Wikipedia:Teahouse#I’m still waiting

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]

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]

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]

Another example of a misaligned mapbox Southwick Lake - not sure what to make of it. OceanLoop (talk) 03:56, 19 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]

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]

@ClaudineChionh should we report these websites? StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 04:44, 19 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]

This is an issue shared by thousands of websites, perhaps even by a majority of sites on the web, so I was hoping to learn how to fish rather than be given a fish. Archive urls don't solve it because they always use the archived website's urls as their reference point. Some sort of navigation instructions need to be included in the citation, but I don't know what's easiest for readers to understand or how to format it into a standard citation. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those thousands of websites—a tiny minority, not majority, of the whole web—use a variety of different methods. My point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 19 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]

Hello again, sorry for not seing your message until now..yes I am Will Ludford. . I am still wrting and recording and have a new album released in 2 weeks...I am not there to promote myself or my work, just to hav emyb Wiki page and chat to people..Thank you, much respect..Will.Musicmindz14 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have re writen my page, I clicked on the link you sent to talk to Andy, so I could let him see it and see if its ok,,,but I dont see any option to talk to Andy,? thank you,. much respect..Will. Musicmindz14 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's me; there should be a "New section" link somewhere on that page, to leave a message—but you can talk to em here.

The page at Draft:Will Ludford has not been changed. Did you save ("publish") your edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 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]

Well? The only reason I want access to the original is so that I can copy it. So it wouldn't necessarily have to be accessible for very long. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when it could be restored? I only need it restored briefly so I can copy it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:10, 20 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]

@ColinFine, Hoary: OP has been sockblocked, draft has been G5 speedied. --Finngall ^talk 18:34, 19 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]

Hi, thx a lot, exactly what I was looking for. But phew, a lot of pages ...! And hardly categorized ... :) Will go read, thx agn. T 2A02:FE1:E180:3900:3595:7E66:1D30:B97E (talk) 01:06, 19 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]

@ColinFine, I have been through many iterations and spent maybe not weeks but a good amount of time on reviewing the requirements. I also tried to focus on comparables e.g. other articles on similar topics. After all the research and many re-edits and adding a notability section, COI on my profile, etc. - it seems my entire draft was delete based on a "speed delete" that I contested of my very first version. So I did consult AI and it suggested I ask here if someone independent could look at my draft, if they find it to be solid post it for me. Like asking a indepeding accountant firm to do the audit of the financials and submit the results to the SEC ... there shouldn't be a conflict of interest in that?

Let me know if you have any thoughts. I can also create a new draft and submit again but I read that my profile could be flagged so no matter what I submit odds are it will be not approved (objective or not). Carltur (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was flagged by by one independent reviewer and deleted by a second independent reviewer, as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". What does that tell you about its adherence to our standards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'profile' (i.e. Account) will not be "flagged", and any new draft submissions will, I am quite sure, be considered only on their own merits.

That said, every edit you make on Wikipedia is tied to your account and easily checkable, and if your account were to build up a history of submitting mostly, and/or repeatedly, clearly substandard drafts without showing incremental improvements, thus wasting the limited time of volunteer assessors and other editors, you might in that case find yourself Blocked on one of the grounds described on that linked Project page.

Provided, however, you work sincerely within our Policies and Guidelines, and assume our good faith (as we will of you), this should not arise. We do appreciate that the disciplines of an encyclopaedia (which forbids Promotion as a matter of fundamental policy) may seem strange to people from entirely different contexts, and take some getting used to. I hope this clarifies matters. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine] thanks for the clarification. Yes I have been doing that. Not sure where you see the history, and the last decline was "just" for notability not anymore anything related to promotional, so I have been making improvements. Carltur (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, Carltur. You have written about what you refer to as "SWIPEBY". Is there a reason why you refer to it as "SWIPEBY" and not "Swipeby"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary It's the name of the company like IKEA, NASA, LEGO, IBM. I see that these brands are also all caps on wikipedia. Is that issue or against any guidelines? Carltur (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary @ColinFine

I submitted a new draft. If you have any pointers or feedback please let me know. That is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swipeby Carltur (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carltur, your response surprised me. I'd never have guessed that we had articles on "IKEA" or "LEGO". It turns out: Not quite. We have one on IKEA (a surprising choice) and one on Lego (which seems right). I suppose that the (to my mind, inadequate) reasoning for us to call the former "IKEA" rather than "Ikea" is that (like "Fiat", "Saab", and others) it started as an abbreviation (of a sort). By contrast, I really doubt that anyone ever talked of "Ess double-you eye pea ee bee why" or similar. Even if your use of "SWIPEBY" was/is innocent, it looked promotional. Switching from it was a good move; well done. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 19 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 editing: Bangladesh Rowing Federation.

