date and do a reuse of the source. If the some information has been removed and is still needed, the find the old copy of the page in an archive and make that a separate source with a different publication date. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to double-check, as it's used as a source for ~30 different pieces of information, but it certainly looks like they (ProPublica, a reliable journalism non-profit) are adding content to the source page without deleting any of their earlier content, so the current version should still reliably verify all of the WP content sourced to it. I'll update the access date for the citation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft page help - sufficient notoriety?

I appreciate any and all help you can offer. This is my first article drafted for submission - Draft:Inovair - and I hope that your feedback helps make this a successful submission.

I've been researching the Build America Buy America Act as it relates to the Wastewater industry. I observed that Wikipedia has very little information on the subject. I thought I would start with something simple for my first article contribution, a manufacturer. I checked the wikipedia page history for a similar manufacturer (Atlas Copco) and my initial submission is on par with that article's initial submission in terms of depth of subject. But is the information in my article sufficient for 2025 expectations? Do I need to summarize information from the source documents to add more details about the company?

Any other feedback you have that would help make this submission successful? Thanks in advance! Kedo-gearhead (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kedo-gearhead, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your draft doesn't currently demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia notability requirements for businesses (see WP:NCORP), and simply serves to demonstrate that this company exists. But that is not sufficient for an entry in this encyclopaedia - there are millions upon millions of similar business doing a fantastic job. Reading those guidelines, it's essential to use sources that don't simply mention a company, and are not simply citing press releases, insider business magazines or their own website. Indeed, your final citation about Global Ground Support doesn't mention the company at all. We need to see at least three in-depth and independent sources that actually talk about the company in some detail.

My other worry is your upload to Wikipedia Commons of this image. It is suspiciously small and lacking any metadata, and its name suggests perhaps yo had it emailed to you. Did you actually take that image? If not, it cannot remain on Commons ,as you would not have the legal right to claim it as your own or to release it for free commercial use.

Have you been asked (or paid) to create this article, or are you an employee of the business, or somehow connected with it? If so, you would have a strong CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which you would need to declare by following the guidelines in that link before editing the Draft any further. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It sounds like the topic is not a good fit, as mainstream news about federal funding criteria for municipalities and wastewater treatment plant advancements is limited to none. Kedo-gearhead (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kedo-gearhead, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's unfortunate that you have chosed as your model an article that has been tagged for a year with serious issues - promotional language, and inadequate sources. If you are going to look at existing articles as models, please choose good articles or featured articles, rather than any random dross that happens to be hanging around.

Nick has given you good advice: I will offer more general advice. 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. (I realise that your account has been around for a couple of years, but with only 15 edits to your name, I still count you a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! My first edits were super straightforward. Is the Atlas Copco article a good place to look at disagreements happening, as I don't want to purposefully cause any strife? Kedo-gearhead (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Kedo-gearhead, here is a minor point, but one worth keeping in mind: The term we use on Wikipedia is notability not "notoriety ".

I am certain that Atlas Copco is a notable company, but to be frank, Atlas Copco is a very poor quality encyclopedia article. The most important element in a Wikipedia article is the quality of the references. What is needed are references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic, and the article prose should summarize those independent references. A large majority of these references are affiliated with the company and therefore not independent. Also, most of the content was clearly written by editors affiliated with the company without proper disclosures. So, the article ends up being the company telling the world about itself. That is the purpose of the company website, not the purpose of what ought to be a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Puzzling redirect

I noticed that Political economy has very recently, and at time of writing, been redirected to Comparative economy, and the short description made less descriptive and given a pejorative slant. To my understanding, "Political economy" is the standard scholarly term for the academic discipline that the article describes, and the previous short description was neutrally informative. Perhaps there's a controversy over terminology? What's my best course of action here? Thanks for your advice. Protalina (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Protalina (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article was moved today by @Closed Limelike Curves. They posted a Talk page comment last month about splitting off part of the article, but got no responses and apparently decided to move the article instead, though the article is still framed in terms of Political economy, not Comparative economy. I'm not sure what your best course of action is (hopefully a more experienced editor will chime in soon), but I think the main options are reverting the move per WP:BOLDMOVE or responding on the Talk page about whether the move was appropriate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Protalina (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you, and yeah, there's a bit of a naming clash in that the term "political economy" pre-1910ish used to just mean "economics", and is still sometimes used to refer to the body of work called "political economy" by its authors. ("Protoscience" isn't meant to be derogatory TBC, it's just a description of a young/new scientific field!) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason for the move and reworking is I'm trying to free up the title "political economy" for an article on that, but if you have alternative suggestions we can discuss those on the talk. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don't have enough knowledge of the history of economic thought to comment further on the substance. Perhaps, though, it would be productive to outline your plan at WP:ECON and get feedback there – apologies ofc if already done ;-) Protalina (talk) Protalina (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Inverting logo color

Hi everyone! I recently created a page and I'm continuing the process of filling it out as much as I can. The available logo I pulled for the page is mostly white text with some blue. Is there any guideline against altering the logo by changing the white for black so that it's readable against the white background? I assumed that it'd be poor practice to change the logo's colors myself, but I was curious if there's any direct rules. Thanks! 30Four (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@30Four There is some advice at WP:Logos#Dark mode. I don't think you should be tweaking the logo yourself, as the whole point of logos is that they are as the originator designed them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in that direction, Mike! Unfortunately, this logo is a png file, not an svg required by that Dark mode/skin invert option. I'll just leave it white since it appears to be the proper logo, unless a different editor has another suggestion. I figured that it wouldn't be right to change the logo myself, but you never know until you ask. 30Four (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Where to discuss a page facing legal trouble

Hi, due to the recent Sambhaji legal trouble, Execution of Sambhaji has been moved to Draft:Execution of Sambhaji. I was wondering where to discuss this with other editors, since it seems the person who draftified the article is being persued legally themselves.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Speederzzz I'm not sure what you mean by facing legal trouble, but Wikipedia doesn't really have any control over what happens out in the real world; however, if someone is using their Wikipedia account to post anything which might be considered a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats, then you can report them to an administrator at WP:ANI. Wikipedia policy takes a fairly hardline against anything considered to be a legal threat, and those making them are blocked (typically quite quickly) until they rescind their post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedians have been sued by the government of Maharashtra (see [4]) and now (presumably out of fear, one editor draftified the aforementioned article. I just wondered what steps should be made and where I can discuss what is happening.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't do too much about a government suing its citizens, unless a government official posts threats to do so on Wikipedia. If the Maharashtra government decides to take action against Wikipedia itself, that's a matter for the Foundation's lawyers. I'm going to return the page to the encyclopedia for now. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

But I'm not asking anything about the legal action itself, just where it would be best to discuss what to do with the draftification. I wonder what the best place would be to discuss questions like "Could it harm editors in real life if I undraftify it?" "Is it normal procedure to draftify such articles?". I'm not asking for answers for how to solve the lawsuits, just where to discuss what my conduct as an editor should be in this situation!

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There isn't really one universal answer. The help desk might be a good starting point. In some cases a WikiProject might be appropriate. WP:VPM is another option. The admin boards AN/ANI could be good if you think that admins could be interested, especially if there's a user conduct issue or something needing admin tools or experienced editors who don't afraid of much. I note that the broader "Sambhaji" issue has already been raised and can be currently found at most of the above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This matter is already being discussed extensively at WP:Administrators' noticeboard #Article being reported to cyber police. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse blocked

Why is the tea house blocked so many times? 2003:EE:6F10:1AAD:F092:85B6:A2C5:463D (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably because trolls ask nonsense questions. --Onorem (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

As Onorem said above, a troll has been vandalizing this page, which is why you might be unable to edit this page for some time to prevent such behavior. This unfortunately affects new users, who are the target demographic of the Teahouse. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Onorem, the issue is not "nonsense questions". We can deal with those easily. The troll/harasser/long time abuser repeatedly threatens to kill Wikipedia administrators. Please do not guess at answers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the troll also enjoys posting partly-readable gibberish (or just “nonsense questions”) at every noticeboard with threats in them, but yes, they are the reason why the steakhouse and other venues are constantly protected. E_F⁵ 17:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse*, I hate mobile editing and do apologize. E_F⁵ 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

April 1st renames coming in early this year, I see. Perfect4th (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we have a steakhouse? King Lobclaw (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

King Lobclaw, I was in Amarillo, Texas last year and eating at The Big Texan Steak Ranch is a dramatic experience. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Resubmitting an article

Hey team. I drafted this article a few weeks ago about a journalist: Draft:Emma Camp (journalist). I'm not totally sure what about it failed the notability test, and would love help! Voltshock11 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, having an op-ed published in the NYTimes, while admirable, does not make her Wikipedia-notable. So, too soon in her career to establish her as notable. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable, independent sources that respond to her piece, and comment on it. However, there aren't many independent sources that actually talk about her. I think you might be able to make a case for an article on her essay in the NYTimes -- I can't find much that talks about her other than talking about her piece in the NYT, though. Essentially, articles written by her or published by institutions she works/volunteers at are nil for notability; interviews are not useful; and the numerous sources responding to or commenting on her article make a better case for her article being notable than her. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If you do decide to take it in that direction, maybe "Emma Camp New York Times essay" would be a good title? Mrfoogles (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Editing others drafts

Am I allowed to edit other people's drafts? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Yup, better to ask on the draft talk page first but yes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFTMOVE, an article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, move, rename, redirect, merge, or seek deletion of any draft. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid: What Yeshivish613 posted above is true, but creators of drafts can be very territorial; so, even if only doing so as a courtesy, it probably would be a good idea to at least discuss what you'd like to do with the creator before editing the draft, unless your edit is needed to address a serious Wikipedia policy matter that can't wait (e.g. copyright policy violation) or is such a non-contentious formatting change (e.g. fixing a syntax error) that the creator is almost certainly not going to have a problem with. Drafts aren't articles and thus aren't necessarily expected to be of the same qualities as an article; for sure, you can make suggestions that you think might help improve the draft, but unilaterally stepping in a rewriting things as you see fit (even things as seemingly harmless as changing a citation style or date formats) can rub people the wrong way and potentially lead to edit warring or other serious problems. Most people are happy to receive feedback about their drafts, but not too happy when they feel someone else is trying to take over the draft. Please keep that in mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello!

I also recently asked this question in c:COM:VPC, but I may need additional clarification.

{{Top icon}} says that you must not use icons with attribution licenses, however, if I attribute the author in the tooltip, and include the URL of the license as specified by section 3(a)(1)(C) of the legal code to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, is it OK?

Here is an example of what I mean (feel free to RevDel if I have accidentally commited a CopyVio with this) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

While you are providing the needed attribution, it stuffs the tooltip with information not relevant to what the image is meant for. Essentially, it's possible but not plausible to do so, and thus really, really, really not recommended. I say just use a PD/free use image. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 08:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

References

How to edit the phrase that appears below article names in the "Add a link" box?

I mean when adding an internal link in the Visual Editor. EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy If you are referring to short descriptions, then you should click on the first template called "Short description" and press "Edit". The eaisest way to edit them, however, is by enabling the Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper gadget in your preferences. – Isochrone (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

10x EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

ccTLD codes

Wiki has two letter country codes Top Level Domain (ccTLD) auch as .au for Australia.

What are the three letter "sports codes" such as AUS for AUSTRALIA?

Is there a list of these scTLDs? ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There is one at Comparison of alphabetic country codes. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on re-doing list article

Hi there, I have recently redone this list article [5] and was wondering if it was possible to get feedback on it before I do all the other letters (or where I should go for feedback - peer review/wikiproject lists??). I redid the references, footnotes, associated nav template, start of the article etc (before: [6], after: [7], changes: [8]) and was wondering if someone could advise me before I go ahead and spend time doing all the other ones. Many thanks in advance for your help! Anguswiki (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Please link to articles using readable wiki links e.g List of airports by IATA airport code: G. The Talk pages found at Talk:List of airports by IATA airport code: G indicate that WP:WikiProject Aviation would be a good place to ask. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing a two part interview

 Courtesy link: Sacred Reich Working on a page, and I want to organize an interview with a member of the band (Wiley Arnett) which is split into two parts. (Part 1, part 2) Since there are two seperate web pages for the interview, do I make a full citation with both URLs and turn parts 1 and 2 into short footnotes? If so, how? —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 03:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade The article doesn't currently use the {{sfn}} template for shortened footnotes and per WP:CITEVAR you should be sticking to the method already in use. Since your two-part interviews are both transcripts in web pages, I'd be inclined to cite them separately, and then you can mark information coming from one or the other at appropriate places. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Is their a way to make it so only I can edit my articles

Can I make it so only I can make edits on my source TJGhicl (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@TJGhicl no. See WP:OWN. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TJGhicl. As SHushugah posted above, we don't really "own" the content we create or edit on Wikipedia, and least not in the sense we can lock it to prevent others from editing it. Wikipedia is essentially a website where we can post content as long as it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as long as we agree to release what we post under Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL copyright licenses, which pretty much allows others to edit or otherwise reuse what we post with very minimal restriction. This is part of the wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use all of us agree to everytime they click the "Publish changes" button to make an edit. So, if you feel this type of thing is too limiting for you, there are perhaps Wikipedia:Alternative outlets available that will provide you with more control than Wikipedia gives you. Some of this outlets even have software that's similar what Wikipedia uses. Now, if your question has to anything to do with Draft:Canyon Springs Stem Academy, then "locking" the page isn't going to make the draft OK to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written about subjects which meet Wikipedia:Notability. For schools, particulary at the elementary/junior high school level, this tends to be quite hard to do because not many of them receive the kind of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources necessary to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools). You can try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for more details if you want, but I think you'll probably receive feedback similar to that you've already received on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick question about OR & notability

I stumbled across this page just by happenstance: World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival and though I'm sure it passes notability for inclusion at WP, it seems that the External links and Citations do not provide adequate sources for the staggering amount of content provided. Wondering if this might be WP:OR or maybe even WP:COI. Also, two articles that have been created based on this page: Adam Swanson and Martin Spitznagel seem to only claim notability associated with the contest. I understand that WP:MUSICBIO has certain guidelines for notability, but I'm not sure this award is notable enough for inclusion. If so, that would allow some 100 winners to be included at WP based on this award alone. I am not seeing any other notability claims except for World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival for these 2 subjects. The opening paragraph is entirely devoted to winning the same contest. The other content is based on primary biography sources. Is this contest award notable for a stand-alone criteria? Maineartists (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It does seem grotesque, Maineartists, yes. Much of it is devoted to the many "rules". Within this, there's a reference to a PDF file titled "World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival 2024 Official Contest Rules". Readers could simply be directed there -- other perhaps than for a rule that has brought about commentary in reliable sources. An advantage (aside from compactness): If/when there's a new PDF for 2025 or 2026 or whenever, readers can be referred to it with a very simple edit to the article. The lists of winners seems excessive too; I suspect that MoS comments on this. I don't see clear signs of Wikipedia-defined "notability" in the article, but haven't started to search for sources that haven't yet been cited. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. Excessive was my first impression on the Contest and Festival page, too. Any thoughts about the BLP articles notability generated solely on the basis of the "winners" claim? The criteria door has to be opened first to allow other lesser sources to build a good article on a subject; does this "winners" claim merit enough for inclusion at WP and does this open the door for all the other nearly 100 winners to be included? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, I am not convinced that this competition is notable. The references are very weak. The most comprehensive is from the University of Mississippi, but they sponsor and host the event so that is not an independent source. The other sources are mostly small town newspapers reporting "local resident won an award" type coverage, without significant coverage of the competition. I am very confident that winning the award they give is nowhere near a prestigious enough honor that winning it confers notability on the recipient. WP:NPERSON says a person is likely to be notable if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. This award is neither well-known nor significant.

