Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help with my article Before resubmitting

Shortcuts

• Help:FRIENDLYHelp:FRIENDLY
• WP:TEAWP:TEA
• WP:THWP:TH

CiaPan, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

User talk:DannyRogers800

I have another question about advice that I am giving to inexperienced editors at DRN. The dispute turns out to be about assigning article categories to redirects. There was a List of Playstation 5 games, and the filing editor created redirects to the list for all of the game titles that were in the list but did not have their own articles. I think that was correct, a case where the redirects are useful. They then placed those redirects in Category:PlayStation 5-only games. Another editor disagrees, and my view is that the redirects should not be in a category for articles. I advised the editor either to remove the article categories from the redirects and put them in redirect categories via templates, such as {{R from list topic}}, or to ask me to ask other experienced editors for advice. So I am being asked to research this question, which is

So: Did I give correct advice to the editor, or should I revise my advice because I was mistaken and redirects can be in article categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This and your previous question seem more suited to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) than The Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Article categories allows it in some cases but Category:PlayStation 5-only games has 12 articles and 103 redirects, most of them to the same List of PlayStation 5 games. That seems excessive. I suggest a compromise where the redirects get their own category, similar to Category:The Simpsons character redirects to lists so the articles in Category:The Simpsons characters are easy to find. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:PrimeHunter. That would be a redirect category for redirects to Playstation lists. I am adding that that category should be added to at least two parent categories, one Playstation-related and one of redirect categories. My general follow-up question is what is the best forum to ask for advice about categories, which are a detailed technical area of their own (which at least once resulted in an ArbCom case that resulted in users being banned). So where should category questions be asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The Teahouse is geared to newcomers. I suggest Wikipedia:Help desk for more advanced questions. Questions are sometimes asked on the talk page of a relevant policy or guideline but they are meant for discussing the content of the associated page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:PrimeHunter. I came here because I was looking for advice for newcomers. When I have been looking for help with detailed tasks, sometimes I have found it at the Help Desk, and sometimes I have done better at Village pump (technical). I may try the Help Desk again. I don't see much discussion of categorization at WT:Categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day everyone

So my submission for Draft:A Forest of Stars (band) was declined, with the reason given being that notability was not established. Two questions if I may:

1. The editor who declined said the specific issue is that "we really need sources that discuss the band in-depth, not just their albums, and not based on interviews". However, I also note in Wikipedia:TRIVIAL that "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions", and I would have thought that an album review from a staff writer in a publication recognised in Wikipedia:A/S would fall into that category. If I am misreading then it would be good to know why.
2. I have now added a several extra sources, including a feature in Bandcamp Daily and a (short) biography from Allmusic. If someone had time to take a look and pass on some thoughts (both on notability and, to be honest, any other constructive criticism you can think of) I would be most grateful.

Cheers

CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good test is this: Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, thanks for getting back in touch so quickly.

Is that a rhetorical question, or are you actually offering to comment on some of the article's sources? I appreciate that we are all very busy, but if you were that would be a great help both for this article and my future editing. For reference, I have had two other similar articles accepted previously, Conjurer (band) and Green Lung. It didn't seem to me that this one is noticeably more lacking in sources than those two. Understanding why they got through and this one didn't would be helpful for me to know who else to write an article for and who to give a miss.

I also wonder if Wikipedia isn't a bit like the British planning system: in some cases it's just a bit borderline and subjective I've got to accept that whoever makes the decision could justifiably go either way. If that's the case it's good to understand.it clearly. CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, CasualInterestInManyThings, Andy is offering to comment briefly on the adequacy (or not) of not "some" but three sources. (Normally, cited sources don't have to be available on the web, let alone available free of charge; but for this purpose, they do.) There's no great mystery about inconsistency of standards: Drafts are accepted (or not) by any of a great number of volunteers, working independently. The great majority of these volunteers do a decent job, but some may be a little, or even more than a little, uncomprehending, underinformed, sleepy, slapdash, indulgent, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the link I provided? It's a real question.

If you can't find three such sources, then the article almost certainly does not meet our notability requirements, and so is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, yes I certainly did, thank you.

I would suggest:

• https://totalrock.com/a-forest-of-stars-band-of-the-month-december-2020/ - discussion by a significant commercial radio station - see TotalRock -offering general discussion of the band and awarding the the station's "band of the month" for December 2020. Note the explicit reference to their significance within their subgenre.
• https://www.loudersound.com/reviews/a-forest-of-stars-beware-the-sword-you-cannot-see - see my opening point above about album reviews as "significant" in themselves but in any case opens with a substantial preamble about the band's contribution to the wider genre. Written by staff writer from a source referenced in WP:A/S, therefore reliable, no evidence of a connection to the subject.
• https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/a-forest-of-stars-interview - as well as an interview, goes into significant depth about the band's history, sound and image. Likewise written by staff writer from a source referenced in WP:A/S, no evidence of a connection to the subject.

Thoughts, as I say, extremely welcome. CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See again WP:Golden Rule. Interviews are not independent of the subject, and don't contribute to notability. Got another one? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but figured since most of the feature is written in the author's own words, structured as a history of the band and review of a recent album with a couple of questions to the band thrown in, it might still count. It is useful to know that it does not. In any case, O'Connor incorrectly says Grave Mounds is their first album with Prophecy, which says bad things about on the subject of reliability.

Others I'd mention are

• https://distortedsoundmag.com/album-review-grave-mounds-and-grave-mistakes-a-forest-of-stars/ - another review of a different album from another publication recognised as reliable. Less general discussion of the band than the metal hammer article, a lot more detail on the album in question.
• https://www.allmusic.com/artist/a-forest-of-stars-mn0001057006#biography - short biography on Allmusic. Clearly independent, clearly reliable, but is this too short to count as significant?

If that doesn't do it, then it's probably time to hold up my hands, squirrel the text away somewhere until someone else decides to write about them, and crack on with someone else armed with new process knowledge. CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic site isn't coverage, that's just a profile summary like thousands of others on that site. The other one looks OK although the coverage of the band itself is rather short. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was why I didn't include it first off. It is good know how such things are treated.

In any case, I guess that's three... just. I will have a last proof of the article and push the button again soon.

It looks like, from this discussion, an album review can be coverage where it covers the band in general as well as the album, but that is not the case for interviews which are just never evidence of notability. I will admit that feels a bit unintuitive (if a major publication had decided to conduct an interview, presumably that means they thought the subject was important enough to interview them), but I also know that I do not make the rules.

It feels like I've bombarded you with a lot of quite silly questions. Thank you very much for your patience. CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would help verify WP:BAND criterion 5 is to include the label associated with each album in the list of album releases. The date they were signed to the label is sort of buried in the article; if any criteria are met, they should be clearly identified. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A related question is: which criterion from WP:BAND does this band meet? If I review an article about a band and cannot see any evidence of meeting any of the listed criteria, I would decline it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your reply

I would say they meet criteria 1 (although this is evidently contested) and 5 (see Prophecy Productions). CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly do not meet criterion #5 if they signed only this year and have not released two or more albums under that label. So we're left with #1, and you've been asked for three sources that meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule. It wasn't a rhetorical question. When you have a bunch of citations in an article with some of them not helping with notability, a reviewer wants to know what you think your three best sources are. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will reply to Andy separately on their point, as they have now also replied.

AFOS signed with Prophecy in 2011, and have released three albums with them. I have provided sources to demonstrate specifically this and altered the article to draw slightly greater attention to it, given its significance to their notability. CasualInterestInManyThings (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the table of contents page and trying to make it as easy as possible to navigate. Here is the revision of the page: Wikipedia:Contents - Wikipedia and the talk page discussion that goes along with it - Wikipedia_talk:Contents#My_edits_to_this_page. Since I have been working with another editor who has reverted me and working to make the page as accessible as possible, it is extremely important to me that this page is a high standard. I would like this page to be a concise list of everything Wikipedia has to offer while reducing bloat. The other editor pointed out that it needs to be accessible for people with disabilities. The question I want to ask here is do you think this page meets the standard for being a table of contents page? I'm looking for something similar to WP:PR, but for project space. What do you think should be improved on the page? I was a little discouraged from asking at the help desk since another editor reported me to WP:ANI when the dispute could've been resolved with better tools. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent version looks OK to me, although the one that got reverted, I'd have to agree with the reverter. Looking good visually doesn't matter if using a screen reader or other disability aid. Favor a TOC over a list, favor a list over a table, avoid icons in prose, and so on. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thank you for your honest feedback. My goal is to try to improve page while keeping the reverter's comments in mind. Feel free to skim through the page, provide me additional feedback, or be bold with a change you think would make it better. Interstellarity (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the ANI incident, and continue to edit boldly per WP:BRD. The editor who started that thread at ANI very much violated Wikipedia norms by taking the discussion there before having a normal conversation with you. The correct, expected thing to do is to have a discussion on the talk page -- as you've done. And you've received the feedback about accessibility well.

I hope that incident won't make you hesitant to edit in the future, or to ask for help on the help desk. The vast majority of editors will not respond in that way, because the community does not tolerate that sort of behavior (at least not for long). The editor in question was sanctioned for attacking you (and other violations of community standards). You're doing good work, communicating well, and we hope you'll stick around!

As for getting feedback on your changes to the Contents page, asking as you did on its talk page should be sufficient if you just want to make sure other people interested in maintaining the page are okay with your edits. The Contents page's Talk page is tagged by WP:WikiProject Contents, so WT:WikiProject Contents could in theory be a good venue to draw attention from more editors. Unfortunately, that project looks fairly moribund.