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

The new image needs to be uploaded, before you can add it to the page. See Help:Pictures. Is this the image you want to use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, this is the actual logo of this federation; the existing is not the right one. Shafayeathossain (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shafayeathossain: May be you do not need to replace the image, but rather add another one, similarly to the Croatian Rowing Federation article...? --CiaPan (talk) 21:57, 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]

Maybe Wikipedia:Task Center? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AtTheTownHouse: It could also be Wikipedia:Community portal or Special:Homepage. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Ninjas!

I'm trying to work on a suggested edit as a newcomer on this article: Mark Talamini.

I've noticed that there are citations at the the bottom that are not included in the list of references. The references all appear to be external links, which is the problem I think the maintenance tag is referring to. Should I rename the "References" to something else, like maybe "Bibliography", or is there another suggestion to making this a little more tidy? JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JesseL0vesT0ast, this article is atrocious. A look in its history shows that over the years a number of editors have made well-intended tweaks to it, making very minor reductions to its atrociousness. ("Lipstick on a pig", one might say.) Me, I'd be inclined to look elsewhere: my life's too short to expend what's left of it on such terrible articles. OTOH this is an actual doctor, rather than a reality show contestant, call-in radio host, quack, etc ... so I might decide to dig in after all. I'd then start by removing every "reference" that isn't actually referred to. I'd then embark on one of Wikipedia's more grueling tasks: attempting to find a reference for every assertion for which previous editors haven't deigned to provide a reference. I'd then remove the remaining, unreferenced assertions. Each edit involved would require an informative edit summary. In these summaries I'd try not to insult the editor(s) responsible for earlier failures; I might not always succeed. -- Hoary (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent!

I did some tweaking. Moved the unassigned list of "references" to the talk page for safe keeping in case they can verify whats in the article and be used as future citations, made the actual citations the new reference list, updated the maintenance tag. I think I covered everything you mentioned for now. Would you mind taking a look? This is most definitely the most complicated change I've made and had to look at all my notes so please feel free to slap me around if I messed anything up. JesseL0vesT0ast (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the easy part done! (And done well. I'm not complaining.) The article now consists of four short paragraphs. Two aren't sourced at all. Here's a third Through his professional career, Talamini has published over 200 research papers and edited Advanced Therapy in Minimally Invasive Surgery (Decker, 2006), a compilation of studies on surgical advancements. In 2013, he was appointed chairman of the Department of Surgery and founding director of the Stony Brook Medical Innovation Institute at the Stony Brook University School of Medicine, alongside being appointed chief of surgical services in 2015. There's a single reference at the end of that. "Through his professional career" seems superfluous. That's a strange sense of alongsideness; I'd change "alongside being" to "and was". Now roll your sleeves up. Just how much of that paragraph is backed up by the cited source? Maybe all of it. But if less than all of it, attach "citation needed" templates to the remainder. And then go source-hunting. Incidentally, publication of a book doesn't need a source: instead, look for the book at WorldCat, check the details and adjust as appropriate (e.g. was he [sole] editor, or a coeditor?), get its ISBN, add this, and assume that anyone doubting what's written will then know how to click on the ISBN and check for themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting log out and having to log back in again sometimes i have to get a email sent this has probably been happening for a month or two

is there a reason for this?