On a side note, external links do not contribute to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. It does seem a project dear to the heart of the creating editor (who I should have notified for this discussion, my apologies. I will do so now) as its founding is mentioned in this article: Monticello Railway Museum. Perhaps it can be merged there, or to the Monticello High School (Illinois) football field where it is was later moved, or even more appropriately at the Monticello, Illinois page. Removing the extensive list of winners and replacing it with the more conventional link to the website page for further reference would cut the content down to a more digestible stand-alone section for merging. The Rules and Divisions are unnecessary, as you know. As for the BLPs, I'll do a little more digging, but I'm only finding "is an award-winning" claim in their bios to circle back to this one contest. At the very least, the new merged section can at least include a short sentence of notable winners and mention these two musicians. Thanks for your expertise on the matter. Always appreciated. Maineartists (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Another point. Let's assume for the moment (benefit of the doubt, sort of thing) that the article can pass the Wikipedia notability test. Things like "rules", "past winners", etc. belong primarily on the contest's own website, not here. Shouldn't any mention to such items (in their generality) in this article simply be links to the relevant page within that website? And if the organisation's own website doesn't list them, that suggests that they may not be notable enough to be in this article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, given that the competition has not been held in Monticello, Illinois since the 1980s and has been held in Oxford, Mississippi for the past nine years, I doubt that Monticello is the best place for the content. 2025 readers looking for information about the event are most likely interested in the Ole Miss incarnation. Feline Hymnic, I agree completely that the arcane ruleset is not appropriate, but if the competition is notable, then a list of winners is probably appropriate. The amazing thing to me is that the event has survived for half a century, hopping around Illinois from Monticello to Decatur to Peoria to Champaign and then eventually to Oxford, Mississippi. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Cut down the rules section a bit. The "divisions" section should likely be turned into "Winners" and some detail removed. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen328. I see that now. My mistake. It has certainly moved around over the years. It has settled here at [The Old Henry] in Oxford, Mississippi. Mrfoogles, an extensive list of this undue weight should be relevant reason to readers and linked to notable subjects listed at WP. Once again, linking the contest website's winners list from the subject website is sufficient for those interested in the article page topic. As editor Feline Hymnic said: "wikipedia is not a substitute for an organisation's own website." Not one of these winners (except Marty Sammon) have a WP article other than the two that the creating editor created and linked themselves. Which is a circular defense for notability right now. Maineartists (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor that created that page. I have looked at it again, and I overall agree that the rules could be taken out. The past winners column, however, should stay in my opinion, because all of the championship-related pages on Wikipedia that I took inspiration from have complete winners lists. That said I will find more citations for it in the coming days. I am new to Wikipedia and creating articles, so any pointers would be much appreciated. AAPRM (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, AAPRM. Thanks for joining. At some point, the discussion should shift over to the article page itself. For now, the question of notability is being discussed regarding the contest itself and the 2 BLP articles stemming from having solely won this contest. Could you reference some "Championship" article pages here at WP that you took inspiration from? Most lists at WP do merit some notability (especially at the local level); otherwise, a simple External link to the list and/or a sentence naming a few well-known artists within the article stating: "previous winners have been ..." should suffice. Maineartists (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree, that may be the way to go. The article that I took the most inspiration from was the Air Guitar World Championships page, and this lists the winners in a table. AAPRM (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm. That page certainly raises questions on notability itself. But that's another can of worms. I've continued the discussion at the topic's article page: Talk:World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Limit on submissions

Hello everyone, I am currently editing my draft article Draft:Cedric Koukjian for neutral language and notability. My questions is: Is there a possibility for permanent rejection? whether by too many submission or decision of comunity? or It is safe to resubmit a few times for approval? Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There would be a chance that reviewers will be fed up, and issue a rejection. Another possibility is a WP:MFD to see if the community wants to delete the draft, and salt it. The thing for you to do is find sources on the person, that are independent, which means not written by a gallery he exhibited in. If there are no such suitable sources, then move onto something else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aston3421 just noticed you uploaded a picture of Koukjian as "Own Work". If you took this photo and have connections to Koukjian you have to declare these per the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. If you did not take the photo, you cannot upload it as your own work unless you are sure you personally own the copyright to it -- photos can only be uploaded by the photographer/copyright owner or else by someone else if the photos are licensed under a free license already. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was rejected as not notable, though, the sources seem fine to me -- maybe ask the reviewer for details? Nevermind, didn't realize that sources written by a gallery that exhibited him don't count? Mrfoogles (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mrfoogles Thank you for having a look at the article. The disclosures have already been made with admin @331dot on my talk page User talk:Aston3421#Your submission at Articles for creation: Cedric Koukjian (April 23) He walked me through the copyright part and gave me the go ahead.

Concerning the sources, I actually discovered that I was supposed to mention a gallery exhibiting the subject as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals this is why it was mentioned.

Is there any recommendation you can make so I can improve the article? anything that can help me out getting it accepted? Thank you Aston3421 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I decided to remove the mention of the gallery. I believe you are right and it somehow doesn't fit with the referencing convention. Aston3421 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that's not what I was getting at. Removing references doesn't help with notability -- essentially you have to have ~3 reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant (i.e. not just a random namedrop) coverage of the topic (WP:THREE is a good essay (not policy) on this, or look at WP:GNG, which is policy). I would say just find 3 sources that seems reliable, independent of the source (e.g. not interviews), secondary (published somewhere, not a blog) that provide a paragraph or two, then put that on the reviewer's talk page and ask if those sources would be acceptable per WP:THREE. If they aren't they'll probably point out why. Personally, I think

• https://www.admiddleeast.com/story/why-pierre-and-cedric-koukjian-are-an-art-duo-to-have-on-your-radar
• https://ge.archivescommunales.ch/uploads/r/archives-de-la-commune-de-cologny/9/f/0/9f052b91aa582419646f938d3cbb5c0e432454b69b0cb79e0a900a268c99b352/20200210_Tribune_Rives_Lac.pdf (although a little short)
• https://ibb.co/xs6msVx (not the most reputable link, but sources are explicitly not required to be online anyways)

would do the job. Tone-wise the article looks fine-ish to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, it's probably best to declare that you are Cedric Koukjian on your user page -- that's where people look most often. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

How do I edit named references?

The David Icke article has a source with an error. Source 27, a Vice article, states "Cite error: The named reference ":0" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)."

When I hit edit, I do not see any such error visible in the visual editor. When I switch to the source editor, the references disappear and I only see the 'reflist' template.

I can click on the named references icon in the source editor and see that there are two references named ":0" but I cannot figure out how to remedy that for the life of me!

How do I fix that? Thanks in advance!
 Delectopierre (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit the whole page with the source editor. Chane one of those :0's to another name, preferably a meaningful short name (like an author surname). But if there are reuses of a reference you will have to decide which one to change it to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre I fixed it for you with this edit. By changing the reference name to NYT2018, it has gone from being a faulty reference at [27], to a separate reference at position [196]. I'm unable to check the the cited quotation is actually in the reference as it's behind a paywall. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre and Nick Moyes, I am a subscriber to the New York Times and can confirm that the 2018 Greenblatt quotation is accurate and appears in the cited reference. This is a perfect example of why a mnemonic like "NYT2018" that is meaningful to humans is superior to a machine assigned reference like ":0" as a reference name. Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Nick Moyes, thank you both for your assistance, and for resolving that error.

That said, I am still unable to view any of the the named sources, no matter which edit button I choose.

Interestingly, Nick Moyes, when I view that diff, it says no changes made. I can confirm that when I view the article, the error is resolved. But something strange seems to be happening with named sources for me.

I included screenshots of both of the items I mentioned above. Am I just looking in the wrong place? (I couldn't figure out how to embed the screenshots with proper alignment, so here are links):

• Cannot see named refs
• No changes

Delectopierre (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not seeing any changes because you are looking at a visual diff, and Nick's change only affected Wikitext. If you click on the Wikitext button near the top of the page you will see the changes.

I don't quite understand what you are saying about not seeing named sources. Your screenshot is showing the end of the article. Are you expecting to see the sources in the wikitext of the References section? That's not the case -- the sources are in the body of the article, at the point where each superscript number appears in the formatted page. CodeTalker (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you click on the Wikitext button near the top of the page you will see the changes. I haven't ever used source edit to view diffs, this is so much easier to understand! Wow.

the sources are in the body of the article, at the point where each superscript number appears in the formatted page Oh boy. Yep. That makes perfect sense now that you say it. It's not intuitive to me that they would all be listed at the bottom when using visual editor, but not in source editor. But once you mentioned it, I understood why.

Thank you for your help! Delectopierre (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Any ideas about why this article draft would be flagged?

Hi there! I’m wondering if anyone can offer insights on why the draft page for Juan Ruiz Naupari (here) is being flagged for immediate deletion under the G11 criteria (which states that it’s because of blatant promotion”.

The article, however, doesn’t seem to fit the G11 criteria for immediate deletion, as the G11 description literally say “ Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion”, and the article seems to be written in a neutral point of view. Do you have any specific examples of information not being presented from a neutral point of view that we could revise? I have visited read the guidelines numerous times and careful but I’m still not sure why this is being specifically flagged for immediate deletion under G11. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

A speedy request can be removed by anyone, and user:Significa liberdade had already done so before you posted this. Meters (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick correction: A speedy deletion request can be removed by anyone except the article's creator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I should have checked who created the article before writing that. Meters (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you as user:Electricmemory who requested the speedy? Meters (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Meters I just declined the Draft, and not requested Speedy deletion, it was actually requested by User:Electricmemory. Taabii (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Rodrigoruiz1988, the draft doesn't seem neutral to me. It's entrirely based on sources with close connections to the subject. The only independent source is a page of the Dalai Lama Official Website which doesn't even mention Ruiz. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m genuinely interested in understanding how EUROTAS and LA Yoga can be considered related sources to the subject of the article. They’re independent of him as far as I know and as far as I can tell.

I also found a few more articles in Mexican news outlets that should strengthen the article’s claim to notability. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rodrigoruiz1988. The LA Yoga piece might be independent, if the author has independently researched Naupari; but it is much more likely that either it came out of an interview, or that they know each other. As for the EUROTAS, as far as I can see it does not even mention him. What is the point of a citation which does not mention the subject? ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We cannot base our qualification of an article on the supposition that “it likely” came from an interview, though, can we?

Maybe I got the EUROTAS link wrong but it was supposed to be this one where he is the main subject of the article as he was a pannelist and presenter at the Oxford EUROTAS Creative Bridges 2024 conference. I’ll double check the draft to make sure it’s correct. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If this individual is a collaborator with EUROTAS, then sources that are connected to their collaboration, such as advertising their participation to encourage people to come to a conference, that's certainly not independent.

Was this written with the aid of AI? There are a few rather bizarre passages at the end of the "Early life and education" and "Recognition and influence" sections. In more than a decade, I can't recall ever seeing a bio that included sentences telling the reader that the preceding content was unverified and/or unreliable. If the author of the article doesn't think the subject is notable, I'm not sure how a reviewer or a reader can be expected to think so (see: there is little significant coverage in mainstream academic or journalistic outlets to establish broader notability). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rodrigoruiz1988: Might you have a WP:COI on this topic that needs declaring? Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not really. I’m not related to the subject. I happen to have a very common Spanish and Mexican last name, but related to the subject. It is the 21st most common last name, so high chances sharing a last name. Rodrigoruiz1988 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline article

Could someone please provide me with guidance on improving my draft Draft:Airpaz ? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated and also I'm using reference from here agoda and trip.com. But I'm still got decline. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jodysetiawan23, the fundamental problem here is that none of the nine sources cited are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of the subject. The sources are all press releases, short sections about routine company activities, and one directly from the subject. WP:CORPTRIV ought to provide more guidance on what trivial coverage of a corporation is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

You've also listed the logo as your own work. Do you personally own the rights to the logo of this travel company? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response User:CoffeeCrumbs

Could you provide specific examples of what constitutes trivial coverage of a corporation?

Regarding the logo, I do not own the rights personally; it is owned by the company. Are there any steps I need to take for the logo? Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone else has already nominated it for speedy deletion.

Trivial coverage is listed at WP:CORPTRIV as noted above. Things like basic reporting of expansions and mergers and partnerships are not considered notable unless the coverage of them is significantly more in-depth than found in any of these sources. I gotta admit, after doing some searching, I don't believe the sources exist at this time to demonstrate Airpaz is a notable company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What is meaning of Original research according to Wikipedia policy

Original research means publishing your thoughts your personal experience which can be sourced or unsourced? For example Indian samosa give good taste is example of original reasearch? Hellorld4 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am confussed tell me The example provided by my is original reasearch? I have read twice but Didn't understand, are personal experiences and thoughst is part of original reasearch policy? Hellorld4 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The article Samosa has an enormous amount of detail about that food but does not say in Wikipedia's voice that they taste good. Instead, the article summarizes what reliable sources say about the flavors of the many varieties of samosas. If a Wikipedia editor was to add their personal opinion that samosas taste good or samosas taste bad, then that would be original research and not allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that personal experience/opinion cannot be referenced, and so does not belong in an article. If there is a situation in which your experience/opinion can be referenced - for example you write food articles for a major newspaper - then Wikipedia asks that you do not add text that uses your own publications as references. David notMD (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

If an userbox is hosted on a subpage of another user page (like User:Username here/userbox name), do I have to ask that user for permission to use their userbox? Justjourney (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you have to ask for permission on a user page, you have to ask permission if it is on a user sub page. Bduke (talk)

@Bduke Can you please clarify if I can just use it, or ask the user first? Also, what happened to your signature? Justjourney (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Justjourney, userboxes are freely licensed content. They can be re-used by anyone at any time for any purpose, without asking anyone for permission, as long as misrepresentation is not involved. If you want to ask for permission as a courtesy, that is fine but is completely optional. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the above, you probably do not need to ask anyone to use their userbox, but you seemed to be implying that that you did in some cases. Also, sorry for not signing off correctly. It is late at night here! Bduke (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Please help

You have reacted to a new page, Paul Werner Glaser, I am trying to launch. Is there anything wrong with is? Of so, I can"t find it in your comments. best, Andi Andipost (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Paul Glaser

@Andipost: We do not accept content that isn't in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good news is that German Wikipedia does. Within their own rules etc, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither Paul Werner Glaser nor Draft:Paul Werner Glaser currently exists, Andipost. Draft:Paul Glaser is perfunctory and in German. (Most earlier versions are now "deleted": this one [which you cannot now view], from June, is one of many far better developed, English-language versions. Liz "deleted" it in December because it had been abandoned.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to work on an earlier, now-"deleted" version, Andipost? -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

User boxes

I would like to add my own user boxes to my page. How do i do that? Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot. Does WP:User boxes answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That helps a lot. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what to do in this situation, regarding Portugal’s article page

Know that table in the top of all country pages? Shows a map, population, gdp, all that stuff. Well, after looking at the pages of other countries like Spain and Latvia, I noticed that they include recognised regional languages in the “native name” category of the table uptop, I assumed that was reserved for official languages only (such as Catalan in Spain), but those tables included recognised languages as well! (Aragonese and Asturian for Spain, Livonian and Latgalian for Latvia), so I wondered “why doesn’t the table in Portugal’s page include the name of the country in mirandese? A recognised language of portugal since 1998”. I asked in the talk page, got no response, waited 4 months, asked again, still no response. Is it just a stupid question to the point of not needing answering and im just missing something?

My current theory is that it must have something to do with the internal law of how each country recognises their languages, but I haven’t found any criteria for it either (I did ask on the Wikipedia subreddit, but no one answered). Couldn’t possibly have to do with the number of speakers, given livonian has 20 or so native speakers and is still included. The name of portugal (Portuguese republic) in mirandese is also known information, given there’s a mirandese Wikipedia with the portugal article, the name being República Pertuesa, so can’t be lack of info either.

I don’t know if im just being a nuisance, but apologies if so MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MdMV or Emdy idk. My immediate thought was that the answer was "because nobody has added it". But in fact that is not the case. This was discussed in 2012, at Talk:Portugal/Archive 5#Mirandese title and at Talk:Portugal/Archive 6#National language.

I haven't looked at the discussions, so I have no idea how persuasive the arguments were. But you should be aware of them.

What I will say is that there is no rule such as you are suggesting above: like many things in Wikipedia, it is a matter of consensus among editors. Please have a look at WP:BRD and (if necessary) WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well that’s just stupid in my opinion what happened in 2012, that guy’s just saying it shouldn’t be added because it’s useless info? Wikipedia’s the home of info! And no one necessarily agreed or disagreed on anything, the discussion was just cut short. Mirandese is not official in portugal but it’s recognised as a regional language. I have already asked twice on the talk page and no one cared to agree or disagree, so a consensus seems a bit out of reach, is it that bad if I just add it? MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

it was one singular guy undoing edits, that doesn’t sound like a consensus, just an unresolved dispute that died out I guess MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @MdMV or Emdy idk, you're not being a nuisance. :) That box you're referring to is called an "Infobox" by the way.

From the thread above, it looks like the discussion in 2012 wasn't very complete. I think the Latvia infobox is a good example for how we could handle this, and Spain is a good example for what to do when many languages are recognized. I think that, for all the reasons you indicated, adding the Mirandese name to the Portugal infobox would be a good idea, and you should do it. I would suggest looking at the wikitext of the Latvia infobox to see what templates they use to get the names to look the way they do, and emulate that on the Portugal infobox. It might help you to know that the ISO 639 language code for Mirandese is mwl.

It is possible that an editor might not agree right away, and revert your edit. You shouldn't be so worried about this possibility that it stops you from making good-faith edits to improve the wiki. But it is kind of a bummer when people don't see the value of your edits, or when you work hard on an edit only to realize that it didn't comply with policy or improve the article. I would suggest this mentality: edit boldly, then if someone reverts it, have a discussion to try and arrive at a decision together. This is sometimes called the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help editing some complicated bit of templating markup or navigating editorial politics. Good luck, have fun. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Religion based Articles

Hey, Need guidance from editors, As we know the first chapter of the Holy Quran, Surah Al Fatiha begins with the verse, but some versions include with, A`udhu billahi minash-Shaitan nir-rajim (I seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the accursed). Unfortunately I couldn't find the information about the reason for this on the article -- Al-Fatiha, So can I step further to add it and pls lemme know if there are any issues associated with it. Thanks! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JesusisGreat7. I'm not sure what you are asking. (Note by the way: No, many of us do not know anything about what the first chapter of the Quran says. Please do not make assumptions).