If you're eager for discussion from a broader range of editors, the WP:Village Pump is a good venue to bring up topics that affect the encyclopedia or community as a whole. For feedback in advance, WP:VPI or WP:VPP depending on how concrete your idea/proposal is. For feedback on something already implemented, you could try WP:VPM. -- Avocado (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do IPv6 addresses chage when the router restarts? 2603:6080:C400:4DE2:AC4E:A408:900D:CAE1 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a dynamic IP address issued to you by your internet provider. When your router reconnects to the service, you get another IP address. This applies to both IPV4 and IPV6. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See IP address#Dynamic IP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, for questions not about Wikipedia itself, you may want to check out the WP:Reference Desk. -- Avocado (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the famous steam locomotives in our friendly neighbors from the north, 2860 is part of the Canadian Pacific’s Royal Hudson’s. After revenue service ended for the engine in 1959, it was saved from scrapping and was restored for excursion service in 1973/74. It hauled excursion trains and was even at Steam Expo ‘86 in Vancouver. Restored to service again in 2006, and is now withdrawn since 2011. Though its fame is very big across the world, try searching up the engine on Wikipedia without getting redirected to the Royal Hudson article. Should we give 2860 it’s own article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be more interested in some more detail for the class generally at Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like any subject, they question is: does it meet our notability requirements. In other words, can you find three sources that meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a useful test here. There will be many such sources. The real question is (for once), is the topic interesting? I have no idea. It's Canadian, I'm not. But there are plenty of preserved UK locos where two locos, sometimes even of the same class, will both have substantial sourcing to pass wikidogma, but one has had a significant role in preservation (either as a loco, or in carrying the majority of traffic on a particular line), the other has merely existed. It's an editorial decision as to which is worth writing about, and this is harder than just counting sources to pass AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only useful test. Once it passes that test, the question of whether it is "worth" writing about is a matter for the OP, or any other volunteer who may wish to write the article, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the car I’m not safe from my alternate accounts. 2860 is very famous all around the world, given it’s a Royal Hudson. 2816, 6060, and 3716 all have their own articles, and you’re trying to make it seem like 2860 is some rare, forgotten, non notable excursion engine. I’m not a Canuck, but I don’t think redirecting a famous excursion star with an article on the class it came from is a good idea… 172.56.176.220 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point 1: It will never, ever, have "it's" own article here; nothing ever will. It might have "its" own article. Minor point 2: "Our friendly neighbors to the North," to readers in Australia or New Zealand could arguably be just about anybody in the world. I'm guessing that you're from the United States, and you're assuming that everybody reading this is from the United States (since only someone from the United States would assume that), and that you mean Canada. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any automation tools that could edit all links in article namespace to a specific page? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 13:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jothefiredragon: The semi-automated Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser can make it easier. It has a "Make list" box where you can choose "Wiki search (text)" and enter linksto:Foo to find pages with a link to Foo. It's useful for many things but has to be learned first. You can also post a request to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks do seem to be what I'm looking for. Thank you very much for your help. @PrimeHunter Have a nice day! 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is User:Ridge Runner. I've been trying for months now to get logged back into Wikipedia, to no avail. I didn't change my password, but now when I go to login, it says, "Incorrect username or password entered. Please try again."

Requests for lost password help are not making it to my e-mail address.

Can anyone help me, please? 138.43.149.142 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new user ID. Log in with that username. On your new user page, mention that you were previously User:Ridge Runner. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ridge Runner is retired, an account 17 years old, and seems to have an email address set up. Please check your spam folder to see if you got any password-related email. I'll send you a test email too. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for sending that e-mail. I don't know why Wikipedia's e-mails weren't coming through (even to my spam folder), but yours did and that fixed it. Have a great day! -Aaron Ridge Runner (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why me sending you an email would have fixed anything, but I am glad you are now able to log in. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly made edits to a wikipedia page featuring myself (Sheila DeWitt) which created a COI "tag". I definately did not fully understand the COI rules at the time. I now understand that I should have suggested edits as a COI editor. If I "undo" the edits that I made on April 30, will it address the COI tag? Thanks in advance

Sheiladewitt (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pigsonthewing removed the tag here and seems to be giving the article a general brush-up. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I wrote a reply here saying I was doing so, but it showed up still in draft just now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! Sheiladewitt (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I exchange a few messages with an editor. I don't remember on which page or system. Is there a way to retrieve those messages? Sergio58 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked through Special:Contributions/Sergio58? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I found my message there, but not the reply I received. Sergio58 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about the history of "Draft:Definitional tree"? (After being posted, it might have been deleted, whether accidentally or deliberately.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergio58: Or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#18:06, 14 July 2025 review of submission by Sergio58, or User talk:Sergio58. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Sergio58 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not XC and am in no rush to be. However I do follow the PIA CTOP and often notice other non-XC users engaging in talk page discussion, which is a violation of WP:ARBECR. Is it fine for me to drop a friendly note on their talk page letting them know about the policy? I did this once here - wanted to check to make sure that is fine before doing so again for other users NicheSports (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with this, since your edits aren't directly about PIA and are clearly constructive. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! NicheSports (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, if nobody bothers to protect a CTOP talk page, it's fair game for anyone to participate constructively.

In principle, I object to banning non XC users from participating on talk pages, because it just drives them to WP:RFED where uninvolved admins have to deal with the edit requests.

Indeed, WP:ARBECR A.1. specifically allows for non-XC editors to make edit requests on CTOP article talk pages. Therefore, your message to a user was somewhat misguided. They can participate, but only to make edit requests. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're way more experienced than me but "if nobody bothers to protect a CTOP talk page, it's fair game for anyone to participate constructively" is asking for users to define "constructive participation" themselves, which is asking for trouble in this CTOP area.

My understanding is that 1) any content that directly relates to the PIA CTOP is automatically WP:ECR-protected by default, whether someone has explicitly protected the page or not and 2) non-XC users can only make WP:EDITXY type requests for any such content.

I prefer to err on the side of clarity given the problems I see on talk pages in this very sensitive CTOP. Do you have a message you would prefer that I use instead of the one I linked to above? I've seen this one used but also don't want to come across as admin-y on people's talk pages. But you prefer I can use it instead NicheSports (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR is quite clear that non-XC users are allowed to make non-disruptive edit requests on CTOP talk pages. The message you leave on user talk pages should reflect that. They cannot engage in discussion, they cannnot argue, they cannot use talk pages as a forum (nobody can), but legitimate well-formed edit requests are permitted. The message you left saying "only editors who are WP:XC can edit in this space, including on talk pages" is misleading, because any editor can indeed write edit requests. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Do you have a recommended message I can use instead? I suggested this one above. Is this fine? NicheSports (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's {{subst:welcome-arbpia}}, in case you didn't know how to generate it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Need some help please :) How do I get a German wiki page translated and migrated over the the English version of Wiki? Globalsoundeditor (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Please see WP:HOWTRANS for instructions. Please know that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. It's up to you as the translator to make sure that what you are translating meets the requirements of the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In particular you will have to make sure the subject of the article fits the English Wikipedia's notability criteria, which differ from the German edition's. You can find more information at that link, or at Help:Your first article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Globalsoundeditor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To add to what 331dot says: unless you are confident that the sourcing of the German article meets the requirements of English Wikipedia (see WP:42), your best plan would be treat this as a new article rather than a translation.

Unfortunately, writing a new article is a very challenging task for a new editor. 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) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you want to translate? A fundamental difficulty in translating from German is that the German Wikipedia frequently uses general referencing (i.e. the sources are stated at the end of the article, but not attached line-by-line with citations as is often done here). General referencing is actually allowed in English Wikipedia, but many new page patrollers and AfC reviewers are unaware, and will complain. Elemimele (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some familiarity with German, having a German parent and taking German for years in high school but I am not fluent. When I translated Paul Trappen from German, it was a difficult job. I had to check every source to make sure the article said what the source said. I had to run sentences in both directions in Google Translate to make sure that the meaning did not change when going from German to English and back to German and back to English. When I was done I think the English version was better than the German one, although the German one may have improved since then. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globalsoundeditor, I agree with Elimimele's comments. One thing: I think the back-and-forth translation is not at all a good idea and a poor technique for assessing the quality of the original translation for a number of reasons, and I don't recommend continuing that practice. If you would like additional eyeballs on a draft translation you are working on, feel free to ping me. By the way, can you link the original German article you wish to translate? Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The back and forth technique to generate a stable translation in both directions worked well enough for me because I already have some familiarity with German. You have to tweak the words in every iteration until it's stable. If I was going to do this for an unfamiliar language like Greek, I wouldn't recommend it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello every, I am working on Islam in Laos, during research i found that not a single page uses 2015 census of Laos, Most pages used US Freedom Report or 2010 pew research report.

Now i am in Doubt that Is Laos Census Unreliable??. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞 I think it is more likely that no-one realised that such an English-language source existed. It looks very official and detailed to me and should be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia. Note that if you go to the top-level of the website UNFPA at this URL you may find even more recent data or other useful information for Laos. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I point out this because articles like religion in Laos ; Buddhism in Laos ; Christianity in Laos. Doesn't use official laos Census.

And 2025 Laos census will be published in few months.

I think 2015 census of Laos similar to 2011 census of India.

. 獅眠洞 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles use International Religious Freedom Report 2007 or The Global Religious Landscape on laos. These sources are decade old 獅眠洞 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reaching out to see if there are any author networks for having someone submit material to be submitted for approval. 75.164.240.145 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, including IP editors, can submit draft articles via the articles for creation process. See also Help:Your first article. However, if you are a newcomer here, then you should start with easier tasks, since writing from scratch has many pitfalls if you are not familiar with Wikipedia's many conventions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My father - Geoffrey J Morton - has a Wikipedia page because his shooting of Abraham Stern was, for better or worse, a turning point in the history of Israel, and even the Middle East. He describes it in his autobiography "Just the Job: some experiences of a colonial policeman". This was published in 1957 and is now almost impossible to find second hand. So I have converted it to an ePub and made it available free on Gumroad, see https://geoffrey07.gumroad.com/l/clyiwo I would like to give a link to this on his Wikipedia page but the Gumroad hosting implies to some that this a promotional move. How can I get this out there (the file is <7MB)? Is the Internet Archive a better place to host it? What do you folks here think? PS don't hesitate to download the eBook from Gumroad, be sure to specify a price of zero, and to judge the historical merit and relevance of this account yourself. GMHowarth (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GMHowarth You could donate a copy to Wikisource, I think, if you are confident you hold the rights to license it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... note that the text won't become public domain until 2027, since he died in 1957. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload it to the Internet Archive, and we will link to it there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Byeon Woo-seok

ASEA awards are not updated in the byeon wooseok accolades sections. Kindly update it.

https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EB%B3%80%EC%9A%B0%EC%84%9D 103.165.167.30 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. You have linked to a wiki that uses the same software as Wikipedia does but that's a completely unrelated site and editors here are not likely to want to update it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=202505301102571510

This one is an legit article 103.165.167.30 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Why don't you make the update yourself? We say WP:JUSTDOIT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think our guest was suggesting it as a source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case they need to understand that no wiki site can itself be used as a Reliable source on Wikipedia, because such sites' content is user generated: this includes Wikipedia itself.

If that other wiki cites a (by our criteria) a Reliable source for this piece of information, they can cite that source for the update (but as far as I can tell, it's uncited).

(Note that the subject's awards etc. are actually listed in a separate article linked from the main one. I'm not sure if this is really necessary.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!🤗

My name is Segun Alonge Jr, and I’m excited to finally start contributing to Wikipedia. I’ve been an educator, author, and consultant for several years, and my goal here is to improve articles about notable individuals, particularly in education, leadership, and African culture, as well as under-documented topics.

I’m still learning the ropes and welcome any advice on how to make meaningful contributions and avoid common mistakes.

Thanks for having me — looking forward to learning and contributing!

— SegunAlongeJr SegunAlongeJr (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. The most important thing for any editor who may be an "expert" to remember here is, absolutely don't write what you know on Wikipedia. We write only about what can be found in published sources with a reputation for reliability and fact checking. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're happy to have you! If you're confused, we have hundreds of help pages dedicated to assisting new editors. I recommend seeing this quick guide for editing acronyms. All users also have their own Sandbox, (click to create yours) you can edit here freely. Wikipedian 05:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

When I just just just started my account Pokegirl132225 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokegirl132225 Welcome to the Teahouse. There should be some suggestions on your homepage, or you look at the task center. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, quite a big one but it's just a rewrite, let me know what you think!