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fanoflionking3. When you log in, there's a "Keep me logged in (for up to one year)" checkbox right after the Password field. Checking it should keep you logged in. If you do that but are then logged out within a few weeks, feel free to ask for help. —Sophocrat (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...but don't do that on a shared device! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to know, how can I find articles that need to be edited faster? Is there a menu to find them? Or should I find them manually? PandaCreator (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PandaCreator, tens of thousands need to be edited. But here's a tip: When an age is described as "tender", it's likely that the whole article is more or less promotional/sycophantic junk. And therefore: this. When you find a poor article, be sure to edit it slowly. (NB You must carefully distinguish between direct, attributed quotations on the one hand and what's written "in Wikipedia's voice" on the other.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance categories such as this one are a good place to find some articles to improve. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can my work as scholar and educator be recorded? Dussinge (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are notable, then scholars unrelated to you will know of your scholarly/pedagogic work, and they will describe and comment on it in multiple reliable sources. And then one or more unpaid Wikipedia drudges unrelated to you will, eventually, create an article about you, an article based on those sources. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions and comments would include these people's reviews of (and not merely blurbs for) your books. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dussinge If you are John A. Dussinger, Prof Emeritus, Univ of Illinois, as I assume from another post from your account, then you need to check which of our criteria at this page about the notability of academics you meet. Assuming you can clearly demonstrate that using reliable published sources, then you are allowed to create a draft article about yourself using the WP:Articles for creation process. Beware, however, that autobiography has many pitfalls, as described at that link. Also, now your intentions are known, someone may attempt to scam you by suggesting they can produce an article for payment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... Sources like these, provided written by a third party, are the sort of sources you could consider using, as well as some described at WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do not (yet) meet the requirements to have a Wikipedia article about you, you can have your work recorded in our sibling project Wikidata, so long as you are the (co-)author of at least one peer-reviewed academic paper; see d:User:Pigsonthewing/About you.

To facilitate this, make you you have an ORCID iD, and that your profile there is populated and public. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.... used here? This is a anti smoking site. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the domain truth.com has been usurped by some hardware company. I assume you refer to https://truthinitiative.org/ and https://www.thetruth.com/. Sophocrat (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose? Sesquilinear (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Raniya Raanaa

I’ve been working on a draft article about Raniya Raanaa, a Bharatanatyam dancer and actress who recently starred opposite Dileep in the 2025 Malayalam film Prince and Family, which was a commercial success. The article includes reliable secondary sources from outlets like Manorama Online, Times of India, Zoom TV, and ETV Bharat, which discuss her acting career, dance background, and critical reception.

Despite following the notability guidelines for entertainers and including references with significant coverage (not just passing mentions), the draft keeps getting declined with the reason: "does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I’ve done my best to explain all relevant details about her career, verified with independent sources. I’m not sure what else is missing or needs improvement to meet the required standard.

Here is the draft: Draft:Raniya Raanaa

Could someone kindly help me understand:

• Are the sources I used considered insufficient or not independent enough?
• Is there a better way to demonstrate notability under WP:ENT or WP:GNG?
• What specific improvements should I make before resubmitting?

Thanks in advance for your guidance! Irajeevwiki (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irajeevwiki, your draft was declined because the cited sources "This submission's references ... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Above, you say little about the part that I've highlighted. You cite nine sources. Try this: here, in this thread, please point to just three among these nine that both show significant coverage of the subject and appear in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to -- Hoary

Thank you again for the earlier feedback.

I have now revised the draft article for Raniya Raanaa, addressing the notability concerns by including multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.

The draft uses citations from:

• Fox Story India (detailed biographical profile)
• Mathrubhumi (national daily, on her preparation and debut performance)
• MSN India and Filmibeat (on public reception and industry recognition)
• IndiaTimes (for film release and career milestone)

I’ve also ensured that the article adheres to style guidelines, with an infobox, appropriate categories, and properly formatted references.

Here is the updated draft: Draft:Raniya Raanaa

Would someone be kind enough to have a look and let me know if it now meets Wikipedia’s inclusion standards, especially under WP:GNG and WP:ENT? Irajeevwiki (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A typical sample from the anonymously written Fox Story India piece: Enrolling in the special school of art and Culture at Kerala Kalamandalam, Raniya’s life underwent a transformative change. Despite facing rejection for her unique dance style, she emerged with heightened confidence, ready to face the challenges that lay ahead. No, this is not a "detailed biographical profile"; it's vague, cliché-ridden promotional flatus. The Mathrubhumi page is also anonymously written; it caused my browser to freeze (I suspect because of all the advertising that it carries). The MSN India page is again unsigned; it starts Actress Raniya Raanaa who made her film debut in actor Dileep's Prince And Family has become a sensation. Pretty lightweight stuff. The Filmibeat page tells us Raniya Raanaa plays Chinju Rani. OK; what else does it tell us about her? -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody resolve this issue Talk:Henry de Hinuber#KCB, KCH Should Be Removed Because It's A Duplicate? NKM1974 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rarest standard grade an article can receive? 2600:1700:6180:6290:4526:9A10:C29C:2F7A (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, interesting question. A section below the one you linked should provide a satisfying answer. While Featured Articles (FA) are the highest an article can get, articles that get an "A" grade are more rare. Justiyaya 04:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get it. StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StopLookingAtMe1:: If article assessments were made for every article, you would expect Featured Articles (the highest grade) to be the rarest. However, article assessments are really a tool for 1) recognizing our quality articles (and the editors who wrote them) and 2) categorize our articles by quality. The assessment is not the goal in itself, so not all articles get assessed. In addition, only Good and Featured Articles are assessed through specialized processes (as opposed to any editor making a judgement call) and so their assessments receive more attention. This results in A-class articles (the highest non-formal grade) being overall the rarest grade, and that's why the IP's question was interesting. I deduced this from looking at the statistics table and knowing how article assessments work. Feel free to ask any other questions :). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why?? Paulybi (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Paulybi, Draft:Traffic Racer (video game) wasn't rejected. It was declined, because "[its] references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are --" followed by four criteria that the sources must satisfy. Each of the four is linked to an explanation. Did you read and digest the four explanations? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh Paulybi (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  idk why they'd reject my work?