If you are asking whether you may add some information to the article, then yes, provided you have a reliable source for the information you are adding. (And that source really should be more than just citing some versions that have the verse. It needs to be a discussion about whether and why the verse is included - but the first part of your question sounded as if you haven't got that information).

Alternatively, raise the question on the talk page of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, though I have put a note on the talk pages of islamic related editors, Regarding my question I mean the current article doesn't have an article on the thing which I an going to add so basically I was asking guidance before editing so to prevent edit revert!! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, @JesusisGreat7. You can't prevent edit revert - any edit you make, some other editor may disagree with, and revert it, according to BRD. But by making sure anything you add is neutrally written, and cited to a Reliable source, you can make it less likely that another editor will revert you.

There is nothing special about religious subjects as opposed to any other, except that some editors get very protective about what should or shouldn't be said, and how. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @JesusisGreat7, I commented on this last night and reverted it because I confused the thing you were talking about with the Basmala. Sorry about that. It looks like the phrase you're talking about is most commonly referred to in English as the Audubillah or Auzubillah, and it's clearly important in Islamic practice, but I'm having trouble finding English-language sources that describe that importance. I suspect there might be more Arabic sources discussing the subject in detail, but obviously it's hard to search for those sources and interpret them without knowledge of Arabic. If you can write a new section of Al Fatiha about the Audubillah, and provide reliable sources for your claims, that would be a really good start. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually I posted the same question into talk pages of multiple editors, and they guided me that the phrase is not a part of the Surah Al Fatiha, but it is a common sentence that can be spoken while reciting any verse, So the article should have no or very less information about it! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a peek at Wikipedia library and came up empty but Google Scholar has some promising possible leads for RSes. [9] Note the spelling there is Audhubillah - which is the only English spelling I could find that returned any results. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps Salah or Rak'a could mention it? You may already know this, but WikiProjects can be a good way to find editors knowledgeable about a topic, such as WP:ISLAM in this case. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Trying to be my the best editor I can be.

I have a question which, upon further reflection, looks more like a soliloquy (musing to self) at this point. My draft article on William Graham Sumner's masterwork Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals was labeled as "promising", because, well, it is. That being said, I want it to look something like a cross between the pages on the orator, statesman, and political philosopher Demosthenes and Niccolò Machiavelli's page Discourses on Livy. Any idea how to up my Wikipedia game and make my page a polished gem? How do I learn the mechanics of editing efficaciously? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Your first article should be a good start. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, the first titled section of Draft:Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals is "Title". It's completely unreferenced. In "Title" and below, reference what the draft asserts. Radically shorten the (immense) block quotations. What did reviews of it published from 1906 to 1908 say about it? How has its reputation fared since? -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"How has its reputation fared since?"

Thank you for bringing that question to my attention. I wasn't thinking of that. The work was always in print but never a best seller, according to the 1940 edition of its re-print. I'll be sure to add a section regarding the circulation (in academia and in the public sphere) of Professor Sumner's ideas. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'd be inclined to title the eventual article "Folkways (book)". -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123 First impression on reading you question here at Teahouse, what struck me was your style of writing: wordy and heavy. Then I clicked on your draft and was completely overwhelmed. Remember: less is more. Readers type in "words" to search for topics, if they do not precisely type in your title: "Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals", they will never render a result. WP is an encyclopedia, not an Academic Thesis or Study. At present, this article runs the risk of major scrubbing and heaving editing due to Personal Opinion, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and certainly lack of WP:RS. Everything you state in this article must be backed up by a reliable source and authority on the subject. Otherwise, it is just your opinion and original research that most certainly will be challenged. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, I do not think that you fully understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online 21st century version of Reader's Digest. Your draft has a monumental overuse of direct quotations from the book, and a radical shortage of references to and discussion of critical commentary from reliable sources completely independent of Sumner. Here, you call the book a "masterwork". Who says so? Your draft calls the book "a landmark interdisciplinary work". Who says so? If it is you who is drawing those conclusions, then that is original research which is forbidden by policy. Your draft has just two references to independent, reliable sources, one of which is a brief Encyclopedia Brittanica article and the other is an article in an academic journal published in 1958. Demosthenes has 204 references. By that metric, you are about 1% of the way there. The backbone of any Wikipedia article about any topic ought to be the references to reliable sources completely independent of the topic that devote significant coverage to the topic, and the role of the Wikipedia editor is to summarize what those independent sources say about the topic. On style and tone, abandon the rhetorical flourishes, and write concisely and directly, like Hemingway did. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Maineartists, you write that if [people] do not precisely type in your title: "Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals", they will never render a result. Not so. Let's try with the current draft. In the search box that's at the top left of my browser window (but perhaps elsewhere within yours), I type just Draft:Folkways: A -- and I already receive the suggestion "Draft:Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals". But I agree (and have already suggested) that the current title of the draft is pointlessly cumbrous. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes. I always forget about the drop down menu with "pages containing" at WP. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove all the quotes from the book. Incorporate what people wrote about the impact of the book on society (referenced). David notMD (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 I agree with what David and others have said. Cut all the quotations and replace them with an External Links section (see WP:EL) with just one link to a viewable copy of the book (see here). If you feel the need to use the book as an actual citation, remember that it's important to cite the relevant page number or numbers to which any statement refers.

What you have appeared to have drafted thus far is somewhat equivalent to an inordinately lengthy 'Plot' section about a film or play, but without any coverage of its contemporary 'Reception', nor any 'Cultural Impact' it has had down the decades. That is what an encyclopaedia should include. So, its finding those resources that write about the book and its impact that you should focus on after very major pruning of the 'Contents' section. But, well done on starting your very first draft article, and I hope you find the feedback given here of some help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'plot' analogy. That's seriously useful. I'm finding that collecting my thoughts into a concise stream of words is harder than it seems because, without giving myself undue airs of pretension, writing with rhetorical flourish is second nature to me. But Wikipedia is not the place for poesy. Wikipedia is more, erm, utilitarian, right? Nevertheless, I'll keep working at it and come back if I have more questions. I find that the criticism of my page is constructive. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 Yes, absolutely right. We aren't writing an essay to impress our tutors or our peers; we are writing to collate, condense and simplify what others have already published in reliable works, whether in academic periodicals or mainstream media. I remember some years ago being taken aback by the writing flourishes in certain newspapers published in India. It was as if the authors were trying to show off their fantastic command of the English language, whilst actually making them unnecessarily hard to read - almost Victorian in style.

Plain English should always be our goal here, and all flourishes and fancy turns of phrase (or is it turn of phrases?) left behind whenever we start to edit Wikipedia.

There are various reading age tests one can deploy to determine the complexity of our writings. Aiming for a reading age of an 11 year old was my self-imposed upper limit when I was employed in the museum sector to create exhibitions. And even highly complex Wikipedia articles should be written so as to be comprehensible to a first year undergraduate studying that subject.

Like you, I'm also a great lover of positive criticism - an excellent way to improve what one does. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"And even highly complex Wikipedia articles should be written so as to be comprehensible to a first year undergraduate studying that subject."

That reading benchmark is extremely fair and, for me, practicable. I will do it. Thank you for, for lack of a better word, discipling my thought process. I aim to make Professor Sumner's Folkways masterwork (of which several hundred works went into the production of that single composition) accessible to as many readers as possible. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

List of important publications in philosophy section on 19th century, provides links to articles about books in that realm which may serve as models for how to write about books.

How was the book received by academics, students and the public? Are there published reviews to serve as refs? David notMD (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for hyperlinking that list of important publications in philosophy! That's a seriously useful page for me. Thanks again! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyright to use for images I've been given permission to use?

This may be a dumb question, but...

I am trying to get a photo of John Laurens's gravestone. The only problem? I don't live close to South Carolina, where he lies. I'm going to either contact people who have already photographed the headstone or ask people who live there to take an updated one and give me permission to upload it on here. However, I'm unsure what copyright I'd put it under. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be easiest if the photographer themselves was the one to upload it to Commons. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, @331dot!

In the instance the photographer doesn't know how to use Commons or just doesn't want to, would there be a copyright I could put it under, or should I just force (not actually) them to upload it? Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I would ask that at Commons, but you uploading an image someone else took would require a statement from them that they are releasing the image under a copyright compatible with Commons'(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution), and you would need to work with those at Commons to show that. That's not too hard as I understand it, but, again, it's much easier if the photographer themselves uploads the image. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ali Beary. In that case they (not you) would have to send the mail mentioned DONATEIMAGE (it says it refers to images already published online, but I believe it applies to unpublished images as well) ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way: Permission for you when it comes to images and their use on Wikipedia means nothing. Wikipedia would be the one needing the permission as it's hosting the image. (And as a rule, we won't seek it out or use images where only Wikipedia has permission.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question About A Submission

Hey All- Quick question about a submission, I've tried to create a page for Thomas Haugh (basketball) he's at Uof Florida, and is having an exceptional year. Was wondering why it may have not passed inspection back on 12/24. Hoping there's some help you all can provide. Thanks! GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see the message at the top of the draft for the reason that the draft was declined(not just the templated message in the red box, the reviewer left a comment below it). You have resubmitted the draft for review; the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The Comment left at Draft:Thomas Haugh applies - he does not yet meet the criteria for a college athlete to be considered notable. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

In your experiences, can this change as a player improves? Or should I wait until he becomes worthy of criteria? Should I work to make a compelling argument that he does? GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A lack of notability is certainly not for all time- he certainly could meet it in the future. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is in the middle of his 2nd year. This is basically too soon. If you compare his progress to Ryan and Xavier (your high school teammate mentions), those article have college stats, but they have either committed to NBA or are already in NBA. Also, describing performances in individual games should not be in the article. If the draft is declined again you can leave it until the end of this season, to then update if he has had a much better 2nd year and declares. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

From the last ref, appears he is not a starter? Maybe 3rd year college he is a starter with more minutes and scoring. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense! If he has a tourney run, or takes over the starting role. It would prove to be significant and the updating would suffice! Thanks for the overview! GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A Page I Created Weeks Ago Is Not Indexed On Google

Hi,

I have been creating Wikipedia pages since early January and I have successfully published a few. However, I noticed that a page, Iremide Adeoye, that I created over 3 weeks ago is not indexed on Google. Whenever I Google it, I can only find Wiki links to pages it is connected to but never the actual page. I also haven't received any notifications saying there's something wrong it. What could be the problem? I need assistance please. JohnInyiriOgba (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@JohnInyiriOgba pages are only indexed after they've been marked as reviewed at new page patrol, or if they have remained unreviewed for ninety days. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This helps. JohnInyiriOgba (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

"Minimal Usage"

So when I upload an image on Wikipedia, I am able to do all the steps, but on the "describe how this is minimal", I get confused. What should I put in the box for it? Liam9287 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Minimal usage could be just using it one time. Also using the image at reduced resolution is minimal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Liam9287, minimal usage of images applies only to non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, then you do not need to worry about minimal usage. Normally, a non-free image is used in only one article. If it is used in two articles, you need to write a separate rationale for each one. Non-free images cannot be used outside of article space. They cannot be used in drafts or on user pages or talk pages or here at the Teahouse. That is another aspect of minimal usage. You need to explain how the image helps the reader better understand the topic. Non-free images cannot be used for the decorative purpose of making the article look nice. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liam9287: Some of your recent uploads of Canadian company logos actually seem to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (see also c:COM:TOO for reference) in both the US (where the Wikipedia servers are located) and Canada (the country of first publication) and probably should've been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. I've converted the licensing of a few of these, but there are many others you should probably also ask about at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC to see whether they too can be converted to a public domain license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't bad - it's actually good if any of them are too simple to be eligible for copyright. It's not really a problem to upload an image as non-free (if it complies with WP:NFCC) when it really should be considered free. From what I can see, User:Liam9287, you're doing your best to err on the side of caution and upload potentially non-free images as non-free - which you should be commended for. As Marchjuly said, you can always ask at those links (the Media Copyright Questions or MCQ page here, or the Village Pump for Copyright or VPC on Commons) to determine if they're possibly free (i.e. not original enough to be eligible for copyright in the first place) before you upload them. But when in doubt, erring on the side of caution is great! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea these could be free since they are company logos, thank you! I am still a little bit confused on what to actually type into the minimal usage box. Maybe something like "This file will only be used in (article name) and is low resolution."? Liam9287 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying copyright tags for an image

Greetings! I have found an image with the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR) copyright tag and I was wondering what option or copyright tag I should enter when uploading this to Wikimedia Commons. This is because when uploading, I was told by the prompt that I had to have a valid copyright tag in a template such as "{{Cc-by-2.0}}". Thanks in advance! ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken I'm afraid you cannot upload it. CC-BY-NC-SA is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for letting me know. I'll try to find an alternative image. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit quality control: capture cards

Hey guys. I'm relatively new to editing, and just wanted to double-check something.

I found the redirect Capture Card -> Video capture and chose to update it to point to Video capture#Devices specifically, then tweaked the article to mention "this functionality is typically performed by a dedicated video capture device, colloquially called a capture card." Then I noticed that this is a stub article with basically no citations.

I'm kinda struggling to find any sources that aren't either advertisements for cards or AI generated sludge. But we clearly can't settle for "citation: /wiki/Capture_Card redirects here".

I did find this, but there's not much meat here. https://restream.io/learn/what-is/capture-card/ Should I just do it? And what do I do in the future? Was "edit first, cite later" okay for trivial ones like this, or should I have held back? NomadicVoxel (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@NomadicVoxel in my opinion, the "colloquially called a capture card" is a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, where you technically don't need a citation. You're right that it's not an ideal situation, though.

The source you've found isn't the ideal type of source, given the circumstances of its publication (more as an instructional thing for using a related platform, rather than an independent look at capture cards), though it would be bare-minimum reliable for some basic facts. This book is pretty dated but seems to have some content on capture cards. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Elli That makes sense yeah. And I appreciate the help with digging for a citation. You too, @Reconrabbit. Though it looks like user @StarryGrandma beat us to finding a source for that one (TY).

Three good sources on the topic, I think I'll give it a better look tonight. NomadicVoxel (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@NomadicVoxel: Does editing in a mention even work? --Nope, a mention causes a notification only if made in the same edit in which you add your signature. So here I've notified you, and now I notify also Elli. See WP:PING for more help. --CiaPan (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This chapter of a book published by Apress, part of Springer Nature, might have some info: doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-8841-2_5 (Quote: "It’s helpful to have a video capture card or device that captures video as AVI files to your computer.") Reconrabbit 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yay! It's now a free to unregistered and new users!

Users, in 24 February, 2024, the page's protection is now expired! Feel free to ask questions for unregistered and new users! Thank you. 2001:D08:D5:22EC:E875:66F9:9241:1AEC (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This is stunningly counterproductive given who camps this page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Brand Caprinos Pizza attempting to promote on their respective page

This issue has been going on for about 4 months by now since October. is there any way to stop this? - WinterJunpei :3 13:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is their pizza any good? lol

Just trying to add a little levity to an annoying situation. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. You created the article, but recently an IP (non-registered) editor has been adding promotional content, which you and another editor have been removing. The IP has been cautioned on the Talk page to stop. The article itself, without the promotional content, has been tagged as possible not Wikipedia-worthy for not having references that meet Wikipedia standards for corporations. The interference problem could be solved by someone starting an article for deletion nomination, but I doubt that is what you have in mind. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Winterjunpei, I agree that the article needs more references to reliable sources that are independent of the company, but I suspect that the pizza chain is probably notable. I am an administrator and so I have pageblocked that IP from that article. Please work on improving the references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! - WinterJunpei :3 08:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

it was good, but they ruined their barbeque sauce and I only got Aldi fridge pizza after. - WinterJunpei :3 08:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

Was working on the Prince Kuhio Plaza article and added a new section about the layout. However, could someone double check to make sure it meets the original research guidelines? Feedback on the wording of the section itself could be greatly appreciated, and would love to potentially get this to featured article status at some point. Thank you! Theadventurer64 (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hi This is my first attempt at creating a page on Wikipedia. I need all the help I can get. I just made a few changes to the text. Hope you approve. Gazpek (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Gazpek. I assume that this is about Draft:Gazi Peker. As it is, it cites no sources, and therefore fails to establish that its subject is notable (please click on that blue link to see what "notable" means here). It also contains numerous direct external links, which are not acceptable in the body of an en:Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree. If you can find some sources that prove it is notable, then you should add them. You should delete the external links and maybe make them into citations instead if any of them prove notability. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gazpek WP:BACKWARD my be of help to you. See also WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to find that template which I can use to directly quote from the primary source as an explicatory footnote.

The question is the title. Thanks in advance if you can help me out -- a ne'er-do-well who wants to do well. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 most of our standard citation templates have a parameter |quote= you can use for a quotation: there are even options to use a foreign-language quotation and its English translation. See the documentation at {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite journal}} for examples. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to cite (blockquote?) the text directly from the primary source. I'm doing some digging; I've discovered that I need to use something called ref label for my explicatory footnotes. Do you have any further pointers for me?