Michel Polnareff. Riphkin (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well done for being WP:BOLD. But I'm afraid that,

just in the first paragraph or two you have introduced non-neutral language: "shot to fame" (replacing the neutral "rose to fame"). Similarly "a landmark figure" (though in that case I question whether the text already there was neutral).

Please see peacock words.

In future, I recommend making several smaller edits rather than one large one, because if somebody disagrees with part of your edit, they are likely to revert the whole thing. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no need to revert a re edit can work just as well Riphkin (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but thanks for the suggestions and i'll be more careful next time Riphkin (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no need for somebody to revert, but people may do so nonetheless, because it's easier than working out which bits to keep. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok, will be careful more careful next time then Riphkin (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of the name Briden 207.172.247.246 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is for questions about editing and using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions.

Since our article Briden doesn't discuss the etymology, I suggest asking at the Reference desk (probably at the Humanities section of it). ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfaraz Kann

Die Kann erst 121.91.34.140 (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. This is the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It's not clear what you're trying to ask. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warned the IP. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was necessary since I assume the IP was asking (or trying to) in good faith, but I will leave it be. —Sophocrat (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that the SG-1000 articles first sentence contains the wording, "The SG-1000 is a..." despite the fact that the console itself is out of production. I assumed that articles on Wikipedia generally use "is" for topics that are current, or are general subjects and topics not expected to become out of date, while "was" was for topics about events, objects, or people that have since passed. My question is this, what exactly are the guidelines for the usage of past tense in the introduction on Wikipedia? Am I wrong in my assumption, or does this article potentially need to have the "is" swapped for a "was?" Thank you for considering. NormalSpider (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NormalSpider. According to our Manual of Style, we generally use the present tense for everything except past events and dead/defunct people, organizations, and periodicals. So for electronic devices, even discontinued ones, we use the present tense. Feel free to ask any other questions. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification. NormalSpider (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge on The Sophocrat's answer; examples of this device may still be in use by someone, somewhere. I myself have a working IBM Displaywriter System dating from the 1980's. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This isn't so much a question about rules as it is community norms. I'm interested in creating an article on a subject I previously assumed was not notable but have since found sources on (a book with multiple non-trivial reviews that has appeared on a bestseller list published by a notable media outlet, which I believe should clear WP:NBOOK). My plan was to create an offline document to work on at my own pace, then eventually upload it as a draft and submit it to AFC.

My question is, is that considered fairly standard, or is it typical for drafts to be developed on-wiki as a method of attribution for the edits (or for some other reason)? The access-date parameters in citations would obviously be misaligned with the date of creation of any potential future draft, which is perhaps more of an academic concern, but something that could be viewed oddly by others.

I did read WP:YFA, which was helpful but doesn't address offline drafting before uploading. This isn't the most important question ever, but as I said I'm interested more in the norms that go into draft creation than any specific issue. NovaHyperion (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with working offline, but doing everything on-wiki is probably the norm. That being said, rarely do people look at drafts before they are submitted, so you are still able to work at your own pace in draft space (or your own user space too). GoldRomean (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NovaHyperion. I am speaking only for myself, but for what it's worth, I have been an active editor since 2009, with 116,000 edits and over 100 new articles written. And maybe 1000 expanded. I do all of my drafting of new content on Wikipedia, except for occasional handwritten notes with pen and paper. I consider proper referencing the most important aspect by far when writing new content. Formatting and seeing the layout develop are also important to me. All of that is easy when working in my own Wikipedia sandbox space but tedious and time-wasting when done with any other software which uses different formatting. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always do my drafting within Wikipedia, because it's easier. I lose paper notes, I lose files on my computer, but I've never lost a Wikipedia draft. (I did once get one deleted when I hadn't edited it for six months, but it still existed, and a admin restored it for me.) Maproom (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NovaHyperion, when I either create an article afresh or make a large-scale revision to an article that seems to be of interest to few other editors, I like to do so using a text editor (Geany, as it happens), on my computer's SSD. I do then tend to make more than averagely many Mediawiki syntax errors, so at intervals during the process I set out to create an article with a gibberish title (e.g. "alrgjreijgaoie"), paste my Geany-created text into it, click "Show preview", fix any syntax errors and perhaps make a few other edits to the proto-page, and copy the result back to Geany. All of course without clicking "Publish changes"; and at the end I click "Cancel" in order to avoid creation of the article with the gibberish title. When I'm happy with what I've got, I copy it to wherever it should end up, and only then click "Publish changes". My junk drafts, with their silly titles, are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia. But I'll use my preferred method only if there seems to be little risk of "edit conflict". -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use something similar to Hoary's method, except that I do everything in my sandbox and write in source code, checking often using "Preview". This allows the use of WP:Citation expander for converting digital object identifiers into full references, which suits the sort of scientific topics I write about. The source editor's colour-coding is also very helpful. I copy/paste between the sandbox and a local PC program and only save stuff offline. This explains why some articles I put into mainspace are virtually complete when first made public (e.g. substructure search). I conclude that there is no "community norm": we can each choose whatever combination we prefer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the thoughtful responses! I hadn't considered the on-wiki advantage of being able to see formatting for references/use the citation expander, or the mitigation of data loss by storing it non-locally.

My writing process tends to be a little... chaotic, in the early stages at least, so the idea of working more privately where no one needs to see my mess is appealing, but those are some good points in favor of working on-wiki, as well as some helpful suggestions for a mixed approach. I appreciate the perspectives!

(And @Hoary:, good shout on Geany. I've been using Obsidian as it's what I had and has some markdown capabilities, but for some reason could not get it to display monospaced fonts the other day, which drove me crazy. I'll check it out!) NovaHyperion (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NovaHyperion, I do everything online in Draftspace, except for the very inital step of compiling my initial list of references (citations to sources) which I do with a text editor (EditPad Lite) using the {{Citation}} templates like {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}. Once I am convinced the topic is WP:Notable, I start a draft with a sentence or two of description, and at least three sources, putting my unused sources into the draft as well, as part of the Further reading section, which might grow to ten to thirty citations or more, depending on how much writing I plan to do. I then start to expand the Draft, moving citations out of the Further reading section and up into the main body of the article (or, as I often opt for the short footnotes-style of references, I simply move the citations up from Further reading into the Bibliography section unchanged, and link them from the body using {{sfn}}).

I like this incremental style of expanding the Draft, and I sometimes advertise the Draft at a WP:WikiProject, or tap folks that I think might be interested, to see if they want to help out. Oh—and even though the commenter above who said nobody else looks at Drafts is probably mostly right, I am someone who sometimes does, and I won't hesitate to help out at a Draft if it seems interesting and somewhere I could help out. Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you, that is helpful, and good to know that drafts are sometimes, if not often, collaborative efforts. NovaHyperion (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I created a new page and have been making several edits and wanted to know the review process to enable the page to be publicly accessible. Also, any other helpful input is welcome. The page can be found here. Emkhei (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Emkhei, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You created your draft on your user page, which is the wrong place for a draft. I have moved it to Draft:The State Signal, and will add a header allowing you to submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Emkhei

I've added a header to the draft, but looking at it, I fear that your draft has no chance of being accepted if you submit it as it is at present.

The problem is that all the sources are either unreliable (eg Wikipedia) or not independent. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

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.

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) 10:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin, that's truly helpful. I appreciate. Emkhei (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fetisov Journalism Awards

Hello! I would like to hear the participants' opinion about the sources I used for the draft. I have found and added 3 (WP:THREE) independent authoritative publications and added them to the draft:

1. 1 (Forbes)
2. 2 (SWI swissinfo)
3. 3 (medienwoche.ch.).

I took text from each publication that I could use to write an article.

Please share your opinion. Are these materials sufficient for writing an article? Can an article be accepted based on these publications? Thank you! 95.153.170.171 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. The purpose of the articles for creation process is to ensure that such issues are investigated by experienced reviewers. There is no need to re-litigate this at the Teahouse. The draft has already been submitted and declined many times and was again submitted yesterday. If you are one of the contributors who has used an account to edit the draft, please ensure you log on first, so we know which account your "I" refers to. Incidentally, it might just be better to expand the biography of Gleb Fetisov, who is not even Wikilinked in the draft, rather than have a separate article about this award. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 95.153.170.171. I clicked on the 1st 2 references, but they were not in English so I can't say if they were good sources. However, I'm concerned about your statement that you "took text from each publication." I hope that doesn't mean you are copying and pasting from sources, thus using the exact words, for that could be a copyright violation. Read what is written, and then write about the data you've found in your own words. Best wishes on your Wikipedia project. Karenthewriter (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short i made a draft that's 258,024 bytes long, with 544 references. What do i do now? (also, no this is not my first article). 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break, maybe? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DandelionAndBurdock yeah 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divide it into smaller parts; maybe three for four.

When they are ready, submit them for review using the process described at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing should i divide it by decade? 1timeuse75 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1timeuse75, you could divide it, but as a list article is not really intended to be read top to bottom, the length isn't as significant a factor; plus, this one has only 9,427 prose words, so you could just leave it as is for now. After it is released to mainspace, you can solicit feedback about it on the Talk page see what the consensus is as far as splitting it or not. I wouldn't worry about too much doing it yourself until then. Nice job, by the way; I'm sure it will be a popular article. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In "short descriptions" and "For other uses", why are such topics as films, songs, books, works, etc allowed to have accompanying dates, i.e. Paper Moon (film) (short description|1973 film) and Love Is Here to Stay (Short description|1938 song); but musicals are not? I see that on certain pages such as Show Boat it is allowed (short description|1927 musical) and on disambiguation pages the date accompanies the work Showboat (disambiguation) (Show Boat, a 1927 stage musical); but whenever I try to incorporate this same edit, it is removed. Not sure why a musical film Alexander's Ragtime Band (film) is allowed a description date; but a musical is not. Is there a policy / guideline specifically about musicals which deny dates that I might be missing? Confused. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What article are we talking about here? I take it that there's been a specific instance of you editting a ShortDesc and it being reverted, but I can't see that from a glance at your edit history. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'n'B Thanks for the reply. I should have simply stuck with asking a question in general (overall) from the community; rather than directing attention to a specific edit. However, here is the edit in question: [1] and [2]. My point of confusion is, at List of musicals: A to L / List of musicals: M to Z, it appears to be allowed: Ain't Misbehavin' (musical), As Thousands Cheer, and so on. I was having difficulty finding any reference at WP for this History Summary reason: "Stage works, unlike films, should not be identified by year." Also, I couldn't understand why "year of writing and/or composition - year of premiere - year of first major-market production" would all be allowed a date, but not the musical work itself. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Ssilvers. Cremastra (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, please could you elaborate on those edit summaries? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Stage works, unlike films, should not be identified by year, but instead by the creators (playwright, composer, lyricist(s)). Films are theatrically released in a particular year. They may first be seen at festivals (perhaps the previous year) and may have a re-release, but it is reasonable to say that a film that was first released in theatres in 2011 is a "2011 film". However, a stage work, let's say a musical, may be written in one year, its score may be composed the next, it may be published in another (the written, published version may be the most famous version of the play), a concept album may be released in another, there may be a tryout production or premiere in a smaller theatre or market (say, off-Broadway or Manchester, England) before its first major-market production in the West End or on Broadway, which may be a failure, but then the show may be revived with great success in yet another year. So, which year is the year of the piece? So, we should describe Hamlet as a "play by Shakespeare", not a "maybe 1599, but more famously 1603, 1604 or 1623 play". Similarly, Jesus Christ Superstar is "a musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice", not "a 1970 concept album/1971 Broadway/ 1972 West End musical". Hair is a musical by Gerome Ragni, James Rado and Galt MacDermot, not a maybe 1967, maybe 1968 musical. The Belle of New York is an Edwardian musical comedy by Gustave Kerker, not an 1897 Broadway flop and 1898 West End hit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on films (and even subjects such as books, songs, et al) encompass all subsequent history within said article; including re-releases, re-makes (aka revivals, in theater terms), adaptations, re-issues, et al. They are allowed (origin) dates in both Short Descriptions and For Other Uses. There is nothing different about a musical or play. Even articles on musical compositions (which a musical is) contain revised editions resulting in works that are either only performed today (as those revised editions) or known by that updated version, i.e. Rhapsody in Blue; they are not denied dates based on "So which years is the year of the piece?". It is nonsensical and non-applicable that only musicals be exempt from this allowance; especially when the opening lead sentence for WP musicals states: “Is a [date] musical by …” The work is separate from the article; thus the short description is about the work; not everything that subsequently happened after or on account of its creation found within the article.