  Wasn't detailed Paulybi (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As Hoary said above, the draft was declined, not rejected. This means that the draft could be appropriate for a Wikipedia article but not in its current state which - as of checking it a moment ago - has only one source. I would not suggest resubmitting it until you have around three quality sources. If you're unable to find them, then work on something else.

  I would also note, that not just on Wikipedia, but when interacting with people in general - if you didn't follow what someone said, replying with "eh" isn't usually very helpful. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it wasn't detailed? Paulybi (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What? You've been given a comprehensive reason for the draft being declined, at least four times now. Is there a particular part of the explanation that you're not understanding? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure why my draft was declined. I tried to include enough detail. Can someone please clarify what I missed? Paulybi (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you read the reasons for the draft being declined you'll notice that no-one mentioned a level of detail.

  I think what you've missed is the text in they box immediately following "The reason left by [the reviewer] was:".

  Could you clarify if you've read that or not? It's now on your talk page three times and summarised twice in this thread? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm new here, because I'm trying to improve my skills. Paulybi (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I'd suggest reading the info and advice that's already been given to you. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about saying that is not appropriate about that what I am talking about. Paulybi (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paulybi

Because so many people come to Wikipedia for information there are rules put in place for articles, to make sure people aren’t just giving their opinions about something, or thinking about what they once heard or read, but might not be remembering correctly, so everything written in the article must show a reference to where the information came from.

I don’t play video games, so I don’t know what are good sources for Traffic Racers info. I glanced at your references 1 & 3 (reference 2 had a warning that the site might not be safe, so I didn’t go past the warning) and reference 3 seems to have some information on who developed the game, and the basics of how to play it, so that might be a source for adding references to some of your unreferenced sections (Gameplay, Development, and Legacy)). You can use the same reference in more than one place. Make sure you don’t just copy and paste info, you need to use your own words so you don’t violate any copyright rule.

Your draft article seems to be adequately written – if you provide references for everything.You might want to take a break for a day or two and think about where you can get some a couple more good references. You keep resubmitting the article without making any changes, and that could lead to an actual rejection just because you’re not following instructions. Perhaps you’re getting frustrated or upset, so maybe do something else for awhile and come back later. Writing a good Wikipedia article is hard work, so don’t think it needs to be done right away.