Thanks for answering my initial query, though. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

More specifically, I'm getting this error:

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

How do I troubleshoot, pray tell? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123 It seems that you need to use Template:Efn, for an explanatory footnote. That link gives details of how the template is used. You can also click on the link in the error message for additional help. As you have already been advised, your draft still uses far too many quotes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"It seems that you need to use Template:Efn, for an explanatory footnote. That link gives details of how the template is used."

Thanks. I'll go look for a YouTube video to give me a visual explanation on how I can be successful with the footnotes.

"your draft still uses far too many quotes."

I know. I'm trying to use the quotes in the draft to discipline my thought. Believe it, the fat will be trimmed. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Interest in creation of an Article from a redirection

I have intentions in working in an article from my sandbox about a fictional character that has some popularity in terms of Japanese popular culture (Yūko Aioi), but the name of the article of said-character is already used as a redirection. My question is once I am done with my draft from my sandbox, should I use Article Wizard with the name of the redirection article to send in my request, or implement the changes from the redirection and wait for someone with reviewer rights to further review my changes? I want to ask before I make future changes in my sandbox and redirection. JazieCult (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@JazieCult it is easier if you submit the draft and keep it in the draft namespace, and let a reviewer decide the final article name. They will be able to move it to the existing redirect, while crediting you as the "author" of the article, instead of whoever created the redirect. Similarly, it will ensure that the new page ends up in the Wikipedia:New pages patrol, which expanded redirects would not appear in (to my knowledge). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I see, so basically submit it through Article Wizard with the name "Draft:Yūko Aioi" and wait until someone reviews it. Thanks to the clarification nonetheless :) JazieCult (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Check % a person has contributed

Hi. I'm trying to promote many articles from my hyperfixation to GA+, but I'm not sure if I meet a certain requirement for some of them. Apparently I need to have edited at least 10% or be rated in the top 5 of authorship, but I'm unsure how to check that. Where can I see my placement in articles? Thanks! (Sorry if my wording is weird...) Ali Beary _(talk!) 13:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ali Beary I'm not sure about requirements, but MW:XTools is how you check both. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ali Beary thanks for your help in improving Wikipedia articles. You can check your authorship here. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, @CommissarDoggo & @Yeshivish613 for your help! Ali Beary _(talk!) 15:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Suspecting vandalism

Recently, the article Enid Blyton was edited in a way it looked like vandals, a few non-constructive edits, and repeated edit filter triggers in less than a minute. Is that actually vandalism? And if it's indeed vandalism, should I report it? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I’m not sure what you were referring to in the edit history. Everything had been dealt with there. The edit filter triggers were vandalism as they kept trying to add “Im the king ooioioioioioioi” to the top of the page. There is a warning for triggering the edit filter which is uw-attempt. I have warned them for their edits now. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Which warning was the most recent? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The vandals' warning. Note that if the vandals keep ignoring past the 4th warning, they'll be reported. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I put them on a first warning but by that time they had already stopped. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No need to report? Hope the page will be temp semi-protected for "persistent vandalism" if vandalism continues, I might need some attention to administrators. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No need to report, it has stopped. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

ok CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with harvnb refs

Hello, I stumbled upon this aritcle: Kingo Miyabe which attempts to use harvnb refs. As it's only small, I thought it'd be a good one to try to get to grips with harvnb refs: how wrong I was! Can someone explain to me why only the 'Oshiro 2007' and 'Miyabe 1932' have full functionality? TIA Yadsalohcin (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Harvnb}} references (and for that matter sfn references) point to a citation based on either 1. the last names of the authors, usually limited to the first 4, and the date, or 2. whatever is defined in the reference template after "|ref=". Oshiro 2007 works because there is a reference with "last=Oshiro" and "date=2007" (month and day don't matter). If you want the other references to work, you need to define "ref=", because there is no date or author for any of them. As an example:

{{Cite web |title=1905: Expedition to East Asia |url=https://arboretum.harvard.edu/expeditions/expedition-to-east-asia/ |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=Arnold Arboretum |ref={{Harvid|Arnold Arboretum}}}}

Reconrabbit 18:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

TIR/Thanks In Retrospect (cf. TIA/Tea In Abundance!) Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

I found the pages with userboxes and added a lot of them. Only problem is only some of them work when i add them so i need help. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Which ones are you having a problem with? ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

There are not any specific ones but some work just fine well others don’t. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure how I can help you unless you give specific examples. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

could you provide a screenshot with an example? ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 19:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

So i usually just copy and paste the boxes down some work but some don’t so i don't know. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Boeing747Pilot The standard way to fix these problems is to use the template {{Userboxtop}} above all your other templates and place {{Userboxbottom}} at the foot. The template pages I have linked give more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

is there a way to make a hatnote only appear when you get to a page though a certain redirect?

so with the page Cylindrospermopsin, there is a redirect to it with "CYN" all caps I would like to add a hatnote to Cyn (disambiguation) when people use the "CYN" redirect but not when they type "Cylindrospermopsin" because people could only mean one thing by "Cylindrospermopsin" so there a way to do that and if not what should I do Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Skeletons are the axiom Welcome to the Teahouse! If I'm understanding your question correctly, you can add to the hatnote at Cylindrospermopsin to be {{redirect|CYN|the prefix "cyn-"|List of commonly used taxonomic affixes||Cyn (disambiguation)}}

which will display as

"CYN" redirects here. For the prefix "cyn-", see List of commonly used taxonomic affixes. For other uses, see Cyn (disambiguation).

Hope this answers your question. Jolly1253 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you it helped Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no way to hide a hatnote from certain searches as far as I know, the above mentioned solution is probably the most appropriate here. Reconrabbit 18:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Need help with draft

Draft:Terry Ananny

Tryingwithheart (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tryingwithheart. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. None of your three citations is to an independent source.

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) 22:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Tryingwithheart - please don't post the whole draft here. I have removed it, and replaced it with a link (above). --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help ```` Tryingwithheart (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally changed Wikipedia's mobile appearance, any ideas how to get it back?

Hi, this is kind of a dumb issue, and not all that important, but it is bothering me. I use Wikipedia on mobile, and I somehow managed to screw things up by fiddling with the skins in User preferences (I think I originally did so on desktop). I took screenshots of my mobile tabs to show it: before, it looked like the first screenshot, which was nice and zoomed-in, and now it looks like the second one (the newer desktop skin), which is all zoomed-out on mobile. Any way to get it back to how it looked before?

image examples
how wikipedia looked previously how wikipedia looks now

NewBorders (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I may be incorrect but i think there is a button on the side that says something like text size or page size or width. You might have it on wide or large. Tell me if im correct. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the help, and I will report back, but if that last part is true, you may want to focus on your flight rather than wikipedia lol - no offense intended NewBorders (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I’m doing my best but my co-pilot has been asleep, autopilot claims its not working, a lot of alarms are blaring about “cabin pressure”, I think we are low on fuel, and we have a few hours till we land so I thought I should kill time with Wikipedia. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh and I think, I THINK all 4 of our engines are on fire but I can’t hear the aalarms over ATC yapping about me. Trying to get my passengers to stop screaming during normal turbulence.(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can't really see a page size/width button - I can find a setting in the user preferences that supposedly affect text size ("standard/medium/large"), although it doesn't seem to do much as far as I can see (and I also think that setting has never been changed on my end)

"page width" sounds more like something that would fit this issue, but I can't see anything related to this, either in the preferences, or the menu bar to the side, or the bottom of the screen - I might be missing something though

gl with your flight NewBorders (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@NewBorders I think you might have accidentally enabled desktop site instead of mobile site on the browser. Jolly1253 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That's the thing, though, I still see the "switch to desktop" button at the bottom, and my browser still has an option to switch to desktop NewBorders (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That is odd, because it does definitely look like the desktop view. Have you tried switching to desktop and then going back to mobile? Perfect4th (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed I have (see screenshot). And also:

1. logging out restores the original appearance;
2. this happens across multiple mobile browsers.

So this basically confirms that this has to do with my account preferences somehow.

screenshot
"Desktop" is highlighted purple (faintly so, but still)

Now I'm wondering if I should perhaps ask at WP:VPT instead? NewBorders (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@NewBorders, are you on en.wikipedia.org or en.m.wikipedia.org? The latter always displays a mobile view. win8x (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

says I'm on the latter NewBorders (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Odd. You should bring it to WP:VPT, yes. win8x (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the advice and attempt at helping.

In that case this thread should be closed. I'll rewrite another one over there, and also mention how my skin layout looks. NewBorders (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

What needs to be done if most of the sources are from "non-Wikipedia approved" sources?

Hello everyone, I'm working on my first draft named Draft:Kamrul Hasan Khosru. it still needs some polishing to be done but is mostly complete. But one of the biggest and most glaring problems (for me at least) with this draft is that most of it's sources are from "non-wikipedia approved sources"; basically blogs, social media and other stuff similar. In this case it's public movie databases like IMDB. Now I searched a lot and the "Wikipedia approved" sources I did find only had a list of his most notable works and nothing else. Meanwhile the "non approved" sources were rarely edited anyway and from what I've researched, are true; albeit in a promotional wording. What should I do in this situation? Should I add them as external sources? But then the article would have no inline citations, or maybe Is the subject not notable enough anyway? Yelps (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Yelps, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot find enough reliable independent sources to meet the criteria for notability, then you should stop trying to write this article, and move to a more promising one. If sources to establish notability do not exist, then ever single moment you spend working on that draft is time and effort wasted. That is why writing a successful article begins with finding suitable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Kind of figured that one out when I saw that most of the mentions about him are from "non-wikipedia approved" ones. Though in this topic, does an article about India-Bangladesh film awards have enough notability? I found out while researching about Kamrul Hasan Khosru that a Bengali language exclusive page about the film awards exists, so that'll be my next target it seems like. But do the references have to be English references or is Bengali references acceptable too? Yelps (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Yelps. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable - see WP:NONENGLISH. But you still need to make sure that they meet the triple criteria in WP:42. Who published the article? Do they have a reputation for editorial control or fact-checking? Are they are notorious for printing paid advertorials (like the TIMESOFINDIA)? An article about the awards is not relevant to this article unless it has content about Khosru - and it is hard to see how it could contribute to establishing his notability, since a) it probably does not contain significant coverage of him and b) if he won the award, it would not be regarded as independent. At best, you could cite it as a primary source for the fact that he won the award, but only if you have already found enough sources to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. It seems like my present project (kamrul Hasan khosru) is a lost cause. So I'll just move onto making a new one. Being that India-bangladesh film awards because it actually has a page on bangla Wikipedia which I found out when researching about kamrul Hasan khosru. So I basically can export the contents of that page into a new English article and make some small refinements and tweaks along the way and I wouldn't have to worry about notability because that's already done.Yelps (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yelps: Not exactly. Wikipedia's policies are done on a project-by-project basis by their respective communities and will not be 1:1. This is especially so for sourcing and notability; the English-language Wikipedia tends to have both stricter standards and more stringent enforcement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes,I'm totally aware of that. I'm not going to make a 1:1 replica anyway, that's why I mentioned "making small refinements and tweaks". By that I mean like how you summarize your sources and not just closely paraphrase them since that's just copyright infringement.Yelps (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

On WP:BLOGS

On the text on the WP:BLOGS page, it says "Exercise caution" when using self published sources. Does this mean ALL self published sources are banned in ALL contexts, or this it simply mean "Not recommended to use"?

I have been trying to improve and update coverage of chinese coastal warfare vessels like the Type 037 corvette, however many usable sources are extremely outdated(or not even that reliable to begin with) and I have to resort to using blogs(which often get reverted) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Self published sources are permissable in some contexts, but they're widely discouraged. I'm afraid I can't help too much with the specifics of this question, but, generally, self-published sources like blogs) are only okay in the following two circumstances.

1). When writing an article about Jane Doe, you may use Jane Doe's personal blogs for boring, uncontroversial claims about herself. For example, what her degree is, when she got married, what her middle name is. Similarly, When writing an article about Acme Corporation, you may use Acme's own website for incredibly boring and uncontroversial claims such as when they were founded, what country they operate out of, who their parent company is.

2). If you are writing an article about Topic X, and you have a blog written by a well-respected scholar or subject matter expert of topic X, you may cite the scholar's blog providing you do not use the blog to source claims about living people. In ships, that livig person aspect isn't going to be something you have to think about too often, but it's good to keep in mind. There's a few questions you can ask yourself when trying to figure out if somebody counts as a subject matter expert.

So, let's look at the ship articles. From the looks of it, you've been trying to cite a website called haijun360? Most enWiki users can't read Chinese, so it will be difficult for us to evaluate this source. Do you know who runs this site? Do you know what their credential are? Do you know if they've been cited by others in their field? (For example, if the author of the blog has been cited in published academic journals on a subject, then that's often a good sign). You can also ask at a Wikiprojects about certain individual sources: in your case, you'd most likely want to go ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships.

That being said, there should be up to date reliable sources on ships, even if they're not available online or in English. But I completely get your frustration about blogs seeming more up to date than traditionally reliable sources; there's plenty of subjects where I prefer to go to self-published sources above Wikipedia because I find them more reliable. But, as a wiki that allows everybody to edit, one thing that helps keep us going is the idea that everything has to be verifiable and cited to a source everybody agrees is most likely reliable. Sometimes that means our articles go out of date, but the solution to that is to just keep looking even harder for better sourcing. It can take a while, but that's okay. There's no deadline. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cite haijun360, however most sources i can find are unusable in some way(either dead links, outdated, deprecated or WP:BLOGS)

However for the Type 037IG it's really obscure in all topics outside of self published sources. I tried using every single name for it, searched for individual ones yet nothing usable came up Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

On the same context, if a self published source is sort of backed up by a reliable source can it be used?

In this context, a reliable sources ambiguously claims "multiple ships were retired" and a blog states which ships exactly were retired, then in this case can I use a WP:BLOGS source? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't, preferring no info to (potentially) crap-source info. We are supposed to summarize WP:RS, other stuff is out of our scope. Btw, the haijun360.com EL:s at Type_037_corvette#External_links don't work for me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Concrete List of reliable sources?

Hello :)

I have difficulties with my first article Draft:Jake Dunn (actor)

Its about reliable sources. I understood IMDb and social media isn't. When I am right also not Wikipedia itself, even if its checked strict. :)

The submission was not accepted again, but without telling me, what is wrong. I would be very grateful, if someone could explain more, what exactly is wrong, so I can change or delete it. Is Disney+ for example okay or also not reliable? I get that small websites are not. What about actor-school sites? Do I have to delete the external links as well (because IMDb and Instagram)? Do I have to delete everything, where I don't find a reliable source (even when the actor was officially in the project)?

A full list of reliable sources/websites would be amazing. But I haven't found one unfortunately.

I get the feeling there will be nothing left at the end of the edit ^^

Sorry, if its wrong to ask here (then please delete), Wikipedia is pretty overwhelming with all the Texts and Links to Links and more Links to find answers about the editing ^^'

Thank you :) ResearchFocus (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

A full list we do not have, at least to my knowledge; what we have is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ResearchFocus! It sounds like you're putting a lot of effort into your first Wikipedia article. Editing Wikipedia can be overwhelming at first with all it's policies and guidance.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources include reputable newspapers, books from established publishers, and academic journals. IMDb and social media are generally not considered reliable.

Disney+ can be a reliable source if it provides verifiable information about the actor's involvement in projects. Actor-school sites might be reliable if they are well-known and have a reputation for accuracy, but they should be used cautiously.

Links to IMDb and Instagram can be included as external links if they are official pages, but they should not be used as references for verifying information.

If you cannot find a reliable source to verify a piece of information, it is best to remove it from the article, especially when the article is a BLP. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all material be backed by reliable sources.

While there isn't a comprehensive list of reliable sources, there is a list of frequently discussed sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@ResearchFocus: since the article subject is an actor, the Films WikiProject source list at WP:FILMSOURCES may be of value to you. Left guide (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect templates

Can new users like me use redirect templates? TrumpetCrumpet (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TrumpetCrumpet. I don't know which type of use you have in mind but your account is already autoconfirmed so you don't count as a new user in the software. You can do most things with redirects and templates including creating them. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

My recent article wasn't approved.

My recent article submission, wasn't approved, It was declined but I couldn't tell what were the mistake I made, I need to rectify those. Can Anyone help me with it? Ateeb Ali Syed (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ateeb Ali Syed, probably your first step would be to ask the person who actually reviewed the article, in this case Bonadea. No one else can speak for them, so we can only see why it might have been declined. That said, the article should not use editorializing/puff terms like "renowned" about anyone or anything, all external links should be removed from the article text, and it should not really cite sources like blogs or the like. To demonstrate notability, it would need to cite multiple reliable and independent sources which are substantially or entirely about the article subject. If material like that does not exist, it is not appropriate to have an article about that subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Ateeb Ali Syed Hello. I assume you are referring to Draft:Ahmed Kapadia. It was declined for the reason stated by the reviewer- that you have not shown that Mr. Kapadia merits a Wikipedia article, through summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of your sources appear to merely document his background or his activities, not tell what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him, what makes him a notable person.