This statement: "Films are theatrically released in a particular year. They may first be seen a (sic) festivals (perhaps the previous year) and may have a re-release, but it is reasonable to say that a film that was first released in theatres in 2011 is a "2011 film" is not applicable; and furthermore, not a WP policy or even guideline. It is a complete contradiction. Let me use your "reasoning" in your own words: "Musicals are theatrically premiered in a particular year. They may first be seen in workshop (perhaps the previous year) and may have a revival, but it is reasonable to say that a musical that was first premiered in 2011 is a "2011 musical." Maineartists (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, identifying a stage work by year is often ambiguous and misleading, whereas describing a film by a year is usually helpful. I have noticed, in our interactions, that when you ask a question of experienced Wikipedians, you don't want to hear an answer that disagrees with your preconceived opinion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comments and replies here have been nothing but policy and guideline motivated. I may not be as “experienced” as some editors; but I think it unfair that my continued discussion is said to be solely based on “not wanting to hear an answer” due to a preconceived opinion. Your reply still has not proven the case based on WP guidelines or policy. All I’m asking is: where is there a guideline, or policy or history to back your claim(s). I’m only asking because I’m so inexperienced. It seems to me that: “identifying a stage work by year is often ambiguous and misleading, whereas describing a film by a year is usually helpful” is opinion. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything comes down to a Policy or Guideline - the overall aim is to build an enclyclopedia, not follow a set of rules. (See WP:BUREAUCRACY). If you disagree with Ssilvers's reasoning, don't just ask for a P/G, discuss why you disagreee with it. Although, do that at WT:MOS, not here. (this is beyond the scope of the Teahouse and I have already learned more about musicals than I care to from this thread). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's a long-standing consensus (or at least it's long-standing practice) that hard dates for plays are often misleading. Films are different: there's a premiere and that's the standard industry terminology. There isn't such standard for the theatre industry. They are often performed in smaller venues before a main run starts, and sometimes that can be a few years apart. Different industries have different terminologies and we're just reflecting that practice. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A recent example is the musical Boop!. It had a good Chicago run in 2023 before its Broadway production in 2025. So is it a 2023 musical or a 2025 musical? The Queen of Versailles premiered in Boston in 2024 and is set to open later this year on Broadway with Kristin Chenoweth. As I noted above, everyone would identify Hamlet as "a play by Shakespeare", not "an arguably 1599 play". What about the monstrous Broadway hit Maybe Happy Ending, which swept the Tony Awards this year? It had been a success in Seoul, Korea, for many years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the internet do I find out about federal judges being nominated? Jp33442 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. This is not a general help desk for the entire internet, but a place to ask about editing Wikipedia. I would suggest you try the Reference Desk, or perhaps the White House website, as the President nominates people for judgeships- or the Senate Judiciary Committee website, which holds hearings on them. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jp33442 There are listings by President here at WP: "List of federal judges appointed by ..." i.e. List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. Since each judge is nominated by the President, the list is synonymous. Certain links are provided regarding nomination information. Maineartists (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Industries is one of my client and we work closely on the online impression. When searched for Nisa Godrej, the summary page on the right shows spouse line 'Kalpesh Mehta'. However, when we click on the article, it doesn't reflect. Need to remove spouse line completely from the summary page as they have been divorced.

Nisa Godrej. Arpana.chitrangna (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arpana.chitrangna The biography of Nisa Godrej currently doesn't have spousal information, since that was removed by User:Aj0678, despite User:Materialscientist having tried to prevent the removal, presumably since the article previously had a citation about the marriage. Can you provide a source that verifies the divorce? Note that if Godrej is your client, you must make the formal paid editor declaration and not edit the article directly, although you can request changes either here or, preferably, on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... note that Wikipedia has no control over what search engine "summary pages" say and you would need to take up any errors with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• By 'searched' I presume you mean 'searched on Google'. That 'summary page on the right' is from Google, not Wikipedia, or the English language Wikipedia (where we are right now). I see the same thing: [3]. I also see this for a search on Kalpesh Mehta: [4]

Note that several Indian websites do mention Kalpesh Mehta

You're talking to the wrong people. It's not our data that's populating that box. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the corresponding article on her ex-spouse Kalpesh Mehta is currently nominated for deletion as not showing notability and the sourcing for her article is similarly weak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a stock reply:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that this paragraph was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add a switched, interactive mapbox to several articles and it is mostly going well. However, I am running into an issue implementing it for Frye Cove and a few more articles. First, the verbatim source content in my sandbox does not render at all (User:OceanLoop/sandbox) - why? In the article's infobox, however, the map view works, but is misaligned and does not actually center on Frye Cove, even though the Wikidata coords appear right. What is going on? Thank you! OceanLoop (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case no one here can answer, try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanLoop, what problem do you see? It appears to be centered correctly to me. Can you describe where it is when you look at it, and where you think it should be instead? Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently correct, as it has not been updated with the interactive, switched mapbox; I attempted to replicate it in my sandbox to demonstrate but this failed to render entirely. The location of the feature on the map is correct, but the map box boundaries are not. OceanLoop (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. Zinedine May here. And just a few hours ago, I created a list for all articles on Wikipedia. It is based on Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles written in the greatest number of languages. Wikipedia has over 7 million articles as of 2025, with the number increasing everyday. I spent the whole day adding articles to the list. Here's the page:Wikipedia:List of all articles 505noscope (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before you spend any more time on this: Special:AllPages exists. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@505noscope That's an interesting list. It is not really "all articles", which is Special:Allpages, with the namespace as "article" but seems to be a list of those article which are in the most languages in the various versions of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should alter your definition to make that clearer. How do you intend to maintain the page? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference between the page Wikipedia:List of all articles and Special:AllPages is that one page Wikipedia:List of all articles will be including all pages on the English Wikipedia, list articles and redirects and merges. And the articles that won't be included are project pages, the main page, project pages, redirects of the same topic, deleted articles, and categories. And with the other page Special:AllPages, includes all pages, including and excluding the ones I just mentioned. 505noscope (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like the contents page? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@505noscope Huh? If I understand you correctly, that page you created is/will be just Special:AllPages (Article namespace) without the Main page? AllPages (Article) doesn't include project pages, deleted articles, and categories. Also, not sure what "redirects of the same topic" is supposed to mean. — DVRTed (Talk) 16:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your list has 4130 entries; not 7 million. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@505noscope: Pages have a 2MB size limit so a single list of all Wikipedia articles is not possible. Wikipedia:List of all articles may be interesting for the count of languages but I'm not sure how much it adds to be longer than Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles written in the greatest number of languages. I think very few users would use a page like this to find an article they are looking for. Our search box is good for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if accurate, it does lead to some interesting questions. For example: which are the 25 Wikipedias that have an article on Turkey (#1, 332 Wikipedias) but do not have an article on Europe (18/307) or Asia (19/306)? Also, where are your cats and subcats coming from? I don't see anything at d:Q907112 saying that Transnistria (#1276) is a country. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 4130 entries I added were the first ones to included. I will be including more articles to the list everyday, starting tomorrow. Because you know, this ain't easy. It requires a lot of hard work. 505noscope (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you know, this ain't easy. It requires a lot of hard work. It actually doesn't require any work all, considering that you could simply not do it. I think it would be best to delete this page before it devours any more of your time. I hear that people are telling each other to "touch grass" which sounds like it might be apt for you, but please refrain from counting the blades. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, Mathglot, those questions are raised by the existing Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles written in the greatest number of languages, not by this new project of 505noscope's. Also I think that there are 31 Wikipedia's that have an article on Turkey but not Europe.^[1] -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some users create articles about their country in languages they probably don't know. I picked a single small language at meta:List of Wikipedias. The creator of the Dzongkha article about Turkey has no other edits in the wiki. The page creation [5] had no wikitext in the language, and the article was called "Turkey" (later moved by others). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, it takes me longer to understand these things than the average wikipedian (which may say something for the page you created, I'm not sure); but at first glance it seems contradictory to say: "Wikipedia:List of all articles" but then say: "The only difference is that this list is longer and has more articles." (longer and has more articles is the same thing) If this is truly a list of all articles, why base it on an already existing article that classifies its list by "greatest number of languages". My first impression when I looked at your page was: "If it's a list of all Wikipedia articles ... why on earth isn't it alphabetized?" If the only reason to create this page is to "make it longer", than why not simply add to the already existing page? Last, I'm not sure I would utilize this page for the reason you state: "The main purpose of this page is to list all articles on Wikipedia and to make the website easier to use especially when it comes to finding a certain subject you looking for" when the list is based on languages ... and, there is already a nifty little Search tool that brings me to any article on WP that I'm looking for ... English or not. Just my first impression by a utilitarian WP user. Maineartists (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you finish this list—at your current work rate, that would be in about 4.7 years' time—neither you nor the wider Wikipedia community have the resource to maintain it.

I have redirected the page, to Special:AllPages. I'm sorry that that will disappoint you, but it is completely untenable to continue, and better that you do not waste any more of your time on something that will never be allowed to remain,.