It may help to read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Best wishes on getting your improved article accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something about the numerous spoliers in the articles of various TV shows.YashTheBosss (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YashTheBosss Welcome to the Teahouse. It is not clear what you want someone to do. Articles may contain spoilers. Please read Wikipedia:Spoiler. If you don't want information about a TV show, don't read the article about it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I identify which offline sources have caused my article to be rejected? Thirston House Feltonian (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Draft:Thirston House, it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Most of the sources you used seem to be very old; did you access them in a library? 331dot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this historic structure? Your username suggests one. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I sourced the books in the Local Hisotry Section of my local library and the library at the Northumberland Archives. I don't have a connection to the building but I do live within nearby. Feltonian (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe, could you explain your decision to decline the submission in more detail? You wrote "Draft with unverifiable offline sources. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES", but per that linked page, offline sources are perfectly acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feltonian One of the problems with your draft is that it veers off-topic with many interesting but hardly relevant items such as The fourth Thomas and Margaret had seven children over the next ten years. All were boys. One of the boys courted a labourer's illegitimate daughter named Mary Wallace who lived at East Thirston. He wrote a song about her entitled "The Lassie" which was set to the tune of "Roy's Wife" [with the full words of the song]. I think you would get a much better draft by trimming it down to focus just on the house, which as a grade II listed building, should easily pass our notabilty requirements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feltonian (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Here's a sample: THIRSTON HOUSE, FELTON, SALE OF HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, MESSRS. DONKIN & SON Instructed by the Representatives of the late R. E. Smith, Esq., will sell by auction on Thursday and Friday, March 26th and 27th, the whole of the HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE within the Mansion of Thirston House, viz. : Followed by a long list of, yes, the household furniture within the mansion of the house. Now, what's trivia to me may fascinate you (and indeed vice versa); but I venture to guess that this would seem trivia to most people. I suggest that this and material like it should be cut. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was trying to show how the house was being lived in by giving details of the furniture but I can see how that seems like trivia. Feltonian (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought it was ok to include offline sources which is why I don't know which sources caused the article to be declined. Feltonian (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources have a minimum amount of information required to successfully cite them. For books, we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC #. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the language is not encyclopedic ("closer examination shows..." etc). If some of the people mentioned are notable in their own right, they could have their own article. 219.89.24.171 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I hired a company called WikiNinja to help me create a WikiPedia page and feel I was scammed. They created a page and sent me a link Draft:Bradford Blazar (my name is Bradford Blazar) but the page was never published. They tried to get to pay even more money to them for "page protection" claiming my page would be at risk of being deleted if I didn't pay. I searched and it appears page protection is free -Bottom line can anyone help me with this??? Can someone search to see if there is indeed a draft page??? 2600:1700:2280:1EB0:48D8:332B:9F9A:EACD (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft did exist and was deleted by BusterD two days ago as unambiguous promotion. This is irrelevant to the direct issue, which is that yes, you have probably been scammed. This page provides a useful outline of how these scams are committed, and also provides an address you can contact to report this. Apologies that there's not more to say, but these companies are not affiliated with Wikipedia and unfortunately this is quite common. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account responsible. Mr. Blazar, please spread the word that WikiNinja is bad (read as amateurish) at their scam and that we will make their efforts unprofitable for them. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question. Why can some articles be edited, and some can't? Who decides? Thanks. 68.197.141.128 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Articles are protected from editing for many reasons, usually to prevent some sort of disruption. This can be done by request at WP:RFPP, among other ways. If there is a specific article that prompted your question, we can give a more specific answer.

Usually edits can still be requested on the article talk page, in the form of an edit request. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeking some clarification about a draft I’ve been working on: Draft:Raniya Raanaa.

It’s been declined again with the note that the references “do not show significant coverage,” even though I’ve added multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources including:

• MSN India
• Mathrubhumi
• Story India
• Filmibeat

These articles provide detailed coverage of her background, debut, awards, and public reception. I’ve also cleaned up the formatting and followed WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines closely. Could someone please explain what exactly is still missing in terms of notability or source quality? I’d really appreciate any specific suggestions before I try resubmitting again. Irajeevwiki (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was declined by @User:RangersRus so it would be best to ask them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irajeevwiki, your draft cites three sources. The first and third are based on what Raanaa said, and so are not independent of her. The second has no discussion of her. So none of them helps to establish that she is wikinotable. Maproom (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is being resuscitated. It is about the founder of the first blog and a pioneer blogger on Nigeria’s socioeconomic and political issues. There are many articles from his blog Dawodu.com that are of references to other articles on Wikipedia in addition he is also pioneer of many health articles on MEDSCAPE, etc

Can someone take a look on why the notability factor has not been met? JJCWiki2 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Segun Toyin Dawodu was declined by @User:Reading Beans so it would be best to ask them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJCWiki2 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the JNR’s D52 Mikados doesn’t have much history on the class as, per se, the D51 article. The only other huge section of the article is the 7 surviving examples. Should we add the class’ running history to the article? 199.192.122.199 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to the tea house. I agree that JNR Class D52 could most certainly be improved, if you have access to some Reliable Sources then by all means be bold and add the content yourself. For more information on how to edit wikipedia, see Help:Editing. If you get stuck, feel free to ask! :) Polyamorph (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said D52. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixed the link. If you can improve it, go ahead! Polyamorph (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D52!! NOT C62! 199.192.122.199 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that we should add more to the D52 article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what is going on there, fixed the link! :) Polyamorph (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Djmadpeeoficial.