I also noticed the photo- it comes from his website, which states "all rights reserved"; this means you cannot use the image on Wikipedia unless you have something from him explicitly releasing the image for use on Wikipedia(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution), or the copyright of his website is changed(which he/his webmaster may not want to do).

Which leads to my last comment- if he has paid you to either write this or more generally represent him, you need to disclose that as well(I see you made one paid disclosure for another subject). 331dot (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As the previous answers suggest, this is not a matter of a mistake that you made. Nothing in the draft suggests that Ahmed Kapadia meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; keep in mind that existing and having a job are not things that make a person notable, even if he is very good at his job. A very small minority of all people in the world are notable as Wikipedia defines it, and being non-notable does not mean that a person is unimportant, only that Wikipedia won't have an article about him! He has founded a company and has received awards – however, neither the company nor the awards are notable (again, note that Wikipedia has specific definitions of notability, so a company needs to meet these criteria, and awards must meet these criteria to be notable), and so they also do not do anything to show how he is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Lost or misplaced Wikipedia Article

Dear Teahouse, I apologize upfront for a question which has undoubtedly been tabled many times before. I have drafted an inclusion in my sandbox and believed I was publishing it and can now no longer find any reference to it at all. The new inclusion is for the company 'Teo A. Khing Design Consultants'. Is there a way to find out if it is currently under review or no longer in existence? Thank you in advance. Blackgoldsiro (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The draft with that name was deleted on March 31, 2022 under G5 as it was created by a banned or blocked user (Desertstarholdingslimited) in violation of a ban or block. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox doubts

Hey again, I have a doubt, I am creating new mainspace article on Islands some of them are below -- Kalubhar Tapu, Chānk Tāpu (island), Josephine Peary Island, Cyril Island

I have created mainspace article on them but my main doubt is should I add flag of the countries too in the infobox, I am not sure though as we should try to avoid using flags on them?? Pls guide me JesusisGreat7 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JesusisGreat7, when creating infoboxes for islands, it's best to avoid using flag icons. According to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a country field. This is because they can be unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Instead, you can simply mention the country name without the flag. This keeps the infobox clean and focused on providing essential information. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Article needs serious help

Hello Friends!

I came across this article: Chile and the World Bank while browsing the Task center. On the talk page it was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2019 and 14 December 2019. The details appear to be properly listed.

My question is, what do we do when we come across a page like this that was not completed? It's been tagged for clean up since 2020 with very little improvement since.

Also I did make a small attempt at improvement but there is so much going on that needs attention, I thought I'd get a more experienced set of eyes to assess what is best in this case. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @S1mply.Dogmom. Wiki Education courses don't really mean anything; they don't fix pages, they just teach students about editing Wikipedia (roughly). Unfortunately, a lot of pages are tagged for cleanup, sometimes for way longer than 5 years, and the best way to fix it is well, to read the tag and attempt to improve the article. There is not really anything else to do.

Your improvement looks good, but some unfinished sentences that don't even make sense could be completely removed, and it would probably be a benefit. win8x (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance! I did some additional work on the article, removing incomplete statements and updated the maintenance tag to draw more attention to more specific remaining issues. I'll continue to chip away at it myself as well.

Cheers! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

yet another copyright issue

hello friends, i’ve been thinking about uploading a particular image to provide a visual representation for an upcoming piece of media described in an article. the image has been released on an official website as a main visual for the project, and in the bottom right there is a © next to a specific title. naturally, i think, “okay, let’s try to find an american copyright for this.”

after i searched: no copyright under that specific name exists in the US and internationally.

the piece of media represented by the image is a derivative project from something else. it has a slightly different name, so i hesitate with just slapping the (valid, existing) copyright of the thing it’s directly derived from on it.

does this make sense? it’s hard for me to gauge if it falls under “fair use” of copyright material if the material has an unclear copyright to begin with. sorry for the long post, just want to make sure i’m covering all my bases. snow 13:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If it is a company logo/image it probably isn't going to fall under fair use. I would play it safe and not use it until you have definite confirmation that it isn't copyrighted as all images are automatically copyrighted unless the photographer says otherwise, even if it wasn't filed correctly. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Basically, you should assume that an image is copyrighted unless you know the exact reason it isn't. DS (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

that makes plenty of sense. since i'm not sure that it would even fall under the specific copyright i'm thinking of, it's probably better to just let it be for now. thanks for the input. ^^ snow 18:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Also @SnowProxy if you provide a link to the image I may be able to look into it. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

i appreciate it, but it's not going to be the end of the world if i don't figure this out. nothing that doesn't say that it won't be directly mentioned in copyright in the future. thanks, though! snow 18:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for use of non-free material is (intentionally) stricter than "fair use". If you want to use non-free material (i.e. material that is not positively demonstrable to be free) then you need to be able to justify that all the criteria are met. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

editing sandbox post move

hello I made a page in my sandbox which I have since moved intto a daft and that page now fully exists can I now go back to editing my sandbox however I like? Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Skeletons are the axiom, once Cyn (disambiguation) is not there anymore you can now edit your sandbox as you please. Because you moved it then User:Skeletons are the axiom/sandbox automatically became a redirect but you can remove the redirect and continue editing it. Happy editing, Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

How to annotate a source that contains an error?

Resolved

In this edit Special:Diff/1277721004 I have added a link [10] to a reference in English. It is dated Feb 20 and it states professor “...passed away today”. The obvious implication is that professor died on Feb 20.
However, the original in Polish [11] is dated on 19-th and it explicitly states in the very first words professor died on 19-th of February: “19 lutego zmarł...”.
I suppose the English version has been written (or possibly modified) the next day, so it got a next-day date, and the author or editor haven't paid attention to a vague 'today'.

How can it be noted in our article, so that we'll be providing a true and verifiable information but will not distract the reader with too much side details on someone else's mistake? --CiaPan (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CiaPan: I suppose you could annotate the citation to the English source by pointing out the discrepancy with the Polish original. But surely the easiest thing is to leave out the English source and just cite the Polish one instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, DoubleGrazing! You're right, reverting my change would certainly be the easiest way. :) And it actually was the Polish-language page referenced originally, but I changed it to the English one once I found it at the Tech.Uni. website.
I try to link to sources in English at enwiki whenever available, and I just did not notice the problem until the change got saved. That's why I'm looking for some (unobtrusive) way to improve the current reference instead of restoring the previous one. --CiaPan (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have just sent an e-mail note to their spokesperson, let's see what happens. Hopefully they'll fix it on their side. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing I still didn't receive an answer to my e-mail, but the problem with their web page has been fixed: now it says “Professor Jan Krysiński (...) passed away on 19 February.” So my concern became pointless and I mark the section as Resolved. CiaPan (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance on Draft Review for Verónica Cheja

Hello everyone,

I recently submitted a draft for Verónica Cheja, an entrepreneur and communications expert in Argentina, co-founder of Urban Grupo de Comunicación. The draft was declined with concerns about notability, neutrality, and source reliability. I have since made significant revisions and would appreciate guidance on further improvements.

Here are the key adjustments I made:

1. Neutrality: Removed subjective or promotional language, ensuring an encyclopedic tone.
2. Verifiable Achievements: Clarified awards and organizational contributions, such as the Cannes Lions recognition.
3. Reliable Sources: The article relies on reputable sources, including La Nación, Infobae, Forbes, AdLatina, and Fortuna, which cover business and corporate affairs in Latin America.
4. Comparative Example: I referred to the article on Darío Straschnoy, which follows a similar structure for a notable figure in the communications industry.

I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria based on her industry impact and media presence, but I would love to get feedback from experienced editors on whether further refinements are needed before resubmitting.

Would anyone be able to review the draft or provide advice on how to strengthen the case for notability?

Thank you! Arcuki74 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The best way to get feedback is to resubmit it. Asking for a pre-review review is redundant. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Arcuki74. I haven't looked at your draft, but I would point out that neither her industry impact nor her media presence is directly relevant to notability as Wikipedia uses the term, unless she has been independently written about. Your sources may be reliable, but are they independent (as opposed to being based on interviews or press releases, for example), and do they contain significant coverage of her individually (as opposed to routine announcements about her businesses)? ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also note that the article Dario Straschnoy has a big box with problems, and may not be a good choice of a model: see other stuff exists.

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. (I realise your account has been around for a few years, but with only fourteen edits in your history, you are still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Need help making article meet notability guidelines

Hello! I'm trying to create a wikipedia article about the man who's spent the longest time deprived of his freedom - Sten-Erik Eriksson. I need some help making the article meet the notability guidelines, so if you got anything that I could improve - please let me know! Link: Draft:Sten-Erik Eriksson DenRige (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The whole url is not needed when linking.

I'm not clear on the specific issue- though the fact that the sources are in Swedish may be making it difficult for us to examine them(it's fine to have non-English sources, it's just hard to look at them). 331dot (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DenRige! Your draft for Sten-Erik Eriksson needs more diverse and reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, it only has four sources from two websites, which isn't sufficient. Try to find additional sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. This will help establish Eriksson's notability and improve the article's credibility.

As an aside (not related to notability), I noticed your draft links to many dates and common words. Per MOS:OVERLINK, this shouldn't be done as it can clutter the text. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes – as a native Swedish speaker I can confirm that the sources are nowhere near sufficient. Aftonbladet and Expressen are large newspapers, not exactly unreliable sources but decidedly tabloidish and masters of gossip and clickbait. (I avoid clicking on links leading to those two websites, though I did check these sources now). And none of the major broadsheet papers - Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten – have ever written about this Sten-Erik Eriksson. There are other people by the same name who have been mentioned in the press, but not him. I'm afraid this is simply not a notable topic. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@DenRige

There may be a place for him on this page List of longest prison sentences served rather than trying to make a separate article. Blackballnz (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Need an univolved editor to review a speedyDeletion

I created the article 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, on a notable mass shooting in Germany, and provided sources.

An overzealous editor then took an action to put the evolving article into another namespace, and then used that cross-namespace reality as the criteria to propose WP:SPEEDY deletion. Weird.

I've contested it; and fully discussed it on the article Talk page.

But it needs an uninvolved editor to remove the speedy.

Would some uninvolved editor please take a look, and then do what needs to be done, to remove the SPEEDY template on this notable event. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@N2e: I think you misunderstand the speedy deletion tag – it was placed there because 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting is a redirect to Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace. There is nothing weird about it at all, and the speedy deletion tag should not be removed. Feel free to edit the draft page and submit it for review; if accepted it will then be restored to mainspace, but that will only be possible if the redirect is deleted first! --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding. The admin moved the evolving new article to the draft space; THEN used that action they themselves had taken, to SPEEDY the (now just a redirect) article. That is a a weird thing to do. So the actions of that admin should be overturned. (i see that just removing the SPEEDY may not be enough; but the reason for that is the untoward action of that admin). So whomever removes the SPEEDY can also just put the original info back in, from the edits prior to the admin breaking the article. Pinging 'bonadea Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@N2e, the mainspace article and the draft are two separate things. The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. You can add this at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting and once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace.

The speedy deletion tag is only to delete the redirect from mainspace to the draft, which is correct. Your article will still remain at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and can be moved back to the mainspace when it is ready. Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah, that's perfectly normal. unless something is moved without a redirect, it will stay as a blue link. in the case of this leaving an inappropriate cross namespace redirect, the original title (which is now a redirect) can be safely speedy deleted without losing progress. as is, i do think the article you wrote could use some more time in the oven, so it's fine as a draft

also, reconrabbit, who moved the article to draftspace, isn't an admin or page mover, and thus doesn't have the ability to delete or move without a redirect, hence a regular move followed by tagging the redirect for speedy deletion consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No admin has been involved. Please check the response you received at Talk:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting from the editor who moved the article to draftspace. If an admin had moved the article to draftspace, no redirect would have been created! Since the editor who moved it does not have the Page mover right, the action that moved the draft automatically tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. Again, nothing remotely weird about it. Replacing the redirect with the draft text would not be acceptable; cut-and-paste moves are not allowed since they break the attributions, and when that happens various administrative hoops have to be jumped. That would be counterproductive indeed. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea You said "Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace." ... "The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. ... once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace." Hopefully people got your meaning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ack. Thanks for pointing that out – I won't tinker with my post now, but hopefully that will teach me to read what I write, for the future.... --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @N2e. It sounds to me as if what you're really objecting to is somebody moving the article to draft space. That is normal for a newish article which is not yet up to the acceptable standard of a Wikipedia article (usually because of sourcing), but has the potential to be improved. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Colin, that would not be it. It was poor comms. I see the article is speedied, for CS2. When I could not see why/how CS2 made any sence. The admin who did it should have said they speedied it because they wanted to contest only two sources. So, poor comms. There are four more sources on the Talk page. This article on a very notable mass shooting will obviously exist within a few hours or a day just 'cause it'll get cleaned up by others, and of course, many more sources and further description of the events will be added, including the four I added on the Talk page. But it will be by others; I'm done on this one. And wikiprocess has been poorly executed here, and made a lot more work for a lot more editors who will have to clean it up. Cheers to all. N2e (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@N2e, as has been explained above several times, the speedy delete had absolutely nothing to do with the content or quality of the article, but was an administrative action to rectify a technically unacceptable situation, viz a redirect from mainspace to Draft space. The article had already been moved to Draft space, and was in no way affected by the speedy delete. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect has now been replaced by the draft moving back to mainspace. A prod was added and removed. The event may have to wait till there is sustained news coverage, and that will prove it is not a minor one-event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The word "machine translation" on my user page

Hello. In nominating an article to DYK, a statement on my user page that I am using a machine translation has raised questions about the accuracy of the article I created. I would very appreciate some comments and suggestions on the following two points.

1. My use of machine translation

I write texts, both on talk pages and in articles, primarily by referring to machine translation. However, I do not write texts as they are output by machine translation. I read and compare the original language text with the output text, check the meanings of all unfamiliar words, and choose words and expressions that are close to the sources as possible. I do not think my writing can be called fluent, but I am writing with the utmost sincerity to the best of my ability.

Furthermore, for this article, I did not directly publish the article, but rather had a draft reviewed and copyedited by an English speaker who can read the original language before publishing it.

Based on my reading of WP:COFAQ#MTRANS and WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, I personally recognize that there is nothing wrong with this use of machine translation, but is there anything I should change about my use of machine translation? Or should I not be involved in machine translation at all?

2. Description of my user page

As written above, I consider my use of machine translation to be acceptable under the guidelines. However, since the accuracy of the article has been questioned based on my user page, should I add some additional explanation or change the wording on my user page regarding the use of machine translation? Or should I not include any words related to machine translation?

I am not too concerned about DYK's publication, as there is almost nothing I can do about the article, but if my user page is the reason for expressing doubts about the article's reliability, then I would like to clarify whether there is a problem with my user page or not. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

How should I improve this article

Draft:Ethics Policy I found it on the list of articles that I should create, under the Buisness tab. Would anyone provide some feedback and maybe even join in on helping this article? Thanks

—- Mangoflies (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mangoflies. I would say that there is probably nothing salvageable about that draft. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and an article cannot be based just on how-to guides. It would need to be based on (probably academic) papers on "Ethics policies" as an object of study. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine

There is a different link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_policy that apperas to be a real wikipedia article. How can I get rid of the draft

--- Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Mangoflies. I see that @Explicit has deleted it. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Square brackets around wikilink

In the article on the Cyrus cylinder is a quote within which a bracketed reference to a name is wikilinked (e.g., as would appear: "some quote [something] ..."). But because the wl of course uses double square brackets, the original editor had to put the quote's brackets within the link so that they are also highlighted in blue: [Belshazzar]

This of course is imperfect; the square brackets that show in the text should be outside the blue link. But when I try to edit it like this: [[[Belshazzar|Belshazzar]]], it breaks the wikilink. How to properly get this to display? Al Begamut (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Al Begamut. You can always wrap anything not to be interpreted in "nowiki" tags - see WP:nowiki for how. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

There's also a template you can use e.g {{bracket|[[Belshazzar]]}} will produce [Belshazzar]. It's basically doing all the nowiki stuff Colin mentioned for you. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding sources from books that aren't available online

Hey, Teahouse! I've been reading over some articles, (Kings Island, Orion, Mystic Timbers, and more) and realized that there is some very helpful information missing. "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" by Evan Ponstingle covers the full history of Kings Island up to 2020-ish.

(The linked website is a bundle of the book and another item, but it can be bought separately in-park and was previously able to bought separately online)

It features a lot of interviews from people related to the park. The information inside of it not just gives interesting/amusing details, but it has a bunch of facts and insights that could really be useful.

How could I source the information while also keeping it verifiable? Thanks!