There are plenty of other ways you can contribute to Wikipedia, that will have a lasting benefit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the redirect into a soft redirect because this is a redirect to a special page. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians,

I’m seeking help from a neutral, experienced editor to review and potentially post a draft biography of Rabbi Stephen B. Roberts, a notable board-certified chaplain, disaster spiritual care expert, and co-editor of several leading textbooks in the field of professional chaplaincy.

Due to conflict of interest guidelines, I’m not the right person to submit it myself. The draft is fully cited with reliable secondary sources (books, journals, podcasts, news) and written in a neutral encyclopedic tone.

Would anyone be willing to review the draft and consider submitting it as a Draft article for independent review? I can provide the .txt or .pdf versions immediately.

Thank you so much for your time and your help. StephRab18 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StephRab18 As it now says on your talk page, the draft you created has been speedily deleted as being overly promotional. You can create a draft via the articles for creation process, even with your conflict of interest but are unlikely to find others wishing to help you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft keeps getting flagged for peacock language but I can't seem to find any when I read it. Can you tell me what language is promotional in this draft?

Also, are my sources reliable? Is that a problem too?

Draft:Dean Bryant Vollendorf

Mgfworthen (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mgfworthen,

I did a quick read of your draft and it looks like one reviewer listed very specific examples of what type of language to avoid. I will add this sentence "Vollendorf's designs are dotted across the United States," as another.

There are also other Wikipedia:Manual of Style and punctuation/grammar issues that should be addressed. I know it can be exciting to write and post your first article, but it is always worth while to take your time to review and become familiar with what's accepted here on this platform. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have deleted that sentence and I thought I addressed all the specific examples one reviewer noted. Can you point me to anything else I missed?

Is it just punctuation/grammar or are there other issues you see? Mgfworthen (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. I'm not a AfC reviewer but things that stand out are punctuation issues around citations. Citations at the end of a sentence should follow the punctuation without a space in between. Secondly, the lay out of the lists of awards and buildings need to follow MOS:EMBED. You should also review the policy to see if the information you're providing is better offered in prose, rather than list format.

I would also encourage you to read WP:YFA. Spend some time reading articles with similar content if you're not sure how policies apply to your subject. MOS can vary depending on what you're writing about so its always good to familiarize yourself what what's already been reviewed and accepted.

I do also note that you are very new to editing. Take your time, smell the roses, learn your way around. Spend some time improving existing articles to familiarize yourself with the processes and expectations. Once you have more experience, revisit your draft and I guarantee things will make more sense. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not on Wikipedia to spam or get backlinks or any of that black hat stuff. I saw a need for extra info and I attempted to add it. Was it self-serving? No. I'm not adding content about me personally or stuffing a hyperlink in where it doesn't make sense. I tried to do 8 edits in the past two days (too much too soon?) and they got reverted save one where I am trying to give credit to the person who coined the name "Darth Jar Jar" in 2015, well before Disney or Star Wars or Lego used it. The Jar Jar Binks page can't be edited outright so a request of sorts has been placed.

My question is why are my edits being reverted? Am I going too fast? Sculptgroup (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources, which a Reddit post is not.

Another of your edits added a person to a "People from..." article, using a link to their website, not a link to a Wikipedia article about them. Only add people who have Wikipedia articles to such pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that people may be added only if they have a Wikipedia page (I can't make that, so i did the next best thing) BUT for the (Darth) Jar Jar thing, a Reddit post is exactly the proof required to show the user created the name. What other source would work better if the name was coined ON Reddit? Sculptgroup (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptgroup, if the name was coined on Reddit, you must quote a reliable source stating that it was coined on Reddit, but not Reddit itself, which is an unreliable source. I could go on Reddit right now, and say I coined it. You see the problem? Find a reliable source, and if there isn't one, I am afraid it is simply not suitable for adding to Wikipedia. That is the reality of the situation. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link, which I will give here again, is from Oct 2015. So, no, you couldn't go on Reddit right now and replicate this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3qvj6w/comment/cwiuaya/ Sculptgroup (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptgroup, I wouldn't do that, I would simply start a new thread saying it was someone else who tried to grab credit, but really it was me and I only just noticed it from an alert reader at Wikipedia, and so I am starting a new thread to correct the record. Who's to say who is right? The whole point, is that Reddit is an WP:SPS, and anybody can say anything they want. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sculptgroup,

As the edit summaries for the reverts state, your additions are not notable. To be included in a "notable" list, they must meet Wikipedia "notability" standards. You can read more at Wikipedia:Notability. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will check it out. Sculptgroup (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Richard Otto Gläsel

Hello,

Tags have been placed by CivicInk regarding improving citations of a living maker.

Richard Otto Glasel died in 1931.

{{Multiple issues| {{Citation style|date=July 2025}} {{BLP sources|date=July 2025}} {{More citations needed|date=July 2025}} }}

Citations posted are from the most reliable sources: STRAD magazine April 2024 – Parisian Splendour, by Gennady Filimonov and Deutsche Bogenmacher-German Bow Makers Klaus Grunke, Hans Karl Schmidt, Wolfgang Zunterer 2000

Please explain how the citations can be improved. Thank you in advance. Milliot68 Milliot68 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps CivicInk was sleepy when they asserted Gläsel's alive-ness. ¶ Let's look at a source that you often cite: "The STRAD magazine April 2024 by Gennady Filimonov", further explained as "STRAD magazine April 2024 – Parisian Splendour, by Gennady Filimonov". I doubt that the magazine's title is pronounced anything like "ess tee are aye dee"; and suspect that it instead rhymes with "Dad" and "mad" and that CAPITALIZING is merely a matter of design (or vanity). The order normal for specifying a magazine article is (i) author(s), (ii) article title (in quotation marks), (iii) magazine title (in italics), (iv) date, (v) page(s). (Additional ingredients -- ISSN, URL, etc -- may also be helpful.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hoary:

So would it remedy the issue if I posted: Gennady Filimonov (Parisian Splendour), (The Strad magazine )April 2024

PARISIAN SPLENDOUR | The Strad April 2024

and the other source: Klaus Grunke, Hans Karl Schmidt, Wolfgang Zunterer 2000 (Bogenmacher-German Bow Makers) ISBN 10: 3000058397 ISBN 13: 9783000058394 Milliot68 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize. My mistake. But that doesn't change the fact that the article has problems with sources. I'll try to find something later. CivicInk (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gennady Filimonov. "Parisian Splendour". The Strad. April 2024. Via Pocketmags.
• Klaus Grunke, Hans Karl Schmidt, Wolfgang Zunterer. Deutsche Bogenmacher. Obersöchering, Oberbayern: Wolfgang Zunterer, 2000. ISBN 9783000058394.

For the book, you'll also have to specify the page number(s). Probably the simplest way for you to do this is to use Template:Rp. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hoary:

I have yet to see an example of such specific page usage on Wikipedia. Can you post a link to a few examples please? Thanks in advance Milliot68 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial minority of the references in John Battersby Crompton Lamburn use Template:Rp. Most do not use it, because they're references to book reviews, introductions and the like: It seemed better to have the reader look through two or three pages than to weigh down the writing with references to precise pages. However, readers can't be expected to look through twenty pages or more of an academic article or a book, because the Wikipedia editor couldn't be bothered to specify the page(s). -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly retitled this thread, in order to avoid confusion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hoary:

Thank you Hoary! Milliot68 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additions to the American Humane Society page which added info on the certifications they have and what they each mean and the previous ratings they had and it was deemed not constructive. I'm confused by what about that isn't constructive. Was it the layout, too much info, or what? GubbinGubFlub (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GubbinGubFlub, your edits. Typical of your additions was to have the article say: American Humane cannot attest to the treatment of the animal actors or know whether our Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media were followed (my emphasis). Why "our"? (As far as I know, Wikipedia has no guidelines for the safe use of animals.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"our" is referring to American Humane. Should I just replace that with "American Humane" for more clarity then? GubbinGubFlub (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GubbinGubFlub, it's not just a matter of clarity. Did you refer to the AHS in the first person because you're part of the AHS, or because you copied this material from the AHS, or because of both, or for some other reason? -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I got the definitions of each certification from American Humane. The last one I got form animallaw.info the one for "Special Circumstances" had a defence from Animallaw.info since that's the only place that gives an actual description of it. However, it's based on the older standards which is why I say it's not defined but it was defined as... in the past GubbinGubFlub (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the foot of the top page of animallaw.info, we read "© 2025 Michigan State University College of Law". Nothing there about copyleft, let alone waiving copyright. So, with however innocent an intention, recycling prose from that website without attributing it and using quotation marks where appropriate would not be permissible. (And of course the result would look absurd, suggesting that Wikipedia has its own guidelines for the safe use of animals.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it. Everything makes sense except for the thing about people confusing American Humane's guidelines for Wikipedia's because of the word "our" when in context it's clear. GubbinGubFlub (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @GubbinGubFlub. It doesn't matter whether in context it is clear or not. Wikipedia articles should almost never refer to "we" (or "us" or "our", or, for that matter, "I/me/my/mine") except in direct, attributed, quotations. Wikipedia holds no opinions, and has no policies other than those relating to Wikipedia, and it is important not to muddy that. See MOS:PRONOUN. ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I literally got that yesterday. Which is why I replied back at the end of the chat with Hoary, "However, it's better to be prudent and clear-up potential confusion that can occur." GubbinGubFlub (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If writing in Wikipedia, and having just read this page of Xiaomi's, and intending to add something to the article on Xiaomi, one might consider writing one of the following:

• "We are committed to building a sustainable world": "We" points to Xiaomi. OK if attributed. (Though it would be better to cite, and if helpful then to quote, a reliable source that's independent of Xiaomi.)
• We are committed to building a sustainable world: "We" doesn't point to Xiaomi, and presumably points to either Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (WF). The WF may indeed be so committed; but if it is then it shouldn't just nick Xiaomi's corporate advertising prose in order to say so.
• "They are committed to building a sustainable world": No, this purports to be a quotation but nobody said it.
• They are committed to building a sustainable world: No. Needs quotation marks around most (but not all) of it.
• They are "committed to building a sustainable world": OK if attributed. (Though it would be better to cite a reliable source, independent of Xiaomi.)

-- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legit, don't understand how people would confuse for Wikipedia in the "we" in We are committed to building a sustainable world. I think the vast majority of people would understand that's coming from Xiaomi rather than Wikipedia, even if it feels off and like it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia tone-wise. However, it's better to be prudent and clear-up potential confusion that can occur. GubbinGubFlub (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to add WikiProjects to an article? AfC has a very handy page that works for drafts, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing for people on WP:NPP. Is this a tool that others would find useful? Before I charge ahead and start writing an extension, is there such a tool that already exists? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloventt I've found Rater helpful, and also crosschecking with articles on similar topics. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evad37/rater is exactly what I was looking for, thanks! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :D

I plan to make a Wiki about an artist, Emcee KB, a draft at least, currently existing in my sandbox. Before I write too much, I'd like to know;

What are the guidelines when it comes to quotes from the subject?