I’ve created a draft article about DJ Mad Pee, a pioneer of Hip Hop in Venezuela.

The draft is here: User:Djmadpeeoficial/Taller

I would love some feedback or advice on how to proceed to get it reviewed and published.

Thank you very much! Djmadpeeofficial (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in Spanish, this is the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for clarification regarding the draft Draft:Cristian Marino which was marked as “submission declined” with a stop. This prevents any further review or editing through the usual submission process.

I took great care to include only reliable sources related to real achievements in Cristian Marino’s international career, especially his recent work in the Maldives. I avoided blog posts, self-written content, or anything that could seem promotional.

One comment suggested that one of the sources looked like paid content, but that article is about a professional project and contains no signs of promotion or advertising. I do not understand how it could be considered paid or unreliable.

If there is a specific issue with the sources or the subject’s notability, I am happy to revise and improve the draft. I kindly ask if the review can be reconsidered or if the draft can be reopened for editing and resubmission.

Thank you for your time and support. Rich321x (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected, not just declined. If you want to try to convince the rejecting reviewer that they were in error about your sources, you should speak to them directly on their user talk page.

Do you have a connection to this person? It's the only topic you have contributed about, and the draft already existed(it's not easy to find a draft unless you already know about it)

I see nothing in the draft to indicate notability; an award is mentioned, but that would only help if the award itself merited an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry if this is a bad question or if this is the wrong place to put this. I created an account today and I wanted to help work on Swiss articles. So I looked at Switzerland to see if I could fix anything and saw there was a lock on the pencil to edit and that I couldn't edit the page? Why is that? Thanks in advance! Herisau (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that get vandalised often are "protected". You can read about this at WP:Protection.

You might also be interested in WP:WikiProject Switzerland. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to use a source in another language if there isn't in the pages' language? Cause I want to cite something but I cannot find a source anywhere in the internet in that language Brickguy276 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, citations to non-English sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. —Sophocrat (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old photo that I want to insert from a site called Automotivetribune.com. The photo was originally used in a 1981 press release. How can I do that? There are a couple of these pics that I'd like to insert in my article. I work for the man in the photo and he has given his permission to use them but they originally were shown on that website and in a press release. Annellacarol34 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annellacarol34. A photo first published in 1981 is almost certainly still protected by copyright. You cannot use it unless you have convincing written evidence that it is in the public domain or has been freely licensed in an acceptable way. The subject of the photo is rarely the copyright holder. Most commonly, the photographer or their estate holds the copyright. Sometimes, in a written "work for hire" scenario, the party who hired the photographer holds the copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annellacarol34 If you work for the person you're writing about, you are considered a paid editor and are required to make a paid-contribution disclosure regardless of whether you are specifically paid to edit. You should also read Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

If you are talking about Draft:Solar thermal automobile, pictures are less important than demonstrating that the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You need to add independent, reliable sources that directly discuss the solar thermal automobile with some amount of detail. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just joined wiki and cannot find instructions on creating a new article. Please advise. Thanks! Littlesinner2 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Your first article. You will greatly increase your chances of success if you first learn the ropes by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tell me more about new MADRID FAULT PJW72365 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Did you mean the New Madrid fault line? You can check out our article on that, and if you still have questions you may ask at the science section of our reference desk (the Teahouse is for asking questions about contributing to Wikipedia). Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PJW72365. Please read New Madrid seismic zone, and especially the references at the end of that article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I'm reaching out to ask for some advice on how to improve my Wiki page so that it has a better chance of being approved. This is my first time helping a friend create a professional Wikipedia profile. I've tried multiple times, but the page keeps getting rejected.

I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions from those with experience. Thank you so much!

Draft:Tony Tolovae AlexHuang8FG (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m the author of a novel titled Eclipsar. It has received independent, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, including a feature article on FOX 5 Atlanta and another in the LaGrange Daily News. The book is also listed on Goodreads, Google Books, and Amazon, and it has a dedicated Wikidata entry. Since I’m the author, I understand that creating the article myself would be considered a conflict of interest. I’d really appreciate if an experienced, neutral editor could take a look at the sources and consider writing and submitting a page for Eclipsar on my behalf. I’m happy to provide links or citations if needed. Thank you so much in advance! BlakeVarnadoeAuthor (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]