Therguy10 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Therguy10, it's perfectly okay to cite sources which are offline, as long as the source is reliable and verifiable. You can use the cite book template and make sure to cite it correctly, including page numbers, and include a link to https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Kings_Island/OzI3zgEACAAJ. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Yeshivish613! Could this link perhaps be okay to use? The one you included is giving me a different book altogether :/ Therguy10 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Therguy10, I'm pretty sure the link I provided was what book you were referring to, the book you linked is a plain autograph book. In any case if you cannot find a Google Books URL the ISBN (9781732121089 if I'm correct) should be sufficient to verify its existence. (Links to commercial sites like Cedar Fair are not allowed.) Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yeshivish613 Okay now this is really funny. The book I got when I clicked on your link was an autograph book by Robert Castleman. But when I put in the ISBN number, I found the correct Kings Island book by Evan Ponstingle.

If you're not seeing "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" when you click my link, then I have no idea what to do lol. Could perhaps a third person step in and take a look?

In any case, at least I could use the ISBN, but this is fascinating! Therguy10 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Therguy10: Oh my this is really weird. On second look the links we both gave are the same! I am in the UK while you're in the US, though I'm not sure why the two books would mix up based on location. If anyone else can look into this it would be appreciated. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Therguy10, here is the Google Books listing for the book. It includes all of the bibliographic information that you need to create a reference to the book, and if you use Template: Cite book, you can add the link I gave to the URL field. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 thank you! This seems to be the same link I provided as well - but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ping for @Yeshivish613, does this link work for you by chance? Either way I'll still use it, but I'm curious to see what comes up on your end! Therguy10 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this happens but apparently this one leads to the right book while the one you provided doesn't, even though they're exactly the same link. Happy editing Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That is so odd! I may do some digging into it, and I find anything I will let you know on your talk page. And thanks again, Cullen! Therguy10 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

uploading images, maps, graphics

How do I get "autoconfirmed" and able to upload images to my graphic file? I created my account over 4 days ago and have made over 10 edits. thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Per XTools, your account is already autoconfirmed. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

most appreciated! thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Help getting a successful publishment of a martial arts pioneer from the late 1800s-early 1900s

Draft talk:Tatsusaburo Nakayama is my draft. I have been working on this for a year and a half, and recently spent much time researching more sources and info to add to the draft. Originally, the draft was sourced from the Wiki Japanese page (not sure why the Wiki Japanese page exists but the Wiki English page never has)...but it was my starting template, then I have added from books, magazines, and websites, additional info. I am a wiki page-submission newbie, but I feel in the Martial Arts community, this individual is worthy of having his own English page; so I hope I can get it tightened down enough, to pass submission. My prior submissions failed mostly on insufficient citations, of which I have spent much time researching and adding in the last few months. Can anyone who is accomplished at getting submission approval help me get it accepted? It seems there are so many technical things related to wiki approach, philosophy, format, etc....that must be known beyond just the details of the article itself, and it is quite overwhelming to know when it is 'sufficient' and ready to resubmit, with good chance of success. All help is appreciated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davidwtaylor1, I can try to rework the way you have used references to make it conform more to the Manual of Style and point out issues, but will leave accepting or declining the draft after that. Give me some time. Thank you Reconrabbit 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks Recon, I appreciate any and all help! Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That's going to be quite a task, Reconrabbit. The oft-cited "ibid. Threadgill, Tobin and Ohgami Shingo" seems to mean "Threadgill and Ohgami, op. cit." -- but Wikipedia doesn't use "op. cit." (or "ibid."). (The combination of a named reference and Template:Rp would help, of course.) What's a lot more alarming than the mere format of these citations is that the stated ISBN for this book, ISBN 978-1-7334223-2-1, is unknown to WorldCat; and Google only knows of it via Wikipedia and Wikipedia scrapes. There is evidence here of the existence of the book (titled Shindō Yōshin Ryū; note the macrons). It's reviewed favorably, but described as Selbstverlag. Self-publication is alarming; that matter aside, is the book available from any publicly accessible library anywhere; and if not, is it proper for an article to use it as a reference? As an example of a Japanese-language source, what is presented as if a web page reproducing "Mastering the Mystery of Kicking From '2D' to '3D' Techniques" within a special issue of Secret Kick Monthly (though in Japanese, with unspecified titles) turns out to be merely some retailer's page advertising a copy (in "good" condition) that they're selling of 秘伝の蹴り　蹴りの奥義を極める　「二次元」から「三次元」の技へ, an April 1998 supplement to the magazine 空手道 (Karatedō). I can't find this supplement at either CiNii or WorldCat, though I may just be insufficiently caffeinated for the task. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The ISBN was misspelled, it should have been ISBN 9781733422338. The ISBN-10 was being used as an ISBN-13. WorldCat entry here. I am a bit concerned about the self-publication aspect as it pertains to notability but I just want to make the draft more presentable to a potential reviewer. Reconrabbit 01:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better though. Will be tough to convince someone of the validity of many offline sources though, some of which are through publishers I could find nothing about. Reconrabbit 01:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Recon, Thanks for your help. Good catch on the ISBN typo; I have the book, and was about to send a screenshot.

One thing I don't understand, is that the original format/template I used for this draft, was the official Wiki page, in the Japanese language. It was accepted, and is a valid Wiki page in JP. (I used the translation to English option, to get to that page's source, since I am not Japanese fluent). That Wiki page's sourcing was very scant. Much of the sourcing I have done, is my own research, to fulfill the original English wiki responses about lack of sources. Do you think I am trying to include too much on the history of this person? I have seen many martial artists of the 19th century listed in Wiki, with less impact on martial arts (either dead arts now, or just very minimal info), who are likely 'less notable' to the martial arts than Nakayama, based on current-day adherents' population.

IMO Nakayama is as vastly important to tens of thousands of Wado Karate folks around the world, for if he didn't exist, Wado Ryu would not exist. He is also notable for the existing extand Shindo Yoshin Ryu schools around the world, that also are aware of his historic contributions, as well as his high level kendo swordsmanship skills as honored by the Dai Nippon Butokukai. Notability is in the Japanese martial arts world, not as much as the world in general, but aside from the Wado Ryu founder, Nakayama and Gichin Funakoshi are the most notable people of this style, that could not exist without their contributions. I just want his indelible contribute documented.

Also, I realize some of the 'sources' from the JP wiki page are magazine articles that are only available in Japanese language, and some are also 20+ years out of print, so their specific usage for sourcing is limited. My thought on still including some of them, is because they did exist, and do have those articles, and for someone that has them or runs across them or can read Japanese, they might be a useful resource in the future. I may be wrong in my thoughts, but to have a citation of a source even it present-day difficult or not readily accessible still doesn't remove the original material. For example, BlackBelt Magazine #1 might be difficult to find today in 2025, but it did exist many decades ago, and did have useful info within it. I hope that makes sense. My initial thought was to include all prior sources as able, from the published JP Wiki page, assuming (yes I know that is dangerous) they were valid sources at some time in the past, and should still be valid even if difficult to find in 2025. If I should remove some source citations to make the draft pass acceptance, I am willing to do that as well.

Thanks again for everyone here, pitching in to help. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davidwtaylor1 There is no concern about non English references. They may be used.

That a subject has an article in another language Wiki does not mean it will be accepted in the English Language Wikipedia, whcih has tyhe strictest inclusion criteria of all of them. It is a common thought that "It has an article there so surely it is valid here, too" but I am afraid that is not always true.

I make no comment on your draft nor on any other part of your conversation above, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Page Review Request Sunny Kumar Singh

Hi Editors,

Requesting someone to review this page - Sunny Kumar Singh. There's a LLM disclaimer, after which the redundancy was removed, still disclaimer. The person received nation wide media coverage during Delhi Assembly Elections 2025 and is District Magistrate of National Capital of India. Why the page has received a low importance rating?

Any other suggestions to make the article better and more compliant?

Appreciate all the help and time! Thanks for your guidance. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

If you have a question about why someone did something, it's always best to ask that person directly. That rating was left by user:GoingBatty. DS (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yashvardhan7776, I've two comments about that article (in addition to the LLM issue that's already been raised). One is that it contains a lot of unwarranted boldface. The other is that it seems Singh is a senior civil servant, doing his job competently – but what makes him notable? Which three of the sources cited do most, in your opinion, to establish that he's notable? Maproom (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yashvardhan7776: Based on the WikiProject India Assessment Guide, most of the articles are assessed at "Low". If you would like another opinion, feel free to add |reassess=y to {{WikiProject India}}.

@Maproom: I removed the unwarranted boldface and make other layout changes. GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Am I headed in the right direction with my draft?

Hello! I’ve begun working on a draft after in a previous Teahouse post there was an agreement that there could be an article could potentially be created. I want to know if I am headed on the right track with my draft. I have confirmed that there are multiple international sources covering it as well, with sustained long term coverage from both national and local news sources, so I hope this is notable enough to continue writing this draft. Atheions (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Atheions. Yes, you're absolutely going in the right direction on this! It looks like there's absolutely enough lasting coverage on the chronic power outages of Puerto Rico to have some sort of article on them. One thing I'd like to introduce you to today is a search engine called Google Scholar. It's designed to bring up more academic sources (like journal articles or reports) than regular Google. It looks like this topic has received coverage in a fair few types of those sources, for example [12] and [13], but if you look around I'm sure you'll find more. And you don't need to worry about a conflict of interest just because you yourself are from Puerto Rico. Conflicts of interest are more to do with if you're writing articles about you, your friends/families/employers, or groups/clubs you are a part of. Nationality/religion may lead you predisposed to bias, but it's a bias every editor has and, fortunately, it's a bias that most editors can be aware of, accept, and then take reasonable steps to mitigate. Good luck with the artice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just as a separate thing if the outages are still ongoing it would be better to rename the article to Puerto Rico power outages (2017-present). Other than that it looks like you're off to a good start! Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Atheions, I think the article in its current state should be fine as long as you expand it (i.e. adding more info). It's notable enough for inclusion and has lasting news and academic coverage. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Private messages

Is there a functionality for sending a user a private message or a leaving a message that's hidden from public view? I'm curious why a user (pretty sure an admin) made an edit, but I don't want to ask on their talk page in case they take it personally when I'm genuinely just curious. Sigmund7 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Sigmund7, you can send someone a private email at Special:EmailUser.

For more information see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Sigmund7 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Sigmund7, see User talk:The 8th Line--I clicked the wrong one in the drop-down menu. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks Sigmund7 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Feedback​ on my draft from experience editors.

Could a more experience editor please have a look at User:Artkritik/sandbox to suggest improvements. Artkritik (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Artkritik. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources meet the triple criteria of being, reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage (See WP:42) - most of them are clearly not independent of Sigerud. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

On what basis are you suggesting that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability? ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Another logo question

Hi again all,

About a week ago, I asked about changing the white text of a logo to black so you can read it against the base-white Wiki background (here's a link to the page/logo I'm talking about). After poking around a little more, I found that the company uses a black-text version of the logo on their press releases. Is it okay to use a logo found on a press release? I've only ever pulled them directly from the websites associated with the topic. 30Four (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@30Four - You could also get the black-text version of the logo from this web site. I found this by going to Reunion's web site, going to News > In the Media, and then clicking on the first article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'm assuming this means it's okay to use a variation of a logo as long as it's uploaded by the represented topic in some form, even if it's not on their own site. The JPG of the black-text on that site will definitely be easier to read on a white background, but I'll keep looking around for a PNG file of the same version. 30Four (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Project or Template for documenting local active transportation infrastructure projects

I'm new to the Wikipedia world and would like to get started with something I know about. I'd like to work on documenting local active transportation projects. I'm in Austin, TX but would be happy to work on projects elsewhere. I see that there was a wikiproject for "Hiking Trails" but it is now defunct. I'm looking to document local greenbelts similar to the Atlanta Beltline page. But that page is using an "organization" infobox. Is there something more appropriate I can use? Or a project I can work on to learn more before starting to document Austin's greenbelts? Fastmole (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Fastmole, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend reading Help:Your first article. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fastmole: With regard to infoboxes, there's {{Infobox hiking trail}}, but I wouldn't use that for anything but an actual trail. {{Infobox park}} might be appropriate for some greenbelts. Deor (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Please help, advanced actions for Draft:Winston Utomo

Hello, after several edits & addressed WP:COI for the draft Draft:Winston Utomo, what should be the next step besides improving with editing (and waiting the approval)? Any suggestions for me? Rachael Adrino (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

could you explain what exactly happened? i'm unsure if i'm just missing something or if i just need more context ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ogusokumushi Alright then. After I did several edits to the draft Draft:Winston Utomo and resubmitted it, an editor asked me to address WP:COI in making this draft. As his suggestion, I've stated that I didn't have COI when making this draft on my talk page. Now what should I do then about the resubmitted draft? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

have you explained how there isn't a conflict of interest? providing evidence of that may help your case. or have another editor (who isn't me because i''ve only been here 2 years and i don't think i have that authority yet LOL) look it over. ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ogusokumushi Since only you who recently respond this threat, I'm also wondering & still waiting another editor here to give several suggestions, who next? Please? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Patrolling recent changes

Hi everyone,

I've been patrolling recent changes for quite a long time and I just wanted to ask something. Is there an efficient way of patrolling? Do I have to check 'diff' for each and every edit? How do other patrollers do it?

Note:- I am using Twinkle. Warriorglance(talk to me) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Warriorglance! I'm not sure if you're doing this already, but have you tried adding filters to Special:RecentChanges? I've applied filters to it so the program only shows me edits it thinks is vandalism. Here are the filters I applied:

And here's how the edits look after the filters are applied:

You can try it and see if that works. Additionally, when you gain some more vandalism experience, you can apply for rollback permissions so you can use tools such as Huggle and AntiVandal which make the whole vandalism-searching experience easier. Cheers, and reply if you need any help setting up those filters. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Relativity Yes, I use filters but I never knew there was a highlighting feature in filters. This makes it efficient. Thanks a lot! Warriorglance(talk to me) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! (Draft Help Request)

Hello TeaHouse,

I've recently been directed to the teahouse regarding my recent (and first) draft Draft:2025 GR Cup Series, the draft was declined and through my conversation with @KylieTastic and myself. I have since improved the draft through adding more sources + some minor expansion. Could I please get another user's opinion on this?

Thanks

Kburgin24 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kburgin24: One sentence says "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024, during the driver's dinner and an Instagram post." The reference does not say when the calendar was released or that it was released at the driver's dinner. There should not be an external link in that sentence either. GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thanks for the quick reply! I wasn't sure if I could reference the Instagram post so I just changed it to "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024" Kburgin24 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kburgin24: I still don't see a reference for the assertion that "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024". GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Other than the one instagram post from tgr_aus I can't seem to find a source to cite it, would I be allowed to cite this instagram post? Or should I just remove the "The calendar was released..." part entirely Kburgin24 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Apologies I forgot to @ you in my reply Kburgin24 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kburgin24: I don't think it's important to mention when the calendar was released. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Cool, Thanks for your help! Kburgin24 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Help with First Article

Hello! I am new to wiki articles. I worked on an article: Draft:Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation, which was rejected. Please I need help to improve and get my article approved. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Zeeyas Hello and welcome. The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

The draft just tells of the organization and its activities, sometimes in a promotional way. A Wikipedia article should do more, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the organization says about itself(so the "mission" and "vision" sections should just be removed).

Most of the awards described are about the organization's work(a documentary), not the organization itself. Furthermore, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you so much for your response. I will implement your corrections.

Yes, I work with the organization. Is it possible for a different writer or user (other than myself) to help review the work in order to avoid the conflict or interest from my end? Zeeyas (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You may keep editing the draft, but you need to formally disclose your connection as the policies indicate. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@331dot This is noted. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Possible hoax articles

Hello. Recently I have been made aware of this page, Battle of Brebes, that had been approved not too long ago, but the only sources used for the page are obscure Indonesian newspaper articles of dubious authenticity. This page had also made its way to another page, Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, which was created by the same person. The page claims that the supposed battle are found in the Kidung Sunda, a Balinese kidung detailing the Battle of Bubat, nothing about a supposed battle happening in Brebes. Can someone help? Miserableed (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

As I don't speak Indonesian. I can't say you if sources are reliable.