I have direct contact with the artist, although I am not close enough with them for my page to be bias. I'm just enjoy his music. In example of this can be my update to the draft of Lil Darkie. I only put facts, not anything about how great his music is, just his career currently and some quotes from him in interviews as some citations.

Interviews is not a source from me, it's whomever the interviewer is. However, will me personally asking the subject, Emcee KB, about his music, make me ineligible to write the article? The artist makes a lot of genres of music, and my question for him was "What genre would you consider your self to be apart of?" He responded, and I'd like to know if I'm allowed to use his response. If it's his direct quote, no bias from me, it's still okay right?

I know everything on Wikipedia needs to be cited, the writer cannot be the source. I could find a website to host screenshots of the interaction, or directly add them onto the Wiki page, not sure. I'm still quite new, and before I commit to this too much, I'd like a professional's view on this. Thanks in advance :)

Kyeler Kyelerw1 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A self-published interview that you conduct would be 1) a primary source that can't be used to establish notability, and 2) original research. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say. Any interview you conduct would not be subject to journalistic standards of fact checking and editorial control(i.e. an editor reviewing your interview for accuracy/legal compliance/etc before publishing).

Are you sure he meets WP:NMUSICIAN?

If you go too far with asking him questions to the point where he wants you to add particular content to "his" article, you would cross the line into conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this. He has been featured in other news articles, radio stations, etc. I don't plan on submitting it for review just yet, want to wait a bit for more news coverage of him. Despite me being able to contact him, would I still be eligible to write the article using external sources? He will not be aware of the article being wrote. Kyelerw1 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to want to know what you're interviewing him for(he may be under a contract that limits who he can talk to for publicity, or just want to know where what he says will be published). As said below, though, an interview you conduct would not be a verifiable source.

That you are merely able to contact him doesn't impose any limitations on you in terms of article or draft editing. (That I could call the White House switchboard and ask to interview Donald Trump doesn't prevent me from editing about Trump) 331dot (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. He is independent (found that out from research) and everything he uploads is copyright free, so the contract part doesn't apply, although I won't use him as a source at all. Thanks for helping out! Kyelerw1 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"everything he uploads is copyright free" Do you have a source for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is a big difference between "copyright free" and being released with a copyight allowing for reuse. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright free meaning allowed for reuse, sorry for confusion. Source is him. Kyelerw1 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things the person directly tells you in a private interview cannot be used. It needs to be published in a WP:VERIFIABLE third-party publication for it to go into the article, particularly if it is a biography of a living person.

Regarding direct quotes, you probably want to avoid using direct quotes in biographical articles if you can. They usually aren't very encyclopedic, because they are WP:PRIMARY. Our job here is to summarise what has been written about something in secondary sources.

There are some narrow situations where contacting the person can be helpful, but you need to be very careful to stick to the facts as reported in reliably published sources. For example, I have done this before when I have two reliable sources that contradict each other (take for example a situation where one newspaper article says the person was born in Lisbon, but another says they were born in Berlin, which to trust? Easiest solution is just to ask the person). Another good reason to contact a person is to ask for a voice recording for the Voice Intro Project, which is a very valuable addition to any biographical article.

But all that said, unless you're very familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, I'd advise against directly contacting the subject of the article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was looking at an article's history and saw an edit in black with two lines going through it. When I clicked on it, nothing happened. How do I view that edit and why does it look strange? 24.116.247.101 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a deleted revision. Administrators can delete an edit from the article edit history. This is done in cases of copyright violation, or potentially defamatory text. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure one gray line going through the edit means it was revision deleted, which can be done by any administrator, but in your case, two black lines going through it means the edit was suppressed by an oversighter. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 01:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find the reason for revision deletion/suppression by clicking on "View logs for this page" at the top of the history page. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justjourney: Not if it was a supression. The suppression log is non-public. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was wandering around the random articles and came across Studeničani Municipality#Inhabited places. In the graph there, there are inconsistencies in the symbols used to group digits in the figures. In the column labelled "Albanians", the first row has "14,982", using a comma to mark the thousand. However, right below that, there is "4.473", using a decimal point to separate the digits.

It says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Grouping of digits that "In general, digits should be grouped and separated either by commas or by narrow gaps (never a period/full point)."

I looked at some other pages in that municipality, and the formatting is the same, using decimal points to split the groups of digits.

What can be done to ensure that this policy is enacted, if data is probably copied over from the census pages? Could a bot be created to fix the symbols in European pages? Garethphua (言) 02:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bot . . . ? I don't know, but I suspect it would be tricky, given the multiple uses of commas and decimal points/full stops, to make one that never made mistakes, so one would still have to re-check every one on the page.

On this particular page, which is not long, it would be much easier just to make the corrections manually – speaking as a retired professional copy editor, such tasks although tedious are often best done by a thinking human rather than trying to automate them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garethphua: This may be the effect of regional habits/custom. In Poland we use comma as a decimal fraction part separator, and a narrow space (usually) or period (less often) as thousands/millions/... separator, and AFAIR Russian sources use the same rule. The Wikipedia article in question is about Macedonian, i.e. slavic territory, so its author(s) may be influenced by the same rule, which could explain the inconsistencies.

I used to think this comes from a pre-WWII times, possibly influenced by Russian mathematical school, but never really studied the geographical range of this habit. Now I checked some Web pages and found the same difference in non-slavic European countries. See e.g. state statistical offices in:

• Germany, page for the same data: "1.35 children per woman" in English vs. "1,35 Kinder je Frau" in German,
• Spain, main page: "11.36 Unemployment rate" in English vs. "11,36 Tasa de paro" in Castilian,
• Italy, main page: "GDP 486,183" in English vs. "PIL 485.183" in Italian.

So, unifying the notation may require a thorough verification of the data sources, especially for numbers with three-digit tails. For example, 1.2 and 1,2 both obviously denote one and a fifth, but confusing 7.852 and 7,852 will make three orders of magnitude error! --CiaPan (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

....on 7-16-2025. This quake generated tidal wave alerts and damage is not known. Report was on the Accuweather channel/ website and the Weather Channel and its website. Can't add this to the Alaska article due to it being locked. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend suggesting it at their Talk page. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done so. You would not believe what is going on. My phone blew up when I got the news.🫡🥰 216.247.72.142 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The earthquake in Alaska today struck 54 miles off the coast of a small town in the lightly populated Aleutian Islands. Although there was a brief tsunami warning, there was no reported damage. Alaska is a gigantic state with a long history of earthquakes. In 1964, the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in North America struck Alaska, causing widespread damage and killing 139 people. There have been many other earthquakes causing various amounts of damage in Alaska over the centuries. Mentioning this earthquake in Alaska just because it happened today would be recentism. Consider instead describing the earthquake at Sand Point, Alaska, the closest community. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me the some text to include in my Charwa Estate page that is ruled by Asthana Kayastha Zamindars in Jaunpur and make sure that my article should not be declined after moving into the mainspace...............

Zamindarsportal (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago I moved it to Draft:Charwa Estate. I was the third person to move it from article space to draft space. (My predecessors were Arjayay and Drmies.) Perhaps you don't know what's necessary for a draft to be promoted to article status; perhaps you do know but don't care. You have a declared conflict of interest: this is sufficient reason for you not to promote it. The draft is completely unreferenced: no reviewer would hesitate to turn it down. And now you want other people to add "attractive lines" to it? Dream on. If you believe that Charwa Estate merits an article, it's for you to do the necessary work. Once you have demonstrably worked hard on the draft (of course scrupulously referencing all of its content), then you're welcome to ask for help with particular difficulties.

Do not promote any version of this draft a fourth time. Instead, work hard on it, improve it enormously, and then submit it for review. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so how i should write to publish my article to mainspace from draft help me i am neww to thiss what are the mistakes that i have been doing thats why my article is declined give me the reasons and how should write please help me to publish my article pleasee............... Zamindarsportal (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what not to do, and why not to do it, and almost immediately you did it anyway. (Perhaps you didn't bother to read what I wrote.) The draft is back at Draft:Charwa Estate. You are free to improve it there. (Note "of course scrupulously referencing all of its content" above.) Please do not waste any more of other people's time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoary. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zamindarsportal. Please read WP:BACKWARDS.

Absolutely nothing that you know about the village is relevant to an article unless the information is verifiable from an independent reliable published source.

Consequently, your job in writing such an article is

1. . Find several independent published sources about the subject. Ignore anything unreliable (eg social media, privately published books, wikis). Ignore anything not independent of the subject. Ignore any source which does not mention the subject, or only has a few words about it.
2. . If you have several sources which pass all the criteria (see WP:42), you will need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say, citing them as you go.

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) 12:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve written a new draft article in my sandbox: User:Fienkie84/sandbox.

It’s about a certified 24-hour self-service dog boarding facility in Miri, Malaysia.

I have a conflict of interest (I’m affiliated), so I’m looking for help from neutral editors to improve the tone, formatting, and references so that it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

The topic has been covered by Free Malaysia Today, The Borneo Post, and is recognized by the Malaysia Book of Records.

Would anyone be willing to take a look or help improve it? Thank you! Fienkie84 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the link to the Malaysia Book of Records? It appears to be broken to me. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve fixed all the external links, including the Malaysia Book of Records reference. Since their official website appears to be temporarily down or inaccessible, I’ve updated the citation to their official LinkedIn announcement instead, which confirms the same certification. Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. Appreciate your time and feedback! Fienkie84 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Fienkie84, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me as if you have done what most new editors do, and in particular what most new editors with a conflict of interest do: you have written what you know about the subject (and, frankly, what you want the world to know about it), and then added sources.

This is backwards. 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.

You need to find sources where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen, off their own bat, to publish significant coverage of your company in reliable sources. Frankly, I don't think any of your sources meet those criteria: the Book of Records entry probably comes from you anyway, and the others are largely interviews, with little evidence that the rest of the articles has been independently researched.

If you can find three or more sources that meet the criteria in WP:42, your next task will be to effectively forget everything you know about the business, and write a summary of what those sources say. Even if you think they've left out something important, or even if they're wrong.

I very much suspect that it is TOOSOON for this company. Concentrate on your own marketing and don't try to use Wikipedia to get the word out. Once you have caught the notice of some independent commentators, then it may be that your company will be notable by Wikipedia's standards, and an article will be possible.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. This is even more so when you have a COI. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Figured I'd ask here as Wikimedia Commons was only able to get me as far as recommending that it be done. I've been working on a diagram detailing BNPL payment schemes, and have created one which contains 6 distinct colors (ostensibly 7 (2 shades of blue)) within it. There's a great need to differentiate between different colors for clarity, but I'm having trouble discerning which colors would be best for both that and black and white printing. I've been using this diagram from the [National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis] to guide me, but am not sure how to translate that into a color-neutral-printing friendly palette. If you'd like to see the file for context, you're welcome to check my contributions at Wikimedia. Any assistance is greatly appreciated, and my thanks in advance. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COLOR gives some guidance on accessibility and colour, and links to various tools to help select accessible colours. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently a communications intern and have been working on a draft article about HDI Global SE, an Corporate & Specialty insurer based in Germany: Draft:HDI Global SE. I’ve disclosed my connection on my user page in accordance with Wikipedia’s paid editing policy and I’m aware that company articles often receive extra scrutiny, especially when created by paid editors, and I absolutely respect that.