I advise you to find others Indonesian speakers. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of machine-translating the two linked sources the article has. Both seem to line up with what is in the article, though they seem to be more pop-culture and tabloid-like than reliable newspaper publications. I could be wrong, as I have no knowledge of Indonesian culture and their news. Attempting to search "Battle of Brebes" in Google brought up almost nothing other than some forums and the Wikipedia article, though I did find a website called famousfix. Famousfix has a page on the article, though it provides absolutely no information other than linking to other pages on the site. Searching the Google-translated phrase in Indonesian, "Pertempuran Brebes," does bring up pages, though none of them appear to mention the battle and only mention the modern regency. It doesn't even have an article on the Indonesian Wikipedia. I have flagged the article as a possible hoax and plan to do some further research into this topic to conclude. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I had been learning about Majapahit history for quite a while and this is the first time I've heard about the "Battle of Brebes", too. I'll be glad to help if you need anything (like translating Indonesian), just contact me on my talk page! :D Miserableed (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I just came back to this and did some more research. I could not find any more information on said battle minus a webpage that appears to circle back to cite Wikipedia, and reading through the article, the linked article "Kidung Sunda" that claims to have resources on it brings up absolutely nothing - not even a name for the site of the battle mentioned. I'm a little nervous to come to a conclusion considering it's been two days, but I think I'm pretty sure that the Battle of Brebes never occurred and that it is a hoax. I will wait a day before I send the article over to AfD, just in case anything new comes to light regarding this situation. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! I believe the author of the article is using the quote of "Gajah Mada is verbally abused by the Sundanese envoy" from the Kidung Sunda page as a source, which only mentions Jipang. Jipang is the name of several different villages in Java (the most prominent one being from Blora, I think). I don't know why the author is taking it as the one in Brebes specifically, and didn't the quote mentioned that the men of Jipang is chasing the Sundanese? It's just... strange. I suggest also removing Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, because it was made just for the supposed "Battle of Brebes" (the rest are about the Battle of Bubat, which already has a page), and has weird claims about the Sundanese gaining Lampung with the only source being another obscure Indonesian newspaper article. Miserableed (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ll let you go ahead and put both those up for deletion, as I feel. Both articles were made by the same account as well, Holafishes. I would send them a warning as well not to post deliberately fake information on Wikipedia. You’re very much welcome for the help! -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you. It's just that I'm not sure if I know how to put those articles up for deletion, can I ask for your help? Sorry if I'm asking too much! :") I'll always be glad to help you with anything else. Miserableed (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll do that now, thanks for letting me know. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Change of the mentor

Hello anyone. I want to change my mentor but I don't know how. Could you please give me an advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applefruitlife (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Applefruitlife, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the three dots "..." to the right of "Your mentor" at Special:Homepage and select "Opt out of mentorship". You can opt in again and get another mentor assigned. I don't know whether you can choose your mentor. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I've picked the editor [14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Editors who have signed up to be mentors can use Special:MentorDashboard to claim mentees. Hence, any new editor can go to the talk page of the person they would like to have as a mentor to ask them to make the change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How to tag a requested move on a page?

Hey there! I want to open up a conversation about moving a page to have a different name. I finally figured how to get the tag I want on the talk page (under the header "Requested move 28 February 2025"), but I think(?) I should also be adding one to the actual page itself that says something like 'this page has been requested to move, there's a conversation on the talk page' or something like that to alert anyone who comes to the page? A) is that the correct protocol, and assuming so, B) Do you know how I go about that? Thanks so much! Wikipedian339 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wikipedian339, it looks like you managed to figure out doing this yourself. Is there anything you still need help with for the move? Ultraodan (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedian339 once you've requested the move a bot will soon come and tag the article. So there's no need to do anything yourself. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

To editor Wikipedian339: You may be interested in using Twinkle, which is a tool that makes easier doing a lot of common "maintenance" tasks including move/renaming requests. If you try it out, "requested moves" are under the "XfD" item in Twinkle's menu. (Slight misnomer here but the alternative would be a whole new menu entry for just move requests.) --Slowking Man (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Finiteness Follow up

Discussion on the notability of this topic is ongoing, and it was suggested to bring the discussion back here to the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You should probably explain more, or people will be confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to let the editor who suggested that we talk further at the Teahouse lead the discussion, but I will explain more. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kevincook13, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that some reviewer comments on Draft:Finiteness suggested you ask for help at the Teahouse, but unless you make it clear what you are asking for, we're not going to be able to help you much.

What I will say is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources talks specifically about the concept of Finiteness (it's possible that the third one has a section on finiteness, but a search in the Internet Archive didn't turn up anything).

There are two consequences of this. First, everything in your draft is either unsourced, or not about finiteness. Secondly, notability as Wikipedia uses the word is crucially dependent on sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources which reference the concept of finiteness do not always do so using that particular term. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Finiteness has been rejected, meaning that you should stop wasting your (and other editors') time on it. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor who rejected the article is the one who suggested opening up the conversation again at the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor who rejected the draft directed you to Teahouse so that someone could explain what "Rejected" means, not to dispute that your draft did not deserve to be rejected. There is no potential to salvage the draft. Please put it out of its misery by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} so that an Administrator will be notified to delete the draft. If "Finiteness" deserves an article, perhaps in time someone will compose it, but bringing it to the attention of the generalists at Teahouse is not the way to find that person. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that your draft looked like a dictionary entry. Wiktionary is our corresponding dictionary. We already have an article on finiteness in maths. However there is no article on finite being. So if you do want to write on the topic, find sources and expand on that philosophical / theological aspect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Finiteness currently redirects to Finite, a disambiguation page. From 2007 until very recently it also offered a single sentence of explanation attempting to describe what finite means, stating: "Finite is the opposite of infinite." On the talk page I commented that the explanation was circular. Two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea to write a finiteness article.

My draft is short, making it look more like a dictionary article, but it focuses on the state of being limited or ended, as opposed to focusing on the term finiteness as is appropriate in a dictionary. Kevincook13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I did request that you withdraw the rejection. I appreciate the discussion we had, and your expressed willingness to continue it here, along with other experienced editors. I would like to discuss the lead paragraph.

Does the lead paragraph describe a concept (as is appropriate for an encyclopedia), or does it describe a term (as is appropriate for a dictionary)?

Does it describe a notable concept?

Does it contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, as would be expected from a lead paragraph?

In which ways does the lead paragraph detract from Wikipedia?

If the lead paragraph does describe a notable concept, as would be expected, then is the entire article worthy of deletion?

You suggested that you would be willing to accept the article, with the warning that it might be nominated for deletion. I definitely do not want you to accept an article that you esteem a candidate for deletion. I thought that editors accepted articles because they are acceptable, not because doing so facilitates deletion. Kevincook13 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert_McClenon you are the one who wanted to move this discussion between you and I to the Teahouse, which I started on your talk page, and which you took to mine. You told me that you would have participated in the original Teahouse discussion, if it weren't for the fact that you didn't notice it before it was archived. You said that you always participate in discussions of articles that you have reviewed, as long as you are aware of them. Are you planning to participate? If you are, please add a little note here to let us know. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@David notMD one of the things that supporters appreciate about Wikipedia is that editors freely exchange ideas, rather than simply make or comply with demands. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand? 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

My Questions

I see that one editor has stated, correctly, that I rejected the draft, and that that means that discussion is finished. So I think that I am asking the other experienced editors here whether they agree that I was right in rejecting this draft, or whether I should have only declined it again, and also whether there is any procedure for discussing a draft or a topic after a draft has been rejected. Do the other editors think that User:Kevincook13 should be able to rework it?

I am sort of uneasy with the idea that rejection is final-final if the draft was submitted by a good-faith editor, which in this case it was. If rejection is final-final, then maybe I should never reject a draft that is submitted by a good-faith editor. (Some drafts that are rejected are submitted either by conflict of interest editors or by trolls. I am not asking about them. This draft was submitted by a good-faith editor whom I think has gone down a rabbit-hole.) Is there any way that a good-faith editor whose draft is rejected can discuss reworking or starting over? And is there a way that a reviewer can ask for third-party comments on their decision to reject an article? If not, maybe I shouldn't reject drafts by good-faith editors, because I don't want to make a final-final judgment against good-faith submissions.

Also, I made an offer to User:Kevincook13 that I was willing to revert my acceptance and accept the draft with the understanding that it was likely to be nominated for deletion. I was willing to let the submitter get his draft into mainspace and let the community be the gatekeeper. What I would do would be to request that the blocking redirect be deleted or moved so that the draft can be moved to mainspace. Is Kevincook13 ready for that?

Those are my questions for the other editors and for the submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As a non-AFC reviewer, I have no opinion over whether the draft should have been rejected over being declined or letting it pass through to mainspace to be AfD'ed by other editors. What I can say, after looking at the draft, is that it is, in its current form, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The thoughts aren't organised, and the tone sounds off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Tenryuu. In that case, your opinion equates to saying that I should not have accepted it, because the instructions for AFC reviewers are to accept if we think that the draft has more than a 50% of passing AFD. What I am saying to the author is that I am willing to accept the draft, without making a judgment as to whether it will survive AFD, if that is what the author requests. I don't want to make a one-editor judgment that a draft should be abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks User:Tenryuu for the feedback on my draft. I am eager to learn how it can be improved, starting with the lead paragraph. Is it OK? Do the thoughts seem organized? How is the tone? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kevincook13: You're honestly better off starting the entire thing over from scratch and taking a look at what good articles look like. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You are a new pages reviewer, who has volunteered to review my draft. I need more feedback than you have given me so far. No, I don't want the article to go into the mainspace if it is not yet ready. I need feedback on the lead paragraph. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Kevincook13, the existing draft is not "not yet ready", it will never be ready. As has been stated above, it needs to be blown up and started over. It's just a collection of incoherent ramblings. For example, if you want to claim that "A controversial use of ellipses is to simultaneously intend both completion and non-completion, as in 0.999... = 1", you'll need to explain who finds it controversial, why it intends completion, and why it intends non-completion. It seems to me a clear, indeed trivial, statement of fact, accepted by competent mathematicians. Maybe the source cited explains those things, I don't have access to it. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to start over, in other words rewrite the lead paragraph, if there is a reason for doing so. What is your personal reason for rejecting it User:Robert McClenon? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Kevincook13 - You have two choices. First, you can accept my offer to move your draft into article space, where an Articles for Deletion discussion will decide whether to keep it or delete it. I made that offer because I do not want to act as a one-person gatekeeper. I don't plan to offer you any more help or any other help. Second, you can recognize that the majority of editors here think that your draft is not about to be ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Kevincook13 - I have already answered why I rejected the draft, and other editors have also commented as to why the draft will not be ready for article space. I am aware that you are not satisfied with my answer, or with any of the other answers. Continuing to ask me the same question is sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to be sealioning. My question was not simply a repetition. It was an invitation to reason with you, freely exchange ideas. I wanted to hear your reasoning, your ideas, not just the ideas of others.

At 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC) User:David notMD anonymously wrote above: What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand?

When I first read it I assumed that you wrote it, since the quote was from your rejection. I was curious, so I checked the page history and was surprised to see that User:David notMD was the author. User:David notMD made it appear that you were the author, as if you were the one who was emphasizing the need to blow up my draft. But you weren't.

The lack of desire to build any sort of consensus with me is evidence that my finiteness article is not welcome, at least by some engaged Wikipedians. You seem ambivalent, however you are clearly coordinating your efforts with others who oppose it.

I have tried to build a consensus which includes me. I very much appreciate the feedback I received from those who reviewed my draft earlier and declined it. Each decline has helped me to see something consequential that needed to be addressed.

Please do allow the draft to proceed. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Kevincook13 - I am not ambivalent about whether the draft will be ready for article space in the future. I was only ambivalent about whether other editors agree with me, and other experienced editors are even more negative than I am. I know that you want to build a consensus that the draft can be improved. That will not happen, because there is a consensus against the draft. I am still willing to accept the draft at your request so that it can go into article space and go to AFD. I will only do that if that is what you are requesting. I am not ambivalent, and I have already provided my reasons for rejecting the draft. Do you want me to move the draft into article space, or are you ready to accept that the consensus here is likely to be the consensus at AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon I only ask that you withdraw the rejection, because it is without merit. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Kevincook13 - My rejection was not "without merit". Other editors here have agreed with me. However, I have restored the draft to the version of 7 February, in order to get the pinniped out of my townhouse. The question now is which of the following happens first: the draft is rejected again; the draft is deleted; you are partially blocked; or you leave the draft alone for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Kevincook13 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How can I motion to replace a newly created page with a pre-existing draft that is far more comprehensive?

While I was creating a draft page for NBACentel [sic], a satire NBA news account that has garnered widespread mainstream media attention, someone else created a page for the account. It bugs me a bit that the title contains a space, and also that my draft feels far more complete and comprehensive. Is there a way I could motion to have my draft page entirely replace the existing page? I don't know if it's proper wiki etiquette to just go in there and completely replace the public page with my draft. Also there's the issue that I'd like for the page to be moved from "NBA Centel" to "NBACentel".

Thanks in advance! TSwanyIRL (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: Just did this myself. Swapped the page content for the content that was in my draft, as it is far more comprehensive. If I did anything wrong please LMK! TSwanyIRL (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@TSwanyIRL: It would have been nice to discuss it first with User:Soulbust who spent time creating that page. But now that you've gone and done it, it looks like an improvement so hopefully there won't be any hard feelings there. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to speak generally without passing any judgement on whether or not this was called for in this specific case: In the case of "there are two pages that exist and they should become one page", you want to do a merge. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

ROM Downloads as RS

Is there any restriction on citing ROM downloads for games (such as fan translations or own created), since I have encountered them at Rhythm Tengoku and List of Creepypastas and just marked them using . Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well perhaps the original rom should also be referenced. FAN created ROM downloads are likely copyright infringement, and so should not be linked. Commentary and interpretation could be used, but it should be from a reliable source, not a fan site of user generated content with no editorial oversight. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a good question to bring to WikiProject Video Games, where editors who have experience editing such articles can provide more insight. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Direct COI edits

Resolved

 – Slowking Man (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Yeren from Tencent's Communications team. As an employee, I've declared a conflict of interest (COI) regarding edits to the Tencent Cloud page. We have one straightforward, non-controversial edit to propose: correcting the Chinese entity names of Tencent Cloud, which are currently incorrect. Although I've already created a topic on the Talk page, for the sake of speed, could we make this edit directly? I understand that I should avoid making any potentially controversial edits at all times. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This is resolved, thanks @Robertsky for the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Moving a page to a redirect

A current discussion is ongoing to move a page. If the move follows through, the page will have to be moved to an existing redirect page. How would you go about doing that? Rexophile (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rexophile. Please see Help:Redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rexophile more specifically make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for any move requests you cannot do on your own (e.g because of existing redirect) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I *can* do the redirect and move on my own (I think), and I know we're supposed to "be bold" in our edits, but I thought for a reasonably big-ish change like that, I should open it to discussion first. Although maybe that's not necessary since someone else changed it from the redirect it was to what it is now without any discussion I can find, so changing it back probably wouldn't be so bad of me to do. But I do have a discussion on the talk page for anyone who might want to join it. So, yeah, I'll think on it and especially if no one joins the discussion maybe I just go ahead and make the changes myself. I got it/I'll figure it out. Thanks for your help! Wikipedian339 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I use these images for a draft?

Hello! I am currently writing a draft on the Davis Fire. I am very unfamiliar with uploading images or files to Wikipedia and do not know how to determine copyright permissions. I found pictures on the Davis Fire here: https://www.rgj.com/picture-gallery/news/2024/09/11/davis-fire-gallery-in-pictures-wildfire-rages-south-of-reno-washoe-valley/75177094007/ and if someone knows how to check for copyright permissions, please help! Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Help on the copyright images, that is. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, any image is copyrighted and will be assumed to be so until it is shown otherwise explicitly. Those images were taken by a photojournalist for that newspaper - there is zero reason to think that they are freely licensed for anyone to use, and in fact it is virtually certain that either that photographer or the newspaper owns the copyright to the images. They are very unlikely to release them under a free license - they make their money by having employed photojournalists to take images for them that they can publish or sell for money. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you. As you can tell, I am very inexperienced with this topic of Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No harm no foul, asking first when you're not sure is not a bad thing! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In the case where there are no existing non-copyrighted (or freely usable) images of the fire, you can upload a non-free file to Wikipedia (not Commons) - see WP:NFCC - after the draft is published to illustrate that page. Reconrabbit 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

To editor Hurricane Wind and Fire: The thing you want to look at for a quick "primer" is Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons is a central repository where "freely-licensed" media go, so that they can be easily reused everywhere. English Wikipedia in limited cases sometimes allows certain fair use media, but photos of "current" or "recent events" aren't one of them so that's not applicable here.

Tip: U.S. government sources are a frequent source of public domain images for many things, and fires/storms and the like are among those. A lot of storm articles for instance, contain satellite and radar imagery from agencies like NASA and National Weather Service. ("Public domain" means they have no copyright protection and are thus free of restrictions for anyone to use.) --Slowking Man (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Article to improve

Hello anyone, here is an article anyone can improve by adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello anyone, here I have a new article to improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Qwert0ky Teahouse hosts are generalists here to advise on editing, not to co-author. Perhaps there are other places you can ask. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like this would go in WP:CLEANUP, although that corner of Wikipedia seems to be largely forgotten. MediaKyle (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Is arbitration enforcement really strict about who can edit the talk page?