Nevertheless, I’ve done my best to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and to base every factual claim on independent, third-party sources. That said, I know that the depth of some sources may be limited, as they often focus on specific events, services..., rather than offering comprehensive overviews. It's been genuinely challenging to find independent sources that cover the company's basic facts, especially for basic structural facts like branches, business areas or products.

My intent is not to promote, but to ensure that reliable, sourced, basic information is available to the public. I want to do this properly, and I’m happy to revise whatever is needed. I want to provide accurate, sourced information about a notable company. Do you have any other tips, ideas for in-depth research or other support for me? Thank you very much for your time and support! Noemi1903 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noemi1903 You were given some feedback when the draft was declined. The problem can be summarised by saying that the company activities looks to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. You need to demonstrate that it stands out in the quirky way that Wikipedia defines "notability", summarised for companies at WP:NCORP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Despite my account being created two years ago, I still feel new to this Wikipedia contributing thing, and so far I have made 69 edits (funny number, lol), chiefly my favourite musicians like Dorian Concept and Gold Panda. Up 'till now, my edits are acceptable and are not reverted or tagged as vandalism; a few being minor edits.

To get you to know a bit of my Wikipedian history (you can skip this part if you want): In 2023, I created a draft for the tallest Indonesian who goes by the name ‘Suparwono’, but most of the sources I chose were unreliable. There were unlikely reliable/independent sources to be find when creating an article about that deceased person anyway. As a result, that draft got deleted as a result of a lack of the article's notability, as well as using wrong tenses (such as sentences that assumed Suparwono was still living, even though he was not).

Now, getting back to the topic, there is an actual article about Cid Rim, but it's in German, and I am only beginning to learn the German language, so I am not fully reliable for translating the page entirely with human accuracy. However, I've been somehow enthusiastic to create a new page here in English Wikipedia, but the fears of my upcoming drafts being unaccepted through any means (probably because of the lack of verifying reliable sources) might make me stop and have second-thoughts on creating this article for an Austrian musician who has been friends with my favourite artist — Dorian Concept.

I believe he should have an independent article, since he yielded music for Apple's iPhone 14 Pro ‘Crash Detection’ advertisement. The German article is also quite outdated, with its latest edit being made in 2023. However, I still refused to update that article, since I'm not German and German-speaking, and that people there might think I'm German, talking German to me at some point.

I might be writing this article in American English and will use straight double-quotes like ". His albums might be in tables, but his Singles, EPs, and Remixes might be lists instead, like those of Baths. I might write the Singles/EPs like this:

"Track" (Format[s], 1 January 1970, Label[s])

and the Remixes like this:

"Track (Remix)" on Album/EP name by Original Artist (Format[s], 1 January 1970, Label[s])

Any other acceptable formats, I might be glad to use that instead.

Only sources I could find are:

• LUCKYME — Cid Rim
• Austrian Music Export — Cid Rim
• Affine Records — Cid Rim
• MusicRadar — CID RIM: "I need my laptop, my £27 Sennheiser in-ear-plugs and a MIDI keyboard"

I was hoping if these sources are reliable/independent and/or used as secondary sources or however I could explain this. I would also try my best to include as many as official releases in the discography as possible with the inclusion of remixes I could find on Spotify or Bandcamp.

Are there any tips of creating this article? Am I allowed to create the draft first with these sources I have? Can other users/contributors expand my draft for good use? A small artist like Charles Murdoch doesn't have a lot of sources; nevertheless it is an existing article on Wikipedia for some reason, so maybe this one might pass through if that's the case.

Thanks :3 Foxelbeton (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxelbeton The main problem with these sources, I think, is that they are not independent of Cid Rim as they are either from organisations trying to sell his records or based on interviews. You need about three sources which meet our golden rules. There is some extra advice in this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright, though I expected more points and words in a reply. The common denominator throughout these sources is that Cid Rim is a trained drummer and was friends with Dorian Concept and The Clonious. Still, there aren't a lot of reliable sources about him, and I get that. Nobody knows his exact birthdate too.

Thanks for the information, anyway. Foxelbeton (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do i edit work .from where Ubuntu4575 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubuntu4575 Welcome to the Teahouse. You have just made your first edit, so that appears to be sorted. As to suggestions for your next contribution, why not look at your homepage, or the WP:Task Centre? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to contact and hire a Wikipedia Editor? My distant cousin in Czech Rep. is trying to hire an American Wikipedia Editor to write about his career as a writer. Zstuch55 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest and most sincere answer to this question I know is: do not.

For more info please see Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and then Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Also, all guidelines and policies linked there. --CiaPan (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zstuch55, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Tell your cousin not to do this.

There are many people who will take your money and promise you an article on Wikipedia. They are scammers - see WP:SCAM.

There may be a few who will honestly tell you that they will try to create an article for you, but they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will say what you want it to say. (I doubt that there are many, because that doesn't seem like good business, but I don't know).

Unless your cousin meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - either the special set for a writer or the general set - then no article is possible, and any time - and money - spent on it will be wasted.

If your cousin does meet the criteria, then somebody could write an article about him. If the person writing it is paid to do so, they will be required to declare their status as a paid editor. Furthermore, if an article about him is published, it will not belong to him, or be controlled by him, or necessarily say what he wants it to say. See WP:PROUD.

In short, it sounds very much as if your cousin's purpose is promotion - that is, telling the world about himself. Promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zstuch55 we are all editors here, and most of us are volunteers. Hiring someone to write your cousin's biography is strongly discouraged – see our policies on Conflict of interest and paid editing as well as a scam warning. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to cite a web page from a website that uses the same url for several different pages so that readers will be able to easily tell where you got the information from? Of particular concern are pages which are not linked from the page which the url directs to. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this fixed by including an archive url in the citation? GMG^talk 14:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't advise you properly without seeing the page(s) concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jai alai I talked about a Miami Vice feature on the talk subject of Jai alai. I wanted to put the subject below Mad Men?, But the wikipedia program put it at the bottom instead. Could you move the Miami Vice subject to >Scoop Ball heading, below Mad Mem? I would appreciate it if you could make that happen. Because I didn't want to put Miami Vice at the bottom. Thanks if you can JasonNJTN JasonNJTN (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JasonNJTN and welcome to the Teahouse. You added your comment to the talk page of the article, not the article itself. The software deliberately places new talk comments in date sequence. To add any new content to the article, you will need to back it up with a reliable published source which verifies the information for readers. You can't just add something you personally think is true. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... incidentally, the "Mad Men" part of that talk page was made about 14 years ago, so isn't relevant now! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Anna Sokolina

Thank you for advice! In 2020, I have submitted publication permissions and provided copyright information for 4 images:

1. File:Anna Sokolina 16.jpg
2. File:Sokolina 2003 MetMus AerialView St.Pet.jpg
3. File:Sokolina 2005 MetMus AerialView M.jpg
4. File:Sokolina 2007 MetMus AerialView NYC.jpg

and yesterday reconfirmed that. Could you please provide your guidance if more information is needed? As advised earlier, yesterday I have also removed old references to personal websites created by subject, to avoid potential conflict of interest if such emerges, and preserved references to official public websites of relevant organizations with relevance to life or work of the subject. I also adjusted the location of Routledge publishing house to New York from New York and London, since London might be currently constituted not a valid reference. Unfortunately, that all has been reverted... By error I have removed the COI banner - I apologize for not getting appropriate information on my rights as aspiring editor... I also tried to respond and modify potential misappropriations and minor technical errors. While my edits have been unfortunately reverted, may I ask for your help with further editing as I am not sure what should be my next step to resolve the issue with the COI banner. Thanks, 125aps 125aps (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already received advice about the CoI banner, at User talk:125aps#Help me resolve the issue with the COI banner on page Anna Sokolina. Please don't ask in multiple locations.

Of your four images, in the order you list them:

1. now at File:Anna Sokolina 2016.jpg
2. deleted due to no evidence of permission
3. now at File:Aerial View Moscow Sokolina 2004.jpg
4. now at File:Aerial View New York City Sokolina 2007.jpg

If you are the article subject, or work for her, you must abide by WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

125aps, rattling off seven professional roles from very broad to highly specific in the lengthy first sentence is very poor writing. You can do better. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering making articles for Wikipedia on Saint Nikephoros the Leper and Saint Eirene Chrysovalantou because there are no articles on them yet. I only have a handful of sources, but I believe it would be good for the site to have at least a rudimentary page that can be edited on these figures. Is it permissible to merely quote verbatim my sources and provide a citation? As in from the OCA website let's say. MichalisXanthopoulos (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and new users who dive right in often get frustrated and angry as things happen to something they spent hours on that they don't understand. It is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by spending time editing existing articles first, as well as using the new user tutorial

You should not directly copy source material to Wikipedia, you should instead summarize it in your own words. Direct copy or even close paraphrasing violates copyright. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit to Kakar District in Recent Changes and thought I should at least fix the mid-sentence cutoff. However, not only is the next most recent revision a hagiographic essay about someone who shares the editor's name, upon inspection it appears the page has consisted of ungrammatical, unreferenced info since 2023, so I'm hesitant to revert to any recent revision. Is there a policy for handling this type of situation? Discertain (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Discertain. The article is already tagged as unreferenced. As it purports to be about a governmental district of Afghanistan, it should probably remain, and hopefully an editor who speaks one or more of the several languages of Afghanistan can improve it some day. I removed the unreferenced praise of an individual and copyedited it a bit, trimming a couple of obviously unencyclopedic assertions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows how to get recent NGRAM data, assuming the NGRAM is properly formatted. I tried on Google and it only let me do it up to 2022, is there ways of doing it up to 2025? Also, I think NGRAM mostly deals with books, how can I get it to also include articles? Thanks! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gjb0zWxOb. Google Books Ngram Viewer may provide answers to your questions. Its first sentence says The Google Books Ngram Viewer is an online search engine that charts the frequencies of any set of search strings using a yearly count of n-grams found in printed sources published between 1500 and 2022 . . .. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The corpus for the Google Books Ngram Viewer is fixed. It's only comprised of books, though perhaps there's an occasional bound version of a non-book that looked like a book and got scanned. It doesn't include books that are more recent than 2022. So no, there is no way to do what you want. FWIW, in terms of why it's constrained in this way: for most of the books that ever existed and for which there's still at least one existing copy, there is no e-book version, so Google actually employed teams of data-entry people who scanned the books, page by page, for millions of books. They've already updated the corpus a few times, and I bet they'll do that again, but who knows when. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not familiar with this feature, it is a beta feature that shows IP information. But what is this feature about? And what is the main purpose of the IP Information Tool Viewer? How could this be useful for tracking? BetterForNow (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IP Info feature has info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure on what neutral tone means in context. When stating the article subject's intent it came off as an advertisement, but stating objectively feels like assuming that the subjects goals are the outcomes. I've gotten a submission declined for this here: Draft:Kensington Corridor Trust. The current version is my best attempt at a serious rewrite to remove language around the org's intent and state activities more plainly/encyclopedic-ly. Fishmax5 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it means Wikipedia text should not be written in opinions. It should be written in major points of view. See WP:5P2 for extra information. Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishmax5 I left a comment on the draft. qcne (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I am having difficulties with the content of my page, I have tried to edit the page myslef to correct it, but its not working and my page is not visible now,,may I ask, can anyone please help me to publish my page with correct content, I really appreciate it, thank you in advance. Musicmindz14 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC) dos::cw::찻집 보존♡♡♡[reply]

Hello, Musicmindz14. You have tried to add content to Will Ludford, but you are not formatting your references properly. Please read Referencing for beginners. Please also be aware that Spotify, Facebook and YouTube are rarely considered reliable sources. You should draft new content in your sandbox page. Your user page is to tell other editors about your plans and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply, I much appreciate it,,I will look at the link you kindly sent and hope I can learn to edit properly. I am sorry I am not good at this, but with everyones help I hope to do things better.. Thank you, much respect. Musicmindz14 (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,,I had a look at the Referencing for beginners,,To be honest it all just confuses me..I am not good at these things,, do you know anyone who I could contact and work with on a personal level to help edit my content,,If I cant get help I will have to leave the page as I just dont understand how to edit, if anyone is reading this and is willing to help me I really would appreciate help. thank you, much respect..Musicmindz14 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Will Ludford? If so, please see WP:COI.

In any case, Help:Your first article tells you what is needed. I have moved what remains of the page to Draft:Will Ludford where you can work on it. Please use this process to submit it for review, when you feel it meets those requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much,,I much appreciate your help and support. I will do my best to get my page sorted and be a good contributer to Wikipedia.. agaim I am sorry for any annoyance,,but I always felt if your not sure about something then ask,, Thank you, my respect to you ..Musicmindz14 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask: "Are you Will Ludford?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, couldn't figure out why this section was formatted so weirdly, couldn't fix it... Can anyone help? Azuuuu (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Azuuuu :). I think the problem was that the wikitable had the parameter align="left". It seems it made the following text wrap around the table. I removed it (and the extra spaces below) and it's normal now. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the original revision was compressed because of the restrictions of Wikipedia's non-free image policy. However, I wanted to use the original version of the image for another platform that does not have those same restrictions. But I can't seem to find the original version of the image anywhere. Not even here. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. But even the original is pretty low-res. DS (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia old version is slightly bigger, but still the text is illegible. We could have it back with {{non-free no reduce}} if you think it is worthwhile. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I had access to unpublished primary source material from an archive and wanted to cite it for an article, would that be doable as long as I identified the archive from which it is drawn? Or would that be considered original research unless the relevant claim were first published in a reliable secondary source? M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably fall foul of WP:OR (see first para of lede), but more directly it would certainly fail WP:Verifiability.

Sources have to be published so that readers can check the source, if they want to. Moreover, for non-trivial/possibly disputable facts, they should be published in a WP:Reliable source.

That said, it does not have to be easy to access that published source (and it certainly doesn't have to be online). If only one copy of a book is available for consultation in one library (say, this one), that would be sufficient.

If others in addition to yourself could routinely obtain the same access to the archive, "published" would become debatable (I suggest), and the relevant considerations in the previous links, discussed in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, would come into play.

If in doubt, use the source and argue the case if/when it's challenged. Research is fun, isn't it? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone kindly review my draft article Draft:Metrix Pakistan Youth Summit? I am a new contributor and genuinely want to learn how to improve my writing and align with Wikipedia’s content guidelines, especially regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic tone. I would appreciate any constructive feedback on how I can improve this article and contribute better in the future. Thank you Sabirshahofficialpk (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "First 5 Edition Held in 2024^{[6][7][8][9][10] [11] [12]} .^[13]" I guess, Sabirshahofficialpk, that you mean that the first five summits were held in 2024. However, that's a lot of summits for a year, so perhaps I'm wrong. (i) You've already been warned about excessive use of boldface but you seem to have ignored the warning. (ii) I can't see why you'd need more than one reference per summit; I have no idea why you'd need eight references. See [Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Notability_bomb]]. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Notability_bomb Foxelbeton (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Foxelbeton. Yes, Sabirshahofficialpk: Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Notability_bomb. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sabirshahofficialpk, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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) 11:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:ASSESS, wouldn't a large amount of small articles be C-class or B-class? Considering they meet the criteria stated, yet they've been assessed as Start-class.

This question especially pertains to Ponera coarctata and a few other articles. FranticSpud (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FranticSpud: For C-class, "substantial" means it is quite big. If text fills my screen, I would rate the article as C (or B if it is also quality writing and got pictures and tables). Ponera coarctata is very close to a C from me based on size. Many pages would have an inappropriate assessment, but really it does not matter that much. On my watchlist, I have put a C-class category for a project, and then I check every page that enters or leaves C class and update the infobox and references. But for most editors here they don't care. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FranticSpud Afaik, these ratings, when they're below WP:GA, are fairly informal and like with much else around here, WP:BOLD applies. You started the article, you added "Start-class", and if you want, you can change it. If someone disagrees with the new assessment and wants to do something about it, they will. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on here for someone named P. Anil, who is impersonating and claims the work of S. Anil Kumar who is a director from the 1980's-90's. He (P. Anil) has no real proof that he is the director of the movies other than his name being on a bunch of websites that he has signed up to.

Unfortunately these films were produced in the late 1900's in South India. So not much documentation has been done about it other than 1 link, that is an interview with the original director (S. Anil Kumar). P. Anil is plagiarizing and impersonating S. Anil Kumar by citing websites that can be edited leading to skewed and false information.

There is someone's life work and art being stolen by someone who is providing false citations :(

I have provided about 8 pictures of the directors BTS. I can provide more - as this was the only form of documentation other than his awards at the time (I can also submit proof of the awards). Even the credit scenes of the movie credit S. Anil Kumar and not P. Anil. P. Anil has no real tangible proof that the work he claims is his, other than the "links" he provided.

But I keep having my articles declined because of lack of citations...what can I do to have S. Anil Kumar's biography published? I have put it under biography of a living person. Is that the wrong category to put it under? Nehmatss (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehmatss: For films from the last century, they are probably covered in newspapers. For English language movies there are also books published with big lists of films. Are there such books that would cover (South) Indian films? They should prove who the director is. The films themselves would be primary sources, but can be used to debunk false claims. Websites that can be edited to put in false information would be unreliable sources, and so should be checked out / discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one mildly specific question. I wonder what is a proper citation for public transport lines(e.g bus lines). Can it just be the operator's website or is some kind of article needed? Brickguy276 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brickguy276 It is difficult to give a general answer: are you trying to show that a given line is notable, in which case secondary sources are needed, or are you just including such details in a larger article, in which case a primary source might be fine. Buses in London has examples of both primary and secondary sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a page, I added that a city has 2 bus lines from a bigger city nearby. What kinda source do I need? Brickguy276 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brickguy276: how do you know this information? Is there a website, a travel guide, or a bus timetable? Operators' website would demonstrate existence and could be used for that, but not show it is notable enough for a standalone article. The establishment or scrapping of a bus route will likely be documented in a newspaper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live near and there are tons of websites mentioning it Brickguy276 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then @Brickguy276, find the best one that is reliable (not somebody's hobby site), and cite it. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where can I find rules and especially guidelines for creating or revising any given category? I am thinking of an Aristotle-type genus/species concept hierarchy. As an example, a set of articles on rope/uses of fiber (very inclusive), seamanship (includes rope, but also e.g. navigation etc.) and knots (relevant for rope and seamanship): it is not always intuitively evident what is the top category, and there are more than one risks of sub-categories including each other in some weird classificatory circularity. I assume there must exist writings on this type of task, but so far my searches have been fruitless. Can anyone point me in the right direction? TiA! T 2A02:FE1:E180:3900:3595:7E66:1D30:B97E (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Categorization and the linked pages within? There is also a Talk Page at WT:CATP where the experts will discuss these issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve submitted a draft article titled Draft:Sunil Kapoor about an Indo-Cypriot shipping executive with over 40 years of experience in the maritime industry. The draft cites independent sources such as Asia Business Outlook, Cyprus Mail, TradeWinds, and includes a published biography by Dr. Binay Singh. A conflict of interest disclosure has been posted on the Talk page.

Mr. Kapoor is currently COO and partner at OL Shipping Group. I would appreciate any feedback to improve the draft or guidance on next steps for review. Thank you! IndoCypriotShipowner (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review; the next reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted; reviews are the best way to get feedback. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @IndoCypriotShipowner. Several of your citations actually point to an "example domain". Have you checked any of them? ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To go a bit further. I have not checked your Asia Business Outlook citation, as it does not point to Asia Business Outlook, but judging from the title India's top ten leaders in shipping 2024, I would expect it to be either little more than a list of names, or if there is more material about each, for that material mostly to come from the people concerned. i.e. I would be very surprised if it was both independent and had substantial coverage of Kapoor.

For the sources to be reliable is necessary, but not sufficient. All the sources which are to contribute to establishing notability must meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Which three or four of your sources best meet all of those criteria? ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for help submitting a company article that has been rewritten in full encyclopedic tone with multiple reliable, independent sources. I am affiliated with the company (disclosed on my user page) and would prefer if an uninvolved editor could review or submit it via AfC to avoid any COI issues.

The draft text is available and follows all tone and sourcing policies. Can someone help submit it in userspace or via AfC? Carltur (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Carltur, and welcome to the Teahouse

If you imagine it in housebuilding terms, you are saying "Hello, I've been asked to build a house, and though I'm quite handy, I don't know much about building houses, especially in your area. Would a volunteer be willing to do the bits of the task that I don't know how to do, like surveying the site and building the foundations?" (It's possible that I'm being unfair to you here, since you haven't shown us your draft, as far as I can tell. But years of experience with inexperienced editors have shown me that they almost always write their drafts WP:BACKWARDS, which is like building the house without thinking about surveying or foundations).

It's possible, but do you think it's likely?

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.

Note that if somebody writes and submits it for you, they will have the same conflict of interest that you have. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Shafayeat Hossain. I tried to replace an image in "Infobox" but could not upload it in the right way. Please show me the way; here is the link to the page. I tried "E,diting Bangladesh Rowing Federation - Wikipedia⁣⁣."

Shafayeat Shafayeathossain (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember it being here, but I can't find it anywhere. There was a list of pages with issues, and I want to start editing by starting with smaller things, instead of jumping right into making pages or making giant changes. I'm not sure if I'm remembering properly, but is there a list of pages with issues? AtTheTownHouse (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]