Do edits like this one have to be reverted for arbitration reasons? I gave the user {subst:alert} already, but is it necessary to revert comments like those as they are not ERs? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I did it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, ok. Then what about Talk:Gaza war hostage crisis#POV title? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Uploading logos

I see in the Greek wikipedia page several logos from dioceses in Greece, but only on the Greek wikipedia page (like this and this one). I'm not sure what the copywrite status of these or what Wikipedia's policy is on logos such as these. Alexthegod5 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Fair use -- there's a list of criteria any non-freely-licensed work (i.e. any work owned by someone, who hasn't given permission for anyone to use it for pretty much anything) have to satisfy. There's a whole form to fill out if you click "Upload file" somewhere in the Wikipedia sidebar? If there's diocese logos I imagine it would be somewhat likely they would meet the criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles I'll take another stab at it, but when I was filling it out I wasn't sure which selections to chose from. Thanks! Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably the option you want is "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.", if it helps Mrfoogles (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Alexthegod5. Please have a look at WP:Logos. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Propose essay for deletion?

Hi,

What is the process for proposing an essay for deletion?

I came across this essay just now. While I understand it was intended in jest, it engages in subtle racism, xenophobia, eurocentrism, and othering.

The author has an indefinite block, though I'm unclear why. Delectopierre (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delectopierre, the user was a sock of Icewhiz, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz--a particularly nasty ongoing threat to the health of the project and the mental health of a number of our editors. Since Icewhiz was blocked in 2019 and this was created in 2021, I can delete it per WP:G5. Thanks for bringing this here. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:MFD, it's the process used where Wikipedia:MAIN PAGE got deleted. It's in your Twinkle's XFD menu. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How specific is too specific

I have some page ideas but I don't know if they're board or well known enough to constitute a page. BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As a general rule, even the most specific topics can warrant a Wikipedia article so long as they meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Also, be bold! If an article doesn't exist but you think it should, why not create it and try putting it through the WP:AfC process? guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush broccoli comments is notable enough to have a WP:GA, so whatever it is you want to make, I promise you it won't hurt to try. guninvalid (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jacob Lee 6939. Further to what @Guninvalid says - it won't hurt to try and establish that the subject is notable by finding satisfactory sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage (see WP:42. Doing anything else before that is like starting to build a house without surveying the building plot - it is likely to be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Interest in starting a new WikiProject Cybersecurity

I've noticed a lack of Wikipedia articles covering many cybersecurity topics such as data breaches and vulnerabilities, and many of the articles on networking technology are old and poor-quality. I am interested in collaborating with other Wikipedians with an interest in this field. Is there an existing project I can join, or how would I start one? guninvalid (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Guninvalid. There's WikiProject Computer security, but it says it is "semi-active". You might want to ask on the parent project, WP:WikiProject Computing. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Good article nomination

Hello! I want to improve this article ("Religious responses to the problem of evil") the "good article" quality. I have already added images, made it more readable, filled up the categories, fixed the references, and added some notes. Is there anything else that should be improved in that specific article before it is ready for a nomination? Brent Silby (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Brent Silby. Thanks for your contributions, the article is looking good. For directions on how to nominate the article for GA review, you can check out the instructions page here. I recommend you read carefully the criteria, and first put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer by thoroughly going over the article and checking for yourself that it meets all the criteria. When you're satisfied with it, and you'd like to have someone review it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to get to it in a timely manner. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can referencing be collapsed? Appears 101-106 are to the same work, can this be replaced by one ref that covers all the page numbers? Ditto 116 & 118, and 128-131. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I will look into this right now and see what can be collapsed. Brent Silby (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Brent Silby the second to fourth references are currently (after deletion of some markup):

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
• Problem of Evil, Paul Brians, Washington State University
• Stephen D. O'Leary (1998). Arguing the Apocalypse. Oxford University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-19-535296-2.

Better decide if the author's name goes at the start or (a novel notion for me) at the end, what italics are and aren't used for, and (looking ahead to reference 7) whether authors' names are inverted or not ... etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Reopen an answered edit request?

I made an edit request, it was implemented, and the template was changed to “yes”

Then another editor came along and changed it to “no” without any other editing. My implemented edit request is still live on the article, they just changed the template answer. Is this normal? Is there any policy page that deals with a 3rd party re-opening an accepted request? Mikewem (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem I'm assuming you're referring to Talk:Israel#Edit request 28 February 2025. The request wasn't accepted, it was just read. When the template parameter is changed from "answered=no" to "answered=yes", it just means that it is reviewed and responded and that it is not listed at Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests, a category listing all the edit requests that needs attention. The way Remsense did it is so that another editor can take a look at the edit request. So to me it seems extremely normal to do that. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It was actually Talk:Jews#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

And I got my facts slightly wrong. The edit was implemented into the article but the editor who did the implementing maybe neglected to change the template or maybe purposely left the request open. Then a third party changed it to yes and then changed it back to no Mikewem (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Notify User

If I report a user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, do I have to tell them through their talk page? If yes, what template do I use? Justjourney (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You are not required to notify them. If you choose to do so, see Template:Uw-socksuspect Meters (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this fall under public domain?

Want to use this image to show the prisoners from the 2006 Yemen prison escape, but I'm not exactly sure if there's an appropriate rationale for uploading it via Fair Use. As for my (extremely limited) copyright knowledge, these images are a collection of mugshots, so would that possibly put it under public domain? Hsnkn (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hsnkn: No, it would not likely be under public domain. From what I can see, Interpol (who appears to be the source of the mugshots) does not necessarily release their images into the public domain, instead listing them as "approved for public dissemination" (see: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntonioAnglés.jpg for example). Even if Interpol isn't the original photographer, you would have to find the original photographer (or the agency/government) that took the picture and see if they have released it into the public domain. Per the Commons page with rules for Yemen, I wouldn't necessarily say that a mugshot taken by a police/prison would be public domain by default.

The onus would be on you (as the uploader) to show that they are in the public domain - i.e. there is an explicit release of copyright by the copyright holder (either in bulk, or individually). If you want a better answer, you may wish to ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where they may be able to offer better advice. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Got it, ill try to upload it under fair use first and then see how it goes Hsnkn (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hsnkn, there is strong consensus that non-free images of living people cannot be uploaded to or used on the English Wikipedia. See the policy language at Non-free images. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I probably should have read that being uploading. I'll take it down and see if I can find any other images for the article. Hsnkn (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of the page Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC)

Hi so my page Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) had been redirected to another page the battle of upper macedon could anyone review the page the guy that made the decision of redirecting the page allows me to restore the page if i don't feel like the decision was correct but another editor told me i should ask for a review before restoring the page so could anyone review it? Sigma.212 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It appears this page was reviewed, by the community at AfD, with a pretty clear consensus to convert the article to a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

yes but the guy that made the decision allows me to restore the page only another guy had a problem telling me frist I should ask for a review of the page Sigma.212 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. To clarify, I told the editor to ask for a review of the decision to redirect and make a case for it since they disagree with it. Is there such a procedure though? I know that there is a procedure that one can initiate if the article gets deleted, but in this case the article became a redirect. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Since it's still essentially a question of challenging an AfD outcome, I think WP:DRV is the appropriate venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete redirect

Some one suggest me to change name of my sandbox from draft:____ to User:__/sandbox,I moved it but redirect is created, now I don't know how to delete redirect😭. Plz help me, i create another problem while solving problem 😞.

Thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 獅眠洞! There’s a template for such things  – you can put {{db-g7}} at the top of pages you’re the only contributor to and request their deletion. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikibook as a source

Hello! I want to add this into the news if possible:

• A wikipedian introduced new theory of the Moon's formation.(WB)

--EXVM (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @EXVM. I suggest you propose in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Also read the guidelines before you propose. :) Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @EXVM, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Absolutely not. Wikibooks is user-generated, and is therefore by definition not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not report on original research, or on anything which has not been reported in a reliable source. Unless and until there is independent reliable discussion of this book or its content, it does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. (And that applies to all the other places you have been spamming with your theory. Get it published by a reliable source, and reviewed by other reliable sources, and we can look at it). ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hope, discussions and citations will appear, since it is free content. --EXVM (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The Simpsons

I want recruit people for a quest. Every intro in the Simpsons Lisa plays an instrument. I could be a sax, tuba, harp, etc. I want to add in the info box what instrument Lisa played. If I can just get 1 person for each season we would be good. If no one wants to that’s fine this was just an idea. (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Boeing747Pilot. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons. Maybe you can ask there. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 16:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Boeing747Pilot, and welcome to the Teahouse. In my personal view, that doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there has been independent discussion of it in reliable sources. Others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks! It was just an idea i got from watching the simpsons.

(Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring notifications from users

Is it possible to ignore notifications, such as talk page messages, from certain users? I ask since I have this one user nagging me about creating an article about Facebook on Cherokee Wikipedia. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid There is general advice at Wikipedia:Etiquette#A_few_things_to_bear_in_mind. having read your talk page, I think that you can reasonably respond by saying that, although you have agreed in principle to do something, WP:There are no deadlines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Confused about BankSathi Drafts - Seeking Guidance

Seeking guidance on BankSathi's draft status. I revised Draft:Banksathi with improved sourcing (The Hindu BusinessLine, Entrepreneur, Times of India, Economic Times) to address notability. However, Draft:BankSathi, a previously declined draft by another user, also exists. I have a previously undisclosed connection to the company, now declared, but no other COI. Please advise on the preferred draft for review, and if these sources establish sufficient notability. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@MH-wiki2025: Sorry, could you clarify I have a previously undisclosed connection to the company, now declared, but no other COI? Where have you made that disclosure, and what is your connection to the company? --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I revised Draft:Banksathi with improved sourcing for notability. Draft:BankSathi, previously declined, is not connected to me; my past customer relationship is disclosed on my user talk page. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey

Can I update the photos on the pages Beulah, North Dakota and Beulah School. Just the photos in the info box 17:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747Pilot (talk • contribs)

Go ahead. If it's not vandalism or a copyrighted image, you should be fine. Can you sign your questions with four tildes (~~~~) next time? It makes it easier to identify you. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 19:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I decided the photos are too good to get rid of so I’m just adding some more (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing to write about

All of my articles have been nominated for deletion. Why is there a way to write a new article in the first place? Everything notable has already been written about. Mangoflies (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrote a reply at User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Question_from_Mangoflies_(02:52,_28_February_2025). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Mangoflies, you are incorrect. On my userpage, User: Cullen328#My redlinks, I list 16 topics that I believe are notable. Feel free to write about any of those topics. There is wide agreement that songs that have appeared on the major Billboard charts are worthy of Wikipedia articles. Most songs from recent decades are covered, but the Billboard charts started in 1913. There are countless hit songs from the 1920s through 1940s that lack articles. There is wide agreement that elected members of national, state and provincial legislatures are notable. There are thousands of biographies of 19th century legislators yet to be written, and thousands of legislators currently serving in non-English speaking countries. And you started Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 about a 1964 plane crash that killed 49 people. That crash is certainly notable but you stopped working on it last November. There is a book called The RAF Air Sea Rescue Service, 1918–1986 that has 15 sentences about the crash. With a little bit of work, that draft will be ready to be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Pre-dating Billboard, there are songs like As some day it may happen that can probably be made into articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've never written an article about anything new or even alive, that I can recall. First, learn WP:GNG and WP:RS and a few more in the alphabet soup linked in those pages. Avoiding living subjects gives you less to worry about (so far so good). Find your inspiration where you read and want to know, without a mind to creation in particular. But when it strikes you, try using WP:AFC. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mangoflies. I don't know about you, but for me, it was a great relief to realise that creating new articles wasn't the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been editing for nearly twenty years, have 26 000 edits - but I've only ever created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Here are some lists of articles which don't exist in English Wikipedia, but many of which likely should: Most-wanted articles · Requested articles · WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

There are plenty of articles which do exist on English Wikipedia but are quite short and you could work on expanding; for those look at WikiProject Stub improvement. --Slowking Man (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I used that AfC list and the articles I wrote just got nominated for deletion. Mangoflies (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop creating articles. You have a history of having AfC drafts Declined, and when you bypassed AfC to create articles in main space, having those nominated for deletion. Going forward, create drafts and submit to AfC. If declined, understand why, and try to remedy before resubmitting. Only after a series of successes should you again consider bypassing AfC. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Women in Red has some redlink lists, although they're not always easy to find sources on. Overall though the crucial rule to follow is WP:THREE -- three reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. If you can't find that, probably don't make an article; if you can, you're probably fine. Additionally, it's really hard to get articles that are written a bit like resumés through AFC, like you're trying to with the lawyer one. I'd recommend writing about non-living subjects or just not about people, to some extent -- I don't think I've written any articles about currently living people, personally. There's a higher barrier to try to keep out articles about people who don't really have a lot of coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Mangoflies, if I was you, I would work on Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444. It is very promosing and I gave you a great reference to use. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Too late. There is already an article on it. Middle East Airlines Flight 444 Mangoflies (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mangoflies: Very good: then you may simply merge the useful additions from your draft into the article! See: WP:MERGE. When you are finished, then simply redirect the draft page to the article. To do this, blank the content of the draft page and replace it with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Middle East Airlines Flight 444]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from drafts}}
}}

--Slowking Man (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I edited Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament's infobox, cleaning it up by removing the underscores and capitalizing the individual labels. I am wondering whether the capitalization was needed here. Justjourney (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you used sentence casing for the infobox, so everything looks good! — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Justjourney, I agree with VolatileAnomaly about the infobox, and will offer a brief explanation. I think that looks correct. That article is using Template:Infobox directly, so the labels can be given any name. Most articles use a specialized template that calls Template:Infobox. And if you go check out any of those specific infobox templates like Template:Infobox tournament, they typically use sentence casing for the labels. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for Approval: Cyusa Ian Berulo Wikipedia Article

Message: Hello Wikipedia editors, I previously submitted a request for review of my Wikipedia article about Cyusa Ian Berulo, but unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback. It seems my request was ignored, which is disappointing, considering the article is based on verifiable facts and reliable sources such as The New Times, KT Press, and Igihe.com. The article covers my work as a humanitarian and technology innovator, including founding the Berulo App, which fights school dropout and child neglect. This app is actively used by over 10,000 people daily and ranks high in Google Search Engines, proving its significance. I strongly believe that my article meets Wikipedia's notability and reliable sourcing standards. Could you please provide guidance on why my submission was overlooked and what steps I need to take for approval? Your feedback would be highly appreciated. Best regards, Cyusa Ian Berulo Cyusa Ian Berulo (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently submitted a draft article on Cyusa Ian Berulo, but unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback. It is disappointing to be ignored, especially since the article is based on strong, verifiable facts from reliable sources like The New Times, KT Press, and Igihe.com.

The article highlights my work as a humanitarian and technology innovator, including the Berulo App, which is actively used by over 10,000 people daily to combat school dropout and child neglect. The app also ranks high on Google Search, proving its real-world impact.

I believe my article meets Wikipedia’s notability and reliable sourcing standards. Could someone review my submission and let me know why it has not been considered? Any guidance on how to move forward would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the draft: [link to your draft]

As a dedicated contributor, I value your support in ensuring this important article is published. Thank you in advance for your help!

Best regards,

Cyusa Ian Berulo Cyusa Ian Berulo (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cyusa Ian Berulo: From a quick look at your edit history, you did not submit the page for review. You moved your draft into mainspace yourself. Twice it was moved back to draftspace and then was nominated for deletion. You were also warned against writing an article about yourself. Also, your latest response on here appears to be AI-generated. Please talk to other editors yourself rather than through AI. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Image / copyright question

Hello, apologies in advance if this is a silly question -- I am a new-ish user hoping to add an image to St. Elizabeth's Indian School. I found some photos in a Smithsonian museum collection[15] taken between 1899-1903. I'm specifically interested in this one here[16] for the infobox. The copyright is listed as not determined. The collection creator died in 1918[17]. It's also been over 120 years since the photo was created. I realize image copyright is quite complex so I was hoping to check with a more experienced editor to see if I could use the image without making a formal request to the archives of the National Museum of the American Indian. Zzz plant (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zzz plant. I'm pretty sure that will be public domain, but I'm not an expert: I suggest asking the Commons experts at C:COM:Village pump/Copyright ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - apologies for not seeing there was a specific help desk for copyright questions. Thanks again! Zzz plant (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Zzz plant, a photo published over 95 years ago in the United States is indisputably in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! Zzz plant (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

What is a healthy WP schedule?

I’m finding myself refreshing notifications a little too frequently. Any tips for a healthier way to check my notifications? Is there an email setting that will aggregate notifications to once a day? I bet there’s a good essay on this already but I’m not sure what to search for. Also, are there opportunities for synchronous discussions (chat, etc)? Dw31415 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you rather check your notifications once a day. There are opportunities for chatting, in the articles talk page and sometimes your user talk page. But about Wikipedia related. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 15:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415 There is a drop-down at the top of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo which allows you to aggregate notifications daily or even weekly rather than have each one immediately. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous things like browser extensions and functionality included in various operating system platforms to assist or "enforce" with limiting time on a certain Web site, or using the Internet altogether, etc. You will have to do a little Web searching to get recommendations and evaluate what you might wish to try. There is a Wikipedia-specific script at User:Anomie/lockout.js which will "lock you out" of the site during a portion of each day, but you'll have to copy-and-paste it and edit the time interval to your liking: see WP:Userscripts for explanation. For various interactive chat fora associated with the project, see WP:Chat. